Gun politics thread

Police and military are vastly outnumbered by civilian gun owners. Also, if it really came down to it, I very much doubt that law enforcement and military personnel would fire upon civilians or conduct door-to-door confiscation raids on a large scale.

I agree on both accounts but logistically and tactically/strategically military would most likely win. Aside from the massive difference in hardware military has training and command structure that allows it to quickly move reinforcements as needed.

We've already seen what disorganized resistance with homefield advantage and inferior weapons looks like. This is why American Indians are in reservations and Europeans rewrote African maps.

In an all out armed rebellion the only hope would be military's unwillingness to follow orders to harm civilians.
 
I agree on both accounts but logistically and tactically/strategically military would most likely win. Aside from the massive difference in hardware military has training and command structure that allows it to quickly move reinforcements as needed.

We've already seen what disorganized resistance with homefield advantage and inferior weapons looks like. This is why American Indians are in reservations and Europeans rewrote African maps.

In an all out armed rebellion the only hope would be military's unwillingness to follow orders to harm civilians.
"Give me liberty or give me death."
 
There is an assumption here that police and military will kindly follow orders to drop bombs on US Suburbia. While some will, entire battalions will refuse and may actually take up arms against units that do engage in hostilities. Even at the police level, I know officers who have stated that they will turn in their badge before participating in a confiscation.

In short, it would be very messy, and that mess is enough of a deterrent to make leaders have to seriously consider a second civil war. Even if the government wins this hypothetical conflict, the damage to the US would be irreparable. As many are fond of saying, the Second Amendment guarantees the rest.
 
My point was to stress exactly the hypothetical nature of this very, very distant potential scenario. You are all right to point out that it was a realistic fear in 1776, and all I am trying to say is that it hasn't been one for more than a century.

The militia is the populous and part of the security is to protect the people from the government. Remember, the framers of the Constitution just finished fighting a rebellion against an oppressive state, they were just as wary of enemies from within as they were from enemies abroad.

Also, the people had arms equal to or in many cases superior to the standing army. Even private warships were a common sight. Today the AR-15 and similar semiautomatic rifles are far outmatched by our advanced military, but that is not a reason to strip rights from the people. You could just as easily say that the White House Press Office has a louder voice than any individual, so they no longer have a right to speech.

Edit: If you don't think some under-equipped and dedicated people fighting an asymmetrical war are a match for a well armed modern force, take a look at Vietnam, Afghanistan (Russia and US), Iraq, and, oh yeah, the American Revolution. Even with all our drones, satellites, sensors, aircraft, and state of the art weapons, we still were not able to defeat the Taliban. Russia couldn't do it either We lost Vietnam for the same reasons.

It wasn't that long ago that shooting was an actually class in public school and we still have the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

Like I told Lev, I respect your right and desire to own guns for personal protection, as a hobby, or for hunting. What I don't understand are the people who claim that there is a government plot to take your guns away so that they can start an oppressive revolution/dictatorship. In the context of the United States political and public sphere, I find that extremely unlikely.

You may dislike and criticize the U.S. government, but I don't think anyone can sustain a realistic argument that there are evil forces within it that seek to kill/enslave/harm their own constituents.
 
Gun politics thread

There is an assumption here that police and military will kindly follow orders to drop bombs on US Suburbia. While some will, entire battalions will refuse and may actually take up arms against units that do engage in hostilities. Even at the police level, I know officers who have stated that they will turn in their badge before participating in a confiscation.

In short, it would be very messy, and that mess is enough of a deterrent to make leaders have to seriously consider a second civil war. Even if the government wins this hypothetical conflict, the damage to the US would be irreparable. As many are fond of saying, the Second Amendment guarantees the rest.

Like I stated, I was talking from a purely military standpoint not moral. As I said somewhere upthread it's not really necessary to make this an armed conflict in the first place, simply chip away at rights until none are left.

EDIT: Though no one stood up for the Japanese during WWII and military/police didn't see have problems with ripping people out of their homes.
 
Last edited:
You are all right to point out that it was a realistic fear in 1776, and all I am trying to say is that it hasn't been one for more than a century.
History repeats itself and that "fear" might once again become realistic some day.


What I don't understand are the people who claim that there is a government plot to take your guns away...
No, no, of course no one wants to take our guns away. They just want to take away full-autos, suppressors, "assault weapons", semi-autos, short rifles and shotguns, standard capacity magazines, and maybe implementat the Australian confiscation model. Clearly no one is coming for our guns. Molon labe!


...I don't think anyone can sustain a realistic argument that there are evil forces within it that seek to kill/enslave/harm their own constituents.
You do realize that Hillary Clinton is running for president, right?

- - - Updated - - -

EDIT: Though no one stood up for the Japanese during WWII and military/police didn't see have problems with ripping people out of their homes.
I'd be shooting. I'm never getting on the back of a truck.
 
History repeats itself and that "fear" might once again become realistic some day.

Which takes us back to your original comment about bayonets and fear-mongering. I would call this fear-mongering - that some day, there is a remote possibility of an oppressive government.

No, no, of course no one wants to take our guns away. They just want to take away full-autos, suppressors, "assault weapons", semi-autos, short rifles and shotguns, standard capacity magazines, and maybe implementat the Australian confiscation model. Clearly no one is coming for our guns. Molon labe!

Bolded your slippery slope there. No one has suggested a confiscation model here.

As for the rest, I will grant you this - I have heard people support an assault weapons ban, and I'm not convinced by it. I think stricter application/background check process is the better way to go, especially when you are trying to buy...let's call it a "premium" gun. But they shouldn't be banned altogether.

In any case, even if they were to ban some of these classes, it is not the equivalent of taking your guns away. They would just regulate the types of guns you can own. You can absolutely have a problem with that, and you can argue against it, but don't say it's "taking our guns" because it will be inaccurate and once again, fear-mongering.

You do realize that Hillary Clinton is running for president, right?

Ok, I'll try this again. I understand you don't like her. I don't like her either. You can call her incompetent, you can call her irresponsible, you can say she is wrong, you can say that she is corrupt. All would be valid points. But why would she want kill/harm/enslave citizens? What would she gain, or what would the Democrats gain from that? Do you really believe they have an evil agenda?

She can be a lot of things, but I don't think she has an evil plan to destroy us. Just as we agreed previously that a Trump presidency wouldn't lead to a total ruination of the nation, I think the same goes for Clinton. (and straying a little more off-topic, I still think that Clinton is more on the incompetent/clueless side, but Trump is actually malicious with his ideas of restricting the freedom of the press and banning Muslims).
 
But why would she want kill/harm/enslave citizens? What would she gain, or what would the Democrats gain from that? Do you really believe they have an evil agenda?
That fear of anything considered (or considering itself) "left" might be a result of having one's roots in the former Soviet Union.
 
Which takes us back to your original comment about bayonets and fear-mongering. I would call this fear-mongering - that some day, there is a remote possibility of an oppressive government.
I disagree because the latter is a repeated historical phenomenon, the mention of which is used to defend a right. The former, on the other hand, is a comment about an obsolete tool that is falsely portrayed as a legitimate modern-day concern in order to trigger an emotional response.


Bolded your slippery slope there. No one has suggested a confiscation model here.
A number of politicians, including Obama and Clinton, have praised the Australian model of gun control and suggested that the same be instituted in the United States. The Australian model actually is forced confiscation.


As for the rest, I will grant you this - I have heard people support an assault weapons ban, and I'm not convinced by it. I think stricter application/background check process is the better way to go, especially when you are trying to buy...let's call it a "premium" gun. But they shouldn't be banned altogether.
See, this is at least a somewhat reasonable defensible argument. On the other hand, the "hurr durr that rifle looks evil" argument is painfully stupid and ignorant.


In any case, even if they were to ban some of these classes, it is not the equivalent of taking your guns away. They would just regulate the types of guns you can own.
A severe restricted liberty is no liberty at all. You can't really make the argument that "regulation of the types of guns I can own", which is another way of saying banning certain types of firearms, isn't essentially "taking guns away".
 
I'd be shooting. I'm never getting on the back of a truck.
I'm sure you would be, but that's not really the point. Thousands (millions?) of Japanese-American citizens were rounded up and put into interment camps by a Democrat president no less and with full support of the rest of the country. Or hell think back to Katrina, tons of guns were confiscated for literally no reason, don't remember any kind of shooting from the owners.

I understand your spirit but I fear that it is basically dead anywhere in the Western world, we are all way too comfortable in our lives and we no longer have the rebellious youth, our rebellious youth are gender fluid SJWs who want safe spaces...

- - - Updated - - -

She can be a lot of things, but I don't think she has an evil plan to destroy us. Just as we agreed previously that a Trump presidency wouldn't lead to a total ruination of the nation, I think the same goes for Clinton. (and straying a little more off-topic, I still think that Clinton is more on the incompetent/clueless side, but Trump is actually malicious with his ideas of restricting the freedom of the press and banning Muslims).
Oh there is no evil plan to harm or destroy the nation, no profit in that, however the Democratic platform is leaning more and more towards a nanny state like a lot of European countries are. They basically saw the movie "Demolition Man" and took it as an instruction manual it seems.

- - - Updated - - -

A severe restricted liberty is no liberty at all. You can't really make the argument that "regulation of the types of guns I can own", which is another way of saying banning certain types of firearms, isn't essentially "taking guns away".
That's just not realistic, any society is inherently restrictive to one's rights, it has to be in order to work. There is also a mandate on the government to reduce/mitigate damage any one person or group of persons can do. Which is why you can't buy a fully operational nuclear weapon or an M1 Abrams with full armament, possibility of damage is too great vs rights of the user. Not saying lets baninate all of the evil looking guns and only allow Nerfs or something but to say that restrictions around a right is no right is silly.

Hell try to threaten president's life and you will get investigated by the SS (heh) despite your freedom of speech.

Also regulation is not banning, you could conceivably get a Class 3 license and even run around with an honest to goodness M16 as long as you don't shoot anyone (aside from self-defense). It would be a massive pain and would cost you a ton of money but you would still have the ability to do so, because it's regulated. A fully loaded F-22 on the other hand you couldn't get no matter how much money you got, because it's banned for civilian use.
 
Last edited:
Like I keep saying, minimal regulation should exist. Except for when it comes to Constitutionally protected rights - shall not be infringed.

Society in general and government in particular generally deals with greater good for the society vs individual. Since this is guns politics thread, if we take 2A literally that would mean that anyone could have WMDs, Aircraft carriers, predator drones, etc... However no one in their right mind would suggest that be the case because a single crazy person could destroy a city. So you already agree to certain limitations to your rights.

It's like the old joke, man is sitting next to a woman at a high society dinner. On a whim he turns to the woman and goes "would you have sex with me for a million dollars?", woman thinks about that for a second and says "yes". So the man goes "what about $50?". Woman furious cries out "what kind of woman do you think I am?!" the man calmly replies "we already established the kind of woman you are, we are now simply haggling over price."

EDIT: On minimal regulations, it's kind of hard to determine what is a minimal regulation. Say financial regulations, most of them were born out of someone gaming the system in some way and causing damage. For example IIRC Enron caused the SOX act to be passed. DMCA was created in response to the ability to easily copy digital work, building codes are born out of shoddily built buildings that fell apart, etc...

You would have to be an actual expert in any given field to determine whether a specific regulation is necessary and/or well designed. (well DMCA sux but you know)

P.S. I think it's a silly deflection stating that citizens had military weapons back in the 18th century. For one they were the military, there was no standing army at the time in the colonies. For two even then those weapons were nowhere near as effective as ours. Remember not only are we like 240 years removed from that time but there were also two massive scale wars between then and now, and weapon technology progresses quickly in war time. From Independence War to WW2 biggest improvement was enclosed cartridge and gas operated reload mechanism. In the 6 years since the beginning of WW2 the biggest improvement in weapons was splitting the god damn atom.
 
Last edited:
Society in general and government in particular generally deals with greater good for the society vs individual. Since this is guns politics thread, if we take 2A literally that would mean that anyone could have WMDs, Aircraft carriers, predator drones, etc... However no one in their right mind would suggest that be the case because a single crazy person could destroy a city. So you already agree to certain limitations to your rights.
There are people that make a very convincing argument that we should have access to everything. I've had people argue that Home Depot should sell sarin gas and they brought up good points. Personally, I don't think WMDs and such are "personal" weapons, i.e. something an individual can carry and use. I also draw a distinction when it comes to being able to kill a thousands of people without them having any chance to react or defend themselves.


P.S. I think it's a silly deflection stating that citizens had military weapons back in the 18th century. For one they were the military, there was no standing army at the time in the colonies. For two even then those weapons were nowhere near as effective as ours. Remember not only are we like 240 years removed from that time but there were also two massive scale wars between then and now, and weapon technology progresses quickly in war time. From Independence War to WW2 biggest improvement was enclosed cartridge and gas operated reload mechanism. In the 6 years since the beginning of WW2 the biggest improvement in weapons was splitting the god damn atom.
Yes, but I still think that the government should fear it's people. Every politician is our servant, paid by you and me, and they need to be reminded of that from time to time.
 
There are people that make a very convincing argument that we should have access to everything. I've had people argue that Home Depot should sell sarin gas and they brought up good points. Personally, I don't think WMDs and such are "personal" weapons, i.e. something an individual can carry and use. I also draw a distinction when it comes to being able to kill a thousands of people without them having any chance to react or defend themselves.
Would love to her those arguments tbh.

Yes, but I still think that the government should fear it's people. Every politician is our servant, paid by you and me, and they need to be reminded of that from time to time.
While I agree with the sentiment, in this day and age armed citizens are not going to scare any politicians. Voting and informed citizens on the other hand...
 
Society in general and government in particular generally deals with greater good for the society vs individual. Since this is guns politics thread, if we take 2A literally that would mean that anyone could have WMDs, Aircraft carriers, predator drones, etc... However no one in their right mind would suggest that be the case because a single crazy person could destroy a city. So you already agree to certain limitations to your rights.

It's like the old joke, man is sitting next to a woman at a high society dinner. On a whim he turns to the woman and goes "would you have sex with me for a million dollars?", woman thinks about that for a second and says "yes". So the man goes "what about $50?". Woman furious cries out "what kind of woman do you think I am?!" the man calmly replies "we already established the kind of woman you are, we are now simply haggling over price."

EDIT: On minimal regulations, it's kind of hard to determine what is a minimal regulation. Say financial regulations, most of them were born out of someone gaming the system in some way and causing damage. For example IIRC Enron caused the SOX act to be passed. DMCA was created in response to the ability to easily copy digital work, building codes are born out of shoddily built buildings that fell apart, etc...

You would have to be an actual expert in any given field to determine whether a specific regulation is necessary and/or well designed. (well DMCA sux but you know)

P.S. I think it's a silly deflection stating that citizens had military weapons back in the 18th century. For one they were the military, there was no standing army at the time in the colonies. For two even then those weapons were nowhere near as effective as ours. Remember not only are we like 240 years removed from that time but there were also two massive scale wars between then and now, and weapon technology progresses quickly in war time. From Independence War to WW2 biggest improvement was enclosed cartridge and gas operated reload mechanism. In the 6 years since the beginning of WW2 the biggest improvement in weapons was splitting the god damn atom.

If we start accepting the argument that "it didn't exist like this when the Constitution was drafted" then you have no right to privacy in your home made of modern materials, no protection from search of electronic or computer-generated documents, no expectation of privacy on a person-to-person call, etc. It wasn't until recently that matters regarding the search of phones have been brought before the courts with the principle argument being that a modern smart phone is much more than a collection of numbers and contacts (an electronic address book), it contains all the personal records that used to be on paper and protected under the Constitution.

As for buying military hardware and ships, back when the Constitution was drafted private warships were actually a thing, during the American Revolution there were private warships displacing up to 600 tons and carrying more than 20 cannons. John Hancock was a well known rum runner who owned several ships outfitted run run the British blockades and evade tax collectors.

Hell yeah, I would love to own a DD class ship. How freaking awesome would it be to convert it into a full time home and simply live aboard. One of the most famous and luxurious yachts of all time, Christina O started life as a Canadian Frigate (if memory serves).
 
If we start accepting the argument that "it didn't exist like this when the Constitution was drafted" then you have no right to privacy in your home made of modern materials, no protection from search of electronic or computer-generated documents, no expectation of privacy on a person-to-person call, etc. It wasn't until recently that matters regarding the search of phones have been brought before the courts with the principle argument being that a modern smart phone is much more than a collection of numbers and contacts (an electronic address book), it contains all the personal records that used to be on paper and protected under the Constitution.
No other amendment is specific to an implement used. 2A doesn't say "All people have the freedom to protect themselves from the government". Additionally all other amendments in the Bill of Rights are essentially defensive, 2A is the only one with offensive potential.

Also your point somewhat undoes your own argument, we re-examine all other amendments and laws and whether they still apply and how.

As for buying military hardware and ships, back when the Constitution was drafted private warships were actually a thing, during the American Revolution there were private warships displacing up to 600 tons and carrying more than 20 cannons. John Hancock was a well known rum runner who owned several ships outfitted run run the British blockades and evade tax collectors.
Sure, the seas were dangerous and the governments of the time allowed privateers to arm themselves. However my point still stands, the 13 colonies did not have a standing army, the entire IW was fought by basically a "well regulated militia". Constitution also has no provisions for a standing army or national guard, the US was meant to always have a militia for protection. Also you gotta keep in mind that at the time, a crazy person with a gun couldn't do a whole lot of damage regardless of what gun he had, mainly because population was much more spread out. There were no movie theaters, or night clubs, etc...

Here is the thing, I support gun rights and I agree with the basic idea of 2A and obviously guns don't cause crime, and there are a ton of things that need to be done in order to reduce crime in the first place. However IMO the argument that "when 2A was written private citizens had military guns" is a losing one. For one there is a very clear technological gap, for two like I said there was no army at the time so by definition anything that Washington's men carried would be a military weapon. It's kind of like saying that since there were no speed limits in the 18th century we should completely get rid of them even on surface streets. It's a non-argument, times changed, technology changed, hell even social norms changed. Honestly I feel that this is an argument that is used when one runs out of all others.

Hell yeah, I would love to own a DD class ship. How freaking awesome would it be to convert it into a full time home and simply live aboard. One of the most famous and luxurious yachts of all time, Christina O started life as a Canadian Frigate (if memory serves).
Pretty sure you can once they remove armament and the special software that runs all the military stuff, kind of like you can own tanks and even drive them around as long as the cannon is deactivated. I mean I doubt you could afford the thing ;)
 
Last edited:
No other amendment is specific to an implement used. 2A doesn't say "All people have the freedom to protect themselves from the government".
No but it says "shall not be infringed". To paraphrase: government, you do not have the authority to infringe on the people's natural right to keep and bear arms.


Additionally all other amendments in the Bill of Rights are essentially defensive, 2A is the only one with offensive potential.
A) why does that matter in the slightest?
B) How is the 2A not purely defensive?


...we re-examine all other amendments and laws and whether they still apply and how.
We do no such thing. The Constitution absolutely applies - every single one of our laws is based on it.


Sure, the seas were dangerous and the governments of the time allowed privateers to arm themselves.
There's the issue - government shouldn't be in a position to "allow" anything. Remember, it governs by our concent.


However my point still stands, the 13 colonies did not have a standing army, the entire IW was fought by basically a "well regulated militia".
It was a revolution, of course it didn't have a standing army!


Constitution also has no provisions for a standing army or national guard, the US was meant to always have a militia for protection.
Incorrect. Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have the power to [...] provide for the Common Defense [and to] declare war [and to] raise and support Armies [and to] provide and maintain a Navy


Here is the thing, I support gun rights and I agree with the basic idea of 2A...
Lately it really sounds like you don't.


...there are a ton of things that need to be done in order to reduce crime in the first place.
Violent crime has been dropping for 25 years straight.
 
No but it says "shall not be infringed". To paraphrase: government, you do not have the authority to infringe on the people's natural right to keep and bear arms.
But it is already infringed, if there is a single type of weapon you are not allowed to have your right is infringed.
A) why does that matter in the slightest?
Possibility of public impact. Ability to not be searched without a reason (e.g.) does not directly harm anyone.

B) How is the 2A not purely defensive?
Because you can't kill people with a tweet? (well directly, indirectly sure) or with ability to not have the army in your house. 2A is the only amendment that allows you to have offensive capability. (and was designed that way)

We do no such thing. The Constitution absolutely applies - every single one of our laws is based on it.
It can be amended, and is all the time. The laws are also examined and re-examined to see if they apply to specific technology. Example: metadata collection, not strictly against 4A

There's the issue - government shouldn't be in a position to "allow" anything. Remember, it governs by our concent.
And communism should be the absolute best form of government that allows for the greatest self-expression and personal fulfillment. In reality the government *is* in the position to "allow" things.

It was a revolution, of course it didn't have a standing army!
Not the point, point is that the argument is misleading and disingenuous.

Incorrect. Article I, Section 8:
I sit corrected

Lately it really sounds like you don't.
How so? I would not support any ban or any silly laws that concentrate on how "riced out" a gun is. I would support actual intelligent legislation that concentrates on a function of the weapon (as we already do) and that has built in metrics and expiration dates.

Violent crime has been dropping for 25 years straight.

And yet still higher than other western countries. Or do you honestly believe that there are literally no changes needed in how we treat certain communities and criminals? Not talking about guns specifically but changes to LE in general.
 
Top