Sunday, December 11, 2005

Confusion over the Beak and the Second Amendment

There has been some speculation by some as to what my position is on Gun control. I live in NYC and it is an absurd sitution. Criminals always will and can get guns. Donald Trump, Joan Rivers and a host of politicos can get gun permits. However businessmen and law abiding homeowners can not get permits at all. This is not gun control as elitism.

That being said I favor local customs and culture. Gun culture and hunting is big in Vermont and it is a part of a way of life. I did not come up here to recreate Manhattan in VT. I mostly mind my own business when local affairs are discussed even when asked to comment. I was invited by a coworker to go hunting but as he was going for deer I declined. Had he been hunting for one of those annoying Canada Geese I would have jumped at the oportunity.

I do not see the need for semi automatic weapons. I also am in favor of criminal backround checks for gun owners. Suing gun manufacturers in a class action law suits is also something I am strongly against.


Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I'm way on the other side from you, Beak. I believe the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty signed with the Russians fundamentally violated the 2nd Amendment.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Er, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

(SALT was the talks...)

bum from jersey said...

I agree with you Beak. I am against class action suits against gun manufacturers and I am against anyone outside of law enforcement owning a gun (but thats the utopian in me, not the realist). I think class action lawsuits against manufacturers are a waste of time like those against fast food companies. People have to learn how to take responsibility for their own actions and stop finding someone else besides themselves to blame.

beakerkin said...


I am against Gun Control as practiced in NYC. Gun Control meaning elite snobs like Donald Trump gets to carry a gun but Mr Perez who owns a liqour store can't is dead wrong.

The issue of why civilians need macine guns is another story. They are of zero use to hunters. As far as Militia I can concede that rare exception. However militias should be under the supervision of local government.

samwich said...

Beamish, look up public law 87-297,
public law 101-216, page 340 to State Department Document 7277,
SCOTUS Docket No 02-1412.

Beaker ya sqweeker, did BIG BIBBIE have a good time trolling at FPM.
Whoosier is an online smart alec bud of mine with a very like mind and a rapier toungue. I had emailed him about trolling this weekend and he showed. He looks over your blog ocassionally, I think he's rapepublican but he won't fessup.

Show me Constitutional Authority to control possession of any item or substance please. Auto loading weapons, I don't care what you don't want. Why are you trying to tell me what I can have. I've lived through 17 hours of live fire combat (gun fights)in seven engagements. Piss Off on your opinion. Abdicate responsibility for your protection to the slurp at the donut trough gestapo at your own peril. I refuse to tolerate your imperilling me at state gunpoint. I pulled an end run on ya there, my mountain paradise is remote enough that no crooks or cops will bother me. And no one will EVER KNOW IF SOME MORON INVADES MY HOME, unless it's some damned cop, and cops being connected I'll have to live with it, BUT it won't happen to a non issue like me.


beakerkin said...


Interesting item on FPM as I spend almost zero time there. I prefer my own blog and those of my friends.

I do spend some time at Bad Eagle with Dr Yeagley. However the blogging family takes precedence.
Warren, Jason, Always , Esther etc are like a family and family comes first.

Sam do you honestly need a machine gun ? I am not afraid of government
or an advocate of gun control. However why do you need a machine gun. They are of zero use in hunting. I am leery about unregulated militia. What is to stop the local Mosque from forming its own militia.

samwich said...

Beak, I didn't say machine gun even though I have used five types, 50 cal, Thompson 45 cal, M-60 30 cal AK-47 and M-16/203(a piece of junk). You are comingling two different legal classifications of fire arm which is exactly what the anti gun crowd wants. My personal preference for combat is the sks carbine modified for the ak magazine. Norinco made a bunch but you anti auto twerps sucked up to the anti gunners and threw us out of the sled to the wolves. I'd like to find another one, rebarrel it to a 6.5 mmx39mm, using a 120 grain bullet. It's the ak round necked down from 31 caliber to .264 caliber for higher muzzel velocity and better down range energy retention. Tar them with the same brush and ban them all. You are supporting the slippery slope of a total ban and confiscation.
Go look up the laws and SCOTUS rulings pal, your second amendment right is gone, SCOTUS has RULED!!!

The 13 month war (Revelations) and total anarchy are next and it looks to be probably 2012 or 2016,depending on China.

samwich said...

PS Beaker, I do not hunt. I do occasionally feed apples to young deer from out of my hand out in my mountain paradise. If I were desperate and forced to hunt, I would.

If my nephews want to hunt squirrels, rabbits, grouse, pheasant, deer, elk, antelope, coyotes, bobcats, mountain lion or black bear they may, I do not care.


Warren said...

Beak, nowhere in the second amendment does it say anything about hunting.

If we are going to "allow" people to own things upon their "need", who "needs" a second TV, a faster computer, a SUV, a $2K silk suit, 2 cars...

I have a license to carry any weapon which I legally posses, upon my person or within my vehicle.

Leaving aside the question of whether that license is an infrengment upon my rights, I am still required to undergo what I consider to be a stupid waiting period, although all I used to have to do was prove my idenity and show my license.

Its because of that stupid "instant background check"!

They check to see if your name is in the FBI data base, and if it is, someone has to physically see what your FBI file says. Mine says I was checked by the FBI for a secret security clearance. Any cop that checks my drivers license, in any state in the Union, knows I have a license to carry.

Out of time, more later. ;^)

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Because the language of treaties entered into by the US supercedes the language of the US Constitution (which is why we should be extremely hesitant to ratify any treaties), it is now illegal for private citizens to own intercontinental ballistic missiles, which are perfect for terrorist hunting.

According to Federal law, all US citizens aged 18 to 45 are members of the "unorganized militia" which the President has the authority to call to duty during war or insurrection. And the unorganized militia is responsible for equipping and maintaining itself ready for combat. In short, if President Beamish comes to your house and "says break out the cannons, it's time for war," you'd better have a damned howitzer in your garage or it's off to the stockades with you. The Militia Acts of 1792 through 1795 ain't no joke.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...


I kinda figured there was an emotional connection between you and Rapeublican. Is there something you're not telling us?

The SKS is a good semi-auto for hunting / urban combat. If I were you I wouldn't mess with converting it for AK-47 rounds. If you need to bag something more than 300 yards away, get a gun / ammo combination already made for such.

samwich said...

Beamish I was a sniper in Vietnam.
The sks's modified by the factory for AK mags work great. The safety is next to the trigger finger and the rifle has a bolt stop activated by the magazine follower. The magazines we like for social work are the 75 rounders. It is more accurate than an AK (the best way to hit water with an AK 47 is to throw it out of a boat unless it is one of the ones Valmet made with Valmet's barrel quality).

My M-16 quit four hours into a five hour fire fight in Cambodia and I had no weapon for about an hour. UP COLT'S!!!!!

My 1000 yard load is 30-06, 200 grain Sierra Matchking hollowpoint boat tail seated out to the riflings, at 2500 fps muzzle velocity. I load H4831SC for a 12 ft per second veolcity spread at the muzzel. W760 is to heat sensitive and in a warm barrel the heat induced increase in burn rate causes a 300 fps velocity loss because it burns like IMR3031.
OR the 308 Win (7.62x51mm Nato) with 168 gr match bullet and 43.2 gr BLC-2 for 2500 fps muzzel velocity, but it peters out at about 850 yards, the 180 gr btsp is a great 600 yard deer or 400 yard elk load. Gotta have 1320 fps velocity out at 1000 yards, slower than that the bullet isn't really flying, it's falling because you need to hold 90 feet high and accuracy deteriorates.
Next I would like to have a custom .338/378 Weatherby Magnum without freebore for 1 mile target work with a 300 gr HPBT at 2900 fps mv.

The sks is a very good 30-30 cousin semi auto with better down range performance due to the streamlined pointed bullet. I load Speer's 150 gr .311 dia. pointed soft point with 24.5 gr IMR 4198 for 2100 fps and it goes in to 1.5 inches at 100 yards from most all the 16 sks's in the family. My dad owned a gun shop before he died and all the inventory went to the grandsons (nephews) at my expense when he went on to his great reward.

rapeublican? I'm guessing and Whoosier ain't fessin' up. Mostly
Whoosier trolls libtard sites. But I told him about Big Bubba's Big Blog and he linked around, so I do suspect him. I don't know him face to face.

Beaker a semi auto ejects the empty and chambers a fresh shot but the trigger must be relaesed and pulled again for the next shot. A machine gun fires and reloads and fires without interuption for as long as the trigger is held down.

Beamish you did not waste time looking up what the courts and law enfarcement will enforce.


Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...


I personally believe that as an American citizen living under the Constitution, no arms laws apply to me as my right to keep and bear them can not be infringed.

drummaster2001 said...

the second amendment states:

"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"

the key word in this is 'militia'.

as the laws are now, i have one question- why would anyone other than the military need an AK-47?

Warren said...


By noted University of Texas Law School professor Sanford Levinson, ACLU member and not exactly what you would call a conservative.

From a paper which can be found, in PDF format, titled:
The Embarrassing Second Amendment

From Yale Law Journal. Originally published as 99 YALE L.J. 637-659 (1989).
"Consider once more the preamble and its reference to the importance of a well-regulated militia. Is the meaning of the term obvious? Perhaps we should make some effort to find out what the term "militia" meant to 18th century readers and writers, rather than assume that it refers only
to Dan Quayle's Indiana National Guard and the like. By no means am I arguing that the discovery of that meaning is dispositive as to the general meaning of the Constitution for us today. But it seems foolhardy to be entirely uninterested in the historical philology behind the Second Amendment.
I, for one, have been persuaded that the term "militia" did not have the limited reference that Professor Cress and many modern legal analysts assign to it. There is strong evidence that "militia" refers to all of the people, or at least all of those treated as full citizens of the community.
Consider, for example, the question asked by George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because of its lack of a Bill of Rights: "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."

Actually, an AK capable of fully automatic fire, (not the semi-auto version that passes for an assault weapon under the leftist definition), is exactly the type of weapon the second amendment should protect!

Its a common military small arm.

Milita might be the key word but under the constitutioal meaning of milita, YOU are a member!

samwich said...

Beamish, you're delusional.
The courts and law enfarcement could not care less about your beliefs.

Drumasater: in light of the fact I was conscripted and compelled to serve in combat, my interpretation is is the one I vote for.

Always On Watch said...

I have nothing much to contribute to this discussion--except to say that gun control is a failure. What goes on in D.C. is a prime example of such a failure--shots ring out at all hours in certain sections. So much for the city "without handguns." Furthermore, it is absurd to blame the gun manufacturers; they don't pull the triggers.

Warren, Jason, Always , Esther etc are like a family and family comes first.
I needed that nice thing said after this bitch of a day.

drummaster2001 said...


again you teach me something new. this is the first time i have heard the term militia refered to in a different connotation. it's an interesting arguement to say the least. do you know of anything else with this mentioned?

Warren said...

"do you know of anything else with this mentioned?"

In reference to the second amendment in general or the militia?

The question would be easier to address if you took an adversarial debating position. (ie) Why its not an individual right to keep and bear arms, why State or local governments have the right to regulate or ban the possession of firearms, etc.

I would say that the major hang-up of the ratification of the Constitution was that the anti-federalist faction felt there was a need for enumeration of individual rights. Ergo, the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

It would be more than passing strange, that the second amendment, in a bill of individual rights, would be a right guaranteed to the state.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

U.S. Code Section 311 states:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Welcome to the militia.

drummaster2001 said...


"In reference to the second amendment in general or the militia?"

i was referring to the militia's changing meaning arguement.


the U.S. Code Section 311 wording you provided looks a lot like a military reference, not necessarily of the general public like in warren's post.

Warren said...

Look at the section of code above espically the part about "unorganized militia".

If they are not members of the National Guard or the standing army, who are they?

Originally published as 19 LINCOLN L. REV. 1-25 (1990).

Can be found in PDF format HERE or HTML HERE.

by Thomas M. Moncure, Jr.*

"The militia of 1788 was the whole people. A basic republican principle was the viewing of the body of the people as society's natural strength, and combined with a fear of a standing army, dictated a reliance on the militia. The only exclusions from the militia were those who enjoyed less than the full benefits of citizenship. Any attempt at understanding the Second Amendment and similar provisions of the States must be in this context.

The National Guard of the United States is not the militia consisting of the whole people, but select militia which is exclusive of the people. The dual enlistment leaves some state authority over the National Guard, but this authority is exercised only in the absence of federal dictates. All states and the federal government have provisions dealing with the militia independent of the National Guard of the United States.

Even if incorrectly interpreting the nature of the militia, the weight of reason dictates that the Second Amendment conveys a right to keep and bear arms to the whole people.

Professor Sanford Levinson has suggested that it is incongruous to read the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments as applicable to the people without giving the same dignity to the Second Amendment. Chief Justice Rehnquist has applied the same logic in reaching the conclusion that the Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

If you have the time, read the entire paper for a better understanding of the reasoning and historical context.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...


USC Section 311 is Federal law, not military code.

drummaster2001 said...


"...who are members of the National Guard..."

there is a reference to a military.

Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Yes, DrumMaster. But it's from the US Code [Federal law]

Let's parse it.

So who is the militia? All able-bodied males aged 17 to 45 who either are or intend to become American citizens, and all female American citizens who have joined the National Guard. The exception of Title 32 Section 313 is as follows:

313(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard,
a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64
years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy,
Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for
reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National
Guard, a person must -
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

So let's parse it again:

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age unless they're in the National Guard (over the age of 45), who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

And now that we've established that the militia is "all able-bodied males aged 17 to 45 plus National Guardsmen" we get to part B of section 311:

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The division is even more clarified. The militia is (1) the National Guard, and (2) those eligible to serve in the National Guard (i.e. males 17-45 or under 64 with prior regular military service).

Welcome to the "unorganized" militia.

drummaster2001 said...


i see your point now with warren's about a dual militia. i was just saying, before i saw the correlation, that even though it is Federal Law, there was a "reference" (i cant italicise) to the military.