Should assault rifles be banned in the US?

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

looting, rioting and mass hysteria are not imaginary things, dont get me wrong... im nto a prepper, and im not preparing for doomsday, its just that im better prepared to keep a hoard of looters off my family and property than someone who only has a .38 special

So civilians being armed does not prevent these things? It might seem reasonable to expect a reduction but how much? doesn't it just mean that when looting or rioting, all parties will be armed?

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Thus far using assault rifles to assist the military has not been necessary, but you must also consider that the second amendment arms the citizens not only for the purpose of assisting the federal government but also ensuring that it does not grow tyrannous.

I do appreciate the concept from its time. I am unsure if it still applies today. Most European countries are not tyrannical dictatorships yet do not generally allow civilians to be armed. Is there any real risk of your government becoming tyrannous?

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

yes, even my own life is worth that right. This maniac would have committed this crime even if he had to do it with sharp sticks or machetes

Fair enough, your position is clear. However you have no reason to assert he would have done it with knives or sticks as that would be a far more difficult, time consuming and cold blooded task, that he may not have been capable of, and even the unarmed teachers may have been able to halt. The gun makes the kill relatively quick and easy. I know I know... arm the teachers. More guns is what you need. Fancy that, more guns than people and you haven't got enough!

Seriously though, fair enough. If you accept these events as a necessary evil and stand by it, it's your country sir.

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

I have the right to own firearms just as i have the right to free speech or trial by jury... all of those rights are critically equal in their importance and i wouldn't surrender a single one of them

I know you have that right, I am simply questioning the validity of the contemporary justification for it. It doesn't bother me here if you own guns or not, but I worry that maybe in USA the majority of people would like tighter gun laws and that your view is in the minority. What is the split between owners /non owners? I found this after a quick search :

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/natio...raphics/60131/

From 2008, not sure how accurate. Do all non gun owners oppose gun ownership? Are all gun owners opposed to increased restrictions?

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

should we stop publishing certain types of books for fear of giving crazy people ideas? should we not print certain news stories for fear of eliciting an emotional response from certain ethnic groups? would you give up your right to free speech to prevent these things? should we surrender our right to a fair trial because so many people are caught in the act and are clearly guilty?

Free speech and fair trial I would not give up. Besides, fair trial is to ensure against mistakes that with capital punishment cannot be corrected. It was a mistake to legally allow this woman to own that firearm. It was a mistake for her to train her son to use it. It was a mistake for her to not make it impossible for him to obtain the firearm that day or any other. These mistakes are easily made without fear of the consequence because it is normal, it is her right, and would seem normal to you as I understand it. Kid was a loner. Funny thing about loners is, people leave them alone, or simply ignore them. I'll bet that most will say he was a bit weird but otherwise okay.

These mistakes cannot be corrected.

Fantastical doomsday prophecies combined with the tendency of people to desire and propagate the assumed truth of such things probably doesn't help, but if you look at the demographics of gunshot fatalities in USA, it is clear that events like those in Newtown are still technically freak occurrences.

Sam.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

I remember reading about case where B-52 squadron attacked NVA positions in Vietnam. End result? Landscape looked like moon but troops were still there and ready to fight.

Ofcourse they took casualties but I have never heard of any official figures and doubt I will ever do.

I was generalising really, but GoldenRivet is right that it is likely that a good portion of the US military would join any resistance style movement against a potential tyrannical government and would probably be key in training up various 'Wolverine' style units to harrass the enemy using asymetrical warfare which, as we have learnt in Afghanistan, can be bloody effective against even a superior foe.
However, against a determined enemy, well unless the firearm owners had had sufficient training in warfare or were army vets, I can't see them being much more than a nuisance, and perhaps a hinderance to US forces. After all, you can't get AT weaponry legally, so you can't stockpile it, and explosives are strictly monitored, so you'd be forced to take it from the enemy who would be doing their damnedest to protect it.

In many ways, anyone invading the US would face their very own Afghanistan, with Americans playing the Afghans. There's a strange thought.

[GT182]

They need a moron test to buy any tyrpe of weapon. That would disqualify at least 88.9% of the population here in the US. The other 10.1% is law enforcement, and they gotta have something to shoot the morons with.

Besides, Guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns. Remove their trigger fingers and they won't be able to fire a gun.

Originally Posted by Oberon

In many ways, anyone invading the US would face their very own Afghanistan, with Americans playing the Afghans. There's a strange thought.

Oberon... didn't you know we are a strange country? We can't play Cowboys and Indians anymore due to political correctness. So we might as well play Afghans and make blankets. It's just a big cover-up. LOL

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by GT182

They need a moron test to buy any tyrpe of weapon. That would disqualify at least 88.9% of the population here in the US. The other 10.1% is law enforcement, and they gotta have something to shoot the morons with.

Besides, Guns don't kill people. People kill people with guns. Remove their trigger fingers and they won't be able to fire a gun.



Oberon... didn't you know we are a strange country? We can't play Cowboys and Indians anymore due to political correctness. So we might as well play Afghans and make blankets. It's just a big cover-up. LOL

I Think you should check your numbers again their, pal. What about that 1% left?

[August]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Is there any real risk of your government becoming tyrannous?

Some would say it already is in some ways. But be that as it may in general any government has the potential to turn tyrant. After all they hold the keys to power and as we all know power corrupts. History is filled with examples of it so why should we be any different?

The point of RKBA is that armed people are slaves to no one. The means to resist puts a price upon tyranny that so far, 200 some odd years now, has been too high for a would be tyrant to pay.

That's why I know that in 4 years President Obama will turn over the keys to power to whoever the American people elects to replace him just as I knew that President Bush would obey the will of the people in relinquishing power to Obama back in 2008, the same for every other elected position in government, because the price is too high for them to pull off doing otherwise and they know it. It's how our system endures.

Taking away the means to resist dramatically lowers that price. That's what I think of when I hear folks talk about gun bans.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

In many ways, anyone invading the US would face their very own Afghanistan, with Americans playing the Afghans. There's a strange thought.

Yeah and there are 300 million of us spread over an area the size of couple dozen Afghanistan's. We're far more educated and resourceful and we'd know what we'd be missing if we let them win.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

Yeah and there are 300 million of us spread over an area the size of couple dozen Afghanistan's. We're far more educated and resourceful and we'd know what we'd be missing if we let them win.

There was a quote falsely attributed to Yamamoto.

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

There was a quote falsely attributed to Yamamoto.

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Here's a quote from IJA high command:

Originally Posted by Imperial Japanese Army High Command

We cannot invade Australia. It's civilians are too awesome, and they use the deadliest weapon: Prawns on Barbies!

[Neptunus Rex]

I've been reading this thread litely. By that I mean I simply do not have the time to read the entire on going discussion and all the points raised. Earlier I posted the wording of the 2nd amendmend and my interpretation of each of it's points but here I'm simply going to address the last four words....

shall not be infringed.

The framers of the Constitution were very adament that the Fed Gov't not have the authority to disarm the population. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with national defense outside that the states have the right to form their own militia's. This was the genesis for the creation of the National Guard.

It's not a question of someone taking my guns. The issue is that because the vocal opinion is that something needs to be done, the fear is the Fed Gov't is/will attempt to grab authority do do so when the Constitution specifically denies them this authority.

And to the SUBSIM members who are citizens of other nations, this is a general discussion forum and this subject is certainly worthy of it and I respect your opinions, I do take umbridge to someone demanding, or even suggesting, that I (or Americans) give up something that really does not affect them.

[August]

Originally Posted by Neptunus Rex

I've been reading this thread litely. By that I mean I simply do not have the time to read the entire on going discussion and all the points raised. Earlier I posted the wording of the 2nd amendmend and my interpretation of each of it's points but here I'm simply going to address the last four words....

shall not be infringed.

The framers of the Constitution were very adament that the Fed Gov't not have the authority to disarm the population. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with national defense outside that the states have the right to form their own militia's. This was the genesis for the creation of the National Guard.

It's not a question of someone taking my guns. The issue is that because the vocal opinion is that something needs to be done, the fear is the Fed Gov't is/will attempt to grab authority do do so when the Constitution specifically denies them this authority.

And to the SUBSIM members who are citizens of other nations, this is a general discussion forum and this subject is certainly worthy of it and I respect your opinions, I do take umbridge to someone demanding, or even suggesting, that I (or Americans) give up something that really does not affect them.

Well said and if anyone thinks that the National Guard is a replacement for the Militia I invite them to note that their uniforms say "US Army" not "XXXX State Militia". The NG is created and maintained under Congresses right to raise standing armies.

[Platapus]

The Second Amendment reads

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Interesting word "militia". I wonder if it appears anywhere else in the Constitution?

Article 1 sect 8 (powers of congress)

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, of the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It appears that congress has the authority to call up the militia to respond to some specific issues. It also appears that congress has the authority for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia. Congress also has the authority to govern that portion of the militia while they are in the service of the federal government. The individual states retain the right for appointing officers and training the militia.


The states train the militia, congress arms the militia. That's interesting.


article 2 section 2 (powers of the President)

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Once Congress calls up the militia, the President is in command of them.


Ok, it seems pretty clear who has responsibilities for equipping and training the militia as well as how they are called up for federal service and who is in command of them during this federal service. But what IS a militia?


Let's reference 10 U.S.C section 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and


(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

hmm an unorganized militia? How does that fit in with the US Constitutional articles? Especially since members of an unorganized militia are members of the militia.


And what is this militia of the United States?



It appears that the Militia of the United States is the militia eligible to be called up by congress. Does the second amendment only apply to the Militia of the United States?



So if Congress is responsible for the arming of the militia, does that mean that the congress has the authority to define what arms are appropriate to the militia?


What about people not in the militia? Does the second amendment even apply to them?



Well the second amendment does state that the "right of the people" and not the "right of the militia".



I have always thought that the second amendment was not one of the better written amendments considering how short it is.



But it does make for some interesting conversations.

[August]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

That says it all to me. It doesn't say "the right of the militia" or the "right of a free state" it's the right of the people.

The minute you start limiting what constitutes "the people" to a small government approved group you might as well tear up the Bill of Rights because it is no longer worth the paper it was printed on. It will mean that any constitutional right can and will be eroded by exceptions right into irrelevance.

[Platapus]

I agree. But I wonder why if the intention was that the right of the people, why did the founding dudes even put the words about militia?

Such justification is not included in any of the other "rights"

I wonder why they just did not write "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

There had to be a reason.

If one looks at the drafts of the second amendment, the wording is a little different.

Like I posted, a most interesting topic.

[Neptunus Rex]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I agree. But I wonder why if the intention was that the right of the people, why did the founding dudes even put the words about militia?

The framers and the populance as well had a very strong aversion to a regular standing army. They simply did not trust a military that was not "of their own". That's why the Officers are assigned by the govenor.

"Unorganized militia" have no state or federal officers assigned. They "vote" for their leaders and they would "drill" on their own dime. Many "volunteer" units during the War of Rebellion were self organized, the chief organizer would usually become the battalion or regimental commander. They would petition for recognition from the state.

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I agree. But I wonder why if the intention was that the right of the people, why did the founding dudes even put the words about militia?

Such justification is not included in any of the other "rights"

I wonder why they just did not write "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

There had to be a reason.

If one looks at the drafts of the second amendment, the wording is a little different.

Like I posted, a most interesting topic.

I believe they were intending to say that a civilian militia was necessary to the security of a free state, as opposed to a standing army which they feared as a threat to that security.

I think the reach and power the Federal government of today has over the American people would have frightened the founding fathers out of forming a union in the first place.

BTW:

8000 new NRA members per day since the Dec 14th.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...A-Since-Dec-14