Social Question

rojo's avatar

Should the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States be interpreted as a right to armed insurrection?

Asked by rojo (23822points) February 16th, 2018

Second Amendment: “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.”

Arguments have been made that the Second Amendment was further reinforcement for the Declaration of Independence which reads, in part, …“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”.

While originally applied toward the British Crown who were the government at the time, distrust of authority carried over them to the new Federal government who many feared could potentially just as oppressive as the British had been.

But, it may be argued that because Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution which enumerates the powers of Congress reads, in part: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;” gives control of militias to the Federal Government and in doing so removes the right of the individual to own arms unless provided by said Federal Authority.


Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

38 Answers

LostInParadise's avatar

Article 1, Section 8 gives the federal government authority over militias, but the first amendment gives everyone the right to own guns, because you never know when you might be needed to serve in the militia.

The second amendment should be tossed out. It is, to say the least, outdated. Federal and state governments have no need to supplement their weapons with those from the citizenry. There should be laws against owning assault weapons. Background checks should be strengthened and enforced more stringently. People with a recent history of serious mental illness should be barred from owning weapons.. There should be limits to how many weapons a person can purchase in a given year.

zenvelo's avatar

It is well past time to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

gorillapaws's avatar

The second amendment guarantees that the states’ national guard can’t be disarmed by the federal government against their will. In other words, the “well regulated militias” (National Guard) can’t be disarmed by the federal government, so that the states have the ability to rebel against a tyranical federal dictator (e.g if Trump wanted to declare himself emperor). It doesn’t mean Bubba from Alabama has an unlimited right to buy whatever type of weapon he wants.

seawulf575's avatar

Understand first what a militia is. It is civilians, that can be called upon to fight to defend the country. It can also be a group of civilians that are battling against the tyrannical government. It can also be considered people that can be drafted into the military. Now take it back to the time it was created. The second amendment was put into play because we had a tyrannical government that was abusing the people and was using the force of the military to enforce it. One of the big things that helped us throw off that yoke was that we had a bunch of civilians that had guns and that were willing to die to get rid of the overbearing government. Many of the original “founding fathers” recognized that governments…all governments…will eventually progress to being tyrannical. Throughout history this has been true and there is no reason to doubt it. And the only way the common man can have any chance of protecting themselves is to allow them to own and bear arms. And the funny part is that when a government starts going towards tyranny, one of the first things they want to do is to disarm the populace. They are easier to control that way. So in effect, yes, the 2nd Amendment does imply the right to armed insurrection. It is the last protection against slavery.

zenvelo's avatar

@seawulf575 It is the last protection against slavery.

What an odd chocie of words to end your defense of an amendment that the founders added in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.

seawulf575's avatar

@zenvelo I want to be clear…slavery takes on many, many forms. The obvious form that was the black mark in our history is only one. A corrupt government can enslave the populace through fear and force…making them do whatever the government wants them to do. But let’s look at the blacks that were slaves in the beginning of this country. If they had started off their lives with the 2nd amendment covering them, do you think that they would have remained slaves for as long as they did? No. There would have been a righteous armed rebellion. And along those same lines…let’s look at how they were enslaved in the first place. Someone went to their homes and dragged them out to haul them off to be slaves. How was this done? They didn’t have arms that could match those of their captors. You have a spear or a bow and arrow and you are woefully under armed to meet those with muskets.

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 Keep in mind that there is a difference between “militia” and a “well regulated militia.” A well-regulated militia has a chain of command, and is ultimately accountable to some form of elected government body. What you’re describing is an unregulated, or poorly regulated militia.

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws that is true. But the 2nd amendment doesn’t say that only well regulated militias can own guns. It states that a well regulated militia is a necessity. If it became necessary, people could be called into action and be trained to be a well regulated militia. And to meet that goal, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

LostInParadise's avatar

In what conceivable way does having civilians with guns enable the formation of a well regulated militia? State governments are perfectly capable of stocking their own weapons.

seawulf575's avatar

@LostInParadise they weren’t always able to do so and may not be able in the future. That is why it was written that way.

seawulf575's avatar

So here is the question I would have for those that are latched onto the “well regulated militia” statement: If I got together with a bunch of my friends and neighbors and formed a militia and worked/trained with the local police to become an assistance to them, would that be okay? Should we then be allowed to purchase and own whatever guns we want? The local cops would know us, would know our capabilities, and could even call upon us in the event of civil unrest (read as “riot”). And since we trained with them, we would know how to fit into their needs more readily.

rojo's avatar

What about that portion of Article 1, Section 8 I noted above that gives the power to organize, arm and discipline militias to Congress, not to individuals, localities, cities or States?

LostInParadise's avatar

@seawulf575 , That is what the National Guard is for.

MrGrimm888's avatar

I agree with @seawulf575 ‘s interpretation. The founding fathers wanted ordinary citizens to have the ability to essentially defend themselves from their own government, if it came to it.

It was intended to be a last line of defense from tyranny. It doesn’t make as much sense now, for many reasons, but it did when written…

zenvelo's avatar

Rather than try to interpret the meaning intent and implementation of the 2nd Amendment, we know that a militia is an anachronism of the frontier. and it is time to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Anyone who believes a regulated disciplined military force is going to arise from the paranoid gun worshipping hodge podge comprising the NRA should take another look.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Well. That group of people in Texas got together over that cattle rancher guy. There was a stand off, of sorts, and the government eventually caved in, and left. Obviously, it was largely gun nuts, and crazies, but they were organized, and I guess they were a militia. I am certain that the US backed down, because they would have slaughtered those people and it would have been a PR nightmare. So. It can happen. Lots of such people are ex-military. Some are quite capable.
Clearly, the military would be more powerful than any militia armed only with small arms. And the motivation for that instance, was not a good cause. But they can claim that they turned the US military back, without any violence. If they were just a hundred unarmed civilians, they would have been easily rounded up…

I’m personally not in the crowd that thinks that we should sell A-R’s to 18 year old people who we know nothing about. I think there should be massive, sweeping changes made to gun control laws. There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation. There is no realistic way to get them back. The mistakes that have enabled this predicament, were made decades ago. They continue to this day, as our POTUS is focused on building walls in the desert, and raping the poor and middle class. The dems will make lots of speeches, and at least appear concerned, but they will grow silent. Until the next massacre…

As foolish as I always thought people sounded, when using the tyrant defense argument, we do have a wanna be tyrant in office. Once they round up all the illegal immigrants, who’s next? They are literally dragging people off of buses. It would be worse, if the GOP got their wish.
Maybe these paranoid gun nuts were just suspicious of the wrong president…

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 “But the 2nd amendment doesn’t say that only well regulated militias can own guns. It states that a well regulated militia is a necessity.”

It’s pretty clearly implied that the right to keep bear arms is only there in service to the well regulated militia. It’s quite a stretch to expand that to essentially then say that the well regulated militia is actually not really a necessary component.

And let’s be realistic about armed insurrection. Either private civilians are allowed to own every weapon the military is (chemical/biological/nuclear weapons, anti-aircraft missiles, high explosives, RPG’s, land/sea mines, anti-satellite weapons, drones, etc.) or we limit access to certain weapons and admit that armed insurrection against such superior firepower in an attempt to overthrow a hypothetical tyrant is pure fantasy.

@MrGrimm888 Other than the cattle ranchers being white, how is this any different than an armed gang? Basically a militia is when a group of white guys with guns decide they’re a militia an don’t have to obey law enforcement?

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws I think the point I was making about militias is that they aren’t organized groups. They ARE civilians that COULD be used as necessary. But to be useful, they would have to own and know how to use guns. It doesn’t say that gun ownership is limited to only support for militias. And based on other conversations of the founding fathers, they recognized that the population may need to throw off the yoke of tyranny by their own government…again. As for what weapons civilians should be able to own, that could be up for debate as well. Remember, in those days, all the army had that most civilians didn’t was cannons. So the civilians were armed about the same way as the military. Fast forward 240 years and now there are all the other things that have been developed for military applications. Let’s give a for instance to look at it. I’m not going with nuclear weapons because I firmly believe that is one invention that should never have been made. I don’t believe ANY nukes should exist, anywhere in the world. But let’s look at Anti-Aircraft missiles. I’ll ask the question: why couldn’t a civilian own one? But the limitation would actually be the price. You are looking at about $115k per missile and then you need the launch platform that is probably another $800k or more. So even if we said civilians were allowed to own one, how many could actually afford one? As for things like RPGs, civilians already own them. We found that out with the efforts in LA to turn in weapons, no questions asked. A few things like RPGs showed up. But that gets back to the whole problem with the gun-control debate. There are already laws against it…but it didn’t stop people from getting them. In other words, they don’t care about the law. So making tougher laws aren’t going to stop them any more than the current ones are.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 this is an odd topic. You and I are pretty much on the same side. I believe you and I disagree ideologically about the direction the country should go, but we definitely recognize the hazards of poor leadership. I am extremely leery of our government and don’t limit that to one party or another. I look at the Patriot Act that Bush II signed into office was one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation ever to be signed into being. It set up a whole new way for the government to surveil people. The proposed idea was that it would help us stop terrorists. But there were/are too many ways for it to be abused. And it has been…a number of times. And that was almost a unanimous vote in the Senate…both parties. And we saw both parties allow abuse of that law. When it first allowed NDAA and the NSA PRISM program was put into effect, we were told positively that it could not be used to spy on specific people. Yet almost immediately, we found that to be false because several of the techs running things started using it to spy on their significant others. Snowden gave us other examples. That was the Repubs. Now we find there is potential evidence that it was used by one political party to spy on their opponents. That is the Dems. Both parties are corrupt. And in this discussion, we both recognize the danger that presents to the people.

LostInParadise's avatar

You don’t need to own a gun to know how to use one any more than you need to own a bowling ball to know how to bowl. There could be rifle ranges (maybe some already exist) which provide you with a gun to practice with. For a shotgun, automatic or semi-automatic weapon it is questionable as to how much training you need.

The only justification given by the second amendment for owning a gun is to serve when called to serve in a regular militia. Take away that reason and there is no constitutional argument for being allowed or not being allowed to own a gun. That makes it possible at both the state and federal level to pass laws restricting gun ownership without having to worry about violating the second amendment.

No government is going to do anything to encourage armed insurrection. You really can’t be serious on that one. In a democracy you can vote for change if you don’t like the way things are.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@gorillapaws . The difference between that specific group, and armed gangs is exponential. But it shouldn’t have been perceived differently by the government (if that’s what you meant, you were right.) That little uprising, should have been dealt with differently. I’m glad I didn’t have to make any decisions about it. What a cluster f○ck…

@seawulf575 . I agree that we recognize the threat of poor/dangerous leadership. It can go sideways quickly, if a leader gains total control…

@LostInParadise . I believe you are incorrect. The founding fathers were suspicious, and untrusting of men. They suspected that, in time, their carefully designed democracy, could be manipulated into a tyrannical, or other type of self serving/oppressive government.

That was the “intent,” behind their installment of the 2nd amendment. I mean, it was the 2nd amendment. They just fought a war to get away from tyranny. They made it one of their first priorities, in amending. It was fresh on their minds, that civilians with guns organized a revolt. A revolt that would not have been possible, in their minds, without the common man having a serviceable weapon, in case the need for protection arose that could/would not be provided by the standing/provided army.

The government didn’t encourage insurrection. The founding fathers wanted to make sure it was an option that never left the table. It was an option that they were driven to. They wanted the government, to fear the people. Not the other way around. It seems odd, because the founding fathers didn’t do what they did to make an all powerful government. They wanted the people to have the power. In a democracy, voting is the primary source of power for the common man. However, if politics fail the will of the people, the people have the option to raise up, and challenge their oppressors. As they have similar weaponry.

Now. Here’s the problem. Weaponry evolved in ways that the founding fathers didn’t foresee. So. We have some military weaponry available to civilians. But the really deadly stuff, is only for military use.

What does that mean? It essentially means that the idea of an arms race, for purposes of defense from the government, is futile.

That doesn’t mean that people don’t want to have a small chance…

A big argument you will hear from gun enthusiasts is, “banning certain guns is a slippery slope.”

Let’s look at that statement.

What do they mean?

Well. Let’s just go with magazine capacity. That’s easier.

Ok. We all tacitly agree (hypothetically)that nobody should need a magazine capacity higher than 30 rounds.
So bills are passed to reduce capacity.
But really, one bullet can kill one, or more people. So why would a gun be legal at all?

Then we get to “why is a truck legal, when you can kill lots of people with that?” The difference? You need a license to rent/operate a truck.

Again. The biggest problem is that there are hundreds of millions of guns in this country. Already. Who knows how many come and go illegally. And if you haven’t done something really bad yet, you can buy a lethal arsenal in a very short time, with little/no oversight…

LostInParadise's avatar

The intent of the second amendment, as it clearly states, was to have armed civilians prepared to serve in regular state militia, meaning they would be under government control. There was certainly no intent to place in the Constitution a law allowing armed groups to take over and do away with the Constitution. That is patently absurd. The law is outdated. There is no need to have armed civilians for state militia. States are perfectly capable of stocking their own weapons, and you don’t need to be a marksman to use a rifle.

seawulf575's avatar

Here’s some of what the founding fathers thought about gun ownership:

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774–1776

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
– Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
– William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

It becomes quite clear that our founding fathers viewed the power of the government as a potential threat to the people, the country. Their view was that one of the things that can prevent that is for all people to own and know how to use guns. They viewed the militia as being the entire population, except the government officials. They viewed any effort to disarm the public as a way to eventually enslave them. At no time did they put limitations on gun ownership other than the statement by Samuel Adams that stated that peaceable people should be allowed to own guns. Many of the statements here can be seen to be true in today’s world. The 5th one down completely explains the impact of disarming the citizens (Honduras) as well as the impact of gun-free zones (most of the mass shootings).

LostInParadise's avatar

The Constitution says what is says. I do not see how the Second Amendment can be interpreted in any way other than to say that armed citizens are required for regular militia. Since that is no longer the case, the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed.

As for the case of needing guns for self-protection, accidental gun deaths are the fourth highest cause of death in the U.S That is just one way that guns cause more harm than good.

LostInParadise's avatar

That last statistic was incorrect. Accidental deaths overall were the fourth highest, not just shooting deaths. The number of gun related accidental deaths is in the hundreds. The largest number of gun deaths, 62%, are suicides. Link.

The most effective way of cutting down on homicides would be to cut down on income inequality. Link

MrGrimm888's avatar

^I agree that the reasoning is outdated. I was just saying what their intent was.

If you’re saying that all guns should be illegal, which is what I think you’re getting at, that’s just not realistic. The country passed the point where that was plausible long ago.

Accidental gun deaths are in large part due to lack of training, or understanding. The guns aren’t flying around killing people. Short of some mechanical failure, human use is the only variable in what makes them deadly.

More people die of car accidents. Again, in large part to people.
Lots of people are dying taking selfies now. Again, human judgement at play.

Guns are tools. They can lead to accidents that cause injury or death, like many tools. In the case of an AR-15, it is a tool of war. They should be very hard to legally aquire.

In the case of the latest shooting in Florida, the kid purchased the weapon legally. News today confirms that the FBI was notified twice, about the shooter by concerned citizens. Proper procedure was not followed.

It’s really a mess…

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”
What part of that is so hard to understand? Pretty fundamental if you asked me, the ability and capacity to render self defense regardless of what you are defending against.
An AR-15 is a typical rifle, not a “weapon of war” It’s just a rifle like any other. I mean it’s not functionally any different than the ruger 10/22 that many rural teenage kids or Boyscouts learn to shoot with. Really. Now the .223 round is a different story, especially the “green tipped” variety but you cannot expect the firearm ignorant to understand that one. Facts need not apply when emotions are high. It’s not the “scary black gun” it’s the ammunition which is designed to kill. If you’re going to go nuclear on guns at least get that part right. God forbid we examine what causes people to apeshit and use these implements against others. That’s just too uncomfortable or hard for people to grasp.

gorillapaws's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me “What part of that is so hard to understand?”
...the part you omitted from the sentence.

If you hooked up a Ruger 10/22 to a mechanism that allowed it fire thousands of rounds of ammunition quickly, how would that gun perform? Would it overheat or have accuracy problems? The AR-15 is essentially the same thing as the military version without the ability to fire fully automatic. They can be legally modified to approximate fully auto fire and will perform very well under such circumstances, or illegally modified to make them fully auto. I’ve fired them and a semi-auto AK-47 and they’re both insanely accurate and easy to use when it comes to putting lots of lead downrange quickly and accurately. I can think of no compelling reason a civilian would need this amount of firepower. Let’s not pretend these are just like boyscout pellet guns.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

“If you hooked up a Ruger 10/22 to a mechanism that allowed it fire thousands of rounds of ammunition quickly, how would that gun perform”

they operate exactly the same, if you really have fired them you would know this. Neither fire “thousands of rounds” quickly without major functional consequences. It’s also not so much the function but the round and its capacity. Many “ar-15” rifles fire the same 22lr round that “boyscout” rifles do. Many also fire the deadly .308. Hell, chamber an AR-15 in bbs. It’s not the gun it’s the ammo folks, if you want to be fair.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Uh. No. The AR-15 platform is quite different from a ruger 10/22. I’m not even getting into the more advanced piston driven models.

The caliber of the round is indeed the same. Similarities stop there. The 5.56 mm/.223 cal is a round with much more powder, sleeker projectile, and was designed to be able to have larger capacity magazines, and ability to be carried in higher number than a .30 caliber round (rounds for say an AK-47, like 7.62/39.) The round was designed specifically to counter the AK.

The platform was also designed to be pitted against the AK. It is a marvel of technology. When properly maintained, it can outperform the AK in some uses. That’s why the piston driven model is available, or was designed. It works better in extreme weather conditions (not shooting ranges.) And that part of the weapon, and really the whole weapon, can be made better by a large amount of (easily available) aftermarket upgrades.

I had an FFL, and sold guns for several years. That weapon (AR-15) is a versatile platform specifically designed for a battlefield. You can take it to the range, but many indoor ranges won’t allow them. The rounds tear up the barriers behind the targets. Especially the green tips that are usually sold in 500 or greater round boxes. When people buy large quantities of ammo, at least where I am, it’s the green tips.

There are some hunting rounds available, but they are more lethal against soft tissue, than the FMJ’s usually used on ranges.

Oh. Some people hunt hogs with the AR-10. There are conversion kits available. That fires a .30 cal projectile, but is still the same platform.

It just doesn’t have a realistic reason for being in civilian, or really even police hands.

I’m not saying that the weapon should be illegal. It should be VERY hard to get legally. That’s my opinion.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Plenty of people have “the AR platform” chambered in 22LR. Put a 10/22 with a 25 round magazine next to an AR chambered in 22lr and there is no difference in their operation (semi-automatic)

It is the round and capacity that matters. If you sold guns you should know this. I have already mentioned the “green tipped” .223 you speak of.

Banning the AR platform does nothing when there are guns like the mini14 that operate the same and fire the same .223 ammunition.

Again, you should know this.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^That’s not what you said. You compared it to a ruger 10/22. I happen to own a 10/22, and also a ruger mini 14 carbine. Both of those, and the AR use different designs. And all have many aftermarket parts and mags available. I have three 30 round, and two 50 round mags for the 10/22. I just have 20, and 30 round clips for my mini 14. But there are 100 round snail mags available. At least I saw one at a gun show…

I didn’t suggest banning them. I suggested that they be hard to acquire. I suppose I could have been more specific. But I think most of the semiautomatic rifles, without an indwelling magazine( that is to say ones with a higher capacity than 3–5) should be harder to get. My statements about the AR, are simply to say the truth, that it is a weapon designed for war. As are it’s rounds, in most commonly chambered round (5.56/.223.)

After the Sandy Hook shooting, people were buying just ARs. About a third of the customers had never held a gun before. They were paying twice the price too. That’s, in part, how these guns get into circulation in such numbers. They have a reputation. I would have to do some mods to my mini 14, to get similar production. One of the most important things would be that the wood stock on the mini 14 will begin to smoke, after quickly expending a 30 round clip. It would not be a good weapon, for a prolonged assault. I have never pushed mine, but it seems like it would catch fire. I have owned two. Both with wood stocks, one with stainless steel barrel, and one with just blue. Both had trouble sustaining rapid fire, due to temperature. The stock on most ARs is more capable of prolonged firing. So. I don’t compare the two, although they can be chambered in the same round. There are single fire hunting pistols chambered in the same caliber. The AR was designed to put multiple rounds in a target, and keep going. Although the mini 14 was used in training around the Vietnam era, it was replaced by the M-16. Now the military uses AR’s with the .22 Cal conversion kit. If it were just the difference in round, the military would go with a far cheaper designed rifle for training. They know there’s a difference. As do I….

There is a reason that SWAT teams, special OPs, and other units used for battlefield operations choose largely one semi/full auto rifle.

There is a reason that the AK-47 was the chosen rifle for war, for so long before.

Denying that the AR is a battlefield weapon, is an opinion that cannot be defended.

Again. I did not suggest banning them…. That would be unrealistic at this point.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

” Many “ar-15” rifles fire the same 22lr round that “boyscout” rifles do. ”

The reason they use the AR is because they are versatile, and can be converted as you say easily. The military is generally about efficiency. An AR chambered in .223 is a battlefield weapon, an AR chambered in .22lr is a plinking tool. The difference is again the round and capacity. If they banned the AR platform and not the round just how effective do you think that legislation would be?

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Again. I’m not saying the weapon should be banned. Or the rounds…

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Most of the victims were probably inside of 25 yards. Some way closer. The projectile still has energy to travel much further. It’s a NATO round. Designed to be lethal wheather in a hallway, or when trading shots with a sniper up a mountain.

If you look at the muzzle velocities, and projectile drop of the .223/5.56, they are much different than even the 9mm (one of the faster handgun rounds.)

FMJ rounds can even sort of tumble in the air, so it could hit sideways, not just point on.
The rounds also have very good penetration. So, they are capable of going through multiple walls.

Like I said, there’s no debating the lethality of the round.

What the article doesn’t mention, is that the round can swirl in soft tissue. Instead of a straight path, it can swirl around, making a surgeon’s efforts in following the bullet’s path more difficult. In some ways, it is more lethal than most .30 cal bullets that were more common in rifles meant for war.

Shooting unarmed people, with no body armor grouped up in a hallway, or closed space would be disturbingly easy, if magazine capacity is greater than 20 rounds, and the weapon is operating as designed…

Florida sold an 18 year old kid, they knew nothing about a weapon of war. THAT is the biggest problem, to me…

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther