I think I recognize him from gungeon some time ago.

What is our society thinking??

Note: I believe the second picture with the rifle is an ak47 not an ar15 or m16. You can generally tell by the slant about 6 inches behind the front sight, that it's an AK (kalishnikov). There is also a sister gun to the ak47, the ak74, switched the numbers, I think it's a carbine or softer version of the more deadly ak47.
The top appears to be maybe a glock with an extension or silencer, dunno really dontcare much either. I know a bit about certain guns but not that much either, just didn't want to have people start saying it was an ar15 bushmaster in the pic.

the metal 'slanting' from the barrel to the upper stock (I guess) I always thought was a sort of inherent AK47 compensator. A compensator subdues a rifles recoil, so you might see what I mean that it would tend to down the upward recoil tendency. Dunno if this is true, just my perception.

An ar15 would need little recoil compensation (that I know of) since it fires a light bullet and recoil is not that big a problem as with an ak which fires a larger bullet cartridge with more ammo to give the greater recoil kick.
The lack of recoil on the ar15, imo, contributes to it's lethality, in that the shooter does not have to, well, self-compensate for the recoil as much as with heavier bullets or rifles.
Thus, had lanza, imo, had a rifle with a larger bullet he'd have had to compensate for the recoil upwards, & this would've made him more inaccurate. The ar15 with little recoil meant he could keep the rifle low & more accurately focussed on his .... targets.

When we reached him by phone this afternoon, we described the above photo to Andrasik .. he said it was "probably me."

Sounds like a, descriptive name.

gun fethish are.

Like Biden said in the debates to the gun nut who asked what Democrats would do to protect his babies (lethal weapons) -- "if that's your baby, you need some help."

Calm down hoyt I'm not a rabid gunnut; my underlying point was my last sentence in the paragraph:

Thus, had lanza, imo, had a rifle with a larger bullet he'd have had to compensate for the recoil upwards, & this would've made him more inaccurate. The ar15 with little recoil meant he could keep the rifle low & more accurately focussed on his .... targets.

I am arguing for banning the ar15 in part on the grounds that it can kill people quicker & just about as lethal as any legal rifle today, up close. And the lack of recoil contributes to it being able to hit targets more accurately since the rifle remains moreso where the shooter is trying to aim it, easier to control - a contributing reason it should be banned.

Note the OP gave the guy's link as ar15 something dot com - the reason I wanted to point out that the rifle he had wasn't an ar15 but an ak47. I don't think some cursory knowledge of guns is a bad thing for gun control advocates.
I fully agreed with what joe biden said to the real gunnut with his pathetic concern & I hope you don't now consider me on the same plane. I supported biden for president when he ran against hc & obama in 2008, to a point tho, after about a few months I realized it wasn't going to go so I stopped contributing to his campaign after about 60$, not wanting to become a cash cow to a campaign to nowhere. I went to a rally he gave under a susquehanna river bridge, gives a good rousing speech; actually he once lived about 20 miles away.

(also see 'I renounce my 2nd A right' thread for further info about my views)

Last edited Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:41 AM - Edit history (1)

I could live with that. Also require concealed handguns to weigh 47 pounds or more. That would cut down toting too.

Sorry, too many gun nuts get all precise with their gun nomenclature. That's why I support banning -- or at least severely limiting -- all semi-autos, including handguns.

hoyt: I could live with that. Also require concealed handguns to weigh 47 pounds or more. That would cut down toting too.

Ha, they could flare a steel shroud about the handgun & use it as a bulletproof shield. (Did I just foresee the home handgun of the future?)

Sorry, too many gun nuts get all precise with their gun nomenclature.

Yeah I can see how I got a bit too gunny with it, only wanted to explain how compensators were needed for the larger caliber rifles with recoil, and were NOT needed for the ar15 due it's lighter bullet - the bullet which is ultimately more lethal than almost all other bullets on a 'lethality' percentage.
I thought of an analogy last night waiting to fall asleep. A fire hose from a water hydrant would knock a lot of people back & down if they turned it on, like the large caliber rifles, while a backyard water hose from your house would barely cause a wrist flick, like the ar15.

That's why I support banning -- or at least severely limiting -- all semi-autos, including handguns.

I'm with you on the top, but realistically handguns cannot be banned due heller & mcdonald, tho some handguns need be banned, uzi I think is one; I do oppose shall issue concealed carry for everyone, it just emboldens potential criminals posing as law abiding citizens.
I also support child access prevention laws, one gun per month laws (aka 12 guns per year). I even still support trigger lock laws.
.. You know nra opposes one gun per month laws as an infringement on 2ndA & bill of rights. Almost all other countries in the world might see a 'one gun per month law' - realistically a '12 gun per year law' - as either something to be INCLUDED in their bill of rights, or dismissed as totally too draconian.

Well in closing I'll say I view this group as friendly territory, & members as some sort of e-team, teamwork; of course disagreements & misunderstandings will occur, which arise from undetected rw trolls & fake democrats filtering in, so until we get to know who's who some misunderstandings might occur. Glad to have things cleared up, hoyt. I've seen several of your posts prior so knew you were actually on my side, whether you liked it or not!

Its not designed to reduce recoil. Its actually a piston. When you fire a gun, a bunch of gas goes out the barrel. Some of it goes up where the metal slanting thing is, and pushes against a piston. That piston then pushes the old shell back, where it is ejected, and loads a new round. Its something that every semi auto rifle has to do in one way or another.

The AR-15 is similar. There is a hole where the font sight triangle is, and it goes up there, and into a long tube that feeds the air back into the gun, to load another round. Its just not as obvious on an AR, because it looks like (and acts as) a front sight)

The differences between an AR and an AK are obvious, as noted.

The AK-47 was adopted in 1947 and uses a 7.62mm by 39mm cartridge. The AK-74 was adopted in 1974 and uses a 5.45mm by 39mm cartridge. It was basically a Soviet answer to the 5.56mm M16/AR15 round.

Both the AK and the ARs use flash suppressors, not compensators. Neither round has a lot of recoil in semi-automatic fire, both climb in fully-automatic fire (which is useless after the 3rd round in most people's hands).

Neither gun has much recoil, and one can fire both at about the same rate and close-range accuracy. The difference wouldn't have been that great in lethality.

excopLS: Both the AK and the ARs use flash suppressors, not compensators. Neither round has a lot of recoil in semi-automatic fire, both climb in fully-automatic fire.

wiki says newer AKs have compensators/muzzle brakes, do ARs? (I post this to demonstrate why ar15s should be banned, not to glorify the damn things. Note there are subtle differences between ar15 & m16 tho, where m16 is military version & ar15 civilian version of same assault rifle).

excopLS: Neither gun has much recoil, and one can fire both at about the same rate and close-range accuracy. The difference wouldn't have been that great in lethality.

Haven't convinced me, I think the m16 is more accurate & faster firing at closer ranges (thus more lethal), than the ak47 with the heavier bullet (dunno much about ak74 characteristics, tho I know of it etc);

wiki: The M16's straight-line recoil design, direct impingement gas operation system and smaller caliber gives it less recoil than the AK-47 and makes it easier to control in full-auto. The stock being in line with the bore also reduces muzzle rise, especially during automatic fire.
Because {m16} recoil does not significantly shift the point of aim, faster follow-up shots are possible and user fatigue is reduced .
(AK47): However, the AK-47's heavier weight and slower rate-of-fire do a good job at mitigating any disadvantage. In addition, newer AK-47 type rifles use a muzzle brake or compensator to reduce recoil. And, some AK type rifles also have vertical foregrips to improve handling characteristics and to counter the effects of recoil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16#Recoil

I shot the 3 rd burst feature (per one trigger pull) on the m16 once, & the recoil was hardly anything I recall, so there'd be even less recoil when lanza shot off 3 shots per 3 separate trigger pulls taking a half second longer (eh, debateable I suppose). (the '3 round burst' feature on the m16 is automatic 'select' fire & disallowed on ar15s & other civilian assault rifles, so lanza didn't have it). The US Army concluded that 3-shot groups provide an optimum combination of ammunition conservation, accuracy and firepower.

wiki says ~33% higher recoil momentum in ak47, 40 ftlbs v 54:
Free Recoil,momentum(transferred to shooter)> M16 40.4 ft-lbs- AK-47 54.3 ft-lbs
Penetration: Vests 0–400 m> M16 Acceptable- AK47 Acceptable
vests 400–600 m> M16 Acceptable- AK47 Unacceptable
Semiautomatic fire 0–400 m> M16 Superior, AK47 Unacceptable
400–600 m> M16 Acceptable, AK47 Unacceptable -- edit, old stats, 1962, eh

Whoever edited Wiki was comparing the AK103/105s and listing them as an AK47. The AK103/105 do have a muzzle brake for use in full auto, but you still have the same problem with muzzle climb after three rounds or so.

As to lethality, you are ignoring the difference in caliber. The 7.62x39mm round has a lot more stopping power at close range than the 5.56mm round. The AK round has over double the Taylor number than the AR round does, has more muzzle energy (1650 vs. 1500). Additionally, the 5.56 was developed from a round used for varmint hunting (and is not allowed for deer hunting in most states due to lack of lethality), while the AK round was designed a a medium to short range assault round (and which is uniformly allowed for deer hunting). The recoil difference you mention is negligible.

Were I to chose a weapon for close in lethality, hands down the choice would be the AK.

excop: As to lethality, you are ignoring the difference in caliber. The 7.62x39mm round has a lot more stopping power at close range than the 5.56mm round.

Affecting lethality, the ar15's smaller caliber doesn't matter that much compared with the ak47. Lethality is if the target dies, not instantly but within a few minutes or even later.
The ak47 with the larger bullet (twice as heavy) has greater stopping power in it will stop (immediately bring down) hunt animals & people, better than the ar15, but the ar15 might leave it's target up & walking about while mortally wounded, bleeding out for instance. Taking into account more accurate shooting, the ar15 would work better for mass shooters (which is why I support banning ar15s, as well as ak47s et al).
The ar15 bullet (0.223fmj) tends to fragment into two a few inches after penetration, & can cause cavitation in each of the two wound patterns, causing twice as much internal damage to surrounding tissue as the ak's 7.62. The 7.62 will not fragment as readily as the .223 (tho it can of course, hitting bone etc), leaving one wound pattern. 7.62 can cause cavitation of course.

The recoil difference you mention is negligible.

If the 1962 test remains fairly valid, 33% more recoil in the ak47 is 'negligible'? a third more doesn't seem to fit the realm of negligible, and it's a cumulative effect, per bullets fired.

Were I to chose a weapon for close in lethality, hands down the choice would be the AK.

Fine, but you realize a solid portion, if not most, of shooters would take the ar15 or m16, don't you? lighter weight is a boon.

As far as recoil difference, 33% more of basically no recoil is still negligible. The AR has so little recoil that you can hardly feel it. When you compare an ARs recoil or the AKs recoil with a full-sized rifle cartridge, both are negligible. For example, the recoil of a .30-06 or .308 is approximately 300% of the AKs recoil. Having fired all of these, the AK is really indistinguishable from the AR in recoil.

As to those that would chose an AR over an AK, sure, I agree with that statement. Of course, most of them think that the AR is a battle rifle, instead of a carbine, which is what it was originally designed to be.

Another factor that was not mentioned is reliability, and the AK wins that hands down. It uses a long-stroke gas piston system and is almost impossible to jam. The AR uses Stoner's direct gas impingement system which is prone to jamming, especially when fired repeatedly.

I find it hard to believe that anyone who believes in civil rights would support a gun ban of any sort, any more than a book ban, or a license and prior clearance to publish. The Second Amendment is why we still have the rest of the Bill of Rights.

excopLS: I find it hard to believe that anyone who believes in civil rights would support a gun ban of any sort, any more than a book ban, or a license and prior clearance to publish. The Second Amendment is why we still have the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I support civil rights & I do support banning books on child pornography. And books on how to make bombs, and books on how to make plastic guns. Lotsa 'book bans' I'd support.
If you are against bans, why do you (I presume) want to ban gun registration? which was the law in 1791, registering militia men.
Am I correct in interpreting that you oppose the machine gun ban? Partially banning certain more lethal rifles or handguns is not depriving anyone of any 2nd amendment right, since the right is preserved by other sophisticated firearms outside the realm of the ban.
Even a total handgun ban, which nixon wanted, would've preserved the 2nd amendment right as it existed in early 70's, prior to scalia & heller subverting history.

The 2nd Amendment today does nothing to protect the rest of the bill of rights. The 2ndA today is useless, obsolete, antiquidated. 2ndA has become a mythology for the nra to promote to a gullible rightwing public as a 'guardian' against terrorism & liberalism, ignoring the fact that guns kill 30,000 americans yearly, dwarfing terrorism in america.
I renounced my 2ndA rights a month back, & I could go out & buy a gun today as long as I pass a background check (which I could) - the 2ndA today has absolutely nothing to do with my buying a gun.
2ndA has nothing to do with protecting america from our govt - the 2ndAmendment is of more problematic concern for law abiding citizens, than the govt ever will be. Pro gun supporters threaten use of firearms against US govt & liberalism daily, & the worst the govt does, is investigate rightwing groups for tax exempt eligibility, subsequently apologizing. How many tea party gun loonies apologize for provocative remarks & actions?

Obscenity, which includes child pornography, has always been unprotected. On the other hand, the other books you wish to ban are protected by the First Amendment. Once you start banning legitimate books, you start on a slippery slope. There have been thousands of regimes that have banned books--but none that were free.

Registering militia is much different from registering their rifle, which was not done in 1791.

I actually do believe that the NFA is unconstitutional, based on this statement by the Supreme Court: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939).

Even the Heller decision was ambiguous in this regard, but subtly so. Justice Scalia noted that "dangerous and unusual weapons" could be banned. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627 (2008). He supported this with a string cite which included an interesting case, English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871). English supports Scalia's statement with an interesting explanation. It states:

No kind of travesty, however subtle or ingenious, could so misconstrue this provision of the Constitution of the United States, as to make it cover and protect that pernicious vice, from which so many murders, assassinations, and deadly assaults have sprung, and which it was doubtless the intention of the Legislature to punish and prohibit. The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms.

Id.

English then goes on to define the dangerous and unusual weapons as "dirks, daggers, slingshots, sword canes, brass knuckles and bowie knives. . . ." Id. at 477. Of course, none of those have any use in the military - just like Miller's sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon with a military use. It's funny that Scalia would put that in the opinion, listing all the "normal" weapons of the military as being appropriate for the militia.

You know, if the Second Amendment is antiquated, there is a way to fix it. It is known as amending the Constitution. That's the only way.

I don't carry a brief for the Tea Party loons, nor the zealots on any particular side of the political spectrum, from the sovereign citizen whackjobs to the loony left. I don't like any of 'em. As to the protection against tyranny? Sure, I believe that - at some possible point in the distant future. We're not there, and the wingnuts that say were are have a screw loose. I just don't want any of my rights to be violated.

excop: just like Miller's sawed-off shotgun was not a weapon with a military use. It's funny that Scalia would put that in the opinion, listing all the "normal" weapons of the military as being appropriate for the militia.

Military weapons were indeed appropriate for the militia when activated circa 1791. There were 10 to 15 thousand americans who did not report for militia duty for the war of 1812, do you contend they retained the same 2ndA rights as the near half million who did report? (they were subject to prosecution but amnesty was granted, so you say they retained the same 2ndA individual rights? as 'intended' by madison et al?).
.. Aside, what scalia 'said' in his 2008 heller ruling is the rightwing wishlist for re-interpreting the 2ndA (& miller), the nra could've written most of it (with exceptions). So what scalia 'said' is pretty much crap, & any inferences or truth to be gained from what scalia 'said' is based on the rightwing interpretation of 2ndA, which has always been ahistorical & mostly invalid. Citing an 1871 ruling may or may not resemble what the 1791 2ndA intended, since by 1871 the two trains of thought had split into the collective militia camp vs individual rkba (by 1830 actually).

english decision, 1871: The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the Constitution.., refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense.

Certainly, 2ndA as a militia based right it makes sense, as does applying 'bear arms'; But if you try to apply this to scalia's 'individual rkba' aberration you are mixing things up, applying the proper 'bear arms' concept to an improper grouping - citizens unconnected to militia or military. From what I've seen I don't see a problem with this paragraph. It also seems to validate several state constitutions laws (then) which prohibited carrying concealed weapons.

excop:..if the Second Amendment is antiquated, there is a way to fix it. It is known as amending the Constitution. That's the only way.

The supreme court could reverse itself & interpret 2ndA properly as a militia based rkba. The 3rdA is antiquated too, but retains it's bor meaning.
PS: I'll continue at bottom of thread, due to narrowing.

"The Second Amendment is why we still have the rest of the Bill of Rights," you are obviously posting on the wrong Group. You want the Gungeon, which is down the hall and to the Far Right.

The SOP for this Group states:

"Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations."

Last edited Sat May 25, 2013, 06:40 PM - Edit history (1)

people that agree with one position. I'll admit that I don't tend to read all the SOP stuff before I post on a forum.

I don't care for the far right. I don't care for the NRA wingnuts either. The "one-issue" crap is just that, crap. They do much more harm than good.

Take a look at my blog, and you'll find that I'm pretty progressive in my beliefs. I'm pretty straightforward and upfront about my dislike about police misconduct (especially as regards to the First and Fourth Amendments), I just happen to believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right. I also don't personally believe in abortion, but it's not the government's place to tell women what to do with their bodies, and certainly not my place to do so.

I have had an interesting discussion with jimmy, and have put out what I thought, listened to his response, replied, etc. I don't see how that would be an issue about posting here, but I'm new.

So if this is just a place for gun control group-think, I don't have a problem with leaving. I would have hoped that there would be a more open discussion. I haven't insulted anyone, haven't berated anyone's position, haven't tried to get into a conflict. Just let me know.

is also a no-no. Your statements on this thread so far identify you as a "cold dead hands" gun rights supporter, and this Group was formed especially to exclude that type of NRA bullshit. But, I believe that you already know that, and are just being a willfully obtuse returning disrupter.

Once again, the pro-gun rights NRA apologist Group is the "Gun Control and RKBA" Group, aka The Gungeon. You will find lots of support there.

Where did I say anything like "cold dead hands"? Do you have anything to show that I have ever been here before? Because I haven't, and it is actually getting to the point of being insulting.

I don't have a problem with a lot of things that the NRA opposes. Uniform background checks. Registration. I don't have a problem with permits or licenses, so long as they are shall-issue.

As for the blog, it was just to show that my position was not the same as the right wingnuts. I certainly don't have a problem with editing the link out.

ughhhhhhhhh

excop: Once you start banning legitimate books, you start on a slippery slope. There have been thousands of regimes that have banned books--but none that were free.

That's immaterial & overreach to my point, that there are book bans I'd support, whether deemed 'legal' or not. You first asked whether a civil rights supporter would support book bans, alluding to gun bans. I'd also support banning books crafted for illicit purpose with razors inside or bombs.
(how stuff works website):.. US Supreme Court ruled that a book or periodical must be "pervasively vulgar" to constitute adequate ground for banning.. SC ruled that school officials could censor student journalists. 1988 Hazelwood School Distr v. Kuhlmeier differentiated between the rights of public school students and those of adults, stating that the school newspaper was not a form of public expression. The Hazelwood decision has granted school officials added leeway for censoring classroom curriculum as well.

excop: Registering militia is much different from registering their rifle, which was not done in 1791.

It was known whether the militia member had a firearm, due to militia returns. In 1803 dearborn, under jefferson, performed a firearms census which showed that only 45% of militia members had access to a firearm, half of those armed by state armories, so only about 25% of militia eligible males had a personl firearm. Musquettes outnumbered rifles by 4 to 1 ~revwar end.

excop: I actually do believe that the NFA is unconstitutional, based on this statement by the Supreme Court (citing) Miller(1939)... Even the Heller decision was ambiguous in this regard, but subtly so.

What was so ambiguous about this ruling by the 1939 miller court?: 1) "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union'.... With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of {2ndA} were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

In the vernacular of the 1939 day this (& the passage you cited) was considered proof which negated the individual rkba interpretation. The individual rkba developed as a result of far rightwing tampering in the latter 20th century, & fabricating a ruse to get around the miller decision, which you are reiterating.
The miller decision was unanimous 8-0 (one newly appt'd justice did not participate). If the 1939 supreme court had felt 2ndA conferred an individual rkba, wouldn't at least one justice have OBJECTED to the above wording, feeling 'future generations might think we're ruling for a militia based 2ndA interpretation'?.. wouldn't at least one of them have agreed with scalia's abberation that the 2ndA right was 'disconnected from militia service' rather than being dependent upon militia service?.. yet not one single justice objected to the above wordings, neither did the 9th later after having sat in on the case.
The heller decision was split 5-4, the 4 liberal justices ruling for the proper militia interpretation.

jimmy: Military weapons were indeed appropriate for the militia when activated circa 1791.

Which means that military weapons are still appropriate. The Constitution hasn't changed.

jimmy: So what scalia 'said' is pretty much crap

Except that it is now the law of the land.

jimmy: english decision, 1871: The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the Constitution.., refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense.

Exactly, which means that "the people" have the right to keep and bear "arms" which would mean weapons that would be useful in a military sense.

jimmy: Certainly, 2ndA as a militia based right it makes sense, as does applying 'bear arms'; But if you try to apply this to scalia's 'individual rkba' aberration you are mixing things up, applying the proper 'bear arms' concept to an improper grouping - citizens unconnected to militia or military. From what I've seen I don't see a problem with this paragraph. It also seems to validate several state constitutions laws (then) which prohibited carrying concealed weapons.

Except it is not a militia based right. The founders used "the people" as a term of art. Everywhere that it is used, it has been interpreted as an individual right. &quot T)he 'normal rule of statutory construction that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning."'" Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478 (1990) (internal citations omitted). It violates the rules of statutory construction to interpret the Second Amendment in the way that you desire.

jimmy: In the vernacular of the 1939 day this (& the passage you cited) was considered proof which negated the individual rkba interpretation.

That's nowhere near correct. Miller cited a number of other cases that support the individual right, and the right to self defense. See State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455 (1874) ("The arms which every person is secured the right to keep and bear . . . must be such arms as are commonly kept, according to the customs of the people, and are appropriate for open and manly use in self-defense, as well as such as are proper for the defense of the State.&quot ; People v. Brown, 235 N.W. 245 (Mich. 1931) ("The protection of the Constitution is not limited to militiamen nor military purposes, in terms, but extends to "every person" to bear arms for the "defense of himself" as well as of the State.&quot ; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455 (1876) ("It is manifest from the language of the article, and from the expressions of these learned commentators, that the arms which it guarantees American citizens the right to keep and to bear, are such as are needful to, and ordinarily used by a well regulated militia, and such as are necessary and suitable to a free people, to enable them to resist oppression, prevent usurpation, repel invasion, etc., etc.&quot .

These cases are all cited by Miller and support the conclusion of Miller, which was a sawed off shotgun, having no relation to arms used in the military service, was not protected. Nowhere did it indicate that it was a collective right instead of an individual right, and no amount of revisionist editing will change that.

Look, I understand that you don't like individual firearm rights. I don't like paying income taxes. Both are constitutional issues, and we have to deal with it.

and Happy Resurrection. Your NRA Gungeon buddies must be very proud of your persistence in disrupting this Group. Take care now -- heah?...

What are you talking about?

BTW, I'm not NRA, nor will I be. They are just as bad as the rest of the wingnuts.

whatever you say...

I don't get it. They often claim to be single issue voters and knows scores of similar Democrats. What am I missing?

All of them singing out of the same hymn book: "Oh, we HATE the NRA. And Oh, we AGREE with you on these measures to restrict guns. And Oh YEAH, we believe everything good liberals should believe, except for this small matter of GUNS."

Don't be deceived by any of this.

many of them are either zombies or Gungeon recruits from other right-wing sites. Now that sensible gun control has entered the national conversation, the gunners are running scared, as directed by the NRA. The battle cry of "they're coming to take our guns," is being nuanced by opposition to ANY form of gun control as being a "slippery slope" to government tyranny.

These right-wing so-called "Libertarian Liberals" are nothing more than NRA apologists who are furthering the right-wing teabagger movement in this country. The sad part is that they actually believe that they are Democrats.

The "we've always supported reasonable control measures" meme is the only new thing about this latest bunch; obviously the school massacre and its aftermath have had an impact.

excop: Which means that military weapons are still appropriate {for militias}. The Constitution hasn't changed {since 1791}.

The constitution hasn't changed (much), but the law has. There is no longer any 'well regulated citizens militia' as envisioned by madison & ff. The militia act of 1792 was superseded by the militia act of ~1903 (charles dick act), which created the national gds & the UNorganized militia, the former a select militia, the latter failing the 2ndA litmus test in that it is UNORGANIZED, not well regulated.

jimmy: 1871: The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the Constitution.., refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense.
excop: Exactly, which means that "the people" have the right to keep and bear "arms" which would mean weapons that would be useful in a military sense.

Hahaha, as justice breyer might've said, strained & fractured reasoning. Only when adjunct to a well regulated citizens militia, which today is non existent. If there were an all encompassing citizens militia such as swiss have, then yeah, american militiamen could keep an assault rifle at home.

excop: Except it {miller} is not a militia based right. The founders used "the people" as a term of art. Everywhere that it is used, it has been interpreted as an individual right. &quot T)he 'normal rule of statutory construction that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning."'" Sullivan v. Stroop (1990). It violates the rules of statutory construction to interpret the Second Amendment in the way that you desire.

Sullivan v Stroop in 1990 cannot be extended backwards to constitutional periods & applied absolutely. Also a later ruling:
"While it is "the normal rule of statutory construction that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning," Sullivan-Stroop, (1990) that "presumption is defeasible.. the presumption conflicts with other normal rules of construction." Bray v. Alexandria WHC (1993). Hence, the second occurrence of the term "state" in subsection 404(b) may have a narrower meaning than it bears in its first occurrence.
So your sullivan-stroop gambit is an expedient, it cannot be absolute & it's validity is contested in itself.

In 2ndA the words militia & people were used interchangeably & synonymously, as evidenced by sc justice joseph story in 1800s. Note how story is clearly referring to the militia when he uses the underlined word 'people':
SC Justice Joseph Story, early 1800's: .. though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline,and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt, and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights."

Clearly the organization story refers to is a well regulated militia, which was by law defined as white males ~17-45, which excluded women, slaves, children & retired (50 was the expected life expectancy in 1790). The 'people' were white males 17-45.
And read story's last sentence. He is concerned that indifference to militia service would gradually undermine ALL the protection of the 2ndA, which would make no sense whatsoever if story was speaking of an individual rkba disconnected from militia service.
And, were 2ndA an individual right disconnected from militia service, story would not be worried about keeping 'the people duly armed' in 'some organization', since his point would not make sense were there no militia obligation - the people could be individually armed somehow & in full compliance with 2ndA, damn the militias, hah.

excop: Miller cited a number of other cases that support the individual right, and the right to self defense. State v. Duke(1874)"The arms which every person is secured the right to keep and bear . . must be such arms as are commonly kept, according to the customs of the people, and are appropriate for open and manly use in self-defense, as well as such as are proper for the defense of the State."

Invalid, all of those references by miller do not in any way support any 2ndA individual rkba, they are referencing available arms allowed by states in their STATE constitutions, for reflected support of some kind. The miller court allowed that state's could write their own 'rkbas'; Here in fuller context is 'state v duke'. Note that TEXAS, not the 2ndA, granted the rkba to it's citizens for personal self defense:

texas v geo duke, 1874: .. we pass to the consideration of the 13th Section of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the State {Texas}; which is as follows: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State, under such regulations as the Legislature may prescribe."
There is no recital of the necessity of a well-regulated militia, as there is in the corresponding {2ndA} clause in the Conmstitution of the US . The arms which every person is secured the right to keep and bear (in the defense of himself or the State, subject to legislative regulation), must be such arms as are commonly kept, according to the customs of the people, and are appropriate for open and manly use in self-defense, as well as such as are proper for the defense of the State.

excop: People v. Brown, (Mich. 1931) ("The protection of the Constitution is not limited to militiamen nor military purposes, in terms, but extends to "every person" to bear arms for the "defense of himself" as well as of the State.&quot ;

The michigan court is referring to michigan's constitution, not the US constitution 2ndA. So again your point is invalid, in that miller was not referring to any individual right conferred by 2ndA.
Michigan's rkba: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state

excop: Fife v. State, Ark.(1876) "It is manifest from the language of the article {2ndA} , that the arms which it guarantees American citizens the right to keep and to bear, are such as are needful to, and ordinarily used by a well regulated militia, and such as are necessary and suitable to a free people, to enable them to resist oppression, prevent usurpation, repel invasion, etc., etc.".

No idea what you're trying to prove here, note the underlined in para above. This comports well with my point of view, not yours, imo. Please elucidate.

excop: These cases are all cited by Miller and support the conclusion of Miller .. Nowhere did it indicate that it was a collective right instead of an individual right, and no amount of revisionist editing will change that.

Nowhere?????: Miller ruling, 1939: "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union'.... With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration anguarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

NOWHERE????: april love/pepersack/1995: .. the {2nd} amendment does not confer an absolute individual right to bear any type of firearm. In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." United States v. Miller,(1939). Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the 2nd Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndcourt/federal/3fed.htm

excop: These cases are all cited by Miller and support the conclusion of Miller, which was a sawed off shotgun, having no relation to arms used in the military service, was not protected {by 2ndA}. Nowhere did it indicate that it was a collective right instead of an individual right, and no amount of revisionist editing will change that.

Revisionist editing? you've a lot of nerve since your whole argument is revisionist history; but it matters nowt coming from a clear disciple of the 2nd Amendment Mythology Bible.
.. re your 3 cases, I see what you're driving at but it's an invalid red herring; simply because the 3 courts (might've) agreed in principle with miller - that only certain firearms were allowable for well reg'd militias - does not mean the courts concurrently felt that 2ndA was thus an individual rkba - by some kind of convoluted dialectic reasoning - that is absurd.
.. the 3 courts may have agreed with the principle that a sawed off shotgun was not necessary for the maintenance of a well reg'd militia, but this is just supportive opinion prior to the miller case, & anything else the 3 cases might infer apparently have no bearing on the miller decision.
I don't even understand why you cite them, they don't argue for an individual 2ndA interpretation, just for state's rkbas, which might convey individual rights.
Except for fife: .. you cited 'fife v arkansas' - here is the final disposition of the case, and it clearly supports that of the miller collective militia view, per the state of arkansas.

fife v ark.: The indications in the evidence are, that the plaintiff {fife} in error was carrying a pistol of that class or character intended to be prohibited by the {arkansas} Legislature, and which we think may be prohibited, in the exercise of the police power of the State without any infringement of the constitutional right of the citizens of the State to keep and bear arms for their common defense. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndcourt/state/130st.htm

Arkansas at the time, 1876, clearly granted a militia based rkba:.. present Constitution of this {arkansas} State, declares that: "The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense."