Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Dowly]

Ah well, maybe August misunderstood what Oberon meant or something, I don't know.

Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment has evolved, or maybe devolved, from what
it was intended to be and today it covers the entirity of the right to bear arms,
instead of right to bear arms to have a militia force to resist tyrannical government or foreign enemy.

Now, US constitution is definitely not my strongest points, so I might be very much wrong
in what I said, and I am happy to be corrected if there is the need.

And with that, I shall head off to celebrate the ending of 2014. Take it easy everyone!

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment has evolved, or maybe devolved, from what it was intended to be and today it covers the entirity of the right to bear arms, instead of right to bear arms to have a militia force to resist tyrannical government or foreign enemy.

That is not and has never been the only reason for the American peoples right to keep and bear arms. It's one reason certainly and a darned important one but the 2nd (or any other right for that matter) are not limited by what the government considers (however reluctantly) is valid justification.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

That is not and has never been the only reason for the American peoples right to keep and bear arms. It's one reason certainly and a darned important one but the 2nd (or any other right for that matter) are not limited by what the government considers (however reluctantly) is valid justification.

Like I said, my knowledge of the US constitution is so-so. Do you have a link or any other source I could read about more concerning what the 2nd Amendment was for? Thanks in advance!

[Armistead]

People keep trying to define the intent of the 2nd amendment, regardless of the intentions of the founding fathers. Certainly then everyone had guns. Militias were then formed by calling up the community and they all brought their guns with them...and all had guns for hunting and personal protection. The clear intent was the right for individuals to bear arms for numerous reasons, including protecting themselves from future tyranny.

[Oberon]

If I wanted to troll in this thread there are far far easier ways to do it.

I bring this question up each time because it's a question that needs looking at by Americans.

Let's look at the Amendment itself, adopted in 1791 when the average weaponry was musket, cannon and sword.

"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."

That's fair enough, and given the experiences of the young American republic at the time, it's perfectly understandable and indeed sensible that it would want to provide its citizens with the means to defend themselves against both foreign and domestic invasion.
However, what is a well regulated militia and does the average Hank with a colt .45 constitute one?
That aside, one must also take into account the vast increase of technology between 1795 and 2014, the founding fathers could not have, in their wildest dreams, imagined some of the weaponry we take for granted in todays world, nor can we imagine the weaponry that will be available to the US government in the future to come. As technology increases in complexity and capability pretty soon a single man will be able to control squadrons of drones, and use them to destroy scores of people whilst outside of their ability to respond.
Goldenrivet has already pointed out the biggest lynchpin in the Second Amendment in the 21st century, it is assumed that the US Armed Forces would, in any tyrannical US government, splinter and help the citizens. However, to assume is a dangerous endeavour and not always guaranteed. The example of the Nazis has already been used in this thread, and yet I don't recall the armed forces of Germany intervening en masse when it came to the rounding up of the Jews and other undesirables, likewise the armed forces of Russia and the Soviet Union, or indeed many many other nations whose armed forces have been quite complicit in crimes against their own citizens.
"But America is different!" I hear you cry, but is it really? Already we have seen the mass militarization of the police as weaponry from the 'War on Terror' is handed down in the name of national security, and these same weapons used on those protesting in US cities.
"But they're criminals and looters!" I hear you reply...and I'm sure that's exactly how you would be portrayed by the government and media if you turned against a tyrannical state.
Remember Goerings quote?

Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

This was mainly addressed towards external wars, but the same can be said of internal ones, to be honest. Anyone who is deemed by the government to be dangerous to the state has a whole army of media turned against them before a single shot is fired, and in the minds of the people who harvest this media they are already put on trial, judged and executed.
Right now, the main culprits are Muslim extremists, once it was communists, and before that the Japanese. All forces that were and have been portrayed as looking to attack and destroy America from outside and from within. All a government would need to do is to frame a set subframe of people for an attack and mobilise public support for action against them.
It's not as if such things haven't been proposed (and thankfully dismissed) before.

So I really wouldn't rest so assuredly in a tyrannical government actually portraying itself as tyrannical, or the armed forces being on the side of someone fighting against it. Likewise in an era where automated computerised weapons systems are becoming more and more commonplace, I wouldn't put as much faith in a citizen militia being able to be as effective as it was in 1792.

Food for thought.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Oberon

If I wanted to troll in this thread there are far far easier ways to do it.

I bring this question up each time because it's a question that needs looking at by Americans.

Let's look at the Amendment itself, adopted in 1791 when the average weaponry was musket, cannon and sword.

That's fair enough, and given the experiences of the young American republic at the time, it's perfectly understandable and indeed sensible that it would want to provide its citizens with the means to defend themselves against both foreign and domestic invasion.
However, what is a well regulated militia and does the average Hank with a colt .45 constitute one?
That aside, one must also take into account the vast increase of technology between 1795 and 2014, the founding fathers could not have, in their wildest dreams, imagined some of the weaponry we take for granted in todays world, nor can we imagine the weaponry that will be available to the US government in the future to come. As technology increases in complexity and capability pretty soon a single man will be able to control squadrons of drones, and use them to destroy scores of people whilst outside of their ability to respond.
Goldenrivet has already pointed out the biggest lynchpin in the Second Amendment in the 21st century, it is assumed that the US Armed Forces would, in any tyrannical US government, splinter and help the citizens. However, to assume is a dangerous endeavour and not always guaranteed. The example of the Nazis has already been used in this thread, and yet I don't recall the armed forces of Germany intervening en masse when it came to the rounding up of the Jews and other undesirables, likewise the armed forces of Russia and the Soviet Union, or indeed many many other nations whose armed forces have been quite complicit in crimes against their own citizens.
"But America is different!" I hear you cry, but is it really? Already we have seen the mass militarization of the police as weaponry from the 'War on Terror' is handed down in the name of national security, and these same weapons used on those protesting in US cities.
"But they're criminals and looters!" I hear you reply...and I'm sure that's exactly how you would be portrayed by the government and media if you turned against a tyrannical state.
Remember Goerings quote?
This was mainly addressed towards external wars, but the same can be said of internal ones, to be honest. Anyone who is deemed by the government to be dangerous to the state has a whole army of media turned against them before a single shot is fired, and in the minds of the people who harvest this media they are already put on trial, judged and executed.
Right now, the main culprits are Muslim extremists, once it was communists, and before that the Japanese. All forces that were and have been portrayed as looking to attack and destroy America from outside and from within. All a government would need to do is to frame a set subframe of people for an attack and mobilise public support for action against them.
It's not as if such things haven't been proposed (and thankfully dismissed) before.

So I really wouldn't rest so assuredly in a tyrannical government actually portraying itself as tyrannical, or the armed forces being on the side of someone fighting against it. Likewise in an era where automated computerised weapons systems are becoming more and more commonplace, I wouldn't put as much faith in a citizen militia being able to be as effective as it was in 1792.

Food for thought.

A Strange post.
Your post somewhat reads in my head that the government and media are too powerful , the people too easy to manipulate therefore there is no point in 2 amendment any more.

[August]

Originally Posted by MH

A Strange post.
Your post somewhat reads in my head that the government and media are too powerful , the people too easy to manipulate therefore there is no point in 2 amendment any more.

That is a remarkably insightful observation.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

Here's some more food for thought though. Who appointed you our official decider of what needs "looking at"? Shall we start pointing out everything we think that you British should be looking at in every thread?

Give it a rest Oberon. We Americans have been closely looking at that very question since we decided not to be members of your empire anymore. You know this yet you continue to act like the next time you post your "friendly" reminder that we're going to suddenly smack ourselves on the head and say "Well shucks Papa English, we hadn't even given that a thought!". It's getting irritating and that's why I'm starting to doubt your true motivations.

We have a right to keep and bear arms. Period. end of story. Why we gave ourselves this right is NOT limited to, or restricted by, any single reason. None of our other rights are so limited nor are our rights limited to those listed in the Bill of Rights. Please learn to accept that.

It's funny, I could have sworn this was an international forum. Is it suddenly decided that discussion of America by non-Americans is forbidden?
I don't recall that Americans were hestitant to volunteer their opinion when the hostage taking crisis occured in Sydney recently.

Originally Posted by MH

A Strange post.
Your post somewhat reads in my head that the government and media are too powerful , the people too easy to manipulate therefore there is no point in 2 amendment any more.

It's not so much that there is no point, it's that perhaps a re-evaluation of what the Second Amendment is for is required, it has been 223 years after all. It's not as if new Amendments haven't been made to the US constitution over the past 223 years in order to change to fit the times. After all, the 18th Amendment was repealed, and other Amendments added to clarify and focus certain parts of US law which have changed since 1791.
I believe various court hearings have been heard in regards to the purposes of the 2nd Amendment, the most recent being the District of Columbia v. Heller, which concluded that the right to bear arms is not limited to being part of an organised militia, which is fair enough to be honest because that part of the 2nd Amendment is somewhat outdated and probably in need of review. Perhaps the 2nd Amendment should now just read:

The right of the People to keep and bear arms in the purpose of personal security, shall not be infringed.

That would be more accurate to the current situation to be honest, rather than the pre-amble about organised militia.

Of course, there's then the tricky situation of in a land where everyone has a gun what IS personal security? Whoever is fastest on the draw? If you see someone suspicious are you allowed to shoot them? What if someone else thinks that you're suspicious, even if you're not?

You can see how it's a tricky situation, and I don't envy Americans one bit for the headache it must cause to work it out, and the heartache it must cause the innocents who have been the victims of the mis-use of the 2nd Amendment, but equally I think it would be a mistake for Americans to think, as no doubt some of them will, that those countries in Europe with tighter gun controls are any less or, indeed, any more free than America is.

Still, this is Subsim, this is a gun control thread, it should probably be locked now before it goes downhill any further. GT cannot have a rational discussion about American politics, American gun control or Muslims, this is a fact of life.

[MH]

OK...

This self defense maze is confusing while some laws regarding gun use too liberal lol

Still, this is Subsim, this is a gun control thread, it should probably be locked now before it goes downhill any further. GT cannot have a rational discussion about American politics, American gun control or Muslims, this is a fact of life.

locked ...again? why?

You are good guy yet don't even consider that somehow you own monopoly on rationality.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

And who posts in nearly every thread in GT?

Jimbuna?

Originally Posted by MH

OK...

This self defense maze is confusing while some laws regarding gun use too liberal lol



locked ...again? why?

You are good guy yet don't even consider that somehow you own monopoly on rationality.

Civility really, I mean I ask a rational question about the 2nd Amendment and August goes all defensive on us.

Still, it's up to the mods really, I think Tribesman knew what was coming when he posted this thread to be honest, I saw the news that was in the OP a few days ago, but didn't bother to post about it here because I knew where it would go.

[Jimbuna]

Well I must admit I'm following this thread with interest and not surprisingly I notice a wide and diverse collection of opinions.

GT is the place for this sort of topic and taking into consideration the number of different nationalities we have within our ranks it is inevitable there will be differing viewpoints.

I trust we can all agree on one thing and that is that we are all entitled to an opinion.

Happy New Year to you all.

[Onkel Neal]

Hey! You should give a guy at least 30 seconds to reconsider making his post

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Hey! You should give a guy at least 30 seconds to reconsider making his post

Oops....



Nah, you have a point Neal, but I try to avoid initiating what I know will be that kind of discussion, and generally stay away from the usual easy bait questions and statements. But, the reason I keep coming back to the question that August has picked up on is that I think that it's a question that is worth considering for people inside and outside of America when they consider the 2nd Amendment.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Sorry Armistead, but that simply contains far too many factual errors.
Any of the future States militia acts prove it to not be the case.

Not if you look into the original intent of militias at the time and the fact all people basically had guns. Yes, state laws, ratifications, evolution of legalities have argued and changed through history, but the original intent were people could be armed was never in question and if needed, form their own militias to fight against future tyranny. Course, back then they all carried muskets.

The question is now and the future, with so much change, do we continue to stick and fight for the 2nd amend in it's original intent -NRA-. Obvious, we've changed a lot from that as is...and I'm sure we'll see more changes/ratifications in the future....

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No , no and no.
When you make a post full of factual errors how does making another post full of factual errors improve your claim?
Please think about what you are saying.
For example, if everyone carried guns and everyone only carried muskets why would the militia acts need to stipulate the requirements covering eligible males and specifying that fowling pieces are no good?
do you honestly think that at the time it was written all males let alone all people had ownership of a firearm?
That is a position you are holding which is very obviously ridiculous.
By trying to make your claim seem stronger than reality allows you are just making your argument weaker.

You have to define militia, before and after the Rev. war and the numerous changes long after between colonial militia, state and congressional militias and numerous different ..er...standards. Early militias were given requirements for arms, mostly muskets, but a good majority of them showed up with fowling pieces and numerous states allowed them. To make the argument easy for your brain to wrap around it, instead of musket, rifle or fowling piece, let's just say guns. It was later militias where congress took control and applied more requirements that basically formed a more standing army. Before that, men were expected to have GUNS, fight if needed and go home with their gun.

It is clear the 2nd amend takes for granted the right all men can be armed and further defines militia use in of.


You're usual blabber and lack of knowledge on the subject makes your argument weak from the start. There is no one perfect answer, except that the constitution takes for granted that firearms are a right to all men. There was no need to verify or make legal statement regarding this. The term militia really has no bearing in the argument anymore, but the for granted right to bear arms has always existed in US history until recent technology and criminal issues, dividing people on the original intent.