Is this the same Jeff Alworth who a few weeks back wrote the "Dems, go for low-hanging fruit" post, urging Democats to table our personal pet projects in the interest of tackling the larger social agenda?

I guess that attitude didn't last long. Pity.

Jeff, guns are going to be an issue only if anti-2nd Amendment Democrats make them an issue. By making it an issue, Democrats will lose popular support and the votes that allow them push the progressive agenda.

One thing in your post is very telling: Zombo wasn't careful about making a distinction between automatic and semi-automatic guns... One very good reason Zombo might not have mentioned fully-automatic weapons is that those have been effectively banned for 70 years. Did you know that? It doesn't sound like you did; which is one of the reasons the pro-2nd Amendment people (and don't call yourself one, please--the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to own hunting gear) get nervous around people pushing for gun control--the pro-control people are often ignorant or unclear about what types of weapons they are talking about banning (what IS an assault weapon anyway?) and about which gun-owners they intend to turn into overnight felons.

Please educate yourself on this issue (and the actual connections between gun ownership and crime--which are not as cut and dry as you imply) before you feel compelled to write more about it. Better yet, leave your pet issues on the shelf and GO FOR LOW-HANGING FRUIT (as a wise man once said in these very pages.)

Because, if they're merely pro-hunter, it won't be enough; the gun nuts will be gunning for them.

"Gun nuts." Nice. Nothing quite as effective as labeling people who disagree with you, is there? And it's easier than learning something about their point of view.

Zombo was particularly stupid in what he wrote about "assault weapons". He also managed to throw in another piece of stupidity about the 2nd Amendment - hunting.

If you can manage to be that stupid on structure in my business, buildings fall down and doctors kill people. This wasn't just a slip it was massively stupid.

First an assault weapon is capable of full automatic fire and has been subject to restriction of ownership in the US since the 1930's.

Second, what most people call assault weapons are such simply out of cosmetic concerns, they function like any other semi-automatic rifle. They are not machine guns.

Third, most states have magazine capacity regulations for hunting, making in most cases an "assault weapon" no different than any other semi-auto. Except they're too low power and too small caliber.

Fourth, hunting has not squat to do with the 2nd Amendment, the literature of the time only tangentially notes firearms' utility in hunting.

So, we have a "respected life long pro-gun writer" making the stupidest assertions that directly bolster the people who'd stomp on a right that they have absolutely no control over and you wonder why a sh** storm erupts? Banning guns because of what they look like? Guns that feature in a vanishingly small number of crimes? Fear of nothing? CA banned them and took them, that's not irrational fear, it's a demonstated fact of who and what these people are.

Yes, the NRA has gotten stupidly Right when all they should have been concerned with was the 2nd & shooting safety & other concerns. Jeff, it's only a small stupid slip if you don't know how the "game" is being played, what the stakes are, and who the players are. There is not one single piece of the BOR that you'd allow to be played with in this manner without holy hell erupting.

Zak

I agree with every post you make, but I don't think there is any reason to attack Jeff. I would encourage more BlueOregon main pagers to post on issues that spawn a discussion among Democrats.

These Gun posts always turn into excellent discussions, keep them coming. But I'm still waiting for someone to post something about all these tax-increases and Nanny-State bills that the Oregon D's are trying to push through.

"I'm still waiting for someone to post something about all these tax-increases and Nanny-State bills that the Oregon D's are trying to push through"

why not write a guest column?

Well I am neither a gun nut (I own zero) or a hunter, but I don't agree with Zombo....I think we need another category.

Jeff's a big boy, and he knows he has my respect, even when we disagree. He's one of the better writers around blogging. Ordinarily, even when I disagree, I can follow how he got where he went, not this time. Jeff is not a Foe to guns, but sometimes a little more "reasonable" than maybe is merited.

You see TH the problem with "reasonable" is things like the CA ban and then confiscation of guns, the NYNY & DC gun laws, and the expired assault weapon ban.

There are those who have absolutely no idea what the "assault weapon" uproar is about. Cosmetic bans are beyond stupid, but there's a more insidious element, the function that makes an "assault weapon" work is auto-loading, firing it loads another round in firing position. That is exactly what a revolver does, and a large percentage of all firearms. Nobody that pays any attention to this issue is exactly trusting of the gun-control faction.

Look at it this way folks, the Democrats are back up (some) after quite awhile in the woods, Parties can come back, Rights do not. People know this, they'll vote that narrow interest of Rights before their own economic and social good. Look at the Religious Right for an example of people voting against their own economic interests, hugely against.

You bet I'm scared spitless that the Democrats are going to sacrifice the economic and social good of this country over something stupid and blatantly un-Constitutional. I'm going to get little of the left that I want from the Democrats, but I'd get squat from the Repubs.

I'm in the same place as Chuck and Pat. Chuck can testify that I'm into guns--I particularly like his gun posts on his blog. I do hunt, and have done so regularly, especially since the son has decided that he misses our old hunting days when he was a kid and wants to go back out there.

I'm not as obsessed about guns as some of those "gun nut" sorts are who firmly believe that they've gotta do concealed carry under all circumstances and have their homes set up to be mini armed fortresses (against what? In some cases I think those folks have a tenuous grip on reality).

However. I don't endorse gun control; never have. When I was a young teen at home alone because my father worked swing shift and my mother was taking education classes to keep her teaching certification, I had a dog and a gun to protect me (I lived in a rough semi-rural area). The parts of the gun were kept apart, but I knew where everything was and had been explicitly taught where they were and how to put them together and used them. Never needed to do that.

I also enjoy plinking and testing out the feel of a nice new weapon.

But I'm not about to join the NRA, and I'm a raging liberal populist progressive Dem.

So what does that make me? Certainly not a "gun nut;" but I'm not about gun control either. And I'm a lifetime, currently urban, blue Democrat.

If you're going to defend the man, could you at least have the decency to spell his name correctly? It's Zumbo, not "Zombo."

"The Second Amendment does not state that we have the right to keep and bear sporting goods." Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper

"It's the right to bear arms--not the right to bare hands." 45superman

Guys, the man's name is "Zumbo" not "Zombo." You're about a foggy on the rest of your facts too. Don't make a paper tiger out of the NRA. They were actually very slow to pick up on this. This lynching was pure Internet. The NRA had next to nothing to do with with it except for piling on once his other sponsors dumped him. And contrary to your paranoid fantasies, there is no "NRA orthodoxy" that is being beamed into the heads of "gun nuts" while they sleep. You give the NRA so much power with your fantasies about them.

For so many people who claim to be gun enthusiasts I'm surprised by the lack of knowledge that has been demonstrated in the comments.

After reading Jim Zombo's article, it is clear to see he is writing about assault rifles, not assault weapons. There is no real definition for assault weapons, a term that is often used to meet political ends. So let's stick to what's relevant. Assault rifles, on the other hand, have an actual definition. Even Mr. Zombo himself seems to be confused when he talks about assault rifles:

"The guides on our hunt tell me that the use of AR and AK rifles have a rapidly growing following among hunters, especially prairie dog hunters. I had no clue."

Commercial AR-15s lack selective firing, meaning they do not fall under the category of an assault rifle. To qualify as an assault rifle a weapon must meet all of the five conditions: 1. Carbine sized individual weapon, intended to be fired from the shoulder. 2. Selective fire. 3. Locked breech fire. 4. Uses intermediate powered cartridge. 5. Ammunition is supplied through a large-capacity box (ex. magazine).

Personally, for someone who has hunted and comes from a family of sporting hunters, I would happen to agree with Mr. Zombo that assault rifles have no place in hunting.

More on assault rifles.

Jeff, there's a little historical inaccuracy in your statement about gun nuts, the fight was picked by the other side. They used manipulated statistics, fear, and etc(all the BushCo tools), to get where they wanted to go. Now in the face of successful lying, cheating, and propagandizing the folks affected go their backs up.

Lemme play those games with the First and tell me how many Firstie Nuts will come out of the woodwork. It's not nuts. I'll agree that turning your house into a fort is pretty silly, but this stuff about ammo is crap. Most hunting rounds (not "assault rifle"-usually not) will zip police body armour. I have and shoot guns that will make kindling out of advanced body armour, no special rounds, just velocity and weight. Hunting rounds. Unregulated gun shows?? The trunk of that car right down the street ain't regulated.

There's no need for this fight to occur, it's on the other side to STFU. Nobody is trying to make you buy a gun.

In my first comment, I messed up entering my URL.

Also, Syd is absolutely right about the NRA having little, if anything, to do with the tsunami of outrage over Zumbo's demonization of so-called "assault weapons." That was us--the "gun nuts" you refer to so disparagingly (I prefer "Bill of Rights nuts," myself)--the NRA belatedly dragged itself into action because they didn't want to be left too far behind by the true activists in the fight for gun rights.

Chuck Butcher is absolutely correct about all of his points, as well.

Thanks, Chuck, for pointing out what our fellow progressives fail to remember time and again:

The Second Amendment is not about hunting rights. It is not about the right to defend yourself against a foreign army. It is not about the right to defend yourself against criminals. These are by-products.

However... Even though most gun owners are of sound mind, there are certifiable "gun-nuts" out there. And they would do well to remember that the Second Amendment applies to Congress limiting the bearing of arms... not state legislatures.

I'm not going to re-hash this here, go look at Blue Steel Democrats or Chuck for ... (click 2nd Ammendment in Labels), it's a dependent clause - see a grammar handbook.

One note, EVERYBODY wants to forget the 14th Amendment - yep, civil rights, yep, all rights to everybody everywhere in US.

Sawed off shotguns are a no-no, but only at Fed Appeal level, no Supreme on it, so it's a law...but. It went to Supreme, petitioner deceased, sent back - moot. Machine guns require a Federal Tax Stamp - to get the stamp, background check, essentially an FFL, & govt free to inspect weapon at anytime anywhere (bye bye 4th A protections), oh yeah, bunch o' money. I don't want one that bad.

Essentially everybody is afraid of court fights, nobody wants their head stepped on and the Supremes are scared spitless of taking one - they don't want to rule on it and they won't if there's a weasle out.

Here's the sticky part, if they were to rule against the 2nd they risk it being put into operation, if they rule for it there'll be whiney backlash (anti-s aren't armed - so whine is all they get)

For all the big outfits crying - Brady, NRA, ad nauseum, they're happier at status quo, big money raiser, lots of directorships etc salaries, advertising $s, hell, they're each other's best friends. You could take them all out and drown them for all of me, I'd still be armed... No, I'm not kidding about the "still armed" part.

If you think I'm kidding about status quo, this could be taken to the Supremes at damn near anytime, there are plenty of grounds for both sides, but it doesn't.

the NRA had next to nothing to do with with it except for piling on

So the NRA is just an opportunistic, right-wing political organization? That sounds about right. Sort of a Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson for gun fanatics rolled into one.

I never encountered a gun nut. In fact, in the 70s, there weren't really any. Everyone had a rifle in the rack in their truck, but this wasn't a political statement--it was just life.

My gun safety course, taught by the NRA, said we should keep guns locked up separately from their ammunition to prevent anyone (i.e. kids) from using them without permission. That was before they were taken over by right wing ideologues who saw the opportunity to use the organization for political purposes.

Most hunting rounds (not "assault rifle"-usually not) will zip police body armour. I have and shoot guns that will make kindling out of advanced body armour, no special rounds, just velocity and weight. Hunting rounds.

For hunting what? This is where the gun fanatic part starts. Is there any reasonable need for anyone to have a weapon that will penetrate body armour? I think the answer is obviously no. Are there people who want such weapons? Sure. But they don't need them to go hunting.

Except they're too low power and too small caliber.

You have serious problems if you think they are "too low power and too small caliber" to shoot prairie dogs - which is what he was talking about them being used for. I guess anything that leaves the animal recognizable must be under-powered in your estimation.

Lets be clear there are hundreds of thousands of hunters out there who have absolutely nothing to fear from reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. But their numbers are declining as owning a gun becomes more and more an extremist political statement.

The NRA and the fanatics it panders to eventually are going to find themselves politically irrelevant. And they know it. They are now trying to remove requirements that kids get gun safety education in order to get a hunting license. That's irresponsible, but they are fanatics.

I don't know anyone who really supports the "right to bear arms". It certainly has nothing to do with whether you should be allowed to hunt prairie dogs with assault rifles. Which is what this debate is about.

I think that modern punctuation would place #2 like this:

Neither a well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free state) nor the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed.

Lynn Truss would be proud. (I hope!)

A couple of angles that haven't yet been discussed...

"Lets be clear there are hundreds of thousands of hunters out there who have absolutely nothing to fear from reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. But their numbers are declining as owning a gun becomes more and more an extremist political statement."

One major slam against Mr Zumbo was the 'united we stand, divided we fall arguement'. A big part of the backlash was that Zumbo played into the hands of the "reasonable restrictions" arguement. Especially when the "reasonable" is legislated by some pretty ignorant people (maybe not Ross, but others commenting have shown their true ignorance). Do responsible hunters and gun owners want people who are pretty ignorant defining "reasonable" restrictions?

Also, not quoted was Mr. Zumbo's 'terrorist' word useage. (I don't have the exact quote handy, put I did read Mr Zumbo's entire post, as well as the first couple hundred comments, before it was taken down. If anybody has access to the actual quote, it might be worth reposting here.)He slandered many law abiding gun owners (not gun nuts) who happen to use rifles that look like (but don't function the same as) rifles that terrorists use. Equating lawful people with terrorists was not a smart thing for a gun advocate to do. (Hint: It would also be a pretty foolish thing to do for somebody who was not a gun advocate.) Just 'cause the girl next door dresses like Paris Hilton does not make her Paris Hilton; same for guns.

The thing that always bothers me about this debate is how it reveals that there are two disturbing large groups of people in this country who really shouldn't be trusted with guns or a vote: The gun fetishists who really believe the 2nd amendment is the only thing that matters in our Constitution, and the anti-gun closeted authoritarians who actually believe the three-pronged mission of the A-T-F makes sense. I have a funny feeling these are also the kinds of folks the founders never thought should be trusted with a gun or a vote either.

Kari, Since you're not prohibited from owning a full auto, just serious hoops, I'd put it in the catagory of "FIRE!." The pray and spray nature makes them very problematic.

As for Ross, if I want to shoot a Kodiak I don't want to have to argue with him afterward. And yes, 45-70 govt, 500gr at 2150 fps will blast advanced body armour and it's not too much gun for a Kodiak. So, now you know what it's for and what it can actually do and so what? A 30-06 will go right through a cop vest and I use that for deer. I'd like to have a 50 Barret, just 'cause. Just because it's immaculate at what it does, but I also don't want to pay that much for one or for the 50 machine gun rounds it shoots - single shot. I also might like a Ferrari, even though it can go 200mph and I have no rational reason except it's so good at what it does. None of your business is a nice way to put it.

The AR15 has become the rifle of choice for National Match Highpower shooting. It is very good at long range shooting, Nat Match last position is 600yd open sights. That's also varmiting range. Other varmit guns tend to be 22-250, 25-06 and these things are screamers but generally bolt action. Which means exactly what to the prairie dog? It gets splashed, pretty much the same result an AR15 produces or a 45-70 (except 600yd ain't happening). You don't skin 'em and eat 'em or make jackets out of them, you make them dead. I don't think an AR15 is a good deer gun, hunter's choice.

OK, hunting & the 2nd. This seems to keep coming up, the 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting, it's NOT about the badguy in the living room, it IS about your relationship with your government. They will not be the only ones armed. The literature of the time was clear that the benefit to hunting was entirely tangential and simply a by-product of the 2nd. Don't hang your 2nd hat on hunting. That's the most disposable of the arguments, thanks anyhow. Don't miss the 14th A, it's important.

I'd say extremist is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose you think you ought to have freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion? Pretty extremist views, BushCo says so. I'll bet you figure you ought to be secure in your home from unreasonable search and seizure also. Nah. Extremist nonsense - BushCo says so. I know you don't think you have a right to appear in court and face your accusers. That's certainly extremism, AJ Gonzales has spoken, it's all about security. Apparently you're an extremist, also - you just don't like my rights, so when I yell I'm an extremist. Believe me, I yell about the rest as well. Loudly. I call them traitors in public, very public. Damn, just did it again.

Mr Zumbo knows how to write, he's paid to write, and he wrote for a publication which owes its existence to the 2nd A and he made a gift to opponents of the 2nd in a particularly stupid fashion about issues he knows. His audience didn't like it, the people who pay him didn't like it, he lost his job. That happens when people pay you for a product, they don't want something else. If I pay you $300 to build me a pair of logging boots and I get sandals I'm going to be pissed, particularly when I can't get my money back.

Thanks for your time and attention, Chuck - gun nut, drag racer, Lefty, EVERY DAMN BODIES' civil liberties count sorta guy. (and extremist about it)

Kari,

If you truly want to learn the answers to your question, go read Kim DuToit, You will not find a more articulate pro-gun writer anywhere. The linked article will explain the difference between owning a firearm and a true WMD.

I also might like a Ferrari, even though it can go 200mph and I have no rational reason except it's so good at what it does. None of your business is a nice way to put it.

And your daughter can collect beanie babies if she wants, that's none of my business either.

it IS about your relationship with your government. They will not be the only ones armed.

Right. If you want defend your freedom against the government you need rpg's, high explosives, heavy artillery and anti-aircraft missiles.

You have about as much chance of defending your freedom against the government with your hunting rifle as you would "armed" with a bb gun or beanie babies. You are defending your right to have toys.

he made a gift to opponents of the 2nd in a particularly stupid fashion about issues he knows.

What does banning a weapon for shooting prairie dogs have to do with the second amendment? The answer is nothing at all.

And yes, 45-70 govt, 500gr at 2150 fps will blast advanced body armour and it's not too much gun for a Kodiak.

Ammunition designed to be most effective at killing a bear by spreading out in soft tissue is not going to penetrate body armor. Cop-killer bullets do the job with a standard .38 revolver (I don't know what the smallest weapon you would need), not a 50 caliber rifle.

If there are gun fanatics who think its cool to have ammunition that will penetrate police body armor, maybe they should take up a different hobby. Because the idea that the constitution was written to protect hobbyists is absurd.

Right. If you want defend your freedom against the government you need rpg's, high explosives, heavy artillery and anti-aircraft missiles.

This is a myth.

Ever hear of Waco? Had the occupants not had small arms, the government would have snuck in, killed a bunch of people, and left and you'd have not heard about a thing.

Small arms increase the economic considerations of the government's actions. Any action taken runs the risk of Americans shooting back. Shots fired make the news. The news allows you and me to see what's happening. Would you vote for someone who ordered tanks and F-18's on a neighborhood?

Resisting the government doesn't mean fighting the military. As a former Marine, we were always instructed never to use our force on Americans. I doubt that's changed since I got out in the 90's.

And even if it did, so what? The Soviets had one hell of a time in Afghanistan because the Afghans had small arms and lots of them.

Ammunition designed to be most effective at killing a bear by spreading out in soft tissue is not going to penetrate body armor.

This is also incorrect. Ammunition is designed to withstand the initial impact and then spread out. It's why I have semi-jacketed bullets. I want it to hit something, go in a little, then mushroom out causing the most amount of damage. FMJ's help in this regard with the jacket absorbing the initial brunt, hence why a 30.06 will poke holes in standard armor.

And can you find me a link to the .38 "Cop Killer" bullets actually piercing a vest? I'm assuming you're talking about teflon coated bullets which assist in lubricating the barrel of the gun and have nothing to do with piercing ability (another common myth). So far, I've yet to hear of a cop getting killed by a .38 special (which have a hard enough time penetrating thick leather) through a BPV.

Ever hear of Waco?

Yes, and I don't recall that turning out so well for the "freedom fighters." Its a very good example of not defending your freedom with small arms. I think the Whiskey Rebellion killed the founders' fascination with citizen's defending their own freedom.

Resisting the government doesn't mean fighting the military.

Yes, it does. Who do you think you are going to be shooting at with your pop-guns? Soldiers take orders and they are trained to shoot back. US troops have, in fact, fired on Americans even when they weren't shot at first.

And can you find me a link to the .38 "Cop Killer" bullets actually piercing a vest?

The argument that one needs special body armor piercing bullets to go deer hunting is absurd. I have yet to see a deer in body armor.

"They don't really do that" argument seems to be that there is no such thing as a body armor piercing ammunition. So which is it, necessary for killing deer and bears or it doesn't really exist?

Frankly the details of this argument bore me so I am perfectly willing to believe that legislators might mistakenly ban ammunition based on bad or incomplete information. I doubt that would do great harm to anyone.

When someone tells me they can't hunt deer because they can't buy ammo that will kill one, I'll start to consider this a real issue. Until then, its a bunch of gun fanatics and hobbyists hiding behind the constitution.

And I am not sure how it is relevant to the issue of banning some weapons when killing prairie dogs.

Nothing like a good debate over guns or aborton to get people all worked up. Nothing ever gets solved and everyone goes away angry.

“Assault rifles” are being demonized by many politicians, media-types, and anti-gun folk who actually have no idea what it is they are demonizing. Most people who hear the truth are quite surprised to find out just how off-base and factually wrong these nay-sayers are.

Assault rifles such as the Sturmgewehr 44 were first developed by the Germans in WWII, and further refined by the Russians immediately post-war as defined by the AK-47. America’s version, the M-4, wasn’t too bad either.

They tried to meet the needs of the soldiers who were actually fighting so the weapons tended to be:

--lightweight --of a smaller caliber --easy to maintain --rugged --Shot from the hip if necessary --fairly accurate out to a reasonable distance. --Could be fired in three different modes, single, 3-shot, and full automatic.

Any extra metal or wood was left off the gun, and if the part wasn’t needed it wasn’t on the gun. This meant that often the stock (the part that goes against the shooter’s cheek) was just a bare outline of metal. This “look” is often consider bizarre by those who never thought about the “why” of it.

Now, being lightweight created it’s own set of problems.

The foremost problem is that the barrel was a skinny, short little thing, which meant that it got pretty hot quickly. This is not good. Even a little .22 rabbit-rifle heats up with enough shots fired just at the firing range, and a soldier didn’t want to be worrying about a hot barrel. That can cause many bad things to happen including ammo accidentally firing at random. To minimize that a “shroud” was used over the barrel, with ventilating holes to carry away the heat and protect the soldiers hands. It didn’t add anything to the gun except to keep the barrel cooler when firing multiple rounds in a short time.

Often a flash-suppressor was added, not to keep the enemy from knowing where the fire is coming from, but to keep the soldier’s nighttime eyesight protected. The enemy would have plenty of notice about where the fire is coming from since the bullets would be coming directly towards him.

Soldiers don’t like humping heavy things; they have enough to carry anyway so the smaller the rounds (bullets) the more the soldier could pack. One can never have too much ammo, but it doesn’t do any good if you’ve left it all back at the barracks.

This meant the majority of the assault riffles were chambered for the .223 round. That means the width of the bullet is only .223 of a full inch. The significance of this?

Well, the most popular round in the world, and the one that is used to take more rabbits and squirrels than any other (because that’s about all it’s powerful enough for) is the .22 Long Rifle.

The .22 LR bullet is a little thing. Itty bitty. Imagine something less than a quarter inch in diameter. And the dreaded assault riffle bullet is three one thousandth of an inch bigger in diameter. Think of it like this – you have to drive 220 miles to get to your friends house. But he’s moving three miles further away in a month. Will now driving 223 miles make much of a difference overall?

The actual .223 bullet really isn’t that much larger than a fat grain of rice.

So how does such a small bullet help the soldier? Because the .223 is put into a larger cartridge with more powder it comes out of the barrel much faster than a normal .22. That creates more energy when it hits someone, but the small size of the bullet has always kept it from being considered a sure mankiller. In Vietnam a Marine coined the term “poodle killer” for the .223 and that name has stuck even to today. That was okay with the soldiers because in reality a wounded soldier on the other side was better than a dead soldier. A dead soldier was forgotten about but a wounded one needed on average four other soldiers to take care of him.

Because of the way the gun was normally carried on patrol it was good to have a way to immediately bring it into play… thus the stock and grip were designed to fire, if necessary, from the hip. Couldn’t hit a darn thing with it that way but when in combat the enemy doesn’t necessarily stick their head up to check your accuracy. So it worked in a fashion. Kept the enemies heads down until a soldier could get into a better position behind cover.

The rifle didn’t have to be super accurate and it wasn’t. Especially at a distance. Combat between individual soldiers is just not that far apart. If you can barely see the guy it’s a job for artillery, not rifles.

The main distinguishing feature, though, was it’s ability to “select” fire. The shooter could choose between, with one pull of the trigger, to shoot one shot, three shots, or full automatic which meant the gun would fire all the rounds attached to it. Some magazines held five rounds, some ten, twenty, thirty, and even a hundred.

The truth is though, very few of the assault rifles are ever fired full auto by trained troops. The reason is because they just can’t hit anything. Inside a barn they would have trouble hitting the sides of the barn. The barrel wants to rise with every bullet fired, and unless one is a super-sized Rambo the barrel WILL rise into the air while it’s firing.

Virtually every company commander in Vietnam had a standing rule: an automatic $50.00 fine for any troop who shot his gun at full auto without an express order from the commander. This was the days when $50 was almost a months pay for these guys.

There were some extremely limited times when full auto was helpful, and then one was glad they had it.

Our guys in Iraq are under similar orders about firing full auto. It’s just not a productive way to fight a war or kill people.

Why is the full auto bit stressed. Because these guns are NOT what is being sold today, but yet it is what every one screams about when they say “assault weapons.”

The guns sold to the civilian market that “look like” the military weapons all fire ONE SHOT at a time, just like virtually every other gun on the market. It’s nothing special, and it’s the way civilian rifles have been made for almost 140 years.

Buying a newly-manufactured full-fledged automatic assault weapon has been illegal since 1986, and unless one has jumped through sufficient federal government hoops it is also highly illegal to buy one that was made before 1986.

The process to obtain an older automatic weapon is complicated and expensive, and includes fingerprints by the Feds and an exorbitant federal transfer tax on each full auto weapon.

“Machine guns” and “automatic weapons” are simply not bought down at Walmart. Complaining about someone waking into a store and legally buying fully automatic weapons is akin to complaining about how circuses mistreat unicorns.

Those who talk about “machine guns” blasting away at rabbits or deer are either highly ignorant of the subject or just doing it to demagogue the discussion.

What the anti-gunners mean when they say "assault weapons" are guns that are made to “look like” the real ones. And that’s it. There are a number of variations in manufacturers, and model names, but not a single one of them would be found on a battlefield. The real soldiers would laugh at them.

One can take a little .22 rifle which looks like a harmless little plinking rifle that wouldn’t do any great damage to a armadillo and for a couple of hundred dollars buy all kinds of replacement parts and add-ons such as the barrel-shroud and flash-suppressor that would make it indistinguishable (from the outside) to an “assault rifle.” Yet, internally it would be the same little ol’ .22.

What many in the anti-gun movement are trying to do is to get one to believe that if you put racing stripes and decals on your dad’s Oldsmobile you can take it out to the NASCAR track and compete equally.

Yes, many of the look-alikes fire the same .223 round as the military ones do, but this is considered an underpowered round by the civilian world. It’s certainly less powerful than what Uncle Bob’s deer hunting rifle fires. And, by the way, it does make a perfectly fine hunting gun if used on the right game. Many people think rifles chambered for the .223 cartridge are the absolute best for hunting varmints such as coyotes, and it’s even popular for some small types of deer in parts of the country where the forest is thick and sight is only fifty yards or so.

They are lightweight, rugged, and easy to maintain because many people, including tens of thousands of ranchers, farmers, and backpackers need this type of rifle while out in the fields. Many police departments in both big and little cities across the nation are converting to these guns for the same reasons.

A farmer friend of mine in northwest Arkansas carries one on the back of his tractor out in the fields. His bane is armadillos, which tear up his crops faster than anything else. When he sees one he shoots it. He needs something that can stand up to the abuse of being shaken for hours on the tractor, is lightweight and short enough not to get in his way, and is powerful enough to pierce the ‘dillo hide. His AR-15, the semi-auto civilian model of the M-4, is perfect for his use.

These rifles can use magazines that hold up to 30 rounds, but if one can shoot three 10 round mags in 30 seconds or one 30 round mag in 24 seconds it is not really any more dangerous. When the King riots were happening in L.A. there were many Koreans on their rooftops with their AR-15s and multiple round mags. They kept their neighborhood from burning down. That’s a pretty impressive reason for wanting any weapon.

The civilian models have been made more accurate than the military models because the majority of the guns sold are simply used as target rifles. It’s a huge sport and tens of thousands compete across the country to see who can maintain the most accurate rifle. Go to most outdoor ranges and you’ll see all kinds of guys with their AR-15s and others at the line. These guys are just average, everyday guys (and some women) who like to put little holes in paper with things that go bang.

Many of these folk are former military who hold fond memories of those days. Others just want to look cool, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. A lot of them consider the military as "heroes" and want to emulate them.

Again, these guns may “look” like a military weapon but they are the farthest thing from one… they fire just one bullet at a time the way every other civilian rifle is sold. There is fundamentally no difference between them and Uncle Bob’s hunting rifle except in they way they look, and a smaller type bullet.

Now that you know the truth of the matter you can spot when someone is ignorant about assault weapons and yet are still willing to give their opinion about something they know nothing about.

About the vest-piercing bullets: One sheet of Kevlar won't stop anything. It takes a dozen or so to stop a pistol bullet. To stop a hunting rifle bullet, the vest would have to be too thick and stiff to be wearable on a daily basis.

If you give a pistol bullet a sharp steel core, it too will penetrate a cop's vest. Twenty years ago few perps even knew that those vests existed, but the gun controllers made a big deal about it, demanding to ban "any ammo" that would penetrate the vest -- that would include all hunting-rifle ammo. The NRA objected, and wrote their own bill to ban pistol ammo whose steel-core construction was designed to penetrate the vests, but allowed conventional hunting rifle ammo that the vests were never designed to stop.

The NRA's compromise was reasonable and passed, but every few years the gun control movement brings out the original, impractical bill so that, with the help of cooperative anti-gun newspapers, they can slander the NRA by leading people to think that the NRA was protecting some special form of anti-cop ammo.

I bought my first gun and became an pro-NRA "gun nut" in part from outrage at such unethical tactics by gun control advocates. I won't vote for any candidate who associates with such people.

Many of the commentors said that they agree with Jim Zumbo on the "assault weapons" not being desirable for hunting. If that's your preference, then fine. I prefer non-semiauto rifles with beautiful wood stocks, and when it comes to handguns, I prefer revolvers. (Guess I grew up on too many westerns.) But there are a lot of people, some of them hunters, who like these "eeeeviiil guns", and will never do anything criminal with them. They are actually useful to ranchers who need a reasonably accurate varmint rifle that is durable enough to not be bothered by rattling around in a pick-up truck all day.

But Zumbo called the guns "terrorist guns" and in doing so, he maligned a lot of gun owners, inferring that they were terrorists! That's where he really screwed up. That statement alone gave the Shady Bradys and their ilk a whole CASE of political ammo! And underlying all of this is the simple fact that the Second Amendment ISN'T ABOUT HUNTING! It is about defense aginst criminals, or a tyrannical gov't. (And don't think that it can't happen here!)

There is fundamentally no difference between them and Uncle Bob’s hunting rifle except in they way they look, and a smaller type bullet.

That depends on what Uncle Bob hunts with doesn't it?

but if one can shoot three 10 round mags in 30 seconds or one 30 round mag in 24 seconds it is not really any more dangerous. When the King riots were happening in L.A. there were many Koreans on their rooftops with their AR-15s and multiple round mags.

How many hunting rifles have 30 rounds in them? How many hunters need 30 rounds? Who were those Koreans shooting at that they needed to shoot 30 times, whether in 24 seconds or in 30 seconds?

These guys are just average, everyday guys (and some women) who like to put little holes in paper with things that go bang.

And why is it important public policy that they be allowed to do so with a particular gun of their choice?

I think there needs to be a rational argument for why a particular firearm or ammunition should not be generally available to the public. But this debate isn't really about what is good public policy on that level or rational arguments. Its not about whether a farmer needs a fancy .22 to shoot varmints. Or whether you need armor piercing bullets to hunt bear. And it certainly isn't about having weapons to defend ourselves against a repressive government. Its not even about people defending themselves.

Its really about gun fanatics and their hobby. Most of the restrictions proposed on gun ownership don't have any meaningful impact on anyone else's need for a firearm. Anyone who wants to protect their home, hunt deer, kill varmints or shoot targets will be able to get a gun suitable for that purpose. They just might not look like that AK-47 they saw on TV.

Second Amendment ISN'T ABOUT HUNTING!

Its not about the gun collecting hobby either.

It is about defense aginst criminals,

Where does the second amendment say anything about defense against criminals? I think it is a perfectly appropriate argument to say we are safer if we have a loaded gun in the nightstand. That wasn't what the NRA taught me when I took a gun safety course, but you can make the argument. But you can also make the argument that having a loaded weapon in the house is far more likely to create the opportunity for a crime than to prevent one. That argument has nothing to do with the right to bear arms.

or a tyrannical gov't. (And don't think that it can't happen here!)

And that is going to be prevented by a .22 caliber Saturday night special? Or a AK-47 semi-automatic knock-off? If you really want to defend against a tyrannical government you need real weapons, not target pistols. In fact, it wouldn't be hard to argue most civilian firearms aren't "arms" at all in military terms.

That depends on what Uncle Bob hunts with doesn't it?

Unless Uncle Bob hunts with a non-firearm, then no. His firearm fires one bullet with each pull of the trigger along with every other rifle out there, including the ones that look "evil."

How many hunting rifles have 30 rounds in them? How many hunters need 30 rounds? Who were those Koreans shooting at that they needed to shoot 30 times, whether in 24 seconds or in 30 seconds?

If you're varmit hunting prarrie dogs with several thousand out there in the target range then 30 rounds hardly seems enough, eh? Should have the 100 round mags to keep from reloading every minute or so.

And how do YOU get to determine how many rounds hunters need?

And, as far as I know, the Koreans didn't shoot anyone. But when you're on the edge of a riot that quite possibly may be coming your direction with the intent of burning your businesses down I'll let you carry the single shot bolt action rifle. For myself, I'll take as many rounds as I can possibly stuff into the gun.

And why is it important public policy that they be allowed to do so with a particular gun of their choice?

Well, I don't hear the paper complaining that one particular bullet hurts more than another. And they are the only one with a dog in the fight. Unless you're competing against the shooters in a competition then I don't see where you have a dog in this fight either.

Its really about gun fanatics and their hobby. Most of the restrictions proposed on gun ownership don't have any meaningful impact on anyone else's need for a firearm. Anyone who wants to protect their home, hunt deer, kill varmints or shoot targets will be able to get a gun suitable for that purpose. They just might not look like that AK-47 they saw on TV.

The Second Amendment doesn't have a "What does Ron Williams like" clause in it. And yes, you just gave away the whole game by using the word "look." You judge off from looks, whatever that means.

Nothing else matters as long as the gun looks evil.

They just might not look like that AK-47 they saw on TV.

Here, Ross also confirms that everything hoplophobes know about guns comes from action movies and television. Which is one of the principal reasons they sound like fools whenever they talk about them.

Do those rules violate the 2nd Amendment or not?

I, and many other 2nd Amendment supporters believe it does violate the spirit and words of the Second.

Many others do also but have learned to tolerate it.

Some others don't believe it violates it.

Gun enthusiasts are not a monolithic crowd about much of anything. That's one of our weaknesses when it comes to political matters.

Welcome to California! Come here and hunt where those nasty-ugly black-rifles are outlawed, and so are Saturday-night specials! You have nothing to fear, really, it's ok! After we ban lead-ammo you can still shoot stuff with those fancy copper-solids, and the microstamping on the bullets will help to identify which deer is really yours. And you won't need to handload since factory ammo is so precise nowdays - as long as you like the one or two calibers we let you shoot. Really, it's gonna be fine! You'll love your new hobby when it all goes digital too - it'll be just like being there!! Thank you for your support.

Kari,

Folks around here keep saying, and I believe them, that fully-automatic weapons have been regulated since the 1930s. Do those rules violate the 2nd Amendment or not?

In my opinion? Yes they do. There is no "except for machine guns and short-barreled rifles" clause in the 2nd amendment, at least not that I can see. IMHO, the 2nd amendment pertains almost exclusively to military arms. What other kind of arms should a militia have?

Of course, the Supreme Court disagrees with me, and believes that strict regulation of automatic weapons is permitted by the Constitution.

Ahh, the old "who NEEDS X?" argument.

Who needs a car with 300 HP? Cars kill a hell of a lot more people than guns.

Who needs a swimming pool? 'Cuz more children are killed in pools than by firearms here in the Sunshine state.

Who needs a precision honed, hollow edged chef's knife in their home?

You need to stop getting all your gun information from CSI-Miami. The term armor piercing does not mean it was developed to do just that. 30.06 rounds will pierce armor but are required for adequate hunting of medium / medium-large animals.

But you can also make the argument that having a loaded weapon in the house is far more likely to create the opportunity for a crime than to prevent one

No, you can't. That's the most illogical, ill-informed comment to date. Does the gun itself broadcast messages to criminals that forces them to break into a house? Does the firearm sprout legs, find a hand, and cause the trigger to pull? How does an inanimate object create an opportunity for a crime? If someone breaks into my house, the crime is already committed, the gun has nothing to do with it.

But that's the problem with hoplophobes. You assign your fears to an inanimate object that has no free will of its own and then proceed to make asinine observations based on it. You might fear that you'd turn into some sort of homicidal maniac if you hold a gun, but I carry one every day and I've yet to muster much more than slight irritation at anyone.

Then you take your fear and try to pass laws that have no effect on those who should be the true cause of your concern. Seriously. If "NO FIREARMS ALLOWED" signs were actually effective, why did that kid shoot up the mall in Utah the other week? If gun laws actually would reduce the usage of guns, then why hasn't the War On Some Drugs reduced the amount of drugs on the street?

A fully automatic .577 Tyrannasaur in my hands is of no more danger to you than a flyswatter. A .22 in the hands of a criminal is much more lethal.

I think there needs to be a rational argument for why a particular firearm or ammunition should not be generally available to the public. But this debate isn't really about what is good public policy on that level or rational arguments. Its not about whether a farmer needs a fancy .22 to shoot varmints.

Because part of living in a free society as a free citizen means I don't have a justify a damned thing to you, Mr. Williams. Think about where that kind of attitude leads for a minute. Who gets to decide what's justified?

Kari, Automatic weapons featured in a few very high profile crimes as well as sawed off shot guns. So Uncle Fed decided to do something about it.

No case on this law has ever been decided by the Supremes, a sawed off got there but was sent back down as moot because the petitioner was deceased. Does it infringe, obviously it places a limit.

The old saw, the first amendment doesn't allow you to cry "FIRE" in a crowded theater is probably the best explanation why this just gets left alone. It's not as simple as the statement appears, what we are talking about is an inevitable, universal, catastrophic outcome of the exercise of the right with no countervailing individual or collective benefit to such exercise. That's a mouthful, but think on it.

Fully automatic weapons, as noted above, are hard to control in regard to aim point. This virtually guarantees that unintended targets will be hit. Spray and pray is short for it. The work around in this instance is that they are not banned but controled (also read strongly discouraged).

A sawed off shot gun is virtually ideal for close range self-defense, after a short distance the fast shot pattern spread puts the stuff all over the place. The Fed Appeal in Miller found that they had no military application (HEY ROSS). Contrary to Ross' assertion most 2nd A supporters aren't loons and aren't too hot on the idea of general availability of machine guns for the reasons noted.

Ross has proved himself to be a troll on this issue, like the bradys he takes whatever little pieces suit him and dismisses the rest. The military application of small arms is huge, what Ross wants to forget in his "you'd get squashed like a bug" is that it is surely true that an Appache or Abrahms trumps a 30-06, the problem is that all the infrastruture around that 30-06 also goes away. Now how damn difficult is it to work up scenarios where that is not in the elite's interests? A handful of good marksmen and spotters would absolutely paralyze a large area, gee, how about Wall Street, the Capital Mall, San Francisco's Financial Dist, etc etc, or a couple big GE or Dow plants. You betcha, send tanks right on in.

So we have an understanding, 600yds is over 1/4 mi, I use a 30-06 M1 Garrande and shoot with open sights (peep sights) at a target with an aiming black roughly shoulder wide, just getting into the black doesn't get a good score. This is a WWII battle rifle, holds a clip of 8 and is semiautomatic. These rounds exit the barrel at 2600fps, they arrive on target before the sound of the gun, the sound you hear is a snap as they break the soundbarrier passing over the target pullers. Ross, if it's so damn easy why haven't they cleaned out Iraq? they're not too worried about breaking things either (maybe you noticed on the tv news?).

First Ross says the 2nd is about hunting and you don't need any highpower stuff (and ludicrously tells me I want a soft bullet for a Kodiac bear, really now, I'd want to kill him not just piss him off) then he turns around and says your target pistol is militarily useless, mixes up about three arguments re:ammo, then tells you the 2nd isn't about self-defense, if you watch closely the 2nd isn't about anything in Ross' world. He can't keep a straight argument, dissembles his actual point, cherry picks a word or two and then calls people who don't like it "nuts" What he is not doing is engaging in persuasion or discussion, what he is doing is acting as the perfect exemplar of the Brady Bunch and other banners.

look, if you want to come to the table of gun-control, you'd better come well armed with history, facts, and a good understanding of the articles involved. Stupid little word games aren't going to cut it, we get this crap all the time, the answer is, tell the truth, use facts, know your subject - leave the little girl tantrums to the other side. You want to bring junk, you're going to get scoffed at, and knowing which end of a gun the bullet comes out of ain't enough, you're talking about attempting to undo the Constitution and the folks who don't like it know something about it.

I'll answer an intelligent question like Kari's but I'm tired of being trolled.

When I initially posted on this, I pointed the finger at the gun lobby, which, as this case demonstrates is in fact the monolith Jack Burton denies. So monolithic, in fact, that an apparently coordinated effort blackballed Jim Zumbo in less than a week. I have no way of knowing the extent to which the effort was coordinated, but the question's moot--the various players acted in such lockstep that the effect was back-room politics, with or without the back room.

I love it when someone who has absolutely no knowledge of their subject matter spouts off as an expert of that very subject. It's like a PETA member trying to explain the best way to bait a hook with a worm.

"An apparently coordinatied effort" Hmmm? I must admit that I was part of the effort to spread the word about Zumbo but no one coordinated with me. When I found out about the column I was the first to notify a number of other, nationally significant websites who then posted the info. At that point I had no idea of who else knew, or even had the info posted. I was aware of only one site from which I got the info.

I didn't get a call from the NRA asking me to spread the info. I didn't get an email from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy suggesting that they would pay me to send the info around the net. I am just an ordinary citizen who happens to take an interest in guns. That must make me a "conspiracy of one."

And if anyone reads the comments you'll find out that the range is from "hang him now" to "forgive and move on." No monolith here.

Consider this... imagine that former NOW president Patricia Ireland posts on the NARL blog that she thinks some abortions should be banned... and she just doesn't understand why some people want abortions when they aren't necessary.

What are the chances that she's going to be disinvited from posting again? And that lots of stink is going to be raised from the abortion supporters? And that all the fuss is going to seem "coordinated" because a lot of like-mined people are going to be posting and taking action? And that former friends are going to move away from her comments?

To the extent that some Americans want absolute, unregulated access to any weapon manufactured, the entire gun lobby is in danger of fighting it's own inner battles

Again, someone with no clue as to the community is trying to speak for the community. I've been active as a shooter for 35 years and as an activist in the issue for 15, and I have never, ever once heard a statement in support of this nonsense as posted above.

Thus does it quickly act to stamp out consideration of any question that may lead, as inevitably as this thread (on a liberal website, no less), to a consideration of where that line should be drawn.

Stamp out? You mean like people have been banned from this site for this consideration? Oh, you don't. Then you must mean that people's lives have been threatened for making such consideration? Oh, you don't. Then people have been disagreed with for making such consideration? Well, that's hardly "stamping out" is it?

I'm freaked out by political players who use their might to stifle discussion, whether it's environmentalists who spike trees or gun advocates who want to own AK-47s. So why is no one talking about that?

Let's see. If I spike a tree that pretty much stifles anyone's ability to cut down that tree. But if want to own an AK-47 that stifles people how? Does this make any sense?

guns can be regulated,

Sure guns can be regulated just as journalists can be under the First. We can require journalists to be trainied in a certain way, to be licensed subject to the approval of the state, to submit their copy for government approval, to limit their publications to one a month, to limit their words/article to a certain length, to surrender their license if caught lying in an article, and to only write for publications that cover one state, not the entire nation.

I'll go for it.

Kari, you missed the pertinent point which is that the Fire explanation is only a simplistic way of saying:

"an inevitible universal catastrophic outcome of the exercise with no countervailing individual or collective benefit derived from that exercise"

Child porn in all cases (universally) involves those too young to consent.

All of your examples are of the order of the statement above.

Machine guns are univerally and inevitibly hard to control for aim point, that is the basis of the "FIRE" Is that neccessarily true? It's a pretty close deal and because there is simply a limit on availability - the hoops jumping - it could be argued it does not needlessly infringe. There are other limits, IBC, which stands by being instant, waits are an infringement. NYNY & DC and some others assert their right to act differently, I say the 14th trumps them. I can't afford to take a case to the Supremes and in order to get standing you'd have to have been harmed by the regulations, which means commit a felony and lose a gun. It's kind of tough to get an upstanding citizen to play.

Here's the deal, there are lots of gun regulations now, some are Draconian BS, and the debate goes on? More? There are never enough for a certain segment of society. Gun Violence - fine go see my blog, click my name.

It is about the Constitution, no more or less than the 1st is about it. BushCo says it can...I scream 1st. He says it's about security. I say it's not. What do you say? The same. The point is most everybody that reads and posts here knows what the 1st means and why they support it, a big chunk have no idea what the 2nd means or even, really, what guns are. It gets real easy to kick something you don't understand. Some of us do understand, we don't put up with it. It's not like we get down and pray to a gun or fire one everyday compared to church or talking, but those guns are in my house every day, they are an absolutely concrete example that I am free. Not some mega-corp news organization, or invisible god, right smack there is the statement that I am the Government's boss, I am its equal. Certainly there is a symbolic element to that, but there is also an implied threat. People love to do the "penis" thing, well there is this much, there is power right there, it will reach out and touch something signicantly, that's part of what scares people, that's part of saying the "penis" thing, to devalue and ridicule actual power. Now not to overblow that argument, but I'll take my Ruger #1 45-70 and give you a tennisball and we'll go pay a visit to a Kodiac bear, I'll bet we don't have a discussion of which of us should exercise power, one is real power.

Praying, writing, talking, getting together are all implied power, a gun is actual concrete power. If that first part is not enough, the default is the 2nd, when the computer locks up and you've hit every reasonable key and that's to no effect, you turn it off.

"Reasonable" got us the assault weapon ban, that's part and parcel of all of those "reasonable" limits. If this "reasonable" game gets played by Democrats a big chunk is going away - I will. If that's the outcome Democrats want, they should go there. You have a hypothetical "reasonable," the problem is, there aren't any out there. At this stage, not one, so you're asking for reasoned discussion about what?

I didn't do R 08-05 to lose a Party, I did it to help. It has helped. Do you want to push us into the Republican Party and make us try to get them to be reasonable? Nobody really trusts the Democrats on this issue right now, let's not give them more reason to distrust. Ginny Burdick is plenty.

And yes, every time Chuck Schumer opens his mouth about civil liberties I kick him right straight in his...2nd.

Chuck earlier mentioned the cliche limitation on the 1st Amendment... you can't shout fire in a crowded theater.

Okay… I’m in a crowded theater with my wife. From where I am sitting I begin to see a bit of smoke rising up from behind a curtain – and then to confirm it, I sniff and sure enough, I sense a bit of smoke on the air. Then the flame becomes visible from under the curtain.

Here are my only options?

1) Whisper to my wife that the theater is on fire and both get up quietly and walk to the exit.

2) Dial 911 and whisper to the operator that the theater is on fire.

Of course not… I start in screaming at the top of my lungs that the darn theater is on fire and run for your lives!!!!!.

How many nights will I spend in jail for shouting fire in a crowded theater? None, of course.

Why? Because the theater was on fire.

What the real limitation is, of course, is that you can shout fire in a crowded theater as often and as loudly as you want – but if the theater is not on fire you’re going to get punished for it.

Why? Because the odds are very high that innocent people are going to be hurt for no cause. However, if I am in the privacy of my home, or in an empty building, or outdoors where no one can here, I can shout “fire” all I want. No one is in danger.

See the difference between the same identical action putting people in danger, and not putting people in danger. One is, and should be, illegal, and the other is not. Banning certain actions without regard as to the affect on innocent third parties is known as “prior restraint.” There is no knowledge of how it is going to impact others for good or ill, but we’ll restrain it anyway.

Forbidding some one to shout fire when and where he wants to is “prior restraint” and can actually lead to innocents being hurt as in my theater example. If my wife and I just quietly left others to their own devices so that I would not get in trouble for yelling “fire” is counterproductive.

But that's not the only limit on the 1st. You also can't use your free speech to produce and sell child porn. You can't use your free speech to develop a criminal conspiracy. You can't use your free speech to transfer national security secrets to foreign governments. You can't use your free speech to make a physical threat of violence against another person. You can't use your free speech to incite violence. (And some people believe that free speech doesn't mean that a rich guy should be allowed to buy TV time to communicate his political ideas.)

You can still do each and every one of these. However, in all these examples there is good reason to believe that a third party is going to be hurt and therefore laws passed against the type of speech.. However it is up to the state to then prove that you actually did it and people were hurt. But you can still do it before the fact.

There are many lines drawn. Does that mean that I shouldn't stay vigilant about further limits to free speech? No.

There are exceptionally few lines drawn from prior restraint.

How does this apply to guns? I support the 2nd Amendment. But that doesn't mean that I don't support any lines being drawn.

Okay… but let’s keep in mind prior restraint. No line drawn on any action unless it is proven pretty thoroughly that the end result is almost always going to hurt third parties. And even then the state has to prove it’s case individully.

We already have many lines -- some supported upthread here, and some not. We bar crazy people, violent felons, and children from owning weapons - even though the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that their rights are limited. Everyone appears to be OK with banning personal possession of things akin to hand grenades, or rocket launchers, or other arms. Some folks above are OK with drawing a line on fully automatic weapons.

Actually, in many states, the gift of a firearm to a child is a right of passage and not illegal in the slightest. But we know what you mean.

And what you’re describing is basically “diminished capacity,” or “in loco parentis” or several other fancy terms which have been part of common law predating the constitution for centuries if not millennia. Some people, because of age, intelligence, or being an unwilling ward of the state are just not allowed to have full freedoms. If this were not so then any state incarceration (or even mandatory school attendance) would be no different than a kidnapping.

And you will get some argument as to the grenades and other arms. But we’ll grant your statement for this purpose.

In my view, the question is no longer, "Shall we have limits on the right to keep and bear arms?" but rather "What limits are appropriate?"

Remember prior restraint. If the action itself does not present a clear and convincing danger to a third party then your limit is inappropriate.

I think the question of fully-automatic weapons is a bit like the question of child porn. Sure, it's a limit on your rights -- but a good one.

Justify…!

Child porn hurts someone in every single case – potentially very badly, but even the slightest hurt in this case can be justifiably prosecuted.

But me having a fully-automatic weapon down in my basement hurts whom? It doesn’t jump out of it’s case and go rob banks, does it? It doesn’t make threatening phone calls at night. What third party is this fully automatic weapon hurting?

Can it hurt someone? Of course. Pretty darn badly too, if I choose. But then I get to be prosecuted and punished. But the truth of it is that I can do far more damage to a greater number of people with a gallon can of gasoline, a rag, and a lit match. So should gallon gas cans be banned? And gallon milk jugs… and gallon juice jugs?

So you’re asking for prior restraint on something that, on the face of it, does no harm to anyone in and by itself. Is that logical compared to the way we treat the First Amendment?

You want to create laws banning certain kinds of books? I won't be with you. You want to ban all guns? I'm not with you there either.

But you will ban certain types of guns? Based on what specifics? The way they look? The damage they can do? The type of bullet they shoot? Each and every one is a prior restraint that assumes that something bad is going to happen in virtually each and every case of this type of gun ownership.

But inside of the constitutional bright lines, I think there's all kinds of room for informed policy debate -- so let's have that debate.

You got it if you can handle your end. :-)

Jack's point and mine are the counter pieces of understanding limits. (thanks jack) The regulation types that Kari is dancing around address the theoretical use of an object since objects do not do things by themselves. We've thrown unpredictable humans into the mix. No matter what the object, some hambone will probably find a way to use it inappropriately. This is exactly the problem, does hamboneism rise to the level of restriction of an object? Very seldom. Artillery pieces are a good example, a single oops takes out hundreds, this is unacceptable. Guns on the other hand take out people on small scales, the individual ownership of a gun is not catastrophic, the number of guns actively involved in criminal enterprises is vanishingly small in comparison to the number of "law-abiding guns." By percentages you are in considerable more danger by being around a car, getting in an airplane, taking a bath, darn near just existing.

There are several hundred million guns in private hands in the US. What is it exactly that you're afraid of? It cannot be the gun, that would be insane. The rarest forms of cancer infect at a higher rate than guns are infected. You aren't addressing the actual problem, it is not guns, not on any level of reason. It is people who commit a crime. A crime. You propose to do something about something entirely different? You propose to address entirely legal objects which are darn near universally used legally? You propose to do this by making legal use and legal possesion unlawful? Who and what exactly are you addressing? You certainly are not addressing the problem.

If you wish to address crime, then address crime. Criminal behavior is assumed to be addressable, we have a legal system for that reason - otherwise we'd just let arms take care of it. When you conflate issues you get very unfortunate results, for example, Britain now has draconian gun laws, gun crimes are way up from pre-laws period. I don't think this was their intention, you are now much more likely to be killed by a gun than when they were in "general circulation." People who obey laws handed their guns in, people who don't obey didn't obey.

When you pass laws that affect legal behavior you only affect those who behave legally. If you address criminal behavior you are addressing the actual problem and have some sort of chance to have decent results. Let's talk about gun involvement as an attenuating circumstance, let's talk about illegal possesion as a serious and prosecuted crime, there are a lot of ways to go in this arena that address the problem - the only gun-control that means squat is target acquisition.

Kari, In response to your question, re: Do others think that the regulation, (ostensibly a "revenue (tax) measure") of fully automatic weapons/short barreled rifles/shotguns/etc.) is unconstitutional?

In a word, yes.

These weapons, fully automatics/short rifles/short shotguns/large bore weapons/sound mufflers(suppressors), (I have to restrain myself from slapping any idiot that calls them a "silencer" with a 2x4), and those weird and wonderful things that come under the heading of "Any Other Weapon", (pen guns/palm guns/glove guns, etc.) (yes, all of the above have been issued by the government for the use of military and intelligence personnel.) Are the very things that DEFINE a military (militia) weapon.

The way in which this measure was originally enacted was designed in such a manner as to place these weapons, out of the reach of all but the most wealthy citizens of this country.

When enacted in the 1930's, the $200.00 "tax" had the net effect of increasing the costs of ownership of, say, a short barrelled shotgun by a factor of 10 to 20. ($200 dollar tax atop a purchase price between $10 and $20.)

Ostensibly, this was enacted as a "revenue raising measure", however, in an era in which two hundred dollars was up to several months pay for the average working American citizen, (keep in mind that this was during the Depression, when much of the country was unemployed), it is obvious that this was actually an attempt to disarm the general population, and to provide employment for otherwise under-utilized federal agents.

Now, what the heck did I mean by that? Some factors to consider. The Treasury Department had previously been heavily employed in enforcing Prohibition. During Prohibition, thousands of agents had been hired. Now, with the end of Prohibition, liquor enforcement was dropping precipitously. Since there were no more "rum-runners", and liquor, wine, and beer production was a legal enterprise again, there would be little use for more than, (at most), a few hundred agents to do records checks, tax collection, and arrest the occaisional moonshiner.

Now, as we all know, our government in a bureaucracy, and, as a result, is staffed by that peculiar subspecies known as "bureaucrats". And we all know that the primary goal of many bureaucrats in empire building. Status is measured not by what you do, but by how many people you can order around.

Now, no bureaucrat is going to voluntarily allow his (or her), number of subordinates to be reduced.

So, find something else for them to do. And, since the Treasury had nothing for all of these underutilized underlings to do, it was neccessary to find them something. And, given the law-breaking climate of Prohibition, and the broad coverage given to the criminal enterprises <u>promoted</u> by Prohibition, the above listed arms were a natural target.

And so it was done. And the Supreme Court has danced around the subject ever since. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, (and later) Explosives, was created.

Now, do I support restrictions on gun ownership?

No, not really. (see below)

Do I think those who are irresponsible in their handling of firearms should be hammered into the ground for it?

Yes.

Just as feel that those who have shown that they cannot relate to other people in a reasonable manner should be removed from society. Permanently, if neccessary.

Now, just a few more words on some other topics. There are a lot of us on the gun rights side of the aisle who are willing to support dropping "The War On (some) Drugs". We tend to be students of history, and the example of Prohibition is clear to those who are willing to look.

We are willing to listen to a debate on just about any subject, most of us sincerely enjoy debate. But when WE listen to what YOU have to say, we ask that you extend the same courtesy. Unfortunately, far too many on the "liberal" side of things are great believers in "Free speech for me, but not for thee."

We believe in "safety nets", but not "lifetime support for a woman who has seven children from six different fathers, none of whom are paying child support because they are all in and out of prison on the revolving door plan."

We believe in "government has no place telling me what I can do and where I can do it as long as what I do and where I do it brings no harm to anyone else."

We believe in "I don't care what you do to live a happy life, as long as you don't try to tell me that I have to like what you do." (If being tied up and beaten with a riding crop is your thing, that's cool. Just don't go around showing my children the welts.)

We believe in "you can have any religious beliefs you want, but when you try to tell me what MINE have to be, or that I can't say that I think that the fact that you pray seven times a day to a hunk of street paving is not my cup of tea, then we are gonna have a problem."

We believe in "If you have to insist on a hyphen, then leave off the 'American'." (If you have to insist on that hyphenation, then you don't understand what "E Pluribus Unum" is really about.)

I'll stop now, since what could have been a three line answer has gone on to far more than even my normally long-winded self intended.

I'm just trying to make the case that we already have particular regulations. (No rocket launchers for you!)

I want to get to a point where we can acknowledge that we're talking about a policy question, not a constitutional question.

You can't just willy-nilly wish away the constitutional questions on these issues. It's always there as a brake and check.

But you haven't answered a bit about the issue of prior restraint. You wanted the dialouge... that means you have to participate.

All of that, and I forgot something.

Where do I put the limits on weaponry?

If it can't be picked up and carried, that's the limit.

But, you will say, what about Rocket Propelled Grenades and Bazookas and stuff like that?

Well, at the true cost of the ammuntion, (with mark-up and shipping and all that good stuff), they're gonna be pretty bloody hard to afford to shoot. If it costs you four or five hundred bucks to pull the trigger one time, you tend to not do it much. (and see the above about behaving irresposibly...)

"But wait!" you say. "What about making your own ammuntion for your RPG launcher?"

This is what some of us refer to as "self-limitng behavior". If you don't know exactly what you are doing, it's a short route to be VERY well distributed around your neighborhood. (Just look at how many terrorists in Iraq and the Palestinian Authority blow themselves up on a regular basis. And these are people received the finest training that the Iranians, Syrians, French and Russians could give them.)

Because part of living in a free society as a free citizen means I don't have a justify a damned thing to you, Mr. Williams.

Part of living in a democratic society is that you do. Because we all get to decide what the rules are whether you like it or not.

His firearm fires one bullet with each pull of the trigger along with every other rifle out there, including the ones that look "evil."

Well good, then it won't matter if we outlaw the ones that "look evil" since they are all the same anyway. Right? The reality is not all firearms that shoot once each time you pull the trigger are the same and that's why there are gun collectors who get all worked up at the suggestion of placing limits on what guns they can collect.

And how do YOU get to determine how many rounds hunters need?

I don't. But whether you like it or not we all do.

The military application of small arms is huge

You are being disingenuous.The modern military application of single shot hunting rifles is pretty close to zero. Same with "saturday night specials". The notion having either one is going to defend someone's freedom from a tyrannical government is frankly silly.

Contrary to Ross' assertion most 2nd A supporters aren't loons

That is a lie Chuck, I didn't say that. Nor did I say the second amendment is about hunting. So why is it that you feel the need to misrepresent what I actually said?

Ross also confirms that everything hoplophobes know about guns comes from action movies and television

That's pretty funny. What's a "hoplo"? I don't own a television set and haven't for almost 30 years and I don't go to action movies. And I come from a family of hunters, although I no longer hunt myself.

I actually know more than one gun collector who would admit their gun collecting is a hobby, not an exercise of some metaphysical freedom. And I have no opinion on whether assault rifles should be banned. I find it the level of emotion invested in defending them disturbing in its irrationality.

And that is the problem here. The NRA has been taken over by people who really are "gun nuts" that are emotionally invested in their guns. It makes you wonder whether these people really should be trusted to have weapons of any kind. And yeh, in a democracy we do get to decide those things.

I’m in a crowded theater with my wife. From where I am sitting I begin to see a bit of smoke rising up from behind a curtain – and then to confirm it, I sniff and sure enough, I sense a bit of smoke on the air. Then the flame becomes visible from under the curtain.

Here are my only options?

1) Whisper to my wife that the theater is on fire and both get up quietly and walk to the exit.

2) Dial 911 and whisper to the operator that the theater is on fire.

Of course not… I start in screaming at the top of my lungs that the darn theater is on fire and run for your lives!!!!!.

As someone who, as a child, was actually in a crowded theater that caught on fire that wasn't my experience. There were a lot of people who had better sense than you. They turned to their neighbors and said "don't panic but the theater is on fire, we should leave." And then people got up and left in a relatively orderly fashion. The theater burned to the ground, but no one was hurt. Panic is not the only option.

Imagine that former NOW president Patricia Ireland posts on the NARL blog that she thinks some abortions should be banned... and she just doesn't understand why some people want abortions when they aren't necessary.

He didn't suggest guns should be banned. There were plenty of otherwise pro-choice folks that supported a ban on so-called "partial birth abortions". They weren't run out of office as a result. And the majority of pro-choice folks oppose all late term abortions that aren't medically necessary. In fact, with very few, if any, exceptions doctors refuse to perform them.

And there is quite difference between the right to terminate a pregnancy and the "right" to collect guns as a hobby or the "right" to have a 30 bullet clip for killing prairie dogs instead of 10 bullets.

The modern military application of single shot hunting rifles is pretty close to zero.

Hmm... I believe that someone forgot to mention this to the Marines.

Some other facts to consider, in the event of a situation requiring armed citizen response in this country. (The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with political grandstanding by the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana preventing a rational response coming particularly to mind.)* Single, precisely aimed, shots will often be as effective in preventing anti-social behavior as will be the blatant ability to place large amounts of projectiles on target in a short period of time.

Something that many "anti-gun" people fail to appreciate.

*Following Hurricane Katrina, many residents of outlying areas formed militia groups to protect their neighbors and themselves, while also protecting the property of those who had evacuated before the storm struck. On multiple reported occaisions, gunfire was exchanged between militia members and criminal gangs.

I'm gonna get flamed for this, but here it goes.

And there is quite difference between the right to terminate a pregnancy and the "right" to collect guns as a hobby or the "right" to have a 30 bullet clip for killing prairie dogs instead of 10 bullets.

Yes, there is. One is enumerated in the constitution, the other is not.

Part of living in a democratic society is that you do. Because we all get to decide what the rules are whether you like it or not.

We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a representative republic with a base law that is the Constitution. Otherwise “we all get to decide” that we may not want black people in our town. Or that everyone must be Baptist (Freewill, and not those wacky two-seed-in-the-spirit kind). And we’ll pass ‘em whether you like it or not.

Well good, then it won't matter if we outlaw the ones that "look evil" since they are all the same anyway. Right? The reality is not all firearms that shoot once each time you pull the trigger are the same and that's why there are gun collectors who get all worked up at the suggestion of placing limits on what guns they can collect.

And you just proved the point of why shooters can’t and won’t trust gun bigots. If, as you say, we can outlaw one and not the other, then both can equally be outlawed. And those who say you all don’t want to take away all the guns are fooling no one.

The reality is that you don’t have a single clue as to how firearms work. Otherwise you would not say something as transparently ignorant as “The reality is not all firearms that shoot once each time you pull the trigger are the same”. Tell us the difference, oh Great Gun Guru.

What? Some have birch wood and some have walnut? Some are blued and some are stainless? Some have bull barrels and others regular?

Yes, some semi-autos use one type of mechanism and a differing one a slightly different type. That’s why you have the differences between a Mauser and a Browning, but fundamentally under the skin they all work about the same. One trigger pull… one shot fired, and the next cartridge set into the chamber for use.

I don't. But whether you like it or not we all do.

So since you’re a big fan of democracy you wouldn’t be at all upset if the law says that 800 round magazines could be used? It works both ways, you know.

You are being disingenuous.The modern military application of single shot hunting rifles is pretty close to zero. Same with "saturday night specials". The notion having either one is going to defend someone's freedom from a tyrannical government is frankly silly.

I love it when someone with no real tactical experience or background explains what can and can’t be done with small weapons. It’s not a subject that one wants to explain fully on an open ‘net topic but 100 people with “Saturday night specials” and the knowledge/will to use them can change our government around much more seriously than Mr. Williams can even imagine.

Ross also confirms that everything hoplophobes know about guns comes from action movies and television

A hoplophobe is a person with an unreasonable fear of guns. From the Greek word hoplo, meaning weapon.

I actually know more than one gun collector who would admit their gun collecting is a hobby, not an exercise of some metaphysical freedom. And I have no opinion on whether assault rifles should be banned. I find it the level of emotion invested in defending them disturbing in its irrationality.

I collect guns for many reasons other than metaphysical freedom. So? And do you also find the ACLU disturbing for it’s support of the First Amendment?

And that is the problem here. The NRA has been taken over by people who really are "gun nuts" that are emotionally invested in their guns. It makes you wonder whether these people really should be trusted to have weapons of any kind. And yeh, in a democracy we do get to decide those things.

Here you go. A person who has never been a member of the NRA, is not a member of the NRA, who probably would never be a member of the NRA, and who probably doesn’t know any members of the NRA but yet he knows more about the NRA and it’s goals than the people who are members. That’s an incredible feat of empty intellectualism.

As someone who, as a child, was actually in a crowded theater that caught on fire that wasn't my experience. There were a lot of people who had better sense than you. They turned to their neighbors and said "don't panic but the theater is on fire, we should leave." And then people got up and left in a relatively orderly fashion. The theater burned to the ground, but no one was hurt. Panic is not the only option.

It was hyperbole. Exaggeration. To.Make.A.Point. I’ll type slower next time so I won’t lose you.

He didn't suggest guns should be banned.

Sure he did.

There were plenty of otherwise pro-choice folks that supported a ban on so-called "partial birth abortions". They weren't run out of office as a result.

My example wasn’t “plenty of people”. My example was Patricia Ireland. Big difference.

And there is quite difference between the right to terminate a pregnancy and the "right" to collect guns as a hobby or the "right" to have a 30 bullet clip for killing prairie dogs instead of 10 bullets.

I am sure that prairie dog, in his last dying seconds, will thank his little prairie dog God that he was shot with a round from a ten round magazine instead of a round from a thirty round magazine.

If, as you say, we can outlaw one and not the other, then both can equally be outlawed

50% + 1 is all that is needed. As far as I can tell, you aren't making the case for why both shouldn't be outlawed. I have. There are people out there who actually have a gun just to go hunting. They have no intention of becoming freedom fighters defending themselves from government tyranny.

person who has never been a member of the NRA

Not true - I became some sort of junior member when I took that gun safety course.

who probably doesn’t know any members of the NRA

Not true.

is not a member of the NRA, who probably would never be a member of the NRA

Certainly true. I'm not a right wing ideologue and I'm not a gun collector. Why would I join an organization of right wing ideologues who pander to people who want to own obscure weapons?

It was hyperbole.

I doubt it. It appeared you really couldn't think of a reasonable response.

believe that someone forgot to mention this to the Marines.

Mention what? Marine snipers don't use hunting rifles as your link demonstrates.

Something that many "anti-gun" people fail to appreciate.

Who are these "anti-gun" people? Where is the organization demanding that hunting rifles be banned (aside from PETA which is not against people having guns so much as hunting, even with bare hands).

"right" to collect guns as a hobby or the "right" to have a 30 bullet clip for killing prairie dogs instead of 10 bullets.

Yes, there is. One is enumerated in the constitution, the other is not.

I missed the hobby and prairie dog killing part of the constitution. The second amendment says "bear arms", not "collect guns" and says nothing at all about clip sizes for prairie dog hunting.

Its pretty clear the purpose of the second amendment was to allow an armed citizenry capable of preventing tyrannical government. As I said above, that concept was abandoned a long time ago. No one here is willing to defend allowing "the people" to stockpile artillery, anti-aircraft weapons and high explosives. Or even fully automatic light arms apparently. Instead we have a bunch of gun fanatics who claim their hobby is protected by the second amendment because they will "symbolically" resist tyranny in their fantasies.

Mention what? Marine snipers don't use hunting rifles as your link demonstrates.

This illustrates your basic lack of knowledge of firearms. The M40 is a bolt action, (in your words, "bolt action single shot"), rifle. It is functionally identical to tens of millions of firearms in general use in this country today.

Its pretty clear the purpose of the second amendment was to allow an armed citizenry capable of preventing tyrannical government.

Not the sole purpose of the armed citizenry. An additional purpose of the armed citizenry was and is to maintain order in times of local or national emergency.

As I said above, that concept was abandoned a long time ago.

2005 is a long time ago to you, eh?

Who are these "anti-gun" people? Where is the organization demanding that hunting rifles be banned

You still don't get it. How about you go to The Brady Campaign and look up "high performance sniper rifle"? It's a perfect description of the vast majority of "hunting rifles" in this country. (ie scope equipped, highly accurate, powerful cartridge, etc.)

Or even fully automatic light arms apparently.

Didn't read what I posted, did you?

Instead we have a bunch of gun fanatics who claim their hobby is protected by the second amendment because they will "symbolically" resist tyranny in their fantasies.

Again, willful ignorance on your part. In the case of a tyrannical government, or civil disorder, I am willing and able to defend my myself, my family, and my neighbors. Are you?

As far as I can tell, you aren't making the case for why both shouldn't be outlawed. I have.

So you’ve made a case that rifles should be banned? Thank you. The next time someone says that the gun-bigots don’t want to ban hunting guns I’ll refer them to you.

There are people out there who actually have a gun just to go hunting. They have no intention of becoming freedom fighters defending themselves from government tyranny.

More power to them. I support them fully in their desires and I trust that they support me.

Not true - I became some sort of junior member when I took that gun safety course.

Eh… not true. That’s like thinking you’ve become a car just because you walked into the garage.

is not a member of the NRA, who probably would never be a member of the NRA

Certainly true. I'm not a right wing ideologue and I'm not a gun collector. Why would I join an organization of right wing ideologues who pander to people who want to own obscure weapons?

There you go. Not a member, doesn’t want to be a member, but knows everything about the organization, even more so than it’s members.

I doubt it. It appeared you really couldn't think of a reasonable response.

Satire really goes by you, doesn’t it. :-)

I do not know any responsible person who is knowledgable of firearms and tactics who'd explain clearly to the general public how to create large effects with small numbers of small arms. Ross ignores that I gave him a hint, pretty broad one, but I am certainly not going to expand on it, beyond this, all the firepower in the world is useless if you do not want to smash the infrastructure.

Ross has claimed that the only reason left for the 2nd is hunting, I've explained that it was never considered more than a side benefit. In fact what Ross does is Troll.

Is the NRA pointlessly right wing? Yes. Can the Democrats claim large credit for that? Yes. Is the NRA's primary purpose protection of the 2nd and shooting programs? Yes. Can a Democrat get an A+ from the NRA? Yes.

I am not a typical gun owner, I have studied the history of arms and their uses, I have studied tactics, I have studied studied the arms I own, I load my own rounds, frequently, and I study the loads and then experiement for accuracy and power; and the trade-offs in that. I study bullet characteristics for accuracy, impact, retention, penetration, and on and on. I have every intention of being very competent with high grade equipment. I hunt, I shoot competitively, I target shoot, and I plink. I have specialized guns, guns that are particularly good for a particular application. If a person does not know all that, why are they supposed to be able to tell me what is good for what? I mentioned 22-250 and 25-06 and Ross ignored it, these are hyper-velocity small rounds, they are typical varmiting rounds, either would explode a prairie dog, doing more damage than an AR15 round to said dog. The dog doesn't care. The only reason an animal cares what it is hunted with is if it is insufficient to make a clean kill.

The military use of arms is a nasty brutal business. It is a specialized business involving the most dangerous prey, reasoning and probably armed prey. It is not fair, it has virtually nothing to do with sport hunting, and certainly is not a topic for the squeamish. I will not even go into the characteristics of ammuntion on these pages, it's not something to just off-handedly share with people who do not actually want to know about it, it's a little graphic for that. Most of the posters have maintained decorum, that is a plus. Some have asked actual questions and paid attention, that is a plus.

I have only one comment to make.

Everyone keeps mentioning the NRA as though it is some ultra-powerful mind-bending power that forces its members to bow to it will. No such thing happens.

The NRA is a member-driven organization, just as the Constitution party is, and the Republican party is, and the Democrat party is, and so on. Here in America, those who believe a certain way will join organizations that represent their beliefs.

While it is true that most organizations will try to guide their constituents by authorizing press releases and pandering to the general gist of what their members want and believe, no member is forced to believe what the NRA says or fights for. In fact, from what I know of the NRA members I know, most think that the 'compromise first, fight later' attitude is far from acceptable. Most of the more exuberant members are also members of GOA, and various other gun-rights movements. This isn't the National-Socialist party, or the Communist party of the Soviet Union. Non-belivers are free to dissent, and in fact, if enough members decide something should happen, the NRA will do it.

In short, the NRA doesn't bring a fight to Capitol Hill that its members don't want. They aren't powerful because they represent four and half million hunters. They are powerful because 4.5 million gunowners drive them to be involved, and the current leadership is attuned to that membership.

Lastly, Jeff, if I may... The rise of the pro-gun lobby in the 80s created the gun nuts...

I respectfully disagree. What caused the rise of the so called 'gun nuts' is the Democrat party stepping forth with more and more attempts to infringe upon the rights of the American people. Enough people within the NRA got pissed off about it, and rose up and demanded that the NRA fight back. The 'appeasement first' policy wasn't working, and gun owners were losing ground because anti-rights groups like the Brady Bunch were telling falsehood after falsehood, and making up terms like 'assault weapon' and referring to semi-automatics as 'automatics'. The average hunter was always told his gun was safe, they just wanted to take away those dangerous ones, or this one, and not that one. Some people believed it, others saw through the BS. People like Ross Williams confirm exactly what those first 'gun nuts' saw--namely, that the leftists wanted to ban them all, and they were willing to do it piecemeal if they had to.

In the end, the 'gun nuts' are no more than cynics and realists. They saw what was coming, and fought against it. I'm sure the founding fathers were considered extremists in their day too.

OK, back to the original post, what REALLY is a "metrosexual"?

I can completely understand and defend the right to own a number of basic weapons sufficient for people to defend themselves against a reasonable threat, and coincidentally, use and enjoy them for the purpose of target shooting or hunting.

I can kind of understand, but can't defend the non-existent right many people seem to believe they have that allows them to own weapons designed almost exclusively for the purpose of bolstering their testosterone levels.

Good discussion.

The obvious tactic of the gun control proponents is to ban guns incrementally--"Saturday night specials", "assault weapons," guns without a true sporting purpose, etc.--so that eventually they are all illegal. That's why "reasonable" laws are anathema to Second Amendment supporters. We've already watched it happen in many other countries. Registration makes confiscation possible.

The deceptiveness of the gun-control groups is exemplified by this statement on an official web page of the Violence Policy Center (http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm as of May 25, 2006): “Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.” Underhanded attempts to subvert the Second Amendment through frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers only confirm the duplicitous nature of these organizations.

Someone asked what the wording of the Second Amendment means. There are numerous historical sources online that can be consulted, but here's a modern paraphrase: Because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the people must always retain the ability to form such militias.

Ross Williams wrote: Where does the second amendment say anything about defense against criminals? Ever heard of the Oregon State Constitution? Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Its really about gun fanatics and their hobby. No, it's really about closet authoritarians who feel the need to command and control everyone with whom they disagree.

Part of living in a democratic society is that you do. Because we all get to decide what the rules are whether you like it or not. Ah, and now your contempt for the Bill of Rights is made explicit. Here's a clue: the BOR was meant to protect the rights of the minority against the changing whims of the majority. Not only are you blissfully ignorant about guns, you also seem to be blissfully ignorant about our constitutionally limited Republic. Maybe James Madison can clear things up for you:

"The prescriptions in favor of liberty, ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power: But this [is] not found in either the executive or legislative departments of government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.

It may be thought all paper barriers against the power of the community are too weak to be worthy of attention...yet, as they have a tendency to impress some degree of respect for them, to establish the public opinion in their favor, and rouse the attention of the whole community, it may be one mean to control the majority from those acts to which they might be otherwise inclined."

--Proposing Bill of Rights to House, June 8, 1789

Kari wrote: But that still leaves the question for you: Do you believe that regulations on fully-automatic weapons is a violation of the 2nd Amendment? It's a clear violation. The 2A was meant to protect military style arms, not deer rifles and duck guns. The alleged death ray qualities of automatic rifles are ridiculously overblown, about as overblown as the alleged death ray qualities of so-called "assault weapons." People who think automatic rifles are "weapons of mass destruction" have obviously never fired one---I've fired my share, and they're nothing special. And contrary to some assertions above, they can be controlled and fired accurately.

First off, you have nothing to fear from law-abiding gun owners. Chances are that they are your neighbors and have been for years. As of 1995 44 Million Americans owned around 192 million firearms. Those numbers have grown tremendously since then. At that time 1/4 of U.S. adults legally owned firearms. 74% of them owned 2 or more. The most common motivation for ownership was for recreation and 46% was for self protection. Secondly, bashing the NRA is like bashing any other organization that is setup to protect your rights. Quit. The NRA had nothing to do with Zumbo being dropped by Remington or Outdoor Life. They were late even voicing an opinion on the whole thing that was well over when they did. Thirdly, banning guns does nothing to reduce crime. It is nothing more than political slight of hand to make it look like government is doing something about crime. Criminals don't care about gun laws. They are criminals! I politicians really want to do something about crime, they will start enforcing the laws we have, stop making deals for lesser sentences and stop letting repeat offenders, rapists and murderers out of prison. Passing laws on the law-abiding does nothing to help the problem.

Jeff says

"Kari's right--unless and until people admit that, even with Constitutional protection, guns can be regulated, we're going to perpetually have a fake discussion about anti-gun hysteria trying to infringe on Americans' rights. (I've even heard those charges on this thread, made obviously out of reflex, since no one has taken anything approaching that position here.)"

Are you not even reading Ross' comments?

"Well good, then it won't matter if we outlaw the ones that "look evil" since they are all the same anyway. Right?"

Just checking in on the thread--Ross, Jack, and LC, I'm thinking you may be at one of those "agree to disagree" points.

Actually Jeff, that's a cop-out. I prefer that Ross continue to spew his ignorance and people like Chuck, Jack, and LC continue to point out the deficiencies in his arguments. It is beyond crystal clear that Ross is arguing from an emotional, non-logical position. Unfortunately this is the same tripe that is argued in the media by anti-gun zealots. Saying "we simply disagree" is akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "blah blah blah".

The "FIRE" argument is actually very close to what the issue is. Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is no fire is illegal. However, nobody seems to want to say that we should prevent people from speaking. The same goes for guns. Murder is also illegal, regardless of the method or tool used. Banning the tools does nothing to change the fact that murder is still illegal.

Its pretty clear the purpose of the second amendment was to allow an armed citizenry capable of preventing tyrannical government. As I said above, that concept was abandoned a long time ago.

That's projection Ross. Just because you are cowardly and would not stand up for you or your family doesn't mean others have "abandoned that concept". Let's say another terrorist attack happens, bigger and deadlier than 9/11. Bush calls for martial law and cancels elections. Because we're waging a war against Islamic radicals, the administration starts pushing for Christian laws requiring people to go to church (to weed out the Islamic fanatics). Then, because he's in power, he decides that gays should be executed. Then he shuts down the NY Times for articles written against him.

To think you'd just sit there and let it happen speaks volumes about you. Because if the political process breaks down, you'll have no other recourse.

The rest of us do.

Ever heard of the Oregon State Constitution?

Yes, and 50% + 1 votes can change whatever it does say.

The 2A was meant to protect military style arms, not deer rifles and duck guns.

No doubt. And it was meant to protect all "arms", not just light arms. But there aren't many of the politicians here who "support the second amendment" who are willing to take a stand in favor of people being able to stockpile high explosives or put anti-aircraft weapons on the back of their pickup trucks.

Registration makes confiscation possible.

The reality is that we got to the bottom of that "slippery slope" a long time ago for any "real" weapons people might actually use to successfully defend themselves from a tyrannical government. The government has no need to take away anyone's deer rifle or duck gun. And it already has list of those gun owners, assuming they are law-abiding and bought a hunting license.

Ah, and now your contempt for the Bill of Rights is made explicit.

Not hardly. Its the folks hiding behind the second amendment to defend their "right" to collect dangerous toys that are showing their contempt for the bill of rights.

Jeff Alworth:

All for taking what appears, on the surface anyway, to be a fairly innocuous position.

Bob T:

Gotta agree with you there, although this should all be seen as a statement about hunting and not the 2nd Amendment. The Framers weren't at all concerned with whether or not people had the means to hunt.

Bob Tiernan

Most of the arguments made here favoring unrestrained access to a vast array of firearms have nothing to do with the integrity of the 2nd amendment. They're primarily the ramblings of whining, spoiled babies upset because someone may take away some of the toys they have absolutely no security based need for, and that actually may perpetuate a culture that represents a great danger to everybody.

Most of the arguments made here favoring unrestrained access to a vast array of firearms have nothing to do with the integrity of the 2nd amendment. They're primarily the ramblings of whining, spoiled babies upset because someone may take away some of the toys they have absolutely no security based need for, and that actually may perpetuate a culture that represents a great danger to everybody.

Well, that paragraph will win the fencesitters over to your side now.

I can just see them swooning over the impeccable logic of these sentences, the crystaline structure, the magnificent way the words resonate with power and authority.

But, then again, maybe not. :-)

Jeff...

You had a lot of comments here: pro, con, and just confused.

Did you learn anything? I'm not talking generalities such as: Gee, folk are passionate on this issue.

Have there been concerns, facts, issues, and such that you were unaware of and are now more knowledgeable about?

Do you feel like you now know more... or less... about supposed assault rifles and the issues surrounding them than you did before? Specifics?

Your answers will probably reflect your readers answers also, which will give us all a clue as to if the few days were worthwhile for anyone other than as a self-excitement exercise.

Just because you are cowardly and would not stand up for you or your family doesn't mean others have "abandoned that concept". Let's say another terrorist attack happens, bigger and deadlier than 9/11. Bush calls for martial law and cancels elections. Because we're waging a war against Islamic radicals, the administration starts pushing for Christian laws requiring people to go to church (to weed out the Islamic fanatics). Then, because he's in power, he decides that gays should be executed. Then he shuts down the NY Times for articles written against him.

Your having a deer rifle, a shotgun or a Smith and Wesson isn't going to make a darn bit of difference no matter how brave they make you feel. You better come up with plan B, cause your plan A is a loser.

And thats the problem with the second amendment argument. The only freedom the gun fanatics really care about it protecting is their freedom to collect guns. The idea that they are going win a showdown with the US military, or even the Iraqi military, with their deer rifles, shotguns and antique muskets is silly on its face.

You better come up with plan B, cause your plan A is a loser.

ross... could you detail your stratigic and tactical training that enables you to come to this conclusion. Do you have practical, or even classroom, experience in either leading or suppressing an insurrection? Did you spend a significant portion of the 70s/80s down in South America?

Military experience?

Do you talk to the war-gamers on a regular basis? (Not the ones playing games around their kitchen table but the ones hidden deep in the bowels of unnamed locations)

You're just so darned positive about your point of view when discussing these things with people who have spent decades in the military and it's interesting to know where you've developed this expertise.

Or are you just being a blowhard about a subject that you have absolutely no knowledge of other than what you see on "24."

If it's Top Secret we'll understand and won't press you anymore.

could you detail your stratigic and tactical training that enables you to come to this conclusion.

How about you make a case for the opposite conclusion - that a bunch of civilians armed with shotguns, deer rifles and handguns can defeat a modern army? The reality is you can't make it because it can't be made and it doesn't require any "strategic or tactical training" to figure that out.

The only blowhards here are the gun fanatics trying to make their hobby a serious contribution to the national interest.

Some fallacies: 2nd has nothing to do with hunting : it was noted as a side benefit, that different than nothing

All arms: nonsense, it's never been held up as such, it was not framed as such, arms = a soldier's commonly carried weapons, sidearm (handgun) and long gun.

Toys: not anything like a toy, this is idiotic

Collectors: most collectors never shoot their guns, this removes value. An enthusiast is something else. I shoot all of mine, their value to me is their utility, I do own more than a few.

Gun nuts: This term is so perjorative, where to start? The NRA has been around for over 100yrs. Gun owners were a fairly quiet bunch up until direct attacks on the 2nd ocurred. The "nut" catagory when applied to the 1st would be what?

Rights: There are privileges and there are rights, two different things. Rights precede government - see Declaration of Independence. I do not have rights because of the govt, I have them DESPITE the govt (also tyrrany of the majority or minority or elites or...) Here you hit one of the most misunderstood pieces of American history, probably the fault of textbooks, NO right is dependent on the government, has nothing to do with the government other than its official recognition it exists. It is entirely an after the fact recognition. This is where Ross gets it so wrong, along with WS, Jeff A, and a couple others. Does blogging with its self-interested obsessive clique qualify as hobbyists and shelter some bigoted dangerous loons, sure it does, and the 1st says it should. Does Newt G take exactly the same approach as the above referenced people, yes in more blunt hysterical terms. I watch Jeff being torn in all directions trying to respect the right and address gun crime and be reasonable, the problem is that he can't do it. In regard to guns, their are more than enough tools in the kit, in regard to crime the same cannot be said. These are two different things, neither means the same as the other and addressing one as being the other will not work.

Security (safety): This one really takes some doing, You are NOT safe. You cannot be safe, something is going to get you. Maybe it'll be old age (still something does it), maybe a car crash, maybe cancer, maybe, maybe, maybe, and most of what will get you is not preventable, it'll come out of the blue. You want to be free? You just multiplied the risks. Wouldn't you be much safe if the Muslims couldn't say anything controversial? Or the Christians or New Republic or... Action is ordinarily an outgrowth of words, even lunatics operate in that arena, words that mean something differrent to everybody else. Words glue ideas together, every criminal will use them to justify his action - even if only to himself, but we insist on having freedom with them.

Crime: crime is not about guns, it is a societal problem. Some people are insane - they have no structure to recognize right and wrong, but most criminals operate within structure, they know there are consequences, they simply do not believe they will be caught or don't worry about the consequences, or believe that they somehow are justified by the structure. This is not an object problem, this is a social problem. Guns do not create crime, although they may facilitate it, they are simply a tool, outcome is entirely the responsibility of the wielder of the tool. You address people and you have a chance of having an outcome that has something to do with your desired end. If you address the tool you WILL piss off people and you may wind up making 'criminals.'

Rhetorical Heat: there are people who own guns who will never be happy, because they simply won't be, it's not who they are. There are the anti's who are exactly the same, no matter what they won't have gotten enough. There is the middle, they wish it would go away, but then they start talking about some "compromise" without realizing that it isn't a compromise, they'd know it, but getting along trumps reason. Then you have the people who stand on their Rights. Many don't even own or care about guns, they care in that elusive principled way about ideals that don't affect them. Gun owners who stand on the Right tend to be very knowledgeable about the entire issue, they have a concrete stake in the debate.

Pro 2nds won't accept anything: Instant Background Checks don't infringe (except when the state screws it up), you are perfectly free to exercise your right providing you have not abrogated it. (spouses have been proven to abuse the domestic violence clauses) Commercial transfers of weapons are regulated as well as commercial transport. Carry on certain properties is prohibited. Concealed carry require permitting. These are simply highlights. These may not be happy making, but they have not provoked a backlash.

The Zumbo thing wasn't about bloodthirsty people, it was about a particularly stupid peice of writing. It was wrong in so many ways that its author cannot simply claim "oops." I will work against Hillary Clinton because she was SO wrong in so many ways on Iraq (and other stuff) that she abrogated my trust, that is what Zumbo did to people who actually pay money for his services.

At this many comments, the chances that people will actually read the preceding ones and not just pile on with something already discussed is small.

How about you make a case for the opposite conclusion - that a bunch of civilians armed with shotguns, deer rifles and handguns can defeat a modern army?

I don't have to because they don't have to defeat a modern army. That's your first amateurish, mistaken assumption. But typical.

And that's all I am going to say because I do know what I am talking about and I would rather not have a night visit from those who would strongly suggest that I was in error for writing things down that shouldn't be discussed in public.

OK Ross, you've managed to piss me off. You have been told in clear terms why discussing actual real life tactical actions in this forum is inappropriate. Repeatedly. If you are too dense to understand why it is dangerous and offensive to hold such a discussion, you are simply trolling. If you cannot look at the world today and over the last 100 years and understand that insurgent tactics exist and work you are deliberately blind and a Troll.

This is not about video games, or war movies, or comic books. This is about the most dangerous predator in the world. I will tell you very simply that with an ordinary 30-06 scoped hunting rifle at a distance of 1/4 mile I can make 3-5 people very ill before I have to move. Now, engage brain. Get this, I am not a clown, I am extremely dangerous and lethal; and I'm just an ordinary guy who happens to know how to shoot. Military units depend on cohesion in order to operate, they also (see Iraq & Nam) require the ability to clear and hold ground. Take it from there, even if you're no good at it, you'll get at least part of the picture. There are also a lot of good studies on the subject, you can find them. Covering your eyes and crying "NOOOOO" does not make you a debater or anything other than foolish.

BTW, Russ, I noticed that you never quite gave your qualifications to be an expert commentator on this issue.

Waiting...

Waiting...

Waiting...

NO right is dependent on the government, has nothing to do with the government other than its official recognition it exists. It is entirely an after the fact recognition. This is where Ross gets it so wrong, along with WS, Jeff A, and a couple others.

So you believe collecting guns is a natural, individual, universal human right? And I thought the anti-gun folks were using hyperbole when they claimed guns are a religion with some people.

noticed that you never quite gave your qualifications to be an expert commentator on this issue.

Sure I did. I took an NRA gun safety course. What qualifications does it take to figure out that a bunch of civilians aren't going to take on the US Army with shotguns, rifles and handguns? The answer is none.

So you believe collecting guns is a natural, individual, universal human right?

So did the Founding Fathers. Along with the right to assemble, the right to free speech, the right to religion, the right to not incriminate yourself, and many others.

So who ya gonna trust? General Ross, the stratigic/tactical expert, or the Founding Fathers?

wow. 97 comments and counting.

obviously this is the most pressing issue facing us in the near future.

Sure I did. I took an NRA gun safety course.

Oh of course. I should have realized (sound of slapping forehead).

A one day NRA course on gun safety equals 25 years of military service and years of contingency planning for when the ball dropped? And qualifies one as a stratigic/tactical expert on insurgencies? And to think I could have saved all that time and wrapped it up in just one day.

And repeating an amateur's mistake about taking on the Army doesn't make it less of a mistake. It's just a mistake repeated twice now.

(Your answer was satire wasn't it? I'd hate to think you were serious.)

You have been told in clear terms why discussing actual real life tactical actions in this forum is inappropriate.

There hasn't been a successful (or unsuccessful) insurgency anywhere in at least the last 50 years operating with civilian hunting weapons.

There are no "real life tactical actions" that are going to make you successful with your deer rifle. You may not have noticed, but the Somali militias were pretty successful. They had automatic weapons, rpg's, mortars, and pickups armed with anti-aircraft guns. They dissolved almost instantly in the face of the Ethiopian army which had armor, real artillery and air support. A bunch of folks with deer rifles wouldn't last very long.

Ross wants to be exactly where he is, he isn't going to move, it's a matter of faith. Replying to him makes him important.

Exactly 3 comments previous to his last I gave him a thumbnail, you notice some recognition of it?

There are all kinds of TROLLs in the blog world, this is just one example. Why he is acting like this is his business, but how validating is it of his other advocacy positions. He posts here from time to time. Is he exactly that full of crap on all his other writings? It's not about disagreement, it's about hear nothing, see nothing. I build houses, how should I take his opinions in that arena? Blind ignorant faith? I suppose, just scroll on down to the next when I see his name. Ok.

epeating an amateur's mistake about taking on the Army

There are plenty of professionals who have made the mistake of taking on the US army. But you won't find any that did it backed by a bunch of civilians with hunting rifles and shotguns.

But hey, there is always a first time so try it. That's what natural selection is about.

along with the right to assemble, the right to free speech, the right to religion, the right to not incriminate yourself, and many others.

Exactly my point. The gun fanatics aren't really interested in protecting any right but their right to collect guns. They place that right up there with freedom of speech, religion etc.

All the stuff about fighting tyranny is just so much hot air.

They dissolved almost instantly in the face of the Ethiopian army which had armor, real artillery and air support.

You just won't learn, son. There's a name for folk like that.

Somalia? for pete's sake. There's a model of stability, peacefulness, wealth and security. You just made my argument, that's going to work? The elite in this country will tolerate that model? Where their wealth and power means they get to live in a busted brick house versus on the street. Insurrection destroyed that country, so your point is???

I gave him a thumbnail

Chuck, I was trying to be polite. Your "thumbnail" is completely delusional. You might manage to kill a soldier before you died yourself if you got lucky enough to get within your quarter mile. But for every one of you that got that close, 100 others would be dead before they ever fired a shot.

Your argument that owning a gun is a natural right has a lot more power than the idea you are going to defend our freedom. And it isn't a very good argument either.

Ross wants to be exactly where he is, he isn't going to move, it's a matter of faith.

You're right, Chuck. But the thing that people like Ross never quite figure out is that it is never really about them. It's about the fencesitters and how they view the back and forth.

And ducking the issues, ignoring the points, getting facts wrong are never really good at moving the fencesitters to the gun-bigot side. That's why I encourage Ross to talk as much as he wants. Virtually every post of the Rosses of the world ensures we have more and more people looking seriously at our positions in a more favorable light.

Ross and the others are just a foil to get to where I want to be with those who are looking in and trying to decide about the issues raised.

The most fun part is that even when I let them in on that little secret they still can't help themselves. Their very next post is still going to help our side more than theirs. It's in their nature and it can't be changed.

It's about the fencesitters and how they view the back and forth.

No doubt. I wonder who you think the fence sitters are. The folks who think you can beat the US Army with your deer rifles and shotguns?

The reality is that most hunters are interested in hunting, not politics. Many just like being out in the woods with their friends. Most of them would find the idea they were going to fight the US Army frightening and the idea they would do it with their deer rifle delusional.

They probably haven't stopped to think about the fact that if its delusional they would use their deer rifle in an "insurgency" against the government, its probably equally delusional that the government would bother to confiscate them.

It seems to me that it was Jim Zumbo's original article which offered a "stab in the back" to the NRA, not vice-versa.

In any case, the outrage and punishment is just like what happened to Michael Richards after his racist rant. I don't recall his heartfelt apology making much of a difference, either.

I guess that means NRA members and liberals have similar psychologies -- both become equally furious and intolerant of disagreeing opinions when their hot buttons are pushed.

The issues involved are also somewhat analogous. Michael Richards' remarks suggested that blacks deserved fewer rights than white people; Jim Zumbo's remarks suggested that private citizens should have fewer gun rights than domestic law enforcement. My view is that police should be servants of the people -- civilians paid to do a job that the rest of us could do for ourselves if we wanted to, rather than some special privileged category subject to a separate, more martial law. I feel likewise about making whites a privileged category over racial minorities.

That's why I'm willing to forgive both of them only if their apologies are sincere and complete, but would shun and scorn them if they really do mean what they said.

Frank, heck I not only forgive Zumbo, I don't even care. Just write about something that he can write about accurately. I don't dance on his grave, I'm happy if he makes a good living. I think his credibility on guns is flat gone, but it's up to him to know if he wants to stay in that line or something else. He's not a politician, nobody elected him, people were willing to pay him pretty well to produce a good product. He stopped doing that. I'm in the business of providing a product, I know exactly how it works.

The very real use of the 2nd in day to day life is the aspect of MAD - mutually assured destruction - it is a standing deterence, very similar to nukes. NOBODY wants it in play, so we stare at each other across that fence. The government in final terms provides an infrastructure of physical items and wealth (of some form), the people comprise the working elements of that structure, it is in neither's interest to kick it apart. This is the part that the Ross types ignore. I have no problem with people who wish to exist with the tolerance of a government, I just happen to not be one and I happen to live where that is not the case - and where I don't have to tolerate anyone's attempts to make me one.

Ross will not ever get the guns taken away, he can help drive a political party into the ditch, but there are too many guns and too many who will simply say no - and back it up. I've never had any fear that a Ross would remove the 2nd, I do fear his type pushing it into action. The 2nd in action is MAD. CA may have done what it wanted about "assault weapons" but there are still a bunch of them in CA.

If you're real fond of the Republican Party what you want to do is buy into his stuff. The Republican Party doesn't back the 2nd on principle, they do it for votes. The second it suited their political agenda they would jettison it like so much dog poo. The Democrats on the other hand, have spent most of the last 80 years standing for the protection of and expansion of civil liberties. It's in their blood, but they sure do get stupid sometimes. And taken to the woodshed.

If you want a government of law, principle, and ideals then you are stuck with them, you don't get to hedge. Ross wants you to hedge, what do you really think your answer to him ought to be?

Here's a real laugh for you, 108 comments. I write an unabashedly leftwing Blog that also has guns and fast cars in it. There are some very real 2nd Amendment articles and some heavy duty guns and very few comments on them.

My readership is much smaller than B-O's, but entirely sufficient to drive huge comment numbers, they aren't there. The why is real simple, there are a bunch of lefty gun owners and a bunch who'd cut off their nose before they'd stomp on somebody's civil liberties. I'm not trolling for readers, I'm making the point about numbers.

I get way more comments on readership analysis or my backing gay rights than any 2nd A article. That should say something. I do get a lot of ?s about particular guns.

Jeff, I guess that the others on this thread haven't got through to you, so I'll fisk this, one point at a time.

"When I initially posted on this, I pointed the finger at the gun lobby, which, as this case demonstrates is in fact the monolith Jack Burton denies. So monolithic, in fact, that an apparently coordinated effort blackballed Jim Zumbo in less than a week. I have no way of knowing the extent to which the effort was coordinated, but the question's moot--the various players acted in such lockstep that the effect was back-room politics, with or without the back room."

You're bound and determined that the VRWC is behind this, and you're beginning to sound as ridiculous as the people who created that term. Did you ever hear of "smart mobs"? Same effect. Get it through your head - there was no top-down coordination, and insisting that there must have been makes you sound like the folks who claim that the lack of evidence of a conspriracy simply proves that there is one.

"Kari hits on the key question that scares the gun lobby because it is the thing with divisive force. No constitutional right is absolute, but as we've seen on this thread, many gun-"rights" activists hold an absolute opinion (which is no doubt a minority view nationally). To the extent that some Americans want absolute, unregulated access to any weapon manufactured, the entire gun lobby is in danger of fighting it's own inner battles. Thus does it quickly act to stamp out consideration of any question that may lead, as inevitably as this thread (on a liberal website, no less), to a consideration of where that line should be drawn."

Kari, nothing personal, but your insistance on a yes or no answer to the question of "machine guns" is why people are reluctant to answer, or phrase it very carefully. It's traditionally been, as Jeff notes obliquely, a wedge question, and been used in a black and white "gotcha" "no further questions, your Honor" sort of way. I'll answer you, however, and Jeff can make of it as he will: Yes, the 2nd does cover machine guns. Does this mean that anyone can have one? Of course not. There are classes of people who shouldn't. The problem, from my POV, is that the assumption has been the wrong way for a "right", no word games intended. What regulation we have now, and which the anti-2nd crew would have even more of, assumes that you need to prove why you need it, as opposed to the regulators demonstrating why you shouldn't have it. It's the same difference as "innocent until proven guilty" vs "guilty until you prove your innocence." The absolutist argument that Jeff decries is a reaction to that attitude. If there weren't a large, well funded lobby with the goal of complete disarmament of the hoi polloi, you'd have a lot fewer people taking that stance.

"I'm freaked out by political players who use their might to stifle discussion, whether it's environmentalists who spike trees or gun advocates who want to own AK-47s. So why is no one talking about that?"

The discussion was not stifled. It's just that those of us who don't agree with his view didn't want to pay for him to disseminate it. Because you don't have a column in the Snoregonian, can you make the claim that discussion about <insert jeff's="" latest="" cause=""> is being stifled? Same "logic" and just as ludicrous. However, Bill Monroe, the Snoregonian's "Outdoor" writer, and another Fudd, has taken up your cause here, and that puts "Paid" to the whole "stifling" argument.

"Kari's right--unless and until people admit that, even with Constitutional protection, guns can be regulated, we're going to perpetually have a fake discussion about anti-gun hysteria trying to infringe on Americans' rights. (I've even heard those charges on this thread, made obviously out of reflex, since no one has taken anything approaching that position here.)"

No one's brought it up yet, but I'll give you my rebuttal to the whole license and regulation argument:

The argument is made that "we register cars and license car owners, why can't we do the same with guns?"

Ignoring the whole 2nd argument, there's a simple reason why gun owners look askance as almost every regulatory measure, while car owners yawn (and bitch about the cost)-

There is no such organization as "Speeder Policy Initiative" which changed their name (but not their goals) from "Corvette Control, Inc". As I said, there's a well-financed and influential lobby dedicated to removing our guns, and we tend to be sensitive about attempts to "redefine the question" so as to force the answer.

Just a minor correction to bud's good analysis, I don't have to prove to Uncle Fed that I need a machine gun, wanting one is enough, I do have to jump through a bunch of hoops to prove I can have it, get to keep it, and give them real dollars.

He failed to respond to my point that it's about deterrence rather than winning some imaginary battle that he himself ginned up.

Why do you expect a response? You made the argument that your hunting rifle will deter a tyrannical government. You are entitled to believe that but I doubt it is true and I suspect that would be the response of most reasonable people. It certainly didn't deter George Washington from putting down the Whiskey Rebellion.

there's a well-financed and influential lobby dedicated to removing our guns,

Where is this organization? Its entirely invented to introduce paranoia in innocent hunters that their guns are going to be taken away. None of the groups who are proposing gun regulation of guns have proposed taking away any law abiding adult's hunting rifle or shotgun or even hinted that was their ultimate purpose. It is entirely an invention of gun fanatics who are afraid someone might interfere with their hobby and prevent them from buying some obscure type of weapon.

Jeff.

I am not, nor have I ever been, affiliated with the "gun lobby," nor am I particularly swayed by them (except perhaps to moan at their rhetoric at times).

I am a left Democrat. I have been a member of two county central committees and have been a member of the State Democratic Central Committee from those two counties as well (Lane and Multnomah). I've been a Jerry Brown supporter, a public power supporter, and a supporter of many other good left causes.

I am also a gun owner. I am not particularly favorable to gun control. Note that I am also not particularly favorable to the NRA, either. In fact, I'm pretty solidly behind Chuck Butcher, among others, in this camp, although I'm nowhere near his level as an enthusiast.

When someone sounds off about guns and clearly hasn't a clue of what they're speaking about, this low-level plinker, hunter, and wannabe writer who's done some serious research into the nature of guns and their use is going to join the crowd in pointing out that such a statement is stupidity.

I'm also less likely to support a Democratic candidate who goes out on a limb to advocate gun control. In fact, considering I've lived in districts where some have in fact done that, I've chosen not to vote, contribute money, or work for those candidates. I'm a bit more irascible about it these days than I was when I was younger, but that's in part because I have less time to spend these days.

For Ross--you'd be surprised at how many folks out in the hunting field learned their gun handling in the military. I learned my skills from ex-military folks. Don't downplay that knowledge. There's a lot more weapons skills out there among the general population than you realize.

And, BTW, an AK-47 (Chinese make) fits my small frame right nicely, shoots pretty damn accurately, and kicks less than my hunting rifle.

Further deponent sayeth not.

Ah, I love the use of "Democrat Party"--puts me in such a mood to collaborate. Sorry, I don't follow... I'm not a member of either the Reps or the Dems, so I view them as two sides of the same coin. Both will tell me what I want to hear in order to get my vote and my money, and both will put more government in place to solve any problems. No thanks! But anyway, while there's a kernal of truth to what you say, I believe it's mostly wrong. The GOP in the 1980s led a wholesale attack on almost any kind of regulation and all social programs. This was the brilliant political tactic of the right, arguing that the government was oppressing its citizens. Anytime government does more, people get less. My favorite founding father, Thomas Jefferson once said (paraphased) that any government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it away too. Jefferson was highly critical of government, and viewed it as a dangerous albeit necessary evil. His view was that government should be strictly controlled. Actually, based on a few of his comments, I believe that he thought we should rise up and overthrow our government every couple of decades, just to keep them in line. In addition, guns were a big deal because gun violence was out of control in the 70s and 80s--the murder rate in 2005 was about half what it was in 1980. (Righties, for what it's worth, folded rural white suspicion of minorities and cities into their assault on gun regulation, adding culture wars into the mix.) I don't know about that, I haven't looked at the numbers, and I was barely old enough in the 70's to remember Jimmy Carter as president. For what it's worth, I'm sick of the race card being played on all sides. I grew up around plenty of folks of different races, and there were some good and some bad in every group. And interestingly enough, the bad from one group wanted nothing to do with the bad from the other groups. Whatever. All I know is after seeing that the bad guys had guns, I knew that it made no sense to me to NOT have one, just in case they came calling. Everyone was trying to stop gun violence, and the very modest efforts to curb "Saturday Night Specials" and the flow of stolen firearms was hailed as a positive step by most Americans and law enforcement I guess that depends upon the definition of most Americans. If I asked a group of W fans if your website ought to be pulled from the net, they'd likely say 'yes'. According to whom I asked, most Americans want your website pulled, right? Secondly, you just proved my point (I guess that was the kernel of truth there?) that more restrictions were being placed on the American people, in the name of crime prevention. The people spoke up. They said no. Crime control is accomplished by controlling the root cause of crime--the criminal. --but allowed the fringe elements within the NRA to create an ideological backlash. & to another post: My post was never about case law or the second amendment, of course. It was about the impressive force of the gun lobby to dictate discourse and behavior, and the danger this presents to Democrats. So far, the 113 comments have mainly served to confirm my worries. Again, you miss the point about the NRA. It is member driven, not the other way around. Fringe elements can't drive the NRA to do anything, and the NRA can't drive the majority of its members. The majority of the members agree with what the NRA is doing, or the NRA wouldn't be doing it. Membership and contributions drops everytime they do something (or attempt to do something) that the membership doesn't agree with. If they want to get that membership (and more importantly, the money) back, they have to do something to correct it.

The NRA piled on at the end, because they didn't want to miss the boat, so to speak. Zumbo was being run out of town on a rail for making the "terrorist" comment, as well as calling for a ban on a particular weapon when hunting. To the majority of gun owners and members of the NRA, that was an unforgivable act. As a result, they (not the NRA) began demanding his retraction, that his sponsors drop him, that his magazine fire him, and that he be tarred and feathered. The NRA only jumped in at the end, after the fray was well over. In fact, it could be said they waited to see which way the wind was blowing before they decided to act. They weren't leading anything--they followed.

The clause you refer to as antecedent is that and it is also a dependent clause. You know grammar, it is not a declaration, it is not a sentence, it depepends on the statement that follows for its meaning. You also are confusing the timing, there already was a standing army, a little one, but an army. Nowhere in the Constitution is the government or any arm of the government referred to as "the people." You are proposing that a basic inalienable right is being enumerated to allow the government to arm itself, no. Only the Brady bunch even bothers with this collective argument anymore. It's been so discredited that they seldom try it.

"A well regulated..." refers in that time period to well equipped and turned out "militia." It has nothing to do with the modern meaning of regulate or regulation. Further, the militia is the citizenry (with the later extensions of BOR to all) it is not an arm of any government. Even worse is "a free state," this is frequently misunderstood, look at the article, it is not a definite article nor is "state" capitalized, it is not about the organized and defined State, read the Declaration of Independence to see where that leads you. Do not confuse archaic words with illiteracy, these guys knew how to write and what definite, indefinite, and dependent meant and this was a period of "over Capitalization."

All Supreme Court decisions recognize the military utility of the weapons covered, in fact the standing Miller decision (Fed Appeals Court) about sawed off shotguns required the military utility - sent back by Supremes, paintiff deceased - no paintiff standing, moot.

For more closely reasoned and broadly argued go to my Blog. You can also see DOJ on individual v collective. Warning over 100pgs.

The argument RE: 14th A and state & local interference has not been taken up. See above argument re: beneficiaries of status quo. You are free to read the 14th and try to find a way to deprive the citizens of any locale of the rights enumerated.

Regarding Jeff's argument about Zumbo, I am a business man and I would not have made the same decision but it would have cost dearly in apology and damage control. Zumbo's article/firing has now provided fodder for Colbert and while funny also distressing with references to "cop killer bullets," and other fictions of gun control. These waters are easily roiled for good reason.

Also Re: Jeff, thanks to over quick writing and lousy sentence structure I connected a point of disagreement with Jeff to others without so meaning. Jeff certainly does understand the words of the BOR and their meanings. My apologies to him. Late but made.

Sal,

I think you're confusing something here. First off, the founding fathers (and Thomas Jefferson in particular) did not want a standing army. The entire idea behind the 2nd Amendment was that every man be armed so that they could become the militia, as needed, to defend the country.

The militia wasn't a stop-gap measure meant to be temporary. It was meant to be a permanent feature of our new country, very similar to the Swiss model. The secondary benefit of such a system is the obvious fact that the people will be armed, and that they will be able to resist a tyrranical government as well as an outside force attempting to come in.

The second thing you've seemed to confuse is the idiom 'well regulated'.

You've no doubt used the words 'all right' to describe something. There are several definitions to the word 'right', including: correct; appropriate; genuine; opposite of left; of or pertaining to conservative values; in math, perpendicular to a particular axis or line; something that is inherently due to a person; a legal claim or title; exactly; immediately; completely; to a high degree; very; et cetera, and on and on.

If something is as easy as pie, does that mean we are expected to bake it and eat it?

If a deal gets done at the eleventh hour, does that mean it happened between the hours of 11 o'clock and Noon?

The point is, if you try to break down that one word from the idiom, the meaning could indeed change. 'Well regulated' was an idiom in common usage, but you can't break the idiom into pieces and then reassamble it with new definitions.

A well is also hole in the ground where one can draw water. Using that definition, how does 'well regulated' make any sense?

Yes, regulated was a word in use at the time, and it did mean what we mean when we say it today. Much as today's idioms cannot be broken apart to discover hidden meanings, we cannot go back and restructure idioms from the constitution.

The Vietnamese might have a different perspective.

They also were a fully armed military with automatic weapons, mortars, artillery etc., ultimately, even tanks. They weren't fighting with shotguns and deer rifles.

you'd be surprised at how many folks out in the hunting field learned their gun handling in the military.

Maybe. I grew up around guns and am sometimes surprised by how little contact people have had with them. But, frankly, military training has nothing to do with whether you can fight the US military using deer rifles and shotguns.

I suspect that if you went to your local deer camp and rousted everybody out and told them "today we are going to take on the US military", the folks with military training would be the first to tell you that you are an idiot. Unless they didn't like you, then they might send you off while they went back to sleep.

The argument that owning a deer rifle or shotgun provides a deterrent against oppressive government is simply not rationally defensible. They are no more a military weapon than a pocket-knife. Of course telling males they are impotent has never been popular, regardless of whether it is true.

Sorry, in my haste I forgot a sentence. I meant to place this sentence in here:

...et cetera, and on and on.

New Sentence<<< They are also not meant to be taken literally, in many cases.

If something is as easy as pie, does that mean we are expected to bake it and eat it?....

Sorry for the extra post.

the folks with military training would be the first to tell you that you are an idiot.

Actually, this particular Marine is calling you an idiot. Honestly, keep yapping. Your utter lack of knowledge of this subject is so amazing it can't help but bolster our side.

However, I'm going to play a little game, Ross. I'm going to grant you that my 30.06 has no chance of against a full US military invasion and that it cannot overthrow a tyranny.

If what you say is true, then everybody should have access to unlimited weaponry, including WMDs for just this reason. Unless you think tyranny is fine, as a society we should have the ability to fight off our government if need be.

I'm glad Ross thinks that things are peachy keen over in Iraq and that no military can be hassled or defeated from small arms.

Oh, and Jeff, emotional words are one thing, using emotion instead of logic is different.

If what you say is true, then everybody should have access to unlimited weaponry, including WMDs for just this reason.

Go ahead and make that case. I don't think you will find many takers. I think a lot of people would be uncomfortable with the Timothy McVeigh's of the world having the right to stockpile high explosives. And those are the kinds of folks who are most likely to go to the trouble of stockpiling them.

no military can be hassled or defeated from small arms.

You many not have noticed, but the insurgents in Iraq are using Ak-47's, not civilian knock-offs. And they also have a lot of high explosives, RPG's and mortars among other weapons. If all they had were hunting rifles and shotguns, our troops would have been home for a long time by now.

this particular Marine is calling you an idiot.

I am sure calling people names will work to defend us all against tyranny too. Maybe you can just call the tyrants idiots and they will surrender. Or threaten to call them idiots if they don't leave you alone. Or you can arm yourself with cap pistols. It worked when I played fantasy games as a kid.

I think you'd have a hard time arguing seriously that we were forced out of Vietnam primarily due to tanks and artillery.

You would have a much harder time arguing it was shotguns and hunting rifles or anything remotely similar. The Viet Cong didn't rely solely on small arms fire and the North Vietnamese army even less so.

. By the way, the "gun nuts" aren't the ones arguing that they should be limited to deer rifles and shotguns.

Who are these "gun nuts"? You mean Timothy McVeigh and company? Go ahead and defend the notion that people should be able to stockpile high explosives, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns etc.

More to the point, an insurgency doesn't have to win a war outright, they just have to make it impossible for the occupiers to effectively govern.

Which is something you can't prevent with deer rifles and shotguns.

Most guns would be useful for that if only as a way to protect yourself while you plant your IEDs or raid the nearby armory for even better weapons.

And how well do suppose that will go? Deer rifles against fortified weapons storage with the defenders having everything from helicopters to automatic weapons? And if you have access to IED's wouldn't you likely have access to a supply of other weapons beyond deer rifles and shotguns?

No one is arguing you can't have a successful insurgency. But whether you start with a deer rifle or a shotgun in your basement is irrelevant. Its pure fanatasy.

Every right has an endpoint where it becomes abusive or inevitibly and universally catastrophic.

But what also happens is that there are people who care deeply about an issue and research it to understand it and there are those who have an emotional issue and simply react with emotion. The 120+ posts demonstrate that this issue is cared about; they also demonstrate the attitudes and research of the participants. A Ross will stand on one assertion, that is denied historically and currently, and repeat and repeat. I am familiar with Sal's opinion on gun control, but he approaches it with logic, some research, and questions. The Second is not the only Amendment under debate, the religion clause in the 1st is, freedom of press is, the meaning of "reasonable" in the 4th is,and per AG Gonzo even the Habeas clause in the Constitution is. I will state with little fear of contradiction that the Framers intended any err in broadness to be on the side of the individual, not the government. We can attempt to turn the US Constitution into a piece of legislation, like the debasement of the OR Constitiution, but the bar is set very high and the results are demonstrated by the Prohibition Amendments. We can attempt to tear apart the language's meanings and get results like AG Gonzo's attempt. Yes, you can break up phrases as Sal did to get a different meaning (I'm not suggesting subterfuge on his part) and end up where the AG did, with something clearly not intended and dangerous.

The authors were very well educated individuals who managed this after intense public debate. They tried very hard to keep nonsense from happening. To state that they were blinded by their times is nonsense. They stood at the rise of the Industrial Revolution and a revolution of understanding of the individual versus government. They knew (for example) the advantage of rifles in accuracy over muskets and had no reason to think that technological advances had reached an endpoint anymore than we do. What they did know is that certain rights transcended momentary consideration or a certain historical point.

Ross, wake up. My 30-06 M1 Garrand is not some "piss ant" hunting rifle, I can't even use it to hunt without a specialized clip, it is the weapon most credited with winning WWII. There are several hundred thousand in private hands. The numbers are similar for more advanced military arms, the M1A, and the AR15 - a civilized semi-auto M16, there are thousands of fully automatic guns legally in private hands, and finally most hunting rifles are fearful weapons, put your straw man down. In your mind you create set piece battles where tanks, artillery, and bombing reign supreme and state that anybody stupid enough to engage would be slaughtered, which is obvious to anybody not stupid enough to do so. If you want to come play with the grownups, don't play stupid. Every military mind worth mentioning regards urban and deep cover military engagements as the most risky and costly, and if you throw any regard for infrastructure and civilian populous into the picture a nearly hopeless endeavor without huge numbers. Now if you wish to make some arguments regarding the 2nd and gun crime or something that makes some sense that's a fine thing, but quit being dense. People who study history and tactics have told you, soldiers have told you, current events ought to tell you. Pick another ground to stand on.

The only justification for your argument is to invalidate and moot the clear meaning of the 2nd, leaving the orphan considerations of hunting and self-defense weak and assailable. Ross, people on your side employ professionals to play this game, we're well aware of them and have to have sufficient understanding to oppose them, you're under-armed.

Re: Zumbo The AR15 is an excellent rifle for prairie dogs and other varmits and they provide good practice and bullets are better than poison. The SK and AK families are also fairly good, primarily due to being relativley cheap to shoot and lower recoil. My 45-70 is a horrid prairie dog gun, too much drop and way too much recoil. On the other hand, the 45-70 is wonderful for elk, moose, and bear and an AR15/AK/SK is not. The AR is highly regarded in Nat. Match and Palma competitions.

The only justification for your argument is to invalidate and moot the clear meaning of the 2nd

Exactly the flip side. The argument about defending freedom and the second amendment is just a crazy justification for the notion that the hobby of gun collecting is protected by the second amendment. Most of their guns have no military value and no role at all in a "well regulated militia" and they know it.

it is the weapon most credited with winning WWII.

Yeh - and long rifles were the weapons credited with winning the battle of New Orleans. It doesn't make them useful in a modern military conflict.

Every military mind worth mentioning regards urban and deep cover military engagements

Whose talking about "military engagements"? Since when was policing a bunch of people armed with deer rifles and shotguns a military engagement? Isn't that the point? To have a "military engagement" you need something well beyond shotguns and semi-automatic rifles or even automatic light arms. Which is the real lesson of all insurgencies in the modern world.

you create set piece battles where tanks, artillery, and bombing

Not really. You are the one who is imagining scenarios in which you are a freedom fighter battling government tyranny. What I picture is a real life conflict more like the Branch Davidians. A bunch of losers who end up getting themselves killed.

Ross Williams, shut up. Your exercise of the first isn't needed. You don't need to do it. I don't like the words you use or how you use them. So shut up.

The argument about defending freedom and the second amendment is just a crazy justification for the notion that the hobby of gun collecting is protected by the second amendment. Most of their guns have no military value and no role at all in a "well regulated militia" and they know it.

What's with this strict (originalist) interpretation of the Constitution? Do you apply it only when its convenient? Or are you a friend of Justice's Scalia and Thomas?

Surely the framers also only intended men to comprise the well regulated milita. Perhaps we should bar all women from gun ownership, not just those women who are gun nuts, gun collectors, hunters, own firearms not suited for military application, or farmers shooting varmits.

The fact is, the 2nd Amendment is still part of the Constitution. If you want to change it, there is a process for doing so. But you can't do so simply by "abandoning" one of its provisions and pretending that it no longer exists. The Supreme Court has only made one dubious ruling on the 2nd amendment, so there is a very thin case law surrounding it.

I agree the second amendment is still there. For much of our history we had "well regulated militias". But as far as I know, they were almost all sponsored by local government. We have also had private armed groups and they have all been treated as outside the law - the KKK for instance. It does not appear to me there is any case law that would indicate that private armies were protected by the constitution.

So while I think the original concept included the notion individual citizens coming together to defend their liberties, that has not been how it has worked in practice. I think the whiskey rebellion and other events convinced people that the idea of informal citizen militias didn't really work.

And I would suggest the same is true today. The only people likely to invest in stockpiling significant weapons and training to use them are not folks we want deciding whether to defend our liberties. Whether its the Black Panthers or the Branch Davidians, these folks are far outside mainstream America. And that was certainly not the intention of the founders when they wrote the second amendment.

Doretta sez: More to the point, an insurgency doesn't have to win a war outright, they just have to make it impossible for the occupiers to effectively govern.

Ross sez: Which is something you can't prevent with deer rifles and shotguns.

Ross, go take a walk, get some fresh air in your lungs. You're punchy.

Nobody said the occupiers would be limited to deer rifles and shotguns in their efforts to prevent an insurgency. And nobody believes that an insurgency armed with deer rifles and shotguns can't throw an adequately large wrench into the machinery of an occupation.

Nobody said the occupiers would be limited to deer rifles and shotguns in their efforts to prevent an insurgency.

I meant prevent someone from governing, not prevent the insurgency.

And nobody believes that an insurgency armed with deer rifles and shotguns can't throw an adequately large wrench into the machinery of an occupation.

I think the idea is absurd on its face. Can you point to an example where an insurgency has been successful with hunting rifles and shotguns?

Just to point out an obvious example, there was not a single successful resistance to the Nazi occupation of Europe. And the resistance groups were often encouraged and supported by the Allies, including providing them with real weapons. That was over 60 years ago, when most soldiers were not armed with automatic weapons. What makes anyone think they can be more successful now against the US military?

If a tyrannical president and or the military took over the US government, I would want to either raise or join a private army to defend my freedom as well as others.

But you wouldn't need for that to be legal would you? The question is whether you, and anyone else who chooses, should be legally allowed to raise and arm a private army in anticipation of resisting a tyrannical president. Once there is a tyrant, the constitution isn't going to protect you anyway.

some other method not prescribed for in the Constitution.

But I think that is my point. The courts interpret the constitution. I think the meaning, as it has come to be historically understood, has never included private armies. It has included citizen militias organized under local governments.

My point above is that the NRA, gun dealers and gun collectors have twisted the meaning of the second amendment to support the idea that it protects their hobby or the right of people to own hunting guns. That was never its intent. And the weapons they claim are protected have no real purpose as part of a militia.

Oh Ross. Take a walk around downtown Portland, somewhere you're familiar with, look at all the windows, the roofs, the alley ways, and parking areas. You hear 3 shots in under 30 sec and 3 uniforms of any sort have holes in them and the shooter is already moving. You will have no idea where the shots came from (other than nearby), the first individual was hit before the sound arrived, the second round was probably in the air before the sound registered on the targets, the third before they could react - and the shooter is gone. Multiply by 25 individuals and tell me how well Portland is going to function. You needn't bother with a human at a bank, etc, a window and the place is empty and stays that way. You would never know when you could afford to be near a police station, armory, hospital, airport, etc, etc, etc. Nothing but standard hunting rifles x 25. 200yds is a lot of territory in an urban setting, it's nothing to a shooter. That is literally a handful of people and a metro area of 1M comes to a crashing halt. No job is worth the risk and if you're in sympathy with the uprising and your job involves it, you won't. You are being deliberately obtuse. That is not even a good planning sort of example, that's just the bottom of the barrel toss off.

Umm, Nazis. Well the Poles did a hell of a job in Warsaw with almost nothing, the failure was that it was only Warsaw - that and they thought they were getting help.

Your last sentence finally says it, no guns. It took 139 comments for your actual agenda to be spoken, no guns. Robb Allen had it right, keep you going.

Is this issue so important to you that you are willing to see Democrats lose elections because of this

No. I am not a big proponent of gun control.

Well the Poles did a hell of a job in Warsaw with almost nothing, the failure was that it was only Warsaw - that and they thought they were getting help.

They actually did get an awful lot of help - or did you forget the Germans were also fighting a losing war on two different fronts at that point. The help they expected, and didn't get, was for full Soviet Army to arrive and save them.

You hear 3 shots in under 30 sec and 3 uniforms of any sort have holes in them and the shooter is already moving. You will have no idea where the shots came from (other than nearby), the first individual was hit before the sound arrived, the second round was probably in the air before the sound registered on the targets, the third before they could react - and the shooter is gone.

You really think it will take 30 seconds for a group of soldiers to react to gun shots? You also have to remember, you aren't just the hunter but the hunted. If they see you first it works the other way around. Can you and your 25 friends make trouble for a couple weeks before they get all of you? Maybe, if you are lucky.

But 100 or 200 years from now, who knows who might be in power and what they might try to do. I would hope that the people maintain the right to bear arms as the ultimate check and balance against a military takeover or suspension of the Constitution and our rights.

As I think we agree, the right to bear arms is only real as a defense of liberty if it means the right to stockpile heavy weapons.

I'm not any more worried that some crazy private army is about to attempt to take over Portland than I am worried that black helicopters from the UN are going to swoop in and take away all our guns.

How about a group of Al Qaeda sympathizers at the local Mosque? You have no problem with them legally stockpiling high explosives or anti-aircraft weapons? How about the local Crips?

You don't get to decide who has constitutional rights.

The most fun part is that even when I let them in on that little secret they still can't help themselves. Their very next post is still going to help our side more than theirs. It's in their nature and it can't be changed.

Jack Burton! Why you old son of a gun! This isn't the kind of "Liberty Letter" that we asked you to write over at "Keep and Bear Arms", now is it? You're making us on the pro-gun side look like lunatics, and you're gonna get the you-know-what in trouble with your " I am just an ordinary citizen who happens to take an interest in guns"statements (it's not like you haven't left a trail all over the internet, you old fool!).

Ross Williams wrote, in part:

Is there any reasonable need for anyone to have a weapon that will penetrate body armour? I think the answer is obviously no. Wrong. 1. Bear (My brother in law, a timber cruiser in Glendale, bags several) 2. Buffalo 3. Gator (I grew up in Florida, and them suckers is really armored) 4. Tuna (YOU try to rassle one on board while alive) 5. Long range target work (which requires a large-caliber, fast round which de facto will penetrate body armor)

Are there people who want such weapons? Sure. But they don't need them to go hunting.

Wrong.