|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 16 2013 03:05 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 02:58 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 02:46 Integra wrote:On January 16 2013 02:43 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 02:13 Integra wrote:On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22376832/ny-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-newtownThe New York State Senate just passed Governor Cuomo's proposed new gun legislation, and the legislature is voting as we speak, I believe. If it passes, a few provisions: - Private sales, except to family members, require background checks through a dealer
- New yorkers barred from buying assault weapons over the internet
- Failing to safely store a weapon could be a misdemeanor
- Ammo magazines are restricted from 10 to 7; current owners of high cap mags have 1 year to sell them out of state
- Being caught at home with 8 or more bullets in a mag could face a misdemeanor
- Stores that sell ammo will need to register, run background checks, keep a database of sales
- Therapists become required to report credible gun threats to the state (via mental health director)
- A patient's guns can be taken from them
- Increased sentences for the shooting of a first responder
- Assault weapons now include 1 'military feature' instead of needing 2; this includes pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, etc
- Current gun owners will have to register them (even though previously not needed to be registered)
Some of these I'm fine with, assuming I understand them correctly (1, 2, 3 if it's reasonable, 6, 7 if there is evidence that this will help, 8 if there are reasonable protections in place, 9). Some of them don't seem as good to me (4-5 what about guns like the M1 Garand that only come in 8 bullet blocks? What about starting by not letting new guns be designed to require high-capacity magazines?, 10 yea I'm worried someone is going to slaughter 26 school personel with a bayonet ._., 11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this). We should know soon what will happen. Looks like the gun owners really were the losers after the shootout incident. Its so ridiculous too. Some huge percentage of gun-related deaths are from handguns, it's like 90-95% depending on what sources you listen to. This legislation does nothing about them. And of the remaining 5-10% which are long-guns (shotguns, rifles), an extremely small number of those are semi-automatics. This legislation is only against the few guns which actually aren't used in crimes. If it's about saving lives like the lawmakers say, getting rid of semi-autos is pointless. I never said I was against it, and the reason behind my stance is that I have yet to hear a argument for why civilians should carry weapons which is considered as military. I just don't see the value behind owning a high-rate fire arms. I didn't say you were against it. But if the government's got them, we need them too. The whole point behind the Second Amendment is to be able to defend against tyranny, both foreign and domestic. If the tyrant's got semi-automatics, the people need them too. Before you (or someone else) tries it, the US military is not all-powerful. Guerrilla fighters would totally put up a good fight. The guerrillas would have no real central structure which could be targeted, while the tyrannical military would have to defend every factory, refinery, powerplant, bridge, harbor, and dam in the country. The tyrants also have to keep the civilians on their side, who will quickly tire of fighting their own neighbors. There are no civilian guerrillas though, so there's no war weariness for them to worry about. Last, the drones can't bomb what they can't find. There are forests and swamps all over the country that are too dense even for infra-red cameras to peer into. And besides, why shouldn't civilians have them? As you can see, they're almost never used in crimes. I shouldn't have to provide a reason to have them, you should have to provide a reason I shouldn't have them. Innocent until proven guilty right? Please drop the freedom fighter.argument its silly. Scotus already ruled the second amendment covers non militia citizens right to protect themselves with a firearm. So there's no reason to use that argument.
Except that was the argument they made. That's why they defended the individual's right to own firearms.
|
On January 16 2013 03:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 03:05 heliusx wrote:On January 16 2013 02:58 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 02:46 Integra wrote:On January 16 2013 02:43 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 02:13 Integra wrote:On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22376832/ny-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-newtownThe New York State Senate just passed Governor Cuomo's proposed new gun legislation, and the legislature is voting as we speak, I believe. If it passes, a few provisions: - Private sales, except to family members, require background checks through a dealer
- New yorkers barred from buying assault weapons over the internet
- Failing to safely store a weapon could be a misdemeanor
- Ammo magazines are restricted from 10 to 7; current owners of high cap mags have 1 year to sell them out of state
- Being caught at home with 8 or more bullets in a mag could face a misdemeanor
- Stores that sell ammo will need to register, run background checks, keep a database of sales
- Therapists become required to report credible gun threats to the state (via mental health director)
- A patient's guns can be taken from them
- Increased sentences for the shooting of a first responder
- Assault weapons now include 1 'military feature' instead of needing 2; this includes pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, etc
- Current gun owners will have to register them (even though previously not needed to be registered)
Some of these I'm fine with, assuming I understand them correctly (1, 2, 3 if it's reasonable, 6, 7 if there is evidence that this will help, 8 if there are reasonable protections in place, 9). Some of them don't seem as good to me (4-5 what about guns like the M1 Garand that only come in 8 bullet blocks? What about starting by not letting new guns be designed to require high-capacity magazines?, 10 yea I'm worried someone is going to slaughter 26 school personel with a bayonet ._., 11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this). We should know soon what will happen. Looks like the gun owners really were the losers after the shootout incident. Its so ridiculous too. Some huge percentage of gun-related deaths are from handguns, it's like 90-95% depending on what sources you listen to. This legislation does nothing about them. And of the remaining 5-10% which are long-guns (shotguns, rifles), an extremely small number of those are semi-automatics. This legislation is only against the few guns which actually aren't used in crimes. If it's about saving lives like the lawmakers say, getting rid of semi-autos is pointless. I never said I was against it, and the reason behind my stance is that I have yet to hear a argument for why civilians should carry weapons which is considered as military. I just don't see the value behind owning a high-rate fire arms. I didn't say you were against it. But if the government's got them, we need them too. The whole point behind the Second Amendment is to be able to defend against tyranny, both foreign and domestic. If the tyrant's got semi-automatics, the people need them too. Before you (or someone else) tries it, the US military is not all-powerful. Guerrilla fighters would totally put up a good fight. The guerrillas would have no real central structure which could be targeted, while the tyrannical military would have to defend every factory, refinery, powerplant, bridge, harbor, and dam in the country. The tyrants also have to keep the civilians on their side, who will quickly tire of fighting their own neighbors. There are no civilian guerrillas though, so there's no war weariness for them to worry about. Last, the drones can't bomb what they can't find. There are forests and swamps all over the country that are too dense even for infra-red cameras to peer into. And besides, why shouldn't civilians have them? As you can see, they're almost never used in crimes. I shouldn't have to provide a reason to have them, you should have to provide a reason I shouldn't have them. Innocent until proven guilty right? Please drop the freedom fighter.argument its silly. Scotus already ruled the second amendment covers non militia citizens right to protect themselves with a firearm. So there's no reason to use that argument. Except that was the argument they made. That's why they defended the individual's right to own firearms.
According to the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v Heller...
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
|
On January 16 2013 03:10 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this). Farmers/game hunters all over the country still have guns. I think gun owners need to take responsibility. I'm sorry that it's a sacrifice to have to give up your hobby and a strangely embedded part of your culture, but the legality and culture of gun ownership is partly to blame for child killings throughout the country (as well as a lot more murder). I'll say it again, idolising items designed to take lives will result in lives being taken. How your hobby can be worth that much to you is beyond me. Abandon the human instinct to pass on the blame, accept that gun culture is a part of the cause, abandon that culture.
Except these "Assault Weapons" that are being banned have almost never been used in crimes. Far more children are killed by other guns than by "Assault Weapons".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
The US is not even on the chart. It's not like the Wild West or something like the media would have you believe.
On January 16 2013 03:17 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 03:11 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:05 heliusx wrote:On January 16 2013 02:58 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 02:46 Integra wrote:On January 16 2013 02:43 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 02:13 Integra wrote:On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_22376832/ny-seals-1st-state-gun-laws-since-newtownThe New York State Senate just passed Governor Cuomo's proposed new gun legislation, and the legislature is voting as we speak, I believe. If it passes, a few provisions: - Private sales, except to family members, require background checks through a dealer
- New yorkers barred from buying assault weapons over the internet
- Failing to safely store a weapon could be a misdemeanor
- Ammo magazines are restricted from 10 to 7; current owners of high cap mags have 1 year to sell them out of state
- Being caught at home with 8 or more bullets in a mag could face a misdemeanor
- Stores that sell ammo will need to register, run background checks, keep a database of sales
- Therapists become required to report credible gun threats to the state (via mental health director)
- A patient's guns can be taken from them
- Increased sentences for the shooting of a first responder
- Assault weapons now include 1 'military feature' instead of needing 2; this includes pistol grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, etc
- Current gun owners will have to register them (even though previously not needed to be registered)
Some of these I'm fine with, assuming I understand them correctly (1, 2, 3 if it's reasonable, 6, 7 if there is evidence that this will help, 8 if there are reasonable protections in place, 9). Some of them don't seem as good to me (4-5 what about guns like the M1 Garand that only come in 8 bullet blocks? What about starting by not letting new guns be designed to require high-capacity magazines?, 10 yea I'm worried someone is going to slaughter 26 school personel with a bayonet ._., 11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this). We should know soon what will happen. Looks like the gun owners really were the losers after the shootout incident. Its so ridiculous too. Some huge percentage of gun-related deaths are from handguns, it's like 90-95% depending on what sources you listen to. This legislation does nothing about them. And of the remaining 5-10% which are long-guns (shotguns, rifles), an extremely small number of those are semi-automatics. This legislation is only against the few guns which actually aren't used in crimes. If it's about saving lives like the lawmakers say, getting rid of semi-autos is pointless. I never said I was against it, and the reason behind my stance is that I have yet to hear a argument for why civilians should carry weapons which is considered as military. I just don't see the value behind owning a high-rate fire arms. I didn't say you were against it. But if the government's got them, we need them too. The whole point behind the Second Amendment is to be able to defend against tyranny, both foreign and domestic. If the tyrant's got semi-automatics, the people need them too. Before you (or someone else) tries it, the US military is not all-powerful. Guerrilla fighters would totally put up a good fight. The guerrillas would have no real central structure which could be targeted, while the tyrannical military would have to defend every factory, refinery, powerplant, bridge, harbor, and dam in the country. The tyrants also have to keep the civilians on their side, who will quickly tire of fighting their own neighbors. There are no civilian guerrillas though, so there's no war weariness for them to worry about. Last, the drones can't bomb what they can't find. There are forests and swamps all over the country that are too dense even for infra-red cameras to peer into. And besides, why shouldn't civilians have them? As you can see, they're almost never used in crimes. I shouldn't have to provide a reason to have them, you should have to provide a reason I shouldn't have them. Innocent until proven guilty right? Please drop the freedom fighter.argument its silly. Scotus already ruled the second amendment covers non militia citizens right to protect themselves with a firearm. So there's no reason to use that argument. Except that was the argument they made. That's why they defended the individual's right to own firearms. According to the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v Heller... The Supreme Court held:[43] (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
Reread (b) please.
|
On January 16 2013 03:10 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 01:21 micronesia wrote:11 This is what happened in Britain, as they promised guns wouldn't be unilaterally taken away, right before they unilaterally took them away... and many Americans know this). Farmers/game hunters all over the country still have guns. I think gun owners need to take responsibility. I'm sorry that it's a sacrifice to have to give up your hobby and a strangely embedded part of your culture, but the legality and culture of gun ownership is partly to blame for child killings throughout the country (as well as a lot more murder). I'll say it again, idolising items designed to take lives will result in lives being taken. How your hobby can be worth that much to you is beyond me. Abandon the human instinct to pass on the blame, accept that gun culture is a part of the cause, abandon that culture.
Or you could abandon your culture of egalitarian bullshit, and get aboard the reality train.
You write off the culture like it's just a piece of clothing that can be discarded. It's not. It represents something, it is an idea in action. That idea is that life is NOT the ultimate, the paramount. Principles are. If your highest principle happens to be life, so be it, but that is not every man's valuation. What this insistence on the abandonment of gun culture is, is an attempt to place what you value as higher though legislation, not through legitimate argument or persuasion.
Make a case. Convince people through words to abandon their guns. Treat them like people, not like some distant huddled mass of dullards. Don't legislate it. Legislating it is the same as putting a gun to their heads. Which most of the people you are affecting have, and would never do to you.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And laws are the expression of that force.
|
@millitron
I guess I am going to have to lay it out for you in an easier to understand fashion. I thought you could put two and two together if you read the ruling. SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd amendment was NOT designed solely for protection from government. Since it's ratification it was interpreted to cover citizens rights to have firearms to protect themselves completely separate from a militia.
|
I'll just leave this here:
![[image loading]](http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/734970_10151275042686700_917838721_n.jpg)
User was warned for this post
|
On January 16 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:
@millitron
I guess I am going to have to lay it out for you in an easier to understand fashion. I thought you could put two and two together if you read the ruling. SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd amendment was NOT designed solely for protection from government. Since it's ratification it was interpreted to cover citizens rights to have firearms to protect themselves completely separate from a militia.
Right, its not designed SOLELY for protection against the government, but that still is a big part of it.
"The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people...." - part (b) of their ruling.
Just because warfare has changed and having traditional standing militias doesn't make sense anymore, doesn't mean the basis of the position no longer makes sense either. So there's no militia organizations anymore, big whoop. You don't need a central authority to fight a guerrilla war.
|
On January 16 2013 03:46 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:
@millitron
I guess I am going to have to lay it out for you in an easier to understand fashion. I thought you could put two and two together if you read the ruling. SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd amendment was NOT designed solely for protection from government. Since it's ratification it was interpreted to cover citizens rights to have firearms to protect themselves completely separate from a militia. Right, its not designed SOLELY for protection against the government, but that still is a big part of it. "The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people...." - part (b) of their ruling. Just because warfare has changed and having traditional standing militias doesn't make sense anymore, doesn't mean the basis of the position no longer makes sense either. So there's no militia organizations anymore, big whoop. You don't need a central authority to fight a guerrilla war.
Why doesn't it make sense? It seems to me, part b happened. We've got a politicized standing army.
|
On January 16 2013 03:51 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 03:46 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:
@millitron
I guess I am going to have to lay it out for you in an easier to understand fashion. I thought you could put two and two together if you read the ruling. SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd amendment was NOT designed solely for protection from government. Since it's ratification it was interpreted to cover citizens rights to have firearms to protect themselves completely separate from a militia. Right, its not designed SOLELY for protection against the government, but that still is a big part of it. "The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people...." - part (b) of their ruling. Just because warfare has changed and having traditional standing militias doesn't make sense anymore, doesn't mean the basis of the position no longer makes sense either. So there's no militia organizations anymore, big whoop. You don't need a central authority to fight a guerrilla war. Why doesn't it make sense?
Because having a central, easily targeted organization throws away many of the advantages of guerrilla warfare. It's easy to fight an easily-identified, organized foe. Predator drones would be over the militia HQ in minutes. It's much harder to fight a foe who could be anyone anywhere, who also has a fluid, difficult-to-disrupt or even nonexistent chain of command.
|
All I tried to explain to you is that you don't need to argue for gun rights based on some crazy hypothetical situation that is not going to happen. There are arguments that pertain to the current situation in America yet you choose to argue with the crazy notion that we need guns to fight the feds. It's hard to take that seriously, as demonstrated by countless posters ostracizing people using the fight the fed argument.
|
On January 16 2013 03:54 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 03:51 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 03:46 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:
@millitron
I guess I am going to have to lay it out for you in an easier to understand fashion. I thought you could put two and two together if you read the ruling. SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd amendment was NOT designed solely for protection from government. Since it's ratification it was interpreted to cover citizens rights to have firearms to protect themselves completely separate from a militia. Right, its not designed SOLELY for protection against the government, but that still is a big part of it. "The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people...." - part (b) of their ruling. Just because warfare has changed and having traditional standing militias doesn't make sense anymore, doesn't mean the basis of the position no longer makes sense either. So there's no militia organizations anymore, big whoop. You don't need a central authority to fight a guerrilla war. Why doesn't it make sense? Because having a central, easily targeted organization throws away many of the advantages of guerrilla warfare. It's easy to fight an easily-identified, organized foe. Predator drones would be over the militia HQ in minutes. It's much harder to fight a foe who could be anyone anywhere, who also has a fluid, difficult-to-disrupt or even nonexistent chain of command.
What? You're saying a militia can't engage in guerrilla warfare? Why?
|
On January 16 2013 03:56 heliusx wrote:
All I tried to explain to you is that you don't need to argue for gun rights based on some crazy hypothetical situation that is not going to happen. There are arguments that pertain to the current situation in America yet you choose to argue with the crazy notion that we need guns to fight the feds. It's hard to take that seriously, as demonstrated by countless posters ostracizing people using the fight the fed argument.
What's so crazy about it? Democracies have turned tyrannical many times in the past. The Reign of Terror in France in the 19th century, the election of Fascists in Spain and Italy in the early 20th century, and more recently it looks like it might happen again in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood bullying its way in.
The US Government has murdered American Citizens. Look up Ruby Ridge, Waco, or Kent State. The government is not some perfect, angelic institution. It's made up of the same people who many feel cannot be trusted with "Assault Weapons".
If I can't have "Assault Weapons", they shouldn't either.
On January 16 2013 04:01 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 03:54 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:51 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 03:46 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:
@millitron
I guess I am going to have to lay it out for you in an easier to understand fashion. I thought you could put two and two together if you read the ruling. SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd amendment was NOT designed solely for protection from government. Since it's ratification it was interpreted to cover citizens rights to have firearms to protect themselves completely separate from a militia. Right, its not designed SOLELY for protection against the government, but that still is a big part of it. "The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people...." - part (b) of their ruling. Just because warfare has changed and having traditional standing militias doesn't make sense anymore, doesn't mean the basis of the position no longer makes sense either. So there's no militia organizations anymore, big whoop. You don't need a central authority to fight a guerrilla war. Why doesn't it make sense? Because having a central, easily targeted organization throws away many of the advantages of guerrilla warfare. It's easy to fight an easily-identified, organized foe. Predator drones would be over the militia HQ in minutes. It's much harder to fight a foe who could be anyone anywhere, who also has a fluid, difficult-to-disrupt or even nonexistent chain of command. What? You're saying a militia can't engage in guerrilla warfare? Why?
They can, and I expect that the few militia groups around would. But they will not be as effective as disparate individuals. Militias have a chain of command that can be disrupted, they have logistics that can be attacked or denied. Individuals don't have either of those problems.
|
On January 16 2013 03:56 heliusx wrote:
All I tried to explain to you is that you don't need to argue for gun rights based on some crazy hypothetical situation that is not going to happen. There are arguments that pertain to the current situation in America yet you choose to argue with the crazy notion that we need guns to fight the feds. It's hard to take that seriously, as demonstrated by countless posters ostracizing people using the fight the fed argument.
The arguments against the "fight the fed" argument as you call it have to my knowledge been: no disorganized force armed with small arms and improvised weapons can stand against the might of the US military, and the US government will never turn against the population. The first part has been refuted by evidence in place such as Afghanistan and Vietnam, and the second part is just as hypothetical, with less evidence of the possibility, as the situation when the US government changes in a manner to oppress it's people.
|
On January 16 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 03:56 heliusx wrote:
All I tried to explain to you is that you don't need to argue for gun rights based on some crazy hypothetical situation that is not going to happen. There are arguments that pertain to the current situation in America yet you choose to argue with the crazy notion that we need guns to fight the feds. It's hard to take that seriously, as demonstrated by countless posters ostracizing people using the fight the fed argument. What's so crazy about it? Democracies have turned tyrannical many times in the past. The Reign of Terror in France in the 19th century, the election of Fascists in Spain and Italy in the early 20th century, and more recently it looks like it might happen again in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood bullying its way in. The US Government has murdered American Citizens. Look up Ruby Ridge, Waco, or Kent State. The government is not some perfect, angelic institution. It's made up of the same people who many feel cannot be trusted with "Assault Weapons". If I can't have "Assault Weapons", they shouldn't either. Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:01 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 03:54 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:51 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 03:46 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:
@millitron
I guess I am going to have to lay it out for you in an easier to understand fashion. I thought you could put two and two together if you read the ruling. SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd amendment was NOT designed solely for protection from government. Since it's ratification it was interpreted to cover citizens rights to have firearms to protect themselves completely separate from a militia. Right, its not designed SOLELY for protection against the government, but that still is a big part of it. "The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people...." - part (b) of their ruling. Just because warfare has changed and having traditional standing militias doesn't make sense anymore, doesn't mean the basis of the position no longer makes sense either. So there's no militia organizations anymore, big whoop. You don't need a central authority to fight a guerrilla war. Why doesn't it make sense? Because having a central, easily targeted organization throws away many of the advantages of guerrilla warfare. It's easy to fight an easily-identified, organized foe. Predator drones would be over the militia HQ in minutes. It's much harder to fight a foe who could be anyone anywhere, who also has a fluid, difficult-to-disrupt or even nonexistent chain of command. What? You're saying a militia can't engage in guerrilla warfare? Why? They can, and I expect that the few militia groups around would. But they will not be as effective as disparate individuals. Militias have a chain of command that can be disrupted, they have logistics that can be attacked or denied. Individuals don't have either of those problems.
That's what our current military has.
|
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)"
|
On January 16 2013 04:10 iplayBANJO wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 03:56 heliusx wrote:
All I tried to explain to you is that you don't need to argue for gun rights based on some crazy hypothetical situation that is not going to happen. There are arguments that pertain to the current situation in America yet you choose to argue with the crazy notion that we need guns to fight the feds. It's hard to take that seriously, as demonstrated by countless posters ostracizing people using the fight the fed argument. The arguments against the "fight the fed" argument as you call it have to my knowledge been: no disorganized force armed with small arms and improvised weapons can stand against the might of the US military, and the US government will never turn against the population. The first part has been refuted by evidence in place such as Afghanistan and Vietnam, and the second part is just as hypothetical, with less evidence of the possibility, as the situation when the US government changes in a manner to oppress it's people.
You're clearly not understanding my post or just flat out didn't read it.
|
On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus.
I know right? I couldn't imagine my neighbours starting a revolution... that fat lady downstairs with a machine gun, brrr... she'd probably kill all her kids accidentally before anything else.
Besides there's no need for violence, give everyone pizza and free cable and no revolution will rise. True empowerment comes from... education!
|
On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)"
So you're saying there shouldn't be an army?
|
On January 16 2013 04:11 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:05 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:56 heliusx wrote:
All I tried to explain to you is that you don't need to argue for gun rights based on some crazy hypothetical situation that is not going to happen. There are arguments that pertain to the current situation in America yet you choose to argue with the crazy notion that we need guns to fight the feds. It's hard to take that seriously, as demonstrated by countless posters ostracizing people using the fight the fed argument. What's so crazy about it? Democracies have turned tyrannical many times in the past. The Reign of Terror in France in the 19th century, the election of Fascists in Spain and Italy in the early 20th century, and more recently it looks like it might happen again in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood bullying its way in. The US Government has murdered American Citizens. Look up Ruby Ridge, Waco, or Kent State. The government is not some perfect, angelic institution. It's made up of the same people who many feel cannot be trusted with "Assault Weapons". If I can't have "Assault Weapons", they shouldn't either. On January 16 2013 04:01 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 03:54 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:51 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 16 2013 03:46 Millitron wrote:On January 16 2013 03:34 heliusx wrote:
@millitron
I guess I am going to have to lay it out for you in an easier to understand fashion. I thought you could put two and two together if you read the ruling. SCOTUS affirmed the 2nd amendment was NOT designed solely for protection from government. Since it's ratification it was interpreted to cover citizens rights to have firearms to protect themselves completely separate from a militia. Right, its not designed SOLELY for protection against the government, but that still is a big part of it. "The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people...." - part (b) of their ruling. Just because warfare has changed and having traditional standing militias doesn't make sense anymore, doesn't mean the basis of the position no longer makes sense either. So there's no militia organizations anymore, big whoop. You don't need a central authority to fight a guerrilla war. Why doesn't it make sense? Because having a central, easily targeted organization throws away many of the advantages of guerrilla warfare. It's easy to fight an easily-identified, organized foe. Predator drones would be over the militia HQ in minutes. It's much harder to fight a foe who could be anyone anywhere, who also has a fluid, difficult-to-disrupt or even nonexistent chain of command. What? You're saying a militia can't engage in guerrilla warfare? Why? They can, and I expect that the few militia groups around would. But they will not be as effective as disparate individuals. Militias have a chain of command that can be disrupted, they have logistics that can be attacked or denied. Individuals don't have either of those problems. That's what our current military has.
Right, which is why individuals are better off. The US military is great at disrupting chains of command or bombing logistics. It's not so good at hunting down individual guerrilla fighters.
I'm totally in favor of having an actual militia, I just don't think they're the answer if it comes to blows against the US military. I wish there was one close enough to me so I could join up.
|
On January 16 2013 04:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2013 04:12 farvacola wrote:
I love this part, where silly theorycrafting as to the viability of a guerilla campaign against the US government becomes the focus. We've had actual military veterans post in this thread and share their experience with just how incredibly nonsensical the notion is, but don't let that stop you. We can see the absolute misery of the average person living amongst guerilla warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq, with TIME photos of starving guerillas in bombed out sandstone bunkers looking awfully forlorn, but don't let that stop you. It can even be assumed that any potential revolution type scenario in the US would be incredibly complicated, with practically every 1st world country likely throwing their hat into the ring in some way and the US military splintering into various allegiances. But don't let that stop you from claiming that your semi-auto rifle and box of old grenades is gonna make the difference once shit hits the fan.
"Viva la revolucion! (But only if we have small arms!)" So you're saying there shouldn't be an army?
No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
