Firearms

[Shiza]

Originally Posted by Samurai of 2day

What sling are you running?
I'm not completely content with my sling set up on my SCAR, like I am with my AR.

Your SCAR sling configuration looks like it would meet my intent better than mine does now.

I just went with the Magpul MS1 and used paracord for the front sling loop. I'd checkout PMM's QD attachments for Scar. Then you could use the Magpul MS4 or a similar sling with QD points.

[Samurai of 2day]

Originally Posted by Shiza

I just went with the Magpul MS1 and used paracord for the front sling loop. I'd checkout PMM's QD attachments for Scar. Then you could use the Magpul MS4 or a similar sling with QD points.

Awesome! Thanks for sharing.

[Llarry]

I'll just put this here.

Moderator: If deemed inappropriate, please delete. Thanks!

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by Llarry

I'll just put this here.

Moderator: If deemed inappropriate, please delete. Thanks!

No idea what point that article is trying to make. If it is that the 2nd A doesn't infer an individual right it fails miserably. Having just won a war of attrition against a government of tyranny via ordinary people using weapons they own to gain freedom it is clear they meant to maintain that power in the hands of the people. Not some other government controlled entity.

The intent was clear as are ALL of the BORs. The entire BORs was written and appended to the constitution because many of the states would have refused to join the USA had there not been specific limits placed on the federal government. One of which was the right to keep the power to replace that government if it oversteps its bounds. Note these were not rights granted to the people. These were recognized and put off limits to government control.

I also always get a kick out of those who say "well they didn't anticipate weapons that fired that many times a second". Actually, they did. But regardless of it they did or not they DID NOT anticipate the internet and TV which still use the protection of freedom of the press etc. Technology changes - concepts remain.

And always funny when someone says no one needs an AR15. Actually, it is exactly what the founders would have had in mind. The concept that hunting had anything to do with the 2nd A is one of the most duplicitous arguments from the left. The 2nd A is specifically so the PEOPLE have weapons of war in their possession to resist tyranny.

One may argue that it won't work now. It is an interesting debate. But it would need to have a constitutional amendment to make banning guns legal. Get an amendment removing the 2nd from the constitution and THEN pass new laws banning some types of weapons. That would be the honest approach to any gun control.

Mods, if this is inappropriate feel free to delete.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

..But it would need to have a constitutional amendment to make banning guns legal. Get an amendment removing the 2nd from the constitution and THEN pass new laws banning some types of weapons. That would be the honest approach to any gun control...

That, I believe, would definitely lead to a hot civil war.

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

That, I believe, would definitely lead to a hot civil war.

I do not believe it will happen in my life time. Course at my age I don't buy really green bananas.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

I do not believe it will happen in my life time. Course at my age I don't buy really green bananas.

I don't know... Newscum is already starting the process and he'll get NY, NJ & IL, at least, behind him.

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

I don't know... Newscum is already starting the process and he'll get NY, NJ & IL, at least, behind him.

Pretty sure it takes 2/3s of congress to approve constitutional amendments. No way they are close to that.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

Pretty sure it takes 2/3s of congress to approve constitutional amendments. No way they are close to that.

Unless he can get (I believe) 3/4 of the states. IMHO, that's a much higher mountain to climb.

[UncleWede]

I got a Rem .22 for Christmas when I was 12.
I got a Mossberg 500 combo 12 when I turned 18.

What are the chances those serial numbers were kept somewhere the gov could access and then know I have weapons, were 2A removed?

RElated, when we cleaned out the closet this weekend in anticipation of demolition, I found an un-opened 100 box of shells. Shelf life?

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

I can't have one of those. If I was to salt shoot the rare fly or moth that gets in the house the cats would riot and pillage. Living things are THEIRS.

AZ doesn't have a statute for Negligent Discharge?

I've gone thru so much salt with my Bug. Any time I sit outside I have it on my lap. For some weird reason, not as many people show up for our outdoor BBQs and more

[Llarry]

But what about the "well-regulated militia" verbiage in the 2A?

I'm not some "ban all the guns" liberal BTW: I qualified in the M14 in 1966 at Marine Corps OCS in Quantico. During my 25-year Navy career I had minimal contact with firearms; I did, however, enjoy watching the USS New Jersey fire her 16" main battery and also enjoyed watch the Navy 20mm Vulcan CIWS fire.

While I personally feel the personal ownership of "assault rifles" (AR-15 and the like) is ridiculous, I do understand that the reality is that there are a lot of Americans who feel very differently. My opinion is that the 2A is adequate as written but has been unfortunately interpreted. While I understand that is unpopular in this thread, I suspect quite a few citizens agree with me. Many key judges do not. And I agree that a new amendment clarifying or restricting gun ownership has a snowball's chance in hell.

[Shiza]

Originally Posted by Llarry

But what about the "well-regulated militia" verbiage in the 2A?

I'm not some "ban all the guns" liberal BTW: I qualified in the M14 in 1966 at Marine Corps OCS in Quantico. During my 25-year Navy career I had minimal contact with firearms; I did, however, enjoy watching the USS New Jersey fire her 16" main battery and also enjoyed watch the Navy 20mm Vulcan CIWS fire.

While I personally feel the personal ownership of "assault rifles" (AR-15 and the like) is ridiculous, I do understand that the reality is that there are a lot of Americans who feel very differently. My opinion is that the 2A is adequate as written but has been unfortunately interpreted. While I understand that is unpopular in this thread, I suspect quite a few citizens agree with me. Many key judges do not. And I agree that a new amendment clarifying or restricting gun ownership has a snowball's chance in hell.

As others have said the point of the 2A is for people to have the means/ability to stand up to a tyrannical government, as our founding fathers had just done. I doubt the “well regulated” verbiage in the 2A would refer to the government’s ability to regulate. That would defeat the purpose. The 2A also states “the right of the people”, not the right of the militia. At least that's my uneducated opinion

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

But what about the "well-regulated militia" verbiage in the 2A?

I'm not some "ban all the guns" liberal BTW: I qualified in the M14 in 1966 at Marine Corps OCS in Quantico. During my 25-year Navy career I had minimal contact with firearms; I did, however, enjoy watching the USS New Jersey fire her 16" main battery and also enjoyed watch the Navy 20mm Vulcan CIWS fire.

While I personally feel the personal ownership of "assault rifles" (AR-15 and the like) is ridiculous, I do understand that the reality is that there are a lot of Americans who feel very differently. My opinion is that the 2A is adequate as written but has been unfortunately interpreted. While I understand that is unpopular in this thread, I suspect quite a few citizens agree with me. Many key judges do not. And I agree that a new amendment clarifying or restricting gun ownership has a snowball's chance in hell.

"Militia" was all able bodied (citizen) males between certain ages. The "militia" was in lieu of a standing army, which our founders detested.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

"Militia" was all able bodied (citizen) males between certain ages. The "militia" was in lieu of a standing army, which our founders detested.

Yes, and for most of the country's history we have had a standing army and the other services. If the 2A is designed to allow the citizenry to resist a tyrannical government, it is woefully out of date. That government now has armored vehicles, strike aircraft, missiles, etc., against which a citizenry with semi-auto AR-15s is basically helpless. Imagine an AC-130 gunship or A-10 Warthog orbiting over your house... 5.56mm? Pfft! Even .50 cal? Ineffective!

Our defense against a tyrannical government is the voting booth, the courts and, perhaps the last straw, the county sheriffs of the U.S.A. The weapons equation is waaay skewed to the government side. And, speaking as retired military, there's one more defense to government tyranny, though I'm unsure of how effective it would be: If the government tries to use force on its own citizens, would the military obey orders? After all, the military are citizens, too.

I circle back to the idea that in the modern context militia = military reserve components (National Guard & Reserves). Of course they should have arms, including sophisticated arms like armored vehicles, AC-130s and A-10s. For ordinary citizens, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc.

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Yes, and for most of the country's history we have had a standing army and the other services. If the 2A is designed to allow the citizenry to resist a tyrannical government, it is woefully out of date. That government now has armored vehicles, strike aircraft, missiles, etc., against which a citizenry with semi-auto AR-15s is basically helpless. Imagine an AC-130 gunship or A-10 Warthog orbiting over your house... 5.56mm? Pfft! Even .50 cal? Ineffective!

Our defense against a tyrannical government is the voting booth, the courts and, perhaps the last straw, the county sheriffs of the U.S.A. The weapons equation is waaay skewed to the government side. And, speaking as retired military, there's one more defense to government tyranny, though I'm unsure of how effective it would be: If the government tries to use force on its own citizens, would the military obey orders? After all, the military are citizens, too.

I circle back to the idea that in the modern context militia = military reserve components (National Guard & Reserves). Of course they should have arms, including sophisticated arms like armored vehicles, AC-130s and A-10s. For ordinary citizens, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc.

What happens when, as is the case today, the courts are corrupt? The gummint may have better munitions, which they aren't constitutionally allowed (like that would stop them) to use on the citizenry. The military oath is to the Constitution, not the administration. The oath is to defend the Constitution against all powers, foreign & DOMESTIC. It doesn't have an expiration date either. I take my oath quite seriously.

[Llarry]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

What happens when, as is the case today, the courts are corrupt? The gummint may have better munitions, which they aren't constitutionally allowed (like that would stop them) to use on the citizenry. The military oath is to the Constitution, not the administration. The oath is to defend the Constitution against all powers, foreign & DOMESTIC. It doesn't have an expiration date either. I take my oath quite seriously.

Concerning the oath, my belief is that your oath (you were enlisted, right?) expired upon your discharge. You certainly may yourself consider it still binding. My situation is a bit different as a retired commissioned officer; I am still an "officer of the United States" and still subject to recall to active duty by the President (yeah, right -- at 76 years of age?) and I think still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, though I would have to commit an offense on-base and directly related to the military to be actually prosecuted.

I agree that we take our oath very seriously. But my problem is that you and I interpret the 2A quite differently.

The obvious answer is to hold a constitutional convention and do a new constitution, clarifying a number of areas, among which would be the firearm issue. (An idea that I've heard is being floated in some conservative circles.) The reality is that our constitution has become a sacred document and I see no way that could really happen in real life, particularly with the massive gulf between conservative and liberal citizens. So we are left with judges whose wisdom we trust but who in reality are as imperfect as the rest of us.

Concerning corrupt courts/judges, that's what the checks and balances are about, isn't it? If one of the three branches of government turns rogue, the other two can rein it in.

It's a knotty problem, but I feel that something has to be done to reduce the uniquely American slaughter.

[///d]

Originally Posted by Llarry

It's a knotty problem, but I feel that something has to be done to reduce the uniquely American slaughter.

We need to start with addressing mental health and stop poisoning our citizens with drama and hate filled media. We need a medical system that works and isn't full of money hungry pharmaceutical companies and push over doctors.

It's not only gun violence that is high in the US, suicide has skyrocketed. Kids these days will literally lose their mind and shut down if they lose wifi. Young adults have zero coping mechanisms and little social skills because of digital connections. For example look at the thread about tipping and the entitlement in some of those stories.

You can take the gun away, but that doesn't solve the real problem at hand, it just creates more of the problem and more divide amongst our nation. I don't believe we humans are meant to be so connected at such a young age. Too much information, too much negativity and persuasion for undeveloped minds. Most adults can't process the amount of information force fed to us every day, let alone young adults and children. And with the drama of the media so much of that information is lose/lose "choose a side".

Now that I've said my bit, I will say no more.

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by Llarry

I agree that we take our oath very seriously. But my problem is that you and I interpret the 2A quite differently.

First and foremost, you have the gratitude of a thankful citizen.

This very line is how that armed citizenry would be able to, at the very least, resist a rogue government. Not full on "WOLVERINES" but look at the social change enacted in just the last years thru "mostly peaceful" demonstrations. Now try to imagine the <insert either party here> using the military against armed citizens

And even you, trained and qualified, yet you say I can have my hunting rifle but not an AR-style gun? They shoot the same round! One looks "scary" or "war-like" and the other has a smooth wooden stock. Both a re semi-auto, both used INAPROPRIATELY would kill 10s or 100s of people.

So what is the common denominator in these mass shootings? A messed-up human who didn't get the attention society needed to give him. The gun didn't shoot anybody.

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by Llarry

Yes, and for most of the country's history we have had a standing army and the other services. If the 2A is designed to allow the citizenry to resist a tyrannical government, it is woefully out of date. That government now has armored vehicles, strike aircraft, missiles, etc., against which a citizenry with semi-auto AR-15s is basically helpless. Imagine an AC-130 gunship or A-10 Warthog orbiting over your house... 5.56mm? Pfft! Even .50 cal? Ineffective!

Our defense against a tyrannical government is the voting booth, the courts and, perhaps the last straw, the county sheriffs of the U.S.A. The weapons equation is waaay skewed to the government side. And, speaking as retired military, there's one more defense to government tyranny, though I'm unsure of how effective it would be: If the government tries to use force on its own citizens, would the military obey orders? After all, the military are citizens, too.

I circle back to the idea that in the modern context militia = military reserve components (National Guard & Reserves). Of course they should have arms, including sophisticated arms like armored vehicles, AC-130s and A-10s. For ordinary citizens, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc.

OK, for the sake of argument let's assume civilian ownership of rifles like AK47s and AR15s would be inadequate against a modern military. Not agreeing with this assumption (see Vietnam) but let us just work within that framework.

If the 2nd A is out of date and no longer workable and people have decided they want to ban the type of weapons the 2nd A intended the people to own, do the right thing. Amend the constitution. The mechanism is in place to change it. There is a legitimate path. If the majority of Americans and their elected representatives actually agree and go down this road I'll accept it. The constitution is the law of the land and if it no longer defines a limit to the government on controlling citizen ownership of military capable rifles so be it.

But the current laws being passed by the DEM politicians are both meaningless in terms of making us safer AND in many cases violate our rights. And I don't know about you but the idea they can violate one rght means what's next? Freedom of speech? Such as controlling public social media squashing questions regarding Covid? This is a bad road we tread.

[Nuckle]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

I got a Rem .22 for Christmas when I was 12.
I got a Mossberg 500 combo 12 when I turned 18.

What are the chances those serial numbers were kept somewhere the gov could access and then know I have weapons, were 2A removed?

RElated, when we cleaned out the closet this weekend in anticipation of demolition, I found an un-opened 100 box of shells. Shelf life?

That paperwork could still be stored at the gun store they were purchased from but that would be the only place.

If the shells show no sign of corrosion then they should be fine.

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by Nuckle

That paperwork could still be stored at the gun store they were purchased from but that would be the only place.

If the shells show no sign of corrosion then they should be fine.

Yeah but how many gun stores will have an unfortunate fire losing all their records if government suddenly starts asking for everyone on file? My guess is a lot.