Your figures are excluding firearms completely, just incidences of violent crimes.
Ban every gun
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
My take is that, in a word, yes it is a necessary evil.
As cold and callous as that may initially strike you, please remember that there are costs associated with upholding any of the rights and provisions of the Constitution, or indeed any law. Sometimes guilty men walk free on a technicality because some part of due process was violated. Sometimes people or groups are forced to have hateful vitriol spewed at them because such is protected under Free Speech. Even if we were to accept that the prevalence of guns in the US is socially imprudent, and that the detrimental effects outweigh the current positives of the 2nd Amendment, we are still left with the fact that the accidents and tragedies, as unfortunate and horrific as they may be, are still a part of the cost of upholding the Bill of Rights. And while it may seem advantageous for the whole to begin revising the Constitution, keeping the parts you deem are appropriate while repealing, redefining, or ignoring the rest, keep in mind that there are others whose views on what is appropriate may not agree with yours. Start monkeying around with the basic rights afforded to all, and you may end up with a tyranny of the majority, or just a tyranny.
Of course, it is something of a leap of faith to believe that any ink on paper will ultimately serve as a guarantee of anything, as americans of japanese descent found out during WWII. But is it not a basic idea of a constitution or indeed of any law to set a limit on what is acceptable, and to have these rights and limitations respected even when actors that are strong or influential deem them to be inconvenient? In my mind, the 2nd Amendment is subject to the same considerations as the rest of the Amendments.
Interestingly, Finland is right behind the US in gun violence per 100,000 in 1st world countries.
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.
How does an individual constitute a well regulated militia. As with most of the constitution, "the people" refers to the populace as a whole, but does not necessarily mean the individual. The entire point of the act is so that a "well regulated Militia" can be maintained. Billy bob in his bunker with 20 guns is not a well regulated Militia.
OC, for example is part of a public service field that requires him to carry a firearm. In a way the police, themselves are a somewhat military organization.
The entire ammendment is intended to safeguard the people of the country. When it is no longer guarding the people of the country, and is, in fact, harming them, the ammendment is no longer serving its purpose and should be repealed.
The argument that banning guns outright won't get rid of the ones already in circulation is a circular argument. "because there are guns, we should allow more guns" is a terrible argument.
The ammendments to the constitution are NOT absolute, or set in stone. I don't see any prohibition going on anymore.
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.
How does an individual constitute a well regulated militia. As with most of the constitution, "the people" refers to the populace as a whole, but does not necessarily mean the individual. The entire point of the act is so that a "well regulated Militia" can be maintained. Billy bob in his bunker with 20 guns is not a well regulated Militia.
OC, for example is part of a public service field that requires him to carry a firearm. In a way the police, themselves are a somewhat military organization.
The entire ammendment is intended to safeguard the people of the country. When it is no longer guarding the people of the country, and is, in fact, harming them, the ammendment is no longer serving its purpose and should be repealed.
The argument that banning guns outright won't get rid of the ones already in circulation is a circular argument. "because there are guns, we should allow more guns" is a terrible argument.
The ammendments to the constitution are NOT absolute, or set in stone. I don't see any prohibition going on anymore.
The second amendment is intended to safeguard the people of the country, against the government itself. The were fighting to get out from under a repressive government, and didn't want the government they were setting up to become just as oppressive. They wanted to assure that the people had the ability to stand up to that oppression if it was needed.
I didn't see any prohibition in the original Constitution either, over-zealous activists got it amended and the people became criminals to keep booze around.
I didn't see any prohibition in the original Constitution either, over-zealous activists got it amended and the people became criminals to keep booze around.
Yes, because it was repealed. I'd like to know exactly where the interpretation of the second amendment being about overthrowing the government comes from. I'm serious. Show me specifically where it is stated in the constitution or the amendment itself.
As for the right to keep and bear arms, I'm all for it. People should be allowed to have hunting rifles, and hell, even handguns if they so choose. but military grade hardware does not belong in the hands of someone with no military training.
In fact, Finland has relatively strict gun control laws, with a strict ban on automatic fire weapons (of course with the exception of some law enforcement agencies and the military). If we accept your assertion that Finland has comparable levels of gun-related violence, then the straightforward implication would be that tightening gun control in the United States would not work to reduce violent crime.
I believe this is also what Jason Alexander was saying, but I must say I disagree with that interpretation as I previously stated. I state that the 2nd Amendment refers to the right of individuals to possess arms, and base this position on two things.
Firstly, I contest your interpretation that most of the constitution uses the 'right of the people' to refer to the populace as a whole, and posit that the phrase refers to individuals in the Bill of Rights. In the First Amendment, the phrase is used to set the right to peaceably assemble. If this did not refer to the rights of individuals, you could say that Congress is an assembly of the people through their elected representatives, and that therefore individuals do not possess a right to assemble. In the Fourth Amendment, the phrase is used to protect against unlawful search and seizure. If it did not refer to rights of individuals, the amendment is meaningless as a form of protection. The use in the Ninth Amendment serves to protect the rights that have not been specifically included in the Constitution, again almost meaningless if it did not afford protection to the individual. The Tenth Amendment limits the powers of the federal government, and perhaps more importantly makes a specific distinction between the state level and the people, in case one is wondering if the Second Amendment refers to the rights of people belonging to some state level organisation.
In light of this use of the phrase 'right of the people', I think it might be inaccurate to claim that the phrase did not apply to individuals, or that the very same phrase in the Second Amendment is somehow an exception to the rule.
Secondly, as GasBandit mentioned earlier, the Militia does refer to 'the whole body of the People'. I do think this point is rather well conveyed from the writings and statements of the Founders, at least as far as I've been able to dig them up (can provide links if you wish), and that the vast majority of them viewed a selective service militia almost as detrimental to liberty as a standing army. The text and the historical context of the Second Amendment does seem to give Billy Bob and all his friends the right to bear arms, so that they may rise as a well-regulated militia unit if and when the need comes to defend the liberties of the people against all foes, whether foreign invaders or an oppressive government.
(1) There are military, paramilitary, and civilian organisations. Sometimes these lines can be blurred, such as with the french gendarmerie and the italian carabienieri, or with the border guards of many nations. But, in the main, I believe regular law enforcement agencies seem to be considered as distinct from military organisations.
(2) Setting aside the benefit mentioned by the Founders of an armed citizenry being the best protection against governmental tyranny, it seems to me that the same could be said of a number of rights that circumstances have made inconvenient or even harmful from the viewpoint of common interest. Freedom of speech and of the press can be harmful in cases where wide-scale national unity is desireable and necessary, such as in the case of war where national survival is at stake, and where it is in the interest of the whole to prevent 'enemy misinformation' from getting out amongst the populace and 'undermining the war effort'. The effectiveness of law enforcement and the judiciary is impeded by the myriad protections offered to the accused ("That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." -Benjamin Franklin). Yet there is little enthusiasm to curb these rights, even temporarily when there may be actual need, and the potential costs of sticking to the law may be great. Is this a matter of inconsistency, or should it just be taken as a starting point that the US Constitution is a fair-weather document, and the Bill of Rights and the protections that it affords be subject to cherry-picking by the political process?
(3) What Sparhawk said. Prohibition was not a part of the Bill of Rights which was added to the US Constitution immediately after it's ratification.
GasBandit
Staff member
Technically, all violent crimes includes, not excludes, those committed with firearms. The point of the exercise there was to demonstrate that banning guns does not necessarily lower violent crime.
The well regulated militia part of it is the motivation part, not the end product part. Again I return to the 18th century definition of militia - that is, "militia" meaning everyone who could conceivably bear arms in conflict. For all intents and purposes, the militia is everybody - everybody who can hold and shoot a gun.
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers no 29.
At the onset of our nation, the founders were so bent out of shape about oppression there was a serious debate about whether the federal government should be allowed a military at all. The 2nd amendment was crafted to keep that army, and the federal government who commands it, in check with the ever-present specter of constitutionally-guaranteed insurrection.
The entire amendment is intended to safeguard the people from government oppression. Is the federal government less powerful than before, or more?
That's a terrible paraphrase of that argument. A better one would be, "if you criminalize gun ownership, criminals will still have guns and will be the only ones who do."
Here, you are correct. If the national will of the people is such that the 2nd amendment must go, there is already a mechanism by which this is done. But to contravene or disregard the amendment, as say, the city of Chicago does (and check out THEIR gun crime statistics), is by very definition unconstitutional.
Except for blacks, women and a whole bunch of others. They weren't intended at the time either. heck, they weren't considered citizens! Interpreting historical documents in their time is all well and good. Saying they're somehow magically infallible and the writers/creators could foresee all of human history is nonsense. Just like religious extremists who insist the Bible/Torah/Koran/Spiderman #1 is to be taken literally and cannot be changed or updated to reflect modern society. We shouldn't meddle willy-nilly; saying there's no room for change "because it was written" is short-sighted and quite frankly, stupid.
In other words, it isn't working right now, anyway. As Lybia, Syria, Egypt and others have recently shown, weapons aren't exactly the end-all be-all. Communications, free from interference, are far more important. Considering your own interpretation of what the amendment is about, it would be better to update it to allow some smaller arms, and to allow unrestricted and uncontrolled communication between people. Too bad we do'nt have that anymore, these days. Pirate Bay or 4Chan would be just as much in their right to claim they're protecting the population from government oppression as people with AK-47s in their basement.
GasBandit
Staff member
The constitution is frequently vague and general - not specific. It wasn't about predicting all of humanity's future, it was about a simple concept. In no future is oppression palatable, and in the entirety of humanity's past there has been oppression of the innocent by the armed. That is why the intent is so important, rather than taking the literal words as rote, which has been the subject of half this argument. And, if the nation decides that the time has come to change the constitution, there is a process for doing that. It's just that pro gun control collectivists know they don't have the votes or political will behind them to do that, so they try to do an end-run around the constitution. Slavery was abolished with a constitutional amendment. Discrimination in enfranchisement was abolished with a constitutional amendment. But just because someone doesn't like the 2nd amendment (and the first 10 amendments are a de facto part of the constitution at time of writing), doesn't mean they get to just ignore it and pretend it has no bearing. But many places (controlled by democrats, of course) do just that. They act in violation of the constitution but aren't held to account because, while there aren't enough people on their side to amend the constitution, there is enough to make federal law enforcement look the other way.
I'm not sure where you got your ideas about Lybia, Syria and Egypt... but I know in Libya gun ownership was categorically banned. Egypt is called "restrictive" and the guns per capita in Syria was 3.9 out of 100, compared to our 88.8. These are not good examples for you to use.
The communication you speak of is a mishmash of what we call the right to assembly, the freedom of association, freedom of speech and possibly even freedom of the press. It's kind of a snazzy document, you see. And, as I said, when parts of it are found to be egregiously outdated or bad, there is a process for amending it - it's just people who don't like being told "no" don't like being told "no."
That's my point. perhaps you weren't paying attention, but in al lthree, oppressive governments have been, or are in the process of being, overthrown - with limited access to weapons. The success of ther evolutions in Egypt and Lybia (Syria isn't quite there yet) has been that the people can unite and communicate faster and better than the government. Quite literally, the weapons of these revolutions were Twitter and Facebook. Communication through uncontrolled means is also how the Taliban are able to outmanoeuver our imperialist pigdog oppressive heathen soldiers from hell (ahem).
You don't need M16s or tanks to fight the US army - to be precise, you'll never succeed that way. You can fight back against an oppressive government, but it is no longer possible to do this simply by having more men capable of carrying a gun than the army/navy/marine all rolled into one. Give every civbilian in the US an automatic rifle and pit them against your armed forces, and your armed forces will come out on top - because of training, technology, etc etc. The second amendment is no longer useful at protecting the people the way it was meant to. If it's ever necessary to rise against your government, you, too, will be fighting mainly with IEDs and such. Not with tanks. What I meant was: your main weapons against an oppressive government aren't heavier/bigger guns. They're communication and subterfuge. That's what I mean. The founding fathers may have meant that the people should be able to protect themselves from an oppressive government, all well and good. I like that. They couldn't exactly have predicted that gureilla warfare would be the only option 200+ years later.
GasBandit
Staff member
Let me get this straight... you say that a revolution, in opposition of armed forces, is more likely to succeed with twitter and no guns than twitter AND guns? Is that really what you're trying to put forward here?
Iran: no twitter, some guns
Egypt: twitter, hardly any guns (the army switched sides; but before that, nope. Gusn are fairly rare in Egypt)
Lybia: both.
Besides, I'm not saying "no guns". It's only that to every non-american in the world, the idea that you need anti-tank artillery in private hands to assure your safety is ludicrous. It definitely is to me. Guns have their uses (I'm no Charlie
); I'm no big fan of hunting for sport (for eating, fine; for conservation, sure) and whatever, but sure they're useful for non-aggressive uses. It's sensible to have them.My point is simply that the FF did not intent for just anyone to own just anything, up to and including an atomic b omb capable of blowing up New York. That's what GB is advocating. The danger of the US government becoming 1984-like Big Brother controlling your every thought and input isfar, far bigger than the odds of the US government suddenly deciding they want to abolish voting and form a dictatorship. Information (the free movement of) will be be far more important to any revolution or counter-insurgence or whatever than a bigger gun. Give every man in 1984 a machine gun, and they're all suddenly "free"? No. The idea of rebelling against your government, fine (strictly speaking I believein changing the system from within, but I admit that can be hard-to-impossible in some cases), but the idea that the option of rebellion is depended solely (or even mostly) on "having the bigger gun" is archaic. Guns, yes. Assault rifles? Nope.
GasBandit
Staff member
Again, libya banned private ownership of guns. The rebels got guns but they did it illegally. The gun ownership rate in Iran is 7.9 per 100. I guess that's technically "some" but not very many.[DOUBLEPOST=1343079482][/DOUBLEPOST]
You didn't even read my posts you belgian bastard bubble. Don't tell me what I'm advocating when you can't even be bothered to read what I'm advocating. I specifically excluded that sort of thing AND posted how it meshes with the founders wishes.
Maybe it's something with differing cultures, or language (and I'm not busting you, but trying to find out) but why do you think that most Americans want "military grade" hardware? What do you consider an "assault rifle?"
Yes, there are people that say they want these things, they can't buy them at their local gun dealer because it's not legal. No, automatic weapons are NOT legally able to be sold unless the seller AND the buyer are specially licensed to own AUTOmatic weapons. Stores that sell guns, only sell semi-automatic guns that require a trigger pull for each shot, you cannot just hold down the trigger and send off all 12-20 shots in the typical magazine. Semi-automatic is very common in hunting rifles and pistols, my competition class 30-06 rifle is a bolt action (target competition, 100 to 500 meters) with a magazine though.
I will state that some semi-auto guns can be modified to fire automatic, but you lose so much accuracy and run out of ammo so quick that it is useless. Sounds cool to say, but useless to hit much of anything smaller than the broad side of a barn.
Yes, there are people that say they want these things, they can't buy them at their local gun dealer because it's not legal. No, automatic weapons are NOT legally able to be sold unless the seller AND the buyer are specially licensed to own AUTOmatic weapons. Stores that sell guns, only sell semi-automatic guns that require a trigger pull for each shot, you cannot just hold down the trigger and send off all 12-20 shots in the typical magazine. Semi-automatic is very common in hunting rifles and pistols, my competition class 30-06 rifle is a bolt action (target competition, 100 to 500 meters) with a magazine though.
I will state that some semi-auto guns can be modified to fire automatic, but you lose so much accuracy and run out of ammo so quick that it is useless. Sounds cool to say, but useless to hit much of anything smaller than the broad side of a barn.
GasBandit
Staff member
Are you asking me, or Bubble? I'm going to guess me. Nowhere did I state that I believe most americans "want" military grade firearms - I specified that their being legally available is prerequisite of keeping a potential militiaman well-regulated (as in equipped to acceptable military standards). By no means would I want to force someone who doesn't want a gun to own one.
As for "assault weapons," I consider the term to be a ludicrous farce. Every weapon is an assault weapon if used against humans. Do you know how Senator Feinstein defined assault weapons for the (thankfully now expired) assault weapons ban? She and a few other legislators went through a catalog and picked out the scariest looking weapons and labeled them "assault." That's it. They looked scary. The resulting chaos of what constituted an "assault weapon" and what did not was ridiculous. The AR-15, for example, generally uses a .233 remington cartridge, which is smaller and less powerful than a great many other common hunting rifle calibers such as the 30-06, which was common for military sniper rifles before they went 308. the .233 is a "plinking" or "varmint" caliber by most enthusiast's ratings. Sure, they can still kill you dead in a movie theater, but a 30-06, which is completely legal and not "assault" could potentially penetrate multiple humans for maximum carnage. The term "assault," as far as legality/bans goes, is completely arbitrary.
That's something a lot of people don't realize, though it has been brought up in previous gun control threads. Good on ya. Semi Auto is arguably more deadly than full auto in these circumstances (unless we're giving criminals time to change out 50+ round ammo drums). An uzi on full auto goes out of ammunition in 2 seconds, and many of those rounds will hit either the same person or the ceiling. But hollywood paints guns as never needing reloads, so well intentioned nannystate collectivists imagine rambo with his never-ending M-60 and ban full auto anything.
It's a habit to exagerate.My point does not, at all, stand or fall with them being either automatic weapons, or labelled as such, or as assault rifles. And Gas, I sure did read it - but I don't agree and your opiinion on some things remains just that - an opinion. You may spray lavender scent all over it, it's still like an asshole etc etc
1. Allowing things "carried by a single person" means it's perfectly A-OK to own a bottle of the pox? How 'bout those tactical nukes they've been researching for years - AFAIK they don't exist yet, but that doesn't mean they never will. How about it? Besides, you're saying that you need firepower to defend yourself from the army - good luck doing that with only hand- and shoulder guns.
2. Claiming "all Americans want fully automatic versions of Abraham tanks" is obvious hyperbole. It's allowed. I, personally, feel that even handguns should be far more restricted than they are now, but that's not the argument I'm making here. Some, like, for example, Gassy here, think it is perfectly right and good that anyone (who is not mentally ill or has been convicted of a serious felony - I think we can agree here?) can buy a semi-automatic, which, as you've just pointed out yourself, is practically more dangerous than the automatic ones.
3. I'm arguing that the average citizen does not need, nor has any legitimate use for, a semi-automatic, a heavy shotgun, and the like. Hunting rifles, fine. It's one of the typical things of a lot of "gun defenders" that they always fall back to a lot of exaples for when/where/why weapons were useful. Great - but hardly anyone can give a good reason why you'd ever need anything bigger than a small handgun. GasBandit at does have an argument (protection against an oppressive state). It may not be an argument I personally find very convincing (you're better off with good communications and a couple of knives or home-made plastiques than with an AK-47 but all communications monitored at all times), but it's a heck of a lot better than "I need my guns" "Why?" "for protection in case someone tries to rob me" "So you're going to fire an M16 in your own living room / you're carrying it along with you all the time?" "No, for those things a smalelr gun will be more useful" "So why do you need the right to carry an M16?" "....".
4. Summary: it's all because you 'mericans are silly when it comes to guns, you nutty gun lovers
And to answer your question fully: I know not every American wants his very semi-automatic heavy weapon. I do think a lot of Americans think they should be able to have one/buy one. I think in practically all cases, for almost any legal and sensible use, normal people only need access to smaller handguns and, in some cases and in some regions, hunting rifles. Anything over a 9mm is too big for personal use. Anything that can go through a door is probably too heavy. I'm for a tightening of even Belgian gun laws, mind, so I'm pretty far out there as far as Americans are concerned. I think it'd be perfectly acceptable for hunters to have to turn their guns in at the end of hunting season, and to bel able to go pick them back up at the beginning of the hunting season - with proof of having had at least X training in between. I'm all in favour of a complete registry of every gun in the country, with taxes per gun, and with minimum amounts of yearly training at the range for everyone who wants to own one. But anyway, that's not what I was trying to say in this thread - I was staying out of it deliberately because I know Charlie was taking the extreme position and I didn't want to find myself lumped in with him on this issue - removing all guns might sound nice but I know it can't and won't work.
1. Allowing things "carried by a single person" means it's perfectly A-OK to own a bottle of the pox? How 'bout those tactical nukes they've been researching for years - AFAIK they don't exist yet, but that doesn't mean they never will. How about it? Besides, you're saying that you need firepower to defend yourself from the army - good luck doing that with only hand- and shoulder guns.
2. Claiming "all Americans want fully automatic versions of Abraham tanks" is obvious hyperbole. It's allowed. I, personally, feel that even handguns should be far more restricted than they are now, but that's not the argument I'm making here. Some, like, for example, Gassy here, think it is perfectly right and good that anyone (who is not mentally ill or has been convicted of a serious felony - I think we can agree here?) can buy a semi-automatic, which, as you've just pointed out yourself, is practically more dangerous than the automatic ones.
3. I'm arguing that the average citizen does not need, nor has any legitimate use for, a semi-automatic, a heavy shotgun, and the like. Hunting rifles, fine. It's one of the typical things of a lot of "gun defenders" that they always fall back to a lot of exaples for when/where/why weapons were useful. Great - but hardly anyone can give a good reason why you'd ever need anything bigger than a small handgun. GasBandit at does have an argument (protection against an oppressive state). It may not be an argument I personally find very convincing (you're better off with good communications and a couple of knives or home-made plastiques than with an AK-47 but all communications monitored at all times), but it's a heck of a lot better than "I need my guns" "Why?" "for protection in case someone tries to rob me" "So you're going to fire an M16 in your own living room / you're carrying it along with you all the time?" "No, for those things a smalelr gun will be more useful" "So why do you need the right to carry an M16?" "....".
4. Summary: it's all because you 'mericans are silly when it comes to guns, you nutty gun lovers
And to answer your question fully: I know not every American wants his very semi-automatic heavy weapon. I do think a lot of Americans think they should be able to have one/buy one. I think in practically all cases, for almost any legal and sensible use, normal people only need access to smaller handguns and, in some cases and in some regions, hunting rifles. Anything over a 9mm is too big for personal use. Anything that can go through a door is probably too heavy. I'm for a tightening of even Belgian gun laws, mind, so I'm pretty far out there as far as Americans are concerned. I think it'd be perfectly acceptable for hunters to have to turn their guns in at the end of hunting season, and to bel able to go pick them back up at the beginning of the hunting season - with proof of having had at least X training in between. I'm all in favour of a complete registry of every gun in the country, with taxes per gun, and with minimum amounts of yearly training at the range for everyone who wants to own one. But anyway, that's not what I was trying to say in this thread - I was staying out of it deliberately because I know Charlie was taking the extreme position and I didn't want to find myself lumped in with him on this issue - removing all guns might sound nice but I know it can't and won't work.
GasBandit
Staff member
You can disagree with me all you want. Just don't say I assert something I explicitly asserted the opposite of.It's a habit to exagerate.My point does not, at all, stand or fall with them being either automatic weapons, or labelled as such, or as assault rifles. And Gas, I sure did read it - but I don't agree and your opiinion on some things remains just that - an opinion. You may spray lavender scent all over it, it's still like an asshole etc etc
Those are not weapons issued to soldiers. Soldiers are issued rifles, carbines, sniper rifles, machine guns, SMGs, etc etc. There is never a point where the sergeant says "Line up grunts and collect your jars of anthrax!"
Now, yes, but that was not the case from 1994-2004. Many semi-auto weapons, including the "varmint caliber" AR-15 were banned during that period. Some simply by exact make and model (which is where the catalog of scary gun pictures came in), and any semi auto that had 2 or more accessories (such as folding stock, scope, or in the case of shotguns, pistol grip). Completely arbitrary and absolutely ineffective.
If you really think that twitter and knives beats twitter and guns, I don't think we can have a conversation on this topic that I take seriously.
1. A regular citizen with an M16 is not armed as well as a soldier with an M16. You know this as well as I do. Would you allow mandatory regular training programs to stay up-to-date about the proper use adn care of your weapon, at the same level as hose the soldier receives?
2. I'd say the point of the FF was to arm the general populace in such a way that they could effectively defend themselves from said professional army. I hope you can agree that just giving everyone a gun isn't going to accomplish that. Actually, probably your best bet would be a general draft (which, oddly, I am in favour of
).3. Whether you think they wanted people to be armed equally to soldiers, or to defend themselves from soldiers; in either case, allowing people to own a semi-automatic doesn't help. Heck, since you think everyone should be allowed to own automatics, fine, include those too. Now go ask the average Libyan how useful those were vs bombing strikes from 6.000 feet. Either you allow citizens everything, or you allow them enough for a false sense of security. That was what I was trying to say earlier - you are actually somewhat wishy washy yourself. Either you say The People have to be able to defend themselves from the army (though I maintain you shouldn't worry about the army half as much as about some other branches of government - Homeland Security and the likes are far more of a danger to your freedom than the army, and no matter what kind of gun you own won't help you much against being taken off to Gitmo or similar), in which case, they need everything. Or you say they won't be able to defend themselves against the army (and as stated before - there's plenty of people out there who can attest that armed citizenry really are no match for the US armed forces - they're good at what they do.), in which case, what's the point? Either you think citizens need access to everything so they can form a militia and have any hope of success (they'd still have none unless at least some of the armed forces stood against the tyrannical regime), or you accept that the citizens won't win by brute force. Once you go to the idea of the people defending themselves by other means, again, as stated previously - you don't need big guns. A hunting rifle will kill a general just as well, and an IED is a heck of a lot more effective against armed patrol cars than anything short of anti-tank guns (and even rtthose - feel free to check out the statistics on death counts of both in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Tunesia,....)
Again, I'm not against guns per se. I'm against guns that won't help in any case, have no daily application, and can cause unheard of grief and suffering when in the wrong hands.
.223 is a human killing round. But I did scoff at the news during the D.C. Sniper, that they kept calling .223 a High Powered Round.
Go ask anyone fighting over in Iraq/Afganistan how effective those bomb strikes were against the insurgents they were fighting. When push comes to shove, you don't NEED the highest grade tactical hardware to make an occupying force regret ever setting foot into your home. Turns out, all you need is your imagination and the where withal to win at any cost.
Because those insurgents? They are going to win. The US Military is going to leave eventually, if only because we can't keep paying for it. Once that happens, things will slowly go back to how they used to be: roving gangs of armed militants controlling everything because no one can/will stop them. Because they don't have the weapons to stop them themselves. But then again, arming them would be just as bad, considering it's what lead to the roving gangs in the first place.
Really, Iraq and Afghanistan are textbook examples of what can happen if you don't have a standing military/police force to stop an armed populace. You need both to balance each other out: The civilians need to be able to fight off an oppressive government, but a legitimate government needs to be able to keep it's citizens from running a muck with their toys, lest some misuse their weapons to the detriment of others. If both sides aren't in check, you get one side destroying society... kind of like it is in parts of the Middle East and Africa, where entire villages getting massacred by armed groups is kind of an every day thing.
I wanted to keep out of this discussion (Is it still a discussion, or has this thread turned into a flame war yet?) , but I stumbled upon this news article and thought it was far too relevant to not pass on to you guys.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2012/07/23/wdr-guns-windsor-border.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/story/2012/07/23/wdr-guns-windsor-border.html
As someone who has to help rehabilitate people from things like gunshot injuries, I'll tell you that I'd rather see people not shot than worry about government control conspiracies. It's funny how people are armed to the teeth in places like Syria, Ethiopia, and Burma and yet coups and oppression still happen overnight. I mean really, these places are a Libertarian's dreamland right? Why aren't they all flocking there?
No, banning guns won't stop every single mass attack like in Colorado, but it'll sure help. No one needs an assault rifle, and trust me, if the US fell into a tyrant's hands you'd have plenty of access to them regardless of how legal they are pre-occupation.
Yes, that is exactly my point. Free minds and the right mentality will win from superior weaponry; advanced weapons in every hand but subservient minds will not. (in modern day city warfare. In a set battle it's quite something else)
At the risk of derailing even further, your choice of words is very interesting. Things will "go back to how they were", roving bands of militants etc. This was the case neither in Lybia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Iraq and Lybia had fairly stable regimes (dictatorial, repressive, horrible as far as human rights go, discriminatory and a lot of other bad things, mind you); as long as you were a poor farmer/worker just plowing/toiling away at your daily drudge of a job, it wasn't any worse than many other regimes (if you had such weird ideas as demanding freedom, the right to your own religion, perhaps being allowed to speak your mind or read foreign news or whatever you might get in big trouble of course). Afghanistan....Well, I'd say it's wrong to say they werer ovig bands. Warlords, clan leaders, yes - but despite what you might think, most people in those clans didn't have that bad a life either. Again, when compared tothat of, say, a serf in 13th century Europe. In all three cases, the average person will probably hava a better life in, say, 20 or 30 years - but in the short term, for a lot of the poor people, the situation has worsened. (Of course, not for the Kurds, or members of other suppressed minorities/majorities. I'm not saying they were great, far from it)
Of course, if we/they are really unlucky, all of them will be like Eastern Congo or Somalia is now, in 20 years. That is, completely lawless and with an entire generation going to waste as child soldiers and/or prostitutes; with no prospect or in some cases even concept of anything else in life.
How do you define an assault rifle? Is it by the number of rounds it can shoot per minute? The caliber? The name? I only ask because a definition is needed for those that like to hunt. What's the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle other than the looks? It's hard to define, and that's why many hunters fight for loose gun laws even though they may not like assault rifles. They're worried if they give an inch, they'll lose a foot. If people didn't come screaming "Ban every gun!" Gun owners might be a little more responsive. I know everyone I hunt with hates the people that use assault rifles for hunting. It honestly scares us when jack asses feel the need to rail off 15 rounds. How do you stop that without hurting those that want to use them for legitimate uses though?
What kind of idiot uses a 15 round burst while hunting? That's a great way to ruin the hide, not to mention it makes cleaning the kill a shitload harder.
So, 15 round mags are illegal? Fine. That still doesn't make assault rifles illegal. It also doesn't make the barrel mags that hold more than that go away.
You'd be surprised at the amount of people that do that though. I've honestly ducked down next to brush piles from idiots next to us unloading 15 rounds and then reloading. If I could ban stupid I would, but I can't.
You'd be surprised at the amount of people that do that though. I've honestly ducked down next to brush piles from idiots next to us unloading 15 rounds and then reloading. If I could ban stupid I would, but I can't.
^This.
Also, regarding the Canada article, I can't believe people would just 'forget' about a gun on their person. I agree that eventually a concealed carry becomes as old-school as wearing socks, but if I was to see a sign at the border which read NO SOCKS and I didn't want to lose my socks, you bet I'd turn around and leave my socks behind.
--Patrick
- Status