If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Hey, look: a $369 modification that lets your AR-15 fire 900 rounds a minute. You know, for hunting   (slate.com) divider line 582
    More: Interesting, assault weapons ban, semi-automatic rifle, National Firearms Act, trigger fingers  
•       •       •

16485 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jan 2013 at 11:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



582 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 10:48:31 AM  

Surpheon: Adam Lanza's mom was intentionally criminal when she stockpiled military grade hardware and didn't properly secure it from her crazy son?


I thought she had a couple handguns, a civilian-grade shotgun, and a civilian-grade rifle. Is that enough for a stockpile?

What military-grade hardware did she have? The news hasn't mentioned any, so I'm assuming you have a source close to the investigation.
 
2013-01-09 10:48:32 AM  

t3knomanser: I don't understand the reasoning that something must be useful in order to be ownable. I own a few firearms. I would never turn them on another human being or animal, not even in self defense (okay, maybe an animal in self defense).

Is there anything inherently wrong with chucking 900 rounds of lead downrange in a controlled environment if that's what you want to do? I think it's incredibly silly, but it's a kind of neat engineering challenge.

The problem with firearms is one of externalities. Firearms create an attractive nuisance- we are all measurably less safe because firearms exist and are common in the US. Between accidents, outlier incidents like mass shootings (which, by population, are exceedingly rare), and crime (which usually doesn't involve legally owned firearms, which makes new laws on the subject difficult).

So let's apply economics to the problem: each firearm carries with it a risk that it is used in a negative fashion. Each negative application carries with it a social cost- deaths, medical bills, public fear, and so on. This gives us a strategy for attacking the problem in a fashion far more nuanced than "2nd Amendment, biatches!" and "Ban (some/most/all) guns!"

A gun tax, for example, would be perfectly reasonable- an assessment at the point of purchase for the total social costs of allowing firearms to be owned. It could be adjusted based on its ability to enact costs- high fire rates and large magazines would be taxed more steeply. Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.

This allows us to restrict access to firearms without taking active steps to ban anything, it allows us to evaluate our measures based on measurable economic values, it creates a new class of charge to be brought against those who use firearms illegally. It addresses things in terms of externalities.


The reasonable solution that will go no where I posted a rant of similar thoughts soon after sandy no bites but like I said a rant, also these a are the no tax preppers that terms to want this shiat
 
2013-01-09 10:53:31 AM  
Based on this data I thought everyone would be more pissed about handguns, knives, and feet/hands than rifles of any type:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in- th e-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
 
2013-01-09 10:55:13 AM  

Bendal: Bullseyed: Fallacy #1: The second amendment is for hunting.

Truth: The second amendment is specifically designed so that if the government does something you don't agree with, you can kill military/government agents and protect your own rights.

Maybe that was true back in the 1700's, but it isn't any longer. Also, the Constitution didn't mandate a standing army; instead, we had a "militia" made up of armed civilians who could be called up to defend the country. Didn't make much sense to have an unarmed militia, now did it?

Except now, we've got two modern and large armies (USArmy and Marines), so the 2nd half of my statement is no longer needed. As for your "truth" statement, it's obsolete now. You can no more "protect your rights" by killing government agents then you could overthrow the government with your weapons.

So, if the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, and any other reason why it exists no longer makes sense, it is no longer needed and should be either abolished or modified to make more sense.


Except the founding fathers didn't envision a limitation on the right per se, they simply intended that the citizenry be armed to protect themselves, their homes, and their countries if needbe.

We may have standing armies, but as recently as the Riots in LA, and Katrina, individual citizens who were armed protected their homes, selves, and communities during times of strife, without aid from police or military.

I hardly see anything antiquated or outdated about the 2nd Amendment, other than wishful thinking on behalf of those who would abducate their responsibilities to a special class of citizen.
 
2013-01-09 10:55:56 AM  

lilbordr: Based on this data I thought everyone would be more pissed about handguns, knives, and feet/hands than rifles of any type:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in- th e-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20


They don't look as scary, and they're not the focus of an organized move to systematically strip citizens of their rights.
 
2013-01-09 10:56:08 AM  

Bendal: Bullseyed: Fallacy #1: The second amendment is for hunting.

Truth: The second amendment is specifically designed so that if the government does something you don't agree with, you can kill military/government agents and protect your own rights.

Maybe that was true back in the 1700's, but it isn't any longer. Also, the Constitution didn't mandate a standing army; instead, we had a "militia" made up of armed civilians who could be called up to defend the country. Didn't make much sense to have an unarmed militia, now did it?

Except now, we've got two modern and large armies (USArmy and Marines), so the 2nd half of my statement is no longer needed. As for your "truth" statement, it's obsolete now. You can no more "protect your rights" by killing government agents then you could overthrow the government with your weapons.

So, if the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, and any other reason why it exists no longer makes sense, it is no longer needed and should be either abolished or modified to make more sense.


How's it going, Hitler?

All of the founding fathers were smart, unlike Democrats today. 2nd amendment is there to keep government from becoming what it is today, tyranny. Read about it. Wait, you gonna outlaw books now Hitler?
 
2013-01-09 10:59:30 AM  

Dinjiin:
I wonder how well some of the cheaper AR-15 clones out there [not manufactured by Colt] hold up.


Late to the game, but FYI, most of the good AR-15's aren't manufactured by Colt, who are generally regarded to be on the lower end of the scale in terms of quality.
 
2013-01-09 11:00:56 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH:
What's not clear?

A well regulated Militia


Won't change the indisputable fact that the right was conferred on THE PEOPLE. And if we substitute contemporary gun laws to be the "regulations" referred to over the "militia" (which is a reference to the general population in the historical context of the legislation - arguably), then we end up in a place where it's not the REGULATIONS that are the problem - as we've seen more "regulation" of the militia won't help. It's the willful actions of people determined to do harm and the efficiency of a gun as a purpose built tool makes it appear as if the problem is GUNS.

IT'S NOT.
 
2013-01-09 11:05:18 AM  

Bendal: Well then, if it was to guarantee that the Federal government had to behave itself or those gun-toting farmers would rise up and overthrow it, then it's 100% obsolete and should be rewritten or eliminated because I don't care how many modified AR-15's you might have, you will be bloody chunks of meat if you try that.


Just save yourself some time and say, "I don't understand how guerrilla warfare works."
 
2013-01-09 11:05:24 AM  
Truth: The second amendment is specifically designed so that if the government does something you don't agree with, you can kill military/government agents and protect your own rights.

Maybe that was true back in the 1700's, but it isn't any longer. Also, the Constitution didn't mandate a standing army; instead, we had a "militia" made up of armed civilians who could be called up to defend the country. Didn't make much sense to have an unarmed militia, now did it?


Oh? Really? How is that not true any longer? Because government would never, ever, become one run by despots, corrupt officials, and tyrants? I have some friends in Syria who would disagree with this belief. Or are you simply saying "this could never happen to us"?

The 2A is in defense of freedom, and is our last line of defense if all else fails. It ensures that at the end, the people will always have a (albeit, bloody, costly, and terrible) option with which to hold their government accountable.

Except now, we've got two modern and large armies (USArmy and Marines), so the 2nd half of my statement is no longer needed. As for your "truth" statement, it's obsolete now. You can no more "protect your rights" by killing government agents then you could overthrow the government with your weapons.


Again, look at Syria. Tanks, plans, missiles, artillery against civilians. 2 years later, the resistance fights on. A determined force armed with just small arms is not as easily defeated as people think. We can look also at vietnam, iraq, afghanistan....

Finally, have you ever had your house broken into while you're at home? I have. Once you have, your view on gun rights quickly changes.
 
2013-01-09 11:06:21 AM  
Where do all the "illegal" guns come from? Didn't all guns start out as legal guns? They're all supposed to be registered and accounted for by the responible gun owners, right? Given all the rhetoric about gun lovers keeping their weapons safely stowed and responsibley kept...how do these guns become illegal?

Stolen?

Unquestionably I'm missing something patently obvious.
 
2013-01-09 11:06:22 AM  

juvandy: Hyperbole much?



The 'feral hogs' thing is one of those Fark in-jokes meant to have a little fun at one guy's expense. Think of it as this month's "NIXON YOU DOLT".
 
2013-01-09 11:06:47 AM  

Bendal: Bullseyed: Fallacy #1: The second amendment is for hunting.

Truth: The second amendment is specifically designed so that if the government does something you don't agree with, you can kill military/government agents and protect your own rights.

Maybe that was true back in the 1700's, but it isn't any longer. Also, the Constitution didn't mandate a standing army; instead, we had a "militia" made up of armed civilians who could be called up to defend the country. Didn't make much sense to have an unarmed militia, now did it?

Except now, we've got two modern and large armies (USArmy and Marines), so the 2nd half of my statement is no longer needed. As for your "truth" statement, it's obsolete now. You can no more "protect your rights" by killing government agents then you could overthrow the government with your weapons.

So, if the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, and any other reason why it exists no longer makes sense, it is no longer needed and should be either abolished or modified to make more sense.


Thank you for weighing in on this subject. Clearly this 200 year old constitution should be trashed in order to take away our ability to use 100 year old firearm technology. Hopefully this peace that has been shattered can be restored.
 
2013-01-09 11:14:04 AM  

Thunderpipes: Now it is 10 round magazines.

Then used in a crime, we have to go to 5 round magazines.

Then used in a crime, single shot only.

Etc.....

My M1A will be illegal soon. Lee Enfield will probably be illegal soon. Then the Garand. Then my K98 (5 shot internal magazine, bolt action). Then the 1911. Then the revolver.

This is the plan folks. Make no mistake. Hopefully it costs your team a whole lot of votes. Because, it will do absolutely nothing to stop crime in the first place.


And then, like England, swords will become illegal. Then knives, then baseball bats. Then probably small kittens with sharp teeth
 
2013-01-09 11:16:43 AM  

MythDragon: Thunderpipes: Now it is 10 round magazines.

Then used in a crime, we have to go to 5 round magazines.

Then used in a crime, single shot only.

Etc.....

My M1A will be illegal soon. Lee Enfield will probably be illegal soon. Then the Garand. Then my K98 (5 shot internal magazine, bolt action). Then the 1911. Then the revolver.

This is the plan folks. Make no mistake. Hopefully it costs your team a whole lot of votes. Because, it will do absolutely nothing to stop crime in the first place.

And then, like England, swords will become illegal. Then knives, then baseball bats. Then probably small kittens with sharp teeth


Yep. "The Greater Good" has often been used to justify all sorts of tyranny and abominable behaviour.
 
2013-01-09 11:17:14 AM  
Why stop at 900 rounds per minute? Sounds much deadlier to say 54,000 bullets per hour!
 
2013-01-09 11:18:40 AM  
old ass news tbh.
 
2013-01-09 11:40:54 AM  

duffblue: Stratohead: aegean: Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.

It's also not about self defense, over throwing the federal government, or some other ridiculous horseshiat. But that doesn't stop the Gun Lobby from repeating that and the hunting garbage over and over and over again. But then the NRA only gives a damn about selling guns and gun accessories, and nothing else, and they will do and say anything to push that agenda...logic or classrooms full of dead children be damned.

One of my pets is diabetic. In order to purchase the tiny ass syringes needed to administer her 2 insulin shots per day, I have to show 2 forms of ID and play 20 questions at the drug store, every goddamn time...meanwhile I can walk into any gunshow in the country and buy as big an arsenal as I can afford, no ID, no questions asked.

Priorities...what the fark are those?

Have you ever purchased a firearm or are you just going off of the piers morgan version of reality?


I have purchased a few firearms over the years... I currently own 2, a S&W J frame .38 Chief Special, and aBulgarian made Makarov.
 
2013-01-09 11:50:38 AM  

Loaded Six String: Incitement to riot, the commonly brought up "no yelling fire in a crowded theater" is not a restriction on the First Amendment in the same way that restricting certain types of firearms is a restriction of the Second Amendment. It is a situation in which a person is not protected by their First Amendment right to freedom of speech from civil/legal liability. A restriction on what types of firearms are protected to "keep and bear" is a form of prior restraint. The equivalent for the First Amendment would be theater patrons having their mouths duct taped so they cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

To review: yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not a First Amendment protected action. Misusing a firearm (assault, murder, etc.) is not a Second Amendment protected action. This particular analogy is flawed and you should no longer use it.


Are you buying your own bullshiat?

/Because I'm not.
//Neither are the Supremes.
 
2013-01-09 11:53:38 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: A blind man cannot drive a car. You must get a doctor's permission in order to buy certain drugs. These have legislative qualifiers because they aren't guaranteed rights.


mayawashington.com
 
2013-01-09 11:58:04 AM  

Dinjiin: PacManDreaming: And what new law would you have Congress pass that would've prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy?

A law that requires firearms to be stored in a locker or safe that is of sufficient strength to prevent unauthorized access when not in use.


I'm all for that. Whenever I'm paying a surprise visit to my ex in the wee hours after finding out where the shelter relocated her to, one of my biggest worries is that she has a gun on the nightstand. Having the firearm locked up and unloaded will definitely improve my peace of mind...
 
2013-01-09 12:02:30 PM  
I am sure that chick who just had to shoot an intruder in the face had time to go into her basement and unlock the gun safe, while hiding her kids.
 
2013-01-09 12:03:29 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?


The funniest thing about this post?

It's the longest post i've EVER seen you make and sure enough, it's about penis.
 
2013-01-09 12:06:03 PM  

Bullseyed: Truth:

Fallacy: The second amendment is specifically designed so that if the government does something you don't agree with, you can kill military/government agents and protect your own rights.

Truth: Amendment II was designed to ensure that a new country with no standing army would be able to defend itself, and to reassure the States that the Militia of one State would not be disarmed by other States' Militias.

/In other words, you are full of it.
 
2013-01-09 12:19:42 PM  

lilbordr: Based on this data I thought everyone would be more pissed about handguns, knives, and feet/hands than rifles of any type:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in- th e-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20


*raises hand*

*Ahem*

Pay attention, please.

/And pass me a beer.
 
2013-01-09 12:21:25 PM  

FlashHarry: aegean: Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.

i see no mention of the second amendment in the headline.

and the "hunting" thing, i suspect, comes from the oft-repeated NRA claim that weapons of this nature are used for home defense and hunting.


I see no mention of "penis" in the headline, either, but that didn't stop you from injecting it into the discussion, did it?
 
2013-01-09 12:22:02 PM  
Bump firing has been around forever. Never been used in a crime. The 2A is for keeping the government in check, not hunting. Anymore stupid arguments libs?
 
2013-01-09 12:23:28 PM  

FlashHarry: aegean: Once again, dumbmitter, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting.

i see no mention of the second amendment in the headline.

and the "hunting" thing, i suspect, comes from the oft-repeated NRA claim that weapons of this nature are used for home defense and hunting.


There was no mention of "penis" in the headline, either, but that didn't stop you from bringing that up either, did it?
 
2013-01-09 12:24:14 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Truth: Amendment II was designed to ensure that a new country with no standing army would be able to defend itself, and to reassure the States that the Militia of one State would not be disarmed by other States' Militias.

/In other words, you are full of it.



Aha. Got it.

The 2nd amendment is designed to keep state militias from disarming other state militias, and it does this by telling the federal government (but not the state governments) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Wouldn't it have been better to add a clause like "No state or its militia may interfere with the militia of another", or something along those lines?
 
2013-01-09 12:24:56 PM  

t3knomanser: A gun tax, for example, would be perfectly reasonable- an assessment at the point of purchase for the total social costs of allowing firearms to be owned. It could be adjusted based on its ability to enact costs- high fire rates and large magazines would be taxed more steeply. Similarly, requiring firearm owners to carry insurance would create a social net system.


Adam Lanza's mom would likely have paid the tax and gotten the insurance, so your brilliant idea would have saved all those lives. Criminals and crazy people would lkewise comply with  the law, saving even more children. Way to go! Good thinking!
 
2013-01-09 12:25:53 PM  

You Must Construct Additional Pylons.: AR 15's are .22

Just with a much larger cartridge and load.


Actually, you can get ARs chambered for .22 LR which brings us back to the FlashHarry et al scale. Is is based on caliber or magazine capacity? This has yet to be determined....do they look* at a dude's Johnson and say "If he owns a firearm it's probably a (large caliber or high capacity)"...

*or hold. This has yet to be determined.

DirkValentine: It's the longest post i've EVER seen you make and sure enough, it's about penis.


And guns. I notice which part you focused on...
 
2013-01-09 12:26:22 PM  

lilbordr: I miss Hunter. I wish he was still around. I'd be interested to get his opinion of the whole scene...
[media.nowpublic.net image 500x333]


He'd probably ask you why you need a machine gun to hunt deer and call you a redneck. He'd also ask you to put up or shut up about the whole battle against the tyranny of the government thing. Generally he'd have a thing or two to say about the hypocrisy of the whole debate. These aren't hunting guns, they are boomsticks, dick shaped death dealers being used as funtime like fireworks by dumbasses. But why is that bad? We're all dumbasses and we all do reckless things in our time off, that's the beauty of America.

Hunter would probably duck the real question behind some absurdity like arming the kids. When it comes right down to it, Hunter didn't care to solve problems, he just commented on the shade the flames made as the world burned and went to make smores.
 
2013-01-09 12:29:41 PM  
I have only two guns.  A handgun I bought a few years ago, and a rifle I inherited from my great uncle, who was in the 101st Airborne and stormed the beaches of Normandy and saw action in the Battle of the Bulge.  I guess it's a shame some of these FARKers in this thread weren't available so they could have just waved their massive dicks at the Germans and scared them away instead.
 
2013-01-09 12:31:04 PM  
$369???

Jeez, there's a rube born every minute. That's about $300 more than it ought to
 
2013-01-09 12:32:59 PM  

duffblue: Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: In each and every gun lover's mind is the scenario where exactly 900 government goons (the military are always suddenly liberal in these fantasies) come up the street to get them and with this attachment they're miraculously able to perfectly gun down each of them in one magnificent, manly burst.

If the attachment fired 1,100 a minute, that's how many they imagine.

Can you point me in the direction of a weapon capable of firing 900-1100 RPM and the magazine that goes with it? I'm interested in purchasing one.


PPSh-41.
Link

i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-09 12:41:37 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: FTFY

You know, I'm curious about something here. There seem to be a few of you who have deemed themselves penis experts and I can only assume that you are one of them seeing as you have made such a post. Since you are such an aficionado of the penis and the sizes of them when it comes to the types of firearms that one might or might not own, how exactly do you determine what the firearm/penis size is? I mean does an average dick qualify for a .22 single shot rifle or maybe a Derringer handgun and a bigger wang get you a Red Rider BB gun while a smaller dangle score you a larger caliber weapon? Or does there some other criteria that you use not based on size vs caliber but size vs rate of fire? How many penises did you study to arrive at your determination? Did you consider them while flaccid or turgid? Was this done in person or were lots of pictures enough for you?  If in person did you hold them or was a good long look enough? One of the guys I work with is in the market for a new handgun. Perhaps he could send you a picture of his cock and you could tell him what would work best for him. Let me know eh?


You sound butthurt about your dick; Southerner?
 
2013-01-09 12:45:56 PM  

pedrop357: demaL-demaL-yeH: Truth: Amendment II was designed to ensure that a new country with no standing army would be able to defend itself, and to reassure the States that the Militia of one State would not be disarmed by other States' Militias.

/In other words, you are full of it.


Aha. Got it.

The 2nd amendment is designed to keep state militias from disarming other state militias, and it does this by telling the federal government (but not the state governments) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Wouldn't it have been better to add a clause like "No state or its militia may interfere with the militia of another", or something along those lines?


Because they determined that Congress had to have the power to set the standards for national defense - organize, arm, and discipline the Milita.
So they did this, instead:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state"
 
2013-01-09 12:47:50 PM  

Nabb1: I have only two guns.  A handgun I bought a few years ago, and a rifle I inherited from my great uncle, who was in the 101st Airborne and stormed the beaches of Normandy and saw action in the Battle of the Bulge.  I guess it's a shame some of these FARKers in this thread weren't available so they could have just waved their massive dicks at the Germans and scared them away instead.


No. You have a pistol and a rifle.

This is a gun.
 
2013-01-09 12:48:48 PM  
Just don't mention "militias". I did, but I think I got away with it.
 
2013-01-09 12:48:55 PM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: You sound butthurt about your dick;


How do you figure?
 
2013-01-09 12:50:14 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Because they determined that Congress had to have the power to set the standards for national defense - organize, arm, and discipline the Milita.
So they did this, instead:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state"


Apparently Congress can also completely disarm the militia by simply depriving all of the individual people the ability to possess arms. Not sure how that squares with the history of the 2nd amendment

Why the part about the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Why the people and not the state militia members?
 
2013-01-09 01:01:53 PM  

drp: I'm sorry this makes you feel uncomfortable. Feel free to lobby your representatives and Senators to repeal the 2nd Amendment and replace it with something you think is more appropriate. It's a living document and it's entirely within your rights to work for a new Amendment.


We don't need to repeal the 2nd Amendment to ban the sale of AR-15s. The Assault Weapons Ban was ruled constitutional already.

In your lifetime only in the last 4 years has the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment was exclusively a private right and not a collective right of a militia. Nothing changed about the 2nd Amendment in that time period. The only thing that changed was the addition of a Justice that tipped the scales 5-4 in favor of the new interpretation. The only thing that needs to be done is for one of those 5 to either die and be replaced by another justice with a different understanding of our founder's intent.

Changing the 2nd amendment isn't necessary. We've been regulating guns and other arms in this country over 200 years without having to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
 
2013-01-09 01:04:24 PM  

pedrop357: Apparently Congress can also completely disarm the militia by simply depriving all of the individual people the ability to possess arms. Not sure how that squares with the history of the 2nd amendment



I've never claimed that. KFTC, though. Congress can and has specified the arms of the militia, though.


Why the part about the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Why the people and not the state militia members?

It was cheaper to legislate that all free white men between the ages of 18 and 45 buy and maintain specific military equipment, and because Congress has the power of organizing the militia, not the state.
 
2013-01-09 01:04:29 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Because they determined that Congress had to have the power to set the standards for national defense - organize, arm, and discipline the Milita.
So they did this, instead:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state"


Do you even know what the militia in those days was?
 
2013-01-09 01:08:28 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: It was cheaper to legislate that all free white men between the ages of 18 and 45 buy and maintain specific military equipment, and because Congress has the power of organizing the militia, not the state.


That's not what Congress did, and no, Congress does not "organize the militia."  Congress has the power to raise an army and a navy.  Militias were purely volunteer civilian organizations and they received no recompense from the federal government.  "Well-regulated" back in those days just meant they had arms sufficient to raise a defense of some kind.  They seldom drilled, they brought whatever weapons and equipment they had, and even when they served in the Revolution, General Washington was constantly in fear of the militias quitting because there was nothing he could do about it, unlike deserters from the Continental Army, whom he could have - and on some regrettable occasions did - have shot.
 
2013-01-09 01:09:04 PM  

simkatu: The only thing that needs to be done is for one of those 5 to either die and be replaced by another justice with a different understanding of our founder's intent.


That's not really how it works. They don't just take a vote on whatever they want every few years, their has to be a compelling legal reason for them to address this question again, and at that, then they would have to break precedent which is something judges avoid.
 
2013-01-09 01:10:25 PM  

Nabb1: demaL-demaL-yeH: Because they determined that Congress had to have the power to set the standards for national defense - organize, arm, and discipline the Milita.
So they did this, instead:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

Do you even know what the militia in those days was?


Nope. None.

I have absolutely no farking idea at all.

/I'd link the laws of war and the manual for courts martial, too, but you won't even read the basics.
 
2013-01-09 01:14:25 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Nabb1: demaL-demaL-yeH: Because they determined that Congress had to have the power to set the standards for national defense - organize, arm, and discipline the Milita.
So they did this, instead:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state"

Do you even know what the militia in those days was?

Nope. None.

I have absolutely no farking idea at all.

/I'd link the laws of war and the manual for courts martial, too, but you won't even read the basics.


Uh, the Militia Act gave the President the authority to call militias into service in certain circumstances.  That was not the same as saying Congress was regulating them.  Baron von Steuben served Washington for purposes of drilling the Continentals.  He still had no direct power over the militias in the revoluation.
 
2013-01-09 01:14:35 PM  

Nabb1: That's not what Congress did, and no, Congress does not "organize the militia."


Just to rub it in.
Have some salt and lemon juice.
Then check out Article I Section 8, Clauses 14-16.
 
2013-01-09 01:15:31 PM  

way south: The gas extraction process is pretty violent and heating up a semi like an auto


I was thinking about that, too.  Although I have seen aftermarket parts for the AR15 that improve the pressure tolerance to where you can safely discharge 5.56 NATO cartridges in addition to standard .223 Remington ones.  There are also aftermarket barrels that are thicker and more heat tolerant.  So it appears that you can beef the rifle up in some ways, at least.  Wouldn't want to use this trick with a stock rifle for a long duration, though.
 
Displayed 50 of 582 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report