Assuming proper training and ammunition, they're perfectly capable for hunting small to medium game such as rabbits, coyotes, tyrants, wild hogs, and whitetail deer.
I don't think some people know how much damage a pack of wild hogs can cause to crops and farmland in short order. If it wasn't going to be an AR-15 keeping them off the farm it would be another intermediate or higher caliber semi-automatic rifle that accepts standard magazines. Everyone want's to laugh at that excuse until the farmer has a bad season and has to sell his land to Bill Gates or Chinese investors, they don't exactly make large margins.
The magazine capacity is an issue though. The standard 30 round mag is far to large for any realistic hunting purposes (you can also get up to 100 round drum mags). While you can hunt with an AR-15, it's not the best rifle for the task.
I live in Canada and the government is in the process of banning semi-automatic centre fire rifles capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Given that 3D printers exist, this pretty much bans all rifles with interchangeable mags. I'm a gun owner on a rural property and I think that's a reasonable compromise. I can still own a decent bolt action hunting rifle and a semi-automatic rim fire rifle with no mag limit.
It does suck for people who's rifles are getting banned though.
You've obviously never been surrounded by a pack of coyotes or hogs.
.223 is also an excellent caliber for that size game.
Anecdote time!
I was once semi-surrounded by coyotes while hiking in some back country with a friend.
I did not have anything except my camping knives and a very small axe for splitting kindling.
My buddy had a compact 9mm in his waistband.
Honestly, I can say an AR would not have made me feel safer. A larger capacity on my sidearm, on the other hand, would. The AR is just too bulky to move quickly in close quarters.
Luckily a single round to the trailside was enough to scare them off, since yelling and throwing things wasn't. We then ran/sprinted a few miles down the trail toward the vehicle before we even considered slowing down.
Not many situations in which either one is something I'm desiring though, and while I'm not a fan of limiting people, I can't say I've ever needed 30rds at once. Honestly, I buy 10rd mags just because they fit very nicely in some cases I already had, and the 30rds don't.
Rambling anecdotes over, have a nice day!
Anecdote time! I went to infantry basic training and we were told over and over again, if you have to draw your sidearm, you’re dead. The AR absolutely is not too bulky for close quarters and I would feel much better with one on my hand than anything else. The US army has murdered a lot of people with M4 rifles in CQC. (My politics don’t align with a stereotype of a former infantryman. Please do not assume too much)
In either situation, with adrenaline, good luck getting shots on target.
Hmm, I don’t understand the downvotes but okay lmao I’m sorry that the AR platform is actually fine in close quarters?
I think it's probably that your anecdote and experience is kind of out of left field considering this guy was only dealing with a couple coyotes, and honestly you probably don't even need a gun in that circumstance, and I don't think you'd much need anything larger than pistol-caliber.
Hmm, I don’t understand the downvotes but okay lmao I’m sorry that the AR platform is actually fine in close quarters?
As far as I understand it, the main problem people have with it, which they also have with pretty much every gun larger than a foot or so, so most guns, is that you can't really cross a threshold horizontally. About the only thing that could qualify against that maybe is like, a pistol or one of those shotguns with a bird's head grip, or like, some smaller pdw or something. I also dunno how much of a problem that is, of, oh it's gonna snag on something, or whatever, right, I guess it's just the idea it's going to present a higher snag risk or something when turning around, or, when getting up to a ready position? I dunno I'm not a gun nut.
I think it probably also isn't helped by the increasing consumerist trend to load up their guns with more and more extraneous shit and go for longer and longer rifles on their AR platforms to try and increase accuracy on the range, which means they tend to conceptualize of them as being unsuitable for close quarters despite that kind of being the idea of an intermediate cartridge and all that. It also doesn't really help to cite our military engagements with it considering over the last like 3 decades of the rifle's service we've mostly only fought like, random middle eastern terrorist organizations that don't have a great reputation for good training or good equipment or anything like that. You could maybe look at uses of the rifle by other organizations like the IRA or whatever, but I don't think they had any close quarters engagements.
Most of this comment is out of left field. Wow. Uh.
Dealing with a couple coyotes. Honestly probably didn’t need a gun.
This study shows coyotes predate on humans up to 37% of known attacks. That person was fortunate to have a firearm.
Dude said he wouldn’t feel better with a rifle, well, from his personal anecdote, to mine, I would. I am much more likely to be accidentally shot by my friend with the handgun imo.
I don’t know how much of a problem that is, oh and it’s going to snag on something. I’m not a gun nut.
Your lack of experience is obvious. I’m not going to go into all the reasons you can clear buildings and rooms without reaching for a handgun, as muzzle discipline and accuracy become exponentially more difficult. There’s a reason SWAT breaches with rifles and not handguns, well, them and any one else that has quick access to a rifle in the situation.
consumerist trend to load up guns with extraneous shit and go for longer and longer guns.
I work at a gun store, that’s simply not true. SBRs and AR pistols exist and are extremely popular.
don’t compare what we did to terrorists, look at the IRA.
right, or the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Or the literal decades of combat US special operators have with the platform since Vietnam, or any other of its long, violent life. Or you can ask any of these countries, or, look into any of these use cases
Maybe don’t chime in on things you’re absolutely clueless on? I’m trying to figure out how to put this somewhat nicely but you clearly have some misguided thoughts here. And none of this comment has anything to do with the fact that, if surrounded by a pack of hungry animals, I want an AR-style rifle personally.
In the late Winter/early spring they start getting a bit braver and start moving further into the cow pastures. That's when we have to cull the pack to keep them away from the cattle.
Oh yeah, I thought you meant in regards to humans. I've never seen a coyote so much as growl at a human without a cub nearby.
They will definitely come after humans if they are hungry enough and their pack is large enough. It's around that season that they start getting a bit braver because they are hungry coming out of winter and it's breeding season. Usually they run after the first shot, but sometimes they don't notice you dropped one and they keep coming until the follow-up shots. It's not out of the ordinary to bag multiple coyotes in one spot.
While you can hunt with an AR-15, it’s not the best rifle for the task.
It's not the best rifle for any task. But it's a good enough rifle for most tasks, and between real AR-15s and the various clones they are cheap, in common calibers, and have accessories widely available.
Which is why it's the most common rifle in the US by a fair margin.
It being the most common rifle in the US by a fair margin is in turn why it's so often used in public mass shootings, as those are usually done with weapons of convenience rather than something bought for purpose. Likely also why the guy who shot Trump used one.
If a public mass shooter wanted the best gun for the job, they'd get something closer to a PS-90 (the civilian version of the P-90 which is a military rifle designed for urban combat).
If a public mass shooter wanted the best gun for the job, they’d get something closer to a PS-90 (the civilian version of the P-90 which is a military rifle designed for urban combat).
You're neglecting the fact that mass shooters are murderers, so close combat isn't their thing - and the best gun for the job has already been shown - ar15-style rifles - 14!! - with drum mags and bump stocks:
On October 1, 2017, a mass shooting occurred when 64-year-old Stephen Paddock opened fire on the crowd attending the Route 91 Harvest music festival on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada from his 32nd-floor suites in the Mandalay Bay hotel. He fired more than 1,000 rounds, killing 60 people[a] and wounding at least 413. The ensuing panic brought the total number of injured to approximately 867. About an hour later, he was found dead in his room from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
That’s a lie. Anyone familiar with guns knows he had a machine gun up there.
roflwhat?
this is such a silly response I can't even.
he purchased 24 firearms over the course of years. Most were AR types - 14 .223 ar15 patterns but also AR-10s and a .308 bolt action.
you could argue he made them machine-gun like with the c-mags and bump stocks; as the shooting went on his firing came in longer and longer bursts, 90+ rounds - but there were no 'machine guns' in the ATF tax stamp sense.
Just stupid american laws crafted by idiot politicians owned by the gun lobby allowing civilians to approximate a half ass version that's basically only effective for murdering unarmed civilians. A real machine gun is belt or box fed, has changeable barrels, a tripod or bipod with T&E, an AG....
In the arctic standard bear protection is a five shot bolt action 30.06. You'd load them with three FMJs to scare the bear away and two hollow points in case that didn't work.
The truth about predators is they aren't interested in dying for their meals. Prove to them that approaching will be deadly to them and they won't approach. You don't have to kill the entire pack, you just have to kill or wound one, or even just blast some rocks in their path.
Honestly external magazines need to just be banned. That way it's immediately clear a rifle is legal or not. It's also great for hunting still, and okay for self/collective defense. But not great as a mass casualty producer.
We cleaned about 250 boar out of our farm over a four year period with the same 3-5 shot rifles we hunt deer and moose with. They mill around long enough you can reload. I have an SKS but I don't bother, I'd rather sneak over a hill and pop half a dozen slowly and cleanly with my .338. And I can do it from far enough away that they don't really get upset until 3 of them are lying on the ground, kicking.
You'd really want something bigger for hogs and deer. Never known anyone who hunts deer with .223. You really want one of options in thirty caliber.
While I'm sure someone hunts rabbits with a rifle you'd really use a shotgun or a really small rifle for them.
.223 is a good coyote round though. There are better coyote rounds available and there are better coyote rifles in .223.
.300 Blackout for hogs.
You can get an AR-15 chambered for this, or easily swap a few parts if you already have one.
AR-15's are popular because it's an easily modifiable platform. It's not the best for any one thing, but it's pretty good at a variety.
I’ve taken deer with 556. Even if I hadn’t, I know people do because all the heavy loads sell out around deer season.
Actually, are we allowed to shoot coyotes in the city limits? Alligators are mostly chill and will just take off, but coyotes hunt around at night here.
5.56 is a ridiculous waste of money for rabbits and totally excessive. 22 or even a pellet gun would be perfectly adequate and waaaaaay cheaper.
i was under the assumption an ar15 would explode something like a rabbit without useable trace?
The likely issue there is less the size of the round and more the impact of the pressure wave on tissue. Body shots with a standard high-powered rifle round may not leave much useable meat on something the size of a rabbit.
A small round traveling really fast can do a lot of damage, not a great round for small game - stick to .22 or birdshot.
People joke about the shooter "missing", but at a few hundred feet away, a 2" miss is clearly within the influence of wind.
Trump got extremely lucky. I don't think this was the result of a poor shot.
i thought it was 2 or 3 and the rest of the shots heard are the secret service snipers
Most people using an AR buy cheapo 115 grain FMJ to shoot from their $600 AR. Cheap ammo from a cheap AR will group at 5-6 inches shooting with a bipod from a bench with a minute between shots with no wind at that range.
Throw in wind, stress, sub-optimal support, and rapid fire and it's a very difficult shot.
Which is good and bad. Good in that assassinations should fail. Bad in that it means this asshole was shooting up a crowd.
Are you grouping that at 100 yards? Because I think your barrel is screwed up if that's true. 2-3 inches on a mass market AR is common from a controlled setup. Of course most people are not as accurate as their gun so if they're shooting then yeah it can be wild.
He was shooting closer to 200 yards I thought.
My main AR groups better. I've got a higher-end AR with a .223 Wylde 1:7 barrel and when I shoot SMKs through it it'll group a ragged hole. But that's not the setup most people are buying and shooting.
But my gun is triple the cost of a standard AR-15, and the glass on top is even more expensive.
400ft, 120M, 130Y.
And yeah that's the thing. What a modern gun can do locked into a bench is going to be way better than what most shooters can do.
I mean I think I'd say it was more the result of poor preparation than anything. I think most places are saying he had like, 3 shots or somewhere around there, and apparently his rifle had no optic on it at all, which is kind of an insane idea at that distance. Which I think also maybe lends credence to the idea that this was just some impulse decision rather than a prepared kind of thing. I don't think it's that hard of a shot to make in general, even given the single opportunity that you're going to be working with, I've hit soda cans with .22s at similar ranges. You barely have to take into account windage or holdover and I haven't seen any evidence of heavy wind on the day of, really.
So, I dunno, I think it's probably just an idiot kid killing himself in like, some elaborate suicide by cop or something. or just a dumb groyper, jury's still out.
They are good hunting rifles for feral hogs actually, 30 round mags included.
Plus, banning certain magazine sizes or particular models of rifle isn't really going to fix anything, but things like universal background checks would probably help.
Truly "Universal" background checks are just a way of criminalizing the overwhelming majority of "transfers" between known and trusted parties. We don't need this sort of "universal" background check. This approach is only intended to cast FUD on ownership.
The current law basically says it is illegal to "knowingly" transfer a gun to a prohibited person. The problem is that there is no reliable, publicly-accessible means for a private individual to "know" that an individual is prohibited. NICS checks are not available to the public; they are only available to FFL dealers. So long as the recipient doesn't disclose their prohibited status, it is basically impossible to prove a private seller "knew" the buyer was prohibited.
The solution should be obvious: establish a means of publicly accessing NICS. Have the buyer perform a check in themselves, and provide the seller with a verification code to securely and confidentially access the results of that check.
With that access in place, a seller can know, and can legally be expected to know the status of a buyer. The "knowingly" criteria can now be presumed to have been met, and willful ignorance on the part of the seller is no longer a viable defense.
This approach makes it possible to prosecute 100% of private sellers who transfer to felons, without criminalizing any innocent transfers. It accomplishes every legitimate purpose of "universal" background checks, without any of the harmful, "unintended" FUD that truly universal checks would impose.
I've heard a lot of terrible takes when it comes to the gun control debate. But this might be the first well thought out proposal I've heard.
Nope. Because you can know and trust that felon white supremacist militia man all day. The rest of us would very much like to prevent them from getting a gun ever again. And the honesty system obviously isn't working.
Hoping people just use the system isn't any better either.
Requiring an FFL to be part of all transfers and keeping the records solves this. And black helicopter paranoia isn't a good reason to not do it.
Nope. Because you can know and trust that felon white supremacist
If I handed a gun to that individual today, without knowing he was a felon, I would be exonerated: I didn't know.
If I did it tomorrow, after NICS checks are made available to the public, I would be convicted: I should have known. My claim of ignorance no longer exonerates me. My claim of ignorance is now an admission of guilt: I could have known, I should have known, I was responsible for knowing, and I failed to perform my due diligence and duty.
Requiring an FFL to be part of all transfers and keeping the records solves th
Define "transfer".
When my neighbor says he's feeling low and needs me to take custody of his guns for awhile, does he need to conduct a background check to give them to me? Or can I walk over and take care of them? If I am injured in a car crash, can I hand my gun to my sister before the ambulance takes me to the hospital?
My brother and I both have Glock 17 handguns. We used them at the range. A few weeks later, I looked at the serial number on my gun and realized we had swapped them. Should we both be jailed?
The punishment for violating this "universal" background check requirement is going to have to be a simple fine at most; anything more is going to be an egregious miscarriage of justice in all of these cases and in virtually every scenario in which it could be applied. It will be treated about the same as failing to renew a driver's license or vehicle registration; a purely administrative offense.
Your mentality of treating guns as "NBD" is the real issue here. Guns have been dumbed down and ingrained so heavily into our society, that you almost jokingly say how you "switched guns at one point".
All of that absolutely should be illegal. And we shouldn't be so careless with our weapons, as you make it sound so normal to have done.
You're going to have to explain how my brother's Glock 17 is somehow a significant threat to public safety in my hands, while my own Glock 17 is perfectly safe.
While you're contemplating that, try this one on for size: under a "universal" system, a felon in possession of a gun cannot be charged for transferring to another felon. There is case law on this point, relating to felons failing to register firearms. The state cannot compel an individual to admit to or to commit a crime. Requiring FFL involvement constitutes either self incrimination or entrapment should the felon attempt to make the transfer through them, so he cannot be prosecuted for failing to use one.
Under my scheme, however, the seller's status is entirely irrelevant. The state merely needs to prove the seller made the transfer and the buyer was prohibited. The seller could know, and should know the buyer's status, and is criminally liable for not checking. A felon-seller can be charged both for simple possession and for transferring to another felon.
The danger is you being so non-chalant about your weapons that you do not realize you have just swapped them. There are a billion scenarios in which doing so gets you arrested even today with current laws.
You can act as tough and mighty as you'd like, but viewing guns in this way, and acting so non-chalant about them is how people get killed.
There are a billion scenarios in which doing so gets you arrested even today with current laws.
There probably are. But that wasn't the question. The question was about the danger to the public in this specific scenario. The only difference is the serial number. What significantly greater danger is the public in from the differing inscriptions stamped into our receivers?
The correct and obvious answer is, of course, "none at all", which is why I raised the point to begin with. The fact that I could be "arrested even today with current laws" demonstrates that such laws are not actually enhancing public safety, and should be adjusted so that they don't criminalize completely inoffensive acts.
And how is the government going to know you handed them the gun?
The guns go to an FFL for storage. And if you can't keep track of your guns then they should absolutely be removed from you. Get a paint marker if you need to. It's what the Army does.
What public safety concern are you mitigating in any of the scenarios I described? What impediments to public safety are you creating when you impose your mandates?
How do the guns get to the FFL? If I take them, the transfer has already occurred. The only available method with a "universal" system is for my neighbor to take them himself.
Yes, that's the idea. If your neighbor wants to give you guns, they take them to an FFL and then you pick them up after the FFL runs your background check. Or the FFL can just store them. At no point should guns transfer between people without a record that is permanently kept.
And the problem with what you're suggesting is if you give your guns to Billy Bob the terrorist, and he never tells anyone where he got them from then you aren't even getting a knock at the door. There's not even a case for you to defend yourself in. If you happen to have a particularly new gun which still has records then you can just say you "lost it" which is another loophole we need to fix. Losing a gun needs to be a crime that results in forfeiting the right to own guns.
This blasé attitude about guns for the sake of preventing a hypothetical tyrannical crack down needs to die and never be brought back.
Do me a favor and run your little plan by a mental health professional, a social worker, a paramedic, a 14-year-old babysitter... The moment you left those guns in the hands of my emotionally distraught neighbor for even a second after he asked for help, you lost this particular argument.
There are decent arguments for a UBC; you're not making them. You should be focusing on what few public safety benefits would actually arise. You should be drawing attention away from the myriad administrative clusterfuck issues where UBCs fail, and toward those few scenarios where UBCs would actually benefit public safety. You should be conceding that "Universal" is completely impractical. You should be pointing out that none of the proposed "U"BC plans have ever actually been truly "U", and that all of them have included broad exceptions in a (piss-poor) attempt to avoid many of the problems I've described.
TBH, I would not trust a .223 to take down a hog intent on fucking me up. If feral hogs were a threat, I'd want a semi-auto .308 or similar larger more powerful round.
10mm carbine would be good too if they aren't too far, but most farmers tend to hunt them from relative safety in a stand or even from a helicopter sometimes: 5.56 is a popular choice but that might be in part because it's pretty ubiquitous in the states.
And they’re apparently good for hunting the elusive unarmed school children in the middle of class. 30 round mags included!
So would any number of other rifles, handguns, and/or shotguns. Focusing on a single rifle is pointless.
Ar-15s are potentially ok hunting rifles for large birds and small mammals although there are better options out there.
The main argument I've heard for an AR besides the larp thing is that it's easy to find compatible accessories because it's a popular "open source" common platform.
But honestly any hunter who is serious about hunting with .223 probably has a better gun that they hunt with.
Its also cheap and can be handled by most people of all sizes. Its probably the best overall gun to own for most purposes.
Its a good thing the second amendment doesn't just include a clause for hunting! People often forget it says
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Which arguably makes the AR-15 one of the most protected guns, if we're using the wording of the second amendment as the only justification for firearms rights.
You can do a lot of damage with medium caliber rifles running internal clips. Such a limit would be more than enough for a militia unless everyone is practicing their tactical magazine changes and fireteam movement drills.
What? No it wouldn't? They hand grunts 30 round magazines for a reason. They used to give them 20 round magazines for the same rifle. Minimizing administrative tasks is good for your soldier.
Soldiers are also trained in several different firing modalities that depend on teamwork. Those 30 rounds aren't there just because "it's easier". I would sooner hand a militiaman a bolt action than a 30 round semi/burst capable weapon. They'd be less likely to blow through significant portions of their ammo load just because the wind made a tree creak. And before you say no, remember the cop that unloaded on his own car because of an acorn. We don't arm units for their best person, we give them the gun that's good enough for the lowest common denominator. The 2nd amendment doesn't make everyone a line Infantryman.
The US military would one million percent prefer the population be trained and familiar on the standard issue rifle than on any other platform. (Arguments of the quality training put aside)
Then we better start giving everyone burst fire weapons.
No?
The military is just fine with its irregulars using something else. We worked alongside locals running AK platforms for 20 years.
Intent isn't started. It says the state gets guns (a militia) so the people get guns too.
Not saying you need to agree with the sentiment, but grammatically that is what it says.
That's absolutely the opposite of what it says.
It says the states, specifically, must have armed citizens to prevent a tyrannical federal government:
. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
By keeping the army, or 'militia' under the sole control of the states, it guaranteed the states were never disarmed and could effectively resist or even attempt secession if they saw fit. Which, in fact, was later tried.
Until the 14th amendment incorporated the bill of rights, the 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government, and in fact strict gun laws and bans were common throughout the 18th century.
I'm not going to debate an amateur (as an amateur to be fair) about something that already has a ruling. In 2008, DC v. Heller ruled that the ownership of firearms included the purpose of self defense independent of anything to do with a militia. Link
That said, the federalist paper you linked made a great case for a militia but did not talk about the People's right to bear arms. It was also written 4 whole years before the 2nd amendment was ratified so using as an interpretation tool is not adequate. Similarly, it would make sense to me that if firearm bans were common throughout the 1700s, that in 1792 they would pass an amendment to counter that if they didn't like it...
I don't have in-depth knowledge about the 14th amendment and I don't have time to look right now so I'll ask.. what/how does the 14th amendment have/do that implies an amendment which specifically states "The People" (a protected term, such as in "We The People), did not apply to The People? Federal or not, the meaning is the same. Unless I'm missing something.
Too many people don't understand that "militia" and "people" are synonymous as used in 2A.
And also the founders. Some of them loved the idea of a militia instead of a standing army. There was even an attempt at a militia navy. Which is insane. "Got my musket and rowboat. Off to defend the homeland!" rows towards French 90-gun ship.
The whole idea behind a militia was barely practical back then, and isn't at all with industrialized warfare. If that's the argument for the 2nd A, then it might as well be tossed on the same pile as the 3rd A of "anachronistic stuff that made sense to somebody at the time".
Some of the founders. And they were referring to town and state militias, not one big unorganized one. The idea that "the people" comprise "the militia" in a one to one manner tracks to a World War 2 era Supreme Court decision.
If said people are a part of a well-regulated militia, sure. I don’t know of many who are…oh wait, I know of none because militias in the terms the founders would define don’t exist anymore. The closest thing is the National Guard.
But yeah, whatever the courts say is always right and never wrong. So militias are all people, corporations are people, and a collection of cells are people. But veterans coming home from war? Nope, get a job slackers. Can’t afford a home? Live on the streets, slackers. Oh homelessness is illegal now? Time for prison, slackers.
If said people are a part of a well-regulated militia, sure
This is the exact misconception I was talking about.
The militia consists of the "whole body of the people". We know this from various contemporary writings, including descriptions in the Federalist Papers. We know how the term was used in the constitution, and we know it was used to refer to "We The People".
In the constitution, it is always referred to as a singular entity. It is never referred to in the plural: there are no such thing as "militias"; there is only one "militia".
You mentioned the National Guard. In constitutional terms, the National Guard would be a "[provision] for calling forth the militia" (Article I, Section 8, part 15). The members of the national guard haven't been called forth to the militia. They have been called forth from the militia. This becomes obvious when we look at the other major provision for calling forth the militia: Selective Service. The Draft.
Congress's authority to institute a draft, compelling "We The People" to report for military training and service against our individual will comes from their power to "call forth" the militia. We are members of the militia, and we are called forth. We are called forth from the militia, not to it. Congress would have no power to draft us if we were not members of the militia, and subject to their provisions established under the militia clauses. Which means that We The People are, in fact, the militia described in Article I and the Second Amendment.
If you don't feel you and your fellow militiamen are adequately "well regulated", you should petition Congress to impose more requirements than what they currently deem necessary and proper regulation of the militia, and I'll see you at the next muster.
What you describe is an interpretation that the courts have laid out, nothing more. And the point I make is that the courts are many times wrong. And in this case, it is wrong. One aspect is that women were not called to (sorry) FROM militia. Yet women are afforded this right today, yes? So a single woman prior to the courts' various opinions over the centuries would not have such a right, since they would not be a part of the militia -- thus, the founders did not intend on it being every person. In fact, women were not even considered full citizens then since they did not possess the right to vote. Then there's the subject of slaves which I have no interest in diving into since that's an even bigger can of worms.
The point is that interpretations is what has won, not original intent. You can hand-wave this as a misconception all you want, but there is logic in it. And that logic is that the Constitution was designed to change over time solely because the founders could not envision the future state of existence, only lay the groundwork for such. Therefore as the second amendment is written, women at minimum should not have this right because, even today, they cannot be drafted -- by your own statements: "the militia: Selective Service. The Draft."
You raise a very, very good point.
So a single woman prior to the courts' various opinions over the centuries would not have such a right, since they would not be a part of the militia
What you are describing are the provisions Congress has made under their authority in Article I. They have created a legislative definition of "militia" (10 USC 246) that is restricted to male citizens. Female national guardsmen are the only women that fit within this legislative definition.
I think we can agree that Congress is fully empowered to change its legislative definition. We would probably agree that the current definition is unconstitutionally sexist and ageist. Congress could change their age limit from 45 to 60, and remove their "male" limitation. They could expand their definition to include a very, very broad range of people, if they wanted to. They probably couldn't expand it to include 8-year-old kids or quadriplegics; the court would probably rule that sending kids and severely handicapped people to war is unconstitutional, but they can certainly include far more people in that legislative definition than they actually did.
Constitutional rights do not originate from legislature, and cannot be revoked by the legislature. Congress can, indeed, change the legislative definition of "militia", but they cannot change the constitutional meaning except through an amendment.
So, if Congress could rewrite its definition and compel women to register for the draft tomorrow, then women were members of the "Well Regulated Militia" yesterday, and 200 years ago. Congress's failure to provide for calling forth female members of the "well-regulated militia" has zero impact on the rights guaranteed by 2A.
In fact, women were not even considered full citizens then since they did not possess the right to vote.
Like most things, this was up to the individual states. Like anything up to the individual states, it was all over the place depending on exactly where you were. For example, at the founding women in New Jersey could vote, presuming they owned 50 British pounds worth of wealth because the wealth requirement was the only requirement New Jersey had for who could vote. Ironically, the spread of Jacksonian democracy (aka universal male suffrage) actually cost women in New Jersey the right to vote in the 19th century.
I meant federally protected right to vote, since that’s apples to apples comparison with the second amendment being a federal right. Thus, from a federal point of view, women were not full citizens in many various terms.
The Constitution didn't establish a right to vote for men in general or any men in particular. It left the question of which citizens were allowed to vote fully up to the states.
Or to go deeper: The Declaration of Independence limited voting to landowners. The Constitution set no regulations whatsoever for which citizens could vote, leaving it wholly up to the states. There are various trends in state laws over time but nothing federal regarding who can vote (other than various immigration laws about who can be naturalized). Until the 15th Amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Technically, men did not have a federally protected right to vote until women did, the 19th amendment. Though state laws had expanded to give essentially all free white men the vote in every state shortly before the Civil War, but that's not from that federal point of view you're so worried about.
Then why does the amendment refer to a Well Regulated Militia? If "People" were synonymous, the amendment doesn't make sense. "Well regulated people"?
Go back to Article I, Section 8, and perform that same substitution. Replacing "Militia" with "People" does not change the meaning of Article I in the slightest.
The term "militia" was used in the second amendment specifically to reference the militia clauses in Article I. If Article I had referred to "Yeomanry" or "Snorglubben", the Second Amendment would have used those terms instead.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
MilitiaPeople, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training theMilitiaPeople according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
Can't say I agree with your conclusion there, that's a pretty significant change of meaning. The Militia is explicitly described as something that is organized, armed, disciplined, and trained by Officers.
Are you not a person?
Does Congress not have the authority to organize you, arm you, govern you, employ you? Do the states not have the authority to appoint officers over you, or train you according to the discipline prescribed by Congress?
Can you not be called forth to enforce law, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion?
You certainly can make some distinctions between "person" and "militiaman". A 4-year-old child is a person and not a militiaman. The courts would certainly rule against the idea that Congress can organize a Children's Brigade under the militia clauses. They would rule on constitutional grounds against paraplegics, or the mentally disabled being drafted. But we aren't talking about these exceptional cases. We are talking about the general case, and the general case is that it is your status as a person that makes you a member of the militia.
Indeed, I think that Congress should establish a requirement that every American be trained on safe handling procedures, as well as on the laws governing the use of force in self defense and defense of others. They have that authority under the Militia clauses; I think they should exercise it.
Squares and rectangles, you can't generalize a subset as synonymous with its superset.
Congress should establish a requirement that every American be trained on safe handling procedures, as well as on the laws governing the use of force in self defense and defense of others.
You won't hear any argument from me on this point, I do believe the states should organize and train adults with some degree of competency, although this was written when Militias were the primary national defense in lieu of the standing Army we now maintain.
But the rest of your interpretation reads more like you're working backwards from the conclusion you want to prove.
Do the states not have the authority to appoint officers over you, or train you according to the discipline prescribed by Congress?
Can you not be called forth to enforce law, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion?
Broadly speaking, no I would not say that's the case .
The founders did not make a habit of codifying lazy verbage, if they meant People in general they would have written People in general. They chose the words they did to convey specific and distinct meanings. Militia refers particularly to that portion of a community trained for "martial exercise". If you're not trained, I'd argue specifically trained by the state, you're not part of the Militia. A candidate for it perhaps, but not a member until you've been trained by the state for the purpose.
You won't hear any argument from me on this point, I do believe the states should organize and train adults with some degree of competency
As you used it in that statement, the term "adults" is synonymous with "well regulated militia" as used in the constitution, and "people" as I have used the term.
It is because we are militia/people/adults that we can be compelled to attend the training you describe, or be otherwise drafted into service.
Squares and rectangles, you can't generalize a subset as synonymous with its superset.
This is true, there is not a complete overlap, but I accounted for the non-squares in my last comment. My point is not that militia contains absolutely all members of "we the people". My point is made when "equilateral rectangles" are the general rule, and "non square" is an exceptional case.
When you see a random person on the street and have no special information about them, It is unreasonable to presume they are not a member of the militia.
For the record I would rather 45 lose and continue to drag the GOP down than have a quick death.
I'd rather he rots in a state jail for the rest of his life, and give him the same standard of care as every other inmate. No special treatment. If he needs to be put in solitary "for his own protection" then so be it. It's the system people like him loves to protect.
To be clear, I think the US treatment of prisoners is inhumane and bordering on criminal (and all too often crossing said border) and the whole penal system needs drastic change and made entirely nonprofit, and the constitution needs another Ammendment because the 13th was a mistake.
But that's not the world we live in, and the people who crafted this world should be forced to live in it.
That would be so nice. Wish we focused on rehabilitation instead of retaliation in our criminal justice system. Its such an ass backwards system.
I love seeing prison photos from other countries that show how well prisoners can be treated while still being in prison. Countries with extremely low recidivism.
And there are plenty of people I know who would see that and balk, because "that's being too soft"
I've had people insist that stronger punishment over rehabilitation is what you need, and ignore my bringing up that there's decades and decades of data that shows otherwise.
At best, the harsh punishments serve as a deterrent to other people doing similar things that might result in similar punishment, but that just creates new and sneaker crimes and criminals. It's better to rehabilitate, help people turn their poor choices around, and eliminate the cause of the problems that led to the crime in the first place.
But that's "too much work" so might as well not even try, right? As we all know, the light bulb famously was invented on the first couple tries.
I would prefer Trump to have a long and miserable life in prison. Preferably in an underground cell in SuperMax somewhere. For his own protection of course.
hunting human rifles.
let's be honest, it was designed as a lightweight emergency carbine made of space aged materials. 60 years later we're arguing if the founding fathers meant bump stocks and cmags when they said well regulated militia.
lightweight emergency carbine
Huh, was it? So the platform wasn't designed as a main infantry weapon?
Not initially. went through tons of growth after the AR-10 was designed.
Except when you do https://writingcenter.uagc.edu/apostrophes
Apostrophe when making a number plural is not uncommon.
Y'know, this is in this weird spot where it's right between canon and as seen (which, by the way, can be explained even with canonical things). If it was truly as seen, the shots would have gone way wide. If it was truly canon, the Reps would be scrambling for a new candidate now.
The explanation for Stormtroopers' shoddy marksmanship on screen in A New Hope is because Vader wanted Leia & company to escape, but by the skin of their teeth, so that they would basically drop their guard the instant The Falcon took off from the Death Star and not realise there was a tracker bug installed. If Vader just let them fly off unopposed, that would probably be hella sus, and they'd probably pull over at the first asteroid to find and chuck said tracker bug. So the Stormtroopers were specifically instructed to shoot to thrill, not to kill.
When faced with opposition without plot armour and reasons to keep them alive, Stormtroopers are fucking brutal, as seen in The Empire Strikes Back - Hoth was somewhere between a decisive Imperial victory and an Imperial Curb Stomp
When faced with opposition without plot armour and reasons to keep them alive, Stormtroopers are fucking brutal, as seen in The Empire Strikes Back - Hoth was somewhere between a decisive Imperial victory and an Imperial Curb Stomp
Their shooting was also terrible on Endor. Maybe those were the flunky storm troopers that got put on the imperial guard due to nepotism or corruption?
I suspect that any modern force ambushed in a jungle, or any type of complex, unfamiliar terrain, by primitive fighters who know the place like the back of their hands will suffer.
There are stories of UK soldiers in the sixties being ambushed by a man with a scimitar, and it took them a while and several fairly serious injuries before they could line up a shot with their FALs.
Not to forget the Vietnam war which, despite the advanced force being a coalition led by the US, and said coalition resorting to torching the jungle and other war crimes, still ended being up a North Vietnamese victory.
The Endor force, while not outgunned, was maybe outnumbered and definitely outwitted.
The storm troops on Endor were not ambushed. They knew the attack was coming. They were fighting from prepared defenses on a fire base. The fact that they were drawn out of the base to fight in the jungle was a lack of judgement on their part. Their whole mission was to protect the shield generator.
Everyone's saying the guy used an AR but given the relatively small number of shots and the fact that the bullets went everywhere except where the guy was presumably aiming my bet is he was a Socialist Rifle Club guy with an SKS.
No... it was an AR with no scope fired from the prone position by someone who definitely was not trained to land shots precisely at that range from that shooting position in a highly tense unsurviveable situation again all without a fucking scope
Tmz had a video of the moron opening fire and getting counter sniped
I mean... At the risk of landing on a list... Any infantry private could have landed that shot.
But if I were to do it it would be a larger round that's more resistant to the wind, capable of penetrating the light body armor the secret service wears, and from about 3 times the distance with 6x optics. There's at least a chance to E&E from that position and the likelihood of a kill shot is far higher.
He was mentally deranged. That's the sort of half-assery typical of people with mental problems.
Was it a camera phone video from the crowd? I saw where one guy said they tried to warn the SS because they saw the shooter.
Turns out you're wrong. It was a registered GOPer with an AR15 who also had bomb making stuff at home.
