Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 5/19/13 01:03 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

It is english. However it has terms (militias for instance) that don't really apply now. Plus the whole basis of our legal system has always been that in the legal sense definitions and terms are fluid. He who argues the best, winds up winning the case.

Militias don't apply now? How so? I'm not 100% on this, but i believe almost every state has a national guard, which more or less acts as a militia.

Yes the National Guard are the state militias. In fact this hurts your argument because they're professional military forces, they have jet airplanes they train their members. They're quite clearly not a local group of organized citizens who use their own guns to do their duty.

There is not any fluidity for something that says something basic like that. Where's the fludity in "Congress shall not...". That's pretty fucking solid

Uh are you sure you read the 2nd Amendment? If that's not what you're referring to then what are you talking about? Either way it's still not absolutely clear. Take the Establishment Clause, it says the government shall not make any law prohibiting or advancing any religion. But what does that mean? Does that mean the government cannot send money to religious schools? Does it mean that the government can't have state sponsored prayer? Or does it mean only that the government cannot establish a national religion and church? Laws are written broadly like this in order for them to be implemented more effectively on the one hand, on the other so they will actually be passed. It's up to the Supreme Court to lay down what they mean, not some guy on the internet.

---

At 5/17/13 11:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: First off there is a stark difference between a courier opening the letter and an email provider merely looking at thecode that is being sent. In such case of the courier they have to take an active step to enter a domain that was not their to enter. A phone provider listening in may be a violation of a contract, but there is not such already private domain they would have to enter to get to the conversation. The private domain v. domain open to all parties who own the area is where the common room analogy comes in. The envelope is like breaking into the roommate's bedroom. The phonecall is like the roommate overhearing something in the common room. You can make a contract with your roommates to not disclose anything they hear in the common room and/or to not allow police into any room without all roommates' consent.

Then again, the violation of the contract doesn't make the police contact with such information unlwaful. All the contract does is provide grounds to sue the party who allowed the police in.

I still disagree with your common-room analogy, but at least it seems we agree that violations of confidentiality contracts are grounds for lawsuits.

I still maintain that there is nothing that the police can lawfully do to COMPEL the email carrier to provide them with your information (save for a warrant). The email carrier would have to be complicit and agree to break their agreement with you, opening themselves up to lawsuits.

I get your analogy, but you still are not delineating between a closed space and an open space. A closed space carries an implied privacy intrest that must be explicitly waived. An open sharing (as emails and phone calls are to the carrier, as well as all other internet activity) does not have that implicit privacy expectation.

I disagree. I have every expectation that when I make a phone call to my girlfriend, no one is going to be listening in or recording our conversation. Someone would have to actively tap into the call to listen in, and you would have to have equipment capable of recording the call available and actively use that equipment in order to record the call. There is nothing implicit about the carriers ability to listen in; they would explicitly have to tap into the conversation, breaking their privacy agreement with the customer.

Actually, police group routinely demand such information from carriers, and they often get it. Far more so with phones than with emails.

That violations of privacy is commonplace makes them no less of a violation.

It is known that phone carriers will often give out records on a mere request. Interenet providers are increasingly doing so as well. The more that these people do so, the less of an expectation of privacy comes with it, and the less the 4th Amendment protects.

Again, the fact that a certain practice is becoming more common does not make it more in line with the constitution. Either it was always constitutional or it was never constitutional.

The 4th Amendment is meant to stop harrassing actions. However, the clandestine collection of emails and phone calls is hardly harrassing. If you don;t know it happened, how can you be harrassed by it?

So by that logic, police could pick the lock of my apartment, snoop around, take pictures of everything, make copies of my bills and contracts, and then leave everything just as they found it and lock my door again, and they would be within their rights, constitutionally, to do so. I would never even know it happened, and if you don't know it happened, how can you be harassed by it?

---

At 5/14/13 03:15 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 5/14/13 02:48 PM, Feoric wrote: You need 2/3rds of the Senate on board for a conviction. The only way that the GOP can get a 2/3rds majority is if they win every single open seat in 2014 and get lucky enough to have seven additional Democrats to retire/die and get entirely replaced by Republicans.

I know that. Since both parties claim to represent the people, and keep the president in check, this should not be an issue at all ;)

Obama could easily be impeached, since it only requires a simply majority in the House.

Now, what would the consequences of this impeachment begin?
* If the Republicans have not established the clear reasons why...and established the evidence for these 'high crimes and misdemeanors' that resonates with the electorate they will lose big in 2014. This is the overplaying of their (the Republican's) hand that the Democrats are waiting for.

* Removal:
Scenario A) Democrats view the trial as a way to vindicate Obama (the lesser objective) while further discrediting Republicans with the electorate (the higher objective). In this scenario, Obama stays in office and the Democrats strengthen their position going into mid-term elections.

Scenario B) The AP scandal seems to be expanding to other media outlets (Rosen @ FOX, and Attkisson @ CBS). As the press becomes more hostile in resposne, the patience of Senate Democrats begin to wane. If the scandals reach critical mass...the Dems will let Obama know he does not have Senate support and urge him to resign.

Scenario C) The Democrats in the Senate tell Obama to sit down, shut-up, and color. The scandals have reached critical mass and Dems & Reps know that the removal or resignation of the first black president would be very bad for the country. They require Holder and Rice to resign. Obama becomes a rubber stamp for SCOTUS and Cabinet appointtees selected by the Senate. This way everyone saves face.

====

I don't know what will happen, no one knows (besides the players) what evidence or whistleblowers are waiting in the wings to come out. But I do think Obama will fill-out his second term.

====

On Benghazi, I am curious not about the talking points (I don't really care)...but I am curious about the allegations of an order to stand-down military forces that were prepping to deploy to Benghazi. I think this is major, and whoever ordered the stand-down should lose their job.

Secondly, I think this important because it shows that Hillary has demonstrated a grave lapse of judgement:
* Selling anti-aircraft rockets to a group of rebels the CIA said was an extension of al Qaida.
* Sending a diplomat to get those weapons back without adequate security.
* Not being completely forthright when questioned.

This last is a disturbing trend I've seen in the administration:
"It didn't reach my level."
"I found out on the news the same time as y'all."
"What difference does it make?"

Geesh...what happened to "The buck stops here!" of Truman?

---

At 5/17/13 11:18 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The 4th Amendment is meant to stop harrassing actions. However, the clandestine collection of emails and phone calls is hardly harrassing. If you don;t know it happened, how can you be harrassed by it?

Actually, the purpose of the 4th Amendment is to protect individual's rights to be secure in their homes. Part of this is because the Founders had a proclivity towards smuggling, the other part is because they saw Writs of Assistance being abused by the British to go after political enemies. So it is meant to protect us from the government having the ability to come in and search for illicit goods, seditious pamphlets, or seize our property because we talked ill of our Government. The idea that it is about preventing 'harassment' is a modern contrivance, a vaild expansion maybe...but not the scope.

Secondly, AH brings up a good point of the apartment that applies to email and telephone carriers. We contract with those providers to have access to long-distance communications with the expectations of privacy. This is why our emails come with passwords, along with key locks and passwords on phones and voicemail (traditional landlines being secured physically inside the home). I cannot look into your account, and likewise you cannot look into mine...so it is not a public or 'closed space'.

Something about this strikes me, there is also a fifth amendment implication here: self-incrimination. Since we contract with these providers to provide a secure service...we have an expectation of privacy. So I think that there could be an issue of self-incrimination here.

====
But as I write this...I start to think that it is time our law schools start producing Barristers more interested in upholding the Constitution rather than lawyering their way around it! ;)

---

At 5/22/13 12:08 PM, TheMason wrote: Obama could easily be impeached, since it only requires a simply majority in the House.

Now, what would the consequences of this impeachment begin?
* If the Republicans have not established the clear reasons why...and established the evidence for these 'high crimes and misdemeanors' that resonates with the electorate they will lose big in 2014. This is the overplaying of their (the Republican's) hand that the Democrats are waiting for.

Considering what happened in 1998, this is undoubtedly what's going to happen. Ironically Clinton's approval rating skyrocketed during the impeachment shitshow, and Obama's approval rating right now hasn't even budged amid the troika of controversies. There's just not enough lunatics in the House to go with the impeachment proceedings, and there certainly won't be enough Senate Democrats to convict. The GOP is suffering from the cry wolf effect, where years of stupid shit like "where's the birth certificate?" and "is Obama a secret Muslim?" and "is Obama a communist sympathizer?" and "is Obama a member of the Black Panthers?" and the latest "did Obama really ask that Marine to hold an umbrella?" people are really starting to tune out shit like "BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI!" Which is quite unfortunate, because if they weren't so hysterical the past 6 years they wouldn't have backed themselves into a corner with their own rhetoric. They're not going to do anything to cost them seats in 2014. There's precedent for that. Not even Reince Preibus thinks it's a good idea, which is a pretty good barometer.

They're not doing it without an airtight case which places explicit blame directly on Obama. Until then, everything else is pure fantasy.

On Benghazi, I am curious not about the talking points (I don't really care)...but I am curious about the allegations of an order to stand-down military forces that were prepping to deploy to Benghazi. I think this is major, and whoever ordered the stand-down should lose their job.

Oddly enough, the stand down order is a talking point. This meme originates from the fact that a Special Forces team was ordered to stand down:

"I talked with the defense attache, Lt. Col. Keith Phillips, and I asked him, 'Is there anything coming?'

According to Hicks' account, Phillips said the nearest fighter planes were in Aviano, Italy, and it would take two to three hours to get them airborne, and there were no tanker assets close enough to support them. Hicks said when he asked again, before the 5:15 a.m. mortar attack that killed State Department former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. But the answer was no again. Also killed was State Department employee Sean Smith.

A four-man team of military Special Forces was in Tripoli was organized, geared up and about to drive to a C-130 aircraft, to help those in Benghazi when its commander was ordered to stop by his superiors, Hicks said.

"He got a phone call from SOCAFRICA (Special Operations Command Africa) which said, you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now," Hicks said. "They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."

Hicks said the commander told him: "I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military."
...
Maj. Robert Firman, a Pentagon spokesman, said Tuesday there was never any kind of stand-down order. Firman later said the military is trying to assess the incident Hicks is referring to, but the aircraft in question wound up evacuating a second wave of Americans from Benghazi to Tripoli, not transporting rescuers to a firefight.

The Department of Defense "responded in every way it could as quickly as it could and we were coordinating with the Department of State every step of the way," he said.

The State Department said allegations that it did not respond well to the attack are refuted by the report of an Administrative Review Board appointed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to investigate the attack and its aftermath.

"The interagency response was timely and appropriate, butthere simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference," according to a statement released by State, citing the report. "Senior-level interagency discussions were underway soon after Washington received initial word of the attacks and continued through the night."

If you've watched the proceedings this should be pretty straightforward. You of all people here already know that pulling off a military rescue operation with the snap of a finger is extremely difficult (as seen in Mogadishu), especially when the closest assets you have are over three hours away in Italy. These aren't just robots who are always functioning and ready at a minutes notice: you have to wake everyone up, get everyone supplied, briefed, find transport for them, find support assets for the transport, find combat planes to cover them going in, find support assets for the combat planes, get your refueling tankers (which we didn't have)...it all takes a very long time. Even something as simple as a bombing run to level the city blocks around the conflict zone entails a major undertaking behind the scenes which wouldn't have arrived in time to save the people at the consulate in the first place. This is what Hillary was talking about when she said "what difference does it make." We got sucker punched and there really wasn't anything we could have done.

Secondly, I think this important because it shows that Hillary has demonstrated a grave lapse of judgement:
* Selling anti-aircraft rockets to a group of rebels the CIA said was an extension of al Qaida.

Is there a credible source for this? Whenever I see something pop up in Infowars my instinctive reaction is to ignore it.

* Sending a diplomat to get those weapons back without adequate security.

What is adequate security in your mind?

* Not being completely forthright when questioned.

How so?

Geesh...what happened to "The buck stops here!" of Truman?

Well...

---

At 5/22/13 03:45 PM, Feoric wrote: Considering what happened in 1998, this is undoubtedly what's going to happen.

It will undoubtedly happen if they impeach w/o clear and irrefutable evidence. I'd also leave it alone until Dems in the Senate are on-board a la Nixon. But I do not think impeachment at this point is undoubtedly going to happen.

Obama's approval rating right now hasn't even budged amid the troika of controversies.

I'm not so sure. I like using RCP's "Poll of Polls". We've seen a drop of almost 2% since April. So we do see a drop in approval despite meager economic gains.

The GOP is suffering from the cry wolf effect, ... Which is quite unfortunate, because if they weren't so hysterical the past 6 years they wouldn't have backed themselves into a corner with their own rhetoric.

I agree with this, its a sensible explanation of why Obama's approval has not dropped precipitiously.

They're not doing it without an airtight case which places explicit blame directly on Obama. Until then, everything else is pure fantasy.

Agreed...that was my point too. :)

On Benghazi, I am curious not about the talking points (I don't really care)...but I am curious about the allegations of an order to stand-down military forces that were prepping to deploy to Benghazi. I think this is major, and whoever ordered the stand-down should lose their job.

Oddly enough, the stand down order is a talking point. This meme originates from the fact that a Special Forces team was ordered to stand down:

A four-man team of military Special Forces was in Tripoli was organized, geared up and about to drive to a C-130 aircraft, to help those in Benghazi when its commander was ordered to stop by his superiors, Hicks said.

"He got a phone call from SOCAFRICA (Special Operations Command Africa) which said, you can't go now, you don't have authority to go now," Hicks said. "They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."

Hicks said the commander told him: "I have never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than somebody in the military."

This allegation, by someone who was on the ground and witnessed this event, is the most troubling for me. When it happened we were told that there was no one close enough to respond. A team in Tripoli...is not too far.

If you've watched the proceedings this should be pretty straightforward. You of all people here already know that pulling off a military rescue operation with the snap of a finger is extremely difficult (as seen in Mogadishu), especially when the closest assets you have are over three hours away in Italy. ...

Mogadishu
I'd be careful about throwing around this as an example of things going wrong and the military failing. The Battle of Mogadishu was not a military defeat or fiasco...but a political one. All military objectives were meant, and while we suffered losses Americans are not used to since the first Gulf War...they were acceptable when compared to the force arrayed against Task Force Ranger. Furthermore, issues with responding and mounting a rescue were complicated due to coalition issues with some of our allies not wanting to get involved and risk their troops/equipment. That did not exist here.

Time
If those resources were not available...then this is a grave misjudgement on the part of the State Dept and the Administration as a whole. Knowing the dangerous situation on the ground...we should have had a Quick Response Force (QRF) like we have in any other hotspot around the world.

But from the sound of it...guys were locked, loaded and ready to get on a plane that was on the tarmac...only an hour away.

Secondly, I think this important because it shows that Hillary has demonstrated a grave lapse of judgement:
* Selling anti-aircraft rockets to a group of rebels the CIA said was an extension of al Qaida.

Is there a credible source for this? Whenever I see something pop up in Infowars my instinctive reaction is to ignore it.

I didn't get this from Infowars...I don't typically source conspiracy or far-right wing sources. Much less frequent their sites. (See my signature!)

I can't find where I heard this...but I'll keep an eye out.

* Sending a diplomat to get those weapons back without adequate security.

What is adequate security in your mind?

First of all, you should have had a QRF on stand-by 24/7. This could be SF, Marines, contractors, etc. If you're not willing to provide this...don't have a consolate, mission, or embassy. To not provide adequate security is pure negligence. Also, classified info was left unsecured. Who knows what al-Qaida learned from the gold mine we left behind? It also lets them know we have our guard down and it could quite possibly embolden them.

* Not being completely forthright when questioned.

How so?

* Not being a whiny bitch and ask: "What matter does it make?" A review by Congress is their job when a fuck-up like this happens. Show some integrity and responsibility.
* Answer the questions honestly...don't obfuscate.

---

At 5/19/13 12:52 PM, Warforger wrote: Yes the National Guard are the state militias. In fact this hurts your argument because they're professional military forces, they have jet airplanes they train their members. They're quite clearly not a local group of organized citizens who use their own guns to do their duty.

Doesn't hurt the argument at all:
* Under the Militia Acts ALL males 18-54 are now considered part of the militia.
* Some states such as SC and Texas have state militias besides the NG...and I'm not talking about paramilitary extremist groups...but actually sanctioned by the state.

There is not any fluidity for something that says something basic like that. Where's the fludity in "Congress shall not...". That's pretty fucking solid

Uh are you sure you read the 2nd Amendment? ... Either way it's still not absolutely clear. ... Laws are written broadly like this in order for them to be implemented more effectively on the one hand, on the other so they will actually be passed. It's up to the Supreme Court to lay down what they mean, not some guy on the internet.

Actually, the second amendment is very clear if you have actually knowledge of:
* Grammar
* History
* Etymology

Grammar
First of all, back in the day it was customary for important documents, declarations, and laws to have preambles attached. Even if it is one sentence, this is called a preamble clause. This is what the first part of the 2nd Amendment is...a preamble clause.

Secondly, this is supported by the fact that the first part (the part that includes the 'well-regulated militia' language)...does not include a verb. This is important because a verb is what proscribes action. Therefore, there is no subject in this clause because nothing is being acted upon. The closest you have is 'being'...which is is a noun and/or conjunctive form of the verb 'be'.

So the grammar is simple because once you realize that the 'well-regulated militia' part does not proscribe any action all you're left with is: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's pretty clear that it's proscribing a restriction on the government (specifically the Federal government) on infringing a right of the individual.

History
At the time the Founders were suspicious of a standing army. They saw it as both a drain on the economy and possibly tyrannical. And they themselves viewed this as an individual right...afterall the Constitution itself did not address any State or Individual right...so they compromised that there would be a Bill of Rights so as to pass the Constitution which would include these rights.

Etymology
Regulate back then meant to provision...in fact local posses were called 'regulators'.
Arms also means the 'weapons of the warrior', this is where the Founders were more general rather than specific. They understood that the 'weapons of the warrior' would get more advanced and they wanted the individual to keep pace.

====

Oh...by your own standards ("It's up to the Supreme Court to lay down what they mean, not some guy on the internet.")...what I have just spelled out for is not just my interpretation...it was codified by SCOTUS Justice Scalia in Heller.

---

At 5/23/13 05:37 PM, TheMason wrote: Doesn't hurt the argument at all:
* Under the Militia Acts ALL males 18-54 are now considered part of the militia.
* Some states such as SC and Texas have state militias besides the NG...and I'm not talking about paramilitary extremist groups...but actually sanctioned by the state.

That wasn't the point. The point was that people don't buy guns to be part of a militia. The militia's themselves have to be professional trained and equipped military forces, not rag tag local militants. While it is true that technically nearly everyone is part of the militia, the actual militia probably won't assemble them all

Oh...by your own standards ("It's up to the Supreme Court to lay down what they mean, not some guy on the internet.")...what I have just spelled out for is not just my interpretation...it was codified by SCOTUS Justice Scalia in Heller.

The thing here is that it is not specific, at least what I was referring too. Does the 2nd Amednment mean that the government cannot ban types of guns? Does it mean that the government cannot run background checks on people before they sell them guns? This is not very clear.

---

At 5/24/13 12:32 AM, Warforger wrote:

That wasn't the point. The point was that people don't buy guns to be part of a militia. The militia's themselves have to be professional trained and equipped military forces, not rag tag local militants. While it is true that technically nearly everyone is part of the militia, the actual militia probably won't assemble them all

Sorry...but your point still does not carry water. Let's look at two 'Doomsday' examples:
SCENARIO A: FOREIGN INVASION
The last time there was a credible threat of this was WWII with the Japanese. However, Admiral Yamamoto famously cautioned against this because they would have to "fight for every blade of grass". He was referring to the fact that they would be fighting an armed populace.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that rag tag militants are not effective. There are plenty of examples, and not just against tin-pot dictators in third world countries. Rag tag militants have defeated or significantly challenged superpowers: Vietnam (US), Afghanistan (USSR, US), and Iraq.

SCENARIO B: HITLER ELECTED PRESIDENT
In Vietnam, the Viet Cong were able to shoot-down our helicopters and I've even heard of A-6 attack jets taking battle damage from rifle fire. In Iraq, an entire attack force of AH-64 Apaches was turned back by AK-47 fire...two actually went down. So do not be so convinced that the US military could easily put down a revolution.

The thing here is that it is not specific, at least what I was referring too. Does the 2nd Amednment mean that the government cannot ban types of guns? Does it mean that the government cannot run background checks on people before they sell them guns? This is not very clear.

1) The 2nd Amendment, when you look at the historical context, was referring to small arms. Small arms are weapons that can be used by a single soldier in battle. For example, a belt-fed machine gun is a crew-served weapon meaning a minimum of two soldiers to operate. Thus, it would qualify. Scalia further set forth the criteria that government could regulate firearms that are 'unreasonable or uncommon'.

So take things like the AR-15 family of firearms. It is unreasonable for everyone to have access to full-auto capability...after all the military does not utilize it as much as you think (it's inaccurate and a waste of ammo). As for the civilian versions: there is no proof that the power delivered by it is unreasonable compared to other civilian firearms:
* It is a very low-powered rifle round.
* It only has a very limited capacity to kill.
* The data shows that they are not used in crime...and when they are they are shown to be LESS lethal than other firearms such as handguns and shotguns.

So yes, I believe (and again...an opinion expressed in a SCOTUS opinion) there are some arms that congress can limit such as tanks, fighter aircraft, RPGs, Death Stars, etc.

2) On background checks, I think the Founder's would say that is reasonable...but urge caution. After all...what happens if you get a Hitler in power who cannot get rid of the Amendment, so instead he uses background checks to keep guns out of the hands of Jews or Democrats/Republicans?

---

At 5/24/13 09:48 AM, TheMason wrote: Sorry...but your point still does not carry water. Let's look at two 'Doomsday' examples:
SCENARIO A: FOREIGN INVASION
The last time there was a credible threat of this was WWII with the Japanese. However, Admiral Yamamoto famously cautioned against this because they would have to "fight for every blade of grass". He was referring to the fact that they would be fighting an armed populace.

That and an actual invasion would receive so much hostility that the Japanese could not hold the territory in any capacity.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that rag tag militants are not effective. There are plenty of examples, and not just against tin-pot dictators in third world countries. Rag tag militants have defeated or significantly challenged superpowers: Vietnam (US), Afghanistan (USSR, US), and Iraq.

There's a difference though. They had things like anti-aircraft and anti-armor weapons, they were also armed by foreign powers. Last I checked you could not buy anti-aircraft weapons at your local gun shop, or any weapon like an RPG for that matter. I guess my point is that no one is buying guns to be in a militia and consequently the guns that are being sold are probably inadequate for any military resistance.

SCENARIO B: HITLER ELECTED PRESIDENT
In Vietnam, the Viet Cong were able to shoot-down our helicopters and I've even heard of A-6 attack jets taking battle damage from rifle fire. In Iraq, an entire attack force of AH-64 Apaches was turned back by AK-47 fire...two actually went down. So do not be so convinced that the US military could easily put down a revolution.

Part of it is morale, but I highly doubt you're going to be able to consistently take on everything the United States military can throw at you with mere assault rifles. We'd have to legalize IED's or other explosives so that we can take on tanks, otherwise I don't see how well a shotgun will work. But again no one is buying their guns so they can shoot them at Apache's and no is arguing that they should be able to do that. Gun manufacters also are certainly not producing guns in such a scenario either (not that they're above that considering some made the TEC-9 gun).

Like in Iraq and Vietnam they were not just using assault rifles, they were/are using explosive and more sophisticated weaponry.

1) The 2nd Amendment, when you look at the historical context, was referring to small arms. Small arms are weapons that can be used by a single soldier in battle. For example, a belt-fed machine gun is a crew-served weapon meaning a minimum of two soldiers to operate. Thus, it would qualify. Scalia further set forth the criteria that government could regulate firearms that are 'unreasonable or uncommon'.

Which sounds incredibly broad and open to interpretation and doesn't address the specific policies I laid out.

So take things like the AR-15 family of firearms. It is unreasonable for everyone to have access to full-auto capability...after all the military does not utilize it as much as you think (it's inaccurate and a waste of ammo). As for the civilian versions: there is no proof that the power delivered by it is unreasonable compared to other civilian firearms:
* It is a very low-powered rifle round.
* It only has a very limited capacity to kill.
* The data shows that they are not used in crime...and when they are they are shown to be LESS lethal than other firearms such as handguns and shotguns.

Thus it makes a poor weapon for militias right?

2) On background checks, I think the Founder's would say that is reasonable...but urge caution. After all...what happens if you get a Hitler in power who cannot get rid of the Amendment, so instead he uses background checks to keep guns out of the hands of Jews or Democrats/Republicans?

The Supreme Court would overturn as a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

---

At 5/27/13 04:06 PM, Warforger wrote:

Thus it makes a poor weapon for militias right?

Actually, it makes it an excellent weapon. injuring an enemy is preferable to killing them. Injuring an enemy is more of a drain on the enemy war machine than killing them. an injured person needs to be cared for, also, leaving injured people behind would kill their troops' morale. a slower moving bullet is less likely to punch all the way through someone, leaving the bullet inside means it has to be extracted.

or so that's what I've been led to believe. I'll let mason confirm or correct me on it.

---

At 5/27/13 04:06 PM, Warforger wrote: That and an actual invasion would receive so much hostility that the Japanese could not hold the territory in any capacity.

Yes...but not because of the shield of the US military (we did not have a standing Army)...but armed civilians.

There's a difference though. They had things like anti-aircraft and anti-armor weapons, they were also armed by foreign powers. Last I checked you could not buy anti-aircraft weapons at your local gun shop, or any weapon like an RPG for that matter. I guess my point is that no one is buying guns to be in a militia and consequently the guns that are being sold are probably inadequate for any military resistance.

To begin with, in Iraq and Afghanistan we're not facing that significant of a threat from RPGs and anti-air missiles. So your assumption is starting from a flawed premise. The largest threat we are facing is IEDs. Also, Iraqi rebels were able to turn back an AH-64 Apache assault with only AK-47s.

Secondly, in the US we have mountains and woods that blunt conventional force's abilities. Hit & fade tactics are very viable...and do not require heavy arms such as stingers and RPGs. In fact their weight makes them more of a liability for highly mobile units.

Part of it is morale, but I highly doubt you're going to be able to consistently take on everything the United States military can throw at you with mere assault rifles.

Again, you start with a flawed premis: the US military would probably fracture. Especially in Natl Guard units, so the anti-Ghost Hitler resistance would end up acquiring some of these weapons. Also, it wouldn't just be the military...but states as well. Texas and several Southern, Midwestern, and Western states would probably succeed...taking Natl Guard (and possibly DoD) assets with them. Then providing arms to resistance groups in other states.

We'd have to legalize IED's or other explosives so that we can take on tanks, otherwise I don't see how well a shotgun will work. But again no one is buying their guns so they can shoot them at Apache's and no is arguing that they should be able to

* Making IEDs illegal DOES NOT make them less or unavailable! The I in IED stands for improvised which means you make them out of what is available to you. In Iraq this was unguarded munitions. But you can make them out of plenty of perfectly legal household chemicals. You can make building IEDs illegal...but you cannot make the components illegal.

* Tanks, planes, and even drones would be marginalized by terrain. See you cannot take a tank into the woods, they require roads or open land. Air forces also need to be able to see their targets to shoot them. The American terrain is very conducive to effective guerilla warfare.

* In such a scenario...(or an invasion one) of course we want people shooting at Apaches or Hind-Ds!

Gun manufacters also are certainly not producing guns in such a scenario either (not that they're above that considering some made the TEC-9 gun).

You do realize the TEC-9 gun is a piece of shit and not really good for anything be it home defense, mass shooting, or military.

Also, gun manufactures make firearms that are far more lethal and capable than what the military has. A deer rifle beats a M-4 or AK-47.

Like in Iraq and Vietnam they were not just using assault rifles, they were/are using explosive and more sophisticated weaponry.

Not really. The Viet Cong fought with improvised weapons like sharpened sticks covered in shit (literally) to discarded rifles. In Iraq, they have some access to Saddam-era munitions...but by and large it is AK-47s and IEDs.

Which sounds incredibly broad and open to interpretation and doesn't address the specific policies I laid out.

Not really. If I made a gun that fired bullets that had heat-seekers and micro-nukes in them that guarenteed to kill one person with each bullet fired that would be unreasonable and uncommon.

Now an AR-15 or AK-47 clone fires a round that has less killing power than a deer rifle. Also, from the beginning US commanders have typically fielded firearms less technologically advanced than their civilian counterparts. Civilians had rifled barrels, repeating arms, and cartridges before the Army.

Thus it makes a poor weapon for militias right?

It makes is it a poor weapon for anyone! (I'm not a fan of the black gun!) However, the AK-47 shoots a round that is more powerful (albeit less powerful than a deer rifle)...so it has many uses such as hunting deer. However, it is not used in crime and when used in spree shootings typically produces less death than other, non-military firearms.

2) On background checks, I think the Founder's would say that is reasonable...but urge caution. After all...what happens if you get a Hitler in power who cannot get rid of the Amendment, so instead he uses background checks to keep guns out of the hands of Jews or Democrats/Republicans?

The Supreme Court would overturn as a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Irrelevent to the point...besides what happens if the tyrant packs the Supreme Court? Also, what police or military does the SCOTUS run that could enforce its will? If the hypothetical tyrant was walking all over the Constitution why would he give a fuck what they had to say?

---

At 5/29/13 06:28 PM, TheMason wrote: Yes...but not because of the shield of the US military (we did not have a standing Army)

We've had a standing army for along time, it's just it wasn't that large.

:...but armed civilians.

I highly doubt how you would've been able to mobilize such a large population with no training in firearms to do that.

To begin with, in Iraq and Afghanistan we're not facing that significant of a threat from RPGs and anti-air missiles.

Right, it's only those such as in Libya which did. The difference being that the Taliban do not seem to be able to overthrow the government nor could the Iraqi insurgents do the same.

So your assumption is starting from a flawed premise. The largest threat we are facing is IEDs. Also, Iraqi rebels were able to turn back an AH-64 Apache assault with only AK-47s.

Turn them back in some cases, I highly doubt they could do it consistently to the point that they're effective anti-aircraft weapons.

Secondly, in the US we have mountains and woods that blunt conventional force's abilities. Hit & fade tactics are very viable...and do not require heavy arms such as stingers and RPGs. In fact their weight makes them more of a liability for highly mobile units.

And again gun shops are not selling guns so people can do this.

Again, you start with a flawed premis: the US military would probably fracture. Especially in Natl Guard units, so the anti-Ghost Hitler resistance would end up acquiring some of these weapons.

Which is partly why the miltia argument isn't that good.

* Making IEDs illegal DOES NOT make them less or unavailable! The I in IED stands for improvised which means you make them out of what is available to you. In Iraq this was unguarded munitions. But you can make them out of plenty of perfectly legal household chemicals. You can make building IEDs illegal...but you cannot make the components illegal.

Um yah, but my point is that since they're probably illegal then it doesn't fit well in the militia context. Unless you want it to be legal.

* Tanks, planes, and even drones would be marginalized by terrain. See you cannot take a tank into the woods, they require roads or open land. Air forces also need to be able to see their targets to shoot them. The American terrain is very conducive to effective guerilla warfare.

That doesn't matter, what matters is that Americans should be able to buy weapons that allow them to blow up tanks according to your militia argument.

You do realize the TEC-9 gun is a piece of shit and not really good for anything be it home defense, mass shooting, or military.

My point was that it was a bit of an evil gun in the sense that it did not leave behind finger prints. Perfect for murderers. So gun manufacturers aren't above those kinds of things to help out murderers.

Also, gun manufactures make firearms that are far more lethal and capable than what the military has. A deer rifle beats a M-4 or AK-47.

But my point is that gun manufacturers are not producing guns designed for rebellions or combat situations with the military for commercial sale.

Not really. The Viet Cong fought with improvised weapons like sharpened sticks covered in shit (literally) to discarded rifles.

Not all, and they were being armed by the North.

Not really. If I made a gun that fired bullets that had heat-seekers and micro-nukes in them that guarenteed to kill one person with each bullet fired that would be unreasonable and uncommon.

I said the policies I talked about. Background checks, banning certain guns etc. does that mean those are illegal now? Because that does not address those policies.

Now an AR-15 or AK-47 clone fires a round that has less killing power than a deer rifle. Also, from the beginning US commanders have typically fielded firearms less technologically advanced than their civilian counterparts. Civilians had rifled barrels, repeating arms, and cartridges before the Army.

Right but few gun manufacters are producing guns based on how well they kill other humans when they're selling to civilians.

It makes is it a poor weapon for anyone! (I'm not a fan of the black gun!) However, the AK-47 shoots a round that is more powerful (albeit less powerful than a deer rifle)...so it has many uses such as hunting deer. However, it is not used in crime and when used in spree shootings typically produces less death than other, non-military firearms.

Right, so should that mean the government be able to regulate or ban them?

Irrelevent to the point...besides what happens if the tyrant packs the Supreme Court? Also, what police or military does the SCOTUS run that could enforce its will? If the hypothetical tyrant was walking all over the Constitution why would he give a fuck what they had to say?

Then either the Constitution failed us or the American people failed the Constitution. What if EVERYONE in government decided to burn the Constitution and establish a dictatorship? If everyone in the government agree's to go against the Constitution then we're screwed no matter what legal barrier we put up beforehand. But otherwise if the President does not enforce a Judicial ruling he should be impeached and convicted.

---

At 5/29/13 09:17 PM, Warforger wrote: We've had a standing army for along time, it's just it wasn't that large.

We had what was called a "collapsible Army" until WWII. The philosophy was a professional, standing Army was a temptation to tyranny. So they did two things:
1) Put it in the Constitution that the Army could only be funded two years at a time (compared to the Navy which got permanent status).
2) In peace time the Army would only be 20% of its wartime strength, therefore when we expanded it for a contingency we would draw from the militia, volunteers, and draftees. Once the crisis was over, the Army would shrink by 80%.

Now, standing army is one where it is maintained at full (or near full) strength even during peace time.

...but armed civilians.

I highly doubt how you would've been able to mobilize such a large population with no training in firearms to do that.

Wow! Thanks for making my point for me! :)

First of all, why do people who make these arguments assume that it takes near-Jedi training to become proficient in firearms? I could train you to defend your home, if you have never touched a firearm, in an afternoon (maybe a day if you're not motivated).

Secondly, many people know how to use firearms...they do not need specialized firearms training. The Air Force and Army training I've received have not really taught me anything I did not know already.

Third, a foreign invader or a US military regiment coming from out of state is not going to know the lay of the land where I live. That makes guerilla/militia fighters extremely confounding for conventional forces. They do not leave a large footprint for soldiers to follow, plus they know when and where to hide or dig-in.

You make a point for the other side.

Right, it's only those such as in Libya which did. The difference being that the Taliban do not seem to be able to overthrow the government nor could the Iraqi insurgents do the same.

Actually, the Taliban did overthrow the post-Soviet government and fended off the Northern Alliance in a civil war. And the Iraqi insurgents did a pretty damn good job there for a little while.

Turn them back in some cases, I highly doubt they could do it consistently to the point that they're effective anti-aircraft weapons.

We have examples going back all the way to Vietnam. Furthermore, it is not only bringing them down but the attrition that comes with repairing even minor battle damage.

Secondly, in the US we have mountains and woods that blunt conventional force's abilities. Hit & fade tactics are very viable...and do not require heavy arms such as stingers and RPGs. In fact their weight makes them more of a liability for highly mobile units.

And again gun shops are not selling guns so people can do this.

Huh? You really do not understand guns or guerilla tactics do you?

1) Deer and hunting rifles are far more lethal than what soldiers carry. A crazy redneck in his own woods with a deer rifle would be more effective than a squad or platoon of soldiers with AR-15s trying to hold the same ground.
2) Gun shops are selling firearms that are dual purpose...that can do this AND take care of small varmits such as coyotes or game like deer.

Also...I do not see where the reason why retailers are selling guns is in any way relevant to the outcome. After all, the vast majority of gun shops do not sell guns so they can be used in murders and hold-ups!

Which is partly why the miltia argument isn't that good.

Not really. There are some advantages to civilian participation in the militia:
1) If a civilian can provide their own guns and ammo...it relieves a logistical strain. After all, you need more small arms than you need heavy arms!
2) You don't have to worry about training as many people because they come already familiar with their weapon.

In no way is the militia argument negated by this.

Um yah, but my point is that since they're probably illegal then it doesn't fit well in the militia context. Unless you want it to be legal.

False analogy.

It is far easier to build an IED than build a firearm from scratch.

That doesn't matter, what matters is that Americans should be able to buy weapons that allow them to blow up tanks according to your militia argument.

No because of the historical context. The Founders were not going out and advocating civilian ownership of cannons or ships of the line. They meant small arms, and they used the general term 'arms' so that future governments would not use technological advances to take away this right. After all, civilians had access to firearms with rifled barrels while the Army only used smoothbore muskets (which were less accurate than their civilian counterparts).

My point was that it was a bit of an evil gun in the sense that it did not leave behind finger prints. Perfect for murderers. So gun manufacturers aren't above those kinds of things to help out murderers.

OMG! That's so horrible! Did they also infuse a piece of satan's soul in the firearm too?

Because really...this is much ado about nothing. You don't want to leave behind fingerprints: wear gloves. That's not a new concept!

The attraction for legitimate shooters: keeping the finish in good condition. But if it really helps out criminals, I get it. But fingerprints? Really? Something criminals already have easy ways of getting around?

But my point is that gun manufacturers are not producing guns designed for rebellions or combat situations with the military for commercial sale.

And that point is irrelevant if the firearms they are producing meet the needs of rebellions and combat situation AND can be used for situations like hunting where lethality is maximized.

This point is silly and not based on reality.

Not really. The Viet Cong fought with improvised weapons like sharpened sticks covered in shit (literally) to discarded rifles.

Not all, and they were being armed by the North.

Um yeah...they Viet Cong relied on hit and fade tactics. Things like RPGs and MANPADs are heavy and not conducive to this type of warfare.

I said the policies I talked about. Background checks, banning certain guns etc. does that mean those are illegal now? Because that does not address those policies.

And I've addressed this.
1) Background checks are ok.
2) Demonstrate a need for these guns to be banned.

Right but few gun manufacters are producing guns based on how well they kill other humans when they're selling to civilians.

Actually pretty much every handgun manufacturer is.

Right, so should that mean the government be able to regulate or ban them?

It means that there is no reason to ban them. Demonstrate how they are worse than a shotgun, or produce more deaths than a handgun used in a similar crime.

Then either the Constitution failed us or the American people failed the Constitution. What if EVERYONE in government decided to burn the Constitution and establish a dictatorship? If everyone in the government agree's to go against the Constitution then we're screwed no matter what legal barrier we put up beforehand. But otherwise if the President does not enforce a Judicial ruling he should be impeached and convicted.

There are examples in history of executives (presidents, prime ministers, chancellors) who are elected...turning into dictators and tyrants and ignoring the balance of power between the other branches of government. So it is not that far out there to use the same thing happening here as a hypothetical.

:)