Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

And who posts in nearly every thread in GT?

Jimbuna?

Originally Posted by MH

OK...

This self defense maze is confusing while some laws regarding gun use too liberal lol



locked ...again? why?

You are good guy yet don't even consider that somehow you own monopoly on rationality.

Civility really, I mean I ask a rational question about the 2nd Amendment and August goes all defensive on us.

Still, it's up to the mods really, I think Tribesman knew what was coming when he posted this thread to be honest, I saw the news that was in the OP a few days ago, but didn't bother to post about it here because I knew where it would go.

[Jimbuna]

Well I must admit I'm following this thread with interest and not surprisingly I notice a wide and diverse collection of opinions.

GT is the place for this sort of topic and taking into consideration the number of different nationalities we have within our ranks it is inevitable there will be differing viewpoints.

I trust we can all agree on one thing and that is that we are all entitled to an opinion.

Happy New Year to you all.

[Onkel Neal]

Hey! You should give a guy at least 30 seconds to reconsider making his post

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Hey! You should give a guy at least 30 seconds to reconsider making his post

Oops....



Nah, you have a point Neal, but I try to avoid initiating what I know will be that kind of discussion, and generally stay away from the usual easy bait questions and statements. But, the reason I keep coming back to the question that August has picked up on is that I think that it's a question that is worth considering for people inside and outside of America when they consider the 2nd Amendment.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Oberon

it's a question that is worth considering for people inside and outside of America when they consider the 2nd Amendment.

It's theirs, they can keep it.
It's not ours, we don't want it

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Oops....



Nah, you have a point Neal, but I try to avoid initiating what I know will be that kind of discussion, and generally stay away from the usual easy bait questions and statements. But, the reason I keep coming back to the question that August has picked up on is that I think that it's a question that is worth considering for people inside and outside of America when they consider the 2nd Amendment.

Yeah, you caught me making a smart-assed remark, sorry

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Yeah, you caught me making a smart-assed remark, sorry

We're only human, Neal. I've had to self-moderate quite a few times.

[nikimcbee]

Give it a rest

I'm going to go with this answer.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment has evolved, or maybe devolved, from what it was intended to be and today it covers the entirity of the right to bear arms, instead of right to bear arms to have a militia force to resist tyrannical government or foreign enemy.

While facing down a tyrannical government is the point people always mention, in fact the Founders considered private ownership of arms to be an inherent right, just like the right to free speech. The main concept behind the bill of rights was that all rights belong to the people, and none to the government. There are, and have to be, limitations to every right, but the first thing to be acknowledged is that governments have no rights. Once you get past that the rest is easy. Well, easy to understand as a concept. The direct impact on everyone's lives is never easy.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Sorry Armistead, but that simply contains far too many factual errors.
Any of the future States militia acts prove it to not be the case.

Not if you look into the original intent of militias at the time and the fact all people basically had guns. Yes, state laws, ratifications, evolution of legalities have argued and changed through history, but the original intent were people could be armed was never in question and if needed, form their own militias to fight against future tyranny. Course, back then they all carried muskets.

The question is now and the future, with so much change, do we continue to stick and fight for the 2nd amend in it's original intent -NRA-. Obvious, we've changed a lot from that as is...and I'm sure we'll see more changes/ratifications in the future....

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

While facing down a tyrannical government is the point people always mention, in fact the Founders considered private ownership of arms to be an inherent right, just like the right to free speech. The main concept behind the bill of rights was that all rights belong to the people, and none to the government. There are, and have to be, limitations to every right, but the first thing to be acknowledged is that governments have no rights. Once you get past that the rest is easy. Well, easy to understand as a concept. The direct impact on everyone's lives is never easy.

It makes sense in a way, I think once upon a time we had a similar sort of system in the UK, but it was more geared towards raising a strong army in times of national conflict. Edward III put it thus:

"Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by God's help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike enterprises... that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied, shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows... and so learn and practise archery."

Obviously this meant that most young men had access to a bow and arrow or knew someone who did, there was limited control over it, and I think the only real limiting factor for weaponry and personal protection was how much money you had.
The attitude is much different these days. Yet this is not something that concerns most Europeans, even in areas which have not long ago been fairly badly hit by either conflict or civil unrest (I'm looking at Russia and Slovenia, of which I know we have had commentors in this thread).


I think, perhaps, it's the...I'm not sure what is quite the correct terminology to use here, indifference perhaps, to the lethality of the gun in culture which perhaps causes the problems. The sort of thing that makes someone shoot another person because of a disagreement over a parking space, or some fence posts or some such trivial matter. The gun, just like the bow for that matter, is not something you can stop once it's started. Once the trigger is pulled or string let loose, you can't stop the following result. So quite why people are so eager to pull that trigger is something that eludes me...fear that the other person might pull theirs first perhaps? I really don't know, but the amount of non-crime related gun deaths is surely something that any American wants to lower, I don't think anyone could possibly disagree with this.
The biggest hot topic is how to do that. In a manner similar to the way that drink-driving numbers are trying to be lowered? No-one seems keen on that idea, and yet trying to educate an unwilling public might not be feasible either.

Honestly, I wish I could put forward ideas that might help America, from an outside perspective, because although admittedly the amount of gun related injuries in America has dramatically increased the medical knowledge and treatment of gun related injuries, the pain it must cause the families of those involved. I mean, this two year old boy will grow up and learn that he killed his own mother, how the heck do you deal with that? His siblings, all younger than eleven years old, will have to deal with witnessing that.
How do you deal with that? At such a young age?

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

While facing down a tyrannical government is the point people always mention, in fact the Founders considered private ownership of arms to be an inherent right, just like the right to free speech. The main concept behind the bill of rights was that all rights belong to the people, and none to the government. There are, and have to be, limitations to every right, but the first thing to be acknowledged is that governments have no rights. Once you get past that the rest is easy. Well, easy to understand as a concept. The direct impact on everyone's lives is never easy.

I'll just add, it's all about the checks and balances built into the Constitution. It's about putting a leash on the Federal power.
I'd say, if you (in a generic term) don't like it, go through the process and amend the Constitution.

[GoldenRivet]

"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."

so this only applies to muskets and swords because it was written in the 1790s...

well then...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

This only applies to spoken word, archaic printing presses, hand written text, the religions known to exist in the 1790s and peaceable assembly

So you dont have the right to post on facebook your opinions. you dont have the right to keep a blog, you dont have the right to speak your mind in an email



rights dont change just because technology changes


lets have some fun... and the pro-gun folks need not answer because you will know

Who can tell me the difference between these two rifles?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

so this only applies to muskets and swords because it was written in the 1790s...

well then...

Oh, it still applies, it's just not very practical.

This only applies to spoken word, archaic printing presses, hand written text, the religions known to exist in the 1790s and peaceable assembly

So you dont have the right to post on facebook your opinions. you dont have the right to keep a blog, you dont have the right to speak your mind in an email

That particular amendment makes no reference to the forms in which the speech takes place, nor what particular religion it refers to. Whereas the 2nd Amendment specifically defines the right of the people to possess firearms to form a well organised militia if required to, however if you were to walk into your local firearms store and ask for a Surface to Air or Anti-Tank missile, I honestly don't think that you're going to walk out of that store with an NLAW or Stinger. Likewise I strongly doubt that you're going to be able to buy a fully armed M60 tank by exercising your 2nd Amendment rights.

If Amendments are so set in stone, then why is there no 18th Amendment?

rights dont change just because technology changes

Not at all, but they might need to be clarified.

lets have some fun... and the pro-gun folks need not answer because you will know

Who can tell me the difference between these two rifles?

The top one is an M14 isn't it? And the bottom one, looks like probably an M4. Weight is probably different, the M14 is quite a solid rifle, rate of fire probably isn't that much different. Not sure about the calibre of bullet used, I think the M4 probably uses a slightly smaller NATO calibre, the M14 has a lot of stopping power behind it.
Since the M4 is, I believe, or certainly looks like, a derivative of the M16 which was brought in to replace the M14 there are numerous improvements in terms of manufacturing process, so the M4 is probably a fair bit cheaper to build and buy, although the M14 looks a lot better IMHO.

At the basic level though, there is little difference between the two, they both rely on the same automatic firing process which the Italian Cel-Rigotti rifle used in 1900.

Perhaps, the bigger question here might be to ask what the difference is between this:



And this:

[ikalugin]

I wonder if one could (for purely academic purposes ofcourse) look into plausibility of applying the Japanese Restoration era practice (of taking the swords from the militant class of society and providing a strong state enforced rule of law) to the US?