...the government having the same control over citizens that the corp maintains over Marines, there is not much hope for you.

... the government to have greater control over firearms, not every other aspect of your life that people serving in the military are subject to.

..."Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

I don't agree with restricting private individuals the same way Marines are restricted by the corp. The OP didn't add much to the video in the way of his preferences for specific changes, leaving any interpretation up to the reader.

The 2013 shooting at NAVSEA IMO highlights the difficulty in viewing assault and murder as having simple solutions.

I advocate universal background checks and I have other specific opinions.

But IMO they should NOT have access to military assault rifles. The OP apparently was responding to someone who used the Marines as an argument against gun control, so there was some specificity to the point he was making.

2A as written is an anachronism. I'd like to see a new Amendment which guarantees the right of private ownership, while being well regulated:

Semiautomatics and large clips are banned.

Universal background checks including private sales. ANY transfer of ownership requires a background check and change in registration for the firearm. Must be reported if lost or stolen; otherwise, registered owner is complicit in any crime committed with that weapon.

Obtaing a license to own a firearm requires passing a test pertaing to handling & storing firearms, and the relevant laws .

I'm on the fence regarding the degree of restriction for concealed carry. I'm against open carry, which is more if a political statement than a legitimate need.

I'm not about to argue semantics but this one point is a bit critical...

re: "...they should NOT have access to military assault rifles." They don't in general. The AR-15 is a civilian semi-auto version of the M-16. The M-16 is a military grade weapon with a top rate of fire of 700-900 rounds per minute. An AR-15 has a stated rate of fire of 45-60 rounds per minute.

Unfortunately the number of bullets required to kill is one.

There are a variety of opinions about the 2A. Why would you say it's an anachronism?

Why ban semi-autos? I'd guess close to half guns now privately owned are semi-auto. (that's maybe 150 million or more)

UBCs... I think we agree there. Registration is another matter. Just because a gun is registered doesn't mean it can't kill. Registration won't stop the insane mass shooter types.

A license to own? I'm thinking once you pass the BGC you're licensed. I do however prefer a license to carry if you plan to carry in public. I'm not a fan of what is called Constitutional Carry. I don't like open carry within town limits. IMO a lot of the OC characters are just a different version of the class clown type attention whores. Camping in the woods you can OC all you want.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Last edited Sun May 29, 2022, 09:37 PM - Edit history (1)

2A is an anachronism because it is predicated on the "necessity" of a well regulated militia for the security of a "free state." This is no longer the late 18th century when American civilians were needed to assemble and fight conflicts with native Americans, the French, or the British.

Instead of "military weapons" I should have e specified semiautomatic. They are designed to kill more people in a shorter period of time, as are larger clips. Totally unnecessary, except as self defense against others thusly armed.

Registration and transfer of title is perhaps THE most necessary measure. The daily carnage in my hometown of Chicago is mostly carried out with firearms not registered to the perps. An illicit pipeline from Indiana and other states with more lax gun control fills the streets.

...so mutual respect is really a good thing.

I do have a different view of the 2A but that can wait.

I did see that you said semi-autos at some point but I didn't take the hint that those were being equated. I don't really have a problem with semi-auto. For one thing, if you have bought a gun for self-defense, I figure you're most likely to be assaulted by someone with at least a revolver and more likely another semi-auto. With over 100 million semi-autos in the US, I also think that genie is already out of the bottle. I can't see some gang doing a drive-by with bolt action rifles. I don't own a gun now and haven't for years. IMO it's an expensive activity and me being kind of poor and rather cheap, it's not for me.

You have to explain the registration thing because I don't see how that does anything.

Good night for now. The wife and I are going to relax and watch news soon to see who shot who.

I'll check in tomorrow. Have a peaceful holiday.

And the idea -- or the fact -- that semiautomatics are needed as defense against others armed with automatics is, to me, a very strong argument for not just banning their sale but making possession of them lllegal. Buy them back. Melt them down.

Politically and logistically difficult? No doubt, but a civilian arms race is madness and more death.

You haven't shared your view on 2A, but I will tell you one that I unequivocally reject:

The notion that firepower in civilian hands is necessary to overthrow our own government.

Most of that firepower today and the ideology with the lust to use it dwells on the extreme right. That would be a nightmare dystopia ushering in a far worse tyranny than what they believe they are fighting against.

Peace,
Martin

From the FOPA of 1986:

My understanding is that this is a general provision that has specific exceptions like, AFAIK, some states register the guns that residents with concealed carry permits plan to actually carry.

Aside from all this a majority of owners and pro-RKBA folks are adamantly opposed to general registration.

As I said before probably 150 million of the guns in the US today are semi-auto. I would ballpark fair market values between $40-50 billion. That amount of money would pale in comparison to the budget involved in the collection and processing of guns recovered and the subsequent cost of prosecuting the non-compliant folks. I'd guess the cost would approach $1 trillion.


Semi-auto rifles were first invented in 1779. The idea that the Founders, some of the most intelligent, experienced and well informed people of the day, never considered semi-auto rifles when writing the 2A, is impossible to believe.

For 230+ years the 2A has stood unchanged and is accepted as a protection against government denying an individual right to keep and bear arms. State and federal courts and legislatures have deemed lawful several types of semi-auto rifles and handguns.

An amendment requires a proposal advanced by either 33 states or 357 Congresspersons and the acceptance of 401 Congresspersons or 38 states. IMO the attempt isn't worth the fallout.

I don't think there will ever be a case where civilians will work to overthrow throw the federal government. I don't see a scenario such as the events of 4 May 1970 will ever be repeated on a national or even regional scale. I believe these things by virtue of the innate character of the typical servicemen and women I know. Unlike other times in history and other areas of the world, these folks do not view themselves as separate from other citizens and of some higher class. IMO the 2A is one of the things that helps maintain that equality.

I prefer to consider measures that could be sufficiently supported as to be passed into law. Experience from the campaign against drunk driving points to the education and cooperation of the drinking public. It didn't matter if those drinking where alcoholics or just friends enjoying a night out. Programs like designated drivers and taking a taxi or Uber when drinking have helped more than all of the laws and fines of the past.

Peace to you and yours

Passing an Amendment would require sweeping Democratic victories at the state & federal level, or a change in priorities among "conservative" voters. A substantial majority of the voting public favors universal background checks, but it doesn't top their list of issues.

Perhaps more massacres of children will turn that tide. Otherwise, the massacres will continue.

Or maybe in the next few decades the conservative Court will be replaced by a liberal one and they take a more literal interpretation of 2A, that the right us predicated on a well regulated militia.

IMO this is a generation or 2 in the future, if ever. Therefore, I prefer expending effort of tasks which:
* Have a chance of succeeding within a 2 year Congressional term
* Won't alienate members of my party that will be needed for meaningful accomplishments within 2 years


Side note: I favor lifting the cap on the size of the House and setting the district size equal to the population of the least populous state. The Electoral College would then follow.

if that's the point you got from that then there is not much hope for you.

It's one of the blessings of overpopulation. The aberrant becomes commonplace to the point it seems impossible to tidy up the place at all.

I was hoping for some specific helpful ideas. IMO making to overall US into Camp Lejeune doesn't work.
YMMV

"control" is the language that the arms dealers love. The narrative needs to be refrained as gun "safety". And base safety regulations on NRA protocols before the fucking arms dealers took it over in the 70's. My grandfather disowned them in 1979 and he was about as conservative as you could get back then. He burned my NRA card also. The NRA was about safety before the arms dealers gained control in a hostile takeover in 77. Thats what they are now, the political front for US arms dealers. Smith and Wesson got sick of companies like Raytheon et. al. making millions in weapons contracts while they were saddled with deer hunters. None of this is about the 2nd amendment, 0. It's about American small arms manufactures becoming arms dealers and cashing in. They could care less. As long as they can hide behind the 2nd by scaring fuck heads they'll lose their guns they will continue to unabashedly flood this country with weapons legally. Its all about the cash man.

We sure do. Not only arms dealers but many pro-restriction folks as well. The word control is a lie. The only real control for humans is self-control. Having laws termed as "gun control" gives those in favor of restrictions the idea that laws will stop people from being violent. They play into the hands of a lot of politicians. The job of your political representatives is to be instruments of their constituency. However, IMO legislators have the responsibility of adding wisdom to the will of the people.

The primary use of laws is to provide a criteria in court to convict a criminal. Laws against murder and violent personal attack aren't called homicide control or assault control. Of course honest people will avoid breaking laws. Those folks have self-control.

I advocate most these days for universal background checks. One reason for that is that last I checked background checks on private sales (non-dealers at gun shows, neighbors, relatives and unknown folks meeting on the Walmart parking lot) are illegal in 28 states.

It's a business, of course it's about cash.

Yeah, maybe in some states they can't sell "assault weapons" (by whatever definition the state uses) but they definitely boost gun sales.




I did an entire thread on it a few months ago: https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172211325

But the crux of it is, gun owners know that the idea of "assault weapons" is arbitrary and emotional and based on things like... a protruding pistol grip or a buttstock that adjusts without tools. This is because, shockingly, gun owners knows about guns pretty intimately and non-gun-owners don't.

Once you can ban "assault weapons" you can expand the definition to cover most anything.

To be brutally honest, if I was a gun maker that sold guns in America, I would secretly funnel a few hundred thousand a year to American anti-gun groups. I mean, look at the graph! Mere advertising can't triple the market for guns like fears of government bans does!

As a liberal gun owner Im all over this. 100% right. Thanks for posting some sanity.

a bit of wisdom in all the chaos

We still had to treat them as loaded weapons. God help you if you cocked it and pulled the trigger. That "click" sound would get you a full day of punishment.

For the Marines on here.

How does the 2 week work?

Every Marine gets pulled to go the range individually?

The unit goes together?

can qualify/practice under strict supervision of the range master and firing line NCO.

Thanks!

A damned good thing this kind of thinking wasn't applied when the 2nd Amendment was reinterpreted in the 70s, huh? A damned good thing for the NRA, gun manufacturers, psychopaths and gun-humping wannabes.

So why were there no guns at the nra party of sick perversion.
Trump should have demanded guns be there so he would be safe! More guns make him safer, RIGHT!
Just ignore the dead babies, they don't count.
We do need better mental health care in this country. The entire nra membership needs mental health care.

re: "So why were there no guns at the nra party..."
Generally the venue owners and operators set the rules. Your venue (home, car, storefront, boxing ring...) your choice to allow otherwise lawful possession. Some hotels don't allow dogs. Some apartments don't allow large water containing appliances.

trump is a dangerous jackass.

He asks why the Marines on base cant keel there private weapons even though they test once a year?

He knows the answer. His base is circled by tall fence with barbed wire (twice), patroled constantly by armed teams of marines with fully automatic rifles, and gates screen people coming and going sometimes with armed persons and sometimes K-9s.

In other words the marine corps is taking responsibility for everyone’s safety.

We cant even trust the police to enter a school to stop an active shooter.