The Big Cruz/Feinstein Blowup
There is a classic scene from Seinfeld where Jerry shows up to a car rental place and tells them he has a reservation. They say they ran out of cars. He says: “But the reservation keeps the car here. That’s why you have the reservation!” The haughty lady behind the counter says: “I know why we have reservations.” Jerry responds: “I don’t think you do. Because if you did, I’d have a car.”
It was hard not to think of this scene today as I watched the video of Ted Cruz cross examining Dianne Feinstein about her assault weapons ban.
CRUZ: Let me explain the Constitution to you, Senator Feinstein. Among its other functions, the Constitution preserves the individual rights of the American people.
FEINSTEIN: I know why we have the Constitution, Senator Cruz.
CRUZ: I don’t think you do. Because if you did, you wouldn’t be proposing this ban.
[Studio audience laughs uproariously. Exeunt alles.]
Folks like Andrea Mitchell might watch this and declare DiFi the Winner Totally Awesome No Takebacks, but the California senator is clearly unmatched in discussing Constitutional law with Cruz. That’s why she makes such a production out of huffing and puffing about her experience and all the dead bodies she has seen and the like — because she knows if Cruz starts to debate her on the actual standards that apply, she’ll be as lost as Obama without a TelePrompTer.
With the help of her colleagues, DiFi finally stumbled and stammered their way into arguing: why, all Constitutional rights are limited! Yes, they are, but that doesn’t mean any regulation is A-OK. The issue is whether the conduct that Congress seeks to prohibit is the type of conduct that Americans would have understood to be covered when the Bill of Rights was passed. We declare certain speech outside the purview of the First Amendment, for example, because such speech (child porn, e.g.) does not serve the purpose of the First Amendment.
That doesn’t mean all new technology falls outside the Bill of Rights; the issue (expressed imprecisely) is whether conduct made possible by new technology serves the purpose of the Amendment that protects our rights. The First Amendment covers awesome methods of communication that the Founders could not have imagined, like the Internet.
Similarly, when it comes to new weapons technology, the issue is whether it fits within the purpose of the Second Amendment. Possession of a nuclear bomb does not in my judgment qualify as something the Founders would have found protected by the Second Amendment. Possession of assault weapons, in my view, would be — even though they weren’t yet invented. Why are assault weapons anything but a more effective method of carrying out the objectives of the Second Amendment?
This is the debate we should be having, but DiFi’s attitude appears to be that Constitutional law is for judges. We’ll pass what we want, because we have seen a lot of bodies and whatnot, and we’ll leave the yapping about the Constitution to the nerds in the black robes. Isn’t that what she’s saying?
Love that Ted Cruz. Keep getting under their skin, buddy.
Let’s be clear here: the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that the citizens of the country have the means to engage in revolution if the government becomes tyrannical.
The Founders had just fought their way through a revolution, which was only possible because men owned their own rifles. They knew all too well that if the British had seized all their guns, revolution would have been impossible.
They also knew that the new government they were creating might well eventually fall into tyranny. The Second Amendment is their final defense against that; an armed citizenry is a huge deterrent against tyrants.
Which means that the point of the Second Amendment is to protect ownership of weapons designed to kill humans. Not hunting weapons, weapons which could be used by a militia when engaged in revolution.
“Assault weapons” (whatever that means) definitely count.Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:11 pm
The senior Senator from CA is past her expiration date. Moreover, “reasonably educated” isn’t especially comforting when that education ended during Ike’s tenure.gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:13 pm
What ever happened to “never let ’em see you sweat.” All he did ws ask a question, which wasn’t answered directly.AZ Bob (c11d35) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:20 pm
When you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.
I learned that here.MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:20 pm
“I am not a sixth-grader.”
No, ma’am, you’re not. You’re my age, and when I was a fourth-grader I and all of my classmates knew more about firearms than you do now, unless you’re pretending to an ignorance you don’t have.
I shouldn’t call you “ma’am”; I don’t have that much respect for you, Senator.htom (412a17) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:23 pm
she can pass, and the First Failure can sign, any damn law they want.
unconstitutional laws are not laws, they are unenforcable and she can go whistle.redc1c4 (403dff) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:28 pm
Isn’t this great?DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:29 pm
Ask her to define an assault weapon. That’s like garlic to vampires.Mike K (dc6ffe) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:30 pm
she’s past her prime one way you can tell before she even speaks is by looking at how old and fat she is
then after she starts talking it’s like oh sweetie
time to hang it up tootshappyfeet (8ce051) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:37 pm
Why don’t penumbras and emanations apply to the Second Amendment?Diffus (4a5ca6) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:37 pm
Her response to a constitutional question was basically “do you have any idea how old I am, and I have seen bodies”.JD (b63a52) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:38 pm
Her response to a constitutional question was basically “do you have any idea how old I am, and I have seen bodies”.
She’s a Democrat Senator from a safe state, so by tradition she has to stay in the Senate until she dies. They only leave feet first.JVW (4826a9) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:41 pm
“I have seen bodies.” So let’s make sure the law abiding are at a disadvantage in any confrontation. Then she’ll get to see more bodies. Brilliant!navyvet (02dd07) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:43 pm
this is not a hoochie what gives a crap about constitutional rights
that’s not her job she says
nasty old birdhappyfeet (8ce051) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:48 pm
Nonsense, Mike K., she knows exactly what an “assault weapon” is. Its anything Mike Bloomberg is scared of.SPQR (768505) — 3/14/2013 @ 9:06 pm
the democrats need to flush their toilet every bit as badly as Team R does is what this episode says about americahappyfeet (8ce051) — 3/14/2013 @ 9:11 pm
Gun grabbers like Feinstein are attempting to ban exactly the type of weapons (as they’re misleadingly portraying it) that the SCOTUS has ruled are exactly the weapons the 2nd Amendment protects.Steve57 (60a887) — 3/14/2013 @ 9:14 pm
So Senator Feinstein says that she has PTSD which affects her judgement…Peter B (00e1d3) — 3/14/2013 @ 10:04 pm
It feels like it was just last week that I was confused about what had gone wrong for the GOP in November and despondent about our future prospects. What a difference these past nine days have made.ThOR (0d3941) — 3/14/2013 @ 10:18 pm
Actually I have to modify my previous statement. The gun grabbers are misleading the public to believe the AR-15 you can buy in a gun store is a “weapon of war.” It isn’t; it isn’t an M-16/M-4.
But in the Miller decision the Scotus did decide that the 2nd Amendment protected individual ownership of the weapon must have a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”
I’d have to say that a rifle that fires the same ammunition as the M-16/M-4 “of the kind in common use at the (this) time,” shares the same magazines, uses the same sighting system, and is of the same configuration does bear a reasonable relationship to the preservation and/or efficiency of a well regulated militia.
I wish someone could have asked Feinstein/Durbin/Leahy if they can think of any other rifle than the AR-15 that better meets the Miller test regarding which weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment.Steve57 (60a887) — 3/14/2013 @ 10:21 pm
that’s not really her real hair is it she’s got a wig on
without it she probably looks like chet after the shampoo lady got madhappyfeet (8ce051) — 3/14/2013 @ 11:14 pm
It’s exeunt omnes, not alles.Chuck Bartowski (ad7249) — 3/15/2013 @ 12:35 am
I have to admit I usually love DiFi, but these have not been her proudest moments.MayBee (f32100) — 3/15/2013 @ 12:45 am
DiFi looks like she ate a few extra xanax.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/15/2013 @ 12:54 am
Our elected officials are not among the best and brightest of us. Not even close.
Yet we seem to want them to make all of our decisions and spend all of our money in spite of that.Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 3/15/2013 @ 5:58 am
Her willingness, even eagerness, to bathe in the blood of the dead was quite unseemly. I HAVE SEEN BODIES!
That, and the idea that being a Senator for a long time in any way addresses the question posed, is just silly.
Her idea that it is not the legislatures role to determine Constitutionality, that the Ciurt is there to fix their mistakes, should be jarring to thinkin people. She basically said they don have to worry about a silly little Constitution, the Courts will clean up their messes for them.JD (4bb5d1) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:31 am
Um. DF has seen bullets implode?
But I LOOOVVVEEEE hearing people argue from their author-a-tee!Simon Jester (2f3200) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:42 am
How does a bullet implode?JD (4bb5d1) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:46 am
Senator Cruz, a reincarnation of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy, was trying to pull the absolutist’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment on Senator Feinstein. She, rightly so, would have nothing of it.
The new Senator Cruz, obviously a bit wet behind the ears, ought to exercise a touch of humility, instead of behaving like the male chauvinist pig which he appears to me to be.Perry (e84894) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:49 am
I don’t know, JD.
I also wonder why DF does’t respect the opinion of a “wise Latino.” I mean, I get a whiff a racism from her disrespect of his person and presentation.
Well, if we are going to play that game in our political culture, let’s play.Simon Jester (2f3200) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:50 am
Why is “Perry” such an anti-Latino racist?Simon Jester (2f3200) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:51 am
“Wet behind the ears” is awfully close to “wetback.”
I hear racism.Simon Jester (2f3200) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:52 am
Perry obviously never read the Miller decision. He is just name-calling. And bridging gaps.JD (b63a52) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:59 am
To me these two statements are contradictory. “A well regulated militia” can be viewed as an army, compared to a ragtag collection of self-proclaimed warriors.
The key point is that the AR-15 assault rifle has been the choice weapon by our current crop of mass murderers. For that reason alone, they should be banned.
I see no justifiable use for them, compared to such as shotguns, rifles, and hand guns, these used for hunting, target shooting, and/or individual protection.Perry (e84894) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:00 am
Simon – that was obviously a codeword. A dog whistle to Perry’s fellow racists.JD (4bb5d1) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:01 am
The key point is that the AR-15 assault rifle has been the choice weapon by our current crop of mass murderers.
LieJD (b63a52) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:01 am
I see no justifiable use for them,
I missed the Perry clause in the 2nd Amendment. Basically Perry is arguing for a ban on semi-automatic weapons.JD (b63a52) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:03 am
JD, I don’t listen to anti-hispanic racists.Simon Jester (2f3200) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:04 am
DiFi on a stickColonel Haiku (a88771) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:11 am
It is what is for teh Lunch
at least for Ted Cruz
“17 pedestrians mowed down by 87 year old grandmother in a semi-automatic Buick”
– Teh Perry FileColonel Haiku (70c24e) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:16 am
“A bullet has never imploded… Google it!”
– Rosie O’DonnellColonel Haiku (70c24e) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:19 am
AR-15 with the 50 Twinkie magazine… Harvey done milked that MosconeColonel Haiku (cfb8a1) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:24 am
Should we ban automobiles, since so many people are killed in traffic accidents ?Elephant Stone (240136) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:26 am
#20, Steve, the .223 is very similar to the 5.56×45 and although both cartridges will fire in weapons chambered for the other round, there are some differences.
The overall length of 5.56 rounds is very slightly longer than commercial .223 loads, and because the 5.56 cartridge case has thicker tube walls to accommodate higher military pressures, the interior volume of the case is reduced, which can become an issue for reloaders.
But the most significant difference is machined into the chambers. Leade in the 5.56 is almost twice the length of the .223 although either round will chamber and fire in either rifle.
However, a 5.56 round in a rifle chambered for .223 can produce an overpressure situation and .223s in a 5.56 experience a drop in both accuracy and velocity.
Anyone using surplus military ammo in a .223 should keep a sharp eye out for ruptured cases or evidence of blowout around the primers.
PS: I’m not a ballistics guy and I don’t want to step on any one’s toes, those guys can get testy, so, experts should feel free to correct any misinformation.ropelight (d850a8) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:35 am
We have a procedure in place for changing the Constitution.gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:38 am
Wasn’t it Senatress Feinstein who first said, “You can take my Senate seat when you pry it from my cold, dead ass.” ???
Out here in the San Francisco Bay area, the local media is in full defend the aged Senatress, who’s really looking aged these days, mode. The video clip I saw had her saying that she walked in on two people who had been shot, referring to the 1970s (???) Mosconi/Milk assassinations. I had to go barf at that point but it didn’t look like she was going to remember when she got her gun when she thought she was in mortal danger.
What a piece of work.11B40 (a40715) — 3/15/2013 @ 8:47 am
These Democrat dinosaurs really need to focus on the visuals because it is becoming more and more apparent that they can’t handle substantive issues. In this example, consider how little three senior Democratic Senators (DiFi, Leahy, Durbin) could contribute to what was a fairly thoughtful question. Leahy’s conflation of a Texas school board reading list with the prospect of Federal censorship raised by Cruz is certainly an example of senilitiy. As was DiFi’s dodge. So back to my point, visuals are the key. Would DiFi benefit from a Pelosi eye-job? Maybe do something with her lips so she would smile as a default?bobathome (c0c2b5) — 3/15/2013 @ 10:08 am
Imploding bullets would be a boon for murderers who wish to go unidentified. Imagine forensic analysis attempts on a tiny dot of collapsed lead! Why, they might not even find the dot at all.
Does DiFi mean exploding bullets? As in artillery?
Or does she mean mushrooming? AKA hollowpoint, AKA dum-dum rounds, ya Dumb Dumb!bonhomme (f0255f) — 3/15/2013 @ 10:21 am
rope, the Rule-of-Thumb is that in a rifle chambered for 5.56×45, it is OK to use .223 ammo; but the reverse should be avoided, because of the length issue, and the higher pressure levels developed in 5.56NATO ammo (which is, after all, designed to function in full-auto weapons).askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/15/2013 @ 10:25 am
It must be remembered (or noted) that those two bodies DiFi is talking about were Mayor Mosconi, and Supervisor Milk, who were shot by Dan White with a .38-Special, 2″, snub-nosed, revolver – from POINT BLANK range!
That revolver would never be considered a “weapon of war”, but is a classically defensive weapon.
Also, if she is suffering from PTSD, and were being treated at the VA, her condition would be reported to NICS (and eventually to CA DoJ) and she would be deprived of her 2-A Right to Keep and Bear Arms (a NICS check would deny a prospective purchase, plus the CA DoJ would add her to their “Prohibitied Persons List” and send out personnel to confiscate her weapons).
But, as we all know, those laws are for “Little People”, and not for the 1st-Estate!askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/15/2013 @ 10:33 am
And, “at this point, what does it really matter?”
Don’t You Know Who I Am?askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/15/2013 @ 10:35 am
rope and askeptic:
Not really. The physical dimensions of the ammo are not different. Case wall thickness is all over between milsurp ammo and commercial. The rule of thumb about military cases being thicker is really obsolete and really dates to US .30-06 arsenal produced ammo.
This is correct and the reason for warnings about putting 5.56mm into .223 Remington SAAMI spec chambered rifles.SPQR (768505) — 3/15/2013 @ 10:54 am
I think she meant PMS…Colonel Haiku (2be9f6) — 3/15/2013 @ 10:57 am
it could be viewed that way, but, as usual, you would be wrong.
for a “well regulated militia” to be raised from the people, the people themselves would have to already be armed with the appropriate personally owned weapons: ie, rifles and other small arms of suitable quality and ability to allow them to provide effective combat power, should it be needed.
thus, it is clear that “weapons of war”, to use the hackneyed and deliberately inflammatory phrasing so beloved of the anti-gun fascists are exactly what citizens are expected to own, to fulfill their obligations as members of the unorganized militia under Title 10 USC Sec.311.
in fact, it is obviously sound public policy to encourage citizens to own weapons with as much commonality as possible to those currently in use by the armed forces of the US, so that if raising a “well regulated” (trained) militia from the body of the people becomes necessary, supplying them with ammo and other supplies will be much easier, since they will be able to use what is already in the logistics pipeline.
thus the fact that you lack the wit to see a “justifiable use” for AR series rifles in the hands of citizens just means you are an idiot, not that their ownership should be restricted or banned.
besides: if you ban them, how do you plan on collecting them up, force of arms? do you remember how that turned out for the last gun grabbing government that tried that here in the US?redc1c4 (403dff) — 3/15/2013 @ 10:59 am
SPQR, that (Leade in the 5.56 is almost twice the length of the .223 although either round will chamber and fire in either rifle) is why in #49 I used the term “should” (the reverse should be avoided) since a 5.56 round in a “short-chambered” .223 could develop really serious pressure issues causing damage to the firearm, and potentially to the shooter.askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/15/2013 @ 11:02 am
askeptic – yep.
Perry barfs in his usual ignorance:
AR 15’s are very common target rifles used for the government sponsored Camp Perry rifle competitions yearly. PDF of CMP Rules here see Rule 6.2.3 p. 28. There are probably 5 million of them in civilian hands in the US – they constituted 60% of civilian rifle sales last year according to some industry estimates. And yet they are used in homicides very very rarely and not even in most of the high-media mass homicides Perry claims. AR 15’s are used a lot for hunting purposes – mostly for varmint hunting – although some big game can be hunted with varients in other calibers than .223 Remington for those states with caliber restrictions. AR 15’s are also used for self-defense. So all of Perry’s “approved” uses (none of which relate to the Second Amendment other than the military sponsored target shooting) are uses to which the AR 15 is most used.SPQR (768505) — 3/15/2013 @ 11:13 am
Expecting Common Sense, and accuracy, from Perry is like …. staying up to greet Santa Claus, or The Tooth Fairy.askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/15/2013 @ 11:28 am
But, to be fair, that makes him a Solid Progressive.
Indeed, askeptic, Perry is an idiot. He seems to not realize that our Revolution was largely fought by “self proclaimed warriors” as were a large number of Civil War regiments … on both sides.SPQR (768505) — 3/15/2013 @ 11:44 am
The irony of people saying the 2nd Amendment meant muskets and not “assault rifles”is that the muskets were the assault rifles of the day. They had very little sporting use and were almost exclusively military weapons. Rifles were used for hunting but were of limited use in combat as the ball was smaller, the rate of fire was much lower, it was more fragile, and probably most important, it did not take a bayonet. Birds and small game would call for a shotgun, with was too light for military use. These civilian arms were only used my militia that were too poor to buy muskets. Muskets were often kept in arsenals with artillery if the community supplied them. People could certainly buy a musket for their own use but it would have little sporting use.
The main killers at that time were artillery and then edged weapons like the saber and bayonet. Small arms fire was a low third. This did not change until the Mini ball made rifled muskets practical in the Civil War and small arms fire could out range the common smooth bore field guns.Machinist (b6f7da) — 3/15/2013 @ 12:17 pm
I do not mean that what are called “assault rifles” have no sporting use, quite the contrary they are very popular for hunting and target use. The real assault rifles developed for the military were designed to give up range and power for more firepower to suppress enemy fire during an assault. This is why they had medium power cartridges instead of the full power ammo of the battle rifles.
The light weight, mild recoil and resulting easy recovery, and the fast handling of the civilian versions of the AR platform make them very suitable for home defense, especially by women or men of lighter build.Machinist (b6f7da) — 3/15/2013 @ 12:22 pm
The revolutionary era musket also gave up accuracy and range for short range firepower and robustness in close combat.Machinist (b6f7da) — 3/15/2013 @ 12:24 pm
Comment by Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 3/14/2013 @ 8:11 pm
1.Let’s be clear here: the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that the citizens of the country have the means to engage in revolution if the government becomes tyrannical.
In theory, yes, but this wouldn’t work any more.
The idea was first of all, not to have a standing army. Secondarily, the militia presumably would have all the weapons that the army did.
No Ted Cruz ios not abouty toi suggest that people own machine guns and surface to air missiles.
All yiou have to do is consider Syria today to see how good the weapons he is willing to admit are covered by the Second Amendment would help.
Nowyhou could aay, the whole thing won’t work, but still it’s the law. But if it’s the law it shpuldeitehr apply only to very few guns or all kinds of weapons.
He can’t limit it to just what is being manufactured for civilian sale today. There’s nothing special about that lkist of weapons.
Either the constitution protects the right to own less or more.Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 3/15/2013 @ 12:25 pm
Yes, a group of irregulars in today’s world could never defeat a well-trained and equipped modern fighting force…..askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/15/2013 @ 12:59 pm
Well, this doesn’t apply to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.
How do we know that Perry is not Sammy’s Evil Twin?askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/15/2013 @ 12:59 pm
As I keep saying, we shouldn’t change the Constitution, nor make public policy, based on people’s neuroses. Sorry that something makes you sad and hurts your fweelings, but we have to consider the welfare of the other three hundred million people in the country, too.bridget (55e4a2) — 3/15/2013 @ 1:04 pm
But bridget, they’re just “little people”.askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/15/2013 @ 2:07 pm
Lots of people have the same wrong idea. George W Bush, for one.Milhouse (15b6fd) — 3/15/2013 @ 2:33 pm
You mean the version in which Congress lacks the power to ban certain books by name, or to authorise warrantless searches of specified makes and models of cars?Milhouse (15b6fd) — 3/15/2013 @ 2:36 pm
That’s not even English.Milhouse (15b6fd) — 3/15/2013 @ 2:44 pm
Feinstein referred to the Heller decision, but she didn’t get too specific. Probably a good thing she didn’t. Heller holds that the Gov’t cannot prohibit possession of an entire class of arms that is in widespread lawful use by Americans. The class of arms in Heller was handguns, but I see no reason why “assault weapons” should not be considered a “class” of arms.
It’s time to embrace the term “assault weapon” and use it against the gun prohibitionists.Tom (bea0bc) — 3/15/2013 @ 2:58 pm
No, it is time to use the industry’s accepted moniker:askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/15/2013 @ 4:22 pm
The Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR)!
They had to go bearded spock;
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-bremmer/2013/03/15/scarborough-rips-ted-cruz-ignorant-arguing-feinstein-gun-bill-violatesnarciso (3fec35) — 3/15/2013 @ 4:31 pm
—-Senator Cruz, a reincarnation of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy
Oh, the real Ace of Spades of lefty insults. You, Perry, are a reincarnation of Pol Pot. I spit on you.red (7b5f67) — 3/15/2013 @ 5:41 pm
I feel awful that Di had to probe Harvey Milk’s holes, wounds, and orifices.
She really deserves a snit. Glad that’s over.gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:21 pm
DiFi was engaged in the sick blooddancing of gun control fanatics.SPQR (14e0e5) — 3/15/2013 @ 6:31 pm
Senator Feinstein has been elected five times to the Senate by California voters. Jay Nordlinger points out that she must not understand the oath she swore (at least 5 times) to support and defend the Constitution. I suspect she simply doesn’t think words count.DRJ (a83b8b) — 3/15/2013 @ 7:26 pm
I realized I sparked a tempest in a teapot when I modified my original statement to say that an AR may not be an M-16/M-4 but it is reasonably related to a well regulated militia.
But my Bushmaster M-4gery is marked 5.56. It is chambered for the NATO round. Consequently it’s safe for sporting .223 as well.
I believe the opposite is the case with the 7.62 NATO and .308 Win. You can use the NATO ammo in the Winchester chamber, but it’s dangerous to use the .308 Win ammo in the NATO chamber. I can’t state that as gospel as I’ve never owned a .308 Win and I’ve mostly put Aussie MILSURP through my M1A and Polytech (with GI bolt, thank you very much).
Still, I think one can say that a Springfield Armory M1A or a Bushmaster M-4gery does have a reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. Regardless of any ammo mixups that may happen, if you’re shooting one you are at least familiarizing yourself with a military weapon in common use at this time.Steve57 (60a887) — 3/15/2013 @ 8:34 pm
Steve57, there is a similar controversy regarding 7.62 NATO and .308 Win. And comparisons of the military specifications for 7.62 NATO and SAAMI specs for .308 Win have led people to believe that .308 Win has higher pressure limits than 7.62 NATO. However, my research has led me to the belief that the error comes from military specs being made in CUP (while called “PSI” in the documentation) while SAAMI is spec’d in actual PSI which runs higher nominally for roughly similar max pressure. Additionally military pressure specifications have a different protocol than SAAMI. I do believe that the bottom line is that the two specs are roughly the same and I wouldn’t worry.
But there is no definitive answer.
BTW, there is at least one AR manufacturer that marks “5.56” on barrels that are actually .223 Rem chambers – just to piss me off.SPQR (768505) — 3/15/2013 @ 8:45 pm
Also keep in mind when battle rifle cartridges like the 8mm Mauser, .303 Brit, .30-06, etc, were designed around the turn of the last century they had to be able to kill horses. My 1907 Spanish Puerto Seguro and 1913 Patton cavalry sabers tell me horses were still a big deal. Note the last US cavalry saber was officially adopted a couple of years after the 1911 Colt Government Model pistol (and it wasn’t actually designed by G. Patton neither).
Lower powered assault rifle cartridges were developed when not only did the designers study the average actual ranges opposing forces exchanged small arms fire, but also it when they took into account it was only important to kill human beings with small arms.Steve57 (60a887) — 3/15/2013 @ 8:47 pm
The .308 Winchester is rated for higher pressure than the 7.62 NATO rd.Machinist (b6f7da) — 3/15/2013 @ 8:53 pm
Machinist, I think the way to think about it is this. The 5.56 and 7.62 are both designed to kill human sized targets. The .223 is for woodchucks and coyotes; varmints a lot smaller than humans. So you can use the the small game rounds in the combat rifle.
The .308 is intended to kill deer, elk, and bear which are a lot larger than people. So it’s not safe to use the big game rounds in the combat rifle.Steve57 (60a887) — 3/15/2013 @ 9:00 pm
#52, SPQR, does it occur to you the reason leade in the 5.56 chamber is nearly twice as long as in the .223 is to accommodate a slightly longer round?ropelight (d0fd46) — 3/17/2013 @ 5:11 am
Just to let you know, I wasn’t ignoring this. I actually don’t worry too much as long as the steady diet I feed my rifles are what they’re chambered for. But putting a magazine full of 168 grain Hornady A-Max ammo isn’t going to make your M1A blow up. Eventually you can damage the rifle; my Garands I’m told will bend an op-rod if I shoot a lot of heavier than standard military issue rounds.
A couple of 180 grain rounds won’t destroy your Garand, but a lot will eventually beat it up.
But a few soft points in .308 Win + one M14 + wild hogs = Why not?Steve57 (60a887) — 3/17/2013 @ 6:50 am
I meant to add the BTW part pisses me off too.Steve57 (60a887) — 3/17/2013 @ 6:53 am
ropelight, the longer leade is not for a longer round, but to lower peak pressure a bit. It was part of the 5.56mm spec when the only load was a 55 grain FMJ. The real limitation on the length of a round is the magazine length (and the twist rate for longer bullets – which was altered in later marks).
Steve57, the problem with the M1 Garand and commercial ammo is not heavier bullets per se, but the use of slower powders resulting in higher peak pressure at the gas port. (Often a commercial ammo manuf would use slower powders with the heavier bullet weights in .30-06 but it could be encountered in mid weight bullet loads too) That is what would beat up the op rod on Garands.SPQR (b12eb9) — 3/17/2013 @ 12:22 pm
since Seventy EightColonel Haiku (10b2f8) — 3/17/2013 @ 12:30 pm
they do it teh Milky way
just like Saint Harvey
that doesn’t rhymehappyfeet (8ce051) — 3/17/2013 @ 1:11 pm
It does if you use the right accent, ‘feet.SPQR (b12eb9) — 3/17/2013 @ 1:13 pm
oh I see
a wolf ate his ass and then plowed his field
goodness but I know so little of this worldhappyfeet (8ce051) — 3/17/2013 @ 1:17 pm
The author said: “We declare certain speech outside the purview of the First Amendment, for example, because such speech (child porn, e.g.) does not serve the purpose of the First Amendment.”
Is it that, or is it that the greater good and safety of society trumps the First Amendment right to free speech in this case?
The author said:
“Possession of assault weapons, in my view, would be — even though they weren’t yet invented. Why are assault weapons anything but a more effective method of carrying out the objectives of the Second Amendment?”
The objectives of the 2ndAm are not clear because of fuzzy language, but we can all agree that almost all owners of guns today are not part of a well regulated militia, so there’s that.
Then we have the interpretation that the 2ndAm was designed to protect the state in times of trouble, not rise against the state.
We were supposed to bear arms so we could be summoned to defend the homeland, precluding the need (and taxpayer expense) of a standing army.
The 2ndAm: 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.
All these folks saying the 2ndAm gives us the right to arm ourselves to rise against the government are selectively ignoring the other parts of the Constitution and other laws that expressly outlaw treason and say it is prohibited to rise against the government.Mahalia Cab (852db5) — 3/18/2013 @ 2:14 pm
We can always count on Mahalia to spew verbose ignorance.JD (4bb5d1) — 3/18/2013 @ 2:18 pm
Mahalia likes circular arguments.daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 3/18/2013 @ 2:39 pm
No, Mahalia, we cannot “all agree” to your fabrications. All gun owners are part of the militia. “Well regulated” was an aspirational adjective – the clause telling us that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to foster a militia that was well drilled, well trained.
And the words that say that the purpose of the people being armed against a tyrannical government? Those are the words of the people who founded our government.SPQR (b12eb9) — 3/18/2013 @ 2:42 pm
The Pennsylvania Rifle was the “Assault Weapon” of it’s day; the Brown Bess musket was the Assault Rifle.askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/18/2013 @ 2:46 pm
If you don’t know the difference between the two, either period or modern, you are too ignorant to be in this conversation.
Mahalia, why is it that you think you can just make up stuff like that? You are claiming that the writings in the Federalist Papers didn’t happen, that the constitutional writings of Cooley and Story in the 19th Century didn’t happen, that the debates on the 14th Amendment didn’t happen. That the references to the right to bear arms in numerous Supreme Court decisions didn’t happen, even before Heller and MacDonald such as Miller and even Dred Scott.
Even the dissenters in Heller did not argue that the Second Amendment wasn’t an individual right. None of the Democrat appointed Supreme Court justices bought your claims.SPQR (b12eb9) — 3/18/2013 @ 3:10 pm
Reality is a cruel disease – can’t someone cure her of it?askeptic (b8ab92) — 3/18/2013 @ 3:51 pm
Aspirational? that’s almost desperate…
but we agree the purpose of the Second Amendment was to foster a militia that was well drilled, well trained.
This was all supplanted by a standing tax-funded army, so obviously the 2nd Amendment failed it’s “aspirations”…
You said: “And the words that say that the purpose of the people being armed against a tyrannical government? Those are the words of the people who founded our government”
Right, and they didn’t mean OUR tyrannical government. They meant King George and his ilk.
To SPQR, the later stuff all happened, but I was discussing pinning the argument for AKs on the 2nd Amendment. If you are discussing the 2nd Amendment, please argue that the conditions of owning a gun as part of a well regulated militia have been met.
Otherwise you are pinning the case on later laws or decisions, which would mean we can similarly pass a new law now (as we already did) and it would be consistent with the 2nd Amendment.Mahalia Cab (c1a6bb) — 3/19/2013 @ 4:29 am
To daleyrocks, it is a circular argument because you keep ignoring the “well regulated militia” clause. If you would acknowledge that the right to bear arms is inextricably tied to the clause, we can move forward in a linear way.
Since the conditions are not met, more recent laws would have to govern gun ownership. These laws vary from state to state.
I’d like to hear why you think we should legalize the sale of AK-47s. If you argue that we need them because the bad guys have them, (a race to the bottom) you are only cementing the idea that they should all be banned immediately and should have been banned a long time ago, (excepting military/law enforcement use). Otherwise we descend into wild wild west, or Somalia, or Mogadishu, where militias can usurp regional power.
The societal cost is now greater than the benefit. Newtown shows this so clearly, the weapon fell in to the wrong hands because the laws were too lax. Also smaller clips would have meant more clip changes, and seems it would have saved lives as police rushed to respond.
91% feel background chhecks are reasonable, including majorities of NRA members – are we to be held hostage by a tiny minority?Mahalia Cab (e69c9d) — 3/19/2013 @ 6:46 am
yes you should be held hostage
what would you like for breakfast hostage?
pancakes? no way you stupid hostage you can have cap’n crunch again or leftover chinese from last night
you pickhappyfeet (8ce051) — 3/19/2013 @ 6:59 am
Mahalia’s invincible ignorance is just precious.JD (4bb5d1) — 3/19/2013 @ 7:29 am
Obviously a product of modern public education, bone-head stupid and proud of it.ropelight (1f49c0) — 3/19/2013 @ 7:43 am
Mahalia Cab, you are making stuff up. Our founding fathers feared that our government would be dominated by a tyrant – because they had read more history than you have – and that was why they emphasized that citizens bear arms. All of your claims to the contrary are simply lies.
And you are lying about Newtown. Connecticut’s laws were every bit as strict as those being proposed, including an faux “assault weapons” ban and waiting periods. Your claim that the “laws were too lax” allowing the shooter to obtain his firearms is simply a lie. His mother bought them and passed background checks to do so. Smaller clips would have made no difference at all.
As for background checks, 91% do not support the expansion of background checks into laws that criminalize temporary transfers. Under Schumer’s bill, I can’t even let a friend try out my gun unless done at a shooting range that is owned by a specific kind of non-profit organization. Plink in my own land? Illegal.
Your claims are just make up nonsense, Mahalia. You are utterly ignorant of the laws that already exist and their failure to reduce crime.SPQR (768505) — 3/19/2013 @ 7:57 am
Mahalia is probably learning everything she knows from Jules Whitcover.SPQR (768505) — 3/19/2013 @ 12:14 pm
Well, Mahalia has Perry’s IQ squared.gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 3/19/2013 @ 12:36 pm