2nd Amendment Regulation

[Yellowfin]

It is sad, disgusting, and ironic how easily and willingly that people in the firearms owning community do the antis work for them by validating their incrementalism. For those wondering what the end result of those thinking it's OK to be against select fire and modern (non-bolt action) rifles, look at CA, NJ, and the UK.

I understand the sporting arms only dedicated people. I used to be one of them. I still do love my sporting arms and hunt and shoot clays enthusiastically. But hear me when I say this, people who are wood and blued only, 4 legged or feathered targets only folks: stand up for the black rifles and other stuff or you won't get to enjoy your stuff either. Stop selling out your brethren. Pinch your nose if you must but stop feeding the opposition. I know where you're coming from, but you need to get past it. Get out of denial, stop thinking you'll just hold out and it'll hold off in your lifetime. Stop being part of the "I've got mine, so screw the rest of you"--it's killing us in Cali, it's ruining the next generation, and it's letting other stuff get through that hurts you even if you're in a good enough position to ignore it.

[USAFNoDak]

I figured I'd never get YukonKid or Tennessee Gentleman to agree with me. I don't agree with their positions, but I respect their right to have them. I don't walk away from the debate, as YukonKid did, just because I can't convince other posters to take my side of the issue.

If your passion is thus that you feel so strongly about your position, keep hammering at it. Who knows when you will make a point that others might agree with? If you take your ball and go home, the game continues without you. Winners never quit and quitters never win.

You didn't see anyone else here walk away because they couldn't change your mind. Come on back and re engage. It's only an internet forum. It's not like you'll suffer a black eye or brain damage by staying in the ring and duking it out. And remember, like two wrestlers, we could go have a beer after we are done in the ring, because we probably have more in common than we differ as it relates to gun rights and the 2nd A.

[Jermtheory]

It is sad, disgusting, and ironic how easily and willingly that people in the firearms owning community do the antis work for them by validating their incrementalism. For those wondering what the end result of those thinking it's OK to be against select fire and modern (non-bolt action) rifles, look at CA, NJ, and the UK.

I understand the sporting arms only dedicated people. I used to be one of them. I still do love my sporting arms and hunt and shoot clays enthusiastically. But hear me when I say this, people who are wood and blued only, 4 legged or feathered targets only folks: stand up for the black rifles and other stuff or you won't get to enjoy your stuff either. Stop selling out your brethren. Pinch your nose if you must but stop feeding the opposition. I know where you're coming from, but you need to get past it. Get out of denial, stop thinking you'll just hold out and it'll hold off in your lifetime. Stop being part of the "I've got mine, so screw the rest of you"--it's killing us in Cali, it's ruining the next generation, and it's letting other stuff get through that hurts you even if you're in a good enough position to ignore it.

well said.

[mvpel]

I am most definitely an extremest. I am a pro freedom, pro rights extremest.

Of course, this brings a famous quote to mind:

Originally Posted by Barry Goldwater

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Why the beauty of the very system we Republicans are pledged to restore and revitalize, the beauty of this Federal system of ours is in its reconciliation of diversity with unity. We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion, and no matter how great, so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution.

[USAFNoDak]

What an anarchist that old Barry Goldwater must have been.

[RedneckFur]

I cant seem to wrap my mind around the idea that a responsible gun owner with a few pump shotguns and bolt action rifles will suddenly turn into a clumsy ogre bent on destruction the moment he gets a full auto rifle or s short barrled shotgun.

But I guess thats what the goverment is for. To make these sorts of decisions and protect us from ourselves :barf:

[USAFNoDak]

And the government would have a hard time preventing people from getting short barreled shotguns without banning hacksaws and regular shotguns. A hacksaw and a half hours work and you can make a sawed off shotgun out of any "legal" scatter gun. Why do you think the British also banned shotguns unless you belong to a club and keep the thing there? They knew that criminals could get access to hacksaws if there were still shotguns around.

But, low and behold, all of their efforts to keep criminals from getting "illegal" weapons has not been all that effective. As a matter of fact, violent crime in the UK has been steadily on the rise since they banned guns for John Q. Public.

Canada's registration system has also not resulted in the dropping of violent crimes. Toronto's mayor is calling for a nationwide ban on handguns now. Seems the criminals in Toronto are not registering their handguns or any guns, like the law tells them they should. Gee, I guess that's why we call them criminals.

And let's not go down the path were people say, "just because having laws doesn't stop all crimes, do you think we shouldn't have any laws?" No way do I think that. What I think is that the law should define what we think is criminal behavior when that behavior violates the rights of others or breaks the social contract. The laws should define the punishment associated with that behavior, should you be tried and convicted by a jury of your peers for conducting such behavior.

I don't see how the possession of a gun falls under a criminal act, unless you have already committed a criminal act and have been convicted for it. Society can and should restrict some of your rights when you do such things. But for us folks who have played it straight, and will continue to do so, society has not benefit to disarming us, even from owning full auto or select auto firearms. That is not criminal. Now, if I were to take a full auto, or any gun for that matter, and try to rob the local convenience store, then I should have the book thrown at me and I should be subject to some very severe punishment. If I hurt someone, that punishment should be more severe. If I kill someone, I should probably lose my life or at least spend the rest of it at hard labor. Law abiding citizens purchasing and possessing guns, including full auto, doesn't seem to me to present any danger to society at large. Thus, it should not be a criminal offense.

[Jermtheory]

But, low and behold, all of their efforts to keep criminals from getting "illegal" weapons has not been all that effective. As a matter of fact, violent crime in the UK has been steadily on the rise since they banned guns for John Q. Public.

obviously thats because in their haste they forgot about those evil kitchens knives...an oversight which they're now trying to rectify.

im guessing that rocks,2x4's,and scrap metal are next?

yet so many of those in the US dismiss the "slippery slope" and cant imagine their guns being next on the list?

[Webleymkv]

I'm just now catching up on the discussion as I've been out of town (and away from a computer) for about a week.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

the reference equating slavery with full auto regulation is far out and almost offensive

Originally posted by Yukon Kid

TG, I to found the equation between slavery and full auto ownership appalling.

What's appaling or offensive about it? I did not make derogatory comments about anyone's race (or religion or gender for that matter). I was simply using the issue of slavery to illustrate that even unpopular causes are worth fighting for, that's it. I think the two of you may have been reading a bit too far into it.

I am not an anti in any form. I love shooting and hunting and would not give up my firearms without a fight, but the law is the law. I just do not NEED firearms in my life. My world does not revolve around ammo prices and when the next issue of American Handgunner comes out. I am shooter and hunter, but not an extremist who thinks I should have the right to buy whatever I want, I am quite happy with the selection on the table now.

Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't seem to recall anyone calling you anti-gun. Some of your arguments are the same as those used by anti-gunners and that's been pointed out, but I've yet to see anyone call you an anti. As far as your comments about extremists, well that's simply your opinion as most of us here don't seem to think that the same restrictions placed on one type of firearm should apply to another is at all extreme. Besides, being an extremist isn't a bad thing if your cause is a just one.

As to buying AK-47's in third world countries for so little money, why don't you go there and have all the AK's you want. Your life will be complete and you can sit in your dwelling stocked full of AK-47's and giggle all day because you are beating the $200 tax in the US. You will be living in a third world country and will most likely die of disease or starvation but you will have your full autos at last.

The point is that due to unnecessary and unreasonable restriction, the government has artificially inflated the price of something to the point that an illegal one is cheaper than a legal one.

Do not worry TG, I am not an anti, I love my weapons and I love to shoot. I just do not feel that civilians have any need for fully automatic weapons and all this complaining over money is silly. They are still buyable, it is complicated and expensive, but it is doable, so go do it if you want to.

Yet again we come to the word "need". Why does the government need to restrict them further than other firearms? Doesn't a background check (which applies to other firearms and I take no issue with) serve to keep them out of the hands of criminals? If a person isn't fit to own a fully automatic weapon, then are they fit to own a gun at all? As I've said numerous times, I don't support completely unregulated full-auto, I just think that the regulation that applies to other guns is more than sufficient for full auto as well.

I follow the laws, they are there for a reason, speed limits are designed to keep people safe, gun laws are the same. I am not going to waste my time arguing with a bunch of people who don't even own full autos and cannot give me an reasons why they should have them or need them. There is nothing stopping you this minute from buying one other than your own finances, so take out a second mortgage on your house or trailer or whatever and go out and buy one (be sure to complain extra loud about the $200 tax, thats not even 2 full tanks of gas)

Speed limits are in place because in most places it isn't possible to safely operate a car at the maximum speed it is capable of. Driving a car at exessive speeds not only poses a danger to the operator of the car, but also the other drivers on the road and other people's property. A speed limit is more analagous to ordinances prohibiting shooting in certain places. The NFA is more analagous to extra regulation (as in above and beyond those applying to others) on cars over a certain horsepower because afterall, what law abiding citizen really needs 400 horsepower? Since we've brough up traffic laws, I take issue with some of them for the same reason that I take issue with the NFA. For example, I strongly disagree with current seatbelt laws because my wearing or not wearing one has no effect on other motorists nor anyone else's property, it's the same principle.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

I'm sorry but I don't think the unrestricted access to all military wespons cause is that particularly noble and I don't buy the slippery slope issue regarding NFA.

Now, some other laws perhaps, but not that one and I think that full autos being restricted for over 70 years without significant gun banning following is a evidence of that. Actually, I think in many cases our rights have grown. I couldn't carry a concealed weapon in TN when I turned 21 and now I can! Now, that's something I would fight for

Actually, our rights have never grown, some of them have just been restored to some degree. When Tennessee (and most of the states) became a state, it was perfectly legal to carry a handgun concealed or otherwise and no permit was required. That right was taken away and has now been partially restored. As far as no significant gun banning in the last 70 years, that's simply incorrect. A myriad of small handguns (like the Walther PPK) were banned from importation due to the GCA of '68, machineguns made after a certain date were banned by the '86 law, a myriad of guns were banned from importation and subject to silly and confusing parts counts in '89, and a myriad of guns and magazines were banned by the '94 AWB (this one has thankfully expired if only temporarily). These are just the Federal laws, the lists of guns banned in states like California, New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts is quite long.

Originally posted by USAFNoDak

I figured I'd never get YukonKid or Tennessee Gentleman to agree with me.

I really didn't expect to change their minds either. What I was really looking for was an open discussion where sentiments such as these have to be explained and defended and maybe at least make those who hold such sentiment think a little bit about why. Unfortunately, there were several points that myself and others brought up which Tennessee Gentleman and Yukon Kid refused to address.

[publius42]

Originally Posted by Scalia

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.

Yep, I'd like to make that objection!

A ban on happy switches is unconstitutional.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Man, I thought this thread was done. Well let me answer a few final comments.

What's appaling or offensive about it?

Because you are equating an extreme, evil and pernicious institution with the regulation of full auto weapons. I find the comparison offensive at worst, very poor thinking at best.

Unfortunately, there were several points that myself and others brought up which Tennessee Gentleman and Yukon Kid refused to address.

We addressed them but you don't like the answers we gave . Too bad. I and most other gun owners I believe (and I think the NRA) will never support the public having an unrestricted right to military weapons. I don't think the courts or legislatures will follow as well.

I think to continue debating any more would be circular but continue on if it pleases you.

[44 AMP]

as we were before the magic year of 1934? Prior to 1934 we had unrestricted access to military weapons.

I no longer accept the argument that these weapons are too dangerous, or that they easily allow individuals to kill mass numbers of innocents. So do many other things that we do not restrict, regulate or prohibit our citizens.

One of the most famous gangland slayings of the Prohibition Era was the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Seven gang members were killed, 7.

Last year, one deranged individual killed more than 4 times (nearly 5 times) as many innocent students with handguns. He was able to do so because the law ensured no law abiding citizen in the area would be armed, and because of the response time of armed authorities, AND because of a school policy to "lock down" everyone in place when danger threatens.

In September, 2001 a group of fanatics killed 3,000. They managed this without a machine gun. They did it without a sniper rifle. The did it without an "assault weapon", they did it without a Saturday Night Special, they did it without high capacity magazines, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, flash hiders, grenade launchers, heat shields, folding stocks or any other cosmetic features banned by a ridiculous law. in fact, the did it without any guns at all! Imagine that! All they had was small knives and fanatical determination.

The largest mass murder in this country done by a single individual was done with a gallon of gasoline and some matches! 96 people died in that nightclub fire.

Tell me again how machineguns in private hands are dangerous to the public at large.

I'll tell you where machineguns are a real and constant threat to public saftey in the USA. ON the TV and MOVIE SCREEN! In the constant stream of "action" movie propaganda churned out by the entertainment industry! Show people this kind of thing 24/7 (and we do) and you are not just entertaining them, you are training them! It may be at a below concious level, but I believe it has an effect. And don't bother to tell me that it has to be this way, because violence is what sells. It does sell, but so does Disney, and I can't remember too many machinegun shoot em ups in Disney movies.

I am not advocating govt action to stop violent entertainment, that would be wrong as well. They have a Constitutionally protected right to sell their product. What I am saying is that it would be better for all of us if in this age of constant unceasing media exposure if they chose to focus on less violent entertainment.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Because you are equating an extreme, evil and pernicious institution with the regulation of full auto weapons. I find the comparison offensive at worst, very poor thinking at best.

Exactly when did I ever say that excessive full auto regulation is as evil as slavery? I do believe that both are wrong, but I never called them equally evil. As a matter of fact, I very clearly explained the reasoning behind my comparison in post # 159.

We addressed them but you don't like the answers we gave .

I've yet to recieve an explanation as to why I must need something in order to have a right to own it. I've yet to see an explanation of just how a full-auto poses any more danger to public safety than less severely restricted firearms. You and Yukon Kid's explanations seem to boil down to "because they're dangerous," and "because you don't need one," but when those are challenged all you seem to be able to do is repeat them.

[USAFNoDak]

TG, do you support or disagree with the 86 ban on full autos? You seem to focus on the NFA of 34, and believe it will never be overturned. You support the NFA of 34, apparently because it puts more of a burden on the potential owners of select fire guns. OK, let's go with that for the sake of arguement. Was there a problem with "legal" ownership of select fire guns prior to 1986? There was not. So why did the federal government decide that there was a need to ban guns imported or manufactured after 1986? With instant background checks now being the law of the land, why shouldn't the 86 ban be lifted?

Please explain your reasoning regarding those particular questions.

[hpj3]

One of the most important parts of the decision has gone almost un-noticed by most. In fact, many have stated that the issue of scrutiny was not addressed. However, it was - and in a most creative way:

Many current gun-control laws are likely to pass constitutional muster under the Heller doctrines, though further challenges to specific laws are likely. Roger Pilon, vice president for constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, pointed out to us that Justice Scalia's opinion included the stipulation that, in such cases, courts should not apply "rational basis," the lowest level of scrutiny, to such laws, since the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental enumerated constitutional right, requiring strict scrutiny when a legislative body seeks to limit it.

"The core issue of "judicial scrutiny" is now established -- better than we had dreamed -- in what will be known as Famous Footnote #27 (p56). Laws impinging on the Second Amendment can receive no lower level of review than any other "specific enumerated right" such as free speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy or the right to counsel (the Court's list of examples).

This is a tremendous win, and overlooked in all initial reviews I've seen. Attorney Mike Anthony was the first to spot it, way to go Mike. "Strict scrutiny," which many folks sought, is a term without formal definition that could prove problematic. I was hoping for a test of some sort and got more than I hoped for. By recognizing 2A as a "specific enumerated right" the majority ties 2A to the rigid standards and precedents of our most cherished rights. That's as strong as there is. Very clever indeed."

Despite the critics, it appears that we have gained much more than many realize.

Howard

[Socrates]

Thanks Howard. I missed that, and it's HUGE>

I did see Scalia making fun of the minority with their low level, new scrutiny, designed, much like the standard they tried to use for the commerce clause, to give no limits, in Lopez. 1995

The major problem with all these 'chipper' laws has been how do you get harm, and how do you attack them?

Scalia just solved all that, with strict scrutiny as the as standard for law review.

I hope I live long enough to see all the crappy Kali laws go down....

[publius42]

JUSTICE BREYER correctly notes that this law, like almost all laws, would pass rational-basis scrutiny. Post, at 8. But rational-basis scrutiny is a mode of analysis we have used when evaluating laws under constitutional commands that are themselves prohibitions on irrational laws. See, e.g., Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at 9–10). In those cases, “rational basis” is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938) (“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality [i.e., narrower than that provided by rational-basis review] when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments. . .”). If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.

[hpj3]

Tennessee Gentleman
"...support to legalize without restrictions those NFA weapons. I maintain that those weapons were designed for military use and are not suitable for civilian self-defense and so I don't think the second amendment applies. My two cents."

The only point I can add here is that the 2A was not penned for "civilian self defense" specifically... and should not be looked at in such a manner.


Howard

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The only point I can add here is that the 2A was not penned for "civilian self defense" specifically... and should not be looked at in such a manner.

Agreed, however, the militia no longer exists but we still have a right to bear arms independent of that says Heller. I think that Scalia well put it on page 56 when he said:

that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefactory clause and the protected right

That is why I believe it is reasonable and constitutional to limit or ban civilian access to most military weapons.

Most of the arguments I see on here are from what I call extremists who believe that by being a part of the "unorganized militia" they have a right to own without restriction (or as long as they don't hurt anybody) any military weapon they can afford to buy.

Militias, by definition of our constitution are organized, disciplined armed forces. Not a of bunch gun enthusiasts with stingers and grenade launchers living around the nation answerable to no chain of command or military structure. That is not a militia. Actually, the unorganized militia other than being a pool of manpower from which our standing armies can draw has no duties I am aware of prescribed by law.

There are some so-called "New Militias" out there in some states but they are unauthorized voluntary paramilitary organizations. New militias say they are subordinate to civilian authority, but that is not true. Not a single new militia group has its senior officers militarily subordinate to militia officers appointed by the state. None that I have read about can show that there is a chain of command that starts with the governor or the legislature and can be followed down to one of these groups.

[Jermtheory]

an "organized militia" is only formed by having an "unorganized militia" to be born from.thats exactly why it is an individual right and why the militia and the individual are one in the same.

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.

see how simple that really is?...

militia = necessarry for a free state

the people being armed = necessarry for a militia

[44 AMP]

Those same "reasonable" restrictions we have had in place for purchase of all other weapons for quite some time. NO Felony record, NOT adjudicated mentally defective, NO outstanding warrants. Beyond that, no.

No extra restrictions on machine guns, short barreled guns, even those dreaded "silencers" (which are required by law in some European countries).

Ideally, we should have no restrictions at all, being a free people, and having a fundamental right. However, I recognize that many are irresponsible, and even though laws against killing for fun and profit ought to be enough, some restrictions are reasonable, and do not constitute onerous prior restraint.

What I do object to is the idea that because some firearms are somehow considered "evil" that they must have much greater restictions on ownership.

No bullet kills more than dead. You are not worse off being killed by a machinegun than you are having your throat slit by a boxcutter!

As to the argument about "military weapons", that,

those weapons were designed for military use and are not suitable for civilian self-defense

I would like to point out that the purpose of military weapons, and indeed of the military in total is to provide for civilian defense. To believe that the hundreds of thousands of former servicemen and women somehow magically become incompetant and unable to manage these same weapons they carried when in uniform when they are not wearing govt issue clothing is not rational. And for each former serviceman, there are dozens of equally competant individuals who have never worn a uniform.

While it appears that there is no current pressing need for defense against an invading foreign power or a tyrannical US govt, suggesting that we be forever barred by law from possessing the most effective and efficient means of defense from such entities is akin to the turn of the century Patent Office clerk that suggested that the Patent Office be closed "because everything had already been invented".

No man can see the future, no system of government is infallible, nor has one proven permanent. In the 20th century alone, several governments became dictatorships, and great hardships for the entire world resulted from that. Had the people of those nations both the will and the tools to resist, things would have turned out quite differently.

Background checks to demonstrate that you are not a danger to yourself or others I can agree with. Outright prohibition of access to military class weapons to US citizens, I cannot.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

an "organized militia" is only formed by having an "unorganized militia" to be born from.thats exactly why it is an individual right and why the militia and the individual are one in the same

No the militia and the individual are not the same. A bumper is not a car. An individual MAY become a part of the organized (military) militia.

see how simple that really is?...

Yes, I do! If you want to play with machine guns, stingers and grenade launchers and avoid the NFA...join the military! I did and had a great time for 21 years

No bullet kills more than dead. You are not worse off being killed by a machinegun than you are having your throat slit by a boxcutter!

True, but I can kill and wound a hell of lot more people in a lot shorter time with a machine gun.

Beyond that, no.

Your opinion. That's fine, the Supreme Court and Congress disagree. Get Congress to repeal the NFA and all will be well. Won't happen in our lifetime I bet.

I would like to point out that the purpose of military weapons, and indeed of the military in total is to provide for civilian defense.

Agreed! Such defense provided by... the military. Join up!

To believe that the hundreds of thousands of former servicemen and women somehow magically become incompetant and unable to manage these same weapons they carried when in uniform when they are not wearing govt issue clothing is not rational. And for each former serviceman, there are dozens of equally competant individuals who have never worn a uniform.

So, no NFA only for ex-military(assuming they used these weapons and can prove competency), and how would you determine which civilians were competent? Would they have to take a test? Who would administer it?

Seriously, the issue I feel about military weapons is more about control and accountability. Many gun owners who never were in the military labor under the misconception that soldiers on active duty have uncontrolled access to the weapons they are assigned. Not true. Soldiers don't own those weapons, the government does. An Army specialist cannot wake up each morning and say "Hell, I think I'll take the Abrams out for a spin today." You can't even take a HUMMV out without a dispatch (permission).

What scares me about the extremists is that they'll let a guy like a Joe Horn get a rocket launcher and then he decides to play cop and fires it off in my neighborhood and kills a lot of people. Yeah, he'll pay for it but I'd rather him be limited to the shotgun he used and just kill (albeit wrongly IMHO) just the burglars. The military answers to a rank structure and chain of command and that is NOT the same as civilians under law. Much more disciplined and they are mandatorily trained and not allowed to use the weapons if the don't show competency. A civilian, Remington Ranger, would have none of that control and be I think a menace to the public with the type access you espouse.

While it appears that there is no current pressing need for defense against an invading foreign power

Not likely with the nukes we have. However, if they do invade then we can break into the NG armories a' la Red Dawn and fight 'em off with howitzers!

[gordo_gun_guy]

And for each former serviceman, there are dozens of equally competant individuals who have never worn a uniform.

+1. I'm humbled and honored by all those I serve with, but honestly--excepting a few "special" folks and some former civilian marksmen--my civilian friends are far more adept with small arms. They wouldn't know the first thing about military combat, but I could trust them to be unsupervised on a range with a 240 and a few cans of 7.62--something I'd only let my airmen do with an experienced NCO riding heard

TG, how to say this properly? What is magical about military members and sworn law officers is that they volunteered to give everything, including their lives, for their nation or their community. What is absolutely not magical about them is their natural human abilities or the depth of their training. Uncle Sam teaches enough weapons disclipline and marksmanship to craft the most effective fighting force the world has ever seen. But, in terms of individual weapons prowess, this institutional instruction is not even close to what a self-motivated civilian firearms enthusiast can learn in his spare time, and it sure isn't ingrained nearly as much as lessons passed from father to son.

Short version: unlike in Tom Clancy novels, my experience is that Bubba shoots way better than (conventional) Joe.

At any rate, actual proficiency aside, at what point did we decide only folks in uniform may be trusted with lethal force? When did being a good citizen lose the connotation of being willing to step in and stop a crime or aid a stranger?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

What is magical about military members and sworn law officers is that they volunteered to give everything, including their lives, for their nation or their community.

Nothing. They have agreed to serve as I did and are subject to authority that civilians are not.

They wouldn't know the first thing about military combat,

You make my point. Those weapons were designed for military combat and civilians aren't trained for that. These weapons are not suitable for civilian self defense and therefore shouldn't be in any civilian hands. Combat is not for a bunch of bubbas, undisciplined and accountable to no one. It is tough work with LOTS of training and practice and not just marksmanship. This is not JUST about going to the range. Although, at my range in TN we have had problems with people there using full auto and had to restrict it because they were tearing up the range and frightening the neighbors.

at what point did we decide only folks in uniform may be trusted with lethal force? When did being a good citizen lose the connotation of being willing to step in and stop a crime or aid a stranger?

We didn't. You have the tools and the ability with the weapons you can buy with little restriction today that can allow you (if you choose) to do just that. Jawboning for the unrestricted right to military weapons is not necessary and hurts our cause with the non-gun owning public.

[Jermtheory]

if you wish to argue that the 2nd should no longer apply,than make your case.but dont try to twist the unambiguous meaning of...

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.

its quite clear that what they meant,was that an armed populace is necessary to form your "organized militia" in times of need...as they did in their time.

Combat is not for a bunch of bubbas, undisciplined and accountable to no one.

you mean like the same "bubbas" who came together to win our independence from a better trained and more disciplined force?

do you need a list of the numerous examples of what "untrained bubbas" are capable of with the proper motivation?often times against far better trained and equipped opposition.there are many,from recent times to ancient.