The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Estebonrober]

Others have pointed out the problems with this. I'm wondering why you'd want to do it in the first place? Is the point just to screw gun owners? What happens when religious zealots get in charge and do the same thing about declaring your religion to obtain essential services? (ostensibly to deny service to anyone not on the approved religion list) Don't say that could never happen; you just invented the precedent for it.
BTW, Merry Christmas, y'all! View attachment 541663

Yes this is a good point in that it does set a dangerous precedent. I said specifically that I’m not sure if I support it just that it fake to mind as a possibility.

I’m already on the record on gun control in that any clips holding more then seven rounds should be kept at ranges or gunsmith gunshop locations. All of which require registration and all of which would be the first to fight the government if it got tyrannical. It’s not perfect but nothing that allows home ownership of guns is going to be and it is something.

 

[cardgame]

Yes this is a good point in that it does set a dangerous precedent. I said specifically that I’m not sure if I support it just that it fake to mind as a possibility.

I’m already on the record on gun control in that any clips holding more then seven rounds should be kept at ranges or gunsmith gunshop locations. All of which require registration and all of which would be the first to fight the government if it got tyrannical. It’s not perfect but nothing that allows home ownership of guns is going to be and it is something.

Hmm, yes, let's centralize all storage of firearms and register their locations to the government, this is an excellent plan with an end goal of 'fighting the government if it got tyrannical.' They definitely won't make use of their knowledge of these new armories to secretly raid them and shut them down.

 

[Commodore]

I think the main goal is to slow the drip of illegal weapons into criminal organizations. If it's easy to buy guns in one place, it's easy to sell them in another.

I don't know if this logic is going to hold true for very much longer as the technology necessary for making homemade guns gets better and easier to obtain. The way things are going, any hope governments have of controlling the proliferation of firearms among the populace is going to disappear unless they decide to really start infringing on other rights to stop it. In the US, for example, the only way the federal government could hope to stop proliferation of homemade firearms would be to essentially throw the 4th Amendment out the window and continuously conduct random searches of people's homes and require everyone to have some type of surveillance software on all their devices so their online activities can be monitored. None of that is going to be seen as acceptable by the average citizen, even if they are for gun control.

 

[Estebonrober]

Hmm, yes, let's centralize all storage of firearms and register their locations to the government, this is an excellent plan with an end goal of 'fighting the government if it got tyrannical.' They definitely won't make use of their knowledge of these new armories to secretly raid them and shut them down.

Well they’d have a fight in their hands I’d say. Also I’m only advocating for certain clips sizes to be stored there. So you still have firearms at homes across the country.

 

[MaryKB]

I find the whole idea of "We need guns to fight the government" to be absolutely ridiculous. What are you going to do, walk down and take over the Pentagon with your squad of buddies? If you try to fight the US government, you're going to be destroyed very quickly.

It makes me think of that Star Trek episode where Data has to convince those colonists to leave, but they're thinking of fighting for their home.

IMHO this argument of "Needing to fight the government" is so dramatically unrealistic that it's a completely disingenuous point and really needs to stop.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Do you support the right to arm bears?

 

[amadeus]

I find the whole idea of "We need guns to fight the government" to be absolutely ridiculous. What are you going to do, walk down and take over the Pentagon with your squad of buddies? If you try to fight the US government, you're going to be destroyed very quickly.

There is an alternate interpretation of this.

The U.S. government is not a dictatorship that needs to be rebelled against, so taking arms against it is ridiculous. One could attribute the continuation of America's free republic as a result of the implications of the 2nd Amendment, that is to say that a dictatorship itself could never take form in America because the populace is armed against it. Soldiers in the military also swear an oath to uphold the Constitution; what happens when a government intentionally tries to break those rules placed upon it by the public? Either the Supreme Court rules against them or the legislators are voted out. But suppose that all branches of government colluded to undermine the God-given rights of Americans? The implicit threat of violence makes it, to put it lightly, unpalatable for those controlling the levers of power to reach farther than the vast majority of the public would allow.

Think about it like this: there are 150 million Arabs on Israel's border. Israel has 6.5 million Jews, its population smaller than any of its neighbors. What's stopping the Arabs from rolling over Tel Aviv and enforcing a Palestinian state? At the very least there is the implied threat that Israel would drop a hydrogen bomb on Cairo and Damascus.

 

[MaryKB]

American citizens don't have hydrogen bombs, and what would they do, drop it on Washington??

I disagree with your assessment, like I said there's such a ridiculous power difference that a citizen-rebellion couldn't pose any threat.

And I feel you're totally mistaken about our "free republic" is continuing because of the 2nd Amendment, in fact I might say exactly the opposite. We have real threats to our democratic process right now, and those threats are coming from the people who want unrestricted gun ownership. Other countries, like Canada for instance, aren't having the same types of problems we are and they don't have universal gun ownership. And also, our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment used to be different, and things have gotten worse since it was changed.

And anyway, I don't feel you can just give a blanket cause-effect relationship, and it feels to me more like silly apologetics for gun culture. I feel there's really only one reason people want guns: because it makes them feel powerful (I'm not talking about hunting, I mean personal firearms)

But I'm sure the government laughs at our idea of "implicit threat of violence," the most you'd see are riots and looting, and that'd be controlled by our militarized police forces. Any kind of moderately organized rebellion would be crushed like a bug. They could just launch missiles at your compound, there's no way you can defend yourself.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Much like the amendment itself*, the notion that access to guns will allow (and are necessary for) the overthrow of a government is seriously outdated. The guns can get you conflict but that doesn't guarantee a good outcome. Meanwhile it seems that countries that undergo largely non-violent revolutions turn out aight in the end.

*The modern SCOTUS interpretation at least - when interpreted as establishing a militia (as was mostly the case for 200-odd years) it's more or less fine.

 

[amadeus]

American citizens don't have hydrogen bombs, and what would they do, drop it on Washington??

Israel:militia is not a 1:1 comparison, it's an explanation of the principle that force can be defensive when it is not used.

I disagree with your assessment, like I said there's such a ridiculous power difference that a citizen-rebellion couldn't pose any threat.

It sounds like your disagreements stems then from the proportion rather than the principle. If the U.S. had no tanks or artillery pieces and only infantry, would then the threat of a civilian rebellion be a legitimate use of the 2nd Amendment? I would add that I don't think the military is blindingly behind whatever government is in power; an unconstitutional seizure of power would ultimately put the citizen rebels and the military on the same side.

And I feel you're totally mistaken about our "free republic" is continuing because of the 2nd Amendment, in fact I might say exactly the opposite. We have real threats to our democratic process right now, and those threats are coming from the people who want unrestricted gun ownership. Other countries, like Canada for instance, aren't having the same types of problems we are and they don't have universal gun ownership. And also, our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment used to be different, and things have gotten worse since it was changed.

What are those threats? I don't see any threats to the right of the people to speak openly, to assemble, or vote out the elected government, and this has certainly not come from anyone on the side supporting the individual right to bear arms.

And anyway, I don't feel you can just give a blanket cause-effect relationship, and it feels to me more like silly apologetics for gun culture. I feel there's really only one reason people want guns: because it makes them feel powerful (I'm not talking about hunting, I mean personal firearms)

I don't think we can start jailing people just because they want to feel something; they need to commit an actual crime before they can be punished.

But I'm sure the government laughs at our idea of "implicit threat of violence," the most you'd see are riots and looting, and that'd be controlled by our militarized police forces. Any kind of moderately organized rebellion would be crushed like a bug. They could just launch missiles at your compound, there's no way you can defend yourself.

Again, this assumes that the rebellion is against the current democratic republic. The vast majority of Americans would already agree that any kind of violent uprising is unjustified because the elected leadership of the country can be changed without the use of violence. In my lifetime, there were peaceful transfers of power in 1989, 1993, 2001, 2009, and 2017. If you count the House and Senate, even more swings. So things seem to be pretty fair where they are.

 

[Commodore]

I find the whole idea of "We need guns to fight the government" to be absolutely ridiculous. What are you going to do, walk down and take over the Pentagon with your squad of buddies? If you try to fight the US government, you're going to be destroyed very quickly.

It makes me think of that Star Trek episode where Data has to convince those colonists to leave, but they're thinking of fighting for their home.

IMHO this argument of "Needing to fight the government" is so dramatically unrealistic that it's a completely disingenuous point and really needs to stop.

And yet the Taliban and their army of dirt farmers have been able to successfully fight against the US for 18 years now and are poised to eventually claim total victory.

Your opinion shows a lack of knowledge in how asymmetrical warfare works and why high-tech conventional armies are actually at a severe disadvantage in such conflicts. Also, I think you greatly overestimate the dedication of the police. They aren't soldiers and everything about them is public record, just like any other citizen. So in the event of a significant uprising or civil war, how long do you think the police are going to keep showing up for duty when their fellow officers are having their family members kidnapped/murdered and their houses burned down? Or when they constantly have to worry about things they don't really have to worry about now like whether or not that broken down car they are about to pass is really a VBIED that is about to blow them up. The same would go for any soldiers that don't join with the rebellion.

 

[Socrates99]

I used to also wonder how the 2nd amendment would be used to topple a tyrannical government but then I just reminded myself that the two longest wars in US history were/are being fought against mostly poorly armed (compared to the US military) guerrillas. Granted, both the Vietnamese and Afghans had/have some outside help but I'd assume thered be third party aid in the case of an American revolt as well along with US military defectors.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I think we can all agree that a civil was in the USA would be a bad thing for everyone involved. Canada would suffer too because of our close ties to the US, and the refugee situation streaming across the border.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

America is not Afghanistan. They have millennia of practice at this and I don't think any amount of realistic oppression from the government will turn a significant fraction of Joe Public into a Taliban-esque insurgents.

If anything, a big proportion of our population seems to relish in government oppression so long as it appears directed against other demographics and the other portion of the population is the side pushing for stricter gun laws.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I used to also wonder how the 2nd amendment would be used to topple a tyrannical government but then I just reminded myself that the two longest wars in US history were/are being fought against mostly poorly armed (compared to the US military) guerrillas. Granted, both the Vietnamese and Afghans had/have some outside help but I'd assume thered be third party aid in the case of an American revolt as well along with US military defectors.

A civil war in the US would extend into the military rather than being against the military. Consider that most of the high ranking officers of the confederacy were graduates of West Point, who in many cases right up until the start of the war were serving in the US military.

 

[Commodore]

I used to also wonder how the 2nd amendment would be used to topple a tyrannical government but then I just reminded myself that the two longest wars in US history were/are being fought against mostly poorly armed (compared to the US military) guerrillas. Granted, both the Vietnamese and Afghans had/have some outside help but I'd assume thered be third party aid in the case of an American revolt as well along with US military defectors.

Oh yeah, there would definitely be foreign support for rebels. Foreign support is one of the many reasons insurgencies are near impossible to truly defeat.

America is not Afghanistan. They have millennia of practice at this and I don't think any amount of realistic oppression from the government will turn a significant fraction of Joe Public into a Taliban-esque insurgents.

If anything, a big proportion of our population seems to relish in government oppression so long as it is against other demographics.

You are underestimating the number combat veterans in the US, the overwhelming majority of which would certainly fight against the government if it came to that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You are underestimating the number combat veterans in the US, the overwhelming majority of which would certainly fight against the government if it came to that.

I think that you in turn overestimate the difference that makes. Removed from the organization and discipline of a combat unit the overwhelming majority of them are just another idiot with a gun.

 

[Socrates99]

America is not Afghanistan. They have millennia of practice at this and I don't think any amount of realistic oppression from the government will turn a significant fraction of Joe Public into a Taliban-esque insurgents.

If anything, a big proportion of our population seems to relish in government oppression so long as it appears directed against other demographics and the other portion of the population is the side pushing for stricter gun laws.

Believe me, the irony that the people who most strongly support this interpretation of 2A also elected a plutocrat who filled his cabinet with plutocrats and defend those appointments over and over is not lost on me.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

the overwhelming majority of which would certainly fight against the government if it came to that.

I reject this claim.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Doesn't really matter who would take what side. As soon as it comes down to choosing sides you lose civil order, and without civil order pretty much everyone in the US is either dying or measuring their neighbor's suitability as a food source, so you get a small fraction on side A and a small fraction on side B and a couple hundred million plus on "every man for himself." Chaos reigns.