Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun-trafficking case in Charlotte may have exposed loopholes in gun laws (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I defer to Richard Posner: (0+ / 0-)
    The Second Amendment states  in its entirety  that  “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to  the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep  and bear Arms, shall not  be infringed” (emphasis  added). The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms  within  one’s home  would  at all times have  been an awkward usage. A right to  bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.
    This will likely be the law of the land in due time, at which point it will the burden of the state to show why a man from Vermont cannot cross state lines armed with a pistol and a 10 round magazine without catching a felony.
    •  Did I miss Posner's ascension to king? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Besides this arguably not saying what you think it does, it is one guy's opinion. The opinion of someone without the power to change anything, other than his mind and underwear, is neither fact nor actionable. Regarding "likely" - pure delusion. I hope your quest keeps you occupied.

      Time makes more converts than reason. Thomas Paine, Common Sense

      by VTCC73 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:43:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  to all that raise the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      2nd amendment as a right to carry arms, I suggest reading up on US history, in the colonial days. Begin with why the 2nd starts with "A well regulated militia", and then move to the next phrase" Being necessary to the --- ". This was written because the US had no real decent size Army, with which to defend the country with, and had to enlist farmers, etc., many who did not own weapons, to defend the country. At the time there were "militia" from towns and states, composed of patriots and a few rich men who were paying the "soldiers" and paying for the supplies to maintain the "militia"",  that came together to form the bulk of the US "Army" at the time of the forming of the country..

      The sum of the 2nd was the founding fathers were assuring themselves that they could have an Army that drew on civilians in time of need, who owned their own firearms.

      I lived in Williamsburg, Va for a while, and had many friends who were Colonial era firearms experts, and  real world historians. That is they knew history as a practical matter, knew the backstories that created our version of history.

      I sat with friends as they rolled their own black powder cartridges and talked to me about the practicality of a flintlock musket for hunting and for warfare, and i got a few real demonstrations, like going hunting for a turkey with a musket. A flintlock does not fire when you pull the trigger - there is a delay while the flint creates the spark, which ignites the powder in the pan, which then ignites to powder in the cartridge. And black powder is slow to ignite, compared to modern powder. So the hungry colonist would pull the trigger and have to keep aiming at the turkey while the gun was in the process of firing, and maybe 2 second delay, at most. If it had of been me in those days, I would have starved.

      Then we get to a the critical point _you can't simply put another bullet int the gun and fire it. No. You have to stand the damn thing on it's stock, look down the barrel to make sure it's empty, then use a ram rod to clear it, then you are ready to reload: put your cartridge in the baller, push it in place with the ram rod, then put in the ball, then the cotton wadding to keep the ball from rolling out of the barrel. (I think I have this right). The you hold the gun parallel to the ground, begin by checking your flint to make sure it will still spark and adjust it, if needed, then clean the pan, if you haven't already, then open your powder horn, and dump some black powder into the pan. Now you are ready to shoot.  

      OK, got it in your head what you just did, and how long it took to do it? Now imagine you, who was a humble farmer just three weeks ago, now handed this long and heavy musket which you got maybe a week's training on, on the fields of Yorktown, facing a bunch of British mercenary troops  - professional well trained soldiers - who are shooting at you, and repeat the process...

      This was Colonial era warfare. This is why the fledgling country needed more "soldiers" - it took a lot of time to reload, so the commanders needed more people to simply keep up a decent barrage of bullets. As my friend put it, "in reality, the units had one third shooting, on third reloading and one third pissing in their pants, too scared to do anything."

      Now absorb this, take some time to really feel what it must have been like back in the day, and go back and read the 2nd amendment and suddenly it makes sense in the context of the time.

      One last thing for historians, if it weren't for the French at Yorktown, we would be British citizens now.

      "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

      by azureblue on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:49:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't blame Posner: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      He was trying to deal with Heller, an opinion that simply makes no sense on its face.   He also works in a building that forbids weapons.

      That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

      by Inland on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:08:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't blame him. (0+ / 0-)

        And I appreciate his work trying to clarify the bounds of Heller.  Also, I'm not debating laws forbidding carrying weapons on federal property.  Or laws permitting carry on state property.  Or zoning laws forbidding an extension to my garage.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site