Debates
15 Jul 11
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderATY is right .
Muskets weren't particularly effective in the hands of untrained militia either. Auto fire is very commonly used esp. as suppressive fire.
Full auto fire looks great in hollywood movies but controlled semi-auto fire is the preferred method from any hand held weapon.
Full auto works OK if you have a bi-pod , are prone, and setting up a field of fire with A BUTTLOAD of ammunition, but not otherwise.
Blasting all your ammo off in a couple of quick bursts then going "derhhh" is just stupid.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194336
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI know the Miller decision well, and it's telling that Scalia would say "we read Miller to say..." because it does not in fact say that.
Miller was distinguished not overruled. Buried in Scalia's 64 pages of turgid nitpicking are these sentences:
We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
------------------------------- ...[text shortened]... e in the 2010's. Limiting the Amendment's reach to "lawful weapons" makes it a tautology.
They essentially overturned Miller, but Scalia is just too gutless to acknowledge it.
17 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KunsooIt's not accurate to say they overturned it; the majority in Heller accepted the result in Miller.
I know the Miller decision well, and it's telling that Scalia would say "we read Miller to say..." because it does not in fact say that.
They essentially overturned Miller, but Scalia is just too gutless to acknowledge it.
It would be fair to say they did not follow its reasoning, however. But Scalia explicitly said so.
EDIT: Well not so explicitly. He talked about the "holding" not the reasoning.
17 Jul 11
Perhaps somone can reconcile these two passages from Scalia's opinion in Heller:
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
Section 1(c) (Emphasis supplied)
with this a few pages later:
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.
WTF?
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194336
17 Jul 11
Originally posted by no1marauderYes. Maybe he meant to type "confirmed" instead of "conferred."
Perhaps somone can reconcile these two passages from Scalia's opinion in Heller:
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the ...[text shortened]... at the Second Amendment [b]conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.
WTF?[/b]
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI think it's restricted to 2 1/2 inches, any blade length. Pepper spray isn't illegal, it's not hard to rustle up a cocktail of legal irritants and prepare it for use with a simple pump action canister... you're thinking CS gas, perhaps...it's the basic act that using pepper spray constitutes 'common assault,' that makes its use illegal...basically you could well be charged for fending off a burglar in your own home with pepper spray. This IS changing now we've fortunately got government not totally up their own arses for the 'human rights' brigade..however, most probably it'd be best surrendering pepper spray if a policeman found it on your person.
leaving it up to the government, they would like to ban all civilian arms, including firearms and knives. look at the UK. they can barely carry a folding pocket knife. even pepper spray is illegal, they have to resort to some retarded red paint spray.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNot a relevant question. Of course arms will get technically better. A Glock 17 will fire 17 9mm rounds, and 17 more from a second magazine, faster than you could reload a ball and powder pistol. And the accuracy, projectile velocity, penetration, and expansion are all better with the Glock.
When the Right to Bear Arms was recognized in an Amendment to the Constitution of the USA, what sort of arms were they?
Muskets, muzzle loading rifles I think.
What was the upper limit? Could a person own a personal artillery piece back then? Grenades? Hand made flamethrowers? A Ship of the Line with full armament? Even back then there were numerous heavy weapons. Was this discussion ever done back at the time?
The same thing happene with speech. In the 18th century, there wasn't any internet.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritLike most of the Constitution, the amendments 1-10 are mostly limitations of government power.
the purpose is not defined in the usa constitution. it specifies only that the people have the right to keep and bear arms and this right shall not be infringed (ie: by the government).
some states specifically have a self-defense clause in their state constitutions, but this does not preclude the use of arms for other purposes.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThat is a rational argument for local gun control, however in the light of the 14th amendment, it goes out the window.
perhaps the ambiguity was deliberate as you say, this could have been done in order to give individual states more leeway in deciding right to arms articles in their own constitutions.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by KunsooRight to "keep and bear" arms pretty much eliminates artillery or multiple inpact reentry vehicles, and most crew fired weapons or anything that can't be carried.
Or it could be to allow the federal government some leeway in limiting private arms ownership, such as artillery. But the record is scant.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by KunsooNever mind case law. The amendment applies to weapons that may be carried.
Case law already says no to that. In fact, it even overrode the first amendment when Progressive Magazine intended to publish directions on how to build an H-Bomb, using a combination of sources that are already open to the public - no secret information. They wanted to make a point of some sort.
So you had two arguments.
Pro - since all of the inform ...[text shortened]... nd where do you draw the line?
Con - Dude! It's a f------g H-Bomb!
Con won in court.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by Zapp BranniganFull auto fire heats up the barrel and makes the gun progressively less accurate, and eventually non functional, if you have a "crap load of ammo".
ATY is right .
Full auto fire looks great in hollywood movies but controlled semi-auto fire is the preferred method from any hand held weapon.
Full auto works OK if you have a bi-pod , are prone, and setting up a field of fire with A BUTTLOAD of ammunition, but not otherwise.
Blasting all your ammo off in a couple of quick bursts then going "derhhh" is just stupid.
I believe current issue in the US Army is semi auto, or burst 3 rounds at a time, not full auto.
26 Jul 11
Originally posted by KunsooScalia and the conservatives on the court are usually not willing to make sweeping decisions, but try to craft rulings which apply only to the present case.
I know the Miller decision well, and it's telling that Scalia would say "we read Miller to say..." because it does not in fact say that.
They essentially overturned Miller, but Scalia is just too gutless to acknowledge it.