Trump

[pritch]

Heh - the description I've heard is 'Near uncontrollable' - but I believe the NZ SLRs were based on the British Pattern, which would affirm my memory.

Drop the "near". Problem was on auto each successive round fired as the barrel was at the top of it's recoil. If fired from say a kneeling position, after a very few shots the barrel would be vertical.

Your burst fire theory is anachronistic. That didn't exist until about 1983. So that's nearly twenty years after the introduction of the M16 - probably more until they were on general issue.
I believe the guys who told me their issue M16s were semi auto only. So semi auto only M16s are assault rifles?

[FJRider]

The whole point of the 'Well regulated Militia' was to decentralize and localize the means by which to defend an area (County, State, Country), without having to use a standing Army because of the fear that the Government might grow tyrannical and use a standing army against the People.

BULLSHIT.


To what "Well regulated Militia" do the citizens wandering freely in the streets ... with the wide variety of firearms from various parts of the world ... actually belong to ... ???

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the version passed by Congress and put on display and the versions ratified by the states. These differences have been a focus of debate regarding the meaning of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of what the courts have called the prefatory clause.

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.



A well regulated Militia was being referred to as being what is now the US army. [sic]

Not a street of brain dead ignorant hoodlums ... carrying Chinese or Russian weapons.



You like internet link's (apparently) ... try this one ...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ontext/555101/

[pritch]

"A well regulated militia?"

[TheDemonLord]

Drop the "near". Problem was on auto each successive round fired as the barrel was at the top of it's recoil. If fired from say a kneeling position, after a very few shots the barrel would be vertical.

Your burst fire theory is anachronistic. That didn't exist until about 1983. So that's nearly twenty years after the introduction of the M16 - probably more until they were on general issue.
I believe the guys who told me their issue M16s were semi auto only. So semi auto only M16s are assault rifles?

Well, you've got the original, the A1 variants before burst fire was a thing.

But getting back to the guys, all the info about standard issue M16s all state either burst or full auto capability.

My reading of Military history is not so shallow as to say 'impossible', only that were it the case then there is some additional info that we are not privy to.

And that whatever they had, was not standard issue

[TheDemonLord]

BULLSHIT.


To what "Well regulated Militia" do the citizens wandering freely in the streets ... with the wide variety of firearms from various parts of the world ... actually belong to ... ???

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the version passed by Congress and put on display and the versions ratified by the states. These differences have been a focus of debate regarding the meaning of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of what the courts have called the prefatory clause.

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.



A well regulated Militia was being referred to as being what is now the US army. [sic]

Not a street of brain dead ignorant hoodlums ... carrying Chinese or Russian weapons.



You like internet link's (apparently) ... try this one ...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ontext/555101/

Nice Article, and pretty much makes my argument for me.

I get to say "justice Scalia" and his originalist reading of the Constitution (which includes the Federalist papers), and that trumps any opinion you, the Author of the article or anyone else has on the matter.

[FJRider]

Infantry had Brens, GPMGs or M60s depending where you were geographically speaking. Transport had heavy barrel SLRs instead. The infantry would not want those for a wart on their arse as the instructors put it.

Convoys of vehicles often/usually had trucks and/or jeeps with infantry armed with those. That was aside from freight or personal loaded vehicles.

Heavy barreled SLR's were fucking heavy. And the barrel could not be changed by the squaddie using it after/during heavy firing periods. In WW2 ... the Bren ruled. GPMG's and M60's require a stable platform and experienced operators to be halfway accurate (not the usual description of a cook or driver) ... otherwise ... why bother if you're not going to hit anything. With GPMG's and M60's .. the barrel could be changed ... if you had them (or time to change them).

It sometimes even varies from unit to unit what weapons are carried and used.

When the shit hits the fan ... personal choice of weapons were what you usually carried and/or used. Your life at stake ... you choose.

Obviously, as you say, drivers didn't carry LMGs around. A transport company would have them for defence though.

Only in the Company HQ areas in the rear echelon. Usually.

[FJRider]

Nice Article, and pretty much makes my argument for me.

I get to say "justice Scalia" and his originalist reading of the Constitution (which includes the Federalist papers), and that trumps any opinion you, the Author of the article or anyone else has on the matter.

Saying what you like is your right ... being right not so much.

So ... describe "A well regulated Militia" in you own words.

[TheDemonLord]

Saying what you like is your right ... being right not so much.

So ... describe "A well regulated Militia" in you own words.

It does not matter how I describe it, only how the US Supreme Court describes it.

The latter referencing the surrounding and supporting documentation that the purpose is both for an individual's right to self-defense and to give the populace a means to overthrow the government.

You may disagree with that interpretation, however since it is the interpretation repeatedly upheld by the US Supreme Court, it is for intents and purposes, the 'Correct interpretation'

[Katman]

A well regulated Militia was being referred to as being what is now the US army. [sic]

You should probably look up the meaning of the word 'militia'.

It doesn't refer to a standing army.

It refers to 'the people'.

[sugilite:Me]

You should probably look up the meaning of the word 'militia'.

It doesn't refer to a standing army.

It refers to 'the people'.

I can really only comment on "the people" that I witnessed in the small-ish rural farm based community in Arkansas. The 2 largest industries in town were banks, banks, banks and yet more banks. The second largest business was drug dispensaries. The number of people off their meds, on the wrong meds, self medicating from one particular doctor who was well known to simply prescribe what ever the fuck was asked for. Then their were the meth and heroin addicts every bloody where. In my opinion these are hardly "the people" that should have access to military weapons with zero training or even a modicum of calm level thinking. By the very nature of the word "Amendment", just change the fucking thing to reflect modern society and weapons. If people want to own these weapons, offer them a pathway to do that which includes training, screening and so on. Just selling them over the counter to anyone makes about as much sense as compulsory whisky shots for school children on the hour every hour.

[TheDemonLord]

If people want to own these weapons, offer them a pathway to do that which includes training, screening and so on.

Training? Absolutely agree. In fact it was one thing I raised to an Arms Officer about the previous NZ Licencing system, that there should be a practical test as well as the theory (like a Car Licence).
The day I first went to the range, with a Firearm, I went straight to the Range Safety officer and said 'I'm a total Noob, it's my first day at a range on my own, and I'd like some help'.

Now, I was careful and that care and the assistance of the Peers ensured I was safe, but I completely agree - Training should be required. Further to that, I can't think of ANY serious Firearms advocacy or lobbying group that does not advocate for Training. Some might disagree at Training being a requirement, but all agree that people should decide to undertake training of their own free will.

Screening? Also, Absolutely agree (and if the NZ Police had done their screening properly, like their rules said they should, we wouldn't have had an issue) - however the Screening should be limited to the character of the person, not the intended usage.

'And so on' - Now, I know this is a figure of speech and I'm sure this isn't deliberate, but there's something in there that rankles me, Probably because it's the part where good intentions can get hi-jacked. It's also where people who have experienced the negative effects before tend to take the line 'Give them an Inch, they'll take a mile, never give them an inch'.

[pritch]

Too many people get hung up on the word "militia." It refers to something similar to our territorial army units. People who like to argue about this lean too heavily on the word militia and not enough on the words, "well regulated."

The informal RWNJ militias in the States to whom Trump appeals are not what is mentioned in the Constitution. They are more in the nature of traitors and terrorists.

[Katman]

I can really only comment on "the people" that I witnessed in the small-ish rural farm based community in Arkansas. The 2 largest industries in town were banks, banks, banks and yet more banks. The second largest business was drug dispensaries. The number of people off their meds, on the wrong meds, self medicating from one particular doctor who was well known to simply prescribe what ever the fuck was asked for. Then their were the meth and heroin addicts every bloody where. In my opinion these are hardly "the people" that should have access to military weapons with zero training or even a modicum of calm level thinking. By the very nature of the word "Amendment", just change the fucking thing to reflect modern society and weapons. If people want to own these weapons, offer them a pathway to do that which includes training, screening and so on. Just selling them over the counter to anyone makes about as much sense as compulsory whisky shots for school children on the hour every hour.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

I'm simply pointing out that it is indeed a change in America's constitution that would be required to legally remove 'guns that you don't like' from ownership by 'the people'.

[FJRider]

You should probably look up the meaning of the word 'militia'.

It doesn't refer to a standing army.

It refers to 'the people'.

Prior Constitution being created (1787) ... there was no "Standing army". Each colony had relied upon the local militia ... made up of part-time civilian soldiers. The American Revolutionary War began in April 1775. The first full regiment of Regular Army infantry, the 3rd Infantry Regiment, was not formed until June 1784. After the war, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded because of the American distrust of standing armies.

The irregular state militias became the new nation's sole ground army ... with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point's arsenal.

The beginnings of what would be called The National Guard ... ??? They would be the American equivalent of our own Territorial Army. Not a "Standing army" as such ... but would hold the very requirements to be called a well formed militia.


I doubt if even you could actually claim that the fat gutted armed (and unpaid) rabble wandering the streets ... or even those just "carrying" are capable (in reality) of being .... part of "A Well formed Militia".




Just saying ...

[Katman]

I doubt if even you could actually claim that the fat gutted armed (and unpaid) rabble wandering the streets ... or even those just "carrying" are capable (in reality) of being .... part of "A Well formed Militia".

And I'm not defending those who are currently wandering the streets carrying weapons - or trying to claim they're a 'well regulated militia'.

I'm merely commenting on the wording of the Constitution and pointing out that it would take a significant change to that Constitution to be legally allowed to demand that 'the people' hand over 'guns that other people don't like'.