this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
684 points (93.6% liked)
Memes
45689 readers
1070 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Indeed it doesn't protect hunting or self defence at all. Only the collective defense.
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.
Nobody actually uses burst fire. Does the Spear have burst fire? I haven't looked too closely because I seriously doubt they're ever actually going to make it the standard issue rifle.
We absolutely used burst fire in Iraq. The M7 is also capable of burst or auto depending on what they put in the trigger group.
Aight, I've been told different from other folks who have deployed.
Anyway, this conversation is way off the rails. The point being that, if you consider the original intent of the 2nd amendment to be the only thing protecting a citizen's access to firearms, it would be much more correct to say the standard issue rifle would be the most protected firearm than any other.
I can show you video.
At any rate if you want to talk about standard issue, what's wrong with a modified M1a Springfield that runs an internal clip instead of a magazine? Given the choice I'd give militia men a bolt action over an M7 but there's no reason we can't go in the middle.
The major issue with mass casualty shootings is the ammunition availability. And that's the problem everyone wants to solve. We could also go all in on red flag laws, fixing the NICS loopholes, and universal background checks. And if those work then we don't need to do anything with magazines. There's really a few paths available here, but if the NRA and friends keep putting a stop to any reform at all then they're all going to happen at once.
Oh, no, it's not that I don't believe you. Just sounds like there's different opinions within the military on the usefulness of burst fire.
The M1a Springfield uses a totally different manual of arms than the M4/M16, especially when you fix the magazine.
If we're trying to square the 2nd amendment with reducing mass shootings (a very small but spectacular number of gun deaths) everything you listed would improve the situation slightly and there's little reason why we shouldn't have them. I'd throw in a storage requirement requiring guns and ammo be kept behind a lock. But mass shootings are much more of a social phenomenon than anything else. We've had access to capable guns for a very long time and mass shootings only became a thing in the 90s. That is, it's not inherit to humanity, it's cultural. (This should be further evidenced by the fact that they're all done by white guys.)
Now, that sounds like a cop-out, but it's not. It's saying that we know we can have a society with guns and without mass shootings because we used to have exactly that. Well, what did we have then that we don't have now? Lower inequality, higher union representation, more accessible housing, less media saturation, higher minimum wage, fewer monopolies, etc. I would suggest reading Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel to get an idea of the kind of person and situation that produces mass shootings. There's a racial component to it that won't (and shouldn't) change, but so much about our economic and social situation can change to get rid of mass shootings. Heck, even just Medicare for All would have a big impact, since it would make counseling free and accessible. Plus, all these social changes would have an even bigger impact in the other major areas of gun deaths, murders and suicides.
Dude, don't. This took 2 seconds to find. There's more that I'm aware of just from memory too. Also, the white guys thing.
The manual of arms being different isn't a big a deal. We train people on everything between pistols and belt fed machineguns. There's no reason to expect the manual of arms would be a large barrier to an actual militia fighting alongside the military. In fact standardizing an official "militia rifle" would help prevent people from showing up with 4 or 5 distinct modes of firearm.
I actually agree about the social problems leading to a larger number of events. But that's not working, it sounds like a cop out because that's how it's been used. And in the reality of things, toys get taken away when we can't responsibly use them. For the large majority of people that's all an AR-15 is, an expensive toy. If we can't treat them seriously then the kids are going to grow up to repeal the 2nd amendment and ban all civilian guns. We've had them running duck and cover style drills for most of their lives and that's coming home to roost.
So rather than throw this off on the traditional cop out, even if we admit it's been used that way, we need to figure something out if we want to still have a 2nd amendment in 10-20 years. And I think the two best ways to do that are to define a low capacity rifle with internal magazine as the militia weapon we can have personally or to treat rifles with external magazines as military rifles that live in lock up until your scheduled range day or training weekend with a local reserve unit.
Individual counter examples do not negate trend lines and you know it. I'll try to come back later when I'm on my computer and link a few government reports that clearly demonstrate the mass shooter phenomenon as we know it properly started in the 90s. I don't have the documents on my phone and I don't remember the titles so I can't Google them.
I don't consider fixing systemic issues in society to be a cop-out. I genuinely want to do all of those changes and more. There's plenty of people who would consider suggesting gun law reform a cop-out, since it's equally as unlikely to pass. Biden just suggested we bring back the assault weapons ban for the 70th time in his presidency (that's the actual number), so you can judge how well that's going.
I'd love to solve those issues. I'm just being real about what's likely to happen first. Rich people stop extracting wealth from our literal health and sanity or we ban guns because there was never any good faith conversation on reform.
I know where my money is and I'd like to avoid that and the political violence I'm pretty sure the losing third would enact over it.
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:
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.