OT: Seriously????

[Targan]

Weaponise Australian wildlife Most of it is already weaponised. Even the bloody birds. Look up the cassowary, those angry bastards kill people. That's some seriously angry chicken.

[dragoon500ly]

Weaponise Australian wildlife Most of it is already weaponised. Even the bloody birds. Look up the cassowary, those angry bastards kill people. That's some seriously angry chicken.

So...we have a bird that charges you, kicks you, and even claws you and is responsible for over 200 attacks on humans per year...and so tough to eat that experts advise cooking the critter with a stone...and when the stone is soft enough to eat, so is the cassowary!!!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

So...we have a bird that charges you, kicks you, and even claws you and is responsible for over 200 attacks on humans per year...and so tough to eat that experts advise cooking the critter with a stone...and when the stone is soft enough to eat, so is the cassowary!!!

Well actually, the original recipe advised throwing away the bird and eating the stone.

[.45cultist]

Just clarify, I wasn't trying to derail this thread with a pro- or anti- gun ownership rights debate, I was seeking discussion on the view that there may be some legal basis in the US to the apparently widely-held assertion that adult-aged firearms owners in the US are basically automatically considered to be part of the militia. Or is that point just for the purposes of justifying unrestricted firearms ownership under the 2nd amendment and not actually backed by any legal substance in terms of the de-facto existence of a massive militia force across the nation

Actually it also generates adventure ideas. The PC's are to train a militia unit, however a political shift, takeover, power shift occurs and now they must leave before they are interned and thier gear confiscated. Or the only force to aid the PCs against an assault is a company of state militia. BTW, I think even opposing views have behaved well, it can be done on the internet! But alot of people fail......

[RN7]

Concur 100% that in a V.1 (or, frankly, any T2K universe) state guards would be a fertile recruiting ground for extremists. And, depending on the location and the demographics, it would not just be New America. In the Southwest, it could be a state guard unit who identified more with Mexico or their native tribe than the US (either MIL or CIV GOV).

Any state guard in the Southwest who identifies more with Mexico would not likely be in existence in any part of the US under Milgov or Civgoc control due to the fact that US forces are fighting Mexicans occupying US territory. The US military would probably feel more comfortable allowing a state guard of gang bangers from the Cribbs and Bloods or Chinese Tongs than allowing Hispanic dominated militias exist.

Some state guard in areas with large native populations might be likely to identify with their own tribe, but the native American uprising scenario would be more of a myth than a reality. My wife is Navaho-German with family in the Southwest and White-Indian animosity is really only something you would see in cowboy films. But there is plenty of inter-tribal Indian rivalry and a lot more animosity between Indians and Mexicans, they are seen as the intruders now. However in the scarcely populated Northern Great Plains it might happen over resources.

[CDAT]

Any state guard in the Southwest who identifies more with Mexico would not likely be in existence in any part of the US under Milgov or Civgoc control due to the fact that US forces are fighting Mexicans occupying US territory. The US military would probably feel more comfortable allowing a state guard of gang bangers from the Cribbs and Bloods or Chinese Tongs than allowing Hispanic dominated militias exist.

Some state guard in areas with large native populations might be likely to identify with their own tribe, but the native American uprising scenario would be more of a myth than a reality. My wife is Navaho-German with family in the Southwest and White-Indian animosity is really only something you would see in cowboy films. But there is plenty of inter-tribal Indian rivalry and a lot more animosity between Indians and Mexicans, they are seen as the intruders now. However in the scarcely populated Northern Great Plains it might happen over resources.

On my first deployment, our first platoon was about 90% Navaho with most of the rest being white, there was a lot of hazing and picking on the "white man" but when it got dicey we were thick as theives. I have seen this time after time. One part of the unit may pick fun at a second part, but heven help if someone else thinks that they can.

[swaghauler]

I personally think the 2nd Amendment is obsolete, and it became so in 1903 with the formation of the National Guard. The 2nd Amendment itself needs an Amendment that more clearly defines the right to ownership of personal weapons -- as written now, you can't blame people for thinking the militia part doesn't apply anymore, because it doesn't anymore.

And don't flame me. It's a personal opinion. I'm definitely not an anti-gun nut (I consider myself an "Enlightened Democrat"), but I'm definitely not a gun nut either. There are both out there, ranging from those who want to ban all firearms ownership to the NRA.

As you're all already aware of; I have very little use for either "President Clinton" or "President G.W. Bush." They both violated the Constitution with both the Assault Weapons Ban and The Patriot Act. In addition; I see both as having committed crimes (perjury, violations of the Geneva Convention). The Patriot Act was by far the most insidious legislation I have ever read.
That being said, I can honestly call myself an independent. I believe in Choice (because we are already taking care of too many unwanted children), Hate Gun Control (because I don't trust my Government), Have no problem with Same Sex Marriage (more money for the government from marriage certificates) and would like to see some version of Universal health Care. I drive my friends nuts because I "Issue Vote" instead of picking a (in our area) Republican or Democrat. I will mostly likely play "The Devil's Advocate" in any debates we have here. I think ALL sides of any argument (most arguments don't have just two sides) should be looked at. I hate BOTH FOX News AND MSNBC. Spin runs BOTH ways.
The one think I REALLY like about this Forum is the depth to which the reasoning runs here. I have seen too many forums where a discussion falls into mutual "name calling" by the posters far too quickly. I am glad you don't do that here.

[.45cultist]

A friend of mine got a manual for Missouri's WWII militia from a neighbor's widow. Published using then current pics and older manual illustrations for M1901 revolvers,M1911/A1 pistols, M50/55 Reising smg's and P17, M1903 rifles. Basic infantry and crowd control formations were taught. The inside cover referenced "Section 61 of the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916. State militias were to fill the gap left when NG units deployed in Federal service.
The Twilight War would make this viable again. Probably based around State Police command and greybeards as a cadre.

[CDAT]

As you're all already aware of; I have very little use for either "President Clinton" or "President G.W. Bush." They both violated the Constitution with both the Assault Weapons Ban and The Patriot Act. In addition; I see both as having committed crimes (perjury, violations of the Geneva Convention). The Patriot Act was by far the most insidious legislation I have ever read.
...

Now I have not looked into it, but a friend of mine (2nd LT US JAG) said that he had. He told me that legally the Geneva Convention does not apply to the US, as the President signed it but Congress never ratified it, so by international law it is the same as if we did not sign it.

[.45cultist]

Now I have not looked into it, but a friend of mine (2nd LT US JAG) said that he had. He told me that legally the Geneva Convention does not apply to the US, as the President signed it but Congress never ratified it, so by international law it is the same as if we did not sign it.

Correct, the senate must sign off on all treaties. Most of these we honor, but aren't bound to the conventions, protocals.

[Ancestor]

Any state guard in the Southwest who identifies more with Mexico would not likely be in existence in any part of the US under Milgov or Civgoc control due to the fact that US forces are fighting Mexicans occupying US territory. The US military would probably feel more comfortable allowing a state guard of gang bangers from the Cribbs and Bloods or Chinese Tongs than allowing Hispanic dominated militias exist.

Some state guard in areas with large native populations might be likely to identify with their own tribe, but the native American uprising scenario would be more of a myth than a reality. My wife is Navaho-German with family in the Southwest and White-Indian animosity is really only something you would see in cowboy films. But there is plenty of inter-tribal Indian rivalry and a lot more animosity between Indians and Mexicans, they are seen as the intruders now. However in the scarcely populated Northern Great Plains it might happen over resources.

RN7: Concur on post-Mexican invasion. I was thinking more along the lines of a pre-invasion state militia unit changing sides upon the Mexican Army moving north. The scenario would be a border state whose National Guard is federalized and whose state guard leadership is appointed via political cronyism (as bad as this is in the National Guard, I would think that it would be an order of magnitude worse in a state militia). Some of the subordinate local commanders start packing their unit along ethnic lines using existing social networks (neighborhoods, churches, social clubs, sports clubs, even gangs), and suddenly you have a large group of ethnically unified and like minded individuals able to enforce security at the point of a gun. I could see this type of unit left as an occupying force as the main invasion force moves north. It's a win-win for the invaders as they do not have to tie down forces to occupy conquered territory while the local militia commander essentially becomes a warlord/mafioso.

Great point also about the native Americans. I had no idea about the animosity between them and Mexicans in the southwest until I read "Blood and Thunder", a really great read about Kit Carson and New Mexico. I followed up with a native American friend of mine who confirmed that animosity exists in some areas.

[Ancestor]

The Twilight War would make this viable again. Probably based around State Police command and greybeards as a cadre.

This is most likely how such a thing would be formed. It's been awhile since I looked at the statutes but I recall researching during the first pandemic scare in 2009 that the KS Governor had the authority to recall retired members of the National Guard back into state service. And in most states the State Police/Highway Patrol has the lead for the Law Enforcement Emergency Support Function so it would be a natural C2 for a militia (unless, of course, you had political issues between the SP/HP and the National Guard (who wanted to retain control over the military forces in the state). That scenario would have two rival, armed forces working for the Governor, who would then become a pretty big target for miscreants on both sides seeking to cause trouble.

I'm sorry to beat a dead horse over such an obscure topic but I do think it's a very fertile area for a GM to harvest for adventure ideas.

[Ancestor]

Its a secret but mine is Conroy's Public House on W95th Street just down the road from the Islamic Madrasa that masquerades as a golf club between Nall and Roe. I can walk to it and walk home afterwards which is definitely a plus. Don't tell anyone!

I have never heard of that place (I was thinking about the converted church off of Highway 69 in Stillwell), however, I would love to meet for a pint or three of the black stuff. PM me if you are interested!

[Webstral]

oeA 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.


Ive been doing research on the Second Amendment over the past few years. My ideas on the subject have changed somewhat since I started. Im fairly certain Raellus recollection is directed at something I wrote. I dont remember writing it, but the idea of universal service in the militia for all gun owners sounds like what I used to advocate.


The questions posed here are good ones and deserve thoughtful reply. I will try to reply thoughtfully to the best of my ability without regurgitating the 80,000 words of notes I have taken over the past few years.


I think the place to start is to outline the thought process. The Second Amendment was written in the second half of the 1780s. We are obliged by mandate of intellectual integrity to develop of thorough understanding of what the Second Amendment meant at the time. This means having an honest look at history"not really our strong suit in modern America, but a necessity. Then we can look at how that original meaning might be applied to modern America.


Based on 150 years of tradition with the militia, their experience in the American Revolution, and the strategic situation at the birth of the United States, the Framers of the Constitution decided to base the security of a free state [State] at least in part on the militia"preferably a well regulated militia. A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the Framers committed the State to a guarantee of access to arms by private citizens. Many questions rise from the turn of phrase used in the Second Amendment. They have been debated exhaustively over the years, almost always by people who knew what outcome they wanted before they started their analysis. The results are tragi-comic. Very few Americans seem very satisfied with the current state of affairs, but we seem tied in a Gordian knot on the subject. My goal has been to help us live within the terms of the law as written and as intended, insofar as such a thing may be possible today.


Definition of terms comes next. Its impossible to analyze the Second Amendment without having a definition of the terms. This, too, has been undertaken with tragi-comic results. In part, the poor results stem from a paucity of genuine historical knowledge and a lack of military experience on the part of modern Americans. In part, the poor results stem from a predetermined outcome forcing unreasonable and sometimes laughable definitions to be superimposed on the terms. Everyone seems to understand, if only subconsciously, that rigging the definition of terms can fix the analysis favorably. So lets look at the terms and try to place them in an historical context.


We must start with oemilitia. This word has an American context applicable to 1787. How other countries, even England, may have used or currently use the term us not relevant. In its American context, a militia is a reserve formation of citizen-soldiers organized, trained, and equipped along the lines of regular formations. oeReserve means part-time, non-professional, and drilling [training] according to a specified schedule. An American militia as it existed for the 150 years prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment operated under the command of the colonial (cum state) executive, who delegated his authority to the officers commissioned within the militia and to lesser executives within the colony. Regulation of the militia once assembled for drill or mobilized under the command of the authorized executive was conducted according to the equivalent of a colonial UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) which was drafted and ratified by the colonial-cum-state legislature. Among the regulations passed by the legislature were a schedule of drills, pay (as applicable), conditions of mobilization, duration of mobilization in terms of the maximum number of days per annum that a militiamen could be mobilized, and what amounted to a TO&E (table of organization and equipment) for the period. Its worthwhile to note that among the applicable regulations was the rule that militia could not be compelled to serve on the soil of another colony/state, much less a foreign country. Volunteers could go where they wanted, and militia units were fruitful recruiting grounds for ventures outside a given colony and even foreign ventures. But the militia unit itself could not be compelled to go, nor were its members subject to a draft of any sort. Traditionally, the militia provided its own weapons; however, by the eve of the American Revolution militias often maintained small arms for poorer members of the militia and crew-served weapons held at the local armory.


Having defined the term oemilitia in its context in the 1780s when the Second Amendment was written and ratified, Ill look at a few things the militia is not.


The militia is not the Regular Army. The Regular Army is a professional force of full-time soldiers. They, along with their predecessor the Continental Army, serve under the command of federal (continental) leadership. They can be compelled to serve anywhere in the world at the discretion of national leadership.


The militia is not the Army Reserve. The Army Reserve is a force of citizen-soldiers under the command of the federal executive. There is no effective limit on the number of days per year a reservist can be mobilized. They can be compelled to serve anywhere in the world at the discretion of national leadership.


The militia is not the National Guard. While it is true that the National Guard is descended from the states militia, since 1903 the National Guard has been a joint state-federal reserve force of citizen-soldiers. The federal government is the senior partner, which means the federal government is authorized to take command of the National Guard at will. There is no effective limit on the number of days per year a National Guardsman can be mobilized. The National Guard can be compelled to serve anywhere in the world at the discretion of national leadership.


The militia is not law enforcement. Law enforcement is predominantly full-time professionals enforcing the law. Generally they are not organized along the lines of military units, although a few police units cross the line into paramilitary status. The principal mission of law enforcement is law enforcement. They are authorized to take life on an as-needed basis in the execution of arrests and warrant serving, etc. in a civil setting. The militia is for making war, which means deliberately taking life for the purpose of achieving military objectives. Though there might be some crossover, the roles are distinct. One might argue that police auxiliaries could constitute a militia. I am open to further discussion on this point.


The militia is not any of the so-called oeconstitutional militias. oeConstitutional militias are gangs of armed civilians operating on their own recognizance. They are not commanded by the state executive or any of his designees. They are not paid or regulated by the state legislature.


These distinctions are not arbitrary. They are meaningful in that the defining qualities of the militia I listed above reflect a philosophy that was relevant in the 1600s when the first militia units were formed and remains relevant today. The distinctions between the Regular Army, Army Reserves, and National Guard on the one hand and the militia on the other come down to ownership. The federal government owns the first three groups, though the states pay to use the National Guard when the feds dont have a job for the Guard. The states own the militia. This distinction plays into the ability of the militia to execute its two primary missions: defense of the state against foreign aggression and defense of the state against domestic tyranny. Ill come back to this later.


The other important distinction goes to who has authority to kill"particularly, who has the authority to kill agents of the State as required. Self-defense covers some types of homicide, but this is not what the so-called oeconstitutional militias have in mind. Taking life outside of a self-defense situation is called murder. This is especially true when the person killed is an agent of the State carrying out his assigned duties, like serving a warrant, keeping the peace, protecting a government facility, etc. The State delegates the right to kill people outside of self-defense situations. Only those serving the State (or state) under the command of civil authority and regulated by the legislature can be delegated the right to employ lethal force outside of a self-defense situation. In short, folks cant just go running around killing whomever they please under whatever pretext serves"including claiming that they are overthrowing tyranny. The right to overthrow a tyrannical government, including killing police and soldiers, is a natural right. However, the Second Amendment is a binding contract between the State and the citizenry. The State cannot possibly authorize the citizenry to overthrow the republic on their own recognizance. A method has been put in place for the citizenry to overthrow tyranny, though.


The militiaman possesses the authority to take life while mobilized because he is delegated that authority through the chain of command which has the state chief executive (governor) at its apex. The chief executive is an elected official. He is authorized to act in the interests of the electorate. Therefore, his delegation of the authority to kill reflects the will of the electorate. The electorate is the basis of authority in the republic. The authority to kill originates with the electorate, passes through the elected executive, and is passed down to the troops serving under the command of the elected executive. Authority to regulate the militia originates with the electorate and is passed to the elected legislature. Absent the authority originating with the electorate, people may not kill other people (outside of self-defense) legally. For this reason, so-called oeconstitutional militias are not militias at all. They are armed mobs. Their internal decision-making mechanisms are irrelevant. Absent authority of command and lethal action delegated by the executive and absent regulation by the legislature, these armed groups cannot possibly be considered militia.


I will come back to the authority to kill agents of the State as required later. For now, suffice to say that the organizations that have it belong to the federal government or law enforcement, while groups that would like to have that authority dont have it.

In fact, there is no organization in modern America that meets the definition of oemilitia as the Framers would have recognized it in the 1780s. What was the militia became the National Guard over the course of a century-long transformation. The closest entities to militia in modern America are the State Guards, which I will refer to hereafter as State Defense Forces (SDF) for the sake of clarity. The SDF, which belong entirely to the states and which have no federal mission [The legality of this claim is under debate.] basically meet the definition of militia. Where they fall down, though, is that they are so wretchedly and pitifully incapable of executing either militia mission (defense against foreign aggression and/or domestic tyranny) that I shudder to call them the same thing as the 14,000 man force of Massachusetts militia that harried the British all the way back to Boston in April 1775 and established a siege of the city thereafter. Still, the SDF represent a viable kernel for a force that not only technically meets the definition of a militia but also might be able to execute one or both militia missions as well as crack the code on one of our most irritating gun control problems.


Having defined the term oemilitia, I will look at oewell regulated. How do we recognize a well regulated militia from one that is not well regulated Why would this matter At the time the Second Amendment was written, oewell regulated meant oewell disciplined or oewell functioning. Any combat unit needs to be disciplined and


I want to examine the two missions of the militia next. Examination of the missions will tie back into the definition of the militia and why none of the organizations mentioned above except the SDF possibly could meet the definition of oewell regulated militia.


The oewell regulated militia had two primary missions in the late 1780s: defense of the country against foreign aggression and defense of the country against domestic tyranny. These missions survive in the oath of service for all components of the military, which includes defending the Constitution against all threats foreign and domestic. Both of these missions involve the militia taking to the field (going into combat) against professional troops. These missions in turn necessitated ensuring that the citizenry comprising the militia have access to military grade small arms. Even the secondary mission of the militia"namely, support of law enforcement when armed and organized criminals and/or rebels become too powerful for law enforcement to tackle without additional combat power"requires access by the citizenry comprising the militia to military grade small arms.


What leads one to believe that the two primary missions of the militia would be combat against foreign professional troops and domestic tyranny The Second Amendment points us in this direction: oeA well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state In what way, we should ask, is a well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state In what way is a disciplined and well functioning body of citizen-soldiers related to the security of a free state Clearly, violence organized on a large scale must be involved in any threat to the security of a free state such the militia would be necessary for the purpose of guaranteeing security. After all, any military formation exists for the purpose of employing organized violence on behalf of its leadership. If the purpose of the leadership is served merely through a convincing threat of violence, so much the better. Who, then, would be capable of employing organized armed violence that would require a disciplined and well functioning force of citizen-soldiers to oppose it Professional troops top the list.


At the birth of the United States, the country was in a poor security situation. The population of roughly 3 million was scattered along the Atlantic seaboard between Maine and Georgia. The federal government was destitute. The Regular Army amounted to less than 5,000 troops, and they were widely dispersed. Any of the major European powers could have landed more troops than the Regular Army possessed anywhere along the coast at will. The only hope the United States had of facing such an eventuality was the militia. Given Washingtons experience with the militia during the Revolution, a well regulated militia was vastly preferable to a half-assed militia, which would in turn be vastly preferable to a bunch of anonymous dudes with guns who would be unable to even organize themselves into the firing lines stipulated by the weapons and tactics of the day, much less endure trading volleys with professional troops. The militia was not the ideal choice, but it was the best option available to a State with nearly empty coffers.


Even if the early federal government had possessed the means to field a Regular Army sufficient for the security needs of the young republic, the Founding Fathers probably would not have wanted to maintain such a force. They were deeply suspicious of standing armies. Many of the Founding Fathers were classically educated men. They understood that standing armies can become the tools of tyranny. The Roman Republic began its transition to the Roman Empire when Caesar crossed the Rubicon with troops more loyal to him than to the ideals of the Republic. The King of England attempted to enforce sharing the burden of the French and Indian Wars on the American Colonies through his professional force. The Framers of the Constitution understood that the discipline that makes an army effective in the field can be turned to the purposes of a domestic despot. Thus a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state that might under invasion by professional troops fielded by England, France, Spain, or even the Netherlands.


The same thinking that made the Framers mistrust standing armies meant that they had to accept that whatever professional force the United States might possess could be turned to the purposes of a domestic tyrant. The Framers understood that loyalty might flow from the troops to whomever sat at the apex of command. Therefore, a force of drilled and disciplined professionals would have to be counterbalanced by a much larger force of reservists if the qualitative advantages of the professional troops were to be offset. Loyalty to the chain of command would have to flow someplace besides to the chief executive of the federal government.


The situation set up by having multiple chains of command conforms to the Enlightenment philosophy of regarding separation of powers which is found everywhere in the Constitution. A professional force with standards of quality comparable to that of other professional forces would operate under federal command. A much larger force of reservists would operate under the command of the various state governors. The rise of genuine tyranny could not help but produce a backlash from the various states. Together, the states would field a force far too powerful for a domestic despot controlling only federal territory and only federal troops to overcome. Singly or in small groups, the states would not have the combat power to overcome federal forces. Thus a situation arising from the republican process which favored the majority would not result in a successful military resolution of grievances by the minority. [See: the American Civil War.] The balance of power between a numerically inferior but qualitatively superior professional force and a numerically superior but qualitatively inferior force of citizen-soldiers loyal to their various state chief executives would secure the status quo so long as the federal government didnt do anything to piss off all or most state governments (such as falling into the hands of a domestic despot).


This ideal regarding an internal balance of power ran afoul of military considerations fairly quickly. Ill come back to that.


Ill sum up what Ive written so far before delving into more of the details. The Second Amendment was written to ensure that the states militia had access to military grade small arms with were necessary for the execution of their two principal missions. The militia referred to in the Second Amendment has several defining characteristics which are not met by the Regular Army, the Army Reserve, the Army National Guard, professional law enforcement, or any of the so-called oeconstitutional militias. The only organization in modern America that could be called a state militia is the conglomerate of State Defense Forces. The missions of the militia when the Second Amendment was written are the defense of a free state [State] against foreign aggression and the defense of a free state against domestic tyranny. Both of these missions require the militia to go into combat against professional troops.


Now I want to look at an idea that many Americans will find heretical: the Second Amendment was not written to protect private ownership of firearms for self-defense or hunting. Thats the bad news. The good news is that guns designed for self-defense dont need the protection of the Second Amendment. Self-defense is a common law right. Access to a firearm designed for self-defense is part and parcel with that right. The Supreme Court clearly says so in the majority ruling of Heller v DC. They also say that one does not have to be in a militia to own a gun. This means that there is no connection between owning oea gun and being in the militia. [Nod to Raellus] Its noteworthy that the Supreme Court doesnt define oea gun, even though anyone who knows anything about firearms knows that an M1911, an M1903, and an M4 are drastically different machines operating on similar principles but with such different characteristics in terms of volume of fire and effective range that lumping them together as oeguns is about as serviceable as lumping a Mini Cooper and a commercial tractor trailer together as oeautomobiles. I suspect that the author of the majority opinion deliberately avoided more specific terminology.


A right to self-defense means that the defender has the right to use lethal force. Obviously, most of us prefer that the defender not kill the assailant, if for no other reason than killing other human beings scars the psyche of the killer. No matter how much some of us may believe that Slasher the Mad Dog Rapist deserves a timely end to his criminal career at the hands of his intended victim, killing Slasher will affect the defender in ways that stunning him, disabling him, or crippling him will not. This much said, if the choice is between Slasher getting two to the chest and one to the ocular cavity or Slasher carrying through on his intended violation, I think people generally will support the former.


Self-defense has limits. If an armed intruder breaks down the door and refuses to believe that my wife will shoot him even though she has my revolver in hand and my kids crying with fear behind her, then his death can be ruled self-defense. On the other hand, a bunch of private citizens cant go rolling into the neighborhood of some other private citizens on a shooting spree on the basis that oeWe know THEY are a threat to us, so we got them first. Somewhere between these two extremes has to be drawn a line that separates self-defense from other types of homicide. This relates back to the tools used.


For the sake of drawing a line between self-defense and offensive homicide, Im going to state with confidence that using lethal force against anyone 100 meters cannot be considered self-defense except under very special circumstances. A firearm optimized to service a target at ranges less than this can be considered a weapon optimized for self-defense. A firearm optimized for some other range cannot logically be considered a weapon optimized for self-defense. A firearm optimized for self-defense can and should be safeguarded for access by civilians under the common law right to self-defense.


Now, we all know a guy who can shoot the wings off a mosquito at 200 meters with a .44 revolver with a 4-inch barrel. Thats not what the weapon is engineered to do. Each manufacturer will make a different claim about maximum effective range of its .44 revolver with a 4-inch barrel, but very few of them will claim that the average shooter can get a 3-inch grouping at 100 meters. So the definition of maximum effective range, which plays into whether a firearm can be classified as optimized for self-defense or not, has to based on the machine-determined maximum effective range is modified by the ability of a gun owner who is firing a realistic number of rounds per month and who has little or no professional training.


A number of years ago I read an FBI report saying that 80% of gunfights in the civilian world occur at ranges of 21 feet or less. 40% of gunfights in the civilian world occur at a range of 5 feet or less. I think 100 meters is absurdly generous, but Im willing to be ridiculous to draw a distinction between self-defense and non-self-defense that cannot be argued against by anyone who hopes to win a court case.


The point of all this fussing about ranges is that some types of firearms are covered by the common law right to self-defense. Some are not.


The guy with the AR-15 at home asks indignantly why his AR-15 shouldnt be covered. Thats his first choice for home defense, after all. The answer is that use does not define capacity. The AR-15 is designed to deliver a high volume of fire accurately against human targets at ranges to 300 meters. This is inconceivable in a self-defense application. One might as well claim that an 18-wheel tractor trailer should not have to be registered as a commercial truck because the owner pinky promises hes only going to go down to the corner store for cigarettes in it. Lets be honest with ourselves: no one with any sense buys an AR-15 buys it because he thinks its better suited for home defense than a handgun or a shotgun with the shortest legal barrel. He buys an AR-15 specifically for the high volume of fire and the fact that he can hit a man-sized target 3 football fields away 50% of the time if hes as good a shot as I am"more frequently if hes a better shot, which is not that hard to imagine. (Im not a great rifleman. Im serviceable. Id probably have been recycled a half-dozen times if I had gone through Marine Boot.) He buys the AR-15 specifically because it is the [equivalent of the] personal weapon of the infantry.

A firearm optimized for self-defense is not going to help a militiamen provide the security of a free state very much. The professional troops hes supposed to be fighting, foreign or domestic, will be armed with whatever the standard small arm of the day is. A handgun can make a militiaman dangerous to one or more soldiers of the opposing force under the right conditions. A handgun is a useful backup weapon for CQB. It is not a serviceable primary weapon for a soldier of the infantry. Soldiers who are issued side arms as their primary weapon are not expected to engage in combat personally. They are literally issued side arms for self-defense.


Bringing this all back to the militia and the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Amendment was written so that a well-regulated militia could guarantee the security of a free state. The militia is a combat unit composed of citizen-soldiers. They are expected to go into combat against professional forces. The Second Amendment was written to guarantee the citizen-soldiery access to the primary weapons necessary to fight professional troops. If firearms for self-defense are not useful as a primary weapon for militiamen fighting professional troops, and if access to firearms for self-defense is already guaranteed by the right to self-defense, then what good purpose is to be served by imagining that the Second Amendment secures a right such that the securing is not very useful and redundant The answer is that there is no good purpose served.


Several important items remain to be addressed.

What about hunting and firearms optimized for hunting
If the Second Amendment was written to ensure that the citizen-soldiers of the militia have access to the appropriate firearms, how do we determine which firearms are covered
What happened to the militia
The rifles of the infantry are already out there in some numbers. Since there is no militia, now what do we do

[CDAT]

"
Let's be honest with ourselves: no one with any sense buys an AR-15 buys it because he thinks it's better suited for home defense than a handgun or a shotgun with the shortest legal barrel.

It is a well done article, I do however disagree with you on this point. A pistol is a terrible home defense weapon, the only thing that it has going for it is that it is easy to carry and or move with, for home defense that does not really apply if you are not trained to move with a weapon odds are you will not do it right regardless of what you have. If you are staying put in a locked room as lots of police departments recommend now how easy it is to carry and/or move with makes no difference. Now the shotgun has most of the advantages that the rifle has and as most people know the sound alone is enough to scare most bad men away, plus it is much easier to hit with as you only need to be pointing in the general direction. Both of these are wrong and if you are depending on them may get you killed. My background I did 20 years in the Army, and a bit over 8 as a Federal Police officer (firearms instructor among other ting I did), our shotguns (bought in the 1960's) will put all of the shot in the face at 75ft. I have also had the opportunity to shoot different things, the shotgun penetrated the best (Slug) and the buckshot was about as good as the AR, we use .40 sidearms and they were the worst. The shotgun also has the most recoil now if you have a one shot stop that does not matter much, they do happen not much but does happen. What about if there are more than one bad guy Multiple attackers are happening more and more, last stats I saw had home invasions on the rise, they do not have to worry about you coming home and surprising them. So my choice for a home defense weapon is my M4 with suppressor it is more accurate than the handgun, easier to shoot so I am more likely to hit. If I do miss the bullet has less chance to penetrate multiple walls as there is only one not nine every time I pull the trigger. A saying we have is you own the bullet from the time you fire it tell it comes to a stop and the average cost of a miss is about $1 mil. But the biggest reason I pick the AR is that with all the training I have with it, it has become an extension of my body. Every time I pull the shotgun out of the rack I have to look at it as I do not remember if left is safe or is right, and if the fecal matter hits the oscillating blade and I need more ammo that is much easier with a magazine feed weapon the a tube feed. So in closing I would say what is best for self-defense is what you are best able to use to keep you safe and not put undue danger on those around you.