Slashdot Mirror

Not bad. Got a link for that?

ODCMP

You do have to be a member of a qualifying gun club in order to buy from the CMP. So you join The GCA and they send you some M1-related newsletters for a while. That adds a bit to the cost, but on the other hand it gets you a pretty good deal on an M1...

The only thing I don't understand is why the Militia doesn't work the same way as in Switzerland (or why feminists have no interest in being part of said Militia, but that's another topic entirely).

To the best of my knowledge, the closest the US government comes to training the populace is the Civilian Marksmanship Program. http://www.odcmp.com/

The only ambiguity that's often raised is whether the National Guard constitutes said well-regulated militia. It's unclear since service isn't universal (or at least universal for the sex that cares about protecting freedoms).

The National Guard may have qualified as a militia at one time, but at this point they are essentially a federal army. Militias are made up of non-professional citizens. National Guard members are paid for their time and are provided arms when they are on duty. Armies, obviously, do not need constitutional protection from the government in order to have weapons.

In the context of 18th century military parlance, armies would consist of regular and irregular troops. The regulars were professional soldiers who received training and identical weapons and equipment. The irregulars were conscripts and volunteers who received inconstant surplus gear and weapons, if they received anything at all. Many times the irregulars had to equip themselves as well as they could. So, a well-regulated militia would be one that was well equipped and well trained.

The intentions of the founders was that in the event of the US being attacked, the citizens, the unorganized militia, would pick up their guns and fight to the best of their ability. This is America's irregular army. Because the unorganized militia is expected to bring its own arms and know how to shoot, the people need the right to keep and bear arms.

In addition, many states have state defense forces under the command of the governors. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force) While they are sometimes paid when mobilized, they largely have to provide their own weapons and equipment. So in order for them to operate the members also need the protection of the 2nd Amendment.

Automatic weapons have been heavily restricted since 1934 and any machine gun manufactured after 1986 is illegal for private sale. No legally-owned machine guns have been used in crime in decades, as they're almost exclusively owned by wealthy collectors.

The AR-15, while it looks like the M16, is functionally identical to many other civilian-legal firearms in that it only fires one shot per pull of the trigger. It's not very commonly used in massacres of any type, as handguns are much more frequently used in such situations (handguns are also very commonly used for self-defense. Rifles of any kind, including AR-15s, were used in only 3.7% of gun-related homicides in 2011 and have been trending downwards for years.

It's a very common misconception that just because a gun (say the AR-15) looks like a machine gun (say the M16), then it is a machine gun. This is not true, though I don't fault you for being somewhat confused.

ObSlashdotCarAnalogy: A Honda Civic with a spoiler, a stripe, some racing stickers, and a stock engine may look like a race car, but it's functionally no different than a normal Civic or other common cars.

AR-15s are very commonly used for recreational, sport, and competitive shooting (including the National Matches). There's no real pressing or justifiable reason to ban or restrict them.

Gun-related crime rates haven't been this low since 1964.

"Common sporting and competition guns" like.... the AR15!

Yes, precisely. Such guns are exceptionally common for such purposes at all levels of competition, including the National Matches.

...something they created could...be something that fuels their...downfall...

The U.S. government has long-since established some mechanisms that would accomplish exactly that.

I think the Civilian Marksmanship Program is still selling some M1s at reduced prices to members of CMP affiliated clubs; the only special requirements (aside from being eligible to own a firearm and ponying up the cash) are a demonstration that you can hit a paper plate at 50 yards or something similarly easy. It's really quite a neat program. Back in the day you could get an M1 or M1 Carbine for a few bucks, shipped in the mail. Now it has to go through a dealer, but it's still a good way to get your hands on one.

Sadly, several Presidents, culimating with President Clinton, effectively gutted the program and ensured that once it runs out of WWII and Korea surplus Garands, it will effectively cease to exist (military surplus M14s and M16s cannot be sold to the public, even if the full-auto capabilities are permanently disabled; even surplus ammunition is destroyed rather than sold surplus, though it would be worth millions of dollars).

Get them while you still can. Up until a few years ago you could even specify a manufacturer preference for your M1, they had some International Harvester ones that were neat, but I think now you have to deal with whatever's left.

You can sign up to be sent a sales catalog on their website: http://www.odcmp.com/

Yeah, because an armed populace would prevent a major world power from invading your land today.

Like Iraq for example.

An armed populace isn't there to stop an invasion. It's there to discourage one, by making occupation fiendishly expensive, and breaking the invader's will (and bankbook). The colonials were vastly outgunned by the British, and yet we won. Why? Because at a certain point, it wasn't worth it to the British to continue operations over such a long distance at that time. In Vietnam, the US was forced to pull out because the war had dragged on too long in the eyes of the US public, despite the fact that we had crushed a huge portion of the NVA. In Afghanistan, the Soviets conceded defeat at the hands of farmers and sheep/goat herders.

In each of these situations, the "insurgents" had outside aid - the colonials relied on the French, the Vietcong relied on the Chinese, the Afghanis relied on the US. However, the irregulars had to make up the core of the fighting force, and for that, you have to have individuals with arms, and the experience to use them.

The United States is in an interesting state. We have an all-volunteer military (Coast Guard, Navy, Marines, Army, Air Force), as opposed to some nations in Europe and Asia, that have conscript armies with required military service. The idea behind subjecting every male to compulsory military service is to create a pool of able-bodied cannon fodder that you can equip and arm in the event of war, with a minimum of training (since, theoretically, they've all gone through basic.) In many other countries, the United States included, we rely on volunteers to make up our military forces (including the Reserves and the National Guard), and subsequent to regular service, the Individual Ready Reserves (made up of veterans) to call up in time of need.

You notice that in either case, the government needs to expend taxpayer money to train and equip its soldiers. If you acknowledge the Second Amendment as an individual, rather than a collective right, you can allow individual citizens to train and equip themselves, in the comfort of their own communities, without having to spend a single dime of taxpayer money (although government sponsored programs such as the Civilian Marksmanship Program sure do help to encourage individual firearms ownership.)

As for scientific research, I don't think knowledge is destructive. I agree that the fruits of scientific research can be very destructive (atomic weapons, bio weapons, drugs, etc.) That's why there are things like the nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and the FDA. If you think that knowledge itself is dangerous, then I guess we have a major difference of opinion

Merely testing how far you think a restriction ought to go. There are some who WOULD consider the mere posession of certain types of knowledge too dangerous for "regular people" to have.

Cars are useful though, so I don't think they should be banned. It's not like the only purpose of a car is to run someone down, that's just something that occasionally happens. For that reason, the benefits of cars outweigh the risks. That doesn't hold true for guns.

That's actually where I would disagree with you. If I understand correctly, to your mind, having guns = increased likelyhood of something going wrong. This presupposes that of the legal users of firearms, some of them will be involved in incidents where the negative consequences of having a firearm will outweigh any positive benefit, and that there really isn't any positive benefit for having a firearm, hence your argument that firearms be restricted. However, I believe that there are positive benefits for firearms training, firearms usage, and ownership (for those who choose to do so), AND I believe that even if some might misuse firearms, to restrict the rights of many in advance, for the actions of a few, is a form of control with troubling implications.

For example - I target shoot infrequently with rifle and pistol. This is a form of recreation, just the same as people shooting targets using bow and arrow (with many of the same range rules, I might add), and a sport that has a place in the Olympics, in the form of the biathlon, and distance shooting competitions. Firearms training is often taught by those with a love of sport shooting or hunting, much in the same way that hams with a love of technology and communications teach ham radio. These people shoot on a recreational basis - eliminating private ownership of firearms would deprive these individuals of an enjoyable hobby, and effectively restrict training to law enforcement and military only. This would seem to run contrary to efforts such as the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which seeks to promote youth development and civilian marksmanship skills.

I agree that if guns were completely illegal, serious criminals would still have them.

But wouldn't that include criminal organizations that tend to commit the "intra-criminal crime", that might result in innocent casualties that you alluded to earlier?

But if only criminals had guns, then merely possessing a gun would be enough to throw someone in jail. You wouldn't need to wait for them to misuse it.

But what about areas where guns are illegal right now, and yet there is gun violence (ie, Washington D.C.)? Or where guns are illegal for criminals to own in the first place (ie, convicted felons). By your argument, wouldn't the police have already descended in mass raids and arrested everyone for weapons posession?

From your argument, it sounds like you believe that guns are the only thing keeping things from descending into anarchy.

My main reasons for being "pro-gun", as it were, are:

1. Every law-abiding citizen has the right to self-defense, especially since the police have no legal responsibility to ensure or safeguard your personal safety. (This makes sense if you think about it - otherwise police departments everywhere would be buried under lawsuits for not getting to a crime on time, etc.) The JPFO has a rather interesting take on this. Mind you, the right of self defense does not necessa

I have a government issued assault weapon, sold to me by a government sponsored agency. It's an M1 Garand. It has a *shudder* bayonet lug! It also only holds 8 rounds of .30-06 and fires semi-auto (each time you pull the trigger, it fires one round, ejects the spent casing a loads a new round from the fixed magazine). This weapon was one of the reasons we were able to win WWII. Most of the axis troops were armed with bolt action rifles, which took longer to fire.

That said, what in the hell do you need an assault rifle for?

How do you define 'assualt rifle'? Do you mean something like the AR-15, a single-shot carbine that shoots 5.56mm (.223) ammo and whose outer body is patterned on the M-16? Well, target shooting with them is a lot of fun...

Most the anti-gun people are after the insane automatic high-power weapons.

Unless you happen to live in Washington, DC, New York, California, Australia, England, and most of the rest of Europe...

No one is saying you can't have a hunting rifle

Except for wackos like the one in California

Nor do I see a problem with having to register if you own a rifle or handgun.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
--Adolph Hitler, 1935

Never in the history of the world, has gun registration NOT led to confiscation and democide.

I have never seen a valid argument for this gun nut crap.

Here's one for you:

"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."

Try these two links:

http://www.odcmp.com/toc.htm
http://www.civilianmarksmanship.com/
They also sell M1 rifles to qualified shooters as part of the program.

Also, don't forget to take a look at the NRA website for other training classes and information.

You lame ass, the CMP is cool as fuck. I recommend getting an M44 before they sell out.

Gun games like IPSC or IDPA are full of geeks. There is plenty of cool equipment to tinker with. And while it takes years to master, once you know a few simple safety rules almost anyone can enjoy it.

If you want something a little less politically incorrect, there are always the service rifle competitons put on by the Civilian Marksmanship Program and the NRA.