Back on the farm, we didn’t need weapons of war

This is almost one of the fractally wrong articles. From the conclusion, the paragraphs, the sentences, on to the premises are wrong:

Back on the farm, we didn’t need weapons of war

The Second Amendment allows us to bear arms, and there are plenty of guns available to suit every instance necessary in a civilized society! What the Second Amendment doesn’t say is that everyone has the right to bear weapons of war — those that were designed to kill humans fast and with one bullet. Ordinary people do not need assault rifles with oversized magazines containing high velocity bullets.

I’ll just make one point and let you roll your eyes at the rest of his errors and/or lies.

The Second Amendment doesn’t “allow use to bear arms”. It guarantees the government will not infringe upon our right to bear arms. And, in the Miller decision SCOTUS said that means it protects the right to own firearms used by the militia. Hence, “weapons of war” are specifically protected.


10 thoughts on “Back on the farm, we didn’t need weapons of war

  1. Unless you live in So. Africa? Or were maybe a Kulak in early 1900’s? Or even a Ukrainian farmer today?
    Or maybe even in the USA if the communist consider you a white supremist non-bug eating climate destroyer/farmer?
    And the list is actually quite long when one considers the revolutionary war, before the Indian wars of our history.
    Then the civil war and the march into the west?
    It seems if anyone needs weapons of war. It’s the farmers!

    • Let’s not forget the Indian wars of our history before the Revolutionary war. The Wilderness War, Lord Dunsmore’s war, Pontiac’s Rebellion, King Philip’s War, and others I’d have to do some research for what Tam refers to as an away game, but strikes me as an exhibition game.
      It may be quiet now, but as they used to say in the old British colonial movies — “Too quiet.”

  2. You’d think an M-1 Garand would be quite useful on a farm. Good for wolves, plural. Good for deer eating your crop. Good for the kind of predator that opines that you’ve got a nice farm, here, pity if something happened to it.

    Gen-yoo-wine weapon of war turned farm implement.

  3. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Even the idiots. The problem is the idiots are the embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect. And they believe their pseudo intellectual superiority entitles them….even REQUIRES them, to impose their beliefs on everyone who doesn’t believe what they believe. And since they are incapable of logic or rational thought the only recourse we have to stop them from doing so is violence. They refuse to listen to anything else.

  4. I’ll just drop this here:

    “It is better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war.”

  5. As the otherwise rather misguided Miller decision stated, the 2nd Amendment particularly protects weapons of war. Apart from that, this purpose was clearly stated at the time of its adoption (Tench Coxe said it particularly well). The notion that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to hunt varmints is too absurd even to discuss.

    Last but not least, when victim disarmers throw around the words “weapons of war” they normally refer to the AR-15, which is a light weight modest power rifle just powerful enough to disable humans (though not necessarily to kill them reliably, that’s not a requirement in many combat settings). An AR-15 is nowhere near as powerful as a large-game hunting rifle, and as I understand it isn’t permitted for hunting in a number of states on the grounds of being not powerful enough.

    • I think it was Col. Cooper that called the Ar15 a Poodle Shooter. As in that is the limit of it’s ability to reliably kill something. I note that it is US .mil procedure to shoot combatants with 3-5 rounds of 5.56 to get some sort of reaction from them. “Keep shooting until they change shape or catch fire”? Quite a change from the effect of prior Battle Rifles in 7.62 or 30.06 in combat. My preference would be “once and done”.

      • “One and done” is always preferable to “whack-a-mole.”
        As Joe Cutter (Sam Waterston) said about Miles Kendig (Walter Matthau) at the end of Hopscotch, “And he’d better STAY dead!”

      • I’ve never been an infantryman so take my input with a grain of salt, but my understanding of modern small unit tactics is “suppress and maneuver”.

        Some members of the unit put enough lead downrange to keep the enemy’s heads down while other elements maneuver to flanking positions.

        The advantage of the poodle shooter rounds using these tactics is that you can carry way more rounds for that suppressive fire. They’re not really even trying to hit anything, just to keep the enemy pinned in place so the maneuver elements can get into position to fire on them around their cover.

        I’ve heard that the military expends something like 100k rounds of ammunition for every enemy combatant killed or wounded. Using small, light ammo rather than the big, heavy stuff is much more conducive to this sort of combat.

        With that in mind, the small, weak ammo makes sense and I’d say the 5.56 is about perfect. Big enough to kill or wound a 150 lb critter (if you shoot them enough), but small and light enough to carry lots of it.

        For individuals, however, who don’t have a whole fire team/squad/platoon/company/battalion/brigade/division/corps/army to back them up and need to make every shot count, I think the desire to have something a bit more potent is completely justified.

        Just the opinion of someone who’s never fired a shot at anything more dangerous than a steel plate or piece of paper, so take it for what it’s worth: that and $3 will buy you a cup of coffee (the first time I heard that expression, a cup of coffee was 50 cents. Damn inflation sucks.)

  6. “The Second Amendment doesn’t “allow use to bear arms”. It guarantees the government will not infringe upon our right to bear arms. And, in the Miller decision SCOTUS said that means it protects the right to own firearms used by the militia. Hence, “weapons of war” are specifically protected.”

    That’s the part about the “popular” understanding of the Miller decision I’ve never understood. For years I’d been told that Miller upheld the constitutionality of the NFA and, therefore, supported the idea that the Second Amendment was a collective right, but the first time I actually read it, what you mentioned above was my takeaway.

    The Miller decision didn’t say that Miller had no right to bear arms because he wasn’t in a militia, it held that Miller had no right to bear that particular style of arm (short barreled shotgun) because the court had been presented no evidence that such an arm had any utility to militia use. In other words, the 2nd Amendment isn’t a collective right to have a militia, but an individual right to bear arms that would be useful when serving in a militia…hence, as you said, the Miller decision explicitly defines military arms as the class of weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment.

    Of course, pretty much any firearm in existence would have utility to the militia and had Miller’s attorneys actually showed up in court to present an argument, it’s possible the Miller decision would have turned out very differently.

Comments are closed.