The Big Gun Control Thread

Jonman wrote:
TigerBill wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Question the second: If the intent of this militia that you're a part of is to defend yourself against the US military on a man-to-man level, why aren't you petitioning your Congressman for your right to own anti-air weapons? A militia without that ain't worth squat against the air power of the Air Force.

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, you don't need an air force to inflict damage to a superior force.

Yeah, the Iraqi and Afghan forces totally won those conflicts, didn't they?

EDIT - and they lost those conflicts armed with a helluva lot bigger hardware than AR-15s.

It's a poor comparison to make because the federal government would not back away from attacking a home-grown army of Second Amendmenters because they got their noses bloody. It would be exceptionally bloody and brutal affair and the side with tanks and bombers would have a distinct and decisive advantage.

I think North Korea has shown that only personal access to nuclear weapons will work as a preemptive defense against the US military.

ringsnort wrote:

I don't mean to play with semantics here, but I cannot imagine any scenario where I would be in active opposition to any Constitutionally legitimate LE or military force under Constitutionally lawful command. That said, the 2nd amendment absolutely had the dissuasion suppression of tyrants in mind when it was included in the Bill of Rights. Tyrants are cowards. They only prey on the defenseless.

It's not semantics. It's serious f*cking business.

That you have repeatedly and willfully ignored things that were clearly written in the Constitution gives me little confidence that you'll be accurately able to determine what is "constitutionally legitimate" or "constitutionally lawful" before whipping out your firearm and starting the next civil war.

That you have repeatedly and willfully ignored things that were clearly written in the Constitution gives me little confidence that you'll be accurately able to determine what is "constitutionally legitimate" or "constitutionally lawful" before whipping out your firearm and starting the next civil war.

Basically, I don't agree with your view, so your unstable and a threat to the country. Fairly happy knowing your argument doesn't seem to hold water.

Jonman wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:

Also, divorcing a cost benefit analysis from objective standards is sort of like saying we have to judge the utility of vaccines based on what Jenny McCarthy thinks today.

And that's exactly my point. We (on a grand societal level) are not doing that objective cost-benefit analysis. That was Seth's original point that I was in support of.

Ah, okay. I misunderstood.

MaverickDago wrote:
That you have repeatedly and willfully ignored things that were clearly written in the Constitution gives me little confidence that you'll be accurately able to determine what is "constitutionally legitimate" or "constitutionally lawful" before whipping out your firearm and starting the next civil war.

Basically, I don't agree with your view, so your unstable and a threat to the country. Fairly happy knowing your argument doesn't seem to hold water.

Speaking of statements that don't hold water...

Speaking of statements that don't hold water...

Yep, you're right, I'm off base, despite the fact that your interpretation hasn't been held up, I'm totally off.

Speaking of statements that don't hold water...

Yep, you're right, I'm off base, despite the fact that your interpretation hasn't been held up, I'm totally off.

Seth wrote:

Lightning kills way more people Than gun rampages, and we're not passing laws protecting us from lightning.

You don't have building and electrical codes in your country? The ones that prevent entire cities burning down whenever there's a thunderstorm? The kind of laws that, while not completely preventing loss of life from lightning, drastically reduce the amount of life and property damage that would otherwise occur?

Question: I'm working on my cost/benefit analysis, and I'm going to show my work, but I'm not sure how to properly weigh "Pro: So people can wage an insurgent war against our own military."

And I note yet another thread where they are euphemised as people who "don't agree with my view." While accurate, I'm afraid that doesn't quite cover it.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Question: I'm working on my cost/benefit analysis, and I'm going to show my work, but I'm not sure how to properly weigh "Pro: So people can wage an insurgent war against our own military."

I think that's the part that gets me. If you're going an analysis for hunting rifles, we know people use them to kill animals right now. It's a present benefit. Whereas with magazine-fed semiautomatic rifles, the benefit is based around some future possibility in which the nation engages in a giant civil war.

Huh its news to me that I cant hunt with my semi auto, or wage a war with my bolt action rifle.

OG_slinger wrote:
DevilStick wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Cherry picking? I'm just being a strict constitutionalist.

Bill of Rights wrote:

Amendment II

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.

I don't see anything about muskets, and it's the right of the "people" to keep and bear Arms.

Strict constitutionalism. It's part of the primarily conservative idea that meddling activist judges shouldn't solely look at the words of the Constitution and interpret them only as what a reasonable person who was living at the time they were adopted would.

Partially incorrect. Most conservatives that subscribe to "strict construction" generally call to interpret the constitution as it is written, and they do look to intent of the framers. But they do not go so far as to limit rights to 1776 vintage technology. Otherwise the First Amendment would not apply to television or the internet.

OG_slinger wrote:

In the case of the Second Amendment, "Arms" would only apply to muzzle-loading, single-shot, inaccurate muskets.

Again, you are misapplying conservative principles here.

OG_slinger wrote:

And I do see that you've completely neglected the part of about "well regulated Militias" being clearly linked to your right to keep and bear arms.

Nope, the first clause is a statement of intent. Said another way, "it's good to have the capability to raise a trained militia, so citizens should be free to keep and carry arms."

Jonman wrote:

Question the second: If the intent of this militia that you're a part of is to defend yourself against the US military on a man-to-man level, why aren't you petitioning your Congressman for your right to own anti-air weapons? A militia without that ain't worth squat against the air power of the Air Force.

Even constitutional rights have limits. The First Amendment does not protect you from yelling "Fire" in a theater, and I don't see a court holding that the Second Amendment enables a citizen to buy a tank or anti-aircraft gun.

Multra wrote:

Huh its news to me that I cant hunt with my semi auto, or wage a war with my bolt action rifle.

I can fly to Florida in my F-16, but I can use a different, less lethal aircraft instead for the same purpose. I don't lose anything if a law prohibits me owning an F-16. Also, nothing in the bill would prevent you from waging war with your bolt action rifle.

OG_slinger wrote:
ringsnort wrote:

I don't mean to play with semantics here, but I cannot imagine any scenario where I would be in active opposition to any Constitutionally legitimate LE or military force under Constitutionally lawful command. That said, the 2nd amendment absolutely had the dissuasion suppression of tyrants in mind when it was included in the Bill of Rights. Tyrants are cowards. They only prey on the defenseless.

It's not semantics. It's serious f*cking business.

That you have repeatedly and willfully ignored things that were clearly written in the Constitution gives me little confidence that you'll be accurately able to determine what is "constitutionally legitimate" or "constitutionally lawful" before whipping out your firearm and starting the next civil war.

Considering this was my second post ever to this thread, I can only assume you either confused me with someone else or your understanding of the word "repeatedly" may need some work.

DevilStick wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Question the second: If the intent of this militia that you're a part of is to defend yourself against the US military on a man-to-man level, why aren't you petitioning your Congressman for your right to own anti-air weapons? A militia without that ain't worth squat against the air power of the Air Force.

Even constitutional rights have limits. The First Amendment does not protect you from yelling "Fire" in a theater, and I don't see a court holding that the Second Amendment enables a citizen to buy a tank or anti-aircraft gun.

Sure, but that is kind of Jonman's point, I think. At the risk of repeating myself:

Here's the thing.

If you believe that the case for gun ownership is somehow tied to its utility as a deterrent to tyranny, then you should favor nuclear weapons being accessible by private citizens.

Because really, that's the level of armament that we're talking about to deter a determined government that possesses nukes.

If you don't believe that private citizens should possess nuclear weapons, congratulations - you support gun control. (Though it's possible we disagree on where that line should be drawn, among other particulars).

Jonman wrote:
manta173 wrote:

I actually have one of those and do consider myself part of the militia. I think that the purpose of this part of the bill was to make sure we could literally defend ourselves from the US military on a man to man level which requires equivalent equipment. This means that we are woefully under equipped in general. I don't really have room for a tank though... so I don't plan to get one.

So I don't see your point. I take it as my responsibility that I know how to use a firearm properly. I wish everyone did. I consider it more important than paying taxes or having car insurance. (I do both of those as well.)

Question the first: How well regulated, on a scale of 1 to 10, is the militia you consider yourself a part of, and does that qualify as well-regulated enough to be covered by the 2nd Amendment in your book?

Question the second: If the intent of this militia that you're a part of is to defend yourself against the US military on a man-to-man level, why aren't you petitioning your Congressman for your right to own anti-air weapons? A militia without that ain't worth squat against the air power of the Air Force.

1) I am very well regulated thanks to a wide number of gun laws out there.

2) I am better trained and more capable than almost any person that has been drafted in our country's history. (I know all volunteer army, but if the sh*t hits the fan and the military is marching on the citizens then they need a lot more people than they have.) If you know the history of the civil war and understand the make up of the US military I think that us poorly armed citizens will be able to do a lot of damage to morale and there will be a significant defection rate if the military is used against the people. Therefore I think I have a good chance at influencing any conflict with the government.

Funkenpants wrote:
Multra wrote:

Huh its news to me that I cant hunt with my semi auto, or wage a war with my bolt action rifle.

I can fly to Florida in my F-16, but I can use a different, less lethal aircraft instead for the same purpose. I don't lose anything if a law prohibits me owning an F-16. Also, nothing in the bill would prevent you from waging war with your bolt action rifle.

How is an F-16 lethal? It's no more lethal than any other plane it is just faster and more capable at carrying weapons. A humvee isn't lethal is it?

Also I can drive a VW bug or a camero and the government has no right to tell me which one I should drive.

manta173 wrote:

How is an F-16 lethal? It's no more lethal than any other plane it is just faster and more capable at carrying weapons.

Hmm, I think you answered your own question there. Being able to carry missiles, a gun, and bombs has a lot to do with increasing an aircraft's lethality.

A Cessna Citation X business jet will get you down to Florida at nearly the speed of sound. It's a very fast jet. You won't be able to bomb anyone with it, or shoot down another airplane, but giving up that capability seems like a no sacrifice if all you want to do is fly to Florida.

manta173 wrote:

Also I can drive a VW bug or a camero and the government has no right to tell me which one I should drive.

But the government can impose very strict rules on the operation of vehicles, including setting different rules for the operation of different types of vehicles. You can't argue that because you have a license to drive a Camaro on the highway, the government has to allow you to drive a tank there, too.

I think as long as the tank is not hurting anyone or damaging the road then I should be allowed to drive it down the road.

An F-16 in and of itself is not lethal. It is a plane...

manta173 wrote:

I think as long as the tank is not hurting anyone or damaging the road then I should be allowed to drive it down the road.

An F-16 in and of itself is not lethal. It is a plane...

A Boeing 757 can be pretty lethal, even without armaments.

I spent an afternoon several years back with friends riding around in and on a freshly imported, Eastern Bloc used, Soviet era T-34 tank. The tank's turret and gun were in place but the weapon's breach had been cut to render it non-operational. It was a fun day, and more than a little educational. Given how the interior reeked of fuel while driving, it made one truly appreciate the bravery of Soviet tankers during the Great Patriotic War. If the Germans didn't kill you, the Soviet equipment would.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
DevilStick wrote:
Jonman wrote:

Question the second: If the intent of this militia that you're a part of is to defend yourself against the US military on a man-to-man level, why aren't you petitioning your Congressman for your right to own anti-air weapons? A militia without that ain't worth squat against the air power of the Air Force.

Even constitutional rights have limits. The First Amendment does not protect you from yelling "Fire" in a theater, and I don't see a court holding that the Second Amendment enables a citizen to buy a tank or anti-aircraft gun.

Sure, but that is kind of Jonman's point, I think. At the risk of repeating myself:

Here's the thing.

If you believe that the case for gun ownership is somehow tied to its utility as a deterrent to tyranny, then you should favor nuclear weapons being accessible by private citizens.

I think more pro-gun rights people view self-defense, hunting and developing markmanship as strong components of the case for gun rights. I don't share the view that belief in a need for a "deterrent to tyranny" means one "should favor nuclear weapons being accessible by private citizens". It's perfectly rational for a Second Amendment advocate to draw the line at nukes, tanks and F-16s, just as no First Amendment advocate would argue they should be able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Because really, that's the level of armament that we're talking about to deter a determined government that possesses nukes.

If you don't believe that private citizens should possess nuclear weapons, congratulations - you support gun control. (Though it's possible we disagree on where that line should be drawn, among other particulars).

Access to nuclear weapons isn't protected by the Second Amendment in the first place, so this line of argument doesn't really hold water. A more rational argument would be to say that you support some form of gun control if you support increased background checks. That seems to be where you are going here.

I would agree that self-defense, hunting and developing markmanship do not necessitate one supporting access to nuclear weapons.

However, if you're making the case that the second Amendment is about a deterrent to tyranny, you kind of do need to accept that being the boundary.

Because a determined government that possesses nukes and modern military hardware will destroy even folks who are "better trained and more capable than almost any person that has been drafted in our country's history" if they don't have comparable firepower.

I don't buy comparisons to the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of the potential of less well-armed insurrectionists to stymie the US military. Their goal is to make it expensive enough (in blood and money) that the public demands their soldiers come back from over there. In an insurrection, there's no over there to come back from.

Maybe we need another thread for talking through how many militia super-soldiers it would take to be able to fight off the US military in the event of a domestic insurrection?

Dimmerswitch wrote:

However, if you're making the case that the second Amendment is about a deterrent to tyranny, you kind of do need to accept that being the boundary.

Agreed, though I will point out that a tyrant is more likely to use drones, tanks, F-16s and (to a lesser extent) chemical weapons rather than nukes to suppress a population. Unless the tyrant is on another continent, nukes may impact the tyrant as well (in an insurrection scenario).

manta173 wrote:
Jonman wrote:
manta173 wrote:

I actually have one of those and do consider myself part of the militia. I think that the purpose of this part of the bill was to make sure we could literally defend ourselves from the US military on a man to man level which requires equivalent equipment. This means that we are woefully under equipped in general. I don't really have room for a tank though... so I don't plan to get one.

So I don't see your point. I take it as my responsibility that I know how to use a firearm properly. I wish everyone did. I consider it more important than paying taxes or having car insurance. (I do both of those as well.)

Question the first: How well regulated, on a scale of 1 to 10, is the militia you consider yourself a part of, and does that qualify as well-regulated enough to be covered by the 2nd Amendment in your book?

Question the second: If the intent of this militia that you're a part of is to defend yourself against the US military on a man-to-man level, why aren't you petitioning your Congressman for your right to own anti-air weapons? A militia without that ain't worth squat against the air power of the Air Force.

1) I am very well regulated thanks to a wide number of gun laws out there.

2) I am better trained and more capable than almost any person that has been drafted in our country's history. (I know all volunteer army, but if the sh*t hits the fan and the military is marching on the citizens then they need a lot more people than they have.) If you know the history of the civil war and understand the make up of the US military I think that us poorly armed citizens will be able to do a lot of damage to morale and there will be a significant defection rate if the military is used against the people. Therefore I think I have a good chance at influencing any conflict with the government.

Funkenpants wrote:
Multra wrote:

Huh its news to me that I cant hunt with my semi auto, or wage a war with my bolt action rifle.

I can fly to Florida in my F-16, but I can use a different, less lethal aircraft instead for the same purpose. I don't lose anything if a law prohibits me owning an F-16. Also, nothing in the bill would prevent you from waging war with your bolt action rifle.

How is an F-16 lethal? It's no more lethal than any other plane it is just faster and more capable at carrying weapons. A humvee isn't lethal is it?

Also I can drive a VW bug or a camero and the government has no right to tell me which one I should drive.

Points 1 and 2 are so patently ridiculous that it is difficult for me to determine if you are trolling.

DevilStick wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

However, if you're making the case that the second Amendment is about a deterrent to tyranny, you kind of do need to accept that being the boundary.

Agreed, though I will point out that a tyrant is more likely to use drones, tanks, F-16s and (to a lesser extent) chemical weapons rather than nukes to suppress a population. Unless the tyrant is on another continent, nukes may impact the tyrant as well (in an insurrection scenario).

That is a totally fair point. I'll admit to using nukes as an ad-absurdam prop to make a larger point about how the kinds of weapons even the most wild-eyed zealot is arguing for would be useless in the sort of insurrectionist fantasy some folks feel is the point of the the second Amendment.

Much more likely that the insurrection supporting 2nd amendment fans would become domestic terrorists, using bombs and gunplay to strike fear in the heart of the civilian populace.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
DevilStick wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

However, if you're making the case that the second Amendment is about a deterrent to tyranny, you kind of do need to accept that being the boundary.

Agreed, though I will point out that a tyrant is more likely to use drones, tanks, F-16s and (to a lesser extent) chemical weapons rather than nukes to suppress a population. Unless the tyrant is on another continent, nukes may impact the tyrant as well (in an insurrection scenario).

That is a totally fair point. I'll admit to using nukes as an ad-absurdam prop to make a larger point about how the kinds of weapons even the most wild-eyed zealot is arguing for would be useless in the sort of insurrectionist fantasy some folks feel is the point of the the second Amendment.

The notion that anyone expects to go toe-to-toe with an formal military, let alone the US one, is an odd idea that I've never heard from anyone but those in favor of extra regulation. Firing a few rounds at the occupying force and hiding among civilians is enough to disrupt things and prevent rule as we know it. Again, the example of guys with rifles and IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan show how hard it is to deal with a situation like that. Whatever you think of the motivation, that approach is fairly functional given the weaponry we've collectively agreed to limit ourselves to with existing laws and regulations.