If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On May 07 2013 09:13 Kimaker wrote:

Legally, yes. Honestly? It's because I want guns and fuck anyone for telling me different. Don't plan on shooting people, hell, I don't even hunt, I just like collecting and taking them out to shoot at targets. Not sure why that's a problem.

Also @Shiori I've never claimed to be logically consistent in what I want and what I'm comfortable with others having. I'm not comfortable that some people can have children, but I'm cognizant of the fact that if I want something, I better find a way to be okay with others having it too. At it's core, the gun argument is wholly emotional on both sides.

On May 07 2013 09:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:


The reason guns are different is because of the 2nd Amendment.

On May 07 2013 09:14 Paljas wrote:

huh? The 2nd Amendment doesnt mention guns, but arms, which also could be nucler weapons.

On May 07 2013 09:20 micronesia wrote:

I'm no legal expert, but I think you could make the argument that guns are weapons that are reasonably needed by a militia that serves to defend the local land, whereas nukes are not.

On May 07 2013 09:20 micronesia wrote:

I'm no legal expert, but I think you could make the argument that guns are weapons that are reasonably needed by a militia that serves to defend the local land, whereas nukes are not.

On May 07 2013 09:14 Shiori wrote:

This is a bit of a problem when the law is supposed to be impartial. Emotions really don't have a place there.

On May 07 2013 09:25 Paljas wrote:

I am no expert either, and nukes were obviusly an exaggeration.
But it doent change the fact that the 2nd amendment doesnt mention guns.
Consindering the time it was written, it becomes even less clear.

On May 07 2013 09:27 kmillz wrote:


Emotions are a big reason we have laws...what do you mean they don't have a place there? Some people are upset that their family got murdered. Let's make murder illegal. If nobody cared, why would anyone care to make a law?

On May 07 2013 09:27 kmillz wrote:


Emotions are a big reason we have laws...what do you mean they don't have a place there? Some people are upset that their family got murdered. Let's make murder illegal. If nobody cared, why would anyone care to make a law?

On May 07 2013 09:28 Shiori wrote:

The point is that we need a little bit more of a reason to make something legal/illegal than "oh, i really like guns" versus "oh i really hate guns."

On May 07 2013 09:28 Shiori wrote:

The point is that we need a little bit more of a reason to make something legal/illegal than "oh, i really like guns" versus "oh i really hate guns."

On May 07 2013 09:28 Kimaker wrote:

wat.

Elaborate.

On May 07 2013 09:41 Paljas wrote:

Technicaly, the writers of the amendment had weapons like bayonets, canons, etc. in mind when writing it.
Applying it to todays weapons is not a trivial process. In theory, the amendment also gives me the right to own a bazooka
or a tank.

On May 07 2013 09:41 Paljas wrote:

Technicaly, the writers of the amendment had weapons like bayonets, canons, etc. in mind when writing it.
Applying it to todays weapons is not a trivial process. In theory, the amendment also gives me the right to own a bazooka
or a tank.

On May 07 2013 09:20 micronesia wrote:

I'm no legal expert, but I think you could make the argument that guns are weapons that are reasonably needed by a militia that serves to defend the local land, whereas nukes are not.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

-- Antonin Scalia

We can see something of a problem begin to develop here. Reasons one and two above are obviously anachronistic: militias composed of private gun owners are no longer useful in repelling invasions or suppressing insurrections; they are more likely to be the insurrectors. And obviously, militias no longer render the US Army unnecessary. What about the third one? Is a country whose "able-bodied men" are "trained in arms and organized" (and, one assumes, have access to guns) "better able to resist tyranny?"

Of course not. The idea that, in the modern world, a country full of people with private handguns, shotguns and AR-15s in their households is more likely to remain a liberal democracy than a country whose citizens lack such weapons is frankly ridiculous. Worldwide, there is no correlation whatsoever at the country level between private handgun ownership and liberal democracy. There are no cases of democratic countries in which nascent authoritarian governments were successfully resisted due to widespread gun ownership. When authoritarian governments come to power in democracies (which is rare), they do so at the ballot box or with heavy popular support; where juntas overthrow democratic governments, as in Greece, Brazil, Chile or Iran, popular gun ownership is irrelevant. Once authoritarian governments take power, if they decide they don't want citizens to own guns, they take them away, easily crushing any isolated attempts at resistance. When, on the other hand, authoritarian governments are overthrown in military uprisings (as opposed to peaceful revolutions, which are more common), the arms that defeat them come from defecting soldiers or outside aid. Widespread gun ownership among the common folk may conceivably have been an important obstacle to centralised government control in 17th-century Britain, just emerging from feudalism; but since the universalisation of the modern nation-state in the 19th century, the degree of force that governments can bring to bear has overwhelmed any conceivable popular defence of localised rights and privileges by companies of yeoman musketeers. To stack up against police, the National Guard or the US Army, private gun enthusiasts would, at a minimum, have to be packing an arsenal that would be illegal in any state in the union, even Arizona.

Indeed, lower in his opinion, Mr Scalia recognises this problem.

Mr Scalia's claim here is that modern technological developments have rendered the second amendment meaningless with regard to its original intent, but that we have to continue enforcing it unchanged, regardless. Perhaps at some level the implicit cognitive dissonance here disturbs him, and this is why he is now considering whether citizens do have a right to keep and bear arms that might actually give the US military pause, such as surface-to-air missiles that could take out American helicopters and fighter-bombers—plus maybe land mines, shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles, or perhaps just IEDs, which had considerable success in crippling light mechanised infantry in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Surely that could deter some federal tyranny!

I applaud Mr Scalia for doing his part to make this aspect of the gun-rights debate clearer. If the purpose of the second amendment is to enable citizens to resist the government, then the entire regime of current gun restrictions needs to be overturned: citizens need to be able to buy fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, military-grade explosives, remote detonators, armoured vehicles with mounted artillery, surface-to-air missiles, light bombers, armed drones, everything. If some citizens want to keep and bear arms in order to take on the power of the federal government, that's what it's going to take. And should those citizens decide to fully exercise such rights, then their second-amendment freedom will become the freedom to be attacked and crushed by the police and the US military, on behalf of those of us who support the integrity of the American government we have elected and the enforcement of its laws.

On May 07 2013 09:48 Kimaker wrote:
2. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was designed to allow people to enforce their will should the occasion arise whereby words have failed. Yes, some may find it cliche' but the truth is, The 2nd amendment exists to allow people to combat their governments.

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. (The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).) Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

-- Antonin Scalia

On May 07 2013 09:48 Kimaker wrote:
3. I'll preempt the, "But what chance would you stand against the modern American military with an AR-15?" and reference the obvious and oft repeated historical examples of Vietnam, Afghanistan (USSR), Iraq, Afghanistan (US). War's aren't about the size or the number of bombs. They're about will. Then there's the logistics of conducting a domestic war, etc...it's still relevant no matter how you slice it.

On May 07 2013 09:49 FallDownMarigold wrote:


Here's an interesting read:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights

Antonin Scalia actually touches on that question -- what exactly is meant by "arms"? You could make the argument that it only refers to guns, or "weapons that are reasonably needed by a militia that serves to defend the local land" -- but wait, what exactly are "weapons that are reasonably needed by a militia [...] to defend the local land"?

They are not hand guns, and they are not rifles:


The author discusses the idea:

On May 07 2013 09:48 Kimaker wrote:

According to a materialist approach to history that ignores the intent behind the material equivalency that's trying to be made. Yes, I guess under those circumstances you'd be right. Thank God that's not how the world works, or has ever worked.

1. It IS legal to own a tank in the United States.
2. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was designed to allow people to enforce their will should the occasion arise whereby words have failed. Yes, some may find it cliche' but the truth is, The 2nd amendment exists to allow people to combat their governments.
3. I'll preempt the, "But what chance would you stand against the modern American military with an AR-15?" and reference the obvious and oft repeated historical examples of Vietnam, Afghanistan (USSR), Iraq, Afghanistan (US). War's aren't about the size or the number of bombs. They're about will. Then there's the logistics of conducting a domestic war, etc...it's still relevant no matter how you slice it.

On May 07 2013 09:56 kmillz wrote:

What if nobody cares to own any of those things?

On May 07 2013 10:07 Deezl wrote:
It's my understanding that the right to bear arms exists to ensure that the citizens have the power to revolt in case the government starts being all North Korea and shit. I'm a Democrat that's for a broad interpretation of that amendment, and I think guns are mostly fine and we should treat the crazy people instead.