Here's a breakdown that shows my train of thought :



The 2nd amendment limits the authority of 'specifically the government'.

It is not an affirmative right to individuals, it is a denial of rights to the government.
It in theory prevents the government from taking any actions that would infringe on bearing arms.




So, let's look at scope.


If bearing arms is for government regulated militias :

Let's assume that 'well regulated' means 'well government regulated'. (i.e. Merely government regulated in practice.)

- A militia that uses arms as per the government's regulation, would be operating as the government wishes - it would *be* an extension of the government, and the government would not need to seize its arms. The 2nd amendment is moot.

- A militia that doesn't use arms as per the government's regulation, is not government regulated, and has no protection from government arms seizure. The government is free to deny this militia arms at the government's discretion. The 2nd amendment is moot.


In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, you would need to protect an entity that the government would *not* wish to be armed.

Since we're still talking militias, that leaves only "non-government-regulated militias" as a protected class of entities.
Hence, this would preclude "government regulated" as a possible definition of "well regulated", in regards to "well regulated militia".

So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'.




So, following on the idea of the 2nd amendment scope being for "well [non-government] regulated militias".

The government can then circumvent 2nd amendment protection by making illegal any 'non-government-regulated militias'. This would eliminate the entire category of arms protected entities. The 2nd amendment is moot.

Hence, for the 2nd amendment to not be moot via this path, that means that "well [non-government] regulated militias" must also be protected under the 2nd amendment.




So, without government regulation, a well regulated militia is subject to the regulation of its members.

As there is no government regulation on militia, there is also no government regulation regarding the quantity of militia members. You are then left with the ability of a single individual to incorporate a militia, and decide on his own regulations.

Which decomposes into de-facto individual rights





This is why the only consequential meaning of the 2nd amendment is one which includes these aspects :
A) Does not define 'well regulated" as "government regulated".
B) Does not restrict the individual.
C) Protects militias.

Any other meaning for the 2nd amendment would result in an emergent status quo that would produce the same circumstances as if there was no 2nd amendment in the first place. This would erase any purpose in having a 2nd amendment.





But sure, maybe the 2nd amendment is moot.
Maybe it was written out of sheer boredom, just to have something inconsequential to do with one's time.
Maybe it was a farce designed to fool people into thinking that it means something, while it is actually pointless and ineffectual - like saying the sky is up.




In any case, I think we can agree that, if the 2nd means anything, it is intended for facilitating the defense of the state against invading armies.

The fallout of that is that if the 2nd particularly protects any given category of arms, it protects specifically those that are meant for use in military combat. Not hunting, not self defense, etc.

A pistol ban would be of little military detriment for open combat, but would be the greatest harm to people's capacity for insurgency (because pistols can be hidden on a person).

A hunting rifle ban would also be of modest military detriment for open combat (can serve DMR role), but probably the least meaningful.

Arms with particular military applicability would be large capacity+select fire (prototypical infantry arms), or accurized of any capacity (dmr/sniper).
Basically, the arms of greatest consequence to the 2nd amendment are precisely the ones most targeted for regulation.

-scheherazade

Lawrence Wilkerson's dismissive comments about self defense are very disrespectful to people who have had to resort to self defense. He wouldn't say things like that had he been unfortunate enough to have had such a personal experience. (As one parent of a Fla victim said - his child would have given anything for a firearm at the time of the event.)

Re. 2nd amendment, yes, it's not for pure self defense. The reasoning is provided within the text. The government is denied legal powers over gun ownership ('shall not be infringed') in order to preserve the ability of the people to form a civilian paramilitary intended to face [presumably invading] foreign militaries in combat ('militia').

It's important to remember that the U.S. is a republic - so the citizens are literally the state (not in abstract, but actually so). As such, there is very little distinction between self defense and state defense - given that self and state are one.

Personally, I believe any preventative law is a moral non-starter. Conceptually they rely on doling out punishment via rights-denial to all people, because some subset might do harm. Punishment should be reserved for those that trespass on others - violating their domain (body/posessions/etc). Punishment should not be preemptive, simply to satiate the fears/imaginations of persons not affected by those punished. Simply, there should be no laws against private activities among consenting individuals. Folks don't have to like what other folks do, and they don't have to be liked either. It's enough to just leave one another alone in peace.

Re. Fla, the guilty party is dead. People should not abuse government to commit 3rd party trespass onto innocent disliked demographics (gun owners) just to lash out. Going after groups of people out of fear or dislike is unjustified.







---------------------------------------------------




As an aside, the focus on "assault rifles" makes gun control advocates appear not sincere, and rather knee-jerk/emotional. Practically all gun killings utilize pistols.

There are only around 400 or so total rifle deaths per year (for all kinds of rifles combined) - which is almost as many as the people who die each year by falling out of bed (ever considered a bed to be deadly? With 300 million people, even low likelihood events must still happen reasonably often. It's important to keep in mind the likelihood, and not simply the totals.).

Around 10'000 people die each day out of all causes. Realistically, rifles of all sorts, especially assault rifles, are not consequential enough to merit special attention - given the vast ocean of far more deadly things to worry about.

If they were calling for a ban+confiscation of all pistols, with a search of every home and facility in the U.S., then I'd consider the advocates to be at least making sense regarding the objective of reducing gun related death.

Also, since sidearms have less utility in a military application, a pistol ban is less anti-2nd-amendment than an assault rifle ban.







As a technical point, ar15s are not actually assault rifles - they just look like one (m4/m16).
Assault rifles are named after the German Sturm Gewehr (storm rifle). It's a rifle that splits the difference between a sub-machinegun (automatic+pistol ammo) and a battle rifle (uses normal rifle/hunting ammo).

- SMG is easy to control in automatic, but has limited damage. (historical example : ppsh-41)

- Battle rifles do lots of damage, but are hard to control (lots of recoil, using full power hunting ammo). (historical example : AVT-40)

- An 'assault rifle' uses something called an 'intermediate cartridge'. It's a shrunken down, weaker version of hunting ammo. A non-high-power rifle round, that keeps recoil in check when shooting automatic. It's stronger than a pistol, but weaker than a normal rifle. But that weakness makes it controllable in automatic fire. (historical example : StG-44)

- The ar15 has no automatic fire. This defeats the purpose of using weak ammo (automatic controlability). So in effect, it's just a weak normal rifle. (The M4/M16 have automatic, so they can make use of the weak ammo to manage recoil - and they happen to look the same).

Practically speaking, a semi-auto hunting rifle is more lethal. A Remington 7400 with box mag is a world deadlier than an ar15. An M1A looks like a hunting rifle, and is likewise deadlier than an ar15. Neither are viewed as evil or dangerous.

You can also get hunting rifles that shoot intermediate cartridges (eg. Ruger Mini14). The lethality is identical to an ar15, but because it doesn't look black and scary, no one complains.

In practice, what makes the ar15 scary is its appearance. The pistol grip, the adjustable stock, the muzzle device, the black color, all are visual identifiers, and those visuals have become politically more important than what it actually does.

You can see the lack of firearms awareness in the proposed laws - proposed bans focus on those visual features. No pistol grips, no adjustable stocks, etc. Basically a listing of ancillary features that evoke scary appearance, and nothing to do with the core capabilities of a firearm.

What has made the ar15 the most popular rifle in the country, is that it has very good ergonomics, and is very friendly to new shooters. The low recoil doesn't scare new shooters away, and the great customizability makes it like a gun version of a tuner-car.

I think its massive success, popularity, and widespread adoption, have made it the most likely candidate to be used in a shooting. It's cursed to be on-hand whenever events like Fla happen.

-scheherazade

I agree. This isn't so much a social experiment as it is a study in urban camouflage. Some good military applications here...

How many years till this technology has real world military application?

yeah, for once I can agree with QM on something. Never underestimate the market shills that will milk this crap for all it's worth.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of augmented reality...for things that really matter like research, work, science, and heck..yes...military applications.

I just get sick and tired of amazing tech like this being marketed to the hipster/fashion/leisure crowd I just really have no need to be that hooked in when it comes to social/leisure things. God forbid he actually interact with someone ask them directions or where something is. Nor am I looking forward to another round of peer pressure bullshit when it comes to new gadgets like this.w

Does this have military applications? I can see the value of a drone that looks like a bird from a distance.

Interesting video, and reminds me that all computers started life for military application. Firing computers first, and later, notably used for encryption/decryption of information.

military applications have us wanting 40 yr light bulbs...they exist-

>> ^quantumushroom:
As long as dem hands can hold the handlebars of a Segway (and Fleshlight) ALL SYSTEMS GO.


Thanks for reminding me about the time Bush fell flat on his face trying to use a Segway... That was priceless...

But seriously, that's just plain tasteless, even for you, QM. Good to know there's people like you to "support" our troops, especially those who have given more than they should have.

Back to the vid though this is awesome, however, I'm a bit concerned of the obvious (to me at least) military applications. Why send a soldier home minus an arm when you can put him back on the battlefield thanks to a prosthetic with an integrated firearm (no pun intended)?

Then again, I'm a huge Ghost in the Shell fan... so maybe I'm just paranoid.

<cliche>
I for one welcome our new cyborg overlords...
</cliche>

This is the first PSA on a major bio-medical technology advance I've seen in a long while without an obvious tie-in to its military applications. Upvote for that alone!

>> ^Throbbin:
Impractical for military applications.
All an opposing army would have to do is use sonar to find you - something I imagine is much easier to accomplish than spending billions on invisibility technology.
One could even assume that development of technology that uses sonar that transmits images to a goggle or other screen for viewing would be much easier and cheaper to create and arm an army with.


Problem with sonar is, by the time your outgoing pulse reaches the tank, it's fired a sabot round into your face. We're not talking a couple hundred feet here. You'd be masking a tank from miles out, where only the muzzle flash would be visible. I could see this tech being like a little fence you erect around the tank, and fire over it. Kinda like going hull-down on flat ground.

Impractical for military applications.

All an opposing army would have to do is use sonar to find you - something I imagine is much easier to accomplish than spending billions on invisibility technology.

One could even assume that development of technology that uses sonar that transmits images to a goggle or other screen for viewing would be much easier and cheaper to create and arm an army with.

I am a little uneasy with how flippantly he talks about the military applications of this.

lol! The Pentagon want invisible soldiers! I'm gonna help them! Kewl!

^HOLD IT! why would a conservative group attack Ron Paul :-) lol. sheesh, who won't they attack?

I think you overstate your case. I look into the validity of the claims being leveled before I see who it's coming from. Does who it comes from make a difference? yea, sometimes it does, but the truthfulness and validity of the claims should come first.

With statements like this from Rumsfeld I can see how you would be fooled into believing the WMD lies.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: …We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat....I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting. (why hasn't this been sifted?)

Bush Administration Caught Contradicting Itself on WMD's
http://www.videosift.com/video/Bush-Administration-Caught-Contradicting-Itself-on-WMDs

Closed Room Plans Reveal Attempt to Dupe Public
http://www.videosift.com/video/Olbermann-Closed-Room-Plans-Reveal-Attempt-to-Dupe-Public

Interesting how each of the Intelligence Committee members voted, considering what Sen. Durbin claims they knew:(thanks FLETCH)

http://intelligence.senate.gov/members107thcongress.html
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

I personally could see why you would take Rumsfeld at his word about Iraq's WMD's with this knowledge of history (too bad the wmd ingredients we supplied them had such a short shelf life, or perhaps we would have found them in iraq)

Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan’s Envoy- provided Iraq with chemical & biological weapons December 20, 1983.

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of “dual-use” export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq’s use of these weapons.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua.

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the “Anfal” campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages.

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

August, 1988. 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas.

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: “The US-Iraqi relationship is… important to our long-term political and economic objectives.”

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.

Reminds me of a noisier American version of HAL,
http://www.videosift.com/video/the-HAL-cyborg-suit-makes-you-5-times-stronger-demo-300

Cool stuff. I'm sure they're pretty far away from military application though.