Really, really dumb

On 1/12/2020 9:07 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 19:43:35 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 7:07 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 18:18:26 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 5:37 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:15:59 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

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.

I'm not sure about "vanishingly rare" as the parts necessary to
convert an AR-15 to full auto are sold openly and while granted there
is a small amount of machining necessary to make them fit it is still
a pretty simple task and I can only assume that if they are commonly
sold then someone is buying them.


They're not 'sold openly' in any significant numbers. Some
pre-1981 parts exist but are rare, hence very very
expensive[1]. In the instant case from last autumn, the
'seller' was ATF, the 'customers' were in deep doodoo and
the auto sears didn't actually exist. An auto sear alone

see: https://www.brownells.com/search/ind...=m16+auto+sear
for parts and the machining of the lower receiver shell is a rather
simple operation

needs a separate serial number and a $200 ATF tax stamp once
you acquire the machine gun FFL which is no small thing.

Theoretically, I'm with you. Out here in the real world, not
so much.

[1] the going rate for a bit of metal easily enclosed in
your hand is $8000 &up. Your average putz could make one but
again your average putz doesn't. Full auto used in crimes
are almost always military issue, stolen/hijacked by gangs
who have their own people inside our armories.

Criminals are usually not the most mechanically inclined individuals
so I would assume that no, they aren't converting weapons to full
auto. I believe that some of the Baddies of the 1030's had one or more
M1911's converted to full automatic but from the description they
simply fired an entire magazine with one pull of the trigger, which is
a common failing of the 1911 :-)
https://www.guns.com/news/2012/09/26...machine-pistol
http://sightm1911.com/1911pix/historic/DILLINGER.htm
--
cheers,

John B.


re your Brownell's link-
Completing an 80% receiver or pistol frame casting is simple
machining. I've actually done that with no troubles in a
couple of hours. Completely legal BTW, unlike manufacture or
mere possession of an auto sear, whether it's installed or not.

Ah, but from what I read on the Net there are people who are modifying
the guns. I think I remember a guy on rec.crafts.metalworking that was
modifying receivers and, again from memory, had a number of people
wanting him to modify theirs or provide a modified bottom half. And
no, nobody discussed how to install the required new parts either...
But why else would one want to modify the receiver half? :-)

I might add that yes, I have qualified with the M-16 and frankly I
would have to be pretty desperate to own one in place of a more normal
rifle. The full auto rate is extremely fast, so fast that it takes
quite some time to get used to it in order to be able to fire
controlled bursts of 2 or 3 rounds. As I told one guy at the range,
"if you just want to make noise buy Chinese firecrackers in those long
strings and set them off - about the same rate of fire as the M-16"
:-)
--
cheers,

John B.


Agreed.
Out here in America, a land where people disregard various
laws to some high frequency, there just aren't very many
illegal full autos and their use in crime is spectacularly rare.

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

On 1/12/2020 10:47 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:46:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I'm not panicking. But unlike the NRA and its current (as opposed to
historic) members, I don't think it's a good thing to arm millions of
citizens with guns designed specifically for killing other people. Most
of the developed world agrees.

But Frank, every type of firearm invented in the history of the weapon
can be said to be designed for killing people. The modern bolt action
rifle is a descendent of the so called "Needle Rifle" developed in
1836, and adopted by the Prussian Army in 1841. The first "lever
action" rifle, an American classic, was developed by Benjamin Tyler
Henry. Patented in 1960 it was in the hand of Union Soldiers by mid
1862.

I think it's always been true that warfare has driven technology, and I
don't doubt that bolt action (for example) was developed with military
use in mind. But bolt action is far more practical for legitimate
civilian use than its predecessor systems. Hunters or target shooters
benefit greatly from not having to load through the muzzle.

The AR-15 style has characteristic features that have no reasonable use
in hunting or ordinary target competition. Who needs the designed-in
ability to accept a 30 (or even 100) round magazine? This style of gun
was _specifically_ designed for killing people. Its design was optimized
for that purpose. It's why it exists.

There are many guns optimized for more civilized uses - shotguns
optimized for hunting birds, long range hunting rifles for elk at 1000
yards, ordinary hunting rifles (like a Ruger 10/22 for example),
competition target rifles, ordinary 0.22s that are good at tin cans, etc.

You mentioned bows and arrows. But the bows sold in sporting goods
stores near me were never designed with homicide or armed combat in
mind. The AR-15 absolutely was.

And I think the sales of this style of gun are driven to a large extent
by Rambo fantasies - or fantasies about defending one's home from
government agents who will come to rip all your guns out of your hands.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 1/12/2020 11:12 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Sunday, 12 January 2020 22:47:17 UTC-5, John B. wrote:


As I have repeatedly said, guns don't kill people, people kill people.


And, "Gun control is hitting what you're aiming at". I also like the saying that it's better to have a gun and never need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Sir, you live in Canada, a country with reasonable gun laws. How is that
working out for you and your city?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 1:15:06 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/12/2020 2:06 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 7:51 PM, 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


Sidestepping your question, the US Army finds most
_volunteer_ recruits unsuitable, physically or
intellectually. Besides no current draft, it's unlikely,
given the military's necessary standards, that it will
return any time soon.


As time goes on fewer and fewer ground troops are required and the military already can't use what they have. So they keep them in reserve in case they were ever to find a reason to use them that a cruise missile would fix a lot cheaper and more rapidly. The only reason that Seal Team 6 actually took out Ben Laden was to positively identify him.


There's that but there are things missiles/drones/artillery
just cannot do. Fewer yes, but more highly skilled in
narrower areas.

Plus there's the ratio of tooth to tail- you need a lot of
guys moving fuel, wrenching etc (support= cute term 'beans
bullets and band-aids') to run a tank sortie for example.
The not-obvious support areas (GPS, communication, target
identification, data security and so on) are more important
every year.

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

Just like a Drone replaces a fighter squadron, automated tanks are not just on the horizon but are being perfected. We now have almost total coverage against missiles but I cannot delve into classified subjects. Eventually American soldiers will be sitting at keyboards and be judged by their typing speeds.

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:14:50 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 2:06 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 7:51 PM, 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


Sidestepping your question, the US Army finds most
_volunteer_ recruits unsuitable, physically or
intellectually. Besides no current draft, it's unlikely,
given the military's necessary standards, that it will
return any time soon.


As time goes on fewer and fewer ground troops are required and the military already can't use what they have. So they keep them in reserve in case they were ever to find a reason to use them that a cruise missile would fix a lot cheaper and more rapidly. The only reason that Seal Team 6 actually took out Ben Laden was to positively identify him.


There's that but there are things missiles/drones/artillery
just cannot do. Fewer yes, but more highly skilled in
narrower areas.

Plus there's the ratio of tooth to tail- you need a lot of
guys moving fuel, wrenching etc (support= cute term 'beans
bullets and band-aids') to run a tank sortie for example.
The not-obvious support areas (GPS, communication, target
identification, data security and so on) are more important
every year.

I think that the theory of "modern warfare" requiring fewer troops has
been in fashion, probably since the Romans defeated Carthage, but
other than Rome's solution to the "Carthage problem" "feet on the
ground" has been required to maintain effective control of conquered
territory.
--
cheers,

John B.

In case you've missed this boat as well - the US doesn't conquer territory.

On Monday, January 13, 2020 at 11:50:33 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:14:50 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 2:06 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 7:51 PM, 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


Sidestepping your question, the US Army finds most
_volunteer_ recruits unsuitable, physically or
intellectually. Besides no current draft, it's unlikely,
given the military's necessary standards, that it will
return any time soon.


As time goes on fewer and fewer ground troops are required and the military already can't use what they have. So they keep them in reserve in case they were ever to find a reason to use them that a cruise missile would fix a lot cheaper and more rapidly. The only reason that Seal Team 6 actually took out Ben Laden was to positively identify him.


There's that but there are things missiles/drones/artillery
just cannot do. Fewer yes, but more highly skilled in
narrower areas.

Plus there's the ratio of tooth to tail- you need a lot of
guys moving fuel, wrenching etc (support= cute term 'beans
bullets and band-aids') to run a tank sortie for example.
The not-obvious support areas (GPS, communication, target
identification, data security and so on) are more important
every year.

I think that the theory of "modern warfare" requiring fewer troops has
been in fashion, probably since the Romans defeated Carthage, but
other than Rome's solution to the "Carthage problem" "feet on the
ground" has been required to maintain effective control of conquered
territory.
--
cheers,

John B.

In case you've missed this boat as well - the US doesn't conquer territory.

I will say this - ONLY on .tech would I make a posting that you guys are a lot smarter than most of the other bicycle forums and get arguments saying that you are too as dumb as anyone.

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:50:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:14:50 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 2:06 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 7:51 PM, 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


Sidestepping your question, the US Army finds most
_volunteer_ recruits unsuitable, physically or
intellectually. Besides no current draft, it's unlikely,
given the military's necessary standards, that it will
return any time soon.


As time goes on fewer and fewer ground troops are required and the military already can't use what they have. So they keep them in reserve in case they were ever to find a reason to use them that a cruise missile would fix a lot cheaper and more rapidly. The only reason that Seal Team 6 actually took out Ben Laden was to positively identify him.


There's that but there are things missiles/drones/artillery
just cannot do. Fewer yes, but more highly skilled in
narrower areas.

Plus there's the ratio of tooth to tail- you need a lot of
guys moving fuel, wrenching etc (support= cute term 'beans
bullets and band-aids') to run a tank sortie for example.
The not-obvious support areas (GPS, communication, target
identification, data security and so on) are more important
every year.

I think that the theory of "modern warfare" requiring fewer troops has
been in fashion, probably since the Romans defeated Carthage, but
other than Rome's solution to the "Carthage problem" "feet on the
ground" has been required to maintain effective control of conquered
territory.
--
cheers,

John B.

In case you've missed this boat as well - the US doesn't conquer territory.

I guess it depends on what you call "conquer", doesn't? Lets see...

In 1776 the embryo U.S. seized the territory of a foreign government
and established an illegal government on said territory and in 1812
they successfully defended this theft.

Then in 1861 the northern half of said country did invade and conquer
the southern half, replacing the existing government and destroying
the existing economy.

In 1898 the U.S. attacked Spain and seized Spanish territories in the
Pacific Region a portion of which they retain to this day.

In 1917 the U.S. unilaterally declared war on Germany, a country that
had never conducted military actions against the U.S. and lost 100,000
men. Then, with the other conquering nations, imposed such extremely
punitive economic sanctions on Germany that they may be said to have
caused, or been the underlying cause, of WW II.

In 1945 they defeated their enemy Japan and established a military
government headed by an army general to govern the country.

After the U.S. - Japan war the U.S. seized control of the southern
portion of Korea and established a military government there.

In 1955 the U.S. refusing to agree to the U.N. mandated agreement to
allow Vietnam to determine their own form of government by plebiscite
and installed a puppet governor and seized effective control of the
southern portion of the country. It might be mentioned that this
resulted in what was, undoubtedly the most politically damaging war
that the U.S. ever engaged in.

I can go on, if you wish....
--
cheers,

John B.

On 1/13/2020 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:50:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:14:50 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 2:06 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 7:51 PM, 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


Sidestepping your question, the US Army finds most
_volunteer_ recruits unsuitable, physically or
intellectually. Besides no current draft, it's unlikely,
given the military's necessary standards, that it will
return any time soon.


As time goes on fewer and fewer ground troops are required and the military already can't use what they have. So they keep them in reserve in case they were ever to find a reason to use them that a cruise missile would fix a lot cheaper and more rapidly. The only reason that Seal Team 6 actually took out Ben Laden was to positively identify him.


There's that but there are things missiles/drones/artillery
just cannot do. Fewer yes, but more highly skilled in
narrower areas.

Plus there's the ratio of tooth to tail- you need a lot of
guys moving fuel, wrenching etc (support= cute term 'beans
bullets and band-aids') to run a tank sortie for example.
The not-obvious support areas (GPS, communication, target
identification, data security and so on) are more important
every year.

I think that the theory of "modern warfare" requiring fewer troops has
been in fashion, probably since the Romans defeated Carthage, but
other than Rome's solution to the "Carthage problem" "feet on the
ground" has been required to maintain effective control of conquered
territory.
--
cheers,

John B.

In case you've missed this boat as well - the US doesn't conquer territory.

I guess it depends on what you call "conquer", doesn't? Lets see...

In 1776 the embryo U.S. seized the territory of a foreign government
and established an illegal government on said territory and in 1812
they successfully defended this theft.

Then in 1861 the northern half of said country did invade and conquer
the southern half, replacing the existing government and destroying
the existing economy.

In 1898 the U.S. attacked Spain and seized Spanish territories in the
Pacific Region a portion of which they retain to this day.

In 1917 the U.S. unilaterally declared war on Germany, a country that
had never conducted military actions against the U.S. and lost 100,000
men. Then, with the other conquering nations, imposed such extremely
punitive economic sanctions on Germany that they may be said to have
caused, or been the underlying cause, of WW II.

In 1945 they defeated their enemy Japan and established a military
government headed by an army general to govern the country.

After the U.S. - Japan war the U.S. seized control of the southern
portion of Korea and established a military government there.

In 1955 the U.S. refusing to agree to the U.N. mandated agreement to
allow Vietnam to determine their own form of government by plebiscite
and installed a puppet governor and seized effective control of the
southern portion of the country. It might be mentioned that this
resulted in what was, undoubtedly the most politically damaging war
that the U.S. ever engaged in.

I can go on, if you wish....
--
cheers,

John B.


nice summary of Leonard Zinn if not Chairman Xi himself.

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

On 1/13/2020 6:32 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:50:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 2:35:24 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 15:14:50 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 1/12/2020 2:06 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 9:53:24 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/11/2020 7:51 PM, 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


Sidestepping your question, the US Army finds most
_volunteer_ recruits unsuitable, physically or
intellectually. Besides no current draft, it's unlikely,
given the military's necessary standards, that it will
return any time soon.


As time goes on fewer and fewer ground troops are required and the military already can't use what they have. So they keep them in reserve in case they were ever to find a reason to use them that a cruise missile would fix a lot cheaper and more rapidly. The only reason that Seal Team 6 actually took out Ben Laden was to positively identify him.


There's that but there are things missiles/drones/artillery
just cannot do. Fewer yes, but more highly skilled in
narrower areas.

Plus there's the ratio of tooth to tail- you need a lot of
guys moving fuel, wrenching etc (support= cute term 'beans
bullets and band-aids') to run a tank sortie for example.
The not-obvious support areas (GPS, communication, target
identification, data security and so on) are more important
every year.

I think that the theory of "modern warfare" requiring fewer troops has
been in fashion, probably since the Romans defeated Carthage, but
other than Rome's solution to the "Carthage problem" "feet on the
ground" has been required to maintain effective control of conquered
territory.
--
cheers,

John B.

In case you've missed this boat as well - the US doesn't conquer territory.

I guess it depends on what you call "conquer", doesn't? Lets see...

In 1776 the embryo U.S. seized the territory of a foreign government
and established an illegal government on said territory and in 1812
they successfully defended this theft.

Then in 1861 the northern half of said country did invade and conquer
the southern half, replacing the existing government and destroying
the existing economy.

In 1898 the U.S. attacked Spain and seized Spanish territories in the
Pacific Region a portion of which they retain to this day.

In 1917 the U.S. unilaterally declared war on Germany, a country that
had never conducted military actions against the U.S. and lost 100,000
men. Then, with the other conquering nations, imposed such extremely
punitive economic sanctions on Germany that they may be said to have
caused, or been the underlying cause, of WW II.

In 1945 they defeated their enemy Japan and established a military
government headed by an army general to govern the country.

After the U.S. - Japan war the U.S. seized control of the southern
portion of Korea and established a military government there.

In 1955 the U.S. refusing to agree to the U.N. mandated agreement to
allow Vietnam to determine their own form of government by plebiscite
and installed a puppet governor and seized effective control of the
southern portion of the country. It might be mentioned that this
resulted in what was, undoubtedly the most politically damaging war
that the U.S. ever engaged in.

I can go on, if you wish....
--
cheers,

John B.


apologies I meant Howard Zinn
(& apologies to the more civilized Leonard)

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

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 11:31:49 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 1/12/2020 10:47 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:46:37 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


I'm not panicking. But unlike the NRA and its current (as opposed to
historic) members, I don't think it's a good thing to arm millions of
citizens with guns designed specifically for killing other people. Most
of the developed world agrees.

But Frank, every type of firearm invented in the history of the weapon
can be said to be designed for killing people. The modern bolt action
rifle is a descendent of the so called "Needle Rifle" developed in
1836, and adopted by the Prussian Army in 1841. The first "lever
action" rifle, an American classic, was developed by Benjamin Tyler
Henry. Patented in 1960 it was in the hand of Union Soldiers by mid
1862.

I think it's always been true that warfare has driven technology, and I
don't doubt that bolt action (for example) was developed with military
use in mind. But bolt action is far more practical for legitimate
civilian use than its predecessor systems. Hunters or target shooters
benefit greatly from not having to load through the muzzle.

The AR-15 style has characteristic features that have no reasonable use
in hunting or ordinary target competition. Who needs the designed-in
ability to accept a 30 (or even 100) round magazine? This style of gun
was _specifically_ designed for killing people. Its design was optimized
for that purpose. It's why it exists.

There are many guns optimized for more civilized uses - shotguns
optimized for hunting birds, long range hunting rifles for elk at 1000
yards, ordinary hunting rifles (like a Ruger 10/22 for example),
competition target rifles, ordinary 0.22s that are good at tin cans, etc.


Err... the lowly .22 was the weapon of choice of the Israeli Wrath of
God operatives to destroy the Black September terrorists.

You mentioned bows and arrows. But the bows sold in sporting goods
stores near me were never designed with homicide or armed combat in
mind. The AR-15 absolutely was.

Why do you say that? Do you imagine that modern self bows and arrows
are significantly different from the war bows and arrows of, oh say,
the battle of Crecy?

Frank, you are grasping at straws. I will repeat, "every type of
firearm invented in the history of the weapon can be said to be
designed for killing people" and I believe that history will bear me
out.

Disregarding the Chinese who apparently used gunpowder devices as
weapons before the current era the first known use of a firearm in
Europe was in 1364 and by 1380 firearms were common throughout Europe.
As weapons.

To argue that a bolt action rifle is "far more practical for
legitimate civilian use than its predecessor systems" is simply
rationalizing the fact that it was designed as a war weapon and in its
time was as innovative as the AR-15. The Henry rifle was capable of
firing 15 times without reloading and at, perhaps, 5 or 10 times the
rate of fire of the more commonly used muzzle loading Springfield
rifle. Similar in that respect to today's assault rifles.

And I think the sales of this style of gun are driven to a large extent
by Rambo fantasies - or fantasies about defending one's home from
government agents who will come to rip all your guns out of your hands.

I am not going to get into that discussion except to say that in the
late 1800's and early 1900's the activities of western shooters was
widely publicized in popular literature. Perhaps "Ramboism" in one
form or another is a normal facet of the human male.
--
cheers,

John B.