Posted on 04/04/2013 10:31:15 AM PDT by neverdem
The answers are far from simple, and lie in American constitutional and military history.
A key narrative in the push to ban assault weapons is that they are exceptionally powerful, firing rounds with a special capacity to pierce body armor and pulverize human bodies. The AR-15 infamously used in the Sandy Hook massacre fires the same 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition as its cousin the M16. The NATO designation seems to validate Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and companys fear that these are military weapons which do not belong in the hands of civilians. The language of the Second Amendment and historical context in which it was conceived fundamentally undermine this logic:
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.
The Bill of Rights was adopted as a precaution against tyrannical government, with the Second Amendment democratizing military force. The Framers believed that citizens should have access to the military hardware they themselves would use to defend the homeland against tyranny, foreign or domestic, as members of militias. Whether this standard applies to artillery (reasonable persons may differ), it surely includes firearms. If anything, an originalist interpretation of the Constitution privileges the right to keep and bear arms suitable for militia service.
Progressives counter that the homeland has long been protected by a standing army. In their view, the right to keep and bear arms was confirmed strictly in the interest of military preparedness. No less than the Father of the Constitution expressly warned against a standing army. James Madison spent many months before the Constitutional Convention studying the history of governments. As he said to that body:
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The only thing preventing the citizens from owning tanks and heavy munitions IS the IMPLIED agreement between the citizens and milliraty RE: posse comitatus that the millitary WILL NEVER BE USED DIRECTLY AGAINST THE CITIZENS WITHIN THE BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES.
The citizens should be able to own any firearm that is owned by the forces that INTERFACE with them on a daily basis, such as any sorta equipment that the Local Police, county sheriff, state police.
If the Millitary EVER violate Posse Comitatus, then I would say the citizenry have the implied RIGHT to ANY millitary equipment that the Army/Nave/Marines/Air Force/Coast Guard/etc... have. This should be seen as a re-inforcement factor to keeping Posse Comitatus intact.... Because violating it opens the can of worms saying the citizens can start stocking up on howitzers and nuclear warheads.
At least that is my interpretation on HOW IT SHOULD BE!!!
“Now they had SAW machine guns. I think SAW stands for Squad Assault Weapon. It replaced the M60.”
Squad Automatic Weapon. M249. It didn’t really replace the M60. The M240B replaced the M60. They’re fun as long as Uncle Sam is buying the ammo.
I don’t want an M60 man. I want a friggin BAR. Them things kick arse.
.308 and 7.62x51 are effectively the same round - outer dimensions are identical, but the casing of the 7.62 is thicker, leading to higher pressures. These are both VERY different from the fable .30-’06 round used by the Garand and many, many boltie hunting rifles.
“All the fricken Democrats and RINOs who wish to bask in the security of communism should move to Russia or China or Cuba. Leave freedom for the true Americans who can handle it!!”
I believe that when the 1776 solution commences they will all be running for the Canadian border. :=)
Thanks for the correction. That was after my experience. Every infantry squad to which I was assigned in Vietnam had a M60.
In the early 1980s at Forts Benning and Bragg I still saw just M60s. That doesn't mean units were not making the transition.
In the NY Army National Guard during 1983 to 1988 it was still the M60. After that I was in medical school, then the medical corps.
One ?
Thanks for the links. Both were about as good as you get on youtube, IMHO.
Well, I don’t have one. I think it’s bad karma to buy Commie guns. Probably that Tokarev I saw with neck hairs stuck to the muzzle. ;)
You are perfectly, exactly, Constitutionally correct to the letter and spirit of the law.
I would say that with the exception of some specialized varmint and big game rounds, almost all modern firearms have military origins to some extent.
The Remington .223 or 5.56x45 basically has its’ origins as a varmint cartridge, and was never designed as a “man killer.”
To my way of thinking, we should be repealing most gun laws and not passing new ones. The ATF should be done away with after the crap they pulled at Ruby Ridge, Waco and Fast & Furious.
I should be able to own anything that’s not considered to be a crew-served weapon.
If it were only that simple, Jim.
They can’t stand the thought that there are free men and women anywhere on the planet. It’s what Government types do. It’s what they’ve always done. It’s what they will always do. They are incapable of being anything else at all. Their firstinstinct is to meddle in the lives of others. Their last instinct is to meddle in the lives of others. Every instinct in between is to meddle in the lives of others.
Sending them someplace else would accomplish nothing. They’d plan the destruction of freedom from afar. It’s the fact that you can “handle” freedom that they hate.
“The AR-15 has NEVER been a weapon of war.
I am afraid it will be soon, though.
I want one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.