New at Reason

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 7:49AM|#

Excellent work. I think this article is the definitive commentary on the ruling.

The part about the militia (which included all able-bodied white men of fighting age, each of whom was expected to bring his own weapons)

IIRC, that is still codified in federal law and has been updated a few times to include women.

Nobody Important|3.14.07 @ 8:02AM|#

Guy Montag | March 14, 2007, 7:49am
The part about the militia (which included all able-bodied white men of fighting age, each of whom was expected to bring his own weapons)
IIRC, that is still codified in federal law and has been updated a few times to include women.

What about non-white men?

|3.14.07 @ 8:06AM|#

Sorry, not buying it. The part about the militia can't be nullified either. That language also has meaning and I just don't believe it is expository. There's nothing about a well informed electorate being necessary to a democracy in the first amendment.

|3.14.07 @ 8:10AM|#

What about non-white men?

Wikipedia is smrt

These Militia Acts were amended by the Militia Act of 1862, which allowed African-Americans to serve in the militias of the United States. They were replaced by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States.

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 8:10AM|#

What about non-white men?

Oops! My sloppy reading combined with my sloppy writing can be trouble.

Yes, that is within the updates. If I were not trying to select the proper shirt and tie combination in preparation for today's installment of my defending America I would take the time to look it up :)

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 8:13AM|#

Sorry, not buying it. The part about the militia can't be nullified either. That language also has meaning and I just don't believe it is expository.

They did not nullify it.

If everybody read the 1st as you read the 2nd only people allowed to speak freely would be reporters in Church attending a political rally.

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 8:21AM|#

Title 10, Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

As usual, Wikipedia leaves out the part that the Leftists disagree with, like that unorganized militia part.

Now, the maroon tie with the maroon shirt or the maroon and gold tie?

|3.14.07 @ 8:27AM|#

Actually, the wording of the Second Amendment is taken from language in an act of Parliament passed in the days of the Puritan Revolution.* Contrary to what the Court of Appeals said, the Second Amendment does not "affirm" a pre-existing right of self-defense. It affirms the use of a popular militia to forestall a "standing army," the great bugbear of both Whigs and Tories in England. It was believed at the time that standing armies automatically led to tyranny. The King couldn't tell you what to do if he didn't have any soldiers. Relying on a militia instead of a standing army was a guarantee of freedom.

Well, we now have a standing army--a standing army of trained mercenaries, thanks to Milton Friedman, et al. We also have heavily armed police forces--too heavily armed, in my opinion. But having guns will not protect you from George Bush, and it will not protect you from the police.

We no longer rely on popular militias to provide for the common defense or to maintain domestic order. But does that mean that the Second Amendment can be ignored? It's still part of the Constitution. On the other hand, virtually no one interprets the amendment to mean that we have a constitutional right to own machine guns or hand-held anti-aircraft missiles. But why not? They are "arms," aren't they? If we're going to allow the state to ban any weapons because they're "too dangerous," who should draw the line, elected officials or the courts? Is it too rude to suggest that the appeals court decision simply reflects the desire of a handful of big-shot Republicans to push around the District of Columbia, notoriously full of black, liberal Democrats? I thought "home rule" means that the voters decide, not a couple of rich old white men.

*In a striking example of the difference between England and the U.S., the English statute only allowed persons to posssess arms "according to their station."

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 8:32AM|#

Well, we now have a standing army--a standing army of trained mercenaries, thanks to Milton Friedman, et al.

And the pro-slavery Eisenstein contingent has weighed in with several paragraphs of interesting propaganda.

ron|3.14.07 @ 8:55AM|#

hamilton was right, this bill of rights shit was a bad idea. it gives the impression that the government has granted us a few rights and that anything not specifically mentioned is fair game for restriction.

|3.14.07 @ 8:59AM|#

Guy,
I don't find any language in the first amendment about reporters, church, or politics. Unlike the second amendment that has specific language about a well organized militia

Rhywun|3.14.07 @ 9:02AM|#

I don't give a rat's ass about guns but the DC law strikes even me as beyond the pale. However, I would like to see someone address (without the snark) a good point Alan just made ("On the other hand, virtually no one interprets the amendment to mean that we have a constitutional right to own machine guns or hand-held anti-aircraft missiles. But why not?").

|3.14.07 @ 9:08AM|#

Alan Vanneman @ March 14, 2007, 8:27am,

Excellent comment. Exactly right. The second amendment is an anachronism. It is meant to provide the people with a means to protect themselves from their own government. But as you point out, this has not been possible for some time.

|3.14.07 @ 9:25AM|#

On the other hand, virtually no one interprets the amendment to mean that we have a constitutional right to own machine guns or hand-held anti-aircraft missiles. But why not? They are "arms," aren't they?

I've never understood that myself. Some try to compare this act of bright line drawing with the act of excluding "criminal speech" (slander, perjury, threats, etc.) from free speech. Although similar, I think the rational basis for excluding criminal speech is far stronger than the basis for bright line drawing of more vs. less dangerous arms.

|3.14.07 @ 9:30AM|#

MP,
So are you in favor of allowing a market in machine guns, hand-held anti-aircraft missiles, etc? How do you think that would play out?

|3.14.07 @ 9:33AM|#

I realize this is off topic, but last night I heard the Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff say that he believes that homosexual activity between adults is immoral. Is he implying that it's okay for kids? And if so, what does it say about his childhood? Is he giving himself a pass?

|3.14.07 @ 9:36AM|#

So are you in favor of allowing a market in machine guns, hand-held anti-aircraft missiles, etc? How do you think that would play out?

No I'm not in favor of it. But that doesn't influence my opinion that the 2nd Amendment, as written, protects the existence of those marketplaces. I have no issue with introducing an amendment that adds the word "small" in front of "arms" to the 2nd Amendment, which would give the courts clear discretion to draw their bright line as they see fit.

|3.14.07 @ 9:45AM|#

Actually there is an analogy between the collective-rights view and a ridiculous under-interpretation of the 1st amendment: Simply take "Congress shall make no law..." to mean exactly that: Congress can't restrict your speech, but the Executive and Judicial branches can; and it would certainly not be incorporated against the states either.

And that's even grammatical (whereas reading the clause of the 2nd as a restriction is not).

ron|3.14.07 @ 9:47AM|#

the executive and judicial branches can't make laws jackass.

|3.14.07 @ 9:50AM|#

No one's IGNORING the militia part, it's just that the actual subject of the sentence, grammatically, is "The right of the people"

|3.14.07 @ 9:50AM|#

"I have no issue with introducing an amendment that adds the word "small" in front of "arms" to the 2nd Amendment, which would give the courts clear discretion to draw their bright line as they see fit."

Some would draw this line between rocket launchers and rifles, others would draw it between sling shots and BB guns- no different than the current situation. Many of the "assault weapons" ban proponents would like to include auto loading shotguns, and I doubt that the court would nullify that if it passed with the current second amendment wording.

|3.14.07 @ 9:56AM|#

Some would draw this line between rocket launchers and rifles, others would draw it between sling shots and BB guns- no different than the current situation. Many of the "assault weapons" ban proponents would like to include auto loading shotguns, and I doubt that the court would nullify that if it passed with the current second amendment wording.

My point is that the proper process for dealing with technological/societal changes that could not be anticipated when a Constitution was originally drafted is the Amendment process. It is completely improper to blithely allow the courts to say "well, they couldn't have anticipated WMDs, so I guess we'll just make up our own rules".

|3.14.07 @ 9:57AM|#

"Sorry, not buying it. The part about the militia can't be nullified either. That language also has meaning and I just don't believe it is expository."

It is expository by every rule of grammar I can think of. That is the role of an opening clause in that construction. If you eliminate every word preceding the comma, you don't change the imperative portion of the sentence one ounce.

|3.14.07 @ 10:15AM|#

"My point is that the proper process for dealing with technological/societal changes that could not be anticipated when a Constitution was originally drafted is the Amendment process. It is completely improper to blithely allow the courts to say "well, they couldn't have anticipated WMDs, so I guess we'll just make up our own rules"."

Understood, but qualifying "arms" as "small" still leaves it open for wild interpretation (I do understand that you just threw that one out to illustrate your point). To create a meaningful amendment, they would have to draw some specific line in the sand. I don't know where that line would be.

Gilbert Martin|3.14.07 @ 10:30AM|#

" Contrary to what the Court of Appeals said, the Second Amendment does not "affirm" a pre-existing right of self-defense."

The Second Amendment means exactly what it says - the "militia" clause is the DEPENDENT clause of the sentence. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the INDEPENDENT clause of the sentence.

Nothing in an INDPENDENT clause of a sentence is dependent or conditional on anything in a DEPENDENT clause in that sentence.

That's all there is to it.

|3.14.07 @ 10:35AM|#

I don't know where that line would be.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "arms" are traditionally weapons that can be carried and used by one man. Bigger weapons like cannons, or things that explode like bombs and missiles, are ordinance. If those definitions were current in 1789, then the line in the sand is already in the wording of the 2nd.

|3.14.07 @ 10:44AM|#

The guns arent the problem people. It's the secondhand bullets.

|3.14.07 @ 10:46AM|#

If you eliminate every word preceding the comma, you don't change the imperative portion of the sentence one ounce.

Which is to say, everything before the comma is meaningless. They just put that stuff about the militia in there to fulfill a word count requirement I suppose.

|3.14.07 @ 10:47AM|#

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "arms" are traditionally weapons that can be carried and used by one man.

The 1828 definition of Arms.

Cannons are a form of "arms" under that definition.

|3.14.07 @ 10:50AM|#

"It's the secondhand bullets."

Then we just need to ban them in bars and restaurants. For the children, of course.

|3.14.07 @ 10:52AM|#

warren,

What does 'expository' mean in your world? Do you really not understand why dependent clauses are used in the English language?

You can provide clarity by giving AN example A of your reasoning B without making the much stronger case that B is contingent on A.

|3.14.07 @ 10:58AM|#

JasonL
Then why is there no expository language in the other 1-10 amendments?

Dan T.|3.14.07 @ 11:05AM|#

You know, as much as folks worship the 2nd Amendment it is really a very poorly written passage.

We don't know what was meant by "arms", we don't know what was meant by "the right to bear them" and we don't know exactly what "the militia" refers to or how it applies to "the people".

thoreau|3.14.07 @ 11:06AM|#

Let's just posit, at least for the sake of argument, that there is indeed a correct interpretation of the amendment that can be clearly deduced by anybody who understands the historical context and linguistic and legal conventions of the time. Let's also posit, at least for the sake of ego (if not argument) that at least some of the posters on this forum have correctly elucidated this interpretation.

The fact remains that for the rest of us it's kind of a confusing read, and even if we're wrong it's at least an understandable mistake rather than one of those "OMG, what the hell is wrong with you? Isn't it obvious?" mistakes. One or more of you may be right, the rest of us may be wrong, but it would sure be nice if it were amended for the sake of clarity. (Assuming, of course, that the clarified version suited whatever position one holds.)

|3.14.07 @ 11:13AM|#

If the Brady people were smart, they'd go after bullets. All of the sudden, formerly strict constructionists would be finding all sorts of subtle ammunition penumbras (penumbrae?) lurking in the corners of the 2nd Amendment.

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 11:16AM|#

I don't find any language in the first amendment about reporters, church, or politics. Unlike the second amendment that has specific language about a well organized militia

Perhaps this little refresher will help you:

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 11:17AM|#

If the Brady people were smart, they'd go after bullets. All of the sudden, formerly strict constructionists would be finding all sorts of subtle ammunition penumbras (penumbrae?) lurking in the corners of the 2nd Amendment.

If the Brady people had half a brain they would know how to read the Constitution.

|3.14.07 @ 11:22AM|#

Warren,

I've written plenty of papers in my time. To make some points, I've used dependent clauses. If I made every point that way, some would suggest that I was uncreative and that my papers were, well, bad.

There are better and worse structural arguments. For example, I'd need a pretty good reason to believe that 'the people' means something entirely different in the 2nd than it means everywhere else.

Not that any of this really matters. We will either accept in the modern era that human beings have a right to defend themselves, with arms if necessary, or we will decide that self preservation is not a right worth protecting for individuals. It is either the job of law enforcement to tie the hands of every potential victim in America or it isn't.

|3.14.07 @ 11:26AM|#

If the Brady people were smart, they'd go after bullets. All of the sudden, formerly strict constructionists would be finding all sorts of subtle ammunition penumbras (penumbrae?) lurking in the corners of the 2nd Amendment.

You mean like the Campaign Finance people going after money?

|3.14.07 @ 11:28AM|#

Guy,
Cute, let me rephrase;
I don't find any expository language in the first amendment about reporters, church, or politics.

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 11:31AM|#

DC already has a $500/round fine on ammunition. Sadly, freedom is only for the rich there.

So, how long before David can start knee-capping burgulars? (caution to the squeemish, he advocates the Italian way, not the irish way)

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 11:32AM|#

I don't find any expository language in the first amendment about reporters, church, or politics

Quit confusing me with obscure words, I am reloading.

|3.14.07 @ 11:33AM|#

I live in Florida. My state constitution says this (art. 1, sec. 8):

"SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.--

(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."

So, for me, there is no debate over "individual v. collective" rights--we can bear arms for either or both reasons.

Fuck you, gun grabbers.

mediageek|3.14.07 @ 11:36AM|#

"So are you in favor of allowing a market in machine guns, hand-held anti-aircraft missiles, etc? How do you think that would play out?"

Um, actually, there is a thriving legal market in machine guns.

"Which is to say, everything before the comma is meaningless. They just put that stuff about the militia in there to fulfill a word count requirement I suppose."

Why the hangup that just because they list a justification for a right that this means there cannot be other justifications for exercising the same right?

mediageek|3.14.07 @ 11:39AM|#

"If the Brady people were smart, they'd go after bullets."

Actually, they have. A couple of years ago, Ted Kennedy proposed a bill that would have made it illegal to possess rifle ammunition in calibers like .30-30, which is the most ubiquitous deer hunting cartridge in the US.

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 11:43AM|#

henry,

Florida allows me more freedom under my 2nd Amendment permit than my issuing State (TN) does!

Heading off a few things at the pass:

Before anybody pipes up about AK-47s without knowing the first thing about them, I already have a shotgun that uses a modified AK-47 action. Fastest auto-loading shotgun I have ever fired (that list is short). Really great for Skeet shooting!

It is not an issue of "need", I just wanted one and it is perfectly legal for me to own one (or as many more as I wish). I don't "need" 2 'hybrids' either.

It is not a right to hunt, it is a right to keep and bear arms. Oops, if Jacob did not get that point across with all of his big giant graduat school words, there is no hope for those of use who stick with little words like Eric A. Blair did.

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 11:45AM|#

If the Brady people were smart, they'd go after bullets. All of the sudden, formerly strict constructionists would be finding all sorts of subtle ammunition penumbras (penumbrae?) lurking in the corners of the 2nd Amendment.

I did not see an enumerated power given to the federal government for them to regulate ammunition either. Is that one of those secret ones tucked away in a safe with the 100 MPG fuel injection patents that the oil companies are hiding from us?

Gilbert Martin|3.14.07 @ 12:02PM|#

"Let's just posit, at least for the sake of argument, that there is indeed a correct interpretation of the amendment that can be clearly deduced by anybody who understands the historical context and linguistic and legal conventions of the time."

There are plent of quotes by James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, etc. regarding the right to keep and bear arms that make it abundently clear that they understood it to be an individual right.

The "collective" right interpretation is an invention of the 20th century by those who willfully want the Second Amendment to mean something other than it literally says and was intended to mean by those who wrote it.

Kap|3.14.07 @ 12:05PM|#

Understood, but qualifying "arms" as "small" still leaves it open for wild interpretation (I do understand that you just threw that one out to illustrate your point). To create a meaningful amendment, they would have to draw some specific line in the sand. I don't know where that line would be.

OK, how about this line in the sand: one side of that line is "military", the other side "civilian". The military gets any arm, technology, or technique they want, provided it is consistent with our treaty obligations. Nuclear weapons? Check. Eavesdropping on Osama without a warrant? Check. The catch, however, is that they may never turn those arms, technologies, or techniques on any American citizien, anywhere on earth.

On the civilian side lie both the citizenry and the police. The same weaponry is available to both. The police are by definition the force by which the government governs the people; the principle is that in a civilized society there should always be parity between the two. And it is understood by all that if any policeman anywhere shall up the ante weaponry-wise, that weapon is immediately available to the general public.

I have no problem living without full-auto, so long as that is what takes to end the SWAT team abuse.

Any reason you can give for why the police need weapon x is equally valid for the citizenry; they live in the same neighborhoods and face the same threats. In addition, the citizenry has a valid reason for owning weapon x that isn't valid for the police: that it is really effin' cool. Amusing myself on my own nickel is acceptable, but the boys in blue doing so on the taxpayer's nickel isn't.

Full-auto small arms are pretty much useless, anyway; the guys in Iraq rarely set their M4s on "Full".

mediageek|3.14.07 @ 12:08PM|#

"My point is that the proper process for dealing with technological/societal changes that could not be anticipated when a Constitution was originally drafted is the Amendment process. It is completely improper to blithely allow the courts to say "well, they couldn't have anticipated WMDs, so I guess we'll just make up our own rules"."

So, presumably the 1st amendment needs to be updated in light of the development of motion pictures, telephones, radio, television, and the internet?

mediageek|3.14.07 @ 12:10PM|#

"Full-auto small arms are pretty much useless, anyway; the guys in Iraq rarely set their M4s on "Full"."

Having had the privilege to set phasers on Rock 'n' Roll a few times, I have to agree. It's good for a giggle, but not much else.

mediageek|3.14.07 @ 12:11PM|#

"It is not a right to hunt, it is a right to keep and bear arms."

Hey, if Jim Zumbo can figure that out, pretty much anyone should be able to.

:D

|3.14.07 @ 12:14PM|#

I am listening to the Pres talkin with the Mexican pres. about the borders and trade.
1) General Pace would think Bush's position is immoral.
2) We are gonna need them guns.

uncle sam|3.14.07 @ 12:17PM|#

People intrepret things to suit their prejudices and their prejudices allow them to cast ojective interpretations as biased unless the objective interpretation happens to match their prejudice.

IAC, the second amendment acknowledges the right of people to keep and bear arms and the stated justification is the reason the government is prohibited from interfering with that right.

Presumably the main interest of the government would have in prohibiting the right to keep and bear is to prevent the people from being able to resist tyranny by forming an ad hoc militia.

Dan T.|3.14.07 @ 12:29PM|#

Guns really do just make men crazy.

|3.14.07 @ 12:35PM|#

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We the people have both the right and the responsibility to remove the government by any means necessary, up to and including acts of war, if the government becomes so detached from the will of the people that it threatens the well-being of the people.

As scary as that may sound to most of the population, that is the real reason for the 2nd.

Kap|3.14.07 @ 12:41PM|#

Guns really do just make men crazy.

While you were writing that the UPS guy delivered my new EOTech 553.

I'm giggling like a Japanese schoolgirl.

|3.14.07 @ 12:43PM|#

"Guns really do just make men crazy."

Dan T., are you for real, or are you just being a smartass? Because if you are being serious, I get the impression that you've dropped one too many hits of acid.

|3.14.07 @ 12:44PM|#

The second amendment is an anachronism. It is meant to provide the people with a means to protect themselves from their own government. But as you point out, this has not been possible for some time.

Right. I mean, the US is NOT losing the war in Iraq because the people there have weapons, right??? I mean, those people cannot REALLY drive out the most powerful army in the world, can they??????

Of COURSE you can protect yourself from your own government. Why do you think the FedGov has been coming up with all these hypocritical interpretations of the 2nd Ammendment? Do you think they REALLY feel SAFE behind their cannon? Right, sure.

Remember, a government can only exist as long as the have the aquiescence of the people, and an unarmed people will subject themselves more easily to the "protection" of the FedGov. Once people KNOW they can defend themselves from thieves and burglars, they will consider the Gov redundant. THAT is what the FedGov (and the common collectivist/statist) fears.

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 12:58PM|#

OK, how about this line in the sand: one side of that line is "military", the other side "civilian". The military gets any arm, technology, or technique they want, provided it is consistent with our treaty obligations. Nuclear weapons? Check. Eavesdropping on Osama without a warrant? Check. The catch, however, is that they may never turn those arms, technologies, or techniques on any American citizien, anywhere on earth.

Actually, that is written down someplace else too, in federal law. It is the basic arms that an Infantryman would carry. Crew served weapons would be out.

Full auto is quite a waste of ammo. No personal weapon I have ever used worked well as an x caliber fire hose. Is kinda fun thought :)

More importantly, I decided to go with a blue shirt and tie to defend the Republic in today.

mediageek|3.14.07 @ 1:04PM|#

JLM-

Dan T. likes to pop up on threads just to be ugly.

He's kind of like the internet equivalent of herpes.

|3.14.07 @ 1:06PM|#

"Dan T. likes to pop up on threads just to be ugly.

He's kind of like the internet equivalent of herpes."

I knew there was a reason for all those Valtrex commercials lately......

|3.14.07 @ 1:16PM|#

Finally, a starting point.
The Libertarian militia is on.
First recommadation of guns one should have to join the Libertarian militia.
12 guage shotgun. Mossberg 500 or 590 examples.
M1A Springfield rifle or AK47. Under NO circumstance will an AR-15 be accepted.
Any .40 caliber or above handgun. 1911 Browning highly recommanded.
Well, what do you think?

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 1:17PM|#

mediageek,

At least it wasn't Dave W. (don't let that appear here more than 2 times or he will appear)

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 1:23PM|#

Finally, a starting point.
The Libertarian militia is on.
First recommadation of guns one should have to join the Libertarian militia.
12 guage shotgun. Mossberg 500 or 590 examples.
M1A Springfield rifle or AK47. Under NO circumstance will an AR-15 be accepted.
Any .40 caliber or above handgun. 1911 Browning highly recommanded.
Well, what do you think?

Quite excellent! My 20something son has a 12 GA 590, I like it but prefer my Benelli Nova Pump on all counts, especially when I strip it down for cleaning. The Saiga (mentioned earlier in this thread) is quite nice too. But those twisted strand spring thingies are just odd. If I use slugs can I substitute this one for the rifle?

Love the .45 cal. 1911s. I don't have one, yet. Going to go with a ParaOrd. double stack .45 of some model. Leaning toward the 4+" barrels.

Rifle choices sound good too.

mediageek|3.14.07 @ 1:23PM|#

"Well, what do you think?"

The Mossberg shotguns are over rated, and the AR15 is the best current-generation service rifle available.

I'd be willing to entertain the ideas of some of the newer rifles, such as the MagPul Masada or possibly that new .308 bullpup that Kel-Tec intends to introduce.

1911's are nice.

mediageek|3.14.07 @ 1:31PM|#

"Going to go with a ParaOrd. double stack .45 of some model. Leaning toward the 4+" barrels."

If I had the dough, I'd snatch up an STI Eagle or STI Edge in a heartbeat. Downright awesome pistols.

As such, I'll probably have to make do with a Glock.

Kap|3.14.07 @ 1:31PM|#

M1A Springfield rifle or AK47. Under NO circumstance will an AR-15 be accepted.

Get off my lawn you damn kids!

Fine, I'll go take my soon-to-be-EOTech'd Stag Arms Model 2 and play somewhere else.

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 1:40PM|#

This thread is sorely missing gun pr0n! I already 'blog hoe'd my pr0n on the last 2 human rights threads. Let's see y'all's!

mediageek|3.14.07 @ 1:43PM|#

I don't own a camera. :(:(:(:(

Lusting after a Nikon D70 something fierce.

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 1:56PM|#

mediageek,

I just used the phone in my camera.

I need to get back to work defending all of these freedom hating Commies who seem to have run away as soon as it got good.

Kap|3.14.07 @ 1:58PM|#

Lemme get home first, our HR department takes a rather dim view on doing the Yea baby, you're a tiger! in my cubicle. Especially when it's a bunch of guns. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I vote we name our militia "The Feline Herd".

So far the most interesting part of the 553's manual, on the inside cover:

DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Destroy the sight's operability by removing the battery cap, batteries, and then crushing the battery cap. Destroy this document by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.

Reading that made me feel very special.

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 2:04PM|#

Dang Kap, you so ROCK baby!

Idunna know about that team name though . . .

For ubersuper human rights news I suggest one of my buddies in Knoxville, Say Uncle. You ought to see what is going on in Richmond with a gun-hating 'reporter'.

mediageek|3.14.07 @ 2:14PM|#

"I just used the phone in my camera."

Normally I would, but my old-ass LG camera phone stopped being a camera phone and is now just a plain ol' phone as of about two weeks ago.

In lieu of taking my own gun pics, I'll just post a link to an image by the most excellent Oleg Volk.

mediageek|3.14.07 @ 2:16PM|#

"You ought to see what is going on in Richmond with a gun-hating 'reporter'."

So far he's publicly pissed himself because DHL delivered a box of packing slips to his front door.

And they call gun-owners paranoid...

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 2:16PM|#

Er, I meant Roanoke, not Richmond in an earlier post.

|3.14.07 @ 2:18PM|#

While you were writing that the UPS guy delivered my new EOTech 553.

Those things are fabulous, no question.

Going to go with a ParaOrd. double stack .45 of some model.

Love mine. Got the full 5" barrel. I really like the way the thicker handle mellows the recoil.

I gots no problem with AR-15s. Since I am unlikely to need to hump several hundred rounds long distances, though, and don't particularly mind recoil, I see no reason to use the .223 when I can get the same gun in God's Own Caliber, .308.

All of the sudden, formerly strict constructionists would be finding all sorts of subtle ammunition penumbras (penumbrae?) lurking in the corners of the 2nd Amendment.

Anyone who thinks the 2A refers only to guns, and not to ammunition, is a moron.

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 2:18PM|#

Awsome link!

Now, I need to get back to work to keep the invasion away. No, not the one that is already here that we can see in this thread :)

|3.14.07 @ 2:25PM|#

Wading in ...

1911's are great if you don't mind spending thousands of dollars for a single stacked magazine weapon that still won't fire with a fraction of the reliability of most weapons.

Mossbergs are rattle traps. Get ye a Remington 870 if you want a pump.

I've yet to be convinced, after loooong hours looking at it, that .40 or .45 get you an actual measurable advantage of any sort over 9mm. The calculation seems to be: bigger, heavier platform, fewer bullets, worse shot recovery, lower service life in exchange for ... I'm not sure. I like .45 better than .40 by a long shot though. I've measured it on a shot timer, I only get 2 rounds of .40 on a target for every three I can fire of nine in the same time.

The AR is the most versatile platform out there right now. M1s are over priced and don't have decent optic options, and AKs aren't remotely as accurate. I like AKs for the reliability, but egad their sights and barrels are horrible. A great compromise is the SIG 550 series, but who wants to shell out the cash for that?

Guy Montag|3.14.07 @ 10:42PM|#

Where did Warty and all of the Wiki Commies go? All you need for total gun controp is to eliminate the National Guard, right?

LarryA|3.16.07 @ 1:11PM|#

First recommadation of guns one should have to join the Libertarian militia.
12 guage shotgun. Mossberg 500 or 590 examples.
M1A Springfield rifle or AK47. Under NO circumstance will an AR-15 be accepted.
Any .40 caliber or above handgun. 1911 Browning highly recommanded.

For the militia I'd prefer the M-14 over the M1A, and I have an M1A. Either should be supplied with bayonet.

I also have a .223 Ranch Rifle that works pretty well. The M-16 has evolved into a serious contender, particularly for jungle/urban use. But the M-16 and especially the newer shorter ARs are pathetic when it comes to bayonet work.

Out past 300 yards, of course, .308 rules. Until it's worth going to .50 BMG. Decent militia oughta have a couple of those handy.

A shotgun's a good idea. Mine's a 20GA though. Can I BYOA?

Handguns? I'll carry my Glock 30, and bring my 1911 along. (They share ammo.)

I've yet to be convinced, after loooong hours looking at it, that .40 or .45 get you an actual measurable advantage of any sort over 9mm.

The nine works as well as .45 in a self-defense load provided you can use good hollowpoint ammo. With hardball the .45 ACP has a much better record. If we are looking at a militia situation ammo resupply has to be a consideration.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements