Really, really dumb

On 1/11/2020 7:37 PM, John B. wrote:

And as I previously wrote the bulk of the AR-15/M-16 shooters are
people who never used the weapon in earnest.

And would pee their pants if put in the situation for which the gun was
originally designed.

Not that I blame them. I'm very happy I never had to get in that
situation. But I don't pretend to be Rambo in my spare time.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 9:07:07 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:38 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:43:59 -0800 (PST), pH wrote:

snip

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for use in a well-regulated state militia. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited the states from taking away your gun, cutting off your testicles or doing basically anything it wanted.

The only reasons the states can't rip your gun out of your cold dead hands is because of the Fourteenth Amendment and the conclusion by some farting old white judges that gun ownership is a "fundamental right." The word "gun" or "arms" does not appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. Activist judges! AOC is right and a leading olde-tyme conservative strict constructionist!

-- Jay Beattie

I always wondered where Constitutional authority for the draft comes from.
Isn't it sort of like forced servitude, ie: slavery?

Not trying to be incendiary, just curious.

pH in Aptos

If I am not mistaken the constitution provides the authorization for
the Congress to "raise and support Armies" and I believe that the
Supreme court ruled ( in 1918 I believe) that "the power of Congress
to classify and conscript manpower for military service is beyond
question".



It was 'questioned' by some chunk of the citizenry who
turned out for the draft riots in 1863.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


In times of national emergencies many of the rights in the Constitution can be temporarily suspended. The draft was instituted four times in the history of the US starting in the War of 1812. The latest ran from 1940 to 1973. This means that it was a year and a half before Pearl Harbor so Churchill managed to convince Roosevelt that it was coming.

That it was extended through Korea and Vietnam is curious.

Well, the question is really one of federal power versus individual liberty. You don't have a right not to be drafted. You have a right not to be a slave, and you have the right to due process before being deprived of your liberty, but you don't have a right not to be drafted. Why, because some old white farts said so. I love the 13th Amendment ipse dixit analysis:

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/

Okey-dokey! (turning head, coughing .. . lilting strains of "Over There" rising in the background).

In the Selective Draft Law cases, the big issue was whether there was Constitutional authority for the draft, which there is (somewhere between the lines) -- although it is questionable in peace time, but that's just a matter of definition.

-- Jay Beattie.

Since "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were enumerated very
early on in the document as part of our UNALIENABLE rights...that is, cannot be taken away, even if we wanted.
So I always wondered how there could be a death penalty if the right to life
were unalienable and on to the draft question as well.

I know, very simplistic thinking on my part. And there certainly is a death
penalty and the draft so....well, I'm way too old to be drafted now anyway.

Thank-you to you and John B. for responding to my question and I'll go read the 13th amendment

pH in Aptos

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 17:51:36 -0800 (PST), pH wrote:

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 4:36:19 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 2:48:05 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 9:07:07 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:38 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:43:59 -0800 (PST), pH wrote:

snip

There is no right to own a gun in the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for use in a well-regulated state militia. Nothing in the Constitution prohibited the states from taking away your gun, cutting off your testicles or doing basically anything it wanted.

The only reasons the states can't rip your gun out of your cold dead hands is because of the Fourteenth Amendment and the conclusion by some farting old white judges that gun ownership is a "fundamental right." The word "gun" or "arms" does not appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. Activist judges! AOC is right and a leading olde-tyme conservative strict constructionist!

-- Jay Beattie

I always wondered where Constitutional authority for the draft comes from.
Isn't it sort of like forced servitude, ie: slavery?

Not trying to be incendiary, just curious.

pH in Aptos

If I am not mistaken the constitution provides the authorization for
the Congress to "raise and support Armies" and I believe that the
Supreme court ruled ( in 1918 I believe) that "the power of Congress
to classify and conscript manpower for military service is beyond
question".



It was 'questioned' by some chunk of the citizenry who
turned out for the draft riots in 1863.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


In times of national emergencies many of the rights in the Constitution can be temporarily suspended. The draft was instituted four times in the history of the US starting in the War of 1812. The latest ran from 1940 to 1973. This means that it was a year and a half before Pearl Harbor so Churchill managed to convince Roosevelt that it was coming.

That it was extended through Korea and Vietnam is curious.

Well, the question is really one of federal power versus individual liberty. You don't have a right not to be drafted. You have a right not to be a slave, and you have the right to due process before being deprived of your liberty, but you don't have a right not to be drafted. Why, because some old white farts said so. I love the 13th Amendment ipse dixit analysis:

"Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/245/366/

Okey-dokey! (turning head, coughing .. . lilting strains of "Over There" rising in the background).

In the Selective Draft Law cases, the big issue was whether there was Constitutional authority for the draft, which there is (somewhere between the lines) -- although it is questionable in peace time, but that's just a matter of definition.

-- Jay Beattie.

Since "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were enumerated very
early on in the document as part of our UNALIENABLE rights...that is, cannot be taken away, even if we wanted.
So I always wondered how there could be a death penalty if the right to life
were unalienable and on to the draft question as well.

I know, very simplistic thinking on my part. And there certainly is a death
penalty and the draft so....well, I'm way too old to be drafted now anyway.

Thank-you to you and John B. for responding to my question and I'll go read the 13th amendment

pH in Aptos

Your theory would also negate prison sentences but I doubt that was
the intent of the Constitution :-)

But to answer your "draft" query, not everyone that is drafted serves
in a combat zone, or if in a combat zone in actual combat. The ratio
of support personnel to those serving in actual shooting combat is in
the range of 10 to 1.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 20:07:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/11/2020 7:37 PM, John B. wrote:

And as I previously wrote the bulk of the AR-15/M-16 shooters are
people who never used the weapon in earnest.

And would pee their pants if put in the situation for which the gun was
originally designed.

Not that I blame them. I'm very happy I never had to get in that
situation. But I don't pretend to be Rambo in my spare time.

Two of the most popular Computer games are League of Legends, which is
a multiplayer online battle arena and Grand Theft Auto V, so obviously
a great many people DO preteen to be Rambo, or some other "super man".

But perhaps this aggressiveness is a normal part of human nature.
After all, kids of my generation played "Cowboys and Indians" :-)
Which is rather puzzling as when the chance to actually be a Rambo a
number scuttled away to foreign countries to avoid it.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 10:50:58 PM UTC, wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 10:46:31 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed
to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for
_any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will
have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/



Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15
instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured
mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more
impact. It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at
all a sturmgewehr.

So, back to my question: Give them to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



In my youth, grammar school age boys brought rifles to school in hunting
season, picked up by their fathers in the remains of daylight. Nothing
notable ever happened.

Yes. But somehow those hunters managed without having to spray a dozen
rounds into a rabbit or a deer within a few seconds. I'd be embarrassed
to say I needed that capability for hunting.

But back to my question: Give AR-15s to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?


--
- Frank Krygowski

If you've never hunted don't make yourself look like a fool. Semiautos make it easy to take a second shot if necessary. We save "spraying shots all over the place" for you.

I grew up with people who'd turn up for a weekend's hunting with a handful of bullets, literally five. What they fired at they killed, one shot, running springbok (maybe 12in high) at 500 yards, one shot. And they were shooting with Lee-Enfield .303s their grandfathers or fathers took off the British during the Anglo-Boer War at the cusp of the 19th/20th centuries, rifles you could not give away to Americans back when I was a boy, never mind today.

People who need genuine automatic arms (which is what is Franki-boy's mind when he says "semiautomatic") shouldn't call themselves hunters. And those who don't know the difference shouldn't pontificate.

Andre Jute
One of the many cases where inexact definitions can be terminal

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 12:36:19 AM UTC, jbeattie wrote:

In the Selective Draft Law cases, the big issue was whether there was Constitutional authority for the draft, which there is (somewhere between the lines) -- although it is questionable in peace time, but that's just a matter of definition.

-- Jay Beattie.

I see the existential case for conscription in time of a war declared by the proper body tasked with declaring war, Congress. But for undeclared wars carried on by the President on some elderly, tenuous authority?

I just mention that for intellectual completeness. It actually seems to me a moot question, as the modern American armed forces are so technically demanding that conscription would have to be very extended to train the recruits to usefulness.

Andre Jute
Not your Dad's Army

On 1/11/2020 12:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed
to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for
_any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will
have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/



Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15
instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured
mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more
impact. It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at
all a sturmgewehr.

So, back to my question: Give them to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



In my youth, grammar school age boys brought rifles to
school in hunting season, picked up by their fathers in
the remains of daylight. Nothing notable ever happened.

Yes. But somehow those hunters managed without having to
spray a dozen rounds into a rabbit or a deer within a few
seconds. I'd be embarrassed to say I needed that capability
for hunting.

But back to my question: Give AR-15s to kids? All kids? Or
just the ones fixated on first person shoot-em-up games? Or
what?



'spray' ? utter nonsense. You watch too much CGI television.

My employee's son has been shooting targets with an AR since
age 9, my two grandsons from age 12. AR-15 is the most
common firearm in USA. Lightweight, easy to operate, simple
to clean. Standardization=popularity makes understanding the
AR-15 a very useful skill. I think most preteens would find
an M1 Garand heavy.

BTW firearm homicides used to run around 7 per 100K 40 years
ago it's now something like 3.5 per 100,000 people (compare
hospital-acquired infection deaths at 10 per 100,000, about
as many as car crashes now). This while firearm ownership
rates have soared; after 2009 more than one per human in
USA. Actual numbers don't support breathless hyperbole or panic.



--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/11/2020 5:34 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:02:37 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for _any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/

Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15 instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more impact.
It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at all a
sturmgewehr.

Yes, it is a small caliber weapon but there seems to be an implication
that "small" is somehow not dangerous and one of the design parameters
of the original AR-15, from which the 223 Remington cartridge descends
required the penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards.


It is amazingly popular and thus has staggeringly large
selections of variants, options, support, parts, ammo and so
on at very low prices. What it doesn't have is magic;
neither good nor evil mojo.

You fail to mention that modification of the AR-15 to convert the
weapon to a fully automatic weapon also is a common practice. So
common, in fact, that Amazon even sells a manual of instructions for
doing so. See:
https://www.amazon.com/Full-Auto-Ar-.../dp/9991697322


Yes, it's mechanically simple to convert to full-auto, just
like the M1911A1 pistol, and equally illegal. While almost
every bar has a dice game, almost every neighborhood has a
dope dealer or two, almost every freeway runs at well over
the posted limit, it's surprising that there are not more
illegal full-auto weapons. Yet they are vanishingly rare.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/11/2020 5:48 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 3:34:31 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 11:02:37 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:

Tell us all what happens to any state that bans the
ownership of weapons.

No state ever has. It's a right wing fantasy.


Mexico does.

You're allowed to have weapons in Mexico. You're allowed to have
weapons in every other nation on earth.

But no nation on earth allows _all_ types of weapons for _any_ people.
Even though when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/10/mexico...everal-others/

Maybe they just "need better laws".

The alternative is ... what? Give the kid an AR-15 instead? That
doesn't seem to work well here.


I find it interesting that AR-15's seem to be treasured mainly by
those who never had to carry them in earnest. :-)


An AR-15 is a small-caliber semi. Doesn't fire any faster
than a revolver. Or a 30.06 M1, which has a lot more impact.
It's not a 'military' weapon, and certainly not at all a
sturmgewehr.

Yes, it is a small caliber weapon but there seems to be an implication
that "small" is somehow not dangerous and one of the design parameters
of the original AR-15, from which the 223 Remington cartridge descends
required the penetration of .135" steel plate at 500 yards.


It is amazingly popular and thus has staggeringly large
selections of variants, options, support, parts, ammo and so
on at very low prices. What it doesn't have is magic;
neither good nor evil mojo.

You fail to mention that modification of the AR-15 to convert the
weapon to a fully automatic weapon also is a common practice. So
common, in fact, that Amazon even sells a manual of instructions for
doing so. See:
https://www.amazon.com/Full-Auto-Ar-.../dp/9991697322

John, explain to everyone here what hollow point ammunition will penetrate an 1/8th in of steel.


There are a wide range of points and jackets in .223 and
..556, none of which have the punch of an AR-10 in .762.

My point was merely that an AR-15 is not used by any
military because it's unsuitable for that purpose.

Regarding 'small caliber', it was true for a long while and
may be still be (haven't checked) that .22 is the most
common round in firearms deaths. Small isn't less lethal
necessarily.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 1/11/2020 6:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 14:50:56 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 10:46:31 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 11:16 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/11/2020 12:02 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/10/2020 10:08 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 19:45:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:54:54 PM UTC-5, AMuzi
On 1/10/2020 5:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/10/2020 1:08 PM, wrote:


-snip snip snip-

And as I previously wrote the bulk of the AR-15/M-16 shooters are
people who never used the weapon in earnest.


And we all share some gratitude at that situation.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971