Support NeoGAF

[Sub_Level]

Yes, the military is going to turn on its own country with no breaks in the command chain or mutinies. It's not like any military personnel come from the south except probably half of them. The military, comprised of less than 2 million people, will control the entire population of over 300 million people through occupation. Drones will magically do the trick. No potential problems there.

Civil war is not an option. The whole point is to save lives, not spur a huge loss of lives. Slow and steady gun control measures is the only realistic option. Maybe in a generation or two the process can go faster if the culture is different.

 

[Torokil]

The Military.

Military personnel are almost always straight ticket republicans. They would never start a civil war to repeal the 2nd amendment, or whatever fantasy is going on in this thread.

 

[Weckum]

The Girandoni Air Rifle had a 20 round magazine and was perfectly capable of killing another human. This was in 1778, so a little over two years after the Declaration.

Do you think a tank is invincible? It's not. It has a human crew and requires intense logistics to run and operate, especially the Abrams our military currently operates which guzzles down gas at the rate of multiple gallons per mile. It's also designed to combat massed soviet armored formations, not a force that can fade into the populace.

An army of militia fighting armed with AR-15s isn't gonna defeat a well-trained army equipped with tanks, airplanes, drones, helicopters etc.

 

[Henkka]

I'll just quote my post that didn't get much traction in the Orlando thread.

It doesn't have to be about either banning or not banning guns. There are ways to drastically limit mass shootings with other regulations, imo. One is Japan-style regulations, where you have to pass multiple tests and get a license etc.

Why should civilians be able to have guns that carry more than, say, five bullets? Why do they have to fire as fast as you can pull the trigger? Why shouldn't all guns be "smart guns", that can be fired only when wielded by the owner?

Americans will probably think this is me calling for a nanny state. But I disagree. We all already agree the government should limit what kind of weapons civilians should be able to own. You can't plant mines in your yard. You can't own a tank. You can't own a Predator drone. Why should you be able to own an AR-15 as long as you don't have a criminal record? I can't think of a reason.

Think about that. Mines are a no-no, but a gun that can be used to shoot 100 people in a crowded space with ease is "freedom". What a fucking joke.

 

[Plumbob]

You should read the second amendment. The militia statement is an independent clause.

It's literally the whole point of the amendment.

 

[Rudelord]

An army of militia fighting armed with AR-15s isn't gonna defeat a well-trained army equipped with tanks, airplanes, drones, helicopters etc.

History unfortunately isn't on your side.

But let's say that those super expensive and difficult to maintain vehicles are used on the population. You don't have to hit them directly, you simply cut the beast at the neck - the supply lines. This is also assuming there aren't mass defections in our (entirely) volunteer military who would balk at the idea of shooting US citizens.

 

[LizardKing]

An army of militia fighting armed with AR-15s isn't gonna defeat a well-trained army equipped with tanks, airplanes, drones, helicopters etc.

All depends on the size and how hard the standing army fights back. This statement is flat wrong though as an absolute. It's fairly common.

 

[Suikoguy]

History unfortunately isn't on your side.

But let's say that those super expensive and difficult to maintain vehicles are used on the population. You don't have to hit them directly, you simply cut the beast at the neck - the supply lines. This is also assuming there aren't mass defections in our (entirely) volunteer military who would balk at the idea of shooting US citizens.

Ok, if the volunteer Army is not going to fire on citizens, then why do citizens need guns to overthrow the government?

 

[Subpar Scrub]

It's sad that Americans believe the US is such a shithole that if they relinquish their guns, the American government will instantly... What? Enslave the population?

The rest of the world wouldn't let it occur. It can't occur. The militia part of the amendment is worthless now.

 

[Ambient80]

Can we be real? There is no honest debate. There's one side that says rational things, then another side that says NO I DON'T WANNA and engages in transparent logical fallacies over and over again.

No, there are three camps of people. Folks who are anti-gun, folks who are anti-gun control, and the rational people in the middle who try to understand both sides and come up with reasonable solutions who are trampled to death by the other two sides.

"No one touches my guns!! Take them outta my cold dead hands!!!"

"All gun owners are small dicked men with inferiority/hero complexes."

Both "arguments" are toxic to finding reasonable legislation.

 

[Rudelord]

Ok, if the volunteer Army is not going to fire on citizens, then why do citizens need guns to overthrow the government?

To deal with those who don't defect?

Anyway, these scenarios are silly just because the idea of civil war in the US is something that won't happen because it cannot happen - the government will do everything in it's power to do that, at least.

Everything in this whole world would unravel at the seams if it came down to CW2: Electric Boogaloo.

 

[Suikoguy]

To deal with those who don't defect?

Wouldn't the defecting military be able to handle that?
And what about the police?

 

[Jisgsaw]

You should read the second amendment. The militia statement is an independent clause.

No, it's in the exacy same sentence. The only reason people are given a right to bear arms is so that there can be a militia (according to the amendment).
Thus this right can be limited as long as the militia can be armed without infringing on the amendment.

 

[Weckum]

History unfortunately isn't on your side.

But let's say that those super expensive and difficult to maintain vehicles are used on the population. You don't have to hit them directly, you simply cut the beast at the neck - the supply lines. This is also assuming there aren't mass defections in our (entirely) volunteer military who would balk at the idea of shooting US citizens.

Let's not compare Iraq and Syria to a hypothetical civil war in the US.


Anyway, the idea of a civil war in itself as an only reason to have guns is silly.

 

[devilhawk]

It's sad that Americans believe the US is such a shithole that if they relinquish their guns, the American government will instantly... What? Enslave the population?

The rest of the world wouldn't let it occur. It can't occur. The militia part of the amendment is worthless now.

The common retort you will get is "it's worthless until it isn't, and when it isn't it's too late."

Btw, aren't we near the point where you can print guns anyway?

That certainly will be an interesting discussion when that arrives.

 

[Codeblue]

Millions of armed citizens could definitely overthrow the US government. Multiple revolutions happen every year facing tanks, helicopters and other modern military equipment. And those people aren't nearly as well equipped as the US public. Go watch The Square. It's on Netflix. See what people can do without guns and then watch them get massacred. Then tell me armed citizens would have no place in a revolution.

Also, because the publics weapons are weaker you want to take away the rest of what they do have? That doesn't make any sense.

I never said we needed to take away the rest of what they have, though I am in favor of gun control. I just think militia groups are deluded.

 

[MarkMclovin]

This thing was written over 200 years ago. It's crazy that you guys are still following it.

 

[Karsticles]

No, it's in the exacy same sentence. The only reason people are given a right to bear arms is so that there can be a militia (according to the amendment).
Thus this right can be limited as long as the militia can be armed without infringing on the amendment.

The militia is the justification, but what cannot be infringed upon is the right to bear arms, not the creation of militias.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

It's sad that Americans believe the US is such a shithole that if they relinquish their guns, the American government will instantly... What? Enslave the population?

The rest of the world wouldn't let it occur. It can't occur. The militia part of the amendment is worthless now.

I had to defriend someone who went on a giant rant about how they have guns for the 1% chance of America turning into "Ferguson". They also told me they were sorry that I was so unimaginative that I couldn't conjur up scenarios in my head wherein I would need an automatic rifle handy.

They then went on to write about how they would gladly die in any one of these situations.

 

[Machspeed007]

I'm not an american citizen so I may be off here but I often get into debates on a local forum with hard right supporters that say that gun control legislation is leftist agenda.

So my question is, why aren't people (as far as I know) allowed to carry guns on the planes in USA? Doesn't the 2nd Amendment apply there as well? Isn't this a leftist thing to do already, creating exceptions?
So wouldn't be the people be safer carrying all guns on a plane?

 

[Suikoguy]

The problem with the overthrow the government argument.

In a situation where the Military and Police go along with the government in, say, killing dissenting citizens, that means the population agrees with what is going on. Since the Military and Police are made up of willing and volunteering citizens.

In order to get to a point where weapons would be useful, you would need to replace the current military with brainwashed conscripts using fear and threats, and do the same with the police. I don't see a scenario where that could happen in a long established democracy, especially without the government monitoring and suppressing any dissent.

 

[Jisgsaw]

The militia is the justification, but what cannot be infringed upon is the right to bear arms, not the creation of militias.

But this right must not be infringed because of the militia, that's the whole point of the amendment grammatically as well as historically. If you remove the militia from the equation, the amendment is obsolete.

And BTW, what I still don't understand, how are second amendment activist coping with the current restriction of not being able to bear automatic weapons and the likes?
Or bear weaopons on planes?

 

[Suikoguy]

The best argument gun activists have is self defense. It's a strong enough argument that I don't see self defense weapons being banned anytime soon.

Now if a non-lethal self defense weapon is invented that is just as effective?
Now that's going to make things interesting.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

From Wikipedia

Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order)

• enabling the people to organize a militia system
• participating in law enforcement
• deterring tyrannical government
• repelling invasion
• suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense

 

[HyperionX]

The best argument gun activists have is self defense. It's a strong enough argument that I don't see self defense weapons being banned anytime soon.

Now if a non-lethal self defense weapon is invented that is just as effective?
Now that's going to make things interesting.

Self-defense is an entirely discredited concept when it comes to guns. Extremely few people actually use guns in self-defense (less than 2,000 per year) and the increased risk of owning a gun (accidental discharge, suicide risk, confrontations with friends/family, etc.) massively outweigh the small safety benefit of owning firearms.

 

[LizardKing]

The problem with the overthrow the government argument.

In a situation where the Military and Police go along with the government in, say, killing dissenting citizens, that means the population agrees with what is going on. Since the Military and Police are made up of willing and volunteering citizens.

In order to get to a point where weapons would be useful, you would need to replace the current military with brainwashed conscripts using fear and threats, and do the same with the police. I don't see a scenario where that could happen in a long established democracy, especially without the government monitoring and suppressing any dissent.

You are never going to get everyone to agree on anything. There will be people who don't care, who are bribed, look out for their own self interests etc. It's pretty naive to think everyone has the best interests of the people at heart and that we can all agree on that. You should watch the square on Netflix too. Covers this nicely.

 

[oxrock]

The second amendment is about protecting civilian's means for protecting one's self and property. People like to think that once guns are banned that all gun violence will suddenly diminish. What's more likely to happen is that all law abiding citizens would eventually turn in their weapons and violent criminals obviously wouldn't. Of course in a perfect Utopian society a gun ban would work, everyone could be happy, children wouldn't starve, etc. But we'll never get there.

As a gun owner myself, I most fervently agree with the need to screen people before they buy assault rifles and the like and I personally feel no need of owning one. The problem with that is the fact that people who are anti guns will never be happy with just that. Once they've made some progress restricting gun owner's rights, they'll keep pushing. So the NRA and the like refuse to budge at all, even on things that may make sense in fear of losing far more ground in the future.

So what can we do? Well banning the sale or ownership of guns of people on watch lists might be a plan, but then you're directly contradicting second amendment again without any criminal act having been committed by the suspected watch list person. Of course this also doesn't really inhibit the indirect purchases of firearms either. Which is always a point that we'll be brought back to. If someone wants a gun, there'll always be a way to get one. It being illegal to murder someone doesn't stop maniacs from shooting up gay bars or shooting singers, why does it make sense that it'll stop people from buying guns legally or otherwise?

We don't live in a perfect world, there are many people in this world who for whatever millions of reasons wouldn't mind seeing you die in pursuit of their own goals. The police (even if well intentioned) aren't omnipresent or able to instantly resolve all situations with a snap of their fingers. This is just the world we live in. The way I see it, gun ownership is an imperfect way of giving normal people a fighting chance in our imperfect world. That all being said, I hope none of us ever have the need of protecting. That failing, I hope you or someone around you has the means to fight for your lives.

PS: I won't be responding to any comments of this post. People tend to be heated in both camps and I just wanted to contribute my honest thoughts on the matter. This forum's community is dominantly anti-gun so I'll save myself the berating.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

PS: I won't be responding to any comments of this post.

Says the guy that spent his first paragraph labeling the other side as morons.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

Hell no, I am not even going to think about raising my kids back in the States unless more stringent gun control happens.

I also firmly believe that the 2nd amendment was never meant to give individuals the right to bear arms. Really wish we could have a sane conversation about that but that is never going to happen in today's climate.

This thing was written over 200 years ago. It's crazy that you guys are still following it.

There is a fairly solid argument that the original document did not intend for any 'individual right to bear arms' and was there for militia purposes.

I personally think the "sophisticated collective right model" interpretation is the most sane takeaway, but that isn't the world we live in! I absolutely hate some of the reasoning used in the Heller case too, where
they just picked up other areas in the Constitution where 'The People' was used and made bullshit conclusions to fit their agenda with no regards to the actual grammar patterns that were common place in that period.

 

[yogloo]

This thing was written over 200 years ago. It's crazy that you guys are still following it.

Well the Bible is even older...

 

[LizardKing]

Says the guy that spent his first paragraph labeling the other side as morons.

Where do you get that? Calm down no one called anyone a moron. This is hyper touchy.

 

[HyperionX]

The second amendment is about protecting civilian's means for protecting one's self and property. People like to think that once guns are banned that all gun violence will suddenly diminish. What's more likely to happen is that all law abiding citizens would eventually turn in their weapons and violent criminals obviously wouldn't. Of course in a perfect Utopian society a gun ban would work, everyone could be happy, children wouldn't starve, etc. But we'll never get there.

Your central premise is completely wrong. Owning a gun provides nearly no protection to yourself or your property. Self-defense is extremely rare as I mentioned earlier. The risk of simply owning a gun greatly outweighs this. Also, numerous countries have implement strong gun laws following mass shootings. The result is a dramatic decrease in homicides and gun violence with virtually no repercussions. The only real confused people here are the gun owners who see guns as a necessary evil and never stopped and think about whether any of their basic precepts of how the world works are true.

 

[timetokill]

This question for all people who believes that everyone has the right to bare arms and doesn't want gun control like background checks or some type of mental evaluation before owning a firearm.

Let me know if you find anybody on GAF that fits this criteria OP.

 

[Pantaghana]

Don't know how important it is to the discussion, but I'll just state that I'm not American.

I consider that there are legitimate reasons to own guns.
Target shooting can be fun, hunting is important for population control of certain wildlife, there are people that live in remote areas that occasionally need to protect their property from bears and wolves.

However, "protecting yourself from a tyrannical government" is not a legitimate reason because it's a fantasy in the same way that you need guns to protect yourself from werewolves.

People certainly should have a way to buy and own firearms. But considering their nature, their sale should be regulated, and the types of guns available for sale should be restricted.

 

[Piggus]

OP: When you buy a gun, one of the questions on the form asks if you have any mental stability issues. So no, I would not be okay with that person having a gun, as they were either given that gun or they lied on the form. Then again I guess I'm one of the rare "liberal" gun owners who believes the buying process should be much more involved.

I don't think AR15's existed when they drafted that. Does America not think they need to change things somewhat?

Besides If the American government decided to go after the people I think they may just have the upper hand considering they have tanks and such.

What exactly would you change? Ban AR-15s or similar guns? How do you define those guns, i.e. whixh guns fall into that category? Can you show that someone is less deadly with three 10-round magazines than they are with one 30-round magazine?

A ban on scary looking "assault weapons" may make anti-gun people feel better, but there's little to suggest that it would actually do anything. Did the assault weapons ban deter the Columbine shooter who used a 9mm carbine that was legal under the assault weapons ban? Did California's magazine capacity laws deter the San Bernadino shooters? The issue is a lot more complicated than one type of weapon.

As for the government going after people, good luck convincing soldiers and government officials to target civilians over the loss of constitutional right, especially a right that has a strong level of support among military members.

 

[timetokill]

However, "protecting yourself from a tyrannical government" is not a legitimate reason because it's a fantasy in the same way that you need guns to protect yourself from werewolves.

Except people have protected themselves from tyrannical governments in reality many times, as opposed to werewolves which are fiction.

You also might want to look into how America was formed.

Besides If the American government decided to go after the people I think they may just have the upper hand considering they have tanks and such.

This argument keeps getting brought up.

Are people here so ignorant that they think once tanks came on the scene, rebellions and uprisings were all squashed? Look around the world.

 

[Pantaghana]

Except people have protected themselves from tyrannical governments in reality many times, as opposed to werewolves which are fiction.

You also might want to look into how America was formed.



This argument keeps getting brought up.

Are people here so ignorant that they think once tanks came on the scene, rebellions and uprisings were all squashed? Look around the world.

I'm well aware of American history, but that was 200 years ago, things have changed and what happened then isn't really possible to today.

 

[Henkka]

The assumption seems to be that if an armed uprising were to happen, it would always be "Righteous citizens VS. Tyrannical government".

But why couldn't it go the other way around? There's this fantasy that if a rebellion were to occur, everyone would be on the same side. In reality, it would probably be multiple factions scrambling for control and full-blown civil war.

If you think "the people" should have and currently do have the power to topple the government, what's preventing a Tyrannical uprising deposing a Righteous government?

 

[timetokill]

I'm well aware of American history, but that was 200 years ago, things have changed and what happened then isn't really possible to today.

How do you figure? Has America somehow perfected the government that cannot be overthrown by its people?

Because if so we should all be terrified.

 

[Henkka]

The people most willing and able to topple the US government would probably replace it with a Christian theocracy. Freedom, lol.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

How do you figure? Has America somehow perfected the government that cannot be overthrown by its people?

Because if so we should all be terrified.

Most people are probably more terrified of the gun-toting militia hate groups popping up in areas than they are of some tyrannical government boogeyman.

And they are right to be. I know I would be.

 

[Pantaghana]

How do you figure? Has America somehow perfected the government that cannot be overthrown by its people?

Because if so we should all be terrified.

Government doesn't need to be perfect, just good enough that the people have no interest in overthrowing it.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

Isn't that kind of a strawman argument? I don't think anyone who's for the 2nd amendment, says that mentally unstable people should have them.

 

[AaronB]

The constitutional question is an interesting but purely academic one. From what I can see, most gun control advocates don't really care whether the constitution protects individual rights to own guns or not. They just want to push as many restrictions as they can get the public to accept by following an incremental approach and taking advantage of tragedies to push their views. Suppose massive studies by historians of grammar conclusively demonstrated that the 2nd amendment protected individual rights to firearms - would that change your views at all? Would it even change your approach at all, to make you start mobilizing for an honest attempt to amend the constitution rather than angling for an override of the constitution by whichever branch of the federal government you can convince to act?

Personally, I find Lysander Spooner's arguments in "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" to be completely devastating. No one alive approved the constitution; even only a small portion of the people living at the time had any say in its approval; and many many more. However, if you accept that, then you're left with trying to come up with other justifications for why the government has the right to do what it does. The biggest contender seems to be "Social Contract theory" which is a far bigger laughable fiction than the constitution. In practice the government grabs as much power and restricts as much personal liberty as the people will put up with, regardless of what the constitution says; and the people who are eager to give up their freedom in exchange for security (or the chance to impose their views on their neighbors) don't really care what the constitution says, either.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Anti-Gun regulation arguments are always disingenuous.

 

[klonere]

Isn't that kind of a strawman argument? I don't think anyone who's for the 2nd amendment, says that mentally unstable people should have them.

Republicans have argued that people on no-fly lists because of links to terrorists should be allowed to buy guns so ???

 

[timetokill]

Republicans have argued that people on no-fly lists because of links to terrorists should be allowed to buy guns so ???

The No-Fly Lists are bullshit in of themselves, but there's a huge difference between restricting air travel and restricting a fundamental right guaranteed in the constitution without due process. That said I'm not Republican so whatever.

 

[Fred Feuerstein]

I throw another question in: wouldn't it be a start to stop selling automatic weapons and rifles to "normal" citizens? I guess handguns cannot do the same damage than big guns.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

The constitutional question is an interesting but purely academic one. From what I can see, most gun control advocates don't really care whether the constitution protects individual rights to own guns or not. They just want to push as many restrictions as they can get the public to accept by following an incremental approach and taking advantage of tragedies to push their views. Suppose massive studies by historians of grammar conclusively demonstrated that the 2nd amendment protected individual rights to firearms - would that change your views at all? Would it even change your approach at all, to make you start mobilizing for an honest attempt to amend the constitution rather than angling for an override of the constitution by whichever branch of the federal government you can convince to act?
.

I agree to an extent, but it's also important to remember that the individual right interpretation is a very recent phenomenon. Not even 20 years ago it was considered a collective right.

I have my bias on this though, as I really don't even think you need some incredibly massive study to come to the conclusion that they did not mean an individual right.

The entire standard or individual right argument is based on the militia clause being prefatory to an operative clause ("the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") which seems a bit weird considering there is literally not a single example of such a prefatory/operative grammatical setup in any other constitutional amendment.

 

[klonere]