U.S. Second Amendment

[EditorOne]

I suggest, and I believe, that the current debate over private ownership of firearms in the United States is informed by historic ignorance, and that a great many people have confused what the facts were when the Bill of Rights was created to what the facts are now.

The Second Amendment does not protect the right of citizens to bear arms, it simply assumes that to be the case and incorporates it into how militia are organized, lead, and to what purpose. . How do I explain the militia portion of the wording? Simple. Historically. when a militia was called out, it was much like calling out a volunteer fire company for a fire. The members were required to bring their personal guns to the muster. Why were they called out? To keep or restore peace after laws were broken. Who were they bearing arms for? The law.

If the call-out was going to be for a longer time, or the militia were to be sent against a foreign enemy, rather than a domestic nuisance, the private weapons were set aside and militarized weapons from the state or national armory were issued. Standard calibers to simplify supply, weapons capable of bearing bayonets, etc.

So the wording is this:
"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."

Read that in connection with the federal militia act of 1792:

"Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years ... shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack"


There is your "private ownership," a condition imposed merely be able to have a militia in the first place. And a militia is the government's arm to enforce law. Americans were not required to have weapons in order to overthrow their own governments, they were required to have weapons in oder to defend it.

That, to me, knocks one of the sillier tenets of the anti-gun control group right out of the ballpark, but there's more.

The run-up to the American Civil War saw militias created and drilled by enthusiastic young men on both sides of the issues that divided the times. Often the weapons used were either privately owned, or militia-owned militarized guns that were usable but obsolete. Once blood started flowing in sufficient quantities, both sides went through serious and expensive effort to arm their militias with first class weaponry, organized them into regiments, brigades and divisions, train them much more rigorously, and send them off to do battle.

After that war the potential for mischief in such militias, which exist as centers of both military activity, active socializing and political maneuvering, went out of style, deliberately. This was when the National Guard was created.Its purpose is to be a reserve of manpower, armed well and trained hard, available in much the same way as extra ammunition or gasoline, there to fight foreign enemies but with some vestigial attachments to the old militia concept. The need for a militia to deal with a local nuisance like rumrunning or riot was handed over no t to a committee of armed citizens, but to police departments.

How anyone gets, out of that arrangement, that private ownership is necessary to prevent government from tyran nizing us is a mystery. Even in the original militia action on Lexington Green, the militia was acting on behalf of the local government, which asserted that the weapons at the Concord armory were in fact for the use of colonial militia, not for the use of the British marching to take the guns away. Every use of militia I can think of was done in the name of the law. Not once has it been used to successfully replace one government with another.

The whole myth that citizens with guns keep a government from being tyrranical makes no sense in this scenario. And at any rate that idea exists now; it did not exist in the 1790s. Then the militia was seen as the military arm of state government.

I can argue for gun control or not based on just what we've got going on today. The arguments of 1795 become arguments only because people of today ignore the context and realities of 1795.

 

[Reluctantly]

This seems kind of moot to me when you consider that the colonies would still be British if it weren't for the colonies being armed. And I'm sure there were many reasons for the Second Amendment outside of just militias.

Anways, it sounds like you're cherry-picking because you've already decided the Second Amendment has no good benefits. Is that fair and unbiased? And what are you suggesting then? I mean, sometimes people do awful things, but should we just limit freedoms because of it? I mean, sure, if we were all in cages, then we would be even safer since we couldn't touch or harm each other, but I don't think anyone would agree that that's a good idea. And naturally, that's a bit of an extreme example, but the imagery still applies.

And I don't even own a gun, but the idea of a bunch of people telling me I should never own one should I choose to just reinforces my desire to grow into a psychopath because then I can't really trust other people. It makes me feel like a prisoner to your judgment. And I'm surprised other people don't ever seem to feel the same.

 

[Cognisant]

So you think the North Koreans should have nukes?
Same thing really, just on a bigger scale.

 

[Reluctantly]

Are you asking me?

And that's hardly the same thing; not all weapons are the same.

 

[Matt3737]

Max Weber defined government as the entity that successfully claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

In this sense then, killings done by government or agents therof are executions or casualties of war and any killing not sanctioned by the government is murder, a legally defined term.

The issue is how does one 'successfully' claim this monopoly? It is through violence itself, but it is not a purely material activity because it is not singular in and of itself. Because it is a social or group enterprise, ideology has to justify it by which peoples' beliefs are expressed giving morale and support for the group. Economic and technological logistics play a role as well, but neither can have a moral interest in either side of a conflict. People fight wars and choose sides based on their cultural/political/religious beliefs.

Simply put, the threat of violence is used as a deterrent to ideological and material usurpation. As long as the people are given a say and a means to resolve conflicts through legal and/or political means, that entity shall maintain its monopoly. Revolution is and always will be a method of last resort after all other means of resolution are exhausted by which a significant amount of people have resolved that it is unjust.

 

[Nezaros]

The whole myth that citizens with guns keep a government from being tyrranical makes no sense in this scenario. And at any rate that idea exists now; it did not exist in the 1790s. Then the militia was seen as the military arm of state government.

It doesn't make sense in any scenario. Even less so now than in the 18th century. The staunch pro-gun advocates are just trying to conjure up any historical BS they can because they suffer from that unfortunate combination of being far too attached to history while not actually knowing very much about it. Not that I think they're completely full of crap; the argument for self-defense is a fairly reasonable one. But it also seems to be the only valid argument they have. Even citing the Second Amendment is utter crap; laws should conform to society, not the other way around.

Personally I don't see why we don't just take Europe's example and ban only guns which have no legitimate use outside of mass murder, while keeping strict-yet-reasonable regulations on the rest. American exceptionalism I suppose. But every time someone mentions gun control the immediate thought is that that someone wants to ban all guns. No one wants to do that. No one with any sense, at least. The gun control debate is just a giant fuckfest of the uneducated arguing against the misunderstood when the real issue has nothing to do with guns.

Anways, it sounds like you're cherry-picking because you've already decided the Second Amendment has no good benefits. Is that fair and unbiased? And what are you suggesting then? I mean, sometimes people do awful things, but should we just limit freedoms because of it? I mean, sure, if we were all in cages, then we would be even safer since we couldn't touch or harm each other, but I don't think anyone would agree that that's a good idea. And naturally, that's a bit of an extreme example, but the imagery still applies.

I don't think he's actually arguing for or against it, just citing the reasons people are wrong when they try to hide behind the Second Amendment.

So you think the North Koreans should have nukes?
Same thing really, just on a bigger scale.

The right to own a tool for the purpose of self-defense in no way relates to giving a near-psychopathic government access to weaponry used solely for global warfare. That's bad, even for a strawman argument. And anyway, if they did ever gain nuclear missiles they would just explode a few hundred feet above the launch point.



By the way Matt, I love your forum avatar.

 

[Cognisant]

Personally I don't see why we don't just take Europe's example and ban only guns which have no legitimate use outside of mass murder, while keeping strict-yet-reasonable regulations on the rest.

I'd be fine with that, I'm not so concerned about hunting rifles (low caliber bolt action, if you can't kill something with that you have no business hunting with a gun) as I am about the semiautomatic assault rifles, high powered sniper rifles, light machine guns, automatic shotguns and other ridiculous crap that has no business being in civilian hands.

And that's hardly the same thing; not all weapons are the same.

Precisely, and if the North Koreans don't need nukes civilians don't need mil-spec weaponry.

 

[duke of new york]

I really hate any argument for gun rights that attempts to demonstrate why we need them (self-defense, safeguard against tyranny, etc.). You shouldn't need to demonstrate an object's utility just to have the right to own it.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Approx. 330 million privately owned firearms in the US, though nobody actually knows for sure how accurate that figure is. It could be much greater. At that level of saturation, anti-firearm legislation is going to be impossible to enforce.

But just assuming legislation banning firearms was actually passed, how do you propose to round up and dispose of 330 million + guns?

Not to mention the unwillingness of people to part with their weapons. I suppose you could force them at gunpoint, but how ironic would that be?

Why not start a campaign to ban motor vehicles too? All things considered, they're probably even more dangerous than guns.

Anyway, it's a bit late to consider banning firearms now, don't you think? You can't ban culture, and guns are surely an integral part of US culture.

 

[Cognisant]

Nonsense, obviously it won't happen overnight but even if you're only getting a few hundred a day then over a year that's tens of thousands and over a decade that's hundreds of thousands, which will slowly but surely decrease the number of guns in circulation if there's tighter regulations on their sale and registration.

In the beginning it wouldn't be infeasible that single cities could be rounding up hundreds of guns per day, then as the number of guns around decreases and people become less comfortable with their ownership (as they are most everywhere else) there will be more social pressure on people who have guns to give them up or at least lock them up and hide them, and as time goes by police will have more freedom to locate and confiscate weapon stashes as society becomes less accepting of their existence.

If anything I'm being extremely conservative with my estimates, the US has quite an impressively large police force which is largely because with so many guns in society a large police force has been needed, ironically by making their jobs safer many police may well be putting themselves out of work.

 

[Solitaire U.]

^ No offense, but that's an insanely idealistic and naive view.

 

[Cognisant]

The US has the worlds largest military budget, likely the most extensive network of spies and data analysts, access to technology that's generally a decade ahead of anything on the shelf, and extensive national guard and border protection forces to assist the already numerous police forces.

Even if somehow all the gun nuts got organized into a revolutionary group what's their answer going to be two gun toting APCs, UAVs and helicopter gunships?

If police come knocking on your door and request to search your property for guns, y'know what you do, you let them, because if you don't they make a note of it and you can be sure they'll follow up on it later or you shoot them, you're now a cop killer and unlike GTA you're now totally and utterly fucked.

 

[Solitaire U.]

So then you're saying that all the little guns will run into the furnace out of fear for the big guns killing them?

I could be wrong, but I believe a version of that was tested and conclusively proven to fail during WW2.

Regardless, I always assumed the 2nd amendment existed to eliminate the potential for such...

 

[Cognisant]

You're an idiot and I'm done with this.

Read the OP, remember that the US won the war, and save your sarcasm for someone who cares.

 

[Analyzer]

The whole idea of gun control is a farce. No laws or regulations can prevent potential criminals of getting guns and using it. The technology is there and will even be more accessible with 3D printers. Someone is going to have guns, and if you designate only certain actors such governments to have guns you are under an illusion of moral authority/utopia.

 

[Solitaire U.]

You're an idiot and I'm done with this.

Heh, ok. Fuck you too.

 

[joal0503]

The US has the worlds largest military budget, likely the most extensive network of spies and data analysts, access to technology that's generally a decade ahead of anything on the shelf, and extensive national guard and border protection forces to assist the already numerous police forces.

Even if somehow all the gun nuts got organized into a revolutionary group what's their answer going to be two gun toting APCs, UAVs and helicopter gunships?

If police come knocking on your door and request to search your property for guns, y'know what you do, you let them, because if you don't they make a note of it and you can be sure they'll follow up on it later or you shoot them, you're now a cop killer and unlike GTA you're now totally and utterly fucked.

but the assumption that the military personal would remain obedient during a measure like this, is definitely being overlooked.

its impossible to guess, but knowing military folks it would be a little hard to turn our own men and women against our own for simply owning a gun.

it is a bit naive to think we could just take everyones guns away, either voluntarily or by force.

sidenote: i cant wait for gta v

 

[Nezaros]

But just assuming legislation banning firearms was actually passed, how do you propose to round up and dispose of 330 million + guns?

Where are you getting this? Who, anywhere, has ever said anything about banning guns outright?

I really hate any argument for gun rights that attempts to demonstrate why we need them (self-defense, safeguard against tyranny, etc.). You shouldn't need to demonstrate an object's utility just to have the right to own it.

Can you think of anything which is potentially dangerous without any legitimate personal uses that is permitted to be in public hands? Because I sure can't.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Where are you getting this? Who, anywhere, has ever said anything about banning guns outright?

sigh

 

[Nezaros]

Your sighing doesn't make the point you seem to be trying to make any more relevant.

 

[Da Blob]

Once again, the issue has been hijacked by control freaks. I am continually amazed at those who actually think that manipulation of Objects is the means of manipulating Subjects. It is a dishonest illusion, the idea that madness and insanity can be controlled by some rational policy. It is like saying to killer with Anti-Social Disorder, "But you can no longer be an antisocial killer, for we have made it illegal".

This debate is ridiculous, criminals will own guns for as long as they wish to own guns. Any legislation dealing with weaponry will only be obeyed by mentally stable, law-abiding citizens and they are the source of the current problem.

I think a lot of people are frightened by how uncontrollable and chaotic life actually is and those in power offer them placebo in the form of unenforcible laws. Some day they may even try to make hurricanes 'illegal' to soothe the fears of the liberal masses.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Your sighing doesn't make the point you seem to be trying to make any more relevant.

Yeah, I know that it's really difficult for you to understand the point I'm making:

Ratio: 90 firearms per 100 citizens...

Control over firearms, up to and including total ban: Impossible.

It's my opinion. Did I break a rule in stating it?

What's your fucking problem?

 

[scorpiomover]

Let me put it to you this way. I live in the UK. There is a gun shop 10 minutes from my house. But I don't know anyone with a gun, and I don't know anyone who is calling for gun control.

This is not about who is for or against gun control. This is about one particular nation, where the citizens of that nation seem to think it is their god-given / evolution-given right to take things as far as possible, whether for guns or anything else, or against guns or anything else, and far too often, a lot of them take things to extremes.

 

[redbaron]

I am for gun control, but I agree with @Solitaire U.

Attempting to impose the same laws and level of gun control present in other countries wouldn't be productive. Trying to just ban guns or force people to turn them in to be dismantled is a pointless endeavour.

And if you're going to talk about gun control, it would be good if people would outline what exactly they are proposing as a means of gun control. It's fine to say, 'well I'm not talking about an outright ban', but if you offer no alternative then obviously people are going to think you're being naive.

 

[Nezaros]

Yeah, I know that it's really difficult for you to understand the point I'm making:

Ratio: 90 firearms per 100 citizens...

Control over firearms, up to and including total ban: Impossible.

It's my opinion. Did I break a rule in stating it?

What's your fucking problem?

From your first post you seemed to be denying the possibility of gun control consisting of anything other than complete prohibition. Some slight regulation beyond what is already present is possible. I'm not denying you the right to disagree with that, and there's no point in making snide remarks because you can't convey your opinion clearly.

 

[Mantush]

Guns are the great equalizers. We (thankfully) do not live in a country where armed guards are stationed on every street corner, in every alleyway, and in every neighborhood. Because of that, there is a well-described need for a tool that will defend the weak from the strong. A gun is that tool. Historically, when guns have been banned in other nations, the rate of violent crime has risen. Arguably, the reason for this is because criminals now have less to fear when choosing their victims. There will be less resistance, which will allow them to victimize more people.

When people say they are "anti-gun," they are creatively saying they are against equality and the defense of life and property, but they may not realize it. So long as their exists a right to life and the accumulation of private property, there needs to exist the tools - not just the tool of government - to protect life and property.

 

[snafupants]

Guns are the great equalizers. We (thankfully) do not live in a country where armed guards are stationed on every street corner, in every alleyway, and in every neighborhood. Because of that, there is a well-described need for a tool that will defend the weak from the strong. A gun is that tool. Historically, when guns have been banned in other nations, the rate of violent crime has risen. Arguably, the reason for this is because criminals now have less to fear when choosing their victims. There will be less resistance, which will allow them to victimize more people.

When people say they are "anti-gun," they are creatively saying they are against equality and the defense of life and property, but they may not realize it. So long as their exists a right to life and the accumulation of private property, there needs to exist the tools - not just the tool of government - to protect life and property.

Absolutely right. Jefferson himself acknowledged that a bandit would be more apt to assault a defenseless person versus an armed citizen. Sure, what thief wants to increase risk to self? But yes, I have heard that England has far more break-ins per capita than the United States: because England is relatively strict on guns, criminals slink around with awesome impunity. It's the same principle as the Jefferson example: burglars are more vigilant when the suspicion of gun ownership prevails. In such a manner, guns may actually prevent crime, especially homicide and theft.

 

[redbaron]

From your first post you seemed to be denying the possibility of gun control consisting of anything other than complete prohibition. Some slight regulation beyond what is already present is possible. I'm not denying you the right to disagree with that, and there's no point in making snide remarks because you can't convey your opinion clearly.

What was unclear about his post? It made two assertions.

- trying to dismantle or ban guns is impractical and won't be effective
- guns are a part of US culture to the point where people will support gun ownership even if the law states otherwise

If you're going to propose a method of gun control that doesn't involve complete or large scale prohibition, you need to outline where the boundaries lie. 'Slight regulation' doesn't explain shit. What exactly is, 'slight regulation'?

 

[capt.james.t.solo]

Its no longer even about protecting oneself from the government, the government can no longer afford to protect us.
Whether or not you live in the sticks or down town Chicago we can't pay enough cops to keep law abiding citizens safe from though who chose to brake the rules. I know a retired Chicago cop and every time I see him he tells me the only thing that would keep the murder rate down (It hit 500 today by the way) would be to lift the gun control laws.
The only gun control this country needs is for guns to be controlled by the law abiding individuals.

 

[Nezaros]

What was unclear about his post? It made two assertions.

- trying to dismantle or ban guns is impractical and won't be effective
- guns are a part of US culture to the point where people will support gun ownership even if the law states otherwise

If you're going to propose a method of gun control that doesn't involve complete or large scale prohibition, you need to outline where the boundaries lie. 'Slight regulation' doesn't explain shit. What exactly is, 'slight regulation'?

"Slight regulation" means restrictions which are not as extreme as complete prohibition, such as outlawing only fully automatic weapons. What I got out of his post was that any form of legal restriction against gun ownership was doomed to fail, which I say is wrong. If that was not, in fact, the intended opinion to be voiced, there lies the lack of clarity.

 

[EditorOne]

Nezaros: "I don't think he's actually arguing for or against it, just citing the reasons people are wrong when they try to hide behind the Second Amendment."

Just to clarify: Exactly.

As noted in the last graph of the longest post I've ever made in here, I can argue for or against guns as guns. Using historical ignorance about the Second Amendment as a justification for weapon ownership just seems to me to be embarrassing.

There's no reason to jump from "The Second Amendment is no justification for private gun ownership" to "therefore we must confiscate the guns."

I could make a case for:

1. Gun ownership being the a priori condition leading to the concept of a militia;
2. Gun ownership as no different than ownership of a dish, car or boat;
3. Gun ownership as a valid means of self defense.

I don't need to position myself as the defender of liberty to justify gun ownership.

Note that in all the alternatives we're not required to allow ownership, and we can regulate use just as we regulate use of dishes (health laws in restaurants), cars (you need a driver license) and boats (when you have responsibility for a boat of a certain size or one that is carrying passengers you need more than a bare operator's license, you need to demonstrate a higher level of skill and judgment.)

One of the problems with the Second Amendment as a defense is the absolutist utterings of its more vehement defenders and the gun manufacturers themselves. They routinely oppose, with words and money, any attempt to treat firearms like dishes, cars or boats. They do not always succeed, but they certainly muddy the waters every time, making it more difficult for reasonable people to solve problems.

 

[Wolf18]

In the U.S., there is a big hunting culture, and many people have hunting guns. I can understand hunting guns and pistols (for self-defence), but I don't understand the necessity for assault rifles. The name even says "assault." No one is supposed to be assaulting anyone. No one in the US needs a private AK or Uzi.

SW

 

[SLushhYYY]

Ive talked to multiple sheriffs in the Los Angeles county, and in the San Diego county about this topic and they assured me that if they ever got the orders to start taking weapons away from civilians they would completely reject them and send such orders to local police to see if they would do such a thing. Police (well, sheriffs) are very much against taking away our weaponry. This information came from a friend who is currently in an internship at the sheriff department, and my personal experience.

So unless they bring in the national guard, we're fine.

 

[Lot]

In the U.S., there is a big hunting culture, and many people have hunting guns. I can understand hunting guns and pistols (for self-defence), but I don't understand the necessity for assault rifles. The name even says "assault." No one is supposed to be assaulting anyone. No one in the US needs a private AK or Uzi.

SW

Agreed, no one needs an AK or Uzi. But you understanding why we would want one isn't necessary to our ownership. I don't understand why people feel the need to break a silence. No one needs to eat ice cream, or crap in an indoor toilet. Yet we certainly like the luxury to do those things. I understand that the difference is that a gun can kill people, not going to argue against that.

Guns aren't only for self defense, though. They are super fun to shoot. I'd never use a full auto for self defense. They shoot too many bullets for that purpose. The full auto mode was made for suppressive fire mostly or the spray and pray tactic, both not useful when defending yourself in most civilian situations. So I think we could agree on that point.

Also uzi's are sub machine guns, not assault rifles. The difference is that it fires pistol bullets and not rifle bullets. (I know, I'm being a nit picking butt)

Assault weapon, in the media, can be a miss leading term. Assault weapons are banned, for the most part, in the US. We can still purchase ones made before, i think, 1986, but they are hella pricey. A gun to fit the category of assault weapon, it needs to have selective fire, which is the ability to change from semi-auto (one round per trigger pull), to three round burst or full auto (bullets are fired as long as the trigger is pulled). This means that the AK's and AR's (civilian M-16) in this country are mostly semi-auto. This does also apply to sub-machine guns. Most states require a class 3 FFl to own a full auto, which takes an interview with the ATF and several hundred dollars.

@EditorOne
I never thought about the second amendment that way. You make a rather compelling argument. It would be interesting if states started up a militia movement, and made it so that gun owners had to get trained and pledge that they would go to war or what not at the command of the state. I could see something like that going over well here in Arizona. Although, we don't get the whole "defending against tyranny" thing from the second amendment. At least I don't. I get that from the writings of the founding fathers. Several of them seemed to hold that view.

 

[Kuu]

The US has the worlds largest military budget, likely the most extensive network of spies and data analysts, access to technology that's generally a decade ahead of anything on the shelf, and extensive national guard and border protection forces to assist the already numerous police forces.

Even if somehow all the gun nuts got organized into a revolutionary group what's their answer going to be two gun toting APCs, UAVs and helicopter gunships?

If police come knocking on your door and request to search your property for guns, y'know what you do, you let them, because if you don't they make a note of it and you can be sure they'll follow up on it later or you shoot them, you're now a cop killer and unlike GTA you're now totally and utterly fucked.

Yes, this always the point I make when I get someone talking about protecting themselves from tyranny. They are already living in a tyranny, it's just not how they expected it to be. Even an assault rifle is no match for a microwave pain ray, or an UAV, or a tank. But no, people are rarely oppressed directly by the gun, they are oppressed through propaganda and rigged political and economic structures. It's sadly ironic that gun ownership nuts enrich the gun manufacturers, which are the same companies that love to lobby to spend their precious tax dollars to the point of national bankruptcy in foreign wars of conquest...

And so I get to the crux of the matter. It's not about guns at all, but the idea that violence is a good and fast solution to most problems, an idea thoroughly ingrained in certain societies. It's not something that removing guns will solve. Socioeconomic stratification, racism, ignorance, extremisms of all sorts, glorification of militarism and a narrow, sugar coated understanding of history all contribute to creating an environment of disharmony and violence.

but the assumption that the military personal would remain obedient during a measure like this, is definitely being overlooked.

its impossible to guess, but knowing military folks it would be a little hard to turn our own men and women against our own for simply owning a gun.

"Domestic terrorism"

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

In the U.S., there is a big hunting culture, and many people have hunting guns. I can understand hunting guns and pistols (for self-defence), but I don't understand the necessity for assault rifles. The name even says "assault." No one is supposed to be assaulting anyone. No one in the US needs a private AK or Uzi.

SW

During the LA riots a shop owner was able to defend his store quite well with an assault rifle. The looting, vandalizing mob didn't really want to destroy a property if they knew there was a chance of being shot at.

Governments throughout time have this habit of killing large numbers of the citizens who reside in its region of control. An assault rifle would be far more useful than a 9mm in defending one's life and property in the event that people whom have control of the government have gone bat shit insane and started killing everyone. Take away people's ability to defend themselves, you never know what despotism those in government will impose.

A couple of months ago when a couple of guys just wondered into my apartment, my flat mates and I had to scare them off with baseball bats. Well, I had a baton. They only left after a couple minutes of each group yelling at each other. Apparently they were looking for someone who owed them money. Scary shit. If one of us had a gun, the trespasser would have been more compliant.

 

[Duxwing]

During the LA riots a shop owner was able to defend his store quite well with an assault rifle. The looting, vandalizing mob didn't really want to destroy a property if they knew there was a chance of being shot at.

Governments throughout time have this habit of killing large numbers of the citizens who reside in its region of control. An assault rifle would be far more useful than a 9mm in defending one's life and property in the event that people whom have control of the government have gone bat shit insane and started killing everyone. Take away people's ability to defend themselves, you never know what despotism those in government will impose.

A couple of months ago when a couple of guys just wondered into my apartment, my flat mates and I had to scare them off with baseball bats. Well, I had a baton. They only left after a couple minutes of each group yelling at each other. Apparently they were looking for someone who owed them money. Scary shit. If one of us had a gun, the trespasser would have been more compliant.

Since attempting to fend them off with a dinky little pistol will be next to futile, I personally recommend installing a military surplus GAU-8 Avenger behind your front door. Body armor, schmody armor, there won't be anything left of the next block after it unleashes a hail of 30mm High-Explosive Anti-Tank projectiles at over 4,000 rounds per minute.

Now, I admit, this solution might be a little expensive and doesn't cover the possibility of aerial threats, but freedom isn't free and the second problem can be solved by setting up a PATRIOT missile defense system on your balcony. All in all, protected by the best home defense grid that money can buy, no-one will dare to challenge you.



-Duxwing

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Since attempting to fend them off with a dinky little pistol will be next to futile, I personally recommend installing a military surplus GAU-8 Avenger behind your front door. Body armor, schmody armor, there won't be anything left of the next block after it unleashes a hail of 30mm High-Explosive Anti-Tank projectiles at over 4,000 rounds per minute.

Now, I admit, this solution might be a little expensive and doesn't cover the possibility of aerial threats, but freedom isn't free and the second problem can be solved by setting up a PATRIOT missile defense system on your balcony. All in all, protected by the best home defense grid that money can buy, no-one will dare to challenge you.



-Duxwing

I like your thinking. XD

 

[duke of new york]

In the U.S., there is a big hunting culture, and many people have hunting guns. I can understand hunting guns and pistols (for self-defence), but I don't understand the necessity for assault rifles. The name even says "assault." No one is supposed to be assaulting anyone. No one in the US needs a private AK or Uzi.

SW

Which of these guns should be banned?

Spoiler

Spoiler

They are both self-loading, meaning that they fire a round every time the trigger is pulled, until the magazine runs out of ammunition. Neither one has a fully automatic or burst fire mode. Both fire a round powerful enough to easily kill a human being, and both can take "high-capacity" magazines. There is nothing that really makes the AR deadlier or more dangerous.

The fact is that, knowing almost nothing about firearms, possibly never having fired, touched or even seen a gun in real life, a gun ban advocate will see the top gun and think, "That's just a hunting rifle. They don't kill people; they only kill animals." When they see the bottom gun, they think, "What a scary-looking gun! I've seen people killing other people with that gun in the movies! That should be banned!" They will say these things in spite of the fact that they are pretty much exactly equal in their capacity to kill or maim.

I don't mean to belittle you, but your post perfectly illustrates my point that people with strong anti-gun sentiments usually know very little about guns. You even said that you thought handguns should be legal but "assault rifles" should not be, assuming that by "assault rifles," you meant civilian semi-automatic versions of military select-fire rifles. In 2011, there were 7,398 handgun homicides and 453 rifle homicides. There were 647 murders with blunt objects and 869 murders with hands and feet. Anyone who says that "assault weapons" (a term invented by politicians) are a serious problem in this country is either a liar or has no idea what they are talking about. It all comes back to the fact that some people are scared of certain weapons just because they look like a military weapon or they look like the weapon Adam Lanza allegedly used. There is no rational case for singling out those weapons. The entire "assault weapons ban" push is an emotional reaction, and I think legislating away an entire country's rights based on an irrational emotional reaction is fucking bullshit.

 

[duke of new york]

Also, just because you or anyone else doesn't "see the need" to own something doesn't mean you can just ban it. Every post in here is still about whether guns are effective or ineffective at something; like I said before, a thing's utility or effectiveness at any purpose is completely irrelevant when talking about whether one simply has the right to own it.

 

[redbaron]

like I said before, a thing's utility or effectiveness at any purpose is completely irrelevant when talking about whether one simply has the right to own it.

Not exactly. That's the reason you can't keep only a baseball bat or golf club in your car without anything else. Without reasonable evidence to suggest otherwise It's purpose is construed to potentially be intended for causing harm and you'll be fined.

Same goes for motive (purpose) during a prosecution, it's taken into account and can be used as evidence to indict someone.

A self-defence (or defence of others) plea is also entirely dependent upon purpose. If you defend yourself from an attack and injure someone, it is seen as acceptable, given that the purpose was self-defence or the defence of others. If however you happen to stomp on someone's head after defending yourself, even if they just tried to kill you, you can be charged with assault. The purpose could be construed as no longer self-defence, but harm. Once the line is crossed between the purpose of self-defence or to cause harm, the application of the law changes.

Furthermore, the distinction between something being a Misdemeanor and Battery/Assault is defined by purpose. Throwing a punch at someone with the purpose of causing physical harm is battery, if it lands then it's assault. But if you were just fist-pumping and happened to knock someone, it is a misdemeanor (if you can demonstrate a lack of intent).

And perhaps the most obvious one is the difference between manslaughter and murder. One being purposeful, the other accidental.

I could go on and list dozens more ways in which purpose does in fact affect when and how the law is applied, but I think the point is clear: when it comes to the application of the law, purpose is actually of vital importance. Not taking into account the purpose behind the ownership of certain weapons, or failing to ascertain the purpose before allowing the purchase of certain weapons is not irrelevant.

 

[duke of new york]

Not exactly. That's the reason you can't keep only a baseball bat or golf club in your car without anything else. Without reasonable evidence to suggest otherwise It's purpose is construed to potentially be intended for causing harm and you'll be fined.

Same goes for motive (purpose) during a prosecution, it's taken into account and can be used as evidence to indict someone.

A self-defence (or defence of others) plea is also entirely dependent upon purpose. If you defend yourself from an attack and injure someone, it is seen as acceptable, given that the purpose was self-defence or the defence of others. If however you happen to stomp on someone's head after defending yourself, even if they just tried to kill you, you can be charged with assault. The purpose could be construed as no longer self-defence, but harm. Once the line is crossed between the purpose of self-defence or to cause harm, the application of the law changes.

Furthermore, the distinction between something being a Misdemeanor and Battery/Assault is defined by purpose. Throwing a punch at someone with the purpose of causing physical harm is battery, if it lands then it's assault. But if you were just fist-pumping and happened to knock someone, it is a misdemeanor (if you can demonstrate a lack of intent).

And perhaps the most obvious one is the difference between manslaughter and murder. One being purposeful, the other accidental.

I could go on and list dozens more ways in which purpose does in fact affect when and how the law is applied, but I think the point is clear: when it comes to the application of the law, purpose is actually of vital importance. Not taking into account the purpose behind the ownership of certain weapons, or failing to ascertain the purpose before allowing the purchase of certain weapons is not irrelevant.

You're misconstruing what I said; it had nothing to do with breaking the law. Previous posters said that firearms should be banned because they are not effective at their intended purpose, whether it be self-defense, protection from tyranny, or whatever. I said that you do not have to demonstrate that an object is effective for some practical purpose just to legally own it. A baseball bat or golf club, to use your example, is not very good for anything except recreation (just like some firearms). Nobody really needs them. There are lots of things that nobody really needs, but that doesn't mean the government should just ban their sale and transfer.

In other words, an object is legal until proven illegal, not the other way around. You need to find a very compelling reason why firearms or anything else should be banned if you're taking that position; I don't need to find a compelling reason why they shouldn't.

Also, I've never heard of it being illegal to have a baseball bat or golf club in your car in the U.S.

 

[redbaron]

You're misconstruing what I said; it had nothing to do with breaking the law. Previous posters said that firearms should be banned because they are not effective at their intended purpose, whether it be self-defense, protection from tyranny, or whatever. I said that you do not have to demonstrate that an object is effective for some practical purpose just to legally own it.

Bold part: No one is saying that you do either. The point is that people who tout owning a firearm as a means of self-defence, are using poor reasoning. It is a rebuttal to the poor reasoning people give for wanting to own firearms. It's not a comment on what current laws dictate.

And for the sake of argument, your point only really applies to the U.S. when it comes to firearms. In most other developed countries, you actually do need to demonstrate whether or not you will be using a weapon for a practical purpose and also that you are personally effective at doing so.

Example: to carry a weapon in public in Australia, you need to be able to hit centre mass with 3 shots from 20, 10, 5 and 3metres, with a 2 second draw. You have to pass other written and practical exams that most people fail. Basically you do a condensed version of police training. It's not dumbed down in any way.

A baseball bat or golf club, to use your example, is not very good for anything except recreation (just like some firearms). Nobody really needs them. There are lots of things that nobody really needs, but that doesn't mean the government should just ban their sale and transfer.

When someone goes on a killing spree with a baseball bat or a golf club, let me know. I'll be happy to support their banning

You're aware that baseball and golf are both sports, right? People can buy guns for the purpose of sport as well.

Your idea of what gun control legislation is in countries outside the U.S. is lacking. People can buy hunting rifles in Australia, and as mentioned above can even carry weapons in public if they're capable of demonstrating the competence and intelligence to do so safely and only when necessary.

No one is saying we should ban guns completely from sale and transfer. But tell me, what does someone need a fully automatic weapon for exactly?

In other words, an object is legal until proven illegal, not the other way around. You need to find a very compelling reason why firearms or anything else should be banned if you're taking that position; I don't need to find a compelling reason why they shouldn't.

And again, this is only the case in the U.S. In Australia a mass murder by a shooter with an automatic weapon was considered compelling enough to change firearm laws and restrict the ease of access to such weapons.

Again, this isn't just about, 'banning' guns. It's about putting procedures in place to ensure that the people using them are properly trained in their use and possess the knowledge of when and how they should be used.

And just out of curiosity, what need do you see for the public to own automatic weapons?

 

[duke of new york]

The point is that people who tout owning a firearm as a means of self-defence, are using poor reasoning.

I agree with you.

And for the sake of argument, your point only really applies to the U.S. when it comes to firearms. In most other developed countries, you actually do need to demonstrate whether or not you will be using a weapon for a practical purpose and also that you are personally effective at doing so.

I meant all that about the right to own something regardless of its usefulness as more of a universal, natural right that every person should have, not a right necessarily guaranteed by the government. It was a philosophical argument, not a legal one.

When someone goes on a killing spree with a baseball bat or a golf club, let me know. I'll be happy to support their banning

I've never heard of a bat-powered killing spree, but as I pointed out above, blunt instruments are responsible for more total homicides than rifles.

No one is saying we should ban guns completely from sale and transfer. But tell me, what does someone need a fully automatic weapon for exactly?

They don't. Don't forget, though, we are talking about semi-automatic weapons, not fully automatic weapons. The answer is still "they don't" to semi-autos as well, though.

Again, this isn't just about, 'banning' guns. It's about putting procedures in place to ensure that the people using them are properly trained in their use and possess the knowledge of when and how they should be used.

It is about banning guns. Many politicians are trying to make it illegal to purchase or transfer a lot of, if not most, kinds of firearms in the U.S. For the guns people already have, they want to put all of those people's personal information, fingerprints, and IDs of their guns in an ATF database, which I would consider an almost Orwellian-level breach of privacy.

And just out of curiosity, what need do you see for the public to own automatic weapons?

There's not one. Remember my whole point about not needing one?

For me, personally, I own them as a hobby. Not for defense, and not to prepare for the coming revolution, but because I enjoy collecting, repairing, maintaining, and shooting them. Guns are fun.

 

[redbaron]

I meant all that about the right to own something regardless of its usefulness as more of a universal, natural right that every person should have, not a right necessarily guaranteed by the government. It was a philosophical argument, not a legal one.

I don't really consider this a philosophical issue, which is probably why you're so jumbled up. I don't consider it a restriction of freedoms to disallow auto and semi-automatic weapons, the likes of which are not required for any other reason than being collector's items.

It is about banning guns. Many politicians are trying to make it illegal to purchase or transfer a lot of, if not most, kinds of firearms in the U.S. For the guns people already have, they want to put all of those people's personal information, fingerprints, and IDs of their guns in an ATF database, which I would consider an almost Orwellian-level breach of privacy.

I wouldn't. It happens in other countries, every gun is registered and background information, photo ID, fingerprints are all mandatory for owning firearms. It is a little extreme that it will happen to so many people at once, but the process in Australia is like getting a bank card. You provide ID and information, you get the card if it all checks out.

Not exactly the same, but you get the idea. Anyone who meets the necessary criteria (which is not by any stretch unfair if you ask me) is free to obtain a firearm.

There's not one. Remember my whole point about not needing one?

Right, there's no reason. But there are reasons FOR restricting them. You really need to provide a better counter-argument than none at all.

I'm sorry but the philosophical, 'right' to own whatever you want regardless of what the object does or doesn't do is honestly retarded. Do you also think it's okay for people to build bombs as well? What about people who make crystal meth, is that okay? Would you object if the government starting handing out hand grenades along with food stamps?

 

[Nezaros]

I'm sorry but the philosophical, 'right' to own whatever you want regardless of what the object does or doesn't do is honestly retarded. Do you also think it's okay for people to build bombs as well? What about people who make crystal meth, is that okay? Would you object if the government starting handing out hand grenades along with food stamps?

That's a bit of an overreaction.

I meant all that about the right to own something regardless of its usefulness as more of a universal, natural right that every person should have, not a right necessarily guaranteed by the government. It was a philosophical argument, not a legal one.

We have government because the vast majority of people can't be trusted. At that point, the philosophical perspective goes out the window and you have to think of this in manners of practicality. Gun ownership is not a "natural right", just as there are no natural rights to own an automobile, or Uranium-235. All of these things are potentially dangerous, and while they may have legitimate uses, logic dictates that all ownership of such should be kept track of and regulated so that, in theory, there is a lesser chance of people killing each other. No, you don't need a permit to own a baseball bat, but blunt household objects are less dangerous than firearms. All your statistic shows is that they're more readily available.

Also, on the subject of outlawing firearms, I think what really matters is less the weapon itself and more who's purchasing it. It's more reasonable (albeit probably more difficult) to be certain that a gun of any kind won't end up in the hands of someone who'd actually use it than to ban only certain firearms which are determined to be "dangerous". A revolver is more deadly in the hands of a psychopath than an Uzi in the hands of a responsible citizen.

 

[redbaron]

That's a bit of an overreaction.

No. He's claiming a natural right for all people to ownership of objects, regardless of their usefulness or purpose. I want to know where exactly the line is drawn.

If it's a natural right to be able to own a fully automatic weapon, why not drugs, explosives, biological weapons and torture devices? It's a violation of my natural right to ownership of objects regardless of purpose or usefulness to try and ban the sale and transfer of these objects. It's ridiculous that I can't purchase sarin gas and hand grenades.

 

[duke of new york]

I don't consider it a restriction of freedoms to disallow auto and semi-automatic weapons...

If they are allowed, I can have one. If they are disallowed, I no longer have the option of having one. How is that not a restriction of freedom? I think you meant that it is a restriction of freedom that you are OK with.

I wouldn't. It happens in other countries, every gun is registered and background information, photo ID, fingerprints are all mandatory for owning firearms. It is a little extreme that it will happen to so many people at once, but the process in Australia is like getting a bank card. You provide ID and information, you get the card if it all checks out.

The fact that it is done in other countries does not make it right. My main concern with registration is that if the government eventually tries to ban outright the guns that we registered, they'll know exactly who has the guns and can come knocking at your door to collect them.

Do you also think it's okay for people to build bombs as well? What about people who make crystal meth, is that okay? Would you object if the government starting handing out hand grenades along with food stamps?

If it's a natural right to be able to own a fully automatic weapon, why not drugs, explosives, biological weapons and torture devices? It's a violation of my natural right to ownership of objects regardless of purpose or usefulness to try and ban the sale and transfer of these objects. It's ridiculous that I can't purchase sarin gas and hand grenades.

There is nothing wrong with owning any of those things; there is something wrong with using them to harm others. I don't care about the government regulating my right to own these things, because I have no interest in exercising that right. There is nothing fun about any of those things (except maybe drugs, but that's another issue). There are probably only a handful of people, if any, in the world who want to own weapons of mass destruction for legitimate reasons (weird niche collectors?).

Any government regulation is a restriction on your freedom. It's just a question of what freedoms or rights a society is willing to give up for safety or whatever reason--freedom vs. social cost.

 

[snafupants]

When someone goes on a killing spree with a baseball bat or a golf club, let me know. I'll be happy to support their banning

@redbaron

That basically happened, but with a knife instead. Same day as Sandy Hook too.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html

I can't say that I support banning knives though. Hasn't the mafia, moreover, used bats before?

Additionally, as I recall, the Unabomber and McVeigh did well without guns.

 

[Nezaros]

Any government regulation is a restriction on your freedom. It's just a question of what freedoms or rights a society is willing to give up for safety or whatever reason--freedom vs. social cost.

And the way I see it you seem to put far too much stake in the right to own a firearm. Banning them is hardly necessary, but neither is it necessary to have be able to own one. Your opinion doesn't reflect that of the rest of society, or of how society should view guns. Are you really trying to say that countries with stricter gun control like Australia and Britain are verging on police states simply because their citizens don't have the unimpeded right to own a potentially dangerous weapon?