28th Amendment - Prohibition of Firearms

The modern AR15 is every bit as capable of hitting man-sized targets at 500yds as any bolt rifle in .30-06.

 

Perhaps in the hands of an expert marksman the results at 500 yards would be relatively the same but the Model 70 Winchester 30-06 hunting rifle that normally has a scope is literally designed to be effective at a longer range than the AR-15. That's why the Model 70 was adopted in some cases by the military as a sniper rifle... because the Model 70 was superior in that role to the standard military M-16 and previous M-14! A rifle is always superior to a carbine at long distances and the M-16 (AR-15) is a shorter barrel carbine. Ask any sniper and they'll take the Model 70 over the M-16/AR-15 every time. Even without a scope the distance between the front sight and rear sight, which is greater on the rifle, affects the accuracy down-range. Any firearms expert knows this because it's simply a matter of math and range probable error.

I've read that the number of rounds expended in Vietnam for every enemy KIA was about 50,000 and the general weapon in use was the M-16. Two assumptions can be drawn from this statistic. First is the assumption that the professional soldier has superior firearms training when compared to a member of a militia and secondly that a standing army has the logistical support to meet this massive expenditure of ammunition while an insurgent militia does not.

 

Haven't shot much NRA highpower/service rifle have you?
Open-sight DCM-legal AR15s are more than capable of putting 20 of 20 in the kill zone of the average man at 600yds - from position.
Using a M700 in .30-06 and a scope, firing from a rest, just makes it easier.


And, I'll ask again:
Assume that I was born after the enactment of this amendment, and would have been able to legally buy a gun before said ratification:

If it is illegal for me to buy a firearm, how is it possible for me to exercise my right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home?

 

I have nothing less than 25 years old...guns last a LONG time, dude. My grandfather's pistol was made during WW2. My grandmother's skeet gun was made in the 1920's. My uncle's elephant rifle was made around 1900. His Mauser rifle was made in 1944. He has a Winchester semiautomatic rifle made in 1955.

 

Baloney! The organized militia is armed with the same arms as a standing army, and out number the army.

 

If one truly wants to stop killing humans

Take the guns away from the government including all cops.

Who kills more humans but Government?

 

The organized militia has EXACTLY THE SAME FIREARMS AND TRAINING AND LOGISTICAL SUPPORT and far outnumber the standing army.

 

I have owned a model 70 Remington. Great firearm!
I have also owned a Remington model 724 and 7400, both semi-automatic and both effective at 500+ yards.
All had scopes and all have paid for themselves many times over with meat in the freezer. In India in 1952 and 1953 I used 110 grain rounds for long distant antelope shots. With out beef in India we ate mostly wild game. My favorite was Nilgai and Chital, neither of which had excessive wild taste. Sambar on the other had was especially tough and gamy. Indian antelope (black buck) were also good, but were small and did not have the meat for the freezer. I spent about 3 months in the jungles of Uttar Pradesh solely as a meat gatherer for the family and also the nearby jungle Wallas, mostly Tibetan itinerants. On one occasion when my shikar (baby sitter) and I were tracking a group of Nilgai and I noticed a tiger creeping up on the shikar and I shot him before he could jump. Scared the pants off of both of us as we knew of no tigers in the area. In that case I had a double barreled 12 gauge with slugs and put both rounds in a 3 inch circle.

 

It is a public duty to oppose what we know to be openly against the freedom and liberty that our nation and society is based on. Vote against a revisit of the Nazi Holocaust and pass this on.

https://registertovote.org/index.html

 

Anyone with a lackluster knowledge of machining can create a firearm, how many machine shops are around the US.

You really don't understand how dumb this idea is.

- - - Updated - - -

African American Citizens.

 

Actually, since I once owned a very good machine shop, and the issue is making guns, no, it is not easy to make a gun.

If you want a simple firearm, sure. But if the gun has to match commercial standards, it is not simple.

First, the metals used have to be just right. And machine shops lack tooling to do rifling. And some parts are best made by automatic machines.

It can be done, don't expect easy or cheap.

Fact is, buy a gun rather than get one made at a machine shop. Save a lot of money.

 

Making a firearm is incredibly easy, 7 year olds in the mountains of Afghanistan have been doing it for years. Are they of great quality? No. They are rugged pieces of junk, but they are working AK's.

I can link you to a few videos of children in the Philippines making 1911's in backwood shacks.

 

I never made junk in my machine shop.

 

Are you suggesting one of the candidates is actually a socialist?

 

Only if it's a government sanctioned militia such as the National Guard and the members don't own the firearms, don't provide the training, and don't furnish the ammunition, the government does.

Even during the American Revolution where armed citizen militias contributed they didn't have the same firearms and didn't receive the same training as the Continental Army and the Continental Army furnished them with the powder and ball (ammunition) they required for battle. There was a serious problem as well because often the civilian militia showed up with calibers of muskets that were standard for the Continental Army and they had virtually no logistical support because the caliber balls being furnished didn't fit their muskets. We also know that the civilian militias used in the American Revolution could not stand and fight against the trained British military. Tactically the militias were used to fire the first two volleys against advancing British troops and then withdrew from the battlefield leaving the Continental Army to stand and fight the British.

I would suggest doing a little research on militias because that knowledge is obviously lacking.

 

The amendment looks a bit too rude in its prohibition of firearms. Firearms have got useful usages in private life. A couple of not lethal [for persons ...] usages of firearms come to mind: sport and hunting. In Italy hunters can have all the firearms they want. The limitation is about conceivable weapons [like handguns]. For those weapons you need a special license which is really difficult to obtain.

Personally I would make Italian legislation less strict about handguns and similar weapons, so I'm not in agreement with such a potential amendment to the US Constitution.

This said, I don't think it's necessary. Anyway, to keep it more in agreement with the 2nd amendment I would change it into ...

Such a version [substantially an empty version] would leave the matter in the hands of the states, making it similar to the matter of death penalty [in some states it's legal, in some state it doesn't exist].

Does a governor want to introduce limitations on the territory of the state about conceivable firearms? That governor will have to take own responsibilities before the electorate of that state.

Anyway I repeat: I wouldn't be glad to see such an amendment in the US Constitution.

 

Baloney! All organized militias have government issued weapons and the same logistics. Call them what you want, they can counter any standing army along with the unorganized militia, who WILL get the same weapons and put the standing army down if they even choose to fight in favor of tyranny.

I have done a great deal of research into militias and obviously you are just guessing based on an OLD historical point. That no longer stands. I not only served 27 years in that standing military I also spent 4 in an organized militia. So go stick your head up your excremental orifice. Eck do tine, hai ja mosum hai rangine.

 

That could never be ratified. The left has moved further left, and the right has moved further right and there are more red states than blue states. The red states will NOT ratify.

 

For the small machine shop with limited milling and boring machines it is true that manufacturing a complex firearm could be difficult. Rifling with a boring machine is not difficult and can actually be done with hand-tooling. Having worked in highly sophisticated aerospace machine shops with CNC mill/turn centers and boring machines it's not difficult at all. True, the milling, turning, and boring equipment cost tens of millions of dollars but that's just an issue of costs and not machining capabilities.

Of course making a smooth bore firerarm for the purpose of close range self-defense, generally referred to as a zip gun, doesn't even require machining capabilities.

 

Our organized militia, the National Guard, is issued firearms and ammunition from the government but it would never be an opposing force to the US military (standing Army). Of course because the organized militia is provided with firearms and ammunition there's no reason for the members to own their own firearms or ammunition.

 

I owned a machine shop from 1967 to 1971.

I think my point was not about the CNC shops or the shops with millions of dollars in equipment and tooling, but the more minimal tooling.

If the point had been that the huge fancy shops with millions of dollars in tooling and resources can make weapons, I never would have challenged that.

Also, it has been so many years since I have been inside a quality machine shop that I no doubt am out of date. However, I have seen CNC equipment working.

Finally, I agree with your premise.

 

Since i did not see an answer, i will ask again:
Assume that I was born after the enactment of this amendment, and would have been able to legally buy a gun before said ratification:

If it is illegal for me to buy a firearm, how is it possible for me to exercise my right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home?

 

Gun control does not stop gun violence, it only subjects the citizens to being second class feared by the government, leaving them to the mercy of criminals who are not effected by gun control. Gun control presumes the citizens are guilty of criminality without proof of that guilt.

 

Of course, we will never see this amendment. The left knows they can't get their way by amending the Constitution so they're dedicated on having nothing but liberals on the Supreme Court until they can do away with the Constitution, which would make the Supreme Court pointless, and will continue Congress as a gathering of eunuchs that will yield to the Supreme Commander.

 

Proposing and/or voting for unconstitutional bills is a violation of their oath office and an act of betrayal. Proposing changes to the Constitution, no matter how abhorrent, is not a betrayal of their oath of office-- the Constitution has been amended 27 times and each time represented a profound change in the nature and role of American government.

I would not support this Amendment under any circumstance. I would oppose by all lawful means any elected official that proposed this Amendment or voted in favor of it and if this Amendment were passed and ratified by the States, I would consider the American government to be illegitimate and would either flee or resist, depending upon my obligations at the time. The Constitution be damned, the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental human right and no government has the moral right to prohibit it.