So, can we at least agree you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT
 

Edible Avatar:

By definition of the law currently in the works: "Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds." So M1 carbines (15 or 30 rounds) and Browning Automatic Rifles (converted to semi-auto for purposes of reenacting) (20 rounds) would now be illegal to fire or operate in a reenactment, as there were never any magazines manufactured to accept less than the illegal amount described :(

source: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119

Oh that's what you mean, fear not the government only ever confiscates weapons from criminals and this law does not make you a criminal for owning one. Just like the machine guns are still being traded(still fully automatic) around albeit with heavy regulation. As for you extended clips and your weapons built around extended clips if they are already owned they can be traded and bought and sold by individuals because they are already out there and the government can't make a law that retroactively takes away something you own with a new law. So if you have the weapon it can be given to your kid when they come of age.

Now going back to that buying and selling by individuals part, first I don't know how that works, I know it's legal in some states and I believe it has to be done through a broker legally. But I believe this law might change that because part of the legislation includes the gun show loopholes.

dmase:

Edible Avatar:

By definition of the law currently in the works: "Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds." So M1 carbines (15 or 30 rounds) and Browning Automatic Rifles (converted to semi-auto for purposes of reenacting) (20 rounds) would now be illegal to fire or operate in a reenactment, as there were never any magazines manufactured to accept less than the illegal amount described :(

source: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119

Oh that's what you mean, fear not the government only ever confiscates weapons from criminals and this law does not make you a criminal for owning one. Just like the machine guns are still being traded(still fully automatic) around albeit with heavy regulation. As for you extended clips and your weapons built around extended clips if they are already owned they can be traded and bought and sold by individuals because they are already out there and the government can't make a law that retroactively takes away something you own with a new law. So if you have the weapon it can be given to your kid when they come of age.

If you believe this then you are underestimating the rigidity of this new legislation. Trading any banned weapon, even if it is grandfathered, is prohibited. Period. They cannot take away firearms already in circulation, but they can make it illegal for them to be traded or given to others. They want all grandfathered firearms registered under serial number to you (the owner) and you alone. I have also heard they cannot be inherited. Upon death of the owner they will be destroyed. I cannot confirm this last part, but the source I got it from has not let me down yet.

I really wish you were right, but what they are purposing makes the 1994 ban look benign.

Of course this is just the current draft of the law. It may change before it comes to vote.

someperson1423:

dmase:

Edible Avatar:

By definition of the law currently in the works: "Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds." So M1 carbines (15 or 30 rounds) and Browning Automatic Rifles (converted to semi-auto for purposes of reenacting) (20 rounds) would now be illegal to fire or operate in a reenactment, as there were never any magazines manufactured to accept less than the illegal amount described :(

source: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119

Oh that's what you mean, fear not the government only ever confiscates weapons from criminals and this law does not make you a criminal for owning one. Just like the machine guns are still being traded(still fully automatic) around albeit with heavy regulation. As for you extended clips and your weapons built around extended clips if they are already owned they can be traded and bought and sold by individuals because they are already out there and the government can't make a law that retroactively takes away something you own with a new law. So if you have the weapon it can be given to your kid when they come of age.

If you believe this then you are underestimating the rigidity of this new legislation. Trading any banned weapon, even if it is grandfathered, is prohibited. Period. They cannot take away firearms already in circulation, but they can make it illegal for them to be traded or given to others. They want all grandfathered firearms registered under serial number to you (the owner) and you alone. I have also heard they cannot be inherited. Upon death of the owner they will be destroyed. I cannot confirm this last part, but the source I got it from has not let me down yet.

I really wish you were right, but what they are purposing makes the 1994 ban look benign.

Of course this is just the current draft of the law. It may change before it comes to vote.

I heard they where gonna castrate gun owners!

Being what you heard and what you can prove should be kept separately especially when you make outlandish statements like that.

.... I swear to fucking god I just read the link edible avatar posted... it says in the goddamn bill suggested protects the rights for all grandfathered weapons.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119

Gun owners turning a relatively benign subject into a mountain since the advent of the NRA.

dmase:

Edible Avatar:

By definition of the law currently in the works: "Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds." So M1 carbines (15 or 30 rounds) and Browning Automatic Rifles (converted to semi-auto for purposes of reenacting) (20 rounds) would now be illegal to fire or operate in a reenactment, as there were never any magazines manufactured to accept less than the illegal amount described :(

source: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119

Oh that's what you mean, fear not the government only ever confiscates weapons from criminals and this law does not make you a criminal for owning one. Just like the machine guns are still being traded(still fully automatic) around albeit with heavy regulation. As for you extended clips and your weapons built around extended clips if they are already owned they can be traded and bought and sold by individuals because they are already out there and the government can't make a law that retroactively takes away something you own with a new law. So if you have the weapon it can be given to your kid when they come of age.

Now going back to that buying and selling by individuals part, first I don't know how that works, I know it's legal in some states and I believe it has to be done through a broker legally. But I believe this law might change that because part of the legislation includes the gun show loopholes.

Yeah, the selling and trading of parts is a huge issue too, as these weapons need replacements from time to time to keep them in safe working condition. It will be very interesting to see how the law is described when it is proposed to the senate. In conclusion, I still think that the law is unnecessary, as assault weapons are only used in 2-6% of violent gun crimes according to the FBI crime reports of 2010 to 2012. The whole fiasco just seems like knee jerk reaction to the Sandy Creek shooting, which could be more adequately addressed through the implementing of mental health reform.

Edible Avatar:

dmase:

Edible Avatar:

By definition of the law currently in the works: "Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds." So M1 carbines (15 or 30 rounds) and Browning Automatic Rifles (converted to semi-auto for purposes of reenacting) (20 rounds) would now be illegal to fire or operate in a reenactment, as there were never any magazines manufactured to accept less than the illegal amount described :(

source: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119

Oh that's what you mean, fear not the government only ever confiscates weapons from criminals and this law does not make you a criminal for owning one. Just like the machine guns are still being traded(still fully automatic) around albeit with heavy regulation. As for you extended clips and your weapons built around extended clips if they are already owned they can be traded and bought and sold by individuals because they are already out there and the government can't make a law that retroactively takes away something you own with a new law. So if you have the weapon it can be given to your kid when they come of age.

Now going back to that buying and selling by individuals part, first I don't know how that works, I know it's legal in some states and I believe it has to be done through a broker legally. But I believe this law might change that because part of the legislation includes the gun show loopholes.

Yeah, the selling and trading of parts is a huge issue too, as these weapons need replacements from time to time to keep them in safe working condition. It will be very interesting to see how the law is described when it is proposed to the senate. In conclusion, I still think that the law is unnecessary, as assault weapons are only used in 2-6% of violent gun crimes according to the FBI crime reports of 2010 to 2012. The whole fiasco just seems like knee jerk reaction to the Sandy Creek shooting, which could be more adequately addressed through the implementing of mental health reform.

"As a recent investigation revealed, during the last year of the ban in 2004, just 10 percent of the crime-related guns seized by Virginia police were equipped with high-capacity magazines, a 10-year low. By last year, with the ban expired, the percentage had surged to 22 percent."

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assault-weapons-matter/

"According to Miami Police Chief John Timoney, assault weapons have become "the weapon of choice among gangs here. . . . The guns keep coming in, their prices are dropping." In Miami, assault weapons were used in about 4 percent of all homicides in 2004 as the weapons ban expired. Now, Timoney says, the number is about 21 percent."

"This month, Police Chief magazine reprinted a letter from Chief Joseph M. Polisar, then head of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, originally published in 2004 as the assault weapons ban expired. Polisar vowed that the chiefs would continue to push for the ban, noting it had proved "remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. Since
1994 the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by a dramatic 66 percent.""

http://smartgunlaws.org/assault-weaponslarge-capacity-ammunition-magazines-statistics/

Serbia 2 nd most gun filled country 3.89 gun deaths per 100000 people
Yemen 3rd mos gun filled country 4.2 gun per 100000 people
US 1st most gun filled country(by leaps and bounds) 4.96 per 100000 people

All these statistics are for the year 2009 from gun policy.org a international firearm injury prevention website.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm

Homicide rates have been dropping since 1994 specifically gun homicide rates between the years of the federal assault weapon ban. And there are far more assault weapon used in crime then you think it's only which area you look in not whether you look at the data as a whole because about 60% of America doesn't have a gang problem and 99% doesn't have a mass murder problem. It's also interesting think about what percentage of weapons bought every year that are assault weapons I saw a figure that said between 1 and 3 % of all weapon are semi automatic auto loading rifles shaped like military weapons. And you say somewhere between 2 and 6% of all crimes are committed with these weapons...

I see correlation in this data but banning assault weapons isn't the important part of this. High capacity clips, consistent background check through all states and modes of buying firearms, and not allowing mentally disturbed people to buy weapons are the big part. And when it comes to mental health reform it will be on the table and will be connected in some way to purchasing a weapon, that should have been common sense for the past 20 years but apparently not, who is going to pay for it. If we want to revamp the health system to prevent this how are we going to pay for it?

Small government conservatives who are also fierce gun advocates could relent on the mental health reform allowing it to paid for by tax increases or adding to the deficit but they won't. They could relent at the mental/public health part of the upcoming firearm bill along with the background check and terrorist watch list thing and could probably avoid most if not all of the assault weapon ban. So to all conservatives I say compromise somewhere or don't expect democrats to.

Also regarding a weapon the bottom half or bulk of the weapon is apparently the only part that's considered a weapon once dissembled. And people under 18 can actually by slides, barrels, and springs right now so if there is a market gun sellers will continue to make them, or you could just go to a half decent fabricator and they could make one legally for you.

dmase:

Homicide rates have been dropping since 1994 specifically gun homicide rates between the years of the federal assault weapon ban. And there are far more assault weapon used in crime then you think it's only which area you look in not whether you look at the data as a whole because about 60% of America doesn't have a gang problem and 99% doesn't have a mass murder problem. It's also interesting think about what percentage of weapons bought every year that are assault weapons I saw a figure that said between 1 and 3 % of all weapon are semi automatic auto loading rifles shaped like military weapons. And you say somewhere between 2 and 6% of all crimes are committed with these weapons...

I simply didn't say that
Also you are flinging figures around to fit your argument, allow me to educate:

You say: 1-3% of all weapons are semi-auto military rifles. Ok. Deal.
I say: 2-6% of all gun crimes are committed with a assault weapon. KK. Got it.
I didn't say: 2 and 6% of all crimes are committed with assault weapons.
Big difference.

Next on the menu:

dmase:
"As a recent investigation revealed, during the last year of the ban in 2004, just 10 percent of the crime-related guns seized by Virginia police were equipped with high-capacity magazines, a 10-year low. By last year, with the ban expired, the percentage had surged to 22 percent."

I love this, it makes me all warm inside.
The article posts percentages of amounts of magazines seized, yet avoids posting the actual numbers. Seized is a big word, because the article doesn't tell us if police efforts were boosted during this time or if there actually were more assault weapons in criminal use. Also, the link you posted was completely irrelevant to the facts you posted above it, so for all i know, the information is bunk!
(i followed the link to see this:

On to the next one! Excelsior!

dmase:
"According to Miami Police Chief John Timoney, assault weapons have become "the weapon of choice among gangs here. . . . The guns keep coming in, their prices are dropping." In Miami, assault weapons were used in about 4 percent of all homicides in 2004 as the weapons ban expired. Now, Timoney says, the number is about 21 percent."

"This month, Police Chief magazine reprinted a letter from Chief Joseph M. Polisar, then head of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, originally published in 2004 as the assault weapons ban expired. Polisar vowed that the chiefs would continue to push for the ban, noting it had proved "remarkably effective in reducing the number of crimes involving assault weapons. Since
1994 the proportion of assault weapons traced to crimes has fallen by a dramatic 66 percent.""

Same thing on percentages in arguments, no actual figures. Also the link didn't source the material.

dmase:
Serbia 2 nd most gun filled country 3.89 gun deaths per 100000 people
Yemen 3rd mos gun filled country 4.2 gun per 100000 people
US 1st most gun filled country(by leaps and bounds) 4.96 per 100000 people

All these statistics are for the year 2009 from gun policy.org a international firearm injury prevention website.

Is this even relevant to the assault weapon ban discussion? Come on bud, stay on track.

dmase:

I see correlation in this data but banning assault weapons isn't the important part of this. High capacity clips, consistent background check through all states and modes of buying firearms, and not allowing mentally disturbed people to buy weapons are the big part. And when it comes to mental health reform it will be on the table and will be connected in some way to purchasing a weapon, that should have been common sense for the past 20 years but apparently not, who is going to pay for it. If we want to revamp the health system to prevent this how are we going to pay for it?

Small government conservatives who are also fierce gun advocates could relent on the mental health reform allowing it to paid for by tax increases or adding to the deficit but they won't. They could relent at the mental/public health part of the upcoming firearm bill along with the background check and terrorist watch list thing and could probably avoid most if not all of the assault weapon ban. So to all conservatives I say compromise somewhere or don't expect democrats to.

I agree with what you said about preventing the mentally disturbed from acquiring weapons and state background checks on buyers. These are practical and not instructive on owner's rights.
I would expand on the mental health issue, but that will have to wait i'm afraid, as i need to go for now. Don't know if i'll be back.
food for thought:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

dmase:

I heard they where gonna castrate gun owners!

Being what you heard and what you can prove should be kept separately especially when you make outlandish statements like that.

.... I swear to fucking god I just read the link edible avatar posted... it says in the goddamn bill suggested protects the rights for all grandfathered weapons.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119

Gun owners turning a relatively benign subject into a mountain since the advent of the NRA.

Wow! That was not the response I was expecting. Calm down a little maybe and we can talk?

Anyways, "protects the rights for all grandfathered weapons" is an incredibly vague statement, so you must forgive me if my fears are not dispersed by this. Here is a quote from the same site about the 2013 proposal:

Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Link: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=28d0c499-28ec-42a7-902d-ebf318d46d02

Also pretty much the same thing is said here too: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

This is what I was referring to. The key word there is "transfer," especially since "sale" is also specified separately. It seems very obvious to me that "sale" refers to purchases from a FFL dealer and "transfer" is from owner to owner. So yes, I heard what I heard, but considering I heard it from the site of the person purposing the bill I think it is a pretty reliable source. And I pointed out as clearly as I could I was not sure about my last statement. I don't understand what the outrage is about.

P.S. I do not support the NRA in any way. I think they do a poor job of representing firearms owners in many ways, and often give us a bad name. Any information I have gathered has nothing to do with them and any opinions you hear from me are mine. If the NRA did not exist I would still be very concerned with this bill.

Edible Avatar:
snipped

You say: 1-3% of all weapons are semi-auto military rifles. Ok. Deal.
I say: 2-6% of all gun crimes are committed with a assault weapon. KK. Got it.
I didn't say: 2 and 6% of all crimes are committed with assault weapons.
Big difference.

Why does my rational make sense? 3% of gun are semi-auto rifles 6% of all gun crimes are using semi auto military rifles that means that 97% of all weapons are non semi auto rifles while 94% of all gun crimes are committed with guns besides semi auto guns. So the percentage of gun crimes committed with assault rifles is double the percentage that semi-auto rifles are present in the general populace... I really have no idea where you problem is in all this.

I love this, it makes me all warm inside.
The article posts percentages of amounts of magazines seized, yet avoids posting the actual numbers. Seized is a big word, because the article doesn't tell us if police efforts were boosted during this time or if there actually were more assault weapons in criminal use. Also, the link you posted was completely irrelevant to the facts you posted above it, so for all i know, the information is bunk!
(i followed the link to see this:

Lets rationalize some commonly known facts that I'm sure you can agree with me on to ascertain where you get this statement. 1 Virginia like most states and the whole of the US has had a decrease in crime why would police suddenly be bringing in more illegal weapons if crime is going down and budgets are being sacrificed which was present across all of the US. 2 what's given is a percentage, percentages are based off the number of the group divided by the whole of the category so to reach that 22 percent it could only be a 100 clips with 22 exceeding capaciity or it could be 1 million. It doesn't matter the number we're talking about percentages, while there might be a fall in crime there is an increase in larger magazines being used which means as fact that there are more large capacity magazines being used by criminals. Also the full article with full information... including number are here, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/22/AR2011012204046.html

Regarding looking at the article I posted... you didn't read it or you would see that the reason during the 80's there wasn't a huge amount of killing with assault weapons is because during this time the technology changed allowing mass killings to be accomplished easier when the 90's rolled around, that's in the article which I can assume you didn't read. Or maybe you wanna look at the graph which you didn't say anything about at all. So if that doesn't answer you question PLEASE tell me where in this article is there a point made for using assault rifles or at least refute the points made in the article if your going to put it in your post.

I'm posting quotes from other articles and links to others the quotes don't match up to the links because they're not supposed to. So because the percentages don't match up with your world view they aren't real?

http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/14125395-452/police-chiefs-are-right-ban-assault-weapons.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1666750,00.html

Do you think we have a gun violence problem in the US, specifically gun violence, now look back at those statistics I posted can you really say we don't have a gun violence problem in the US looking at those stats? And no this whole thread and every piece of legislation regarding guns isn't just limited to assault weapons it's fucking all guns and who can get their hands on them. Do i think that somehow by getting rid of all assault weapons crime will stop? No it will put a dent in the statistics and save a couple lives in a mass shooting but that's why it's only part of the legislation.

someperson1423:
snipped

Sorry I'm peeved at edible avatar continuing to move the goal posts in regards to old semi auto weapons.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4454981_buy-automatic-weapon.html

When they say "transfer" what they mean more than likely is between gun makers, distributors, distributors and more distributors. It could also mean transferring the weapons between people but if we go back to the general statement "protects grandfathered weapons right" how would they protect grandfathered weapon rights if they go rid of all transfer of these weapons? If your gun is registered before the date of the bill then you can do what you want with it like you would for any weapon it just might involve more paperwork. Like one of these forms.

http://www.beararms.com/PDF/FTUP.pdf

Now to go back to logic why would they be fine with fully automatic weapons being moved around the US from independent seller to independent buyer(with the proper forms and what not) but not be fine with semi auto weapon to be transferred. It's how the US government has always handled weapon bans.

Sorry to tell you OP, but I don't need to justify a fucking right in my country, till the 2nd Amendment goes up in smoke. My right to bear arms if I choose is none of your fucking business, nor I need a reason to own one.

Magenera:
Sorry to tell you OP, but I don't need to justify a fucking right in my country, till the 2nd Amendment goes up in smoke. My right to bear arms if I choose is none of your fucking business, nor I need a reason to own one.

The second amendment says absolutely nothing, nothing at all, about all restrictions on weapon ownership not being allowed. You can pretty much instate a total gun ban with a permit system for legit use (murder under the guise of self-defense not being a legit use) without violating the second amendment. All that effectively says is "Gosh, militias are usefull. Don't ban them", all the rest is just extremely questionable interpretation of that outdated archaic bit of law.

And how on earth did you manage to miss all the gun violence in the US? You bring it like there's no problem, but gun violence in the US is a huge problem, one that urgently requires a gun ban to solve it.

Blablahb:
The second amendment says absolutely nothing, nothing at all, about all restrictions on weapon ownership not being allowed. You can pretty much instate a total gun ban with a permit system for legit use (murder under the guise of self-defense not being a legit use) without violating the second amendment. All that effectively says is "Gosh, militias are usefull. Don't ban them", all the rest is just extremely questionable interpretation of that outdated archaic bit of law.

And how on earth did you manage to miss all the gun violence in the US? You bring it like there's no problem, but gun violence in the US is a huge problem, one that urgently requires a gun ban to solve it.

I hate to do this because I am actually neutral in this discussion but:

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.

The bolded part is most important. The italic part is what matters.

The bolded part is the "Right of the People." Not the right of the government, the right of the state. The right of the people.

The Italic part says "Shall not be infringed." Dictionary definition of infringed as it applies to this is "Act so as to limit or undermine."

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with waiting periods, licenses and the like. But Blahlahb you are wrong, the Second Ammedment to the United States Constitution is specifically designed to say "They can own guns, you have no right to say otherwise." The word 'infringed' means exactly that.

edit: can i delete this post?

Magenera:
Sorry to tell you OP, but I don't need to justify a fucking right in my country, till the 2nd Amendment goes up in smoke. My right to bear arms if I choose is none of your fucking business, nor do I need a reason to own one.

Sorry mate, but that 'right' is what is in question, is it your right, without qualification, to own that weapon and if so, or if not, then why? The second amendment of the constitution of the united states is legislation passed by men, fallible, mortal and constrained by the interests that they and their constituents held, they had no way of foreseeing issues that would arise in the future with their legislation. We know this because it is, in and of itself and amendment, an alteration to an existing piece of legislation. I do not understand the deification of the 'founding fathers' in the US, certainly they are due respect for what they achieved, but we do not, for example, forget in Australia that Sir Edmund Barton was a racist old tosspot. We recognise the good that he did, without placing him on an unimpeachable pedestal.

Furthermore the constitution of the united states is applicable only to that nation and is due no respect outside of its borders, as an Australian claiming that something is in your constitution holds no weight with me. Stating that something is written into law is not and has not ever been a moral defence. We have seen laws that criminalised homosexuality, laws that shackled men to the land that they lived on, and laws that shackled wives to their husbands. It is no defence of a concept to state that it is enshrined in any law in any nation.

Finally, what is a 'right'? how do you determine what you are, inalienably entitled to own a weapon? What is and is not a right differs across borders and cultures. For example, the UN declaration on human rights makes no mention of the right to bear arms.

DeimosMasque:
Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with waiting periods, licenses and the like. But Blahlahb you are wrong, the Second Ammedment to the United States Constitution is specifically designed to say "They can own guns, you have no right to say otherwise." The word 'infringed' means exactly that.

Okay, and now the part that says you can't impose any restrictions? Because that's my point. The person I responded to basically said "Fuck you, it's an unlimited right, cuz, constitution".

I responded to that by showing the law he quoted doesn't say that anywhere. Better yet, it says so in explicit relationship to militias. You could set up a single government militia which can hold arms, which are stored in military armories, ban all other gun ownership, and still stay within the interpretation of that law; after all, you still have that 'important' militia, and the people's rights to bear arms for that militia hasn't been infringed.

Basically I'm trying to outline how there's no such thing as a right to unlimited gun ownership and usage, as laws can be interpreted in different ways, especially ones that are centuries old and outdated.

bowandsword:
The idea that if everyone had more guns the shootings would stop is retarded, and Most people don't want guns!

Only in the US do they have this idea, look in countries where poor people live with militias and rebels and narco terrorists roaming around. They could easily get a gun, cheaply too AK 47s in those countries cost very little yet they don't. They either don't want the guns because it makes them a target of someone wanting to steal it or they realize a man with a gun and some range training cannot really defend himself. So in countries in an almost Fallout New Vegas style anarchy get that, Americans somehow do not.

Blablahb:
I responded to that by showing the law he quoted doesn't say that anywhere. Better yet, it says so in explicit relationship to militias. You could set up a single government militia which can hold arms, which are stored in military armories, ban all other gun ownership, and still stay within the interpretation of that law; after all, you still have that 'important' militia, and the people's rights to bear arms for that militia hasn't been infringed.

This is still unconstitutional, a US code recognizes all Male US Citizens between 17 and 45 as a Militia.

Militia is defined under two criteria.

1.) You are a part of the National Guard or Naval Militia, or intend to join.
2.) Every male between 17 and 45 years of age.

[Source]

J Tyran:

bowandsword:
The idea that if everyone had more guns the shootings would stop is retarded, and Most people don't want guns!

Only in the US do they have this idea, look in countries where poor people live with militias and rebels and narco terrorists roaming around. They could easily get a gun, cheaply too AK 47s in those countries cost very little yet they don't. They either don't want the guns because it makes them a target of someone wanting to steal it or they realize a man with a gun and some range training cannot really defend himself. So in countries in an almost Fallout New Vegas style anarchy get that, Americans somehow do not.

I was able to defend myself with only minimal range training and a handgun.

Funny, huh?

There's been yet another second amendment solution at a school it seems, in Taft in California. Didn't take long this time....

Looks as if the shooter used a hunting rifle with buckshot though. Two pupils are injured according to a first report by the news.

And the gun lobby loses yet again, as it turns out the type of weapon does heavily influence how many victims such a shooting can claim...

Smagmuck_:
This is still unconstitutional, a US code recognizes all Male US Citizens between 17 and 45 as a Militia.
Militia is defined under two criteria.
1.) You are a part of the National Guard or Naval Militia, or intend to join.
2.) Every male between 17 and 45 years of age.
[Source]

So, like I said, each and every one of them could join that militia, and practise with the firearms stored in the military armory. Second amendment happy, and gun violence problems solved.

Blablahb:
There's been yet another second amendment solution at a school it seems, in Taft in California. Didn't take long this time....

Looks as if the shooter used a hunting rifle with buckshot though. Two pupils are injured according to a first report by the news.

And the gun lobby loses yet again, as it turns out the type of weapon does heavily influence how many victims such a shooting can claim...

Blaming the gun lobby for the failure of gun control?

Two injured, no deaths.
Suspect in custody.

EDIT: Hunting Rifle? Buckshot?

I'm just going to assume you meant hunting shotgun.

snip

Depending on whom you ask handing your firearms over to the Gov't for storage so you could practice an amendment that was meant to knock over said Gov't to start anew seems really counter-intuitive.

And anyone fitting the earlier mention criteria are already considered a militia, regardless if they're part of a group or not.

For example, if you were a citizen here, you would be considered militia, regardless if you wanted to join one or not.

the clockmaker:

Magenera:
Sorry to tell you OP, but I don't need to justify a fucking right in my country, till the 2nd Amendment goes up in smoke. My right to bear arms if I choose is none of your fucking business, nor do I need a reason to own one.

Sorry mate, but that 'right' is what is in question, is it your right, without qualification, to own that weapon and if so, or if not, then why? The second amendment of the constitution of the united states is legislation passed by men, fallible, mortal and constrained by the interests that they and their constituents held, they had no way of foreseeing issues that would arise in the future with their legislation. We know this because it is, in and of itself and amendment, an alteration to an existing piece of legislation. I do not understand the deification of the 'founding fathers' in the US, certainly they are due respect for what they achieved, but we do not, for example, forget in Australia that Sir Edmund Barton was a racist old tosspot. We recognise the good that he did, without placing him on an unimpeachable pedestal.

Furthermore the constitution of the united states is applicable only to that nation and is due no respect outside of its borders, as an Australian claiming that something is in your constitution holds no weight with me. Stating that something is written into law is not and has not ever been a moral defence. We have seen laws that criminalised homosexuality, laws that shackled men to the land that they lived on, and laws that shackled wives to their husbands. It is no defence of a concept to state that it is enshrined in any law in any nation.

Finally, what is a 'right'? how do you determine what you are, inalienably entitled to own a weapon? What is and is not a right differs across borders and cultures. For example, the UN declaration on human rights makes no mention of the right to bear arms.

Well seeing how the UN doesn't control the United States, and I'm getting my rights from my country laws, I'm going with what my country says. Your ignorance is truly astounding as you assumed that I don't know my country founding father history, or that I put them to be some gods or perfect human beings. Till the second amendment goes up in smoke, I see no reason to justify my rights, nor do I see the 2nd Amendment as being a great fucking evil. Nor do I care about some moral defense as the OP stated "we can at least agree that you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian". My country state's the ownership of a firearm as a right as much in the same as the right of free speech and I'll defend them both.

Magenera:

Well seeing how the UN doesn't control the United States, and I'm getting my rights from my country laws, I'm going with what my country says. Your ignorance is truly astounding as you assumed that I don't know my country founding father history, or that I put them to be some gods or perfect human beings. Till the second amendment goes up in smoke, I see no reason to justify my rights, nor do I see the 2nd Amendment as being a great fucking evil. Nor do I care about some moral defense as the OP stated "we can at least agree that you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian". My country state's the ownership of a firearm as a right as much in the same as the right of free speech and I'll defend them both.

[sigh] The point was not that you need to do what the UN says, the point was that what is and is not a right is up for debate and simply saying 'this is my right' does not make it so. In India, the practice of Sati (wherein a widow was burned with the corpse of her husband) was considered to be a right, but that did not morally justify it. My question to you is, why is this your right?

Good, so you understand that your nation's founders were fallible, therefore does it not follow that their creations are fallible too. These men could not see into the future and could not account for the cultural, technological and geopolitical changes that we have witnessed, and that is reflected in the legislation that they passed. And so again I ask you, instead of just shouting 'second amendment allows me to do it', why is the second amendment a good thing?

Remember that the second amendment is, and I am repeating myself here, by definition a change to an existing piece of legislation, so I ask you, why is it then inviolate?

A law does not make something correct, moral or right, as I said, we have had laws that tied men to their land, allowed men to own human beings and tied wives to their husbands and so I ask you, why should you have a weapon, beyond 'the law says I can' the law says that I can walk up to you in the street and call your mother a fucking whore, but that does not, by any means make it the correct, moral or right thing to do.

Blablahb:
(murder under the guise of self-defense not being a legit use)

Since this is wrong why do you keep saying it? It is not be definition murder, it is defending yourself or your property.

Blablahb:
There's been yet another second amendment solution at a school it seems, in Taft in California. Didn't take long this time....

Looks as if the shooter used a hunting rifle with buckshot though. Two pupils are injured according to a first report by the news.

And the gun lobby loses yet again, as it turns out the type of weapon does heavily influence how many victims such a shooting can claim...

Smagmuck_:
This is still unconstitutional, a US code recognizes all Male US Citizens between 17 and 45 as a Militia.
Militia is defined under two criteria.
1.) You are a part of the National Guard or Naval Militia, or intend to join.
2.) Every male between 17 and 45 years of age.
[Source]

So, like I said, each and every one of them could join that militia, and practise with the firearms stored in the military armory. Second amendment happy, and gun violence problems solved.

What limits would you impose to who could join? Also if all the guns are there how do you defend your house?

"So, can we at least agree you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian?"

No,everyone American should be allowed a proper assault rifle,not just the semi auto ones.

Blablahb:

By the way, I don't understand how you can view a crazy shootout that will result in someone getting killed or seriously wounded, as more safe than exchanging a few punches with someone. There's a lot more that gun owners and me don't seem to be on the same page on, but I really don't understand how someone can view a bruise or two as worse than being shot dead.

It is ridiculous to say, "you're in my house, let's have a fair fight in which I am just as likely to get hurt than you!" If someone is in your home, you have a legal right to defend yourself and your possessions. Why on earth would you want to have an even playing field? "He's a criminal but he deserves a chance to beat me and then take my stuff; if I can't fight as good as he can then I guess I didn't need it that bad."

Blablahb:
So, like I said, each and every one of them could join that militia, and practise with the firearms stored in the military armory. Second amendment happy, and gun violence problems solved.

Then it would not be a militia. An organized militia is typically a group of civilians who organize to provide a impromptu armed military, police, or disaster response force in lieu of one provided by a government. If it is government funded or permanently under government order then it ceases to be a militia. For example, the United States has a National Guard that is essentially a Reserve Military force that is organized by the states and can sometimes be federalized and put under the command of the Federal Government. If I remember correctly this must be done with the consent of state government but I may be wrong.

To put it simply in the US we don't just have one "military" we have quite a few. First you have the Federal Armed Forces; this is the Departments of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard (in times of war). These all have a reserve component. Next you have the state militaries. These take the shape of the Army National Guard, Air National Guard, and State Defense Forces. These are organized and partially funded on a state level and are able to operate domestically on a normal basis. After this you have basically everyone else. This level's military is basically whatever is organized on a private level; the militia.

the clockmaker:

Magenera:

Well seeing how the UN doesn't control the United States, and I'm getting my rights from my country laws, I'm going with what my country says. Your ignorance is truly astounding as you assumed that I don't know my country founding father history, or that I put them to be some gods or perfect human beings. Till the second amendment goes up in smoke, I see no reason to justify my rights, nor do I see the 2nd Amendment as being a great fucking evil. Nor do I care about some moral defense as the OP stated "we can at least agree that you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian". My country state's the ownership of a firearm as a right as much in the same as the right of free speech and I'll defend them both.

[sigh] The point was not that you need to do what the UN says, the point was that what is and is not a right is up for debate and simply saying 'this is my right' does not make it so. In India, the practice of Sati (wherein a widow was burned with the corpse of her husband) was considered to be a right, but that did not morally justify it. My question to you is, why is this your right?

Good, so you understand that your nation's founders were fallible, therefore does it not follow that their creations are fallible too. These men could not see into the future and could not account for the cultural, technological and geopolitical changes that we have witnessed, and that is reflected in the legislation that they passed. And so again I ask you, instead of just shouting 'second amendment allows me to do it', why is the second amendment a good thing?

Remember that the second amendment is, and I am repeating myself here, by definition a change to an existing piece of legislation, so I ask you, why is it then inviolate?

A law does not make something correct, moral or right, as I said, we have had laws that tied men to their land, allowed men to own human beings and tied wives to their husbands and so I ask you, why should you have a weapon, beyond 'the law says I can' the law says that I can walk up to you in the street and call your mother a fucking whore, but that does not, by any means make it the correct, moral or right thing to do.

If you're going to use the argument that "Changes the founding fathers couldn't possibly have foreseen render this amendment obsolete," why should the first amendment extend to the internet? No one in the late 1700's could have even imagined something like this, but nobody doubts that the first amendment protects it.
In any case, this is detracting from the point that the second amendment was not put in the Bill of Rights to protect hunters or sportsmen. It was put there so that the people would have some defense against their government. If you don't believe me, then read the Federalist Papers.
Finally, you ask why we should defend this right, when the rights of so many other cultures appear to be morally indefensible? Because it's the right to defend oneself against tyranny, and if that's morally unjust to you, then I suppose we'll have to agree to be ideologically opposed.

the clockmaker:

Magenera:

Well seeing how the UN doesn't control the United States, and I'm getting my rights from my country laws, I'm going with what my country says. Your ignorance is truly astounding as you assumed that I don't know my country founding father history, or that I put them to be some gods or perfect human beings. Till the second amendment goes up in smoke, I see no reason to justify my rights, nor do I see the 2nd Amendment as being a great fucking evil. Nor do I care about some moral defense as the OP stated "we can at least agree that you don't need an assault rifle as a civilian". My country state's the ownership of a firearm as a right as much in the same as the right of free speech and I'll defend them both.

[sigh] The point was not that you need to do what the UN says, the point was that what is and is not a right is up for debate and simply saying 'this is my right' does not make it so. In India, the practice of Sati (wherein a widow was burned with the corpse of her husband) was considered to be a right, but that did not morally justify it. My question to you is, why is this your right?

Good, so you understand that your nation's founders were fallible, therefore does it not follow that their creations are fallible too. These men could not see into the future and could not account for the cultural, technological and geopolitical changes that we have witnessed, and that is reflected in the legislation that they passed. And so again I ask you, instead of just shouting 'second amendment allows me to do it', why is the second amendment a good thing?

Remember that the second amendment is, and I am repeating myself here, by definition a change to an existing piece of legislation, so I ask you, why is it then inviolate?

A law does not make something correct, moral or right, as I said, we have had laws that tied men to their land, allowed men to own human beings and tied wives to their husbands and so I ask you, why should you have a weapon, beyond 'the law says I can' the law says that I can walk up to you in the street and call your mother a fucking whore, but that does not, by any means make it the correct, moral or right thing to do.

Besides the fact that it been with us for ever. Shit is ingrained, can't see a reason not to have such a right. Literally can't see a reason, when I heard other countries doesn't have the same rights, thought that was alien to me, still find myself thinking that sometimes. Plus it's a deterrence from the government takeover, and a defense from any foreign element. I always hear you can't beat the American government if it takes over, so take it in the ass, but... America has a shitty infrastructure, that in some cases you can attack one grid, and take down an entire city electricity. Some of it's infrastructure is hitting a century right now, we are heading to the point of losing money to keep the damn thing as it is, if we didn't already reach it and to repair the damn thing it cost us over 1.4 trillion dollars. Plus most of what the government spends on, is best suited for dealing with armies, and trying to hit a target that looks like your own country men, damages the government anyway. My personal belief, probably, this country was born out of rebellion, so stranger shit, and before anyone says not by yourselves, yes we had the help of the French. But most just use it because of the culture, and it's been at our sides in some of the biggest history changing moments. Think the term born with a gun, and die with a gun is the proper term for America. Though I don't own a firearm, nor at this moment do I plan to own a firearm, I respect the person right to get one if they choose, as it's pretty much as fucking American as you can get. Hard feeling to describe, it's gets me giddy, and have warm fuzzy feelings when thinking of it.

Any way if people don't like it, try to change the damn amendment, but don't expect me to be by your side, as I will stand in opposition, as I fight to preserve American rights to bear arms.

Fooddude:

If you're going to use the argument that "Changes the founding fathers couldn't possibly have foreseen render this amendment obsolete," why should the first amendment extend to the internet? No one in the late 1700's could have even imagined something like this, but nobody doubts that the first amendment protects it.

"The first amendment protects the internet"? I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly poor choice of words. The internet and freedom thereof are not an American thing. Countries to which Amendment I to the Constitution of the United State of America does not apply (which is, every country that is not USA), at least in the western world, do their part to preserve the freedom of the internet, one might say, some countries to a much greater extent.

It has nothing to do with Amendment I itself.

In any case, this is detracting from the point that the second amendment was not put in the Bill of Rights to protect hunters or sportsmen. It was put there so that the people would have some defense against their government. If you don't believe me, then read the Federalist Papers.

Finally, you ask why we should defend this right, when the rights of so many other cultures appear to be morally indefensible? Because it's the right to defend oneself against tyranny, and if that's morally unjust to you, then I suppose we'll have to agree to be ideologically opposed.

To this, all I'll say is, you can't even seem to be able to vote out the government, the approval ratings are abysmal yet the same folks get re-elected all the time. I mean, seriously, what gives?

Even assuming the people of USA stage a violent revolt and succeed, just who will then lead the country and how? And why aren't those people who'd be better leaders on the ballots and at least in the word-of-mouth now? I'm going to stereotype this heavily, but it seems to me certain Americans seem so good at planning to blow up and shoot up something while completely and utterly failing to plan for the aftermath of it.

No really, assuming that a violent uprising is necessary, and it succeeds, who will you put in power after it?

Fooddude:

If you're going to use the argument that "Changes the founding fathers couldn't possibly have foreseen render this amendment obsolete," why should the first amendment extend to the internet? No one in the late 1700's could have even imagined something like this, but nobody doubts that the first amendment protects it.
In any case, this is detracting from the point that the second amendment was not put in the Bill of Rights to protect hunters or sportsmen. It was put there so that the people would have some defense against their government. If you don't believe me, then read the Federalist Papers.
Finally, you ask why we should defend this right, when the rights of so many other cultures appear to be morally indefensible? Because it's the right to defend oneself against tyranny, and if that's morally unjust to you, then I suppose we'll have to agree to be ideologically opposed.

I am not saying that it is obsolete so much as it should not be considered inviolate and should be considered for change. Whether or not the first amendment applies to the internet has been and is currently being intensively discussed with the main feeling being that freedom of speech has changed to adapt to these new circumstances. Comments that would have once been considered private are now going out to the world and the legislature is reacting to deal with that. The internet, as with the geopolitical situation of our new age and the increasing lethality of personal weapons technology is a problem completely outside the context of the colonial legislature at the time of the founding of the united states. Their word, on defence of the realm and personal rights is about as relevant to modern society as the wright brothers are to the design of an F-22, they provided a strong foundation but their knowledge has been superseded by the experiences of later generations. In short, I don't give a damn what the intent of your politicians were two and a half centuries ago.

I dispute the practicality of a first world nation conducting and insurgency against a force capable of conducting high intensity first order operations. The people of the united states are too divided by petty differences, to comfortable with their lives and too dependent on the community to be able to rebel and fight off any determined government, be it foreign or domestic.

In order to successfully fight off the united states government or any foreign invader, the populace would need more than small arms, they would need armor, artillery and most likely CBRN assets. Your personal weapons are nothing more than a fig leaf of independence from your government and the prevalence of would be Titos on this site annoys me.

Furthermore with the US military being a volunteer organisation recruited from the people, do you really think that they would start goose stepping down 5th avenue to the piper's call of a politician? No, in the unlikely event that something large enough to break the inertia of everyday life in the US occurred a far more likely scenario than the popular 'the people fight off the faceless hordes of the government' would be the people turning their weapons on each other in an attempt to secure food for a siege that never comes, fighting against fascism that isn't there and breaking into factions and warlords as the government attempts to reassert control. The dependence on firearms instead of faith in the legislature and political accountability is far more likely to be the death of democracy in the United states than any nebulous government conspiracy.

Magenera:

Besides the fact that it been with us for ever.

'We have always done things this way' is not acceptable as a reason to continue doing it that way, see: illegality of homosexuality, legality of slavery, the ceremony of the Sati, Mistreatment of POWs, the disenfranchisement of afghan women and any one of the other thousands of traditions laws and practices that were defended as 'they have been with us for ever'

Shit is ingrained, can't see a reason not to have such a right.

The irresponsibility/malice/fallibility of the average person who perhaps should not be allowed to have instant ability to deal death to others.

Literally can't see a reason, when I heard other countries doesn't have the same rights, thought that was alien to me, still find myself thinking that sometimes.

Well it may be time to learn about the culture of other nations then, just as many other nations spend time learning about the culture of the US.

Plus it's a deterrence from the government takeover, and a defense from any foreign element. I always hear you can't beat the American government if it takes over, so take it in the ass, but... America has a shitty infrastructure, that in some cases you can attack one grid, and take down an entire city electricity.

SO in your hypothetical situation where you are the heroic freedom fighter, you attack the power grid (something that requires bolt cutters more than firearms) to take out the electricity of the city (which presumably you inhabit) causing blackouts (which would kill thousands of civilians due to rioting, loss of water supplies, loss of access to medical care etc and drive the rest into third world conditions) to fight the army (which takes generators with it wherever it goes, has engineers who can repair the grid and make the city even more dependent on the government and are used to living without the infrastructure that civilians need) That is the worst, I say again the worst plan for a rebellion that I have ever heard

Plus most of what the government spends on, is best suited for dealing with armies, and trying to hit a target that looks like your own country men, damages the government anyway.

You remember those decade long wars that NATO/ the coalition are fighting right, the ones against un-uniformed insurgents? The doctrinal shift of western nations in the past decade has been towards increasing their skill and capabilities in counter insurgency, to the point where it is becoming the primary focus of many elements of training. Your belief that the US is still geared to fight primarily against other first order powers is almost laughably out of date.

On top of that, remember that whatever side of the political spectrum the new order is based around roughly a quarter of the nation will be fully behind it, half will be apathetic, and of the remaining quarter only a very small portion will feel passionately enough about their opposition to the government to actually take up arms, the government will call it (and rightly so) putting down domestic terrorism and most of the people will support that, even after the 'rebellion' is wiped out as it tries to drive a convoy between two towns by a flight of apaches.

Finally, any foreign nation willing to absorb enough casualties to render the US military ineffective already has far more dedication to task than the vast, vast majority of US citizens willing to oppose it.

My personal belief, probably, this country was born out of rebellion, so stranger shit, and before anyone says not by yourselves, yes we had the help of the French. But most just use it because of the culture, and it's been at our sides in some of the biggest history changing moments.

But that was two and a half centuries ago and look at the idols of the US now. The US no longer looks to davey crocket or patton, it looks to honey boo-boo.

Think the term born with a gun, and die with a gun is the proper term for America. Though I don't own a firearm, nor at this moment do I plan to own a firearm, I respect the person right to get one if they choose, as it's pretty much as fucking American as you can get. Hard feeling to describe, it's gets me giddy, and have warm fuzzy feelings when thinking of it.

It gives you a fuzzy feeling and it is all 'America!'... and? something feeling good or validating your sense of nationalism is not, in and of itself, justification, as it is not more than empty symbolism. I get a fuzzy feeling seeing Australian flags flying over patrol bases in Afghanistan, but that does not justify their staying after we pull out and the job is done.

Any way if people don't like it, try to change the damn amendment, but don't expect me to be by your side, as I will stand in opposition, as I fight to preserve American rights to bear arms.

Mate, when you say fight you mean by political and social means right? I mean, you and other supporters of looser firearm legislation would never oppose the democratic process with force, would you? And even if you brought down the government, the US would more resemble Afghanistan that what you see today afterwards.

the clockmaker:
Mate, when you say fight you mean by political and social means right? I mean, you and other supporters of looser firearm legislation would never oppose the democratic process with force, would you? And even if you brought down the government, the US would more resemble Afghanistan that what you see today afterwards.

I'm not sure, the way it looks like from here, this "calling the elected officials to account when their terms are up" or "elections" thing makes no sense to me in USA, their politicians nearly have negative approval ratings, yet they keept re-electing them on the grounds of "But it's impossible for anyone else to scrounge up enough clout to be a viable third option because media coverage and whatnot."

Whether, when unsatisfied with the government, they're unwilling or unable to change it democratically (or both), I have to wonder that even if the US government is deposed with force because Amendment II, fuck yea, do the supporters of such course of action even have any idea who's going to step in to keep the nation from falling into complete anarchy?

Yeah, Afghanistan does seem a creepily accurate assessment >.< At best, I suppose the federation would fragment and the "red" states take the worst hits, considering they get more out of the federal budget than they contribute to it.

Vegosiux:

Fooddude:

If you're going to use the argument that "Changes the founding fathers couldn't possibly have foreseen render this amendment obsolete," why should the first amendment extend to the internet? No one in the late 1700's could have even imagined something like this, but nobody doubts that the first amendment protects it.

"The first amendment protects the internet"? I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly poor choice of words. The internet and freedom thereof are not an American thing. Countries to which Amendment I to the Constitution of the United State of America does not apply (which is, every country that is not USA), at least in the western world, do their part to preserve the freedom of the internet, one might say, some countries to a much greater extent.

It has nothing to do with Amendment I itself.

I'm speaking from a purely American standpoint here. The overwhelming majority of Americans consider the first amendment to apply to the internet as well. I'm sorry if I mistakenly assumed you were American, I'm just used to having this argument with my countrymen.

In any case, this is detracting from the point that the second amendment was not put in the Bill of Rights to protect hunters or sportsmen. It was put there so that the people would have some defense against their government. If you don't believe me, then read the Federalist Papers.

Finally, you ask why we should defend this right, when the rights of so many other cultures appear to be morally indefensible? Because it's the right to defend oneself against tyranny, and if that's morally unjust to you, then I suppose we'll have to agree to be ideologically opposed.

To this, all I'll say is, you can't even seem to be able to vote out the government, the approval ratings are abysmal yet the same folks get re-elected all the time. I mean, seriously, what gives?

Even assuming the people of USA stage a violent revolt and succeed, just who will then lead the country and how? And why aren't those people who'd be better leaders on the ballots and at least in the word-of-mouth now? I'm going to stereotype this heavily, but it seems to me certain Americans seem so good at planning to blow up and shoot up something while completely and utterly failing to plan for the aftermath of it.

No really, assuming that a violent uprising is necessary, and it succeeds, who will you put in power after it?

[/quote]
Debating the new leadership is beside the point. The Second Amendment was put in place so that the American populace would have the power to overthrow their government if they felt it had crossed the border into tyranny. It's not about being able to hunt, or defend yourself from criminals. It's about forcibly removing the government from power if it becomes necessary.

the clockmaker:

Fooddude:

If you're going to use the argument that "Changes the founding fathers couldn't possibly have foreseen render this amendment obsolete," why should the first amendment extend to the internet? No one in the late 1700's could have even imagined something like this, but nobody doubts that the first amendment protects it.
In any case, this is detracting from the point that the second amendment was not put in the Bill of Rights to protect hunters or sportsmen. It was put there so that the people would have some defense against their government. If you don't believe me, then read the Federalist Papers.
Finally, you ask why we should defend this right, when the rights of so many other cultures appear to be morally indefensible? Because it's the right to defend oneself against tyranny, and if that's morally unjust to you, then I suppose we'll have to agree to be ideologically opposed.

I am not saying that it is obsolete so much as it should not be considered inviolate and should be considered for change. Whether or not the first amendment applies to the internet has been and is currently being intensively discussed with the main feeling being that freedom of speech has changed to adapt to these new circumstances. Comments that would have once been considered private are now going out to the world and the legislature is reacting to deal with that. The internet, as with the geopolitical situation of our new age and the increasing lethality of personal weapons technology is a problem completely outside the context of the colonial legislature at the time of the founding of the united states. Their word, on defence of the realm and personal rights is about as relevant to modern society as the wright brothers are to the design of an F-22, they provided a strong foundation but their knowledge has been superseded by the experiences of later generations. In short, I don't give a damn what the intent of your politicians were two and a half centuries ago.

I dispute the practicality of a first world nation conducting and insurgency against a force capable of conducting high intensity first order operations. The people of the united states are too divided by petty differences, to comfortable with their lives and too dependent on the community to be able to rebel and fight off any determined government, be it foreign or domestic.

In order to successfully fight off the united states government or any foreign invader, the populace would need more than small arms, they would need armor, artillery and most likely CBRN assets. Your personal weapons are nothing more than a fig leaf of independence from your government and the prevalence of would be Titos on this site annoys me.

Furthermore with the US military being a volunteer organisation recruited from the people, do you really think that they would start goose stepping down 5th avenue to the piper's call of a politician? No, in the unlikely event that something large enough to break the inertia of everyday life in the US occurred a far more likely scenario than the popular 'the people fight off the faceless hordes of the government' would be the people turning their weapons on each other in an attempt to secure food for a siege that never comes, fighting against fascism that isn't there and breaking into factions and warlords as the government attempts to reassert control. The dependence on firearms instead of faith in the legislature and political accountability is far more likely to be the death of democracy in the United states than any nebulous government conspiracy.

I'm not here to debate the tactics of an American insurgency, but suffice it to say that I don't think it's as hopeless as you make it out to be.
The point of the second amendment is to protect our freedom in the event that our government does fail us, as governments have failed their people on innumerable occasions throughout history. Think of it as a last line of defense.

Fooddude:

I'm not here to debate the tactics of an American insurgency, but suffice it to say that I don't think it's as hopeless as you make it out to be.
The point of the second amendment is to protect our freedom in the event that our government does fail us, as governments have failed their people on innumerable occasions throughout history. Think of it as a last line of defense.

It is, for a first world nation dependent on the trappings of society, as much a defence as a cyanide pill is to a captured spy, in that you will cause harm to yourself to deny yourself to 'the enemy'.

And no, I'm afraid that I cannot accept your belief in such an endeavor having the slightest chance on the basis of 'suffice it to say' I have put forward reasons as to why it would fail, if you have no reasons as to why it would succeed, or at least have a reasonable chance of success, then the idea of overthrowing the government cannot be used as justification for the personal ownership of firearms.

And again, the most likely result of a sizable and motivated armed insurgency in the US is a result similar to Afghanistan. Each US state is highly dependent on the economies and products of the others, and so with the loss of government power in any region, responsibility for defence and supply of a given region would fall to the most powerful in that region, be they federal forces, national guard, individual ad hoc groups, criminal organisations or extant militias. Any uprising would likely lead to the death of the US as a coherent nation.

Furthermore, as the world's largest economy, essentially every nation on the planet has a vested interest in seeing that the US keeps consuming and more importantly, keeps the idea that it may pay its debts alive. In the event that a internal conflict likely to topple the national command authority occurs, especially if that national command authority is near the end of its rope and holding onto nominal at best power, you should not be surprised to see peacekeepers on US soil, supervising how the government is run.

the clockmaker:

Fooddude:

I'm not here to debate the tactics of an American insurgency, but suffice it to say that I don't think it's as hopeless as you make it out to be.
The point of the second amendment is to protect our freedom in the event that our government does fail us, as governments have failed their people on innumerable occasions throughout history. Think of it as a last line of defense.

It is, for a first world nation dependent on the trappings of society, as much a defence as a cyanide pill is to a captured spy, in that you will cause harm to yourself to deny yourself to 'the enemy'.

And no, I'm afraid that I cannot accept your belief in such an endeavor having the slightest chance on the basis of 'suffice it to say' I have put forward reasons as to why it would fail, if you have no reasons as to why it would succeed, or at least have a reasonable chance of success, then the idea of overthrowing the government cannot be used as justification for the personal ownership of firearms.

And again, the most likely result of a sizable and motivated armed insurgency in the US is a result similar to Afghanistan. Each US state is highly dependent on the economies and products of the others, and so with the loss of government power in any region, responsibility for defence and supply of a given region would fall to the most powerful in that region, be they federal forces, national guard, individual ad hoc groups, criminal organisations or extant militias. Any uprising would likely lead to the death of the US as a coherent nation.

Furthermore, as the world's largest economy, essentially every nation on the planet has a vested interest in seeing that the US keeps consuming and more importantly, keeps the idea that it may pay its debts alive. In the event that a internal conflict likely to topple the national command authority occurs, especially if that national command authority is near the end of its rope and holding onto nominal at best power, you should not be surprised to see peacekeepers on US soil, supervising how the government is run.

Saying "oh, well it would probably fail anywany, so fuck it!" is not a valid justification for taking away Constitutional rights, and not allowing yourself to be disarmed would be the first step to a successful uprising.
I'm not saying I feel the need to revolt. I'm not saying my children or grandchildren will necessarily feel the need to revolt, but I'd at least like it to be an option open to them if it becomes necessary.

Fooddude:
Saying "oh, well it would probably fail anywany, so fuck it!" is not a valid justification for taking away Constitutional rights, and not allowing yourself to be disarmed would be the first step to a successful uprising.
I'm not saying I feel the need to revolt. I'm not saying my children or grandchildren will necessarily feel the need to revolt, but I'd at least like it to be an option open to them if it becomes necessary.

It is not 'oh well it will probably fail' but that it will fail, any attempt bring it about will do immeasurably more harm than good and the people have neither the skills nor the will to attempt it in any case. It is not a fit justification for the possession of firearms as, in the real world, there are not possible positive outcomes to an armed uprising in the US. And again, constitutional rights means nothing to me as your constitution is just another piece of legislation.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked