The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah, have to agree but can the law be crafted perfectly? And even if it could, are out legislators up to the challenge?

Perfectly? Never. But it can be crafted without obvious gross flaws. And obvious gross flaws can be immediately rectified.

Or they could be, if there were fewer nuts. Specifically gun nuts. It seems obvious that a law that is applied based on the state of mind of the potentially accused is just broken beyond any hope of repair, but if you say "repeal this 'stand your ground' idiocy" the gun nuts will be howling for your blood. It seems obvious that a law that says "you must sign that the gun you are buying is for your own use" but allows for "and thirty seconds later I changed my mind and sold it on the street" is grossly flawed, because once again there is absolutely no way to challenge "I meant that when I signed and it really was only later that I changed my mind" and no witness or evidence can challenge what the person thought at the time. And once again, if you say "this law is just pointless, it doesn't provide any regulation at all" the gun nuts will be howling for your blood.

Personally, I doubt that the people who crafted these laws that are so grossly broken could be stupid enough to have done it accidentally.

 

[Lexicus]

While I lean in that direction, I think that would be harder than crafting the perfect law.

I don't, since it's possible, unlike crafting the perfect law.

 

[metalhead]

There's an amendment process, yes. Also more than 200 years of weight behind Americans possessing the right to keep small arms in application. Also true.

For the militia question I find it irrelevant. Groups of loosely organized people with guns are still extremely dangerous even in the 21st, which is the point of a militia. Being loosely organized and dangerous while mostly doing other stuff. It's sort of like interpreting unreasonable search and seizure to only apply to physical hard copies of paper or some other bumpkis. Sure, there's an argument to be had, but I'm not particularly into entertaining it.

A 21st century militia made up of ordinary citizens toting pistols and hunting rifles could in no way guarantee the security of a free State from either a federal or foreign standing army. That is the function of the militia as stated in the 2nd Amendment.

Also, be real careful with that "200 years of weight" business. Lots of examples where things that existed for a long time are nevertheless terrible. No reason why we can't re-examine our traditions.

Ultimately, the point is not that we need to federally ban all guns. That'd be a pipe dream anyways. But does the 2nd Amendment serve a legitimate purpose any more? By its own text, it appears as though it does not. By the nature of the weapons of war we have these days, where a "militia" could be mowed down by a single armed assault vehicle, it definitely does not. Therefore, revisiting it is not really the assault on freedom that the people who rabidly support it make it out to be.

 

[rah]

By the nature of the weapons of war we have these days, where a "militia" could be mowed down by a single armed assault vehicle, it definitely does not.

Some would possibly argue that then we need to be able to own even more powerful weapons to destroy that armed assault vehicle. I could probably name a few here that might.

 

[Farm Boy]

Militia already couldn't stand effectively against seasoned professionals in the 18th. Standing armies are neither mentioned nor the only particular threat anyhow. <shrugs>

And of course we can re-examine traditions! There's an amendment process after all. That old stodgy tome is a living document. But you do have to take into account that revisiting a right with the aim of limiting it or eliminating it is definitely taking aim at a particular freedom. That's the point, right?

 

[Lexicus]

A 21st century militia made up of ordinary citizens toting pistols and hunting rifles could in no way guarantee the security of a free State from either a federal or foreign standing army.

It sure can guarantee the security of a free State from rebellious slaves scary black people though. Which, looking back on the 200 years, is probably more to the point than a lot of people here think.

 

[EgonSpengler]

A 21st century militia made up of ordinary citizens toting pistols and hunting rifles could in no way guarantee the security of a free State from either a federal or foreign standing army. That is the function of the militia as stated in the 2nd Amendment.

Also, be real careful with that "200 years of weight" business. Lots of examples where things that existed for a long time are nevertheless terrible. No reason why we can't re-examine our traditions.

Ultimately, the point is not that we need to federally ban all guns. That'd be a pipe dream anyways. But does the 2nd Amendment serve a legitimate purpose any more? By its own text, it appears as though it does not. By the nature of the weapons of war we have these days, where a "militia" could be mowed down by a single armed assault vehicle, it definitely does not. Therefore, revisiting it is not really the assault on freedom that the people who rabidly support it make it out to be.

The 18th-Century militia has also been supplanted by police departments. As Lexicus points out, the militia was used to put down slave revolts, but they would have been used for any disturbance of the peace, and probably for any law enforcement that required some muscle. If a violent criminal needed to be arrested, for example, or property confiscated, I suppose the judge or magistrate would summon the militia.

The militia was also regarded, even at the time, as an inferior fighting force. They didn't need military weapons that far exceeded the capability of what a citizen could carry or use to question the value of militia to an army. Wikipedia cites a quote from George Washington, taken from a 1970s law journal article on the 2nd Amendment:

"To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows ... if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter."

Today, we have a slightly different name for the men Gen. Washington was referring to: Conscripts. In WWII and the Vietnam War, the US Army didn't have great success with quickly-trained replacements and conscripts, and has tried to avoid them since. There are political reasons for this, too, but questions about the battlefield quality of soldiers with substandard training and equipment goes back to... I dunno... Sparta and Athens?

 

[Lexicus]

questions about the battlefield quality of soldiers with substandard training and equipment goes back to... I dunno... Sparta and Athens?

Assuredly longer than that, though I'm not sure there's any evidence of it. There's the commonly-cited Socrates quote about a disorderly mob and a pile of building materials.

 

[Samson]

A 21st century militia made up of ordinary citizens toting pistols and hunting rifles could in no way guarantee the security of a free State from either a federal or foreign standing army. That is the function of the militia as stated in the 2nd Amendment

I think events in the middle east and Afghanistan show what a committed group can do with only access to small arms and fertiliser.

 

[cardgame]

To lead untrained men to war is to throw their lives away. - Sun Tzu

 

[Lexicus]

I think events in the middle east and Afghanistan show what a committed group can do with only access to small arms and fertiliser.

What, kill a bunch of civilians for basically no reason?

 

[Samson]

What, kill a bunch of civilians for basically no reason?

Making the soviet and western occupations of Afghanistan and the US of Iraq uneconomic to continue long term is I guess the big one. Bringing Assad to somewhere like parity before the Russians got too involved could have worked, but instead really killed a bunch of civilians for basically no reason. It is not perfect, but it is possible.

 

[miaasma]

guns are bad throw them in a big fire

 

[Broken_Erika]

guns are bad throw them in a big fire

But then the earth will be overrun by Space Aliens with slingshots!

Spoiler :

 

[miaasma]

you just described my utopia

 

[EgonSpengler]

The 18th-Century militia has also been supplanted by police departments. As Lexicus points out, the militia was used to put down slave revolts, but they would have been used for any disturbance of the peace, and probably for any law enforcement that required some muscle. If a violent criminal needed to be arrested, for example, or property confiscated, I suppose the judge or magistrate would summon the militia.

The militia was also regarded, even at the time, as an inferior fighting force. They didn't need military weapons that far exceeded the capability of what a citizen could carry or use to question the value of militia to an army. Wikipedia cites a quote from George Washington, taken from a 1970s law journal article on the 2nd Amendment:

"To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows ... if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter."

Today, we have a slightly different name for the men Gen. Washington was referring to: Conscripts. In WWII and the Vietnam War, the US Army didn't have great success with quickly-trained replacements and conscripts, and has tried to avoid them since. There are political reasons for this, too, but questions about the battlefield quality of soldiers with substandard training and equipment goes back to... I dunno... Sparta and Athens?

Leaving this half-done was making me itch, so I did a little research last night.

The quote Wikipedia cited came out of a letter Gen. Washington wrote to Congress in September of 1776 (link to Northern Illinois University Libraries). Wikipedia actually omitted the part that, in my view, pertains most to the question of private ownership of weapons:

To place any dependence upon Militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life, unaccustomed to the din of arms, totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which, being followed by a want of confidence in themselves when opposed to troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superiour in knowledge and superiour in arms, makes them timid and ready to fly from their own shadows. Besides, the sudden change in their manner of living, (particularly in their lodging,) brings on sickness in many, impatience in all, and such an unconquerable desire of returning to their respective homes, that it not only produces shameful and scandalous desertions among themselves but infuses the like spirit in others. Again, men accustomed to unbounded freedom and no control, cannot brook the restraint which is indispensably necessary to the good order and government of an army, without which licentiousness and every kind of disorder triumphantly reign. To bring men to a proper degree of subordination is not the work of a day, a month, or even a year; and unhappily for us and the cause we are engaged in, the little discipline I have been labouring to establish in the army under my immediate command, is in a manner done away, by having such a mixture of troops as have been called together within these few months.

He's basically talking about, in the part I bolded, the risk to civilians from groups of armed men lacking discipline, training, and a command structure.

And an example of the law enforcement role of the militia - setting aside slave rebellions, for the moment - is the "Whiskey Rebellion" of 1791 (link to Wikipedia).

Resistance [to the 'whiskey tax'] came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. [President] Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax.

 

[Berzerker]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/0...news%2Fnational+(Internal+-+US+Latest+-+Text)

dont know what thread this should be in since it thankfully didn't become a mass killing

 

[rah]

Yeah, it's nice that considering all the bad results that usually happen with guns that we get a rare positive outcome.

 

[Farm Boy]

Out and firing at humans isn't the realm of positive outcomes sort of by definition, I would figure?

 

[rah]

Hey, I read in the paper this morning that they're going to charge that scum Drejka in Florida with manslaughter after all the stand your ground debate.

Maybe they'll get it right this time.