Supreme Court gun ruling comment

[Fidoohki]

Epsilon wrote:

---

Just a question for those of you who support no gun control legislation:

At what point do "arms" stop being protected by the constitution?

Rifles?

Handguns?

Automatic weapons?

Gernades?

Rocket Propelled Gernades?

Mortars?

Artillery?

Patriot Missles?

ICBMs?

I mean, obviously there must be SOME point where people aren't allowed to have weapons. I'm just curious where everyone draws the lines.

-----------------

Epsilon

Myself I define it by:

a.) use in immediate defense of self and others

b.) use for hunting.

c.) direct control of target area.

If you can honestly answer yes to all three of these then it should be legal..within reason.

Just my take on it.

[Fidoohki]

The NRA need s reoprganization and cleaning out bad but they have

had their 'backs to the wall' against anti-gun lobbies for decades.

The general thought was if they turned their gaze inward to clean up,

by the time they looked back out again they would be a finished

because the anti-gun people will have outlawed all guns by then.

Maybe now that it has been reaffirmed they may be able to finally

breath enough to start some internal changes.. but I doubt it.

[Ayiekie]

I support access to guns for legitimate reasons, those being hunting (with licenses and training) and personal protection (with licenses and training); i.e.,
similar to what you need to drive a car. It should be illegal to have unsecured handguns in a home with children, and violation of that (which would likely
only happen if a child was hurt/killed or hurt/killed someone else) should be grounds for permanent revocation of your license. There is no legitimate need
whatsoever for private ownership of assault and other military-grade weapons.

With all due respect, anyone who seriously believes that a mob of civilians armed with any sort of personal weapons could overthrow the US government - or any
modern government with a modern military - is kidding themselves. North Korea has a much better chance of beating the US military in a stand-up fight than
every militia in the US put together. The real protection civilians have is the unwillingness of US soldiers to fire upon American civilians. If you lost that
somehow, having an assault rifle in your home wouldn't make you last five extra seconds.

Anyone who seriously believes that there ought to be a militia capable of resisting their country's armed forces should be following the example of
Scandinavian countries (among others) and enforcing a stint in the military for all able-bodied youth, after which they may retain their assault weapons for
home use. I personally think this is crazy (and wouldn't work as well in the US for various reasons), but it's less crazy then letting any civilian
without a criminal record get their hands on an AK-47.

Arguing that there is any imminent danger of a total gun ban in the US is hilarious. The US is the most gun-happy and right-wing modern nation; it would be
electoral suicide to try and enforce a total gun ban barring a major shift in public opinion. Far more left-wing countries than the US (Canada, for example)
still are nowhere near a total gun ban.

[Bob Schroeck]

I'd just like to note that the wholesale replacement of an unsatisfactory government, while not specifically ennumerated in the Constitution, was a
"legitimate reason" as far as the Founding Fathers were concerned. As Jefferson once said, "The strongest reason for people to retain the right
to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

By that measure, anything is legitmate. Anything. Period.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[DHBirr]

Tommy also said that "a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing" and specified that he meant armed rebellion with the words "The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

...anyone who seriously believes that a mob of civilians armed with any sort of personal weapons could overthrow the US government - or any modern government
with a modern military - is kidding themselves. North Korea has a much better chance of beating the US military in a stand-up fight than every militia in the
US put together.

It's called "asymmetric warfare" if you're too hung up on Pentagonese to like the good old term "guerrilla war." Yes,
when facing the might of the U.S. military (of which I was a member for 23 years), only idiots and the armies of big nations fight
stand-up. But the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents have reminded everybody how the superpower can be taken on. And if you think Muslim
guerrillas are sons-of-bitches, wait'll you have to deal with rednecks.

The real protection civilians have is the unwillingness of US soldiers to fire upon American civilians.

True. We soldiers were not good Germans (my ancestors were from Bavaria, so I can use ethnic slurs against Germans with
impunity, just like rappers using the "N-word") and that's the real reason the martial law idea being bandied about the
water coolers was so out-of-touch. If the President tried to impose martial law as a "covert" coup d'etat, a substantial part of the military
would refuse to obey. He would, in fact, then be a domestic enemy of the Constitution, which we swore to defend when we enlisted. I don't think Cheney is
stupid enough to pull that. Hell, Clinton wasn't quite stupid enough for that one. I'm less certain about Shrub, but I think
he'll still follow Cheney's lead.

(Admittedly, if the civilians were from Dixie, I'd've fired on them with positive pleasure. I'm the only Northerner I
know who's still bitter about the Civil War.)

By the way, Ayiekie, that's an adorably scowling avatar you've got there.
-----
Big Brother is watching you.  And damn, you are so bloody BORING.

[Epsilon]

Bob Schroeck wrote:

---

By that measure, anything is legitmate. Anything. Period.

So you support the right of private citizens to own thermonuclear weapons?

-------------------------

Epsilon

[Ayiekie]

DHBirr wrote:

---

I's called "asymmetric warfare" if you're too hung up on Pentagonese to like the good old term "guerrilla war." Yes, when facing
the might of the U.S. military (of which I was a member for 23 years), only idiots and the armies of big nations fight stand-up.
But the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents have reminded everybody how the superpower can be taken on. And if you think Muslim guerrillas
are sons-of-bitches, wait'll you have to deal with rednecks.

Of course, I'm not at all disputing a counter-insurgency is going to benefit from having arms. However, the thing is, that would never
overthrow the American government that is supported by the military. It will never win, any more than Iraqis killing a
couple US soldiers a day has evicted them from Iraq by force of arms or overthrown the American-propped government (both of which would be a vastly easier task
than defeating the US military on home soil). I do not consider the dubious satisfaction of killing a few more people in a scenario as unlikely as
"popular armed rebellion against a US government that still controls the majority of the armed forces" to be worth the known, quantifiable risks of
letting civilians have military-grade weaponry. You do have to draw a line somewhere; and nobody needs an M-16 for home defence unless the Zombie Apocalypse
has happened without my noticing.

True. We soldiers were not good Germans (my ancestors were from Bavaria, so I can use ethnic slurs against Germans with impunity,
just like rappers using the "N-word") and that's the real reason the martial law idea being bandied about the water
coolers was so out-of-touch. If the President tried to impose martial law as a "covert" coup d'etat, a substantial part of the military would
refuse to obey. He would, in fact, then be a domestic enemy of the Constitution, which we swore to defend when we enlisted. I don't think Cheney is
stupid enough to pull that. Hell, Clinton wasn't quite stupid enough for that one. I'm less certain about Shrub, but I
think he'll still follow Cheney's lead.




(Admittedly, if the civilians were from Dixie, I'd've fired on them with positive pleasure. I'm the only Northerner I
know who's still bitter about the Civil War.)

I admit to some curiosity as to why you think Clinton was likely to declare martial law as a coup d'etat, but it's not really germaine to
this discussion. As I pointed out above, the whole notion of a scenario where American civilians needed military weapons to make a doomed last stand against a
tyrannical US government is so far removed from reality as to be ludicrous.

Bluntly, the conditions of the 18th century do not apply anymore. A time when armies still had a legitimate use for swords versus a time of supersonic jet
fighters.

By the way, Ayiekie, that's an adorably scowling avatar you've got there.

Heh. Thank you, I'm very fond of Unhappy Link myself.

[Bob Schroeck]

So you support the right of private citizens to own thermonuclear weapons?

If they can afford it, sure. I don't have to like it, and I can be very concerned about it, but I'd rather be consistent with my principles than a hypocrite. And yes, in today's political climate that probably makes me a target for all kinds of "terrorist sympathizer" slurs. Then again, in today's political climate, most of the Founding Fathers would be in Gitmo and denied access to both their lawyers and their civil rights.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Epsilon]

See, I beleive that taking a principled stand, no matter how ludicrous, for the sake of the principles alone is the height of idiocy. "The Right To Bare
Arms" is no more absolute than the right to Free Speech.

Your right to Free Speech ends with you shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre and your right to Bare Arms has to end somewhere before we give a single
individual the ability to annihilate New York City with the press of a button.

I'm with M Fnord for the most part.I think that you have the right to bare arms, but that this shoudl require at leats as much oversight as car operation
and ownership. People who want to buy guns would need a gun owners liscensee which would require passing a basic safety test (which must be renewed
periodically) and each gun must be liscensed and registered with the government. After that, own all the guns you want.

My personal line of "absolute rights" to "practical considerations of actula reality" is draw at assualt weapons, but that I am open to
debate on.

-----------------

Epsilon

[Black Aeronaut]

Okay, okay, okay...

Evidently, everyone here agrees in one form or another that the general public should be allowed to own guns. This, to me, is a very good thing...

Now then, on to my own ideas...

Yes to licensing of weapons and weapon owners.

No to grenades and other explosives without serious regulation in place (I know that farmers still use explosives to get rid of tree stumps now and then).

Definite NOOOOOOO! to private ownership of WMD's! Have you loonies seen Jericho on the TV?

Yes to mil-spec guns, but with conditions such as the citizen must be part of the local militia.

Definite no to letting metally unstable people have guns. (And let's make sure that we have as few people like that to begin with by making sure they get proper treatment, STAT!)

Yes to crushingly severe punishments for gun-code violations. Kinda like how the Japanese deal with penalties for accidents of all varieties. Very severe penalties = very few accidents because you don't want to have to take out a second and third mortgage to pay for the fine! (The Japanese do not believe in 'wrist slaps.')

[Bob Schroeck]

"The Right To Bare Arms" is no more absolute than the right to Free Speech.

Of course not. I would expect that at about 50 degrees Faherenheit or so you'd want to cover them.

Bearing arms, on the other hand...

Actually, Epsilon, the point you echo, in regards to weapons ownership requiring at least as much oversight as driving, I'll easily agree to. My only concern is that, being as weapons ownership is guaranteed by the Second Amendment in order to give the public ultimate recourse against an abusive government, said government is likely to throw as many bogus roadblocks and inconveniences as it can arrange in the way of potential owners, in order to protect its own corrupt posterior.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Ayiekie]

What benefit are you gaining? Nothing short of giving civilians nuclear weapons will let them overthrow a US government that was backed by the US military
anyway, so why bother with pursuing such a dead-end idea?

[Wiregeek]

Nothing short of giving civilians nuclear weapons will let them overthrow a US government that was backed by the US military anyway, so why bother with pursuing such a dead-end idea?

Ahhh.. game that out, some time.

Aside from that, I'm gaining the _right_ to defend myself.

Full stop, there.
"No can brain today. Want cheezeburger."
From NGE: Nobody Dies, by Gregg Landsman
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5579457/1/NGE_Nobody_Dies

[Ayiekie]

Since you're going to die in five seconds in this incredibly unlikely scenario anyway, why not die with a pistol or hunting rifle, and thus avoid all the
real-world, actually-going-to-happen problems with letting random civilians have military-grade weaponry?

[Morganite]

You seem to be making the assumption that in such a scenario, most or all of the military would be supporting the government.

I think it far more realistic to assume that a third to a half of the military (and the hardware) will be on the opposing side. Of course, this will probably result in some forces on both sides destroying each other in place, but still leads to a significant amount of doubt on the outcome.

Now let's see... according to 2006 census data I found, there were 1,385,000 active duty military personnel.

I haven't had as easy a time finding current gun ownership numbers, but a chart I found of background checks for firearms sales in 2005 had an approved number slightly over 8 million. Of course, a number of people own multiple guns. But this is also only one year. As far as older gun ownership numbers went, one survey in 1993 indicated that 31% of adults personally owned a gun... or around 59 million.

Do you really think that numbers like that won't make a difference?

Aside from that, I'm gaining the _right_ to defend myself.

And I'd say this covers all the likely scenarios.

-Morgan.

[Ayiekie]

I really think that the chance of a shooting war in the United States within our lifetimes between the government and civilian population has about the same likelihood as imminent alien attack on Tokyo Tower, and that legislation should be made accordingly.

And no, those numbers wouldn't make a difference in the land war portion if the bulk of the military supported the government (even if every gun owner rose up against the government, which, by the way, wouldn't happen even if Zombie Hitler was running it). Unorganised untrained infantry with assorted small arms don't mean crap in the open field against a modern military. Remember when Saddam Hussein had the "world's fourth-largest army" in Desert Storm? Didn't do him a lot of good, and his army would be better than your 59 million gun owners by an order of magnitude. If the bulk of the military didn't support the government, it wouldn't matter. And in any case, the entire scenario is ridiculously, stupidly, implausible and not worth discussing.

Making legislation based on fairies and moonshine that has actual, real-world, negative consequences is bad legislation. If you think military-grade weaponry ought to be available to random civilians, then why don't you support that idea based on something that might actually apply to the real world.

All this "resist the tyrannical government" nonsense resembles greatly the arguments of people who try to justify the use of torture by arguments like: "But what if there a nuclear bomb about to go off in New York in two hours, and we caught the only guy who knows where it is? What about your laws against torture THEN, you bleeding-heart little liberal man!?" Making up wildly implausible scenarios to support your point just suggests you don't have any actually decent arguments to support your point.

"The right to defend yourself" is more than adequately covered by pistols. If you think more than that is necessary, I'm open to arguments why that aren't based on fairies and moonshine. And they'd better explain where your stopping point is and why, unless you also think civilian ownership of nuclear weapons is a desirable end goal.