Guns? Guns! GUNS! GGGuuunnNnnnssss! GgUuNn! GUNS!

[Lysander]

Let me preface this by saying I've got nothing against owning a gun (I've got 3), but...

If you think carrying is going too protect in you in any way when someone else has a gun pointed in your face you're pretty sadly mistaken. Just give them what they want and hope your insurance covers you. Thinking you can Clint Eastwood your way out of a car jacking is a good way to end up with half a face. Even a dude with a knife at your back has a really significant advantage over you if you're carrying. Personally I think carrying just makes people feel safer, it really doesn't contribute to actually being safer.

I guess it might be useful if you're positive the dude is going to kill you anyway (at least you get to roll the dice), but your chances of killing him are terrible if he got the drop on you. And if he doesn't have the drop on you how do you know he's planning to kill you?

I'd say forget the concealed carry and go learn aikido. Still not a good chance of survival, but in close quarters it'll serve you better than something you have to extract from between your balls or off your ankle.

[Grim]

Oh wikipedia, ending debates since 2001.

Yemen is number 3. I'm surprised the uprising going on there hasn't become more out-of-control.

I had a debate with a guy in my office over gun control. He maintained (somewhat rightly) that an armed populace is the key to preventing tyranny. That hasn't worked out too well in Yemen.

At that point I asked him if private citizens should be allowed to buy stinger missiles and RPGs to reclaim america when the communists take over, and he said yes, that was legitimate.

My question to all of you:
1. Should there be any limits on weapon ownership (right to some bear arms and all that)
2. What should these limits be (tanks and flamethrowers for everyone or 1 shotgun for hunting)

[poaw]

Notwithstanding, one is a first aid skill set and the other is a lethal weapon... but owning a pistol/hand gun for the purposes of 'home defence' is unnecessary against an unlikely risk. The likelihood of you needing to use the tool to defend yourself is so low.

Any sort of medical training is just as unnecessary if you use the likelihood of use as a metric for it's necessity.

Yemen isn't unique in having a high number of privately owned firearms without representative government. You can't just simply dump firearms on a country and stand back and watch democracy happen. It also requires the educational and economic opportunities that allow for the social mobility that creates a middle-class. Privately owned firearms are simply a counter-balance to the use of public institutions in enforcing unpopular policy, and/or the first warning indicator that someone may be questioning the benefits of popular sovereignty.

My question to all of you:
1. Should there be any limits on weapon ownership (right to some bear arms and all that)
2. What should these limits be (tanks and flamethrowers for everyone or 1 shotgun for hunting)

The limit should be drawn when the maximum possible penalty under the law no longer reliably counter-balances the damage you can inflict. Think like nuclear weapons and some of the area effect weapons carried by very large aircraft or batteries of artillery. Understandably the line will drawn well short of those, some for secondary reasons (Modern MBTs are pretty good at tearing up roads and overloading bridges, modern combat aircraft often require a suite of avionics which are tightly controlled in order to operate etc etc). Most of the hysteria comes from an exaggerated idea of the actual ability of a weapon to harm people and destroy property.

PS Flamethrowers are legal right now (in the US that is, and I'd imagine in the most of the rest of the world as well). They always have been. They fall outside of the legal definition of a firearm, and if I remember correctly about 12 years ago buying a grenade launcher in Canada was roughly the same process as buying a carton of milk for the same reason.

[xutech]

Throwing knives are fun and I would love to try throwing axes. My school friend used to practice nunchucks and by every third swing he would hit himself in the groin at speed.

I don't believe in the idea of gun ownership as a solution for tyranny because:

Everyone has a different idea of tyranny.

Not everyone has a reasonable idea of what constitutes tyranny.

Many definitions of tyranny are at odds with each other or are formed without factual basis.

Guns and the threat of violence deny the right to free speech and honest criticism.

Guns short circuit the merit of debate and oppositional political views.

The countries where a populace are armed have not markedly improved their protection against "tyranny", even by the most lenient definition.

By contrast, countries where a population have begun to protest in earnest have not relied on guns as a fundamental cornerstone of revolt.

Guns, to me, are a rural tool. The reasons for their use in rural situations are specific and limited. Laws for their use for sporting and hunting use are fine as they are.

I don't agree that guns should proliferate for self defence because that is simply a sign of a flawed society.

A societal proliferation of guns (for self defence), even when used responsibly, will harm people by accident and moreso by design; a harm that comes without a balancing argument for their presence.

Guns for security should be the province of trained specialists - police and defence forces.

They may have guns because they are given the training to know when those weapons should be correctly used and under what circumstances. They are also subject to review and scrutiny for using them.

By having a specific subsection of society that carries guns, we are free of the burden of having to arrange for our own defence and that of our loved ones in our daily lives.

We avoid the temptation of applying gun violence to situations which do not warrant them.

Furthermore, all other forms of violence require escalation to kill someone. No matter how dire, for example, a person beating another has several opportunities to rethink their choice and not kill their victim.
'
A single gunshot ends the capacity to decide that killing someone is a bad idea.

A society that condones casual gun ownership and an atmosphere of fear (self defence against criminals) denies the right of each person to live without fear or threat of gun violence.


Xutech the man wants to shoot guns because they appeal to his monkey brain.

Xutech the leader does not want society to be casually armed because it is destructive to the unity of that society.

So, I like the fact that you can collect guns. They look like fun. Conversely I find it horrifying that you have to consider an armed response to an intruder or criminal on a day to day basis.

The worst thing that might happen to me in my life is to be approached by a belligerent drunk.

[Barry Zuckerkorn]

My question to all of you:
1. Should there be any limits on weapon ownership (right to some bear arms and all that)
2. What should these limits be (tanks and flamethrowers for everyone or 1 shotgun for hunting)

Keep in mind, I am a pretty terrible poster and am bad at articulating thoughts in a very persuading way, so this post might be a shit post.

1. I think the process one goes about to become a firearm owner should be very stringent. A very in depth background check, possibly even a mental evaluation. As well as a competency check (think like a full blown hunters safety course, but that covers shotguns, pistols, and rifles.) And if they fail competency possibly offer courses to earn a "certificate" of some sort. However I think if someone were to pass the stringent requirements, I think they should be able to (almost like a permit to purchase?)
2. As for limits to what could be purchased, I think its a very slippery slope. I mean if you ban a tank because "there is no need to own one" you could say the same for 'assault rifle'. I don't think there is a clear line that can be drawn where someone can say "Yes that flamethrower is overkill, but your semi-automatic shotgun that shoots buck with every trigger pull for seven rounds is not". So I don't really know

Also Xutech raises some damn good points. Every time I go out to the range there are undoubtedly people who own guns that should not.


EDIT breaking bad fuck yea

[poaw]

Seriously, responding to all that will be a bitch with the way it's formatted, you could have numbered it or something.

I don't believe in the idea of gun ownership as a solution for tyranny because:
Everyone has a different idea of tyranny.
Not everyone has a reasonable idea of what constitutes tyranny.
Many definitions of tyranny are at odds with each other or are formed without factual basis.

The countries where a populace are armed have not markedly improved their protection against "tyranny", even by the most lenient definition.

The first collection of statements are at odds with the latter statement. If tyranny cannot be reliably defined, then it (and protection against it) can't be measured either.

Guns and the threat of violence deny the right to free speech and honest criticism.
Guns short circuit the merit of debate and oppositional political views.

I would say it doesn't, despite having the highest per capita gun ownership, a shaky economic situation, and a wildly divisive chief executive no one seems to be holding back from saying what ever they want (or killing politicians) in the US. Not to mention we haven't had a political (political meaning for reasons of politics instead of just being a nut) assassination in about 40 or so years and even those never changed the tone or intensity of the discourse (in most cases they made it more acute).

By contrast, countries where a population have begun to protest in earnest have not relied on guns as a fundamental cornerstone of revolt.

Because by definition you don't "protest" by armed means, you "revolt" or have a "civil war" or an "insurgency". Most of the western hemisphere earned it's independence through armed means and from the looks of things that trend is continuing in the Middle East and Africa as well. You could argue the ultimate effectiveness and desirability of one approach over another, but it's not historically accurate to rebrand revolutions in hindsight as peaceful affairs involving political slogans and silent vigils.

Guns, to me, are a rural tool. The reasons for their use in rural situations are specific and limited. Laws for their use for sporting and hunting use are fine as they are.
I don't agree that guns should proliferate for self defence because that is simply a sign of a flawed society.

Crime in general is a sign of a flawed society. Unless you're dealing with theoretical absolutes society has to make choices about what ways in which they deal with the imperfections otherwise they couldn't effectively perform their role.

A societal proliferation of guns (for self defence), even when used responsibly, will harm people by accident and moreso by design; a harm that comes without a balancing argument for their presence.

The argument for guns as self-defense tools often gets lost in the shuffle of "His statistics/My statistics" and good luck finding an unbiased source (they do exist btw). For example if I wish to discredit gun as a self-defense tool, then I only count the use for self-defense purposes if a court rendered that decision at a trial for murder. Any time the case never goes to court (because the prosecution doesn't have a case to present), or is a lesser-charge I simply won't count it. If I want to argue for it, I treat any time firearm is used in self-defense as a potential multiple homicide.

Also few other recreational hobbies are looked at for a balancing argument.

Guns for security should be the province of trained specialists - police and defence forces.

They may have guns because they are given the training to know when those weapons should be correctly used and under what circumstances. They are also subject to review and scrutiny for using them.

By having a specific subsection of society that carries guns, we are free of the burden of having to arrange for our own defence and that of our loved ones in our daily lives.

That is a part of a strict libertarian's argument for the right to privately own firearms. That if the right and accountability lay solely with the government then the only possible long-term outcome is the abuse of that authority. Would you, for example, be comfortable if your own government decided that a free press was just a bit too dangerous and it should be their right solely to both provide you with the news and even promised to scrutinize themselves with the highest journalistic standards. I suspect most reactions would be similar to my own (awwhellnaw.gif).

I don't regard it as anymore of a "burden" then voting or even, (stretching the truth here) jury duty and I'd be rightly offended if someone thought that I was daft enough to accept an offer of "relieving" me of that "burden".

We avoid the temptation of applying gun violence to situations which do not warrant them.

In a theoretical perfect society that would be true, but in spite of very real scrutiny and legal consequences, internal review has always proven lacking in dealing with problems of abuse of authority. For years the LAPD insisted that choking someone unconscious was a reasonable and safe way to subdue them even after the public noticed that they tended to kill a couple people every year doing it.

That's not even beginning to address what some governments in South America had their police forces doing.

Furthermore, all other forms of violence require escalation to kill someone. No matter how dire, for example, a person beating another has several opportunities to rethink their choice and not kill their victim.

A single gunshot ends the capacity to decide that killing someone is a bad idea.

Unless you literally walk around with a gun in your hand and a round chambered then both you and the other party have several discrete moment with which to re-assess the situation and one could argue that because of the association with gun = kill those moments are more likely to reflected on with the actual potential consequences in mind instead of what someone merely "intends" to do (the oft-cited example when a beating goes to far, of one party saying "I didn't mean to kill him.").

A society that condones casual gun ownership and an atmosphere of fear (self defence against criminals) denies the right of each person to live without fear or threat of gun violence.

It isn't presented solely as self-defense (or even really presented as at all) and people would be just as afraid of gun violence if they were illegal for the same reason women fear rape even though it's illegal and grenades are outlawed in Japan. [/quote]

Xutech the leader does not want society to be casually armed because it is destructive to the unity of that society.

If casual armament was damaging to the unity of a society, then at the very least the US would have imploded in on itself and probably taken the rest of North America along with it, and at the worst most human civilization would have never occurred to begin with. Living is a largely disarmed society is a relatively recent development.

So, I like the fact that you can collect guns. They look like fun. Conversely I find it horrifying that you have to consider an armed response to an intruder or criminal on a day to day basis.

The worst thing that might happen to me in my life is to be approached by a belligerent drunk.

Most people don't think about it on a day to day basis anymore than someone who drives to work everyday thinks about a horrifying traffic accident before putting on their seatbelt or encountering someone with arterial bleeding when they pack a first aid kit. They just take the precaution and move on with their day.

[poaw]

1. I think the process one goes about to become a firearm owner should be very stringent. A very in depth background check, possibly even a mental evaluation. As well as a competency check (think like a full blown hunters safety course, but that covers shotguns, pistols, and rifles.) And if they fail competency possibly offer courses to earn a "certificate" of some sort. However I think if someone were to pass the stringent requirements, I think they should be able to (almost like a permit to purchase?)

The only problem with that is that we've had "stringent" requirements to exercise rights before. It ended with the 24th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Even though we're now having a similar discussion about what is "the Press" with some saying wikipedia isn't even though corporations are people now.


PS FPS Russia isn't Russian, he's from Georgia.

[Vinata]

The only problem with that is that we've had "stringent" requirements to exercise rights before. It ended with the 24th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.

The right to bear arms doesn't necessarily mean guns any more than it does nunchucks (which are arms that are illegal).

I see guns as belonging to a few, vague categories. There's guns for sport (skeet shooting, sharp shooting), there's guns for hunting (rifles, shotguns, etc) and there are guns that are just straight up for killing other people (fully automatic shotguns, for example.)

There's really no reason for a civilian to have that last type of gun, and it can be argued that police and inactive military don't need them either.

[poaw]

I meant, Georgia in the US.

The right to bear arms doesn't necessarily mean guns any more than it does nunchucks (which are arms that are illegal).

I see guns as belonging to a few, vague categories. There's guns for sport (skeet shooting, sharp shooting), there's guns for hunting (rifles, shotguns, etc) and there are guns that are just straight up for killing other people (fully automatic shotguns, for example.)

There's really no reason for a civilian to have that last type of gun, and it can be argued that police and inactive military don't need them either.

I'm sure if anyone really cared about nunchucks they could probably contest the law (if it truly is an outright ban instead of just classifying them as a weapon and forbidding people without a CCW permit from carrying them concealed or barring you from bringing them into certain locations like schools and bars), but in all seriousness I can't even see that being enforced in any serious capacity. I actually thought that was a joke/urban legend just like the (insert martial art here)-Master who has to register himself as a deadly weapon because I remember them being common enough that they were banned from my elementary school on the grounds that kids were fighting over them at recess.

The founding father's were stating it in pretty explicit terms for their time that they intended for the citizens of the nation the right to firearms. They simply lacked the benefit of knowing the future and it's language, so they didn't know to write it in language that would maintain that clarity into the present day. The meaning behind the words they wrote has actually changed in slight but important ways, for example when they say, "A well-regulated militia being necessary..." a modern reader would read it to mean a militia which was closely monitored and with regulations in place. If you asked someone who wore a tri-corner hat what regulated meant, you'd get an answer more akin to well-trained, or skilled instead of anything concerning rules or laws. Aside from that they were being pretty clear about what they intended while still keeping the amendments fairly concise.

[Manfred Hideous]

This is one of those debates that can't really win people over from one side to the other. Guns are a primal tool and one side believes in the absolute necessity of access to this tool while the other side lives in abject fear of use of the tools.

I'm originally a Masshole and I am in the former group. I grew up in hiking distance from Lexington and Concord. I understand the entire point of the first amendment (not the point people usually end up debating, either). Sadly, most of my fellow Massholes have become limp-wristed pansies who have abdicated any right to live free of government tyranny.

I am a gun owner. I don't obsess with my next purchase of a weapon so I don't think of myself as a "gun nut". Small arms have a place in societies that wish to have the ability to reset a government that steps over the line and becomes repressive. The U.S. is fairly well armed but you don't see anything like what happened in Syria going on. We're not repressed, so we aren't in revolt. We've got problems but we largely manage to work them out without large scale violence. The RTBA is an insurance policy; They do work for home defense under certain conditions but that's beside the point.

BTW, it is legal to own fully automatic weapons. It costs money and requires a license (for each firearm) but if you have the cash, you can own a real armory.

[Aurora148]

This is one of those debates that can't really win people over from one side to the other. Guns are a primal tool and one side believes in the absolute necessity of access to this tool while the other side lives in abject fear of use of the tools.

I'm originally a Masshole and I am in the former group. I grew up in hiking distance from Lexington and Concord. I understand the entire point of the first amendment (not the point people usually end up debating, either). Sadly, most of my fellow Massholes have become limp-wristed pansies who have abdicated any right to live free of government tyranny.

I am a gun owner. I don't obsess with my next purchase of a weapon so I don't think of myself as a "gun nut". Small arms have a place in societies that wish to have the ability to reset a government that steps over the line and becomes repressive. The U.S. is fairly well armed but you don't see anything like what happened in Syria going on. We're not repressed, so we aren't in revolt. We've got problems but we largely manage to work them out without large scale violence. The RTBA is an insurance policy; They do work for home defense under certain conditions but that's beside the point.

BTW, it is legal to own fully automatic weapons. It costs money and requires a license (for each firearm) but if you have the cash, you can own a real armory.

The US has become far more tyrannical that most other western governments, but I didn't any armed uprising against the Patriot Act. In fact the people who supported the liberty suppressing measures that GWB put in place were the sterotypical gun owning republicans, to keep the terrrists and mexicans out.

[Scroobius Pip]

Small arms have a place in societies that wish to have the ability to reset a government that steps over the line and becomes repressive. The U.S. is fairly well armed but you don't see anything like what happened in Syria going on. We're not repressed, so we aren't in revolt. We've got problems but we largely manage to work them out without large scale violence.

Is public ownership of guns really a counterpoint to The State stepping over the line? I don't see much evidence of it around the world although they are uncivilised heathens so probably don't get the finer points.

Bad press, common assent & an agreeable level of wealth keeps governments in check not some chick with a .38 in a thigh holster.

Not trolling, just don't get it.

[Grim]

Is public ownership of guns really a counterpoint to The State stepping over the line? I don't see much evidence of it around the world although they are uncivilised heathens so probably don't get the finer points.

Bad press, common assent & an agreeable level of wealth keeps governments in check not some chick with a .38 in a thigh holster.

Not trolling, just don't get it.

It goes back to the American Revolution, where a heavily armed populace was able to hold off a moderately sized army in control of the countryside.

I don't think its possible to replicate that today. Modern military equipment is above and beyond what private citizens can afford to purchase and maintain.

Without the heavy firepower you would see the same thing that happened early on in Libya. Automatic weapons are a poor subsitute for artillery and heavy armor.

The only real way to prevent tyranny is the checks and balances the US government has, and they do work (most of the time).

[Barry Zuckerkorn]

The US has become far more tyrannical that most other western governments, but I didn't any armed uprising against the Patriot Act. In fact the people who supported the liberty suppressing measures that GWB put in place were the sterotypical gun owning republicans, to keep the terrrists and mexicans out.

Would just like to take this post to point out that even though I own a bunch of guns, I'm not a bat shit crazy tea bagger. I'm actually a moderate and tend to see the arguments on both sides. So while you may think that I sit in front of my computer with loaded guns playing eve while wearing a tinfoil hat in my basement loaded with freeze dried food, that's not the case. I do all of those things in a bathroom with no windows so that vlade randal won't find me!

EDIT I was going to type out a reply pip, but grim's got it.

[Atticus]

It goes back to the American Revolution, where a heavily armed populace was able to hold off a moderately sized army in control of the countryside.

The only real way to prevent tyranny is the checks and balances the US government has, and they do work (most of the time).

m8 you need to read more Howard Zinn

[Grim]

m8 you need to read more Howard Zinn

No idea who that is. I usually try to formulate my own arguments and beliefs. It seems silly when people point to a book or another person and say "this is all i stand for."

[Manfred Hideous]

It goes back to the American Revolution, where a heavily armed populace was able to hold off a moderately sized army in control of the countryside.

I don't think its possible to replicate that today. Modern military equipment is above and beyond what private citizens can afford to purchase and maintain.

Without the heavy firepower you would see the same thing that happened early on in Libya. Automatic weapons are a poor subsitute for artillery and heavy armor.

The only real way to prevent tyranny is the checks and balances the US government has, and they do work (most of the time).

I disagree. You have to consider the American revolutionaries fired the first shots because the British were on the way to confiscate the cannon the Americans had acquired. The thing you have to consider is that in a real and popular revolution, the rebels need only wait for the military (or large parts of it) to switch sides. You ONLY start that sort of action when you truly know you're in the right and there's no other option.

Something often overlooked is the fact that the Americans tried to work out a way to be truly represented by their own government (remember they weren't Americans then) and the situation took years to explode. Right up to the instant Gage sent troops out for this Cannon the colonists hoped for a peaceful resolution.

Interesting note. Many people don't realize the revolution had been in full swing for over a year before we finally declared independence.

[Atticus]

No idea who that is. I usually try to formulate my own arguments and beliefs. It seems silly when people point to a book or another person and say "this is all i stand for."

I was referring to your reference to the American Revolution.

Specifically:

Zinn argues that the Founding Fathers agitated for war to distract the people from their own economic problems and stop popular movements, a strategy that he claims the country's leaders would continue to use in the future.

Howard Zinn ala "People's History of the United States"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Peopl..._United_States

I'd hope one's beliefs about history change as they learn more about history.

[Lysander]

Formulating your own beliefs and arguments about history doesn't really work, unless you happen to be historian or someone with ridiculous amounts of time on your hands and a penchant for digging through archives. You've gotta trust someone at some time.

Other the other hand, it's pretty frightening to see people trusting revisionist historians trying to pitch bullshit like "America The Christian Nation" when a literal pile of Founding Father quotes can be supplied to the contrary. I think in the end it's just about trying to be rational person, accepting the truth as best as you can find it, even if it rubs you the wrong way.

Back to guns. I really don't think it's a big deal for a person to own a handgun or anything they can use to hunt or for sport. But why do people need to own personal arms depots filled with enough firepower to kill a few hundred people. I understand the rising up against Tyranny argument, but give me a break, people have torn down nations with rocks and their bare hands. The Government is always going to be better armed. I find an arms race against subjugation to be kind of a flawed argument.

I've got a friend who owns a crazy amount of automatic weapons and, at least in his case, I think it comes down to the fact that he really likes guns and he gets a boner thinking about doing battle in the streets against ultimate evil. It's scary but most of the people I know who own insane amounts of high powered weaponry are either Christians or conspiracy nuts. Could just be the wrong crowd I guess. But it seems to me that you've got to be giving Revolution a lot of thought to go out and start dropping that kind of money and time to prepare for it.

[poaw]

The US has become far more tyrannical that most other western governments, but I didn't any armed uprising against the Patriot Act. In fact the people who supported the liberty suppressing measures that GWB put in place were the sterotypical gun owning republicans, to keep the terrrists and mexicans out.

It wasn't just Republicans, America as a whole supported the Patriot Act and I would like to know by what standard you measure tyranny, otherwise this discussion will very quickly devolve into two groups with an ocean between them complaining about laws on the other side that don't affect them and how unjust they are.

That and saying "The most tyrannical western nation" is roughly equivalent to saying "The slowest sprinter in the olympics".

[Aurora148]

It wasn't just Republicans, America as a whole supported the Patriot Act and I would like to know by what standard you measure tyranny, otherwise this discussion will very quickly devolve into two groups with an ocean between them complaining about laws on the other side that don't affect them and how unjust they are.

That and saying "The most tyrannical western nation" is roughly equivalent to saying "The slowest sprinter in the olympics".

I never said only the republicans supported the Patriot Act, just that the people who claim to want guns to defend against the government still supported the biggest government move against liberty since internment camps.

Liberty is really only measurable against what that particular country expects it to be, the US has historically attempted to be the most free nation, but has recently taken some pretty drastic steps against its citizens under the guise of defending them from brown people. It could be called tyranny because it is so different to the ideals which the country was set upon.

[Grim]

America has a long history of overreacting to outside threats. The Patriot Act, Mcarthyism, Alien and Sedition acts, etc.

Now, I still believe that the Patriot Act has been useful, and am not afraid of a little extra government scrutiny. Y'all see the news about that guy who wanted to fly some model airplanes loaded with explosives into the Pentagon?

[Lysander]

Try spending a few years locked in a box too small to even lay down straight in, in a foreign country where you have no rights, basically kidnapped off the streets of your own country, with no lawyer or even hope of getting in touch with one. Then tell me how amazing the Patriot Act is. It's unconstitutional plain and simple, I don't care how scared of terrorism you are.

There are plenty of idiots out there planning a multitude of idiotic things, but that doesn't justify throwing people's rights out the window.

[poaw]

Back to guns. I really don't think it's a big deal for a person to own a handgun or anything they can use to hunt or for sport. But why do people need to own personal arms depots filled with enough firepower to kill a few hundred people. I understand the rising up against Tyranny argument, but give me a break, people have torn down nations with rocks and their bare hands. The Government is always going to be better armed. I find an arms race against subjugation to be kind of a flawed argument.

An personal arms depot isn't any more of a threat than a single firearm. Unless he's some kind of Hindu God of Destruction he can't kill hundreds of people at once any more than a man who owns 25 cars can cause a 25 car pile-up on his own. The reasoning behind resisting law governing the number of guns would be the same as if they said someone was only allowed to print one newspaper a week or vote once every 4 years. When else do people say, "I'm fine with you exercising your rights, just as long as you don't exercise your rights TOO MUCH."?

[Grim]

Try spending a few years locked in a box too small to even lay down straight in, in a foreign country where you have no rights, basically kidnapped off the streets of your own country, with no lawyer or even hope of getting in touch with one. Then tell me how amazing the Patriot Act is. It's unconstitutional plain and simple, I don't care how scared of terrorism you are.

There are plenty of idiots out there planning a multitude of idiotic things, but that doesn't justify throwing people's rights out the window.

Our government isn't perfect, but I still think that when they lock someone up in a dark hole its for a reason. For better or worse we are at war, there are people trying to hurt us, and since they have the best available info and some pretty bright guys I trust them to make the best possible decisions.

[true]

See? I was right about internet badassery, every gun discussion inevitably goes to that and every weapon related forum is full of this shit. At the second page they also go all "FUCK YEAH" socially concerned (in internets at least). Soon it will be reduced to alpha, dps, armor penetration, stopping power, accuracy etc like these factors make any difference IRL.
Fucking xbox generation you faggots are dumbshit pathetic.

[Tyrael]

Guilty until proven innocent is best for the system but I accept that

+1 for Zinn!

[Barry Zuckerkorn]

See? I was right about internet badassery, every gun discussion inevitably goes to that and every weapon related forum is full of this shit. At the second page they also go all "FUCK YEAH" socially concerned (in internets at least). Soon it will be reduced to alpha, dps, armor penetration, stopping power, accuracy etc like these factors make any difference IRL.
Fucking xbox generation you faggots are dumbshit pathetic.

You are correct. This thread has cemented that fact and has shown that everyone who posted in this thread with a valid opinion or otherwise is infact a internet tough guy and is a "fucking xbox generation and is a faggot are dumbshit pathetic". Of the topics you listed that this thread will soon be reduced to, I would like to cover 'alpha'. How much alpha strike do you guys think an Call of Duty Ak 74 with ultimate killstreakes upgrade with stopping powah has? Add me on xbox 360 true, my handel is XxXeLiTeXxXSniperXxXSk8boderXxXGottacatchemallXxXP r0XxX420XxX

[Sezja]

It goes back to the American Revolution, where a heavily armed populace was able to hold off a moderately sized army in control of the countryside.

I don't think its possible to replicate that today. Modern military equipment is above and beyond what private citizens can afford to purchase and maintain.

Without the heavy firepower you would see the same thing that happened early on in Libya. Automatic weapons are a poor subsitute for artillery and heavy armor.

The only real way to prevent tyranny is the checks and balances the US government has, and they do work (most of the time).

How I see the Second Amendment preserving the ability to go "ok time for a redo on the government thing" in this day and age is an armed american populace semi-organized and armed in revolt will get what they want changed or need to be dealt with. And that's where I'm perhaps foolishly banking on our army of volunteers to remember who they truly serve and protect. I think most pick family and community over the people that have had them playing in the sandbox the past decade.

[Vinata]

Try spending a few years locked in a box too small to even lay down straight in, in a foreign country where you have no rights...with no lawyer or even hope of getting in touch with one.

No thanks, I just got back from Iran!

[somedude76]

America has a long history of overreacting to outside threats. The Patriot Act, Mcarthyism,......

I know it's not a popular opinion but if you look into the Venona Project(top secret CIA and NSA project) you might think differently about "McCarthyism". I do after having read more about McCarthy and the Venona Project. The term McCarthyism is a bull shit buzz word in my opinion. It's a simplified and stupid term used to down play the reality of soviet communists espionage. McCarthy didn't earn/deserve the credit for the overreaction to Soviet espionage IMO.

People should just call it the "Red Scare" as it should be.

But, I digress.

[Scroobius Pip]

I've seen Red Dawn never forget, oh wait.....

[Lysander]

An personal arms depot isn't any more of a threat than a single firearm. Unless he's some kind of Hindu God of Destruction he can't kill hundreds of people at once any more than a man who owns 25 cars can cause a 25 car pile-up on his own. The reasoning behind resisting law governing the number of guns would be the same as if they said someone was only allowed to print one newspaper a week or vote once every 4 years. When else do people say, "I'm fine with you exercising your rights, just as long as you don't exercise your rights TOO MUCH."?

Why do you need a personal arms depot? That's the real question. If you want one because you think guns are awesome and you've collected since you were young I can understand that. Any other reason is kind of ridiculous.

The difference between a high powered car and an automatic weapon is that the car is designed to go fast, with the possibility of killing people. The automatic weapon is designed to kill people as efficiently as possible, without any real second function, aside from being pretty cool to fire at something. Again, I'm not against people being able to own guns, i'm not even against automatics necessarily. But I think that in most cases owning personal arms depot is indicative of a certain type of me-against-them attitude, excluding the case of the dude's who just love guns because they're loud and awesome (I'm not dogging that, I don't think its an invalid reason to own some guns). But most people who own enough firearms to arm a moderate sized militia are planning, or dreaming of doing exactly that.

The scary thing is that they are free to identify who the Tyrannical Enemy in need of being Overthrown is. And their personal stockpile of AKs, hand grenades and etc... are capable of killing more people than their collective automobiles. A single trained person can do tremendous damage with an automatic weapon, look at Norway.

It's not a matter of rights being exercised "TOO MUCH". I don't think it's people's right to prepare to do battle with the Anti-christ (who they are free to identify as anyone they don't like) on the streets of a populated city, nor is it their right to prepare to fight and kill DEA/FBI/ATF agents. Anymore than it should be my right to plan and acquire the goods to smash an airplane into a skyscraper. I'm not saying take away people's rights to be armed, anymore than you would take away someone's right to own and fly an airplane. But we don't let just anyone fly a commercial jet, I don't think we should make it easy for a private citizen to own a piece of military hardware. That doesn't mean I think no one should own one, it just means we should know a little about said person's mental state before we let them purchase one.

[Atticus]

An personal arms depot isn't any more of a threat than a single firearm. Unless he's some kind of Hindu God of Destruction he can't kill hundreds of people at once any more than a man who owns 25 cars can cause a 25 car pile-up on his own. The reasoning behind resisting law governing the number of guns would be the same as if they said someone was only allowed to print one newspaper a week or vote once every 4 years. When else do people say, "I'm fine with you exercising your rights, just as long as you don't exercise your rights TOO MUCH."?

You don't have an inalienable right to own enough weapons to start your own little revolution.

Personal freedom lasts only so far until your personal freedom endangers collective rights. I shouldn't have to worry walking down the street that someone is going to pull out a street sweeper and gun everyone down for the sake of yoru personal freedom. There are limits to freedom. This is why we have laws to prevent everyone going on vendettas against each other.

[Grim]

There are limits to freedom. This is why we have laws to prevent everyone going on vendettas against each other.

Bring back duels. We could use more people like Aaron Burr.

[Atticus]

Bring back duels. We could use more people like Aaron Burr.

Bring back more people like Draco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(lawgiver)

[Manfred Hideous]

You don't have an inalienable right to own enough weapons to start your own little revolution.

Personal freedom lasts only so far until your personal freedom endangers collective rights. I shouldn't have to worry walking down the street that someone is going to pull out a street sweeper and gun everyone down for the sake of yoru personal freedom. There are limits to freedom. This is why we have laws to prevent everyone going on vendettas against each other.

Are you saying that your rights are being violated because you *worry*?

So long at that gun nut doesn't turn to doing illegal things, he simply hasn't violated your rights or the "collective" rights you mentioned. Laws don't prevent shit, mate. They only provide for consequences and discourage the fence sitters from stealing or hurting. Anyone willing to pay or ignore the consequences is free to do so and no law will stop them.

The law and cops can't do a thing to help you but they can put away the guy who kills you.

That's it; I'm buying a second pistol. I never realized the trolling potential of owning more than my ambiguously defined fair share of weapons. Then again, My neighbors are likely to wonder why I only own two.

Not yet, I work with some gun nuts, so I will go to the range with them somtime soon and try what they have. Plus, I want a permit before I buy the gun, but since I live in Florida I just need to fill out some form and its automatically approved.

On that note, what are the gun laws like where you guys live, since they change on a state to state basis? I know that a permit in Florida is good in about 30 other states, but is it the same for you guys?

Some stores will let you rend one of their house pistols to get a feel for them.

[Atticus]

Are you saying that your rights are being violated because you *worry*?

So long at that gun nut doesn't turn to doing illegal things, he simply hasn't violated your rights or the "collective" rights you mentioned. Laws don't prevent shit, mate. They only provide for consequences and discourage the fence sitters from stealing or hurting. Anyone willing to pay or ignore the consequences is free to do so and no law will stop them.

The law and cops can't do a thing to help you but they can put away the guy who kills you.

That's it; I'm buying a second pistol. I never realized the trolling potential of owning more than my ambiguously defined fair share of weapons. Then again, My neighbors are likely to wonder why I only own two.

No, I'm saying there is a line where too much personal freedom renders public security at risk. People who feel insure in their neighbourhoods (feel at risk in their community - feel need for personal protection) purchase fire arms to protect themselves. This leads to more insecurity because every one is straped and more violence occurs as a result. Therefore, a community with less guns available to it is ostensibly safer than a community with more guns available.

This argument is nil. The only reason to own a fire arm is for hunting purposes. Anything else is either compensating for a small dick, 'personal protection' (which 9/10 times just causes more trouble), or personal freedom. Personal freedom argument to me is akin to me saying I should be free to do what ever I want. Well, no, we learned in kindergarden you can't always have what you want because there are limits in the world. But, I'm not going to convince anyone of this view so why bother arguing about it.

[Vinata]

The founding father's were stating it in pretty explicit terms for their time that they intended for the citizens of the nation the right to firearms. They simply lacked the benefit of knowing the future and it's language, so they didn't know to write it in language that would maintain that clarity into the present day. The meaning behind the words they wrote has actually changed in slight but important ways, for example when they say, "A well-regulated militia being necessary..." a modern reader would read it to mean a militia which was closely monitored and with regulations in place. If you asked someone who wore a tri-corner hat what regulated meant, you'd get an answer more akin to well-trained, or skilled instead of anything concerning rules or laws. Aside from that they were being pretty clear about what they intended while still keeping the amendments fairly concise.

I just noticed this while removing all of these type of posts from the other gun thread where I said not to make these types of post in that thread.

You're still ignoring the meaning of the word "militia" as it meant back then, which was a state (as in New York or North Carolina) owned semi-military composed of private citizens to be used when the state was in danger in one form or another. The federal army was another thing, with its own limit of restrictions mentioned in Article 2 (if I recall correctly). If guns are allowed for the purpose of a militia, states should be able to regulate (or even outlaw) guns which are not used for the purposes of the state militia. And if the state decides it does not need a militia (and that is something that is as necessary today as the 3rd amendment is) then the state should be allowed to make gun ownership illegal.

[Grim]

The milita issue is really complicated these days. The way I see it state militias have evolved into the current National Guard system. The government provides all their equipment (you don't need to purchase that F-22 out of pocket).

Of course there are still crazy inbred rednecks who stockpile AR-15s and go on "maneuvers" with their drinking buddies to be prepared for when Obama tries to take away the guns away. They only need the guns so the government can't take them away :

[poaw]

You don't have an inalienable right to own enough weapons to start your own little revolution.

Personal freedom lasts only so far until your personal freedom endangers collective rights. I shouldn't have to worry walking down the street that someone is going to pull out a street sweeper and gun everyone down for the sake of yoru personal freedom. There are limits to freedom. This is why we have laws to prevent everyone going on vendettas against each other.

You know, I actually do have a right to own enough weapons to start a revolution. Seriously, nothing in my local, state or national laws says anything about it.

You're not really being clear on what your concern about someone owning a large number of weapons is. A person with 1 gun is just as deadly as a person with 100. By himself he can only use one at a time and if your concern is with him arming hundreds of other like-minded individuals, shouldn't you be worrying more about the fact that there are hundreds of like-minded individuals in the first place?

I just noticed this while removing all of these type of posts from the other gun thread where I said not to make these types of post in that thread.

You're still ignoring the meaning of the word "militia" as it meant back then, which was a state (as in New York or North Carolina) owned semi-military composed of private citizens to be used when the state was in danger in one form or another. The federal army was another thing, with its own limit of restrictions mentioned in Article 2 (if I recall correctly). If guns are allowed for the purpose of a militia, states should be able to regulate (or even outlaw) guns which are not used for the purposes of the state militia. And if the state decides it does not need a militia (and that is something that is as necessary today as the 3rd amendment is) then the state should be allowed to make gun ownership illegal.

I didn't ignore the meaning of a militia (your definition is wrong btw). The Founding Fathers knew that a militia came from the ability of the private citizen to bear arms and legislated to ensure that the practice could and would continue. The militias themselves weren't "owned" by the states themselves, they were simply comprised of their citizens. Nor were they necessarily organized by state, individual towns and counties could and did raise their own militias.

"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 wording itself even specifies that it is private ownership is where a militia comes from, therefore keeping arms is a right of private citizens. I can't imagine them wording that any more clearly without the assistance of the Oracle of Delphi.

As far as the 3rd amendment being unnecessary, I would like to point out that they are only unnecessary because at some point they were necessary. For example the 13th amendment is unneeded because no one owns slaves anymore. Why doesn't anyone own slaves anymore? Because the 13th Amendment prohibits it. It's like a crazy circle where a law that's being enforced isn't needed because it prevents the crime it is intended to regulate.

When a state no longer wants to follow parts of the Constitution they have two options. First they can secede from the rest of the country. Or if cannonade within walking distance of your home and all local services isn't their thing then they can get together with the other states and formally repeal the amendment. The only problem is you have to actually have a majority of the votes instead of being some fucked up vowel state (and it takes FOREVER). It's not like repeals are unheard of, it's just they generally require pretty wide public support and a great deal of time.

The relevancy of a modern militia would be an argument for repeal of the second amendment, not grounds to ignore it.

[Vinata]

You're right, it is clearly worded. For the purposes of maintaining a militia, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means laws can be allowed to restrict non-militia related weaponry.

And the entire reason that militias were deemed necessary was because of Shay's Rebellion. The state of Massachusetts wasn't able to afford to fund a militia to counter Shay, and the other states did not feel inclined to lend their militias to a problem that wasn't theirs. The reasons behind Shay's Rebellion is also one of the reasons for the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Shay's Rebellion is also the event that caused politicians (especially Washington) to realize that the Articles of Confederation were too weak, and needed to be revised.

And the reason the 3rd Amendment isn't necessary anymore isn't because the 3rd Amendment exists and protects us. If that was true, there would never be any cases regarding the 1st or 8th amendments. The reason the 3rd Amendment was deemed necessary at the time was because British troops being stationed in houses belonging to the colonists was one of the reasons for the American Revolution. It turns out when soldiers have their own homes in the area, they don't need to be stationed in someone else's house!

If we get more into Constitutional Literalism, we can examine how the Bill of Rights applies to the States and not to the people (who were protected by the Bill of Rights of their states). The Federal Government does not have the right to remove arms from the states, but the states do have the right to get rid of arms in their borders. However that interpretation of the Constitution was lost around the time of the Civil War (Who knows why?!) and most people now balk at the idea of it. It was believed in by the Founders, as evidenced by the 9th and 10th amendments.

[Manfred Hideous]

This argument is nil. The only reason to own a fire arm is for hunting purposes. Anything else is either compensating for a small dick, 'personal protection' (which 9/10 times just causes more trouble), or personal freedom. Personal freedom argument to me is akin to me saying I should be free to do what ever I want. Well, no, we learned in kindergarden you can't always have what you want because there are limits in the world. But, I'm not going to convince anyone of this view so why bother arguing about it.

9/10 of the time? perhaps you can back that up with comparitive stats of valid uses vs fuck-ups as a percentage of total users and then compare them to run of the mill stuff like cars?

I get it. you don't *like* guns, therefore you feel threatened by these malignant tools in your life. The constitution is largely a document that was meant to protect individual freedoms from an abusive over-powered ruling class that is guaranteed by presence of guns and a press able to fire up the gun owners. It is no accident that the constitution spends so much time on telling the government what it cannot do vs what it can do.

I don't think anything near a majority of gun owners bought for the express reason of protecting themselves from a dangerous community. I daresay that the people in dangerous communities are LESS likely to purchase a gun (or to live where owning one is common or legal) and that communities with a higher percentage of guns are actually safer. I can't prove this but I've lived in both types of neighborhoods and the places I lived where I knew guns were present tended to be quite (and distand suburban or rural) places.

My boys have all of their shooting merit badges. They are competent, safe, and understanding of both the dangers and responsibilities of ownership. I would bet dollars to doughnuts they're a lot less likely to fuck up their lives via a gun than some dumbass in a city who bought a stolen one from a drug dealing fence. They don't even hold them sideways.

My point is they are comfortable and responsible and not at all threatened in their community. Both will own guns later in life and I am reasonably sure they (and the millions of average owners) aren't buying out of fear.

As for the compensation bullshit; that's a clear indication of your own lower self esteem or fear of your manhood than of gun owners. I hear that compensation shit from hipsters all the time when I discuss something like this. Be it my bike, truck, guns, or predilection for loose women, there's always some neurotic hipster there to remind me it's because I have a small dick.

Project much, homie?

I just noticed this while removing all of these type of posts from the other gun thread where I said not to make these types of post in that thread.

You're still ignoring the meaning of the word "militia" as it meant back then, which was a state (as in New York or North Carolina) owned semi-military composed of private citizens to be used when the state was in danger in one form or another. The federal army was another thing, with its own limit of restrictions mentioned in Article 2 (if I recall correctly). If guns are allowed for the purpose of a militia, states should be able to regulate (or even outlaw) guns which are not used for the purposes of the state militia. And if the state decides it does not need a militia (and that is something that is as necessary today as the 3rd amendment is) then the state should be allowed to make gun ownership illegal.

If you really want to split hairs, the militia was any able-bodied male between fifteen and fifty(ish); Men were typically expected to supply their own weapon and training and regulation was practically non existent. The militia you painted pretty much only exists in the minds of people who want to hang on desperately to that single word without considering its context.

There is no implied collective right in the 2nd any more than the right to free speech could be considered a right only for the exercise by organized distributors of news and bitchy social gatherings.

[poaw]

And the reason the 3rd Amendment isn't necessary anymore isn't because the 3rd Amendment exists and protects us. If that was true, there would never be any cases regarding the 1st or 8th amendments. The reason the 3rd Amendment was deemed necessary at the time was because British troops being stationed in houses belonging to the colonists was one of the reasons for the American Revolution. It turns out when soldiers have their own homes in the area, they don't need to be stationed in someone else's house!

Part of the reason they have their own homes is that it's illegal for them to be housed and boarded in a private citizen's home for free. Which makes a great austerity measure if you're being cheap.

If we get more into Constitutional Literalism, we can examine how the Bill of Rights applies to the States and not to the people (who were protected by the Bill of Rights of their states). The Federal Government does not have the right to remove arms from the states, but the states do have the right to get rid of arms in their borders. However that interpretation of the Constitution was lost around the time of the Civil War (Who knows why?!) and most people now balk at the idea of it. It was believed in by the Founders, as evidenced by the 9th and 10th amendments.

It wasn't the Civil War that lead to the Constitution being applied to the states. The Supreme did it over decades, the last one I think was Gideon v Wainwright in 1963, where they ruled that the right to consul applied to state courts as well as Federal. It's not so much a literalist interpretation as it is just reading the words as they are written. They said "right of the people". Nowhere else in the constitution does the term, "the people" describe anything other than individual citizens.

I'm still confused why people attack the validity of the Constitution itself instead of working to just amend it, when they specifically allow for it.

PS and why does "you have a small dick" always end up as a counter-argument?

[true]

I'd like to add that no matter what gun you have (it's tech parameters are barely relevant out of computer games) most valuable things are:

a) wise call on when to pull it out and when to NOT pull it out. One of them costs your life
b) telling your friends, chicks, uni buddies whatnot "lewk I carry concealed gun" is dumb, no matter what fewer people are aware the better. And showing off isn't manly anyway
c) When you measured does and donts and finally made a decision to pull the weapon out make sure you are gonna fucking use it by it's purpose. Don't bother otherwise

It's shocking how many ppl obtain the gun while failing to comply with 3 common sense rules.

[Mira Z]

c) When you measured does and donts and finally made a decision to pull the weapon out make sure you are gonna fucking use it by it's purpose. Don't bother otherwise

I didn't know Anton Chekhov had a concealed carry permit.

[true]

I didn't know Anton Chekhov had a concealed carry permit.

Erwin Schrödinger however had and that's what counts.

[Night]

You're missing a number 4. Specifically, if you carry a weapon eventually you are going to attempt to use it. Hopefully when that happens somebody's life will be on the line. Possibly your own, maybe somebody else's. There will be other people around too, probably, or it's doubtful you'd have cause or chance to pull it.

Can you fire accurately under such stress? Can you even hold the gun steady? Unless you've got some proof of that, you have no business with a concealed carry permit. Otherwise you're at least as dangerous to anyone in your field of view as you are to your target.

[Barry Zuckerkorn]

I'd like to add that no matter what gun you have (it's tech parameters are barely relevant out of computer games) most valuable things are:

a) wise call on when to pull it out and when to NOT pull it out. One of them costs your life
b) telling your friends, chicks, uni buddies whatnot "lewk I carry concealed gun" is dumb, no matter what fewer people are aware the better. And showing off isn't manly anyway
c) When you measured does and donts and finally made a decision to pull the weapon out make sure you are gonna fucking use it by it's purpose. Don't bother otherwise

It's shocking how many ppl obtain the gun while failing to comply with 3 common sense rules.

So what kind of firearms do you own/conceal and carry?

[true]

So what kind of firearms do you own/conceal and carry?

:pokerface: I'll PM you when the urge to discuss that with a stranger on computer game forum kicks in.