Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Raidenx]

-insert revisionism and argument without legal basis here-

"Go kill that elephant, but give me your knife first. It's not like you will kill him anyway, even if some other elephants may try to help you"

[Spectral]

That's why I make the argument that the original purpose of the Second Amendment has essentially become irrelevant and moot in the modern day, because defecting military personnel arming themselves with government equipment is not a 'people's militia', but I believe they are the only way a contemporary regime could be toppled by 'the people'.
I'm more than happy to listen to arguments in favour of possession of guns for home defence etc. (some of which are quite convincing), but I do not think that appealing to the Second Amendment, before more recent embellishments were added to its original proclamation, is a viable point in favour of those who declare that free possession of firearms is a Constitutional right.

This seems like a genuinely horrible argument; it leads one to being able to simply conclude that any Constitutional Amendment that we feel is outmoded can be ignored with no need for changes in legislation. When an Amendment reads pretty plainly, we don't get to just say, "yeah, but I don't like what it means anymore". I don't think anything in the Constitution is written in stone, there's a very straightforward mechanism to changing it, but I think we should actually go through that mechanism rather than just bypassing the entire purpose of the document.

I think your argument could just as easily be used by someone that's not so keen on freedom to assemble - "Hey, the internet provides a safe gathering place for people to express themselves, and it minimizes danger relative to large gatherings. Since that wasn't an option when the Constitution was written, there's no real need to stay with the idea that people have the right to assemble physically".

[Eroginous]

I disagree with your definitions of what liberals and conservatives stand for, but that is out of scope of this thread, so I will let it be.

While most of your suggestions are sound, I would say the biggest problem that prevents negotiation and reaching is the absolute lack of trust between both sides. At the moment there really is no debate between the sides, the current situation resembles a pushing match - IE democrats push through a version of AWB in one state, and republicans push castle doctrine laws in another.

I am not sure this situation can be fixed in any way though, because I do not see a way to restore the trust between both sides.

Trust is a personal thing, not really something that should ever be a part of politics or political decisions. If both sides can't bring up legitimate points to discuss and debate, moving towards an agreeable position without personal BS getting in the way, then they have no business being politicians. The entire point of being a law maker is to enact laws, not get all pissy because you have personal differences.

[Deleted]

For the armed forces to start fragmenting, you need to start a somewhat effective resistance first and this is many times easier when the population is armed.

Regardless the 2nd still remains by far the most argument of the pro-gun side simply because it is a constitutional protection, which is far more powerful than reason against many of the anti-gun crowd, for evidence, read a few pages of this thread.

True, I'm sure it would help to get things moving in the people's favour more quickly. But, the Russian people did a pretty good job of securing the support of much of the armed forces in the opposing the Tsar in 1905 and the provisional government in 1917 without having firearms. The mutiny at Kronstadt was pivotal (but they got screwed by the Bolsheviks later) and I don't think civillians around there had guns. I think, if one is naturally repulsed by a totalitarian/authoritarian/generally shit regime, then you'll probably be compelled to resist no matter how well-equipped other people might be (but, yeah, it'd definitely help to be packing some form of heat!).

And your second point makes sense.

"Go kill that elephant, but give me your knife first. It's not like you will kill him anyway, even if some other elephants may try to help you"

Gratuitous positing and an over-reliance on the hypothetical, I'll grant you, but I don't accept the accusation that I was attempting to revise anything. I was making my arguments based on the original text of the Second Amendment, which reads: "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.".
As you pointed out to me earlier (which I appreciate) the addition of the connotation of the amendment covering the rights of citizens to explicitly possess arms (not just bear them) doesn't appear until 1939 (please correct me if it shows up earlier than that), in a very contextually specific and washy way, and then again, only very recently, in 2008, when the new additional implicatoin is added with more clarity. So, I don't think my arguments do any revising. I merely used the original text as my basis and didn't account for the revisions made in the last 100 years.

Also, if we're metaphorically comparing the possession of semi-automatic pistols, rifles and shotguns as arms to use against the US military, I'd say that the "knife" is probably closer to being a plastic spork.

This seems like a genuinely horrible argument; it leads one to being able to simply conclude that any Constitutional Amendment that we feel is outmoded can be ignored with no need for changes in legislation. When an Amendment reads pretty plainly, we don't get to just say, "yeah, but I don't like what it means anymore". I don't think anything in the Constitution is written in stone, there's a very straightforward mechanism to changing it, but I think we should actually go through that mechanism rather than just bypassing the entire purpose of the document.

I think your argument could just as easily be used by someone that's not so keen on freedom to assemble - "Hey, the internet provides a safe gathering place for people to express themselves, and it minimizes danger relative to large gatherings. Since that wasn't an option when the Constitution was written, there's no real need to stay with the idea that people have the right to assemble physically".

I'm not saying that the Second Amendment can or should be dropped without due process, but I still think it is contextually irrelevant considering the massive discrepancy between arms accessible to common citizens today and those possessed by government forces.
Amendments have been added and dropped before. Just look at the mess of the Prohibition.
My claim that the Second doesn't really hold much significance today isn't a suggestion to just drop it outright, it's just me saying that, to use the Second to argue in favour of possessing (or even bearing) firearms as a safeguard against the threat of a dictatorship is wrong and it might be worth looking at changing gun and weapon laws generally to be more relevant and clear in modern America.

I'd really recommend reading the Orwell essay I linked earlier. It's only brief and he discusses the futility of using weapons to oppose authoritarian regimes in a much more articulate and poignant way than I ever could.

Also, I wouldn't say my argument is applicable to the First Amendment because the First is a lot more frank and timeless than the Second and states very clearly the factors that make up the definition of 'Free Speech' (assembly, press, religion et al.) according to the creators. The Second merely states that people can bear arms against the government if it becomes necessary. As far as I know, it only started being about protecting people's rights to possess firearms within the last 100 years.

[Zoranon]

Trust is a personal thing, not really something that should ever be a part of politics or political decisions. If both sides can't bring up legitimate points to discuss and debate, moving towards an agreeable position without personal BS getting in the way, then they have no business being politicians. The entire point of being a law maker is to enact laws, not get all pissy because you have personal differences.

Any lasting solution needs to be accepted by both parties, hence the need for negotiations, which are at the moment not possible because the interested parties do not trust each other.

---------- Post added 2013-03-09 at 08:31 PM ----------

True, I'm sure it would help to get things moving in the people's favour more quickly. But, the Russian people did a pretty good job of securing the support of much of the armed forces in the opposing the Tsar in 1905 and the provisional government in 1917 without having firearms. The mutiny at Kronstadt was pivotal (but they got screwed by the Bolsheviks later) and I don't think civillians around there had guns. I think, if one is naturally repulsed by a totalitarian/authoritarian/generally shit regime, then you'll probably be compelled to resist no matter how well-equipped other people might be (but, yeah, it'd definitely help to be packing some form of heat!).

And your second point makes sense.

I am not exactly aware of Russian gun laws pre-WW1, but as a rule, gun-regulation only began to appear at the end of 19th century and first significant moves were made after WW1. Most of the people of that period would not have guns because they could not afford them, not because they were outlawed.

And as for 1905, I would say that most would be revolutionaries have higher hopes than being shot by the police/military as happened during the march back then. Besides exactly why the march ended the way it ended is still an open question, given that father Gapon was in the pay of Okhrana.

[Deleted]

I am not exactly aware of Russian gun laws pre-WW1, but as a rule, gun-regulation only began to appear at the end of 19th century and first significant moves were made after WW1. Most of the people of that period would not have guns because they could not afford them, not because they were outlawed.

And as for 1905, I would say that most would be revolutionaries have higher hopes than being shot by the police/military as happened during the march back then. Besides exactly why the march ended the way it ended is still an open question, given that father Gapon was in the pay of Okhrana.

Aye, there was such a massive wealth gap between the nobility and the average peasant that it was highly unlikely that many people could get their hands on a firearm and that was probably the main reason that people were not well-equipped in Russia. But, I imagine that anybody besides farmers outside densely populated areas using hunting rifles on livestock killing wolves etc would have firearms ceased.
I know that the Bolsheviks banned citizens from possessing firearms for the most part and I'll admit that I think, had people had the opportunity to acquire guns before the Revolution, they would have been able to oppose the Stalinist regime before the Purges got quite as unimaginably horrible as they did, but that was at a time when much of warfare was still rifle vs rifle. It's a different hypothetical fight now. A civil war would be rifle vs tank and pistol vs precision air-strike. But, yeah, as I pointed out before (to myself as well as err'body else, that, in my opinion, has little to do with the arguments against the possession of guns, merely my belief that domestic defence of liberty is not a viable pro-gun argument.

[Deleted]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21722377

I'm so shocked I am almost speachless. How can a supposedly civilised country degenerate to the point where they want to arm teachers?

How otherwise rational humans can argue a pro-gun stance really does escape me. To me the facination of the US with guns borders on insanity.

[Raidenx]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21722377

I'm so shocked I am almost speachless. How can a supposedly civilised country degenerate to the point where they want to arm teachers?

How otherwise rational humans can argue a pro-gun stance really does escape me. To me the facination of the US with guns borders on insanity.

We trust people more than you do, and think the government shouldn't take away freedoms without good reason.
Assuming you're from the Uk, it really shouldn't be so foreign to you. After all, it stems from British tradition.

[Deleted]

We trust people more than you do, and think the government shouldn't take away freedoms without good reason.
Assuming you're from the Uk, it really shouldn't be so foreign to you. After all, it stems from British tradition.

You trust more people...so you arm your teachers so they can defend against gun toting lunatics.....do you want a time out to examine your statement for logical inconsistancy?

And no, instituionalised insanity is not a British tradition.

-was infracted, appealed, and revoked.

[Zoranon]

We trust people more than you do, and think the government shouldn't take away freedoms without good reason.
Assuming you're from the Uk, it really shouldn't be so foreign to you. After all, it stems from British tradition.

Dont respond to such rude posts as this one, report them and move on.

---------- Post added 2013-03-09 at 10:11 PM ----------

Aye, there was such a massive wealth gap between the nobility and the average peasant that it was highly unlikely that many people could get their hands on a firearm and that was probably the main reason that people were not well-equipped in Russia. But, I imagine that anybody besides farmers outside densely populated areas using hunting rifles on livestock killing wolves etc would have firearms ceased.
I know that the Bolsheviks banned citizens from possessing firearms for the most part and I'll admit that I think, had people had the opportunity to acquire guns before the Revolution, they would have been able to oppose the Stalinist regime before the Purges got quite as unimaginably horrible as they did, but that was at a time when much of warfare was still rifle vs rifle. It's a different hypothetical fight now. A civil war would be rifle vs tank and pistol vs precision air-strike. But, yeah, as I pointed out before (to myself as well as err'body else, that, in my opinion, has little to do with the arguments against the possession of guns, merely my belief that domestic defence of liberty is not a viable pro-gun argument.

After the communist coup, most of those who had weapons took them up and joined the fight on either sides. After the reds won, they simply butchered most of those who resisted them, henceforth only communist party members were allowed to own weapons, this changed after Kirov was assassinated in 1933. From that date on, only the most trusted party members and few others (such as guards of money transports) were allowed weapons, but all those were very carefully vetted by the local communist cells. Ownership of weapon without permit in the late Lenin and early Stalin years meant either immediate death by shooting, or slow death via concentration camp (gulag).

[Raidenx]

Dont respond to such rude posts as this one, report them and move on.

---------- Post added 2013-03-09 at 10:11 PM ----------



After the communist coup, most of those who had weapons took them up and joined the fight on either sides. After the reds won, they simply butchered most of those who resisted them, henceforth only communist party members were allowed to own weapons, this changed after Kirov was assassinated in 1933. From that date on, only the most trusted party members and few others (such as guards of money transports) were allowed weapons, but all those were very carefully vetted by the local communist cells. Ownership of weapon without permit in the late Lenin and early Stalin years meant either immediate death by shooting, or slow death via concentration camp (gulag).

How was my post rude?

[Zoranon]

How was my post rude?

Your post was not, the post you responded to was. Sorry for my confused writing.

[Deleted]

After the communist coup, most of those who had weapons took them up and joined the fight on either sides. After the reds won, they simply butchered most of those who resisted them, henceforth only communist party members were allowed to own weapons, this changed after Kirov was assassinated in 1933. From that date on, only the most trusted party members and few others (such as guards of money transports) were allowed weapons, but all those were very carefully vetted by the local communist cells. Ownership of weapon without permit in the late Lenin and early Stalin years meant either immediate death by shooting, or slow death via concentration camp (gulag).

Yeah, it was an abhorrent system. One moulded by years of paranoia, secrecy and distrust spent in exile in desolate Siberia or foreign nations. It's as Nietzsche said, "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby becomes a monster.". The callousness or brutality of old regimes makes the ones that topple them more likely to replicate them (eg. Imperialism and Tsarism - Fascism and Stalinism).

[Zoranon]

Yeah, it was an abhorrent system. One moulded by years of paranoia, secrecy and distrust spent in exile in desolate Siberia or foreign nations. It's as Nietzsche said, "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby becomes a monster.". The callousness or brutality of old regimes makes the ones that topple them more likely to replicate them (eg. Imperialism and Tsarism - Fascism and Stalinism).

The parallel between Tsarist Russia and the communist regime is stretching it, for the communists were far more brutal and much more devious than the tsarist, but what the hell is imperialism?

You cannot seriously compare the German empire with the nazi regime, the empire was a constitutional regime with a rule of the law, except perhaps the last year of WW1.

[ugotownd]

And if you do not care about blowing the legs off some child.....IED's do not care who they take out.

Just like Obama with his drone strikes. No different.

[Karokol]

The parallel between Tsarist Russia and the communist regime is stretching it, for the communists were far more brutal and much more devious than the tsarist, but what the hell is imperialism?

The best example of imperialism would be the British empire, when it expanded to cover areas all around the world. The American colonies weren't even a significant aspect of the empire; their focus was put primarily on India, overall. A more modern example of imperialism would be the US, and its network of military bases and territories scattered around the world.

---------- Post added 2013-03-09 at 09:37 PM ----------

Just like Obama with his drone strikes. No different.

No, IEDs are a far cry from the use of drones. You really can't make that statement with any rational mindset.

[Deleted]

The parallel between Tsarist Russia and the communist regime is stretching it, for the communists were far more brutal and much more devious than the tsarist, but what the hell is imperialism?

You cannot seriously compare the German empire with the nazi regime, the empire was a constitutional regime with a rule of the law, except perhaps the last year of WW1.

Russia was in a pretty sorry state with Nicholas II at the helm, but I absolutely agree that the Stalinist system (and the 'War Communism' that Lenin and co refused to give up that incubated it) institutionalised and refined terror to a level that had yet to be seen and hasn't really been seen since. Stalin was a particularly unfeeling and manipulative sociopath who surrounded himself with similar people and the effects can be seen with the likes of the Katyn massacre.

Oh no, I wasn't claiming that it was German Imperial brutality that birthed the Third Reich, I was referring more to my point on callousness. Of all the regimes involved in WWI, slaughtering massive chunks of their workforce for little more than cousins having a dick-waving contest and the resulting economic strife brought on by it, particularly in Germany. But then there's the argument that the Allies were more to blame for birthing Fascism with the Treaty of Versailles and schtuff.

[Svifnymr]

Those ICE tactical squads are no joke!

Oh, wait...

When they re-organized some years back, the running joke (down here in Florida) was Miami BICE. (Bureau of ICE, thus BICE)

---------- Post added 2013-03-09 at 05:25 PM ----------

The wording on that article is pretty bad.

As I understand it, it places a temporary block on firearms purchase for people who are being investigated on domestic violence issues.

I'm not really opposed to this. Repercussions and fear of repercussion are serious issues in prosecuting domestic violence, and its nothing more than an extended waiting period really.

Seems like a lot of good for some pretty minimal cost.
Just double checked as well and it adds domestic violence to the list of convictions that can stop you from getting a gun and would require someone convicted of domestic violence to relinquish their guns.

Which is also very fair.

Domestic Violence conviction already bars you from purchase/possession via the lautenberg act of 98ish.

Also, if you're under indictment for a felony you cannot purchase. I'm not sure if that includes possession, off hand, but broadening that to include domestic violence indictment is something I'd have no issue with.

"Under investigation" is a bit nebulous though for me. If it's gotten to the "we're filing charges" phase, I can see.

[Grizzly Willy]

No, IEDs are a far cry from the use of drones. You really can't make that statement with any rational mindset.

Sure, one is used to harm our troops, the others are used to take out our enemies. Both kill children.

[Svifnymr]

I was making my arguments based on the original text of the Second Amendment, which reads: "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.".
As you pointed out to me earlier (which I appreciate) the addition of the connotation of the amendment covering the rights of citizens to explicitly possess arms (not just bear them) doesn't appear until 1939 (please correct me if it shows up earlier than that), in a very contextually specific and washy way, and then again, only very recently, in 2008, when the new additional implicatoin is added with more clarity. So, I don't think my arguments do any revising. I merely used the original text as my basis and didn't account for the revisions made in the last 100 years.

"not just bear them" sort of works around the "keep" part of "keep and bear arms".

The issues they faced were that you had a lot of folks with varying degrees of firearms and training in them. The issue amendment was to ensure that folks could keep current. They wanted to make sure everyone had stuff. The next part being what they actually "did". If the government meant that they'd keep guns for you to use, then they'd have done that, rather than just letting everyone have stuff.

Also, if we're metaphorically comparing the possession of semi-automatic pistols, rifles and shotguns as arms to use against the US military, I'd say that the "knife" is probably closer to being a plastic spork.

I don't want to get into an extended debate about the merits of Population vs Military in battle, but the main thing to keep in mind is what type of conflict we're talking really. You can't use tanks to maintain peace, sure drones can target people, but they aren't going to patrol and protect. There's a lot of elements to a military oppression. I'm not saying Bob and his AR15 are going to take on the army, but in an insurgency your best bet will usually be to snipe and then take their gear. Who do corporations side with, what does the military actually do, blah blah blah, who knows?

I do think such a military oppression campaign would be a lot more costly against a well armed public, even if successful in the end, but in the end I think if the USA goes "oppressive" it'll be through apathy, not armed conflict.

I'm not saying that the Second Amendment can or should be dropped without due process, but I still think it is contextually irrelevant considering the massive discrepancy between arms accessible to common citizens today and those possessed by government forces.
Amendments have been added and dropped before. Just look at the mess of the Prohibition.
My claim that the Second doesn't really hold much significance today isn't a suggestion to just drop it outright, it's just me saying that, to use the Second to argue in favour of possessing (or even bearing) firearms as a safeguard against the threat of a dictatorship is wrong and it might be worth looking at changing gun and weapon laws generally to be more relevant and clear in modern America.

One of my biggest issues with it, is that I understand folks don't like the second amendment and want to ban guns. But they know that they could never get the authority to revoke the second, so they go about it in every roundabout way they can weasel through.

And yeah, I know both sides do the same shit and it's politics, but still bugs me.

Also, I wouldn't say my argument is applicable to the First Amendment because the First is a lot more frank and timeless than the Second and states very clearly the factors that make up the definition of 'Free Speech' (assembly, press, religion et al.) according to the creators. The Second merely states that people can bear arms against the government if it becomes necessary. As far as I know, it only started being about protecting people's rights to possess firearms within the last 100 years.

I envision the limitations on the second amendment in a twofold way.
1) Does the Arm, when used as intended, cause undue harm. Explosives are a good example, or even cigarettes which do harm through normal use that is not a function of the device itself. (A gun can harm, but if used properly it would only harm the one you intend it to harm. Explosives can also be used precisely, but in general are more to it. This is where a machinegun straddles my line. I DO think they should be legal, but restricted. The current ban on manufacturing is silly, IMO.)
2) The Right should have the same restrictions as other rights, you can lose it through your actions. Compare it to the right to vote. No hard criminals (felons) no hard crazies, and requiring an ID, would be how I'd regulate both Rights.

You debate the Purpose of the Right and the Arm, but for me it doesn't matter. As long as the Purpose is not illegal, then as a Right, the Purpose doesn't matter. You want a gun for sport shooting? Legal purpose, protected. Self defense? Legal purpose, protected. Holding in trust in case you must overthrow a corrupt government? Legal purpose, protected and good luck with that.