Thread: So let's talk about gun control

But to follow that thread to its logical conclusion you're saying it guarantees our right to own any kind of weapon we want at all, with no limits. That would include biological and nuclear.

Or where would you draw the line?

Also, there are logical limitations to freedom of speech too. A student can't talk loudly over the teacher for the entire class period. Or do you think they should be able to?

Originally Posted by Xei

As a side note: can the US really be said to have a 'well regulated militia' in the first place..?

Yes we can say that, in fact the Minutemen are a famous example. In the early days of the revolution there wasn't much of an army, the vast majority were militiamen and most of them only had the equipment they brought them self. The basic idea of that time was that if everyone had guns they could all join up into a militia to fight. If individuals didn't have guns they couldn't create a militia because they wouldn't have any guns at all, since all the equipment is what the individuals brought.

The realistic scenario of what would happen is if the government became evil is that everyone would join up with their firearms to create an army. Hopefully some of the military would join them, and even in the revolutionary war they did eventually raise an actual army. So you would have the normal military plus the irregulars formed by every day citizens with their firearms.

Now a militia vs the US government would be a one side fight and the militia wouldn't stand that much of a chance. However if you have faction of the US army backed by militiamen fighting another faction of the US army, then the militia may have a real impact on deciding the outcome of the war. Which is what the militia did back during the revolutionary wary, they played a critical role in prolonging the war long enough for us to organize a real army, without the support of civilians with firearms we would of lost the war.

The founding fathers recognized that, and so put that into the bill of rights. The reason they mentioned militia is so that people remember how critical they were to winning the war, and would thus remember why it is so important to be armed.

I was not saying in my last post what I think should be. I was just saying what I think the Second Amendment means. I think "arms" was supposed to mean "guns." As for how I think things should be, I said earlier that we have a problem on our hands if they meant "weapons in general." I don't think citizens should be allowed to have things like WMD's. I think speech should be limited when it comes in the form of harassment or other victimization. I don't think extortion, blackmail, sexual harassment, death threats, perjury, slander, etc. should be legal. As a former teacher, I think there should be death by firing squad for talking loudly over the teacher the entire class period. Well, maybe that last one is a little harsh, but I once worked for a principal who was too scared of the parents to do anything about that kind of stuff, so I have a special hatred for it.

I was actually talking about this earlier today with my friend. Basically the way I see it, you take away guns, guns will still be here. There will be more black market for guns. So many guns exist and are everywhere its unrealistic to get rid of them all. It's our rights as individuals to be able to arm ourselves. We all have a right to self defence. We all have a right to stand up against something and fight. It's our god given right to do these things. Just look at other countries where they are waging civil wars to over come their oppressive governments. We live in this mind state where we think we are safe and comfortable and nothing can hurt us and that is bullshit. Just because people decide to go and randomly go on shooting sprees doesn't mean that the government should take away guns. It's the individuals choice what to do with the gun. They are the one who pulls the trigger. The gun it's self is a tool. It can be used to save lives or to take lives. Really the problem has to do with the individual who makes that choice. I think that our constitutional rights should come first and make sense. Despite your reasoning of what use they have. They were created to protect basic rights of individuals and to empower individuals. Laws and morals change over time but those rights should stay because its one of the only solid things protecting us, even though they are already infringed on.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Any limitation put on the right to bear arms counts as an infringement. If the British government made it illegal to insult Islam, would that be an infringement on your right to free speech, or would an infringement on the right to free speech only be a complete ban on communication that is not ordered?

This doesn't solve the problem of the word 'arms' having no clear definition.

If you want to be practical about it, there are just way to many guns to ever get rid of them all. You would basically need to bring the army in and do a house to house search of every home in america to get rid of the guns, and if you do that it is going to cause huge problems. If you just pass a law saying all guns are illegal and then you don't do anything to actually get the gun then all guns would just go black market and we can no longer track them and it would likely increase violence dramatically.

Originally Posted by Xei

This doesn't solve the problem of the word 'arms' having no clear definition.

Researching other writings by the founders could give us an understanding of what they meant. That is how courts often interpret laws.

Researching it might indicate whether they just meant guns, but it does need to be explicated further than that. Should the 2nd amendment guarantee the rights of citizens to own howitzers and anti aircraft guns? And if not, then where to draw the line? Should it be legal for citizens to own fully automatic machine guns? Assault rifles?

I agree with Salty and Alric - the weapons will still be there whether they're legal or not. And hey, great to see they've got good old Eric Holder on the job!! We trust him with guns, right? Why the hell does he still have his job? Isn't he ashamed to show his face anymore, or is it true that many top ranking politicians and officials are actually narcissists or psychopaths with no actual sense of shame or guilt?

I also don't think any kind of legislation is going to make the slightest bit of difference in mass killings, but I do understand that people want something done, even if it's little more than a token effort. Hopefully this will bring a lot of attention to the way antidepressants are thrown at every slight psychological problem and the way news media glorifies murderers like rock stars.

You do realise they can just change the Bill of Rights, right?

It only gives you protection if you bring it up in court after they arrest you.
It's not some magical piece of paper that gives you the right to keep your guns. They can take them if they want to.

Anyway, mass shootings are not a problem, I say let them have semi-auto weapons. People always seem to forget about the 8000+ other shootings that go on every year, which are probably primarily rifles and pistols (ignore my lack of gun knowledge, I know rifles and pistols can both be semi-auto, but I mean single shot rifles that you have to reload after each shot for hunting etc. and pistols aren't really assault weapons even though some people think they may be classified as such).
Pistols probably kill more people than any other gun. At least in the U.S.

Good points. They should outlaw alcohol and tobacco and legalize weed before criminalizing assault rifles.

Originally Posted by tommo

You do realise they can just change the Bill of Rights, right?

It only gives you protection if you bring it up in court after they arrest you.
It's not some magical piece of paper that gives you the right to keep your guns. They can take them if they want to.

There is an American expression that goes, "It takes an act of Congress to do that." It means that something is really difficult to accomplish. Well, changing the Bill of Rights would literally take an act of Congress, and there are not going to be enough people in Congress supporting such a thing. It would be political suicide and probably result in a government overthrow. They aren't going to just change the Bill of Rights on a whim. It is the most sacred thing our country has.

We have the right to keep our guns. It sometimes takes going to court to make that clear to people in the government, but the Bill of Rights says we can keep our guns.

Also if you just want to protect yourself from government or home invaders, gun control doesn't stop that.

We can still get guns in Australia, you just can't walk around with them. But good luck shooting a tank or a drone anyway.

Tanks aren't worth that much in guerilla warfare. The threat of about 100 million people running around with guns to fight for a cause they are willing to die for is enough deterrent to keep the government from suddenly going totalitarian on us. That's what really matters.

Originally Posted by Xei

Firstly... the principle may have made sense in the 1700s, but it seems totally out of touch with modern reality. You really think, if it came to it, you would be able to bring down the technical might of the US army? You're going to use rifles on their tanks and jets?

That's a rather poor argument, Xei. Do you really think that if there was an uprising, that the government would order an all out assault on entire cities - mowing down both their dissidents as well as supporters? That would just fan the flames for anti-gov't sentiments, and exasperate matters to the point of a full on revolution. Support for the gov't would start dropping rapidly, among both the citizenry as well as many within the gov't as well. Just like many of the Nazi's couldn't stomach the on-going executions they had to carry out personally (before gas chambers were introduced), soldiers would start to lose morale and eventually refuse to fire. Although the higher-ups of the armed forces may be amoral opportunists with little regard for right and wrong, the soldiers themselves joined for the sake of protecting their fellow citizens.

It isn't as simple as just bulldozing through and carpet bombing entire swathes of land. They can get away with it overseas, but only because the American citizenry doesn't feel any sort of connection to them. The barbarians on the other end of the planet that have been effectively dehumanized and demonized over the past decade via constant reminders of September 11, anti-American sentiments, September 11, their ''hatred for our freedoms,'' 9/11, and September 11. Not to mention September 11. But in America? Their home? Against their own people? No man, woman, or child would let that slide. Not the layman at home, nor the suit that files paperwork for General Nutjob. There would be constant in-fighting, factions of the gov't would be left divided. Not only would this tyrannical gov't have to deal have to engage in field combat, but they'd be in for a bureaucratic battle as well. Discord would be widespread, and at a time like this, such division would prove to be disastrous for the gov't.

If the the US government were to pull a blitzkrieg, other nations wouldn't just sit idly by. The most opportunistic of leaders would jump at the sight of this opening and make their moves. The US gov't knows this, a revolution would leave them pathetically vulnerable. They wouldn't be able to effectively support their countless oversees military operations while simultaneously fighting a war on native soil. They'd take a stripping, on one side or another, and it'd only be a matter of time before one loss leads to another. The US gov't wouldn't make such a foolish mistake, it'd be far too risky with very little payout. Financial suicide in it's rawest form.



In the case of an uprising, to deal with it as effectively as possible, the gov't would have to settle for periodic tactical strikes and black ops. I'd assume temporary bases would have to be set up in key areas of nearly every major city to try and maintain control, and active patrols would be needed. All over the country. It wouldn't be a matter of average Americans going up against a steady onslaught of armed forces, it'd be a prolonged game of divide and conquer.

The point of guerrilla war isn't to eliminate the enemy, but to make the enemy bleed. To deprive the soldiers of the peace of mind that they need in order to A) focus on the objective and B) ignore their conscience. The longer the citizenry holds them off and keeps them on edge, the further a soldier's morale drops and doubt starts to sink in. And in that moment of apprehension, the soldier begins to question and reassess his stance on the conflict at hand. Does he continue mindlessly following orders, or does do what he signed up to do in the first place - protect his people?

So, provided the general public has access to sufficient weaponry (automatics playing an integral part in ensuring a civil militia is properly armed), American citizens do stand a chance against the government.
-----
As for which guns should be allowed...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think civilians should be allowed to own just anything the military has. Necessity, potential for negative outcomes, and controllability have to be taken into account. I think guns made for mass aggression should be legal because they are necessary or at least notably advantageous for fighting groups of attackers (both government and civilian thugs) and they can't be successfully controlled in the U.S. I don't buy the argument that a single shot rifle is all anybody needs for self-defense. Sometimes a shoot out is necessary.

I think this sums it up quite nicely. Whether it's a .9mm or an AK47, you should be able to buy it.

But imo their should be tiers for these weapons, with varying degrees of availability/eligibility for each. The more powerful weapons should require a special licence and psychological exam or assessment every 6 months.
-----
Bunch of typos scattered all over, too lazy to fix.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

I think this sums it up quite nicely.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

Whether it's a .9mm or an AK47, you should be able to buy it.

But imo their should be tiers for these weapons, with varying degrees of availability/eligibility for each. The more powerful weapons should require a special licence and psychological exam or assessment every 6 months.
-----
Bunch of typos scattered all over, too lazy to fix.

I think regulating guns at all is futile and an unnecessary creator of bureaucratic expansion, higher taxes, and good people going to prison. In terms of control, guns are in a category with marijuana. Just like with guns, no matter what limitations the government puts on marijuana, it's still all over the place and anybody who wants to get it can. Do you see a difference? The thugs we are worried about don't even buy legal guns legally. They buy them on the streets. What exactly would the restrictions do?

Firstly... the principle may have made sense in the 1700s, but it seems totally out of touch with modern reality. You really think, if it came to it, you would be able to bring down the technical might of the US army? You're going to use rifles on their tanks and jets?

This sounds like Hitler dropping pamphlets on France saying that Nostradamus predicted they would fall, and so they surrendered without a fight.

Your above comment implies that just because the U.S. as a nation has grown so powerful, there is no point in trying to protect our constitutional rights by force. It couldn't work anyway.

The constitution says somewhere that under certain conditions, we not only have the right to overthrow the government, but it is the people's obligation to do so. Whether or not I can own a tank, I know I can't fight the war machine with peaceful protest. Should it come down to it, we would need a gun; preferably not a revolver. We are well beyond that point.

Originally Posted by The Sandman

The constitution says somewhere that under certain conditions, we not only have the right to overthrow the government, but it is the people's obligation to do so.

Declaration of Independence*

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Declaration of Independence*

I don't have to be smart if I surround myself with smart people.

Originally Posted by The Sandman

I don't have to be smart if I surround myself with smart people.

''They're going to use you to stall the horde when the zombie apocalypse hits. They'll run while the zombies feast on your dumb ass. ''

Someone said this to me once, took me weeks to recover.

Originally Posted by The Sandman

I don't have to be smart if I surround myself with smart people.

You do if they are con artists.

While people wouldn't individually own tanks and jets, ideally independently organized militias would collectively own such military technology. In fact it would be necessary for such militias to exist if you aspire for a stateless society of any kind, syndicalist, communist or anarcho-capitalist. Spain was anarcho-syndicalist before the fascists overwhelmed them due to their complete lack in military. Likewise if any other society became stateless and lost their central government they would need to maintain some system of military in order to protect themselves.

I much preferred this later interview due to the original interview.

Lmao.

"I'm somebody who reads philosophy!"

Even if I were a conspiracy theorist and on Alex Jones side.. this interview made him look like an angry asshole and made Piers look like a saint (saw the whole thing when it aired).