Ban "Cop Killer" Assault Pistol

Setanta wrote:

It is frequently ignored that the introductory clause to the second amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . "

Yes -- and an organized way of shooting cops when the state gets tyrannical is one of the ways in which the people were supposed to keep their state free. There was a fairly well-developed theory behind this when America's Bill of Rights got enacted, and it is well described in contemporary literature such as Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. (Smith is merely the source I am most familiar with, not the most authoritative one.) Defending a free state posed a dilemma: On the one hand, a standing army was much more effective against foreign invasion than a militia. On the other hand, a standing army could be used to suppress people -- a danger that Englishmen in 1776 had become very sensitive to after two revolutions. The optimal solution to the dilemma was to have a relatively small, professional standing army and a large militia. In the event of a foreign aggression, they were both expected to fight on the same side; in the event of the government usurping tyrannical powers, they were expected to fight on opposite sides and hopefully make the usurpation a bad deal for the government trying it.

I don't know if you were talking to me when you referred to people ignoring the introductory clause. If you were, let me point out that I was explicitly referring to the more restrictive interpretations of the amendment. These interpretations view the introductory clause as constraining the right, rather than explaining why it is there and shall not be infringed. As it happens, I read the introductory clause as an explanation, but that wasn't the point I was arguing here. Rather, the point was about cop killer ammunition,and it applies even for a restrictive reading of the introductory clause.

Setanta wrote:

So, it is a grant of privilege to allow people to carry firearms, given that Congress is granted the power to call out the militia to enforce the law, suppress insurrections or repel invasions.

At the time America declared independence, English law held the right to individual ownership of arms to be one of the absolute rights of individuals. For reference, see Blackstone (1765), the authoritative commentary on English law at the time. There seems to be no evidence that the American revolution ever sought to change the status quo in the direction of restricting this right. In particular, I would be very surprised if you could cite me a founding father saying that gun ownership is the government's privilege to grant.

0 Replies

Did the founding fathers say anything about speed limits?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Did the founding fathers say anything about speed limits?

No they didn't. They didn't say anything about the right to drive horse-coaches on streets either. But Setanta's point, which I was responding to, was about the right to hold and bear arms, which the founding fathers did say something about. Therefore his point can be tested against what the founding fathers said, while any point about driving and its limits can not.

0 Replies

Fishin', you just become more pathetic--your hysteria reaches the level of claiming that i foam at the mouth. Thread after thread on this topic goes by without comment by me. I don't foam at the mouth, i just point out that gun nuts don't have the absolute freedom to own any fire arm they choose, as they would like to contend that the second amendment allows them to do. My point is always that the Congress has the power of regulation. In order to prop up your silly straw man, you take my remark to the effect: "Neither that passage nor the second amendment guarantee any right for citizens to have firearms in their possession, . . . " (note the comma)--out of the larger context of that paragraph, which read, in its entirety:

Quote:

So, it is a grant of privilege to allow people to carry firearms, given that Congress is granted the power to call out the militia to enforce the law, suppress insurrections or repel invasions. Neither that passage nor the second amendment guarantee any right for citizens to have firearms in their possession, or to decide for themselves when the laws need to be enforced or when a situation can be considered insurrectionary. No discretion for individual action is granted. Furthermore, Congress is given the power to provide for arming and disciplining the militia--it is absurd to attempt to argue that Congress does not have the power to write gun-control legislation.

The point of which is that the right is conditional, subject to Congress' regulatory powers.

This silliness:

Quote:

An authority in the Constitutiion to require someone (or some state) have a firearm of a specific caliber doens't create any authority to prevent them from having them in any other caliber as well.

--is meaningless. It does not either grant to individuals the right to have weapons of any specific description. It is meaningless to the issue of Congress' regulatory powers, which is the only point i was making. Your own foaming at the mouth appears whenever i point this out, and you rant on as though i were denying the right of persons to bear arms as members of a well-regulated militia. Which is as far as the second amendment goes in codifying individual rights in this matter.

Thomas: see the last paragraph in my original comment on the subject of individuals defending against government tyranny. No, i was not responding to your comments specifically. The notion of a well-armed population resisting government tyranny would be laughably absurd were it not for irresponsible NRA propaganda about jack-booted thugs and the shoot outs with ATF and FBI which have resulted in deaths. The paramilitary power of the police is, due to contemporary equipment, orders of magnitude beyond what the tyrannophobes can deploy.

0 Replies

I've always seen the NRA as a sort of Chamber of Commerce of Firearms.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

I have to admit I've been there. It wasn't much of a tree though. It was pretty well dessicated. But it was useful to test out the shotgun I'd just bought - for self-protection - and to see the effect of the various gauges and slugs I was using. Strangely the solid slugs seemed not to be that effective.

Ya probably were missin.... Wink

0 Replies

Before the silliness devolves even more: I am saying the Congress has a right to regulate firearms, and i am saying that those who contend that firearms protect them from a tyrranical government have an unrealistic attitude given the technological resources of the police.

Anyone wishing to argue another point while referring to what i've written is erecting a straw man.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Actually I wonder what the constitution says about this. As I understand the controversial debate about the Second Amendment, even the more restrictive interpretations acknowledge that one thing it protects is your, the people's collective right to resist a tyrannical government.

That isn't my interpretation. It does end up with such a protection, but only indirectly.

The Framers didn't want the government to have a "professional" armed force (meaning a force where the main source of employment for its soldiers was being a member of that armed force). They thought that such a force would execute tyrannical orders from the government and oppress the people.

When the government needed to use armed force, the Framers wanted it to have to call upon ordinary people who were trained to fight in a militia, but who were otherwise a part of the ordinary fabric of society. They felt that such a force would refuse to carry out a tyrannical order, and that any government that mainly relied on such a force would be immune to tyranny in the first place.

So the militia was to prevent tyranny not by fighting against the government, but by being the primary force that fought for the government.

Thomas wrote:

If that situation actually arose and the government did get tyrannical, I see no way you could effectively resist it without killing lots of cops. After all, they would be the ones enforcing the tyranny. So on the face of it, 'cop-killer' ammunition is precisely what the Second Amendment protects. By contrast, those cuddly, little convenience guns, the ones for hunting and personal self-protection, would seem to be most constitutionally dubious kind.

"Cop killer" is a meaningless term that the anti-freedom crowd uses as demagoguery when they want to ban ammo.

The term has no established definition, other than whatever type of ammo they are currently trying to ban.

And in fact, most of the ammo that has been labeled as "cop killer" at one time or another has been fine ammo for hunting or self defense (or both).

I suggest that the only reasonable definition for the term is:

Any bullet which has been fired at a police officer.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

cjhsa wrote:
A cuddly little 30-06 will easily penetrate body armor. It's all about muzzle velocity and energy.

Will the ceramic inserts stop that size? I know even the III-A won't but those ceramic inserts just might do the job - hopefully.

A Class III plate will stop up to six ordinary bullets from a 30-06.

A Class IV rating means that the plate will stop one steel-core armor-piercing bullet from a 30-06. Some Class IV plates are very brittle, and will shatter when shot with a bullet of any size, providing no additional protection from a second shot beyond whatever the Kevlar provides.

Sometimes when armor provides Class IV protection and can also resist multiple shots, it is rated both Class III and IV.

I think tungsten-carbide-core AP ammo would probably be able to breach Class IV armor if fired from a 30-06. Ordinary .50 cal BMG ammo would breeze right through, even if it was just plain old full metal jacket ammo.

People have the right to have such ammo for self defense.

0 Replies

JamesMorrison wrote:

Sure it makes sense to ban the ammo that does the armor piercing while leaving the legal sale of the weapon itself intact.

Banning self-defense ammo never made much sense to me.

JamesMorrison wrote:

So we see legitimacy in a bolt action 30 caliber rifle properly secured in the back window of a pick-up truck during certain times at certain geographical locations. But the legitimacy quickly fades for a 9mm fully automatic machine pistol with a 1 inch barrel.

A one inch barrel certainly sounds illegitimate. That wouldn't be a very effective gun at all.

JamesMorrison wrote:

At what point does this weapon's metamorphosis become illegal? Would this weapon be more legally or morally acceptable if it was only capable of semi-automatic action? To some, yes, to others it is still unnecessary: the judgment is subjective at best.

Militiamen have the right to have automatic rifles.

JamesMorrison wrote:

Likewise, our constitutional interpretation must be of original intent. The purpose of an individual's 2nd Amendment right to bare arms was not to allow hunting or even to allow hobbyist to collect the most powerful weapons and entertain themselves thereby.

However, if a hobbyist wishes to exercise their Second Amendment rights in furtherance of their hobby, that is their prerogative.

JamesMorrison wrote:

But even this reclamation of liberty requires the legitimate organization of concerned citizens and is not a green flag for individuals with the perception, correct or not, that their liberties have been abrogated to pursue redress by violence.

Organizations like the NRA and GOA?

JamesMorrison wrote:

So it is in this context that we must decide whether an individual with such firepower (full automatic weapons with armor penetrating rounds) is an asset to our form of government or merely an individual threat to his local community.

The only legitimate context to decide that question is "what did the Framers demand when they wrote the Constitution"?

0 Replies

roger wrote:

JamesMorrison wrote:
That is, what Congress may give, it may also take away or even exclude altogether.
JM

I take your point, JM, but not in regard to the Second Amendment. Thomas made the point some time ago that throughout the constitution we see phrases like Congress shall have the power. . . . or The executive is given. . . . Now, the Second Amendment uses different wording in saying that the right shall not be infringed. My point is that the constitution does not give such a right. It confirms an existing right, if I understand correctly

Yes. The right in question was born in the English Bill of Rights.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

It is frequently ignored that the introductory clause to the second amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . " It is inconvenient to those who wish to contend that there can be no regulation of firearms to take note of that clause, because they would then be obliged to acknowledge the concept of well-regulated.

The first half of the right, and the term "well-regulated" isn't much of an inconvenience.

The NRA tends to ignore the first half because they only focus on self-defense-related gun rights, not the militia-related gun rights at the core of the Second Amendment.

I think that's a shame, because both types of gun rights are important. But I am certainly grateful to the NRA for their defenses of our self-defense-related gun rights.

Setanta wrote:

Time and again, i've had NRA members tell me that that clause is meaningless--yeah, right, as though lawyers ever write meaningless language into legislation.

Not meaningless. It is a requirement that the government always have an effective militia on hand.

Actually having a militia is a prerequisite to having militiamen with the right to have automatic rifles. The first step in getting the government to stop violating our core Second Amendment rights is getting them to stop violating the first half of the Second Amendment.

Setanta wrote:

So, it is a grant of privilege to allow people to carry firearms, given that Congress is granted the power to call out the militia to enforce the law, suppress insurrections or repel invasions. Neither that passage nor the second amendment guarantee any right for citizens to have firearms in their possession, or to decide for themselves when the laws need to be enforced or when a situation can be considered insurrectionary. No discretion for individual action is granted.

There are other gun rights besides the core right of the Second Amendment. We have the right to have a reasonable means of self-defense, so we can defend ourselves from criminals when the government can't help us.

Given that criminals sometimes use body armor, this would at least include rifles with armor-piercing ammo.

Setanta wrote:

Furthermore, Congress is given the power to provide for arming and disciplining the militia--it is absurd to attempt to argue that Congress does not have the power to write gun-control legislation.

That would only cover the arms of militiamen, not arms that individuals carry for self-defense. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power to control non-militia arms.

And further, the core point of the Second Amendment was to prevent the government from abusing their "power to arm" by using it to disarm, so they don't have the power to weaken the militia by taking their arms away.

Setanta wrote:

These sorts of discussions crop up online constantly, and they quickly become absurd. The overt contention is that people have the right to own whatever firearms they please for whatever reason they please--nothing in the Constitution guarantees such a broad construction of the right to bear arms.

I've seen more than a quarter million gun control messages over the years, going by the message count on some of the boards I've frequented, and I've seen very few instances of people arguing that the Second Amendment provides an unlimited right to any weapon whatsoever, for any purpose.

However, the Second Amendment does demand that the government maintain a militia, and it does demand that these militiamen be allowed to have effective and modern military weapons. That would at least include automatic rifles with AP ammo.

And we have self-defense gun rights, which either emanate from the penumbra of the Second Amendment or are found under the Ninth Amendment, that demand that ordinary people be allowed to have weapons strong enough so they can defend themselves from criminals (including criminals who wear body armor).

Setanta wrote:

The covert agenda is to have firearms to protect oneself from governmental tyranny--and that is truly laughably absurd. If the "jackbooted thugs" (language used by the NRA) come for you, they'll have armored personnel carriers, kevlar vest, helmets, machine pistols, teargas canister lauchers, helicopters, etc., etc. You gonna stop 'em with your Smith and Wesson? Give me a break.

Small arms can be quite effective in an insurgency.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Did the founding fathers say anything about speed limits?

No. And that means the federal government has no legitimate say in the matter.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The notion of a well-armed population resisting government tyranny would be laughably absurd were it not for irresponsible NRA propaganda about jack-booted thugs

That was legitimate (and fair) criticism of the abusive tactics of some federal agents. It was neither irresponsible nor propaganda.

The original comment actually called the agents "jackbooted American fascists". This comment, also a reasonable and fair characterization of the ATF, didn't originate with the NRA. It came from a Democratic congressman who was speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Setanta wrote:

and the shoot outs with ATF and FBI which have resulted in deaths.

Some of the very abuses that the "jack-booted" comments were decrying.

0 Replies

A brief persusal of online sites by authors who oppose gun control has turned up one reference after the other to "jackbooted thugs" and "jackbooted government thugs." I have not found among the more than a dozen pages of google references i consulted the language to which Oralloy refers, nor any reference to a legislator of the Democratic party. Perhaps Oralloy will provide the reference--until such time, i have no reason to believe him (?, her?). It is a matter of personal opinion whether or not it is irresponsible for the NRA to have used such language, and on a rare occassion, i agree with the former President Bush in condemning such language. Oralloy asserts that he/she has seen a quarter of million posts on the subject of gun control, and rarely seen any suggestion that the second amendment protects an individual's right to own any weapon they choose. We have only Oralloy's contention that this number of posts have been seen, and i once again doubt that there is any good reason to believe this. I've been reading about this subject online for years, but i haven't kept a tally sheet on the content of the posts, and i doubt that Oralloy has done that, either. I have read online, and heard in face-to-face conversations, time and again, that the second amendment means that no governmental agency can interfer with an individual's right to own the fire arms of their choice. I don't intend to deal in such absurdity as Oralloy's contention about the number of times i've read or heard this. My assertion remains that the constitution, as amended, provides Congress with the power to regulate firearms.

The silliest bit of Oralloy's pompous statements from authority is about the effectiveness of small arms in an insurrection. My remarks have been, for years, directed to the situation in which a gun owner would find him- or herself if the government came for them--i had not addressed the relative effectiveness of small arms in an insurrection. If the government come for someone with firearms, they will come far better equipped than the individual. When they went to Waco, the Branch Davidian schismatics (the Branch Davidians had already condemned Koresh and his followers) were relatively well armed, having modified their assault rifles. The government responded with far more fire power than the Koresh followers could deploy, and their agents were better equipped, and had the used of aircraft and armored personnel carriers. Whether or not this represents government oppression has never been a topic which i have canvassed--my point has always been that if the government will come for you, you are not going to stop them with handguns or even a collection or rifles--no matter how far the individual, or even a group of individuals, up the ante, the government are prepared to call their bet. One is left to wonder if Oralloy suggests that an insurrection is likely or imminent. Does Oralloy think that he/she can or will organize such an insurrection? Does Oralloy suggest that the NRA, or organizations such as the Michigan Militia are prepared to organize and provide sustained support to an insurrection? Because if not, the comment is simply foolish and irrelevant to the point i was making.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

goodfielder wrote:

I have to admit I've been there. It wasn't much of a tree though. It was pretty well dessicated. But it was useful to test out the shotgun I'd just bought - for self-protection - and to see the effect of the various gauges and slugs I was using. Strangely the solid slugs seemed not to be that effective.

Ya probably were missin....

Yep - and it wasn't even a moving target.

0 Replies

Well, it isn't that hard to miss with a load of shot either. In fact, a good defensive shotgun will have iron sights quite similar to a rifle.

0 Replies

True enough roger - funnily enough when I became a detective I had to qualify with a shotgun (why I have no idea) and could do so without a problem and now I have to qualify with a .357 S&W Model 19 (yes we still have revolvers and not Glocks) and I can do so. I still lie awake at night and think of that tree. It can make me go into a cold sweat.

0 Replies

I qualified with quite a few small arms while in the Army. My grandfather had taught me to shoot and fire arms safety when i was a boy, and i qualified with the M14 when i was in basic--qualified expert, in fact. I sucked with the M16, which i hated. But when we were qualifying with the M16 in AIT, the drill instructor i had mentioned light infantry weapons, and i asked him when the class was scheduled. When i figured out that i could avoid police call (picking up candy wrappers and cigarette buts) and kitchen patrol, i signed up for light infantry weapons. Among the weapons with which we qualified were the M60 machine gun, the M1911 .45 automatic and a .38 caliber revolver. I enjoyed it.

Later, in the Medical Corps, i saw boys who had come through a positive hail of small arms fire, and had minor and superficial wounds. It is amazing how much lead can be flying through the air, and never hit someone. It is sobering, too. The odds are pretty good that if you kill someone with a fire arm, you're going to have to look him or her in the eye to do so, because the odds are actually not good that you can accomplish such an act at range.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

A brief persusal of online sites by authors who oppose gun control has turned up one reference after the other to "jackbooted thugs" and "jackbooted government thugs." I have not found among the more than a dozen pages of google references i consulted the language to which Oralloy refers, nor any reference to a legislator of the Democratic party. Perhaps Oralloy will provide the reference--

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=+jackbooted+OR+%22jack+booted%22+%22american+fascists%22

Setanta wrote:

It is a matter of personal opinion whether or not it is irresponsible for the NRA to have used such language, and on a rare occassion, i agree with the former President Bush in condemning such language.

I myself do not agree that the NRA was irresponsible for denouncing Gestapo tactics.

Setanta wrote:

My assertion remains that the constitution, as amended, provides Congress with the power to regulate firearms.

Their power to arm the militia does not give them any authority over non-militia arms.

(Ever wonder why they don't base federal gun laws on their Constitutional authority over militia arms?)

And it should also be noted that the Second Amendment prevents the Feds from abusing their power over militia arms in order to force the militia to have ineffective arms.

Setanta wrote:

A The silliest bit of Oralloy's pompous statements from authority is about the effectiveness of small arms in an insurrection. My remarks have been, for years, directed to the situation in which a gun owner would find him- or herself if the government came for them--i had not addressed the relative effectiveness of small arms in an insurrection.

"The notion of a well-armed population resisting government tyranny would be laughably absurd were it not for...."

0 Replies

Ban "Cop Killer" Assault Pistol

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know