The barebones story from CNN:
The masked teens -- a 15-year-old and two 16-year-olds -- approached three residents around 4 a.m. Monday at the front yard of a home just outside Conyers and tried to rob them.... One of the would-be robbers took out a gun and fired shots at them before one of the residents returned fire, authorities said.Here at Meadhouse, we were just talking about the argument that no one needs an AR-15 to hunt — a subject I have nothing to say about — and what if anything the 2d Amendment has to do with hunting (as opposed to self-defense). This subject arose after I saw an SUV (here in Madison) with 2 bumper stickers: "Hike. Bike. Vote." and "Hunt. Fish. Vote." I'm not sure what political side that might be intended to support, but I like the individual sport and the individual politics of voting. Live your life, perform your civic duty, and be a good citizen of the community that results as all the other individuals do the same. That's what I thought, in my beautiful city, where the majority votes left-wing, as I drove home from seeing the sun rise....
"The victims of the attempted robbery were all uninjured, but the three attempted robbery suspects were all shot during the exchange of gunfire and succumbed to their injuries, one on scene and two at a local hospital after being transported," the sheriff's department said in a news release....
"I heard a guy yelling for help. 'Help me, help me, I'm dying, I'm dying, help me, help me," [a neighbor] Brian Jenkins told the station. Another neighbor ran out to help after he heard what sounded like five shots from a handgun, he said.
"Then I heard somebody have an assault rifle," [a neighbor] Carlos Watson told WSB. "And it was a slew of shots that came out."...
Posts
147 comments:
The 2nd Amendment is about credibly maintaining the ability to oppose tyranny. The rest is gravy.
What difference does a composite vs a wood stock make for hunting? The AR15 is maligned because it is black and semiautomatic. Is wood and semiautomatic less evil somehow? I prefer a larger caliber weapon for hunting, something in 30-06 or 308 rather than the Ar round. But semiauto helps if you merely wound the animal on the first shot.
Yoots.
God gave us a right to self-defense. Scalia explained the Second Amendment’s meaning and the phrase “a well regulated militia.” I bet the people of Hong Kong wish they had a Second Amendment.
I don't like to hunt. But I do own a semi-automatic weapon for self-defense.
Beta and the gang would like to make me a criminal.
Do you like how CNN attempts twist the poor robbers who were shot to death - into the victims.
CNN is pathetic.
Sounds like the homeowner is well on his way to a valid self defense claim. Some people are trying to gin up a proportionality problem but the story points out it applies to the deadly/non-deadly distinction and not the size of the gun...
His biggest problem is becoming the pet project of a politically motivated prosecutor or politically motivated politicians (intentionally redundant)...
While an AR15 is not a good hunting rifle when hunting deer or bear, it is used quite often against feral hogs and other vermin. But 2A has NOTHING to do with hunting. So the point is moot. Remember it does not specifically say anything about what type of Arms, just Arms. And don't give me that bullshit line about flintlocks, or military grade weapons. Flintlocks were military grade weapons, and they intended citizens to have the same grade of Arms as the military or militia. Thus they did NOT say the right of the people to keep and bear flintlocks shall not be infringed.
They were just chirren. The man said it right there. What kind of monster kills chirren?
In this case, a righteous man.
For the politicians the case all hinges on the race of those involved...
If you decide to commit a violent crime and it doesn't go the way you pictured it, don't come crying to me.
and what if anything the 2d Amendment has to do with hunting (as opposed to self-defense).
The Second Amendment isn't about hunting or self defense. It's about the ability to overthrow an oppressive government.
An investigation is underway, and this could be a "stand-your-ground type of case," Rockdale County Sheriff Eric Levett said Monday, referring to one component of Georgia's self-defense laws.
Even without a 'stand your ground' component, doesn't any 'duty to retreat' turn to self-defense once an attacker opens fire?
One of the would-be robbers took out a gun and fired shots at them before one of the residents returned fire, authorities said.
The black criminals approached three residents around 4 a.m. Monday at the front yard of a home
Three people were in their front yard at 4 am? That story could use some fleshing-out.
"'Help me, help me, I'm dying, I'm dying, help me, help me,'"
One must have a heart of stone to read the death of little "teen" burglars without laughing - as with this caption: "A lost shoe is pictured outside the scene where a homeowner shot and killed three men who were wearing..."
The “Living Constitution” viewpoint authorizes gun grabbing.
The beauty of rights is one can choose not to exercise them. Once government takes away a right, the citizenry no longer has choice. ¹
I prefer a larger caliber weapon for hunting, something in 30-06 or 308 rather than the Ar round. But semiauto helps if you merely wound the animal on the first shot.
One big attraction of the AR 15 is that it is modular and the caliber of the barrel and receiver can be changed to a .308 quite easily.
Beautiful sunrise.
I am not feeling any sympathy for the dead would be robbers. I do feel for the guy who shot them. He is right and justified in doing as he did, but if it were me i would still be upset at the death of three teenagers. I'd probably be angry that they put me in that situation.
Each one of these teens was "in the process of turning their lives around," on track to score high 700s in the math portion of the SAT, and look what happens. Some cracker decides to cut them down like they were dogs. This was straight-up racism.
Beto, was that you?
In 1947 5 Arab Armies using British Empire The Haganah was armed with pistols and rifles.supplied military weapons and ammunition started the final Final Solution in Jerusalem to finish killing the Jews Hitler's Army had let escape from the EU.
A few rifles and pistols the young and old Jews used to create a stalemate in years of bloody fighting saved them. They made a movie called Exodus. But Exodus has been forbidden to be broadcast since the 1960s.
As for me, the solution looks easy. Make possession of AR-15s and 1000 rounds of ammo mandatory. No more crime and no more Nazi Final Solutions. Unless President Swalwell nukes the American people.
When armed, hooded people show up at your house firing weapons, you can burn them with napalm for all I care. I am guessing this is an all-black incident, otherwise there would already be organized protests and MSM coverage.
NB: the Garand M-1 is still for sale everywhere. And you can use it as a club too.
Again, AR-15 is about the formerly patented lower receiver design and has nothing to do with the caliber or confirmation of the rifle (or shotgun or whatever) above it.
The .223 caliber is the actual caliber of .22 and is much to small for hunting game of any size. The cartridge is slightly more powerful than .30 Carbine, but weaker than several modern handgun cartridges.
NB: the Garand M-1 is still for sale everywhere. And you can use it as a club too.
As soon as my last niece and nephew graduate high school, I'm buying a shotgun and a Garand.
you show up to rob me? I really don't care about your age or the color of your skin.
ooo but lets watch this unfold. The collective liar left are going to trash the home-owners.
Websters II unabridged dictionary has 2145 4-letter words. It's not all fish and vote.
What Tim said.
This is why home invasions are a relatively rare crime in some states as opposed to Great Britain. There's a plus side to gun ownership and not just for the gun owner. All those teens who prudently decide that a job at McDonald's is a better deal than the home invasion career track also come out ahead. Also, I suspect anyone who was ever subject to a home invasion probably suffers years of PTSD. Anything we can do to minimize this crime is all to the good. If it saves just one life, it's worth it.
"be a good citizen of the community that results as all the other individuals do the same"
Until PTB declare that you are not a good enough citizen, citizen Althouse. Then it's off to the guillotine.
You don't know a man until you've walked a mile in his lost shoe.
“Here at Meadhouse, we were just talking about the argument that no one needs an AR-15 to hunt“
Never mind the argument, the premise itself is the kind of weirdly presumptive and ignorant straw man that the Left loves to throw up out of the blue.
The CNN story is actually the first time I learned that one of the youths opened fire first. Most of the headlines have been, "Armed homeowner kills three teenagers." I had read the articles but they just mentioned that the teenagers were wearing masks and came onto his property at 4 AM.
I actually do feel sorry for the would-be robbers. I'm sorry they didn't know what they were doing was wrong, or, failing that, didn't care. I'm sorry their lives were probably such shit that going out masked and armed at 4 AM seemed like a good idea - or at least, no worse an idea than not doing that. I'm sorry they missed out on the rest of their lives because of dumb choices they made.
I'm sorrier for the homeowner. It does seem like there's more to the story, but as far as what's reported: He has three guys in masks coming at him. One starts shooting at him, so now he knows they're all willing to kill him. He has people in the home whose safety he fears for in addition to his own. What else was he supposed to do but aim center-mass, and keep shooting until they stopped coming? If I'm in his shoes, I'm no longer wondering how old they are, whether they come from a disadvantaged background, or whether I can talk them down.
How long will it take for Elizabeth Warren to call the home-owner a "Murderer?"
White proggies will cheer.
Curious if the Meadehouse chat on AR15s involved any knowledge of the weapon and it’s almost limitless possible configurations. Also, did the word semiautomatic come up?
Conyers, by the way has a large black population.
Hagar. 223 is no the same as 22. Google it.
the argument that no one needs an AR-15 to hunt
Well, yes you do. Depending on what you are hunting and in what circumstances.
Deer hunting. Mule deer in longer distance venues than the cramped Midwest forest type of hunting. A semi automatic rifle (not an assault rifle duh!) of the correct caliber is a decisive advantage to you AND to the deer.
When you are shooting at a range of 200 to 300 yards, the ability to quickly fire more than one shot is going to help you to successfully kill the deer instead of just wounding it and having it wander off before you can get to the target area. Two quick shots at that distance, hitting the target area, instead of having to take even a few seconds with a lever action or bolt action rifle, and to refocus/aim can make the difference of hitting or missing or worse, just wounding.
It is actually more humane, and effective to use a semi automatic rifle in those circumstances.
Now hunting deer in the coastal areas of California.... A bolt action rifle with the correct caliber will be more than adequate. Your range is not nearly as long as on the high desert plains.
A semi automatic shotgun (assault 12 gauge shotgun) is a good tool for duck or goose hunting too :-)
Besides, who is it that gets to be the decider of what I need?? You're not the boss of me :-) Maybe I should decide that you only need a little black and white television and that you really don't "need" to use fast internet. 2400 Baud Modem for you!!!
Garand is a great firearm but really, IMO, its utility for home defense is limited. Eight rounds per clip isn't enough. It's too long and heavy. I like it a lot but I've made other choices.
In particular I've become a proponent (and owner) of AR pistols. Especially the new Ruger AR-556 -- a splendid firearm. For home defense I'm convinced that an AR pistol is superior even to a shotgun. Lighter, shorter, easier to use (lower recoil) and, especially, more rounds. Plus high fast output. Just the thing for when you're confronted at 4:00 AM by four armed "youths."
Here at Meadhouse, we were just talking about the argument that no one needs an AR-15 to hunt
Depends on the cartridge for which it is chambered and what game you are hunting. The usual chambering is .223 Remington or 5,56 x 45 mm NATO. These are good cartridges for home defense but otherwise only good for varmint shooting. But the AR can be had in other chamberings such as .300 AAC Blackout or 6.5 Grendel, which are reported to be good cartridges for deer and feral hogs, and on up to ,308 Winchester (essentially the 7.62 NATO round). Since the .308 is basically the old .30-06 round on a shorter case, anything you could hunt with a .30-06 you can hunt with an AR chambered in .308 Win.
Having written all that, (1) home defense is a perfectly valid reason to own a gun, and (2) as has been pointed out upthread, the Second Amendment says nothing about hunting. Also, (3) this is an open and shut case of self defense as I have seen in quite some time. Gun grabbers hope to split off hunters from people concerned with home defense. It won’t work because hunters generally also care about home defense, too.
Two arguments that infuriate me are (1) the notion that the AR looks like a military weapon so it should be treated like an especially dangerous firearm, and (2) the proportionality argument. Demolishing the second argument first, once your life is threatened you can use any means of deadly force for self defense. If someone attacks me with a knife am I supposed to put up a finger and ask permission to drive home and get a knife? Or can I just draw my concealed carry gun and put a 9 mm round through his chest? As for the first, specious, argument, who cares what the gun looks like? If Althouse looks like s dumb blonde does that make her a dumb blonde? After WWII people bought surplus Mausers and M1 Garlands for hunting, and these were actual military weapons. The only question is whether it can fire on full automatic (military and police use only) or one trigger pull per round (civilian use allowed).
Seems like the news reports were racist: whenever the newspaper omits discussion of the race of the criminals, white supremacists assume that means the bad guys were black — so failing to mention race is a dog-whistle.
You don't -need- an abortion and a Cancun getaway more than your baby needs a right to live. You don't -need- to have gay sex in the face of the AIDS threat.
Heyyyy, this is a fun game! I could play it all day. Nonetheless, I almost don't care if AR-15s are banned, because I can't think of anything else which will turn a lot of American hunting rifles into varmint extermination tools. After a bit of that, I'm sure the federal regulations will be abruptly withdrawn after that. We've seen the successes at the Bundy Ranch, and those lessons can be applied nation wide.
’Here at Meadhouse, we were just talking about the argument that no one needs an AR-15 to hunt...’
Sometimes I pan roast a nice Red Herring and sometimes I grill it off-heat. The wine pairing can be tricky, though.
BTW, I personally don’t own an AR. If any masked teenagers start shooting at me in the wee hours of the morning they’ll have to be content with dying from rounds fired from a lever action rifle.
Garands, not Garlands. Someday I will learn how to proof-read.
Does anyone seriously think that the Second Amendment has anything to do with hunting? It's all about self-defense. Defense against personal attack as well as defense against an out-of-control government.
Doctrev says: You don't -need- an abortion and a Cancun getaway more than your baby needs a right to live. You don't -need- to have gay sex in the face of the AIDS threat.
Exactly. In response to the endless cries of "just how many guns does one person NEED to have?" I wish people would start replying "just how many abortions does one person NEED to have?"
no one needs an AR-15 to hunt — a subject I have nothing to say about — and what if anything the 2d Amendment has to do with hunting (as opposed to self-defense)
The Second Amendment also has nothing to say about hunting, and only tangentially speaks to self-defense of the person. The Second Amendment is all about the right of the people set out in the Declaration of Independence to throw off oppressive government. It is the right of defense against tyranny. And the protection of the amendment was shown to be needed as early as Concord, when the then-existing lawful government tried to seize people's guns.
M-1 has 6 shots a clip (extra clips can be carried in pocket). AR-15 has many shots as Magazine holds, so the disarmers want a 10 Mag limit. Either way you run out, so using the M-1 as a club becomes a deciding value.
Am I the only one who thinks they should have defended themselves with a musket?
Or, just let the children shoot them.
For the children!
The point of the Second Amendment is political and social, not personal.
It is intended to aid certain political dynamics and support an egalitarian culture.
This was seen at the time to be a huge deal, and not just in the US.
It has also recurred throughout history.
I am working here on a theory, maybe to be a paper at some point, on comparative battles of the late 19th century. In the 1890's the state of technology had created an "age of rifles", where infantry firepower was relatively more effective than artillery. This put a premium on individual marksmanship, which became a critical force multiplier.
Battles of the Boer war, the Spanish-American war, and, much overlooked, the American-Filipino war of 1899-1900 were "butterfly wings" to the future.
The analysis comes down to mathematics. At some point the attacking force, in every case, was either repelled or persisted in its advance in spite of its casualties. In the Boer war it was normal for British forces to cease an attack after sustaining about 6% casualties overall. The US managed to sustain attacks through about 11% casualties (San Juan Hill/El Caney and Las Guasimas). These were fought between expert or at least adequately capable riflemen, even the militias, such as the Boers. Note that the barely trained American militia volunteers of 1898 were at least as capable riflemen as the US regulars.
But in the Philippines the Philippine Army, defending extensive trench lines when it faced the great offensive by US forces from Manila, was unable to inflict anything like such casualties on the Americans in any engagement, much less repel an attack. This was in spite of what would appear to be significant advantages, such as being at least equal in numbers to their attackers, being at least as well armed, and arguably better armed with a significant number having superior Mausers, being in long prepared fortifications, and, arguably, having high morale and good discipline, as they held their trenches often up to sustaining 30-50% casualties, and then they usually withrew in good order. But those casualties and material losses, repeated over and over under similar conditions, quickly shattered the army.
The difference was apparently a severe deficiency in marksmanship and familiarity with firearms. This I think had old roots in the ancient Spanish tradition of gun control, denying arms to civilians in Spain and its colonies. Its effects, I argue, had a "butterfly wing" effect on world history. An American defeat, or heavy casualties, in such a potentially costly attack against a well prepared opponent, would likely have discouraged the US, as the whole thing was already a marginal venture, undertaken as a "coin-flip" decision.
The effect on US politics and its interest in empire might have been profound.
No one needs any of the Bill of Rights. Certainly, no one needs freedom. Other than shelter food, and water, nobody needs anything. Now get back in your hole, and eat your slop.
@Michael,
You google it!
.22 Long Rifle - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › .22_Long_Rifle
The .22 Long Rifle or simply .22 LR (metric designation: 5.6×15mmR) is a long-established variety of .22 caliber rimfire ammunition, ..... Note: actual velocities are dependent on many factors, such as barrel length of a given firearm and ...
Rifling twist: 1:16" Rim diameter: .278 in (7.1 mm)
Bullet diameter: 0.223 in (5.7 mm) - 0.2255 in ... Neck diameter: .226 in (5.7 mm)
JPS says: "I'm sorrier for the homeowner. It does seem like there's more to the story, but as far as what's reported:"
I agree. Something led to this. Three guys don't show up at 4 a.m. intending a home invasion and find the homeowner out in the yard waiting for them (I guess). He was up for a reason.
Fernandistein's right. I think we still need to hear the rest of the story. Something's missing.
M-1 Garand has 8 rounds per clip, not 6.
This I what’s known in political punditry as an “event.” There’s some 14 months until the election but events such as this one will come out of nowhere and tug the trajectory this way and ... further this way. For you see, events like this one will move the electorate more openly towards Trump and events unlike this one will do the same. And the Left will help move this process along.
I was mugged at gunpoint in the Bayview neighborhood in Milwaukee about two weeks ago. First time in my life. Two teens. One white. One African-American. I was walking from my car into a friends house and they sprinted up on me. No masks. I was carrying a bottle of Hennessy and a twelve pack of Miller Lite.
They took $200 cash I had in my pocket, and insisted on me giving them my wallet. As I handed it to them I said, "Come on, it's just credit cards and I'm going to cancel them right away." As I handed them my wallet, I took the credit cards and my License out of it right in front of them.
They threw my wallet back at me, took the cash and the bottle of Hennessy, but left the beer. So I put my wallet in my pocket, picked up the twelve pack, and got in my car. Called my friend and said, "Sorry, I'm getting my ass west of 124th Street!"
I didn't fell that bad afterward. It was $200 and a bottle of Hennessy. I kept the beer and my credit cards. Although I support concealed carry, I don't own a gun. I'm glad I didn't have one. It would have escalated, and whatever happened would have affected the rest of my life.
But...I'll never to back to the Bayview neighborhood again.
Happily I own two ARs. One an old Bushmaster I bought after Clinton left office and the other a Colt M4 just a year ago. The Bushie has a match front sight, fixed stock, but 16 inch barrel. Outstanding 100 yard deer gun with Nosler 60 grain partition slugs (I handload my own.) The Colt I have tricked out to be a "high speed, low drag" home defense gun.
One can hunt quite well with an AR. Just ain well and pull the trigger once. But if in the middle of the night a gang does a home invasion, that AR gives one extra ammo to solve the problem. We here on the border states do worry about Narco-terrorist in Mexico coming here and doing the same as they do in Mexico!
Plus if the state goes Tyrannical, as in the President or Congress (Democrat, Republican, or whatever) decides to suspend the Constitution (as Lincoln did in the Civil War) one can make a serious argument with them via Guerilla warfare.
And that is what the 2nd Amendment is all about.
Most "AR-15" rifles on the market are not AR-15s at all. The idea of putting rifles together from interchangeable off the shelf components is not dependent on the design of the lower receiver assembly.
F. ex., if a firm, "American Bicycle, Inc" say, patents a new and nifty derailleur and installs it on their latest creation called the AB-15, that does not make every bicycle manufactured using that derailleur (paying a license fee to American Bicycle) an AB-15.
Also, you really have to take the derailleur apart to determine if it really is an AB-15 derailleur - from the outside you cannot tell it from many other designs.
Hagar said...
Bullet diameter: 0.223 in (5.7 mm)
Bullet diameter for 5.56 x 45 mm/.223 Winchester is .224. But .001 isn't worth quibbling over, you were correct the first time. It's basically the same diameter as various .22 cal cartridges.
No one needs an AR for defense. I have a Mossberg with 15 rounds, so that's like two carloads of teenagers right there and I don't have to worry about taking out my neighbor. AR is just not safe for residential neighborhoods. You're gonna take out the guy, and his friend, and the baby in the crib two doors down.
Maybe the homeowner dropped his phone in the water when he was calling 911 and he realized that the only way to survive being shot at by 3 armed youths was to shoot back his own self.
An AR-15 is just a modular semi-automatic rifle. Configurable for your needs. It's not particularly powerful as rifles go.
All you have to do is look at the FBI Crime Statistics and you'll learn that more murders are committed by people with knives and fists than with rifles of all kinds (AR-15 type and others). There is no rational reason to ban or specially regulate them, other than to simulate being tough on crime while avoiding the hard choices needed to actually do something about it.
I don't own an AR-15 rifle (I don't hunt, not caring for how any of that stuff tastes) but I'm going to buy one anyway and shoot targets at the range with it. I sincerely hope this causes distress for some pants-wetting Leftist.
Learning new skills helps to keep the mind young.
Funny. Every time progressives go after "assault rifles" specifically referring to the AR-15 and describe , I think, "Wow, that sounds like an awesome gun for self-defense." Guess I was right.
Likewise, whenever progressives argue that the small arms owned by regular Americans wouldn't be able to make a dent against the US military assuming government overthrow has become necessary, I think, "Isn't that an argument for less gun control?"
"The masked teens"
Ah, "teens."
Anyway, we haven't heard everything yet.
“In particular I've become a proponent (and owner) of AR pistols. Especially the new Ruger AR-556 -- a splendid firearm. For home defense I'm convinced that an AR pistol is superior even to a shotgun. Lighter, shorter, easier to use (lower recoil) and, especially, more rounds. Plus high fast output. Just the thing for when you're confronted at 4:00 AM by four armed "youths."”
My understanding is that the powder used in .223/5.56 burns too slowly to be effective in a short barreled configuration. The optimal design is to finish burning the powder just as the bullet leaves the barrel. .223/5.56 cartridges are apparently optimized for somewhere around a 16” barrel, and when shot out of a shorter barrel, will not fully combust by that time, causing a light show instead of adding velocity and momentum to the battery. .300 Blackout cartridges are similar in size to .223/5.56, but use faster burning powder. The design of the.223/5.56 cartridge is roughly 60 years old now. It was designed while we still had tubes in our radios and TVs. Because of this, no one should be surprised that more modern alternatives have been developed. Even our military is getting into the act, currently field testing a squad automatic weapon using a completely new type of rounds, slightly heavier that .223/5.56, and better for longer distance shooting.
My plan this winter is for a 7.5” barrel .300 BO build. Though I might do one too with .223/5.56 too. You can, of course, use the same completed lower for both (but you can’t legally use a rifle or carbine lower with the BATFE permitting - because AR pistols (<16” barrel) can’t legally use a rifle or carbine butt stock, but instead use a pistol stabilizing brace instead.
The serialized part with an AR-15 (AR-10, etc) is the lower receiver. It is a single piece of (usually aluminum) material that everything else essentially bolts to. It contains the trigger, magazine release, and safe/fire mechanism inserted inside it (which means that they too can be easily swapped out). Buffer tube and butt stock are attached to one end, and the upper receiver, containing the barrel, etc, attach to the top with a pair of easily removable pins.
If you are building an AR-15 (or AR-10), you start with that single block of material, the Lower Receiver. You can buy them all by themselves, and then build a $400 or a $3,000 AR-15, ranging from .17 up to .50 BMG calibers (but typically 5.56/.223). Prices this summer started just below $50, and ranged up above $100. The interesting thing though about buying them separately (unbuilt) is that they are now treated as handguns, instead of as rifles and carbines, which was the case before the BATFE determined that they qualified as handguns with a short barrel and stabilizer brace instead of regular butt stock, and at least a 16” barrel. This means that while you can typically buy a complete AR-15 in a different state, you are limited to buying AR-15 lower receivers in the state of your residence.
The other thing of note with AR-15 (and AR-10) Lower Receivers is that, being the serialized part, if you build it yourself, you don’t need a serial number in most states. You just can’t sell it (federal gun laws are based on the Commerce Clause). You could, of course, take a Block of aluminum, and mill it to the proper dimensions. But the BATFE has regulations that allow you to complete an 80% complete serialized part. In the case of an AR-15/10, that means just milling out the trigger well, and drilling holes for the selector switch and the two pins that connect the lower to the upper. You can, of course, buy the jigs online, and do the work with a drill press, or use a $2k computerized machine from GhostGunner. And, since 80% complete lower receivers are not yet legally firearms, you can actually buy them without a background check over the Internet. (The 100% complete blocks of aluminum are legally considered firearms, and thus have to be bought through an FFL).
Unless one hunts, how does one know which weapon is preferred?
I think I found your next vacation.
My husband wants to do a feral hog hunt. Would Meade like to go along? Or are you willing to document it?
Michael K. writes: One big attraction of the AR 15 is that it is modular and the caliber of the barrel and receiver can be changed to a .308 quite easily.
Inaccurate. While it is true that the AR-15 platform easily adapts to a wide variety of calibers, 7.62x54mm (aka Winchester .308) is not among them. The magazine well of the AR-15 lower receiver is too short to feed any cartridge significantly longer than the Remington .223. There is a similar platform known as the AR-10 which was designed for the NATO battle rifle cartridge, which has similar modularity and has been adapted to the 6.5mm Creedmore.
All of the caliber adaptations of the standard AR-15 — .300 AAC, 6.5mm Grendel, .224 Valkyrie, 7.62x39mm, .450 Bushmaster, and .458 SOCOM — are very nearly the same overall length, which permits these calibers to pass through the magazine well properly.
5.56x45 (similar .223 Remington) is generally inferior to more traditional ammunition as a hunting cartridge, though it is quite effective on pests like coyote. 7.62x39 and .300 AAC (7.62x35mm) are ballistically similar to .30-30, a thoroughly well-proven whitetail deer hunting round, though they may not be instantly lethal (I witnessed a doe run more than 50 yards after being shot with an AR chambered in .300 AAC . The shot shattered her shoulder and severed the aorta, but the animal was able to cover those 50 yards on adrenalin alone.) .450 Bushmaster, however, has tremendous knock-down power over typical Eastern Seaboard hunting ranges; a well-placed shot on even a large buck will drop him immediately. ARs can be excellent big game rifles. 6.5 Grendel has been used quite successfully on elk and moose.
By the way, Emerita, I agree with your early morning driving-home thoughts.
The problem is what to do about those who don't buy into our social contract, but instead treat others as a resource to be exploited.
Living as though they do not exist conveys no protection from being victimized oneself.
There is plenty missing the accounts of the story I have read this morning. For one, I will guess the homeowner is black, too, since the race isn't given- I don't think CNN would have wasted a chance to tell us that a white man kill three black teenagers. Secondly, it appears the homeowner was waiting for this to happen at 4 in the morning, so I am guessing there have been threats issued to him at some point by the three dead armed robbers.
And, finally, a nitpick- a lot of the stories mention Zimmerman and "Stand Your Ground"- Zimmerman didn't have to rely on "Stand Your Ground"- he wasn't free to flee- in Zimmerman's case, it was straight up self-defense that he relied upon.
You adopt the enemy's vocabulary, his ideas comes with it.
"No one needs an AR for defense. I have a Mossberg with 15 rounds, so that's like two carloads of teenagers right there and I don't have to worry about taking out my neighbor. AR is just not safe for residential neighborhoods. You're gonna take out the guy, and his friend, and the baby in the crib two doors down."
For a home invasion? Yes, better a shotgun or a pistol than a rifle.
For a crazed mob meandering up your street, burning and looting as they go? Rifle. Semi-auto rifle with lots of rounds in the magazine and many spare magazines. AR-15 or something like it.
This sort of threat doesn't happen very often in our relatively placid country. But times change. The veneer of civilization is thin. I hope I never see a crazed mob marching on my house, intending to kill me and my family because of our skin color, our religion, our accent, our ancestry, our political beliefs, or simply because they can. But if that day comes I do not intend to be a victim.
"and what if anything the 2d Amendment has to do with hunting (as opposed to self-defense)."
First off, I love a happy ending. Second, the second amendment isn't about self-defense, it's about having a check against an over-reaching government.
I was mugged at gunpoint in the Bayview neighborhood in Milwaukee about two weeks ago. First time in my life. Two teens. One white. One African-American.
Sorry about you being robbed. Glad you got away so easily.
HOWEVER....why is the white kid only White, while the black kid gets a special name.
African-American.
Why not an Irish-American kid? Polish-American?
If White= White. Then why not just say Black? Call a spade a spade I say :-D
I don't think CNN would have wasted a chance to tell us that a white man kill three black teenagers.
The Whappo version of this story managed to tells us about that anyway:
"A white Florida man cited ‘stand your ground’ for shooting a black man. A jury found him guilty."
For a home invasion? Yes, better a shotgun or a pistol than a rifle.
Inside the house. Yep. Too bad about the drywall though.
For a crazed mob meandering up your street, burning and looting as they go? Rifle. Semi-auto rifle with lots of rounds in the magazine and many spare magazines. AR-15 or something like it.
Yep again.
Why does it matter that the homeowner was out at 4 am? It's the south, maybe he was tending a smoker pit, which is often an all night job. Why did he have the AR with him? Maybe it's a rough neighborhood. The south doesn't have laws that limit gun ownership to outlaws.
".....The black criminals approached three residents around 4 a.m. Monday at the front yard of a home....." I would bet 20 bucks that this is a case of rival gangs and drugs.
There are good reasons for law abiding citizens to own semiautomatic rifles, whether or not they are cosmetically called "assault weapons". They are more accurate than a pistol, ergonomic, often lightweight, and built to be reliable and dependable, which make them good for self-defense. The low powered 5.56 mm round often fails to pass through walls, making it safer for innocent bystanders than many shotgun and pistol rounds.
The AR for Home Defense: One Expert's Opinion
Quotes (but read the whole article):
The AR is very easy to shoot...
Men and women alike just shoot better with a carbine than with a pistol.
Although we can quickly get the pistol into the fight, the carbine will get there and be more shootable for the average person. With a carbine in the low-ready position, the average shooter can get shots on target in less than one second.
The AR has little to no recoil. Even when fired from a strong- or support-hand-only position, its recoil is negligible. Pistols and shotguns recoil far more than most .223 carbines. Less recoil means more time on target...
In general, very few people are killed with ARs. A few percent of the total.
Otoh, most of them are white, hence the hysteria.
Pistols kill many, many times more each year than all types of long guns.
But most of the victims are black so fuck 'em. Who gives a shit.
It's racism straight up.
All you people after ARs are racists.
John Henry
A Second Amendment-compliant "gun control regime:
A 14 year-old girl walks into a hardware store. She slaps a stack of cash on the counter, and walks out with a fully-automatic weapon and ammo, without showing any ID, without filling out any forms, and without the federal or state governments being involved, or even notified.
"Curious if the Meadehouse chat on AR15s involved any knowledge of the weapon and it’s almost limitless possible configurations. Also, did the word semiautomatic come up?"
Our discussion was of the bumper sticker slogan and what sort of politics it implied. Does "Hunt. Fish. Vote." suggest voting for a non-liberal? That led to the topic of gun rights under the Second Amendment and my position that it's not about hunting at all but defense of human beings. The subject of what arms are used to hunt is off point, but people do argue about that, wrongly, I think. As for "knowledge of the weapon" -- you can see in the post that I completely avoid talking about the details of weapons. I don't even want you to know how much I know and I'm not into displaying my knowledge or lack thereof. It's not helpful and it's not in my interest.
Bear in mind as I say this that my law degree comes from a box of Cracker Jacks (just like my med-school degree), buuuuut.... it seems to me that since the homeowner was on his own property, defending his own home, that this is no wise a "Stand Yer Ground" situation but rather refers back to the ancient & hoary English Common Law "A man's Home is His Castle" legal defense. The "Castle Doctrine" means that a defender has no legal obligation to retreat when threatened & can respond with deadly force without the legal need to retreat in order to seek de-escalation. Under Common Law, the CD applied to more than homeowners & their property. For example, a sentry's post while he was on watch was seen as an example of the Castle Doctrine, i.e. a sentry threatened could use deadly force without the legal need to retreat.
Sadly, the Castle Doctrine no longer applies in Britain, which is one reason why there are so many home invasions. In Britain, the homeowner in this story would be arrested for murder. Another example of the Rot at the Heart of Old Blighty.....
“And, finally, a nitpick- a lot of the stories mention Zimmerman and "Stand Your Ground"- Zimmerman didn't have to rely on "Stand Your Ground"- he wasn't free to flee- in Zimmerman's case, it was straight up self-defense that he relied upon”
Yancey is, of course, completely correct there. One of the requirements for self defense (SD) in the common law was that there be no safe avenue of retreat available at the time. This was routinely misused by prosecutors, who would negate otherwise legitimate assertions of SD by showing that, with months to build their cases, they could find plausible avenues of retreat, wherein the party asserting SD often had seconds, and typically had tunnel vision on the threat being faced. Most states have now statutorily abrogated the Retreat Doctrine for SD, and Florida’s abrogation of such was termed, at the time it was enacted, the “Stand Your Ground” law.
And, we know that Zimmerman couldn’t retreat at the time he used deadly force in SD because Martin was sitting astride on his chest, leaning over him, and pummeling him MMA style, as well as attempting to strangle him. This was, of course, Zimmerman’s story. But it was also corroborated by the forensics. The only way that the hole in Martin’s hoodie lined up with the hole in his torso, is with Martin leaning over Zimmerman at about a 45 degree angle. Moreover this explains the difference in GSR between the vicinities of the two holes - the hole in the hoodie was essentially a contact shot. The one in his torso showed the gun to have been maybe 6 inches away. The most probable explanation of that is with Martin leaning over Zimmerman at the time, with his hoodie falling forward, due to gravity.
Bruce Hayden @10:35:
All quite interesting and correct, but needlessly complex for my purposes. An off-the-shelf firearm is good enough for me. Same goes for the 5.56 round. I'm not interested in investing the time, effort, and money required to make state-of-the art modifications. I don't need state-of-the-art. For the circumstances I'm contemplating the AR pistol more than suffices. It'll do just fine.
Maybe the homeowner dropped his phone in the water when he was calling 911 and he realized that the only way to survive being shot at by 3 armed youths was to shoot back his own self.
The average police response time in my neighborhood is seven minutes. in seven minutes you can be dead and the criminals long gone. And we are well below the national average for response time. I note that in some rural areas it may take twenty minutes or more to reach a residence after one has turned off the last paved road.
In the Dayton, OH, mass shooting earlier this year the police were right on the scene, but it still required 30 seconds for them to return fire, allowing the shooter to murder nine and wound an additional 26.
I'm content to have other people (i.e. gun manufacturers) make my guns for me. I also hire people do mow my lawn in the summer, shovel my sidewalk and driveway in the winter, paint my house when it needs painting, and fix my plumbing when its broken. All do a better job than I can at these tasks and, anyway, I don't want to work that hard.
The low powered 5.56 mm round often fails to pass through walls, making it safer for innocent bystanders than many shotgun and pistol rounds.
I saw an ad for a .50 calibre pistol yesterday that said, "Useful for hitting the assailant standing behind the refrigerator in your neighbor's kitchen. " I thought it was pretty good.
AR-15s are not necessary to hunt, but they're lighter in weight. Not good for hunting grizzlies, or elephants, or rhinos, or moose, though.
The 2nd Amendment is important for cultural reasons.
Justice Blackstone wrote that "the rights of British subjects to bear arms should never be infringed upon" (though the British Government now does).
Some Black lady (Condi Rice?) wrote that she could remember from her childhood that in times of trouble, the elders on her block would gather at the entrances to the block carrying their shotguns.
“There are good reasons for law abiding citizens to own semiautomatic rifles, whether or not they are cosmetically called "assault weapons". They are more accurate than a pistol, ergonomic, often lightweight, and built to be reliable and dependable, which make them good for self-defense. The low powered 5.56 mm round often fails to pass through walls, making it safer for innocent bystanders than many shotgun and pistol rounds.”
A couple things go into this. One is that AR-15/10 patterned firearms most typically have a buffer, typically hidden in the butt stock. Some of the recoil from shooting the guns is transferred to the buffer, that compresses a spring, located behind it in the buffer tube (attached to the back end of the Lower Receiver). Compression of that buffer spring absorbs some of the recoil energy.
Another thing to note is that the buffer tube (and the the stock that covers it) is inline with the barrel. And, hence, through the butt stock, to the shoulder of the shooter. This means that they have almost a zero bore axis. The higher the bore axis, the more the muzzle on a firearm will climb due to recoil. Simple vector physics/mechanical engineering - the recoil force vector will have a vertical component if the bore axis is non zero. Traditional wood stocks have some positive bore axis, in order to allow sighting along the barrel. This was originally addressed with the AR-15/M16 by moving the sighting much higher, to the top of the carry handle. That way your eye can be high enough to be comfortable, while allowing for an almost zero bore axis. (The issue of bore axis is much more significant with handguns, esp semiautomatics that most typically have a slide recoiling above your shooting hand).
A coworker of mine is an Army Reserve firearms instructor with encyclopedic knowlege about firearms. For most purposes, he prefers his FAL which fires 7.62 NATO. For camping in bear country, he built a .300 Blackout “pistol” with a 7.5 inch barrel and an extending arm brace. You can fire it with one hand or put the brace against your shoulder. It’s amazingly compact. He says with that barrel, it’s roughly equivalent to an M-1 carbine and effective out to about 200 meters. He says that with a 9 inch barrel, it’s effective to over 400 meters. I was in the infantry and fired thousands of rounds with the M-16A1. I never really liked the weapon because it had too little penetrating power and the light weight rounds were easily deflected. When shooting night fire using tracers, I frequently saw bullets seriously deflected by the target. The 300 Blackout seems a better option to me.
Kind of like when I was a kid in the 50s and 60s
Right mark?
I agree with you
John Henry
Scratch three budding goblins, their future careers of criminal depredation cut tragically short. Well, not tragically for their erstwhile future victims, who now can live their lives without being preyed upon by those particular dead boys.
The subject of what arms are used to hunt is off point, but people do argue about that, wrongly, I think.
It's a set-up. Buy into that argument, and hunting will be banned to eliminate the need for any firearms.
@Mark Jones I am not sure I understand your point.
Your example is a counterfactual - in fact legally impossible - given the Federal and State laws surrounding gun purchases of all types. In addition the purchase of fully automatic weapon requires additional paperwork and a tax. Plus the weapon had to be registered prior to 5/19/1986. Link.
Some of the problems with your hypothetical:
1. A business that sells firearms is required to have a Federal Firearms license
2. Purchase of any firearm at an FFL by a non FFL -licensed person requires a background check
3. The minimum age to purchase a long gun under Federal law is 18; the minimum age for a handgun (ignoring all the other permits required by state and local governments) is 21.
4. Purchase of automatic weapons is impossible without significant additional background checks.
Were you trying to make some other point?
Justice . . . Georgia style!
What color were the perps?
Let me guess.....
I love your new comments policy Professor.
If only because it (potentially) saves my 1st-amendment loving self from the SJW mob.....
@Mark Jones I am not sure I understand your point.
Your example is a counterfactual - in fact legally impossible - given the Federal and State laws surrounding gun purchases of all types. In addition the purchase of fully automatic weapon requires additional paperwork and a tax. Plus the weapon had to be registered prior to 5/19/1986. Link.
That isn’t how I read Mark’s comment. Rather, I read it suggesting that fully 2nd Amdt gun laws would allow purchase of fully automatic firearms (and their ammunition) over the counter without background check or age limitations. And that makes legal sense to me - how does “(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” allow regulation and near banning of the firearms most useful to the militia in this country, being the ones used by our military for better than half a century?
Wince said:
Even without a 'stand your ground' component, doesn't any 'duty to retreat' turn to self-defense once an attacker opens fire?
IANAL, but this must be true. Can’t outrun a bullet.
Ann Althouse said...
"Curious if the Meadehouse chat on AR15s involved any knowledge of the weapon and it’s almost limitless possible configurations. Also, did the word semiautomatic come up?"
"Our discussion was of the bumper sticker slogan and what sort of politics it implied. Does "Hunt. Fish. Vote." suggest voting for a non-liberal? That led to the topic of gun rights under the Second Amendment and my position that it's not about hunting at all but defense of human beings. The subject of what arms are used to hunt is off point, but people do argue about that, wrongly, I think. As for "knowledge of the weapon" -- you can see in the post that I completely avoid talking about the details of weapons. I don't even want you to know how much I know and I'm not into displaying my knowledge or lack thereof. It's not helpful and it's not in my interest."
Meade. ya got a goodun.
AR15 is for when your government turns out Anifa after you.
It is a bit like Brexit.
The Brexiteers want Britain to be an independent nation and are willing to pay for it if need be (though really expecting it to be profitable as well).
The anti-Brexit crowd is for the hive mentality.
@minnesota farm guy
The second amendment says "shall not be infringed." Licensing laws, licensing fees, registration, background checks, the requirement to produce ID--all of that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. Whether such infringement are 'reasonable' is irrelevant, the black letter law says "shall not be infringed."
My example is of what truly 2nd Amendment-compliant "gun control" would be: none.
@minnesota farm guy, folks like Mark Jones live in an alternate reality. You will not persuade them using mere facts.
Mark Jones said...
"A Second Amendment-compliant "gun control regime:
A 14 year-old girl walks into a hardware store. She slaps a stack of cash on the counter, and walks out with a fully-automatic weapon and ammo, without showing any ID, without filling out any forms, and without the federal or state governments being involved, or even notified."
A nail gun? Not fully automatic.
paint ball gun? I think you have to be 18 to buy those.
Blogger Sam L. said..."AR-15s are not necessary to hunt, but they're lighter in weight. Not good for hunting grizzlies, or elephants, or rhinos, or moose, though..."9/18/19, 12:28 PM
Not good for hunting people either! I hated the AR!% when I had to give up my M-14 [Vietnam] for that stupid toy gun[no stopping power always jamming]. Most Special Force guys I knew used the AK47. Why? Wasn't particularly accurate, but boy it worked, simple to use, took a beating, easy to repair and reliable [rarely jammed] - unlike the AR15 which had to be protected from dirt and constantly cleaned.
"I WAS TOLD THIS NEVER HAPPENS"
Man bites dog, if it's notable on the rare occasions when a semi-automatic rifle is successfully used in self-defense. This story doesn't even prove that the semi-automatic rifle was necessary in this situation. Might a different type of weapon have been equally effective? - we just don't know from the facts presented in the story.
But I'm only a magazine grabber not a gun grabber. So I would want to know how many rounds the homeowner fired. More than 3 but less than 10? 10 to 20? 40 to 100? Are there any cases in the magazine-capacity-limit states (like my state of Massachusetts) where the self-defender was overwhelmed after running out of ammunition?
Also, if we are using this story to talk about gun control policy, it's fair to ask if the homeowner passed or could have passed a background check. Are there cases where a person who has been unable to buy a firearm for failing the background check have been unable to defend themselves?
Or are those also man bites dog scenarios?
Minnesota farm guy, I have a theory about the Left’s delusions regarding fully automatic weapons. If you watch movies or TV shows, you very often see police being outgunned by street corner thugs firing machine guns. I can’t begin to count the number of shows I’ve seen that involve fully automatic weapons. The reality, as you point out, is the the number of legally owned fully automatic weapons is highly regulated, as are the people allowed to legally own them. Supply and demand being what they are, legal fully automatic weapons are very expensive (can cost well over $10,000) and for that reason, are not used in crime. Now, criminals by definition don’t obey the law. It’s possible some of them have those weapons smuggled in, but given the expense, I seriously doubt it.
My example is of what truly 2nd Amendment-compliant "gun control" would be: none.
I agree, restrictions on buying guns should be exactly what they are to get an abortion, and vote, the lesser of those. So abortions have no age restrictions, and voter registration shows up in the mail. This is fair.
Earnie89 said...
What color were the perps?
Let me guess.....
Remember Deangelo Parnell? No??
A couple of weeks ago he shot 10 kids at the end of August at a HS football game in Mobile, Alabama....Half of them are critically injured.....Did you heard about it?? It must not fit the gun grabbers narrative...
@ Big Mike
The average police response time in my neighborhood is seven minutes. in seven minutes you can be dead and the criminals long gone
In our rural area the response time is at least...at LEAST 35 to 40 minutes. We are not out at the end of a dirt road either. AND that is during the daytime. At night, we don't have any patrols on the roads. If you are in immediate danger, there is nothing that the Sheriffs can do to help you. They just have too large a territory to cover.
Needless to say probably 95% of the population is armed and able. You have to be in order to protect yourself.
Not just from bad humans, but also from wildlife predators.
Our County Sheriff has already stated that they will NOT be enforcing any type of gun confiscation schemes. Constitutional Sheriffs
My example is of what truly 2nd Amendment-compliant "gun control" would be: none.
Ok then. Leave the policing of gun ownership up to the individual and the family of your hypothetical teenage girl. The Constitution doesn't say that the PARENTS can not infringe on the rights of minor children :-D
This would make the Castle Doctrine laws or Stand Your Ground laws obsolete.
Obviously, we wouldn't want make murder or homicide or killing with a gun during the commission of a crime legal. However, if everyone is allowed the weapon of their choice, the likelihood of armed robbery and other mayhem would be less. AND...by attrition, the numbers of criminals and their actions would be lessened too.
Robert A. Heinlein — ‘An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.’ An armed society is a polite society.
One of my comments on FB was deleted for speculating that the shooter and the victims were all black. I have no doubt that this is the case, because if the homeowner was white it would be in every headline about this incident (WHITE man kills three black teenagers, two of whom were unarmed and possibly running away!).
Also for some reason most of the articles mention "stand your ground" laws. This has nothing to do with "stand your ground" it is straightforward self defense, the masked, would be robbers were shooting at him and the other people on his porch/in his yard. He had every right to shoot back. It was very unfortunate for the intruders that he had a better weapon and better shooting skills.
Sad that the three teens were killed, but better they died than the innocent victims they were targeting.
Hagar
I assume you would be indifferent about being shot with a 223 versus a 22 lr. I wouldn’t.
My example is of what truly 2nd Amendment-compliant "gun control" would be: none.
No, it would be using both hands,
Black Bellamy said...
"No one needs an AR for defense. I have a Mossberg with 15 rounds, so that's like two carloads of teenagers right there and I don't have to worry about taking out my neighbor. AR is just not safe for residential neighborhoods. You're gonna take out the guy, and his friend, and the baby in the crib two doors down. "
Mossberg shotgun with 15 rounds? What do you have, 30 inch barrel?
As for the AR15 being not safe in neighborhoods, they are safer than pistols or shotguns. Why? Because jacketed hollowpoints will fragmentate if they hit walls (including sheetrock), roads, bricks, etc... and thus safer than most rounds.
Blogger Mark Jones said...
A Second Amendment-compliant "gun control regime:
A 14 year-old girl walks into a hardware store. She slaps a stack of cash on the counter, and walks out with a fully-automatic weapon and ammo, without showing any ID, without filling out any forms, and without the federal or state governments being involved, or even notified.
9/18/19, 11:57 AM
------
Um, 14 year old virgin who likes it like that.
The Second Amendment was designed to protect The Second Amendment, among others.
So, why do I need an AR-15? To make sure you don't take it away?
Privateers sacked Tripoli under the direction of the US President who wrote the Constitution.
We're arguing about rifles when warships were privately owned and perfectly legal at the Founding.
Mark Jones,
Your otherwise exemplary statement goes off the rails at "14 year-old". The common law has long (always?) recognized that minors may have many restrictions on their actions that would be unacceptable for adults.
Big Mike,
What the heck??? Mark J. is describing the only honest reading of the 2nd Amendment (other than the minor-vs-adult part.)
iowan2,
WTH on steroids! Neither abortion nor voting have a specific prohibition against government infringement like arms do. (The 19th only says you can't use sex as a blanket disqualifier from voting.)
Kirk Parker:
Did you miss the obvious parody of the positions taken by abortion rights activists? That's where the 14 year old thing comes into a discussion of rights. This is Althouse mockery.
Birkel!!!
Jefferson had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. He was ambassador in Paris at the time, which was a good thing as he was absolutely against it and certainly would have caused trouble if he had been in the country.
A member of the convention broke his pledge of confidentiality and sent Jefferson a draft copy and Jefferson replied that it appeared to him to be the most perfect instrument of tyranny he had ever seen (exact wording not guaranteed).
Birkel,
I most certainly did miss it as parody, because the rest of it is perfectly correct in the most non-parodic sense!
Here's a teenaged girl who probably shouldn't have firearms: Teen says she wants to shoot 400 people for fun with her new AK47
Don't be silly Michael.
But a .223 round is the same diameter and just slightly longer and heavier than the heaviest .22 Magnum on the market though propelled by a lot more force. It is a varmint round as far as hunting is concerned.
Hagar
We agree. A 22 and a 223 are not the same.
@Mark Jones The Second Amendment already has a qualifier in it that bases the "shall not infringe" on the necessity of a "well regulated militia". The Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the qualifier in U. S. vs. Miller 1934 to recently be reversed in D.C. vs Heller. Even in Heller the court said there were certain circumstances-mental illness; prohibiting arms to criminals- that could be regulated. While establishing the "individual right to bear arms" the court made it clear that it is not an unfettered right.
Your hypothetical, like so many counterfactuals, can not take place even under Heller.
Remember that the First Amendment seems as limiting on restrictions on speech yet the court has said that there are, indeed, instances where speech can be limited. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in Schenck vs. US 1919 : "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
Kirk Parker,
I am a generous sort and saw it as giving the business to the abortion proponents. The author's intent? I don't know.
Hagar,
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Pay attention to the main point, please. Pedant.
Marbury vs Madison establishes the Supreme Court's role to interpret the Constitutionality of laws/statutes. Interpreting the second amendment the Court has determined that some aspects of "keeping and bearing arms" can be infringed upon regardless of how you interpret the amendment.
"Shall not be infringed."
If we need a well-regulated militia, well young people need to learn to shoot so they can do their duty. Sure, parents may provide arms and training, but why shouldn't they be allowed to own their own arms?
What about criminals with guns? I'm prepared to accept that the government can prohibit the possession of guns by anyone CURRENTLY UNDER ARREST, or in JAIL or PRISON (whether prior to getting bailed out, or after conviction for a crime), or if you're on PROBATION (if that's part of the agreement to let you out before your term is complete). That's it. I don't trust the government with any more latitude than that. Given that there are uncounted felonies on the books (the vast majority of which are non-violent), and nobody can possibly know them all (while still being held accountable for breaking them on the "ignorance is no excuse" argument), ex-convicts shouldn't be barred either. (If you're really worried about them, I suggest tasking the government with watching THEM, not everyone else.)
As for what Heller or Miller any other court decision says, they're all wrong. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty goddamn clear.
And "reasonable limitations" on gun owners? Sure. You're not allowed to murder people. You're not allowed to THREATEN to murder people. Or to assault, or threaten to assault people. You're not allowed to point a gun at someone without valid reason (self-defense or defense of another). Those are all reasonable restrictions. And these things are already illegal.
Buying, owning, and carrying a gun--any gun--without having to ask permission from, notify, or answer questions from any government body (unless you're being arrested, or are currently in jail/prison, as mentioned earlier) is the only legal approach consistent with the 2nd Amendment.
"or whether I can talk them down."
-- Once bullets start flying, it is nigh suicidal to stand up and say: "Excuse me, perhaps we should put our weapons down and have a chat."
It is a shame people died, but if you decide to open fire on someone to steal their stuff, being killed is one of the results you should be aware of as a possibility.
“Jefferson had nothing to do with writing the Constitution. He was ambassador in Paris at the time, which was a good thing as he was absolutely against it and certainly would have caused trouble if he had been in the country.”
He was, though, the lead drafter of the Declaration of Independence. He was one of five on a committee to write it. John Adams talked him into writing it, because he was the better writer, but Jefferson insisted that Adams sell it, because he was the better speaker, which he did. And Jefferson did write to Madison supporting the Bill of Rights. Adams too was a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights.
"Some people are trying to gin up a proportionality problem ..."
Like those rascally Jews using heavy, accurate force on the fun loving Palestinians when they "just" lob a few inaccurate rockets at them.
Screw that!
You should never fire your gun at someone unless you (or someone else) is in clear danger.
But if you ARE in clear danger, hit them, hit them HARD and keep hitting them until you are damned sure they are unable to be a further threat.
But if you ARE in clear danger, hit them, hit them HARD and keep hitting them until you are damned sure they are unable to be a further threat.
Make sure they are dead. If you just injure them they could sue you later. It has happened.
minne-farm-guy,
You have it totally backwards. The prefatory clause is not a limitation of the right being protected in the 2nd, it's an explanation as to why the right is important enough to be singled out for special protection.
Read the framers' writings sometime soon; they weren't exactly silent about what they were intending in this arena.
“@Mark Jones The Second Amendment already has a qualifier in it that bases the "shall not infringe" on the necessity of a "well regulated militia". The Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the qualifier in U. S. vs. Miller 1934 to recently be reversed in D.C. vs Heller. Even in Heller the court said there were certain circumstances-mental illness; prohibiting arms to criminals- that could be regulated. While establishing the "individual right to bear arms" the court made it clear that it is not an unfettered right.”
Not maybe unfettered, but I read that as the Supreme Court refusing to put a limit in that direction. My experience is that they throw these provisos in, so that their decisions aren’t take to ean ore than they were really addressing. They didn’t have to get into whether and where Strict Scrutiny or Intermediate Scrutiny applied cause the law In DC (and Chicago) violated both. But even if Strict Scrutiny did apply, some limitations, such as for felons, might still be Constitutional. They just weren’t going anywhere near drawing that line, since theclaws invalidated by their decisions were so far below there.
Still, I think it is going to be interesting how they ultimately interpret Miller. One of the arguents against AR-15s is that they are Weapons of War. But Miller allowed regulation of sawed off shotguns because there was no evidence in the record that they were Weapons of War (I.e. had been in common use by our military). Of course, that strongly suggests that select fire M16s and M4 carbines shouldn’t be subject to the NFA, because they have been the main battle rifle used by our military for the last 60 years, and, thus have been in common use by our military. Personally, I am happy with a semiautomatic AR-15, but would be just as happy with a select fire M16/M4 - I just wouldn’t use the “auto” selection very often.
Bruce,
"Personally, I am happy with a semiautomatic AR-15, but would be just as happy with a select fire M16/M4 - I just wouldn’t use the “auto” selection very often."
The circumstances where an ordinary citizen needs to engage in "suppressive fire" are indeed very few and far between. ;-)
@Bruce, While I think the Supreme Court should focus on interpreting the Second Amendment rather than interpreting its own previous pronouncements concerning the Second Amendment, I otherwise agree. The militia clause answers the main question in controversy today — how well armed does a citizen have a right to be? Answer: well enough to be an effective participant in a militia. Under that standard, the right to possess semiauto rifles like ARs and AKs, even if accessorized to appear scary, should not be controversial. It is telling that the would-be tyrants are ignoring the firearms that are actually involved in the most civilian deaths and coming after the not-quite weapons of war first.
“The circumstances where an ordinary citizen needs to engage in "suppressive fire" are indeed very few and far between. ;-)”
Agreed, which is why if Miller forced everyone to trade their AR-15s for M16s and M4 Carbines, I would still mostly use mine as if it were an AR-15, without the Auto (Giggle) selection. And, then, or rare occasions, at the range switch to Auto for a magazine, just for kicks. Never having been in the military, I was never taught the proper use of suppressive fire, and, thus, full auto would be wasted on me. But around here, in MT, there are plenty who were taught their riflery with M16s, and probably could use suppressive fire effectively.
I would be happy with the status quo, of AR-15s being fully legal, and select fire M16s and M4 Carbines being heavily regulated. But that is from a personal point of view. But, as noted above, one of the primary justifications for the 2nd Amdt is to maintain the potential for armed revolution, or at least regime change, if our government becomes too tyrannical. And that ultimately would mean, if it were ever necessary, informal militias fighting government forces that have automatic weapons useful for suppressive fire. To fight that effectively would probably require similar suppressive fire capabilities.
It's important to remember that when the gun grabbers talk about gun violence and the number of deaths attributable to guns, they almost always include suicides by gun as "violence". They also include victims of drug gang wars where both sides are armed. The reason why is, if you take out those types of deaths, gun violence is really not that significant of a problem. It's just another instance of liars who can figure.
And please don't miss my point above.
Privateers (privately owned ships) sailed from the U.S. to the Mediterranean and burned Tripoli to the ground.
Private US citizens owned weapons of war powerful enough to sack cities.
And none of the Founders objected.
They thought Americans owning offensive weapons of war was perfectly fine.
Now somebody tell me why we should restrict the sale of firearms.
(Remember! I can own 16" cannons! And mount dozens of them on a ship!)
“It's important to remember that when the gun grabbers talk about gun violence and the number of deaths attributable to guns, they almost always include suicides by gun as "violence". They also include victims of drug gang wars where both sides are armed. The reason why is, if you take out those types of deaths, gun violence is really not that significant of a problem. It's just another instance of liars who can figure.”
I very much agree. If you remove those two components, our gun death rate is extremely low. Your average middle class concealed carry gun owner is statistically highly unlikely to misuse their guns.
The absurd part of the entire debate is the the (non suicide) gun violence in this country is almost all concentrated in lower class POC areas of Dem controlled inner cities. And it seems to be getting worse, as the gangs seem now to be buying politicians - at least in Chicago, where Council members from districts with large gang memberships apparently have to get backing of those gangs to get elected. In any case, the proposals by Dem politicians to combat gun violence invariably are addressed at the law abiding 95% of the country, and never at their gang banger constituents, who commit the bulk of the shootings in this country. Indeed, the Red Flag legislation being pushed by them specifically exempts being red flagged due to gang affiliation.
I just remember being in the train station in Zurich in the 80s and watching two punks carry a heavy machine gun through the station to a waiting train. One had the barrel and the other the back. Off to do their service to the state.
But I'm only a magazine grabber not a gun grabber. So I would want to know how many rounds the homeowner fired. More than 3 but less than 10? 10 to 20? 40 to 100? Are there any cases in the magazine-capacity-limit states (like my state of Massachusetts) where the self-defender was overwhelmed after running out of ammunition?
Well, in the 1986 FBI Miami shootout, at least one FBI agent emptied two 12-round magazines scoring one hit, which did not solve the problem. He got at most one hit. The Amadou Diallo shooting involved, as Bruce Springsteen deathlessly 🙄 sang, 41 shots. So if you have some notion like, "there were only three innocent youths, why did he nees more than three bullets," that notion is groundless.
Michael said...
Hagar
We agree. A 22 and a 223 are not the same.
9/18/19, 8:04 PM
I should think not. Hagar, a .22 LR has on the order of 100-150 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. A .223 Remington or 5.56x45mm NATO round has about 10x as much energy. This is greater than any common .44 Magnum load, even fired from a carbine barrel, and 2x a .44 Mag fired from a pistol.
Furthermore, at appx 3000-3300fps, the .223 velocity is 2x-3x that of a .44 Mag and we enter the realm of wound damage via hydrostatic shock. As well, the smaller bullet is far more effective at range.
I'm always puzzled by people who think the .223 is wimpy and the .44 Magnum is like the hammer of Thor. The only reason I can think of is that the Magnum cartridge or bullet looks bigger and therefore must be more powerful.
The only scenario where it is reasonable to disregard the effectiveness of the 5.56 mm round is when circumstances dictate that it does not expand and merely makes a 22 caliber icepick hole through and through the target.
Post a Comment