IBTL... Why Do They Call It "Gun Control" ???

[WillyT]

ITBL -> I Tend to Be Liberal

Shouldn't it be "Arms Control" ?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I can't buy an F-16, a Bazooka, or own a switch-blade.

"Gun Control" sounds like a Luntzie... a Frank Luntz (GOP Operative) phrase.

ALL of it, is actually Arms Control.

We have not much debate in whether you or I can own a nuclear device, why is it so hard to hava a serious discussion of pistols, rifles, magazines and silencers?

:shrug:

[pipoman]

1. Uh

because people can't have a serious discussion without being silly and bringing up nuclear weapons..

[WillyT]

4. Dude... "Guns" Isn't Mentioned In The Original Documents

And if they were, wouldn't it be "Muskets" ?

:shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Yeah so instead

what about the rest of the standard military weaponry that would be required for a modern 'well regulated militia' to actually be a modern well regulated militia?

The constitutional fundamentalists, like most fundamentalists, end up cherry picking exactly what they want to be all fundamental about.

The right to keep and bear arms meant, in the context it was written, the standard military equipment of the day. And no the nuclear weapons problem is not silly as those standard military arms are within the 'original intent', but in being within that intent illustrate just how stunningly stupid original intent is.

[WillyT]

9. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

:D

:hi:

[Statistical]

11. You can't "bear" a nuclear weapon, as in "keep and bear" arms.

The expression "keep and bear" arms indicated (and this does indicate) small arms. Specifically the weapons used by infantry units. Today that would be an AR-15, maybe with M203 grenade launcher. Likely a M9 beretta sidearm.

Miller case however indicated an arm only needs to have reasonable relationship to efficacy of a militia. Thus a .22 target pistol while not a militia weapon could be shown to have "reasonable relationship" as it aids in target practice and leads to an effective militia.

Heller case considers all arms in "popular use" to have reasonable relationship to efficacy of a militia. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't depend on a militia. An effective militia depends on the right to keep and bear arms.

[NuclearDem]

12. I take this as a challenge.

You, sir, are on. :rofl:

[WillyT]

13. How Does The Original Intent "Indicate That" ???

:shrug:

[Statistical]

14. Because the right to keep and bear arms predates the Constitution.

Under English common law freemen had an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep arms for defense of themselves and defense of state.

King George the tyrant took arms from the people. Not from the abstract concept of State or Militia but the Kings soldiers went into peoples homes and sized personal arms.
The purpose was to prevent the mobilization of militia but the arms were seized from the PEOPLE in direct violation of their common law rights.


The founders felt it necessary to specifically prohibit this action by the new government. The PEOPLE retain the right to keep and bear arms. This right is protected to ensure the States can field an effective militia. The militia relies on the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't rely on the people.

Nothing in the Bill of Rights, Constitution, or Declaration of Independence was created from a vacuum. It was the result of citizens who saw their existing rights trampled by a tyrant. That tyranny broke the social contract between citizen and King. As a result they declared Independence, fought for restoration of their rights, and then put limitations on the new government to ensure it wouldn't happen again.

[WillyT]

17. Did That Include Swords, Scabbards, And Battle-Axes ???

We need to be specific here.

:shrug:

[Statistical]

20. Of course.

The term arms evolved with technology. The founders would have been quite aware of that. 100 years prior to revolution the term arms did refer to bladed weapons, bows, and crossbows. By the time of the revolution muskets were the arms of the day (along with swords and bayonets). Repeating (semi-auto) weapons had already been invented although they weren't common. The period just prior to the revolution was one of huge technological advances in arms.

The choice of the word arms was intentional. Arms had changed radically in just a few generations. The founders had no evidence to think technological advancement would stop. Arms was chosen instead of naming specific arms for a reason.

[WillyT]

21. My Point EXACTLY !!!

It's STILL about the control of ARMS!

It's just that in our lives, we've taken arms control to mean a treaty between us and the Soviet Union.

And "Gun Control" remains a curious phrase to distinguish 2nd Amendment arguments from Thermonuclear Warfare.

:shrug:

[Statistical]

23. I see your point.

Gun control is a inaccurate and time-limited name. In 200-300 years the fight will be about how powerful of a laser, or disruptor, or self defense nanite is protected by the Second Amendment. People will be taking about laser control, and registration of "assault nanites".

In actuality it is always about arms (which will inevitably evolve with time).

Historically the concept of "gun control" didn't exist prior to recent history. In the 1800s for example there were laws which made it illegal to conceal ARMS. They made no distinction between concealing a pistol or concealing a knife.

[WillyT]

24. I Love Ending In Agreement !!!

:bounce::woohoo::bounce:

Thank you.

:hi:

[X_Digger]

31. Seems to be semantic, not one of substance.. n/t

[Hugabear]

34. Then why not a fully automatic weapon?

I know there are federal regulations about fully automatic weapons. But if "keep and bear" refers to "weapons used by infantry units", then that should also include fully automatic weapons, RPGs, anti-tank missiles, and even anti-aircraft missiles.

[Statistical]

35. I think they should be ...

there are two laws that cover automatic weapons.

1) NFA of 1934. This strictly regulated automatic weapons and other destructive devices. You can obtain an automatic weapon however the checks and requirements are rather high. Very effective law. Since 1934 only two legally registered automatic weapons have been used in crimes. One involved Police Officer.

2) 1986 Amednment. This banned new machine gun registrations, effectively limiting all civilian ownership to existing weapons.

The NFA likely will stand to Constitutional Scrutiny (see scrict scrutiny) however I believe the 1886 ban will eventually be found to be Unconstitutional. Civilians can obtain a machinegun from 1985 but one from 1986 is too dangerous. It is arbitrary, ineffective, and eventually will be overturned.

Missiles aren't considered arms. They are considered ordinances. Still under the NFA a civilian could own one along with other destructive devices (mines, grenades, explosive rounds, etc).

[Hoopla Phil]

48. Miller specifically mentioned an M-16 as being well suited to militia service.

[mmonk]

15. I hear they didn't mean that regulated militia part anyway, they were talking

about a right on an individual basis anywhere, anytime, any circumstance without any impedence from any form. They just decided to be a little wordy and throw in some words. They clearly and most precisely did not mean for that militia qualifier to exist. So we must ignore it. Anyone have an extra shoulder fired missile they want to sell? I want to take it to Church.:sarcasm:

[Statistical]

16. That is what is called a strawman.

Nobody (except you) is claiming the right is without limit.

The right exists with the people but no right is unlimited. Due process is used to restriction rights (all rights). The militia was the reason and rationale to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Remember the Bill of Rights grants no rights. It is a restriction on the government. The right to keep and bear arms predates the Constitution, it predates even the revolution. The government is restricted from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms BECAUSE citizens with knowledge (and a lifetime of experience using them) are necessary to form an effective and capable militia (meaning of "well regulated").

Why would the founders insist on this restriction? Why must the right of the people to keep and bear arms be protected?

Experience taught them that need. The British troops illegally sized the weapons of the PEOPLE. Not the weapons of the state, or the weapons of the militia but individual weapons owned by individual citizens. Seizures that were in directly violation of English common law; tyranny. The revolutionary war began over the seizure of arms, more specifically gunpowder.

[WillyT]

18. I Know... So You Agree That The "Individual" Right, Was To Protect Oneself From The Government ???

:shrug:

[Statistical]

22. The individual right exists. Period.

The people have right to keep and bear arms. One use of that right is a check on tyranny however the right exists regardless.
It existed prior to the revolution (in English common-law), the 2A was codified to protect that right, and it exists today.

Rights exist. They don't require reasons. There are lots of reasons to have free speech however even trivial expressions of that right (like a comedian telling jokes) are still protected. The government couldn't win a Constitutional lawsuit by saying "this speech ins't protected because it doesn't have an important enough purpose to warrant protection". Likewise saying "the founders couldn't possibly conceive of this speech therefore it isn't protected" likely wouldn't win any points either.

You have the relationship between the RKBA and 2A backwards. IMHO the founder's intent with the Second Amendment was to protect the people from their government by preventing the seizure of arms. They did this because the British attempted to prevent the revolution specifically through those actions. However he Second Amendment doesn't "grant" the Right to Keep and Bear arms. It protect that right, a right that existed prior to the Constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear arms doesn't require the Constitution for its existence. It doesn't require a reason.

[SteveM]

46. The Second prevents the government from infringing the RKBA. nt

[mmonk]

26. Because when they wrote it, there was to be no standing federal army.

Due process restricts the government, not rights.

[beevul]

29. So does the second amendment.

"Due process restricts the government, not rights."

So does the second amendment.

Not because I say so though:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

The bill of rights itself, says so.

[Hoopla Phil]

49. oops, wrong place. self delete

[rl6214]

40. To add to what you said

Our militia did not take home their cannons used during the revolutionary war or bring their own from home, they did bring their own muskets and took them home after the battle/war. This makes the nuke, f16, tank arguement stupid.

[sharesunited]

2. The phrase used in Heller affirming Miller is "in popular use."

If it's in popular use, then 2A protection extends to it.

What needs to be adjudicated is whether there is a state compelling interest in reversing the popular use of any particular weaponry.

As it stands, the dismal tide only washes further ashore. It never recedes.

[Hoopla Phil]

50. So when can I get my full auto M-4???

[Fumesucker]

3. It's not hard..

Some people seriously want guns and some other people seriously want to get rid of them.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. Actually, private citizens can own warplanes...

If you can pay-to-play... you can own your own fighter jet or military vehicle.
It's the armament you might have a tough time buying ;)

Plus, many states allow ownership and possesion of switchblades.
In the land of arms-control... the one armed man is king.

They call it gun control because the government is trying to control the supply of guns.
But the truth is gun contol isn't about the the control... it's just about the guns.

[MiddleFingerMom]

7. Maybe it's because I'm from Arizona...

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...but YOU folks can't own a nucular weapon?!?!?!?!?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Don't get me wrong... we do have SOME restrictions.
.
.
.
.
.
But we're working diligently to regain those 2nd Amendment rights that have been STOLEN from us by a tyrannical gummint.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

[WillyT]

10. Love That Sign !!!

:rofl:

:hi:

[Glassunion]

39. Dude!!! I must have that sign!!!

[NuclearDem]

8. You might call it overkill...I call it proper home defense

For my ocean front property

[petronius]

19. Perhaps for the same reason we call them "suicide bombers" instead of "homicide bombers"

It's just a bit more precisely what we really mean. 'Gun control' refers to that specific slice of arms known as guns and gun accessories. In contrast, we've pretty much agreed that arms control refers to the really big stuff that effectively only governments get to play with...

[WillyT]

25. Agreed !!! - See Post #21

:hi:

[beevul]

27. Why is it so hard?

"why is it so hard to hava a serious discussion of pistols, rifles, magazines and silencers?"

First because people, particularly those that support gun control, have a tendency not to know whats legal or not, for starters.

"I can't buy an F-16, a Bazooka, or own a switch-blade."

A perfect example.

Yes, you can buy and own a switch blade.

Yes, you can buy and own a bazooka.

No, you can't buy an f-16 - yet. but not for the reasons you might think. Simply because they're still far too state of the art and still have some "classified" systems.

You can buy and own world war 2 fighter planes, see the warbirds collectors.

You can buy and own fighter jets:



Michael Dorn (yes, of star trek T:NG fame) acquired his F-86 Sabre from the South African Air Force. He had it for about four years and flew it across the country a few times before selling it in 1998.

You can buy other military jets:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-5960.html


Its hard to have a discussion about pistols, rifles, magazines and silencers, with people that do not have the facts with with to discuss and understand them, or an understanding of the legalities involved with each.

It would be just as hard to have a discussion about mathematics with someone that does not have and understand of the facts about addition, subtraction, division and multiplication.

I don't mean that as an insult, so please don't take it as one.

[WillyT]

28. No Insult Taken... Question Though...

What year is that plane you pictured ???

And does it come with all it's armaments and ammo if I buy one ?

:shrug:

[MicaelS]

30. It's an F-86, a Korean War era aircraft, and no

It does not come with it's "armaments and ammo".

[WillyT]

32. That's What I Thought...

:shrug:

[X_Digger]

33. Though you can equip it with armaments..

.. if you can find a civilian-transferrable equipment, per the NFA.

There's a guy who brings a tank with working 50 cal machineguns on it to one of the local matches here.

[beevul]

36. If I'm not mistaken, its an f-86 sabre...

The North American F-86 Sabre (sometimes called the Sabrejet) was a transonic jet fighter aircraft. Prouced by North American Aviation, the Sabre is best known for its Korean War role, where it was pitted against the Soviet MiG-15. Although developed in the late 1940s and outdated by the end of the 1950s, the Sabre proved adaptable and continued as a front line fighter in air forces until the last active front line examples were retired by the Bolivian Air Force in 1994.

Its success led to an extended production run of more than 7,800 aircraft between 1949 and 1956, in the United States, Japan and Italy. It was by far the most-produced Western jet fighter, with total production of all variants at 9,860 units.<2>

Variants were built in Canada and Australia. The Canadair Sabre added another 1,815 airframes, and the significantly redesigned CAC Sabre (sometimes known as the Avon Sabre or CAC CA-27), had a production run of 112.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-86_Sabre


People do own newer jets than that, but like I say, the technology is the limiting factor (assuming money is no object) in that one will never see for sale a jet with classified systems.

For example, there is a privately owned McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II:


Phantom production ran from 1958 to 1981, with a total of 5,195 built, making it the most numerous American supersonic military aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II




Me, If I could afford one, I'd make mine one of these:



I don't have a pilots license, but I think I'd be happy just to sit in it some. For a short time anyway, then I'd have to get a pilots license.

"And does it come with all it's armaments and ammo if I buy one ?"

The armaments would be NFA items - thats the national firearms act of 1934 which taxes possession of machineguns short barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, destructive devices (grenades for example) and large caliber non sporting rifles (over .500 inch bore).

If you could find the original guns/replacement originals, or if they came with the plane, all you would have to do is get ATF approval by passing a very stringent background check, and pay the 200 dollars for the tax stamp, and yes you could own them. That process is the same for all "NFA" weapons.

People own fully operational tanks with full armament - and by that I mean main gun and machineguns. Shermans, tigers, a few soviet types, and some others.

Don't take this as personal, because I don't mean it that way, but often times, when people say "tanks are banned" or "machineguns are banned", and they're the same folks that want to ban handguns or military looking semi-automatic rifles, its just plain hard to have a discussion with them.

And they're frequently opposed to learning any different.

You don't seem to be like that, its refreshing, and you are to be commended.

Thank you.

[MicaelS]

37. I doubt very seriously the FAA would permit

Any civilian owned aircraft to fly with NFA weapons, no matter ATF approval. IRC, FAA has even required the electronic fire-control systems to be removed from fighter aircraft in civlian hands.

[beevul]

38. If I'm not mistaken...

If I'm not mistaken, there are some warbirds which are fully armed with NFA weapons, And flown.

I had the opportunity to go to the EAA airshow in Oshkosh WI a number of years ago, before Greg Boyington died, and there were a few there.

I know for a fact that people own fully functional and fully armed tanks.

I'm not sure aircraft would be different.

I guess it would be a good one to find out for sure.

[one-eyed fat man]

42. Attack Helicopters

There is a company in Montana that specializes in reworking Bell military model helicopters for heavy lift work in forestry and fire suppression missions. They go to government surplus sales and bid on all helicopter related military surplus components they can.

One of the airframes they modify for lift work is the Bell Model 209, better known as the AH-1G Cobra, the original Viet Nam era gunship. The owner of the company over a period of years had assembled for himself a completely functional aircraft, with all armaments, all properly documented with Government Bills of Sale, All ATF hurdles complied with and all completely legal.

It was mostly a personal toy, but he did make some money renting it out for movie work. He did have some brief notoriety back in the 90's when its existence became known outside Montana and the movies.

First, the ATF struck out, all the NFA weapons were properly documented and legal. The Department of Defense struck out as all the hardware had been bought through legal channels and DoD Form 97's were able to document all the components of the helicopter that came through The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service. The FAA was unable to ground the helicopter as it was airworthy and in compliance with its FAA type certificate. So the FAA simply issued an emergency revocation of the type certificate.

Several in Congress tried to push legislation that would have allowed the Department of Defense to order the destruction, at the owners expense, anything they had ever sold as military surplus at the DoD's discretion.

It didn't matter if it was an M1 rifle you bought from CMP, a bayonet granddad brought home from the war, a 4WD fire truck used by the local volunteer fire department, or a P-51 Mustang lovingly restored by the Confederate Air Force...or a mess kit tray.

Since then, they have restored a couple more. One for a museum and one you can buy.

[MicaelS]

44. Great story, thanks....

And you know, that price isn't bad at all, considering what you're getting. I figured it would several million.

[slackmaster]

41. Actually, you can own a switchblade in California

I have one at home that I use as a letter opener.

You just can't carry it in public, concealed or otherwise.

[Katya Mullethov]

43. Why is it like that

in so many places ? Are they different from regular knives ?

It is interesting how many will immediately assume they are illegal , but why would they be ?

[one-eyed fat man]

45. NSN 5110-01-516-3243

http://www.armyproperty.com/images/Gerber%20GR-22-07157%20Emerson%20Alliance%20Auto%20Knife,%20PlainEdge.JPG

This is one of several current Army issue automatic opening knives. My Kentucky CCDW allows me to carry it as it covers all concealed deadly weapons, not just firearms.

[shadowrider]

47. I have one with a 3.5" serated blade that isn't a switchblade

but I can open it almost as fast with a flick of my thumb. I carry it all the time and use it in a work environment, although I did originally buy it when a guy at a campground had a pit mix that didn't like me. Every time I went out to get water it'd stare and growl. Busy campground so I didn't take my gun (imagine that, I was responsible), but that dog woulda been missing some necessary entrails had it come at me.

[spin]

52. You can own a switchblade in Florida and carry one concealed ...

if you have a concealed weapons permit.

Seriously, If the state issues you a permit to carry a concealed firearm, why should they worry about a switchblade.

Switchblade knives are interesting toys. Folding knifes are crippled blade designed for convenience of carry. In my opinion, a fixed blade knife is a far better tool or weapon than any knife that has a blade that folds or retracts.

[benEzra]

51. The line between bazookas and civilian small arms

has been settled for going on eight decades now. You may find that it answers a lot of your questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act