Gun Control thread (merged many)

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Who can tell me the difference between these two rifles?

Aesthetics is the difference.

They both hold the same number of rounds

They both fire at the same rate of fire

They both fire the same caliber of bullet at the same muzzle velocity

Only difference is one has a wooden stock while the other has a polymer stock

it is an apples to apples comparison

Your cavalry comparison to a tank however... apples to oranges

[ikalugin]

The point I think Oberon is trying to make is that while in the olden days men with rifles were a formidable force, capable aiding the defense of the country against external and internal enemies, it is no longer the case (due to the development of industrialised means of making war), thus the 2nd amendment needs to be reworked.

A few options come to mind. Those are:
- dropping 2nd amendment (those militias no longer serve their purpose).
- changing the 2nd amendment to reflect current usage - ie permit weapons for self defense and personal safety.
- changing 2nd amendment to create useful militias - ie creating voluntary reserve with heavy weapons which are stored either at private locations (infantry and man portable weapons) or public ones (heavy vehicles and AFVs).

[nikimcbee]

I was gunna be a smart ass and post; one is plastic one is wood. Then you dun posted this:

Only difference is one has a wooden stock while the other has a polymer stock

So, how about one is a cheap, Chinese knock-off?

hmm, no cup holders?

[nikimcbee]

crap


Shinola:

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by 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?

I doubt it would work, the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is that everyone has that right. The mil...no...Nano-second that you even hint or suggest regulation or restriction of firearms it all goes somewhat Alex Jones.

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Aesthetics is the difference.

They both hold the same number of rounds

They both fire at the same rate of fire

They both fire the same caliber of bullet at the same muzzle velocity

Only difference is one has a wooden stock while the other has a polymer stock

it is an apples to apples comparison

Your cavalry comparison to a tank however... apples to oranges

That's as maybe, but if people are going to say that one of the points of the 2nd Amendment is to defend the people of the US from a tyrannical government then they're going to have to realise that they're not going to be shooting at apples, but they're going to be shooting at oranges, oranges that can kill them and their little M4 without taking any damage in return.
One Abrams can take out 100 'militiamen' if those 'militiamen' don't have Anti-Tank weaponry and despite the 2nd Amendment stating that the US people have the right to bear arms, the US people cannot legally own an anti-tank launcher. I really don't think throwing 4th of July fireworks at a tank is going to do much to it, except perhaps make a pretty display in the street.


Anyway, it's 2015 in about twenty minutes here and I really don't want to go into the New Year saying the same old stuff on the same old tired subject so I'll eject here, I dare say we'll get a chance to return to this subject when someone else makes the mistake of posting a thread on firearms in GT.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Whereas the 2nd Amendment specifically defines the right of the people to possess firearms to form a well organised militia if required to.

I do believe you are adding words to the amendment. In no way is it "specific" to forming militias, nor does it say anything about "if" required to.


United States v. Cruikshank (1875), ruled that "the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

the olden days men with rifles were a formidable force, capable aiding the defense of the country against external and internal enemies, it is no longer the case (due to the development of industrialised means of making war)

Then why in God's name do we continue to deploy men with rifles

Originally Posted by ikalugin

A few options come to mind. Those are:
- dropping 2nd amendment (those militias no longer serve their purpose).

thus causing another revolutionary war

Originally Posted by ikalugin

- changing the 2nd amendment to reflect current usage - ie permit weapons for self defense and personal safety

agreed, so long as the verbiage is as follows

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, being essential to maintaining the freedom and contributing to the defense of all men and women. Congress shall pass no law so as to infringe or impede the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms"

Originally Posted by ikalugin

- changing 2nd amendment to create useful militias - ie creating voluntary reserve with heavy weapons which are stored either at private locations (infantry and man portable weapons) or public ones (heavy vehicles and AFVs).

Militias already exist, they are comprised of citizens. little known fact about militias - any man seeking to participate in a state militia must BYOE (Bring Your own equipment) the militia... just as it was in the 1700s... is fully supported by the members, not the federal Government.

which is precisely why common men should be able to keep and bear arms... armed civilians are the backbone of any militia, because a militia with members who have no significant armament is just the boy scouts

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Then why in God's name do we continue to deploy men with rifles

The thing is that we don't deploy men with rifles alone but with air and armor support. The infantry alone doesn't stand a chance on the modern battlefield unless in asymmetric guerrilla strikes.

[GoldenRivet]

yet... they would fair better than unarmed peasants - which is exactly what a man is without his right to arm himself

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

It's funny, I could have sworn this was an international forum. Is it suddenly decided that discussion of America by non-Americans is forbidden?

Who said anything about forbidding?

What you are doing is not "discussion", it is lecturing, by your own admission repeated lecturing. An attempt to decide my national topic of discussion. I have every right to tell you when it is getting irritating. Feel free to ignore my opinion if you'd like but don't cry censorship just you don't like what I have to say.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

Who said anything about forbidding?

What you are doing is not "discussion", it is lecturing, by your own admission repeated lecturing. An attempt to decide my national topic of discussion. I have every right to tell you when it is getting irritating. Feel free to ignore my opinion if you'd like but don't cry censorship just I don't like what you have to say.

Lecturing am I? To be honest I have not had a reply back to my original postulation that is outside of wishing and hoping that the US Armed Forces will join the right cause if the US government becomes tyrannical.
ikalugin made a good point, he can understand what I'm trying to drive at, and I think that his proposals are good ones. Out of the three he proposes:

- dropping 2nd amendment (those militias no longer serve their purpose).
- changing the 2nd amendment to reflect current usage - ie permit weapons for self defense and personal safety.
- changing 2nd amendment to create useful militias - ie creating voluntary reserve with heavy weapons which are stored either at private locations (infantry and man portable weapons) or public ones (heavy vehicles and AFVs).

I think the second (pardon the pun) proposal is probably the most feasible of the three, drop the whole 'militia' part of the 2nd Amendment and keep it for self-defence of life and property, it is already part of what the 2nd Amendment is about, why not just make it in black and white. The whole 'militia' aspect is not feasible in a modern battlefield without access to weapons that are more powerful than automatic rifles (and I don't mean HMGs, I mean missiles, explosives, things that can be used to attack and defeat tanks, helicopters, bombers and drones).

Ultimately though, at the end of the day, unless the US army also helps the 'militiamen' then they're pretty screwed. Goldenrivet may say that an armed man is better off than an 'unarmed peasant' (way to call half of the planet peasants by the way ) but that same man will die just the same as an unarmed peasant if he tries to take his rifle up against a tank or a drone cruising at 20,000ft.

Watch this guy:


The rifle really helped him there, didn't it?

And this is just the beginning, the actual man is being taken out of the warzone as much as possible, replaced by machine. Machines that can kill at long distances, and cannot be killed by rifle fire. Not horses, not humans, not something flesh and blood that can be shot by a bullet, a well armoured and armed machine being operated by someone fifty miles away.
How the heck is a 'well-organised militia' going to defend against that without the high-explosive weaponry which is forbidden it by law?

In a foreign invasion of the US, that would be different, the US army would be fighting on the same side as the civilians, although I imagine there will be a lot of incidents where the rifle-toting well intentioned civilians will just get in the way, but they will be useful to soak up the enemys resistance, a sort of armed cannon fodder I suppose, and those who survive after a few weeks or a month or two will then be useful soldiers who will be able to use supplies smuggled to them in nuisance raids. So I can understand the point there, but against your own government...well, like any uprising, all you can hope for is the militarys support. Otherwise, 2nd Amendment or not, your uprising will fail.

If that comes off as lecturing, then I apologise, I'm not intending to lecture and you can doubt my intentions all you like, but when I question the 2nd Amendments usefulness, I question it from three angles, personal protection from crime, protection from foreign forces and protection from a tyrannical government. It's a cyclical problem on the first, but hand-waving that for a moment we'll just say that it passes it, it passes fine on the second, but fails without the support of a professional military on the third. So when a person says that one of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to protect America from a tyrannical government, I have a very hard job putting those two together. Especially after the scenes in Ferguson last year and the acceptance of those scenes and the well armed police force that the same people who are so scared of tyrannical government seem to have. It's...confusing, if I'm honest, to see someone speak up against firearms regulations and yet remain silent when police shoot an innocent person, and it has happened, just because Mike Brown wasn't innocent, it does not mean that it hasn't happened.

I said I'd leave this thread, but I had to come back and reply to August response to me, and try to explain that I'm not aiming to lecture, perhaps it's a British tone or something, if I wanted to lecture I'd be a lot more condescending, rather than trying to explain and explore what I'm getting across. Now, if the American people have already thought about this, then that's great, I hope that you're able to fix these things so that we don't keep getting people putting threads like this up on GT, or that we don't see headlines on our national news that some other school or theatre in the US has been shot up by a crazed gunman and dozens of people are dead.
I wish you all in the US the best of luck in trying to find a solution to this.
That's all from me, for now.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

I stand by my first post. The record is still skipping and the discussion is the same as every other past discussion and now beginning to spiral to earth in flames.

Thanks Tribesman for kicking the hornets nest over again. Did you enjoy the popcorn?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

I stand by my first post. The record is still skipping and the discussion is the same as every other past discussion and now beginning to spiral to earth in flames.

Thanks Tribesman for kicking the hornets nest over again. Did you enjoy the popcorn?

I really shouldn't have put my log on the fire, it might have burnt out earlier then I guess.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Well said. You've mentioned this 30,000 number a few times, perhaps we need to examine it. Of those 30,000 gun related deaths, 2/3 of those deaths are suicides. We both know that suicide is attainable by many methods other than guns; and in general, suicides only kill the person using the gun, so yours and my safety is not greatly affected by this portion of gun related deaths.

In 2012, there were approximately 8,896 homicides by guns, which is a lot more than anyone would like to see. In a population of 320 million, that means we have a 0.00003 chance of being shot and killed. What I would like to know (couldn't find it anywhere) is the breakdown of that 8,896 number by people killed in the commission of a crime vs killed by someone they know, crime of passion, etc. And it bears pointing out, of those 8,896 gun related deaths, don't you think many of them would have been carried out with a knife, club, or other weapons of force? Saying there are 9000 gun deaths does not focus on the fact that there were 9000 instances of violent crime, guns are just part of it.

MH said that firearms are too easy to obtain, and I agree; firearms are way too easy to get, just like driver's licenses and voting. What is the solution? Stricter laws regarding sales? Ok. Registering and cataloging weapons? I would be in for that, although I know many gun owners would fight it. Longer prison sentences for people found in possession of a firearm illegally? Many criticize the US for having the largest prison population, but I say screw 'em, we need more people in prison. When the day comes that gangs and street crime is as rare here as it is in Japan and Europe, then we have too many criminals on the wrong side of the bars. Like that guy in Australia, he had been arrested several times and was on bail for murdering his wife--he should have never been released until after the trial. And Eric Garner in NY, with all his arrests, he was still walking the streets, resisting arrest, and it cost him his life.

Guns are part of the problem, but the bigger issue is the entitlement class that the Democrats have created and the failure of the war on poverty. When I was in high school, it was typical to see several student's pickup trucks with gun racks, with .22 and shotguns, in the parking lot. It's a small, concentrated, disfunctional part of our society that causes the majority of gun crimes, and it's that part of our society that needs fixing.

PS: Not sure about your calculations but 320,000,000 / 32,000 = 0.00010, right?

I only just spotted this...well, that's a lie, I noticed it but was more drawn towards the Dowly/August/Tribesman discussion above and below it when August started accusing me of having ulterior motives.

Neal, this is very well put, and equally well put by Schroeder before you. I'm not so sure about the Democrats being solely behind the entitlement class, but equally I'm not quite so well up on that part of US society as to be able to make any form of judgement. However, what you say about stricter gun licensing, making it harder to purchase a gun and tougher sentences for illegal gun ownership, these are good and fair points, but equally you are pretty much spot on in that they would not be likely to fly since they would be shot down by the 'tyrannical government' crowd.
This clip from Jon Stewarts show makes some, pointed thoughts on the situation:

Is prison the answer? Heck, no one can fully answer that, we've been having that argument in the UK for years, and there's evidence for either side of it. But certainly there needs to be perhaps a focus on prevention of reoccuring crime, and multi-pronged approach...and not just in the US, but globally in the modern world to be honest. Eliminate poverty, make employment a more rewarding endeavour (but in a manner which does not punish those who are unable to be employed, such as the disabled) and deal harsher sentences on criminal activity...and perhaps part the Nile while you're at it... But certainly I think, in my opinion at least, that's the direction that modern society and governments should be heading...but that requires both sides of the socio-economic spectrum to work together, those at the bottom to work up, and those at the top to help down. Not for either side to just expect the other side to do all the leg work which is around about where we are now.
I've often been called a socialist...and I guess it's true, in European terms I'm not that left wing, in American terms I'm probably near Karl Marx. I just think that if everyone had a level playing field then things like crime might reduce...obviously you're not going to eliminate crime, that's impossible, but addressing the root cause of some crimes might help reduce it whilst avoiding having to turn entire states into prisons (but I suppose what else are you going to do with Alabama? ), but it's a pretty herculean task that I don't think any government would want to touch with a barge pole.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No , no and no.
When you make a post full of factual errors how does making another post full of factual errors improve your claim?
Please think about what you are saying.
For example, if everyone carried guns and everyone only carried muskets why would the militia acts need to stipulate the requirements covering eligible males and specifying that fowling pieces are no good?
do you honestly think that at the time it was written all males let alone all people had ownership of a firearm?
That is a position you are holding which is very obviously ridiculous.
By trying to make your claim seem stronger than reality allows you are just making your argument weaker.

You have to define militia, before and after the Rev. war and the numerous changes long after between colonial militia, state and congressional militias and numerous different ..er...standards. Early militias were given requirements for arms, mostly muskets, but a good majority of them showed up with fowling pieces and numerous states allowed them. To make the argument easy for your brain to wrap around it, instead of musket, rifle or fowling piece, let's just say guns. It was later militias where congress took control and applied more requirements that basically formed a more standing army. Before that, men were expected to have GUNS, fight if needed and go home with their gun.

It is clear the 2nd amend takes for granted the right all men can be armed and further defines militia use in of.


You're usual blabber and lack of knowledge on the subject makes your argument weak from the start. There is no one perfect answer, except that the constitution takes for granted that firearms are a right to all men. There was no need to verify or make legal statement regarding this. The term militia really has no bearing in the argument anymore, but the for granted right to bear arms has always existed in US history until recent technology and criminal issues, dividing people on the original intent.