Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deletedaccount1]

After a bit on Google, I came up with various figures ranging from roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of US households owning at least 1 gun.

What does it say that at least half of US households choose not to exercise their 2nd amendment rights? Pro-gun and anti-gun folks opinions on this would both be interesting.

As for me, I don't own any guns and have no plans to. Lots of reasons: too many liability issues, not sure I could use it properly in an intense situation, and my personal opinion that the 2nd amendment was a mistake. My view is that only police and soldiers (along with people of those 2 professions who have retired in good standing) should be allowed weapons.

Side note: my father (lifetime NRA member) died nearly three months ago. He knew of my opinions, and told my mother to offer his gun collection to me one last time after he died. If I still didn't want them, she was to give them to my uncle (his younger brother) who is a former Marine and currently a chemical warfare instructor for the National Guard. I told her that was fine, as this was perfectly in line with my view that soldiers are of course qualified to own weapons.

I don't know why the number of people exercising the right would matter. Virtually no one has ever needed to exercise the 3rd amendment but it still exists regardless because it makes sense as a right that people should have to be protected from the government. Also I am sorry for your loss.

[Ghostpanther]

After a bit on Google, I came up with various figures ranging from roughly 1/3 to 1/2 of US households owning at least 1 gun.

What does it say that at least half of US households choose not to exercise their 2nd amendment rights? Pro-gun and anti-gun folks opinions on this would both be interesting.

As for me, I don't own any guns and have no plans to. Lots of reasons: too many liability issues, not sure I could use it properly in an intense situation, and my personal opinion that the 2nd amendment was a mistake. My view is that only police and soldiers (along with people of those 2 professions who have retired in good standing) should be allowed weapons.

Side note: my father (lifetime NRA member) died nearly three months ago. He knew of my opinions, and told my mother to offer his gun collection to me one last time after he died. If I still didn't want them, she was to give them to my uncle (his younger brother) who is a former Marine and currently a chemical warfare instructor for the National Guard. I told her that was fine, as this was perfectly in line with my view that soldiers are of course qualified to own weapons.

Knadra gave you a excellent answer. One which I concur. It is your choice not to own a firearm or to use what ever self defense ( or none ) you want to use which is not illegal. But our choices does not mean it is the right one for others. At least you gave your father's gun collection to someone who would appreciate them. And sorry for your lost of your father.

[Berengil]

I don't know why the number of people exercising the right would matter. Virtually no one has ever needed to exercise the 3rd amendment but it still exists regardless because it makes sense as a right that people should have to be protected from the government. Also I am sorry for your loss.

Thanks for the sympathy, but dad and I weren't very close. In addition to our political disagreements, he had some very old-fashioned views on race, gay rights, religion, etc, so we severely limited the subjects we talked about.

I don't know if the number who choose not to exercise the right matters so much, I just find it interesting. I'll have to disagree with you that protection from the government is really very well accomplished by the sorts of firearms that are most common. I don't think a 30.06, a 44 magnum, or so forth would be much use against a drone or guided missile, seeing as a government oppressive enough to require armed resistance would not hesitate to employ such weapons.

Thanks again for the replies. I'm trying not to provoke a flamewar here. I've seen people on all sides of this issue work themselves to near-stroke levels of frenzy sometimes.

[Ghostpanther]

Thanks for the sympathy, but dad and i weren't very close. In addition to our political disagreements, he had some very old-fashioned views on race, gay rights, religion, etc, so we severely limited the subjects we talked about.

I don't know if the number who choose not to exercise the right matters so much, I just find it interesting. I'll have to disagree with you that protection from the government is really very well accomplished by the sorts of firearms that are most common. I don't think a 30.06, a 44 magnum, or so forth would be much use against a drone or guided missile, seeing as a government oppressive enough to require armed resistance would not hesitate to employ such weapons.

The Second Amendment in my opinion was not about just defending oneself from a oppressive government, but also ( and mainly ) for self defense from any threat which endangers us. It is a right ( to be alive and be able to pursue happiness ) which will always be needed. Such a right is actually in most civilized countries laws. It just so happens ours also involves the firearm as one of the means to accomplish that.

[Mormolyce]

I don't know why the number of people exercising the right would matter. Virtually no one has ever needed to exercise the 3rd amendment but it still exists regardless because it makes sense as a right that people should have to be protected from the government. Also I am sorry for your loss.

That's because the Third Amendment is bad law just like the Second.

[Berengil]

That's because the Third Amendment is bad law just like the Second.

Lolwhut? My house belongs to me. Government can keep soldiers in barracks, the ones my taxes help pay for.

[Ghostpanther]

That's because the Third Amendment is bad law just like the Second.

Too bad for you, that does not mean they matter any less to some others.

[Macaquerie]

That's because the Third Amendment is bad law just like the Second.

You know what is a good law though, the Eighth Amendment. But I have yet to find a self-proclaimed "originalist" speak out against waterboarding.

[Deletedaccount1]

You know what is a good law though, the Eighth Amendment. But I have yet to find a self-proclaimed "originalist" speak out against waterboarding.

You are confusing originalism with textualism. Originalism means interpreting a statute as it was interpreted when it was first enacted. So in the case of the Eight Amendment, it would be interpreted as it was in 1791. There were probably some founding fathers who thought torture as a wartime necessity is permissible.

Textualism means interpreting a statute exactly as it is is written, so torture would probably be indefensible on those grounds since it is either cruel or unusual.

[Stormdash]

That's because the Third Amendment is bad law just like the Second.

Do you mean "bad law" in a normative sense of you think it's a law that shouldn't be the law? Or are you trying and possibly failing to use the phrase "bad law" as attorneys and jurists and legal analysts might to refer to law that does not carry enforceable weight?

Because the Third Amendment is good law in both senses; unless you just think it a tragedy that the federal government can't force you to room and board its soldiers and sailors against your will?

[Mormolyce]

Do you mean "bad law" in a normative sense of you think it's a law that shouldn't be the law? Or are you trying and possibly failing to use the phrase "bad law" as attorneys and jurists and legal analysts might to refer to law that does not carry enforceable weight?

Because the Third Amendment is good law in both senses; unless you just think it a tragedy that the federal government can't force you to room and board its soldiers and sailors against your will?

Fine, they are bad law in different senses: the Third in the second and the Second in the first

Lolwhut? My house belongs to me. Government can keep soldiers in barracks, the ones my taxes help pay for.

It's an obtuse law that almost never gets employed.

Too bad for you, that does not mean they matter any less to some others.

It's not bad for me at all, my country doesn't have quadruple the homicide rate of its peers.

[TITAN308]

You know what is a good law though, the Eighth Amendment. But I have yet to find a self-proclaimed "originalist" speak out against waterboarding.

The constitution does not apply to enemy combatants.

I mean, that is the plain straight forward answer. Not sure if you'll like it or not.

The exception being is if an enemy combatant is brought to American soil.

[Ghostpanther]

It's not bad for me at all, my country doesn't have quadruple the homicide rate of its peers.

Ahh...I keep forgetting you do not live in the US. So your opinion on how bad our Constitutional laws are, matters little. You can not vote here or push for a amendment, so your statements on our Constitution are really just spouting off disapproval, which has zero impact on how we benefit from them.

[PhaelixWW]

I'll have to disagree with you that protection from the government is really very well accomplished by the sorts of firearms that are most common. I don't think a 30.06, a 44 magnum, or so forth would be much use against a drone or guided missile, seeing as a government oppressive enough to require armed resistance would not hesitate to employ such weapons.

I'm constantly surprised by how many people have such a warped view of how such an oppressive future would go. They tend to view it as the whole government and military on one side with an infinite supply of drones and tanks and an unwavering willingness to use them on civilian population, and the whole of the civilian population on the other side, with nothing but popguns.

The truth is that if the government attempted to use drones on its citizens, the military would splinter and many would fight against the government rather than for it.

[Tyrianth]

I'm constantly surprised by how many people have such a warped view of how such an oppressive future would go. They tend to view it as the whole government and military on one side with an infinite supply of drones and tanks and an unwavering willingness to use them on civilian population, and the whole of the civilian population on the other side, with nothing but popguns.

The truth is that if the government attempted to use drones on its citizens, the military would splinter and many would fight against the government rather than for it.

So then why do you need guns to defend against the government if the military will have your back?

[Dug]

How about guns just for self defense?

[PhaelixWW]

So then why do you need guns to defend against the government if the military will have your back?

Wow, straw-man double-down.

I'm not sure how you equate "the military splintering" to "the military having your back".

Some of the military would refuse orders to fire on an oppressed civilian population. How many would depend entirely on too many factors to guess at such far remove, but the answer would not be 0%, nor would it be 100%. Any potentially tyrannical government would have to consider the odds of, say, a 70%/30% split. They might be confident of the superiority of a 70%/30% split in a solely military conflict, whereas they would not be so confident if the 30% had the backing of tens of millions of armed civilians.

That particular aspect of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not merely to fight off a tyrannical government, it's a deterrent to one even forming in the first place.

[Daelak]

Wow, straw-man double-down.

I'm not sure how you equate "the military splintering" to "the military having your back".

Some of the military would refuse orders to fire on an oppressed civilian population. How many would depend entirely on too many factors to guess at such far remove, but the answer would not be 0%, nor would it be 100%. Any potentially tyrannical government would have to consider the odds of, say, a 70%/30% split. They might be confident of the superiority of a 70%/30% split in a solely military conflict, whereas they would not be so confident if the 30% had the backing of tens of millions of armed civilians.

That particular aspect of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not merely to fight off a tyrannical government, it's a deterrent to one even forming in the first place.

Yeah the big bad mean tyrannical government is shivering in its boots. Like I have said in this thread before, the US military, the most sophisticated, most trained, most revered and feared military in the world, will strike on the targets its chain of command demands, regardless if SFC Billybob's rural Missouri town is the target or not. The military wouldn't question the strikes on US citizens, it would be the government opposition. Look at Syria military using chemical and other extremely brutal tactics because they were ordered to, the sign of an organized military.

[PhaelixWW]

The military wouldn't question the strikes on US citizens, it would be the government opposition.

You're fucking kidding, right? You do realize that the military swears to defend the Constitution before the President, right?

Look at Syria military using chemical and other extremely brutal tactics because they were ordered to, the sign of an organized military.

Wow. Just... wow.

You're seriously comparing the fanaticism of Syrian military doctrine with US military doctrine?

[lockedout]

I'm constantly surprised by how many people have such a warped view of how such an oppressive future would go. They tend to view it as the whole government and military on one side with an infinite supply of drones and tanks and an unwavering willingness to use them on civilian population, and the whole of the civilian population on the other side, with nothing but popguns.

The truth is that if the government attempted to use drones on its citizens, the military would splinter and many would fight against the government rather than for it.

You mean the soldiers wouldn't kill their civilian friends and families?!

- - - Updated - - -

The military wouldn't question the strikes on US citizens, it would be the government opposition. Look at Syria military using chemical and other extremely brutal tactics because they were ordered to, the sign of an organized military.

Of course they would.