Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, a gun ban would be impossable due to the number of guns currently in circulation.

Its also why any restrictions will have little meaningful effect on crime. The criminals already have a million bajillion guns, and access to more.


Laws on gun control put into play today only effect law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about the law, they already have plenty of guns.

It's a big task, but it doesn't seem very American to just say "Too hard, not going to bother".

"Too hard, not going to bother, and its against the constitution".

There we go, thats fixed it.

It's against one interpretation of the constitution. So what? Amend that sucker. It wouldn't be the first time.

The founding fathers thought having tanks was a fundamental human right?

 Grey Templar wrote:
I am certain that if they had known of fully automatic, assault rifles, and other myriad terms that are tossed around now, they would have made it abundantly clear that ALL weapons were included. Up to include armoured vehicles.

Really? Tanks are a fundamental human right, that the founding fathers would have enshrined in your constitution if they'd thought of it?

Hell, why not just jump straight to nuclear and chemical weapons?

We may draw the line somewhere.


However, the point is that the Second's purpose was so that the citizens could overthrow the government in the event of it becoming tyrannical.

And I would assert that to do that the citizens would need weapons up to the task. Which would include machine guns, anti-tank weaponry, and armored vehicles.

That was the purpose of this Constitutional right, and any attempt to infringe it is the Government attempting to make itself unassailable.


Why do you think all oppressive government have restricted civilian ownership of weaponry?


And no, Tanks are not a fundamental human right. But they are a right as a citizen of this country.

I never figured out the BS about "You don't need that type of gun to go hunting." or any of that other crap.

As a Veteran, I have a so called "Assault Rifle". I like it. Sometimes I go shoot it at a range. I do not lie about what its reason for existence. It exists to kill other human beings. I do not want to use it to kill other people, but if the time comes, I am fully trained, prepared and equipped to do such a thing. Just like my car can go faster then the speed limit. It doesn't need to, but if the time comes sometimes I need to get somewhere faster.

This whole gun ban bull doesn't make any sense anyways, most Americans are killed with Pistols, not semi auto rifles. pistols. No anger against pistols though. Just Semi Auto Rifles.... really? Example 2010. There were 9603 gun homicides. Out of those 576 where killed by "Long Guns (Rifles/Semi Auto Rifles) in the same year 19,776 people killed themselves with a gun. yes. more people kill themselves with firearms then kill other people. You are 2 times more likely to kill yourself with a gun then be killed by someone with a gun.

Universal Background checks sound fine, Psychological testing sounds good to, A mandatory safety class I'm good with that, magazine restrictions, weapon bans can suck the end of my barrel.

Personal opinion.

A Fox News poll carries as much weight as a Ward whine thread...

 Grey Templar wrote:
"Too hard, not going to bother, and its against the constitution".

There we go, thats fixed it.

There are already constitutionally accepted limits on firearm ownership. You might personally not believe those limits are constitutional, but ultimately in matters of constitutional law the opinions of Grey Templar, internet poster, don't mean a damn thing.

Of course the writers never would have envisioned a time when there would be a distinction between civilian and military weapons. A gun was a gun. A hunting rifle at the time wasn't all that different from what the army would be issued with, and often they were the same.

They also never envisioned a time when global trade was such an incredible force, and material goods in such abundance that arms to supply a revolutionary force could be easily acquired once decent cell structures were in place.

I am certain that if they had known of fully automatic, assault rifles, and other myriad terms that are tossed around now, they would have made it abundantly clear that ALL weapons were included. Up to include armoured vehicles.

I've seen people putting their beliefs onto the founding fathers before, but never quite this obviously.

No anger against pistols though.

Take note that the places that have already enacted "assault weapons" bans tend to focus real close on handguns shortly thereafter. Incrementalism works.

I never figured out the BS about "You don't need that type of gun to go hunting." or any of that other crap.

This is because appeasing the Legion of Elmer Fudd has historically gotten a good chunk of opposition to stand down, after all, what does he care? They aren't after his deer rifle (yet..)

Nowadays enough of these people HAVE the type of rifle that they are currently trying to ban, or actually do use them for hunting or target shooting that this particular little trick isn't working so great, hence the rather nasty reaction to the proposed measures (Even excluding arguments of constitutionality, or whether or not the proposals are even worth thinking about. Any time you want to tell a huge group of people who have done nothing wrong that "What you have is bad, give it up nao plzthnx or g2jail" you should prepare to get a VERY poor reception.)

 sebster wrote:


There are already constitutionally accepted limits on firearm ownership. You might personally not believe those limits are constitutional, but ultimately in matters of constitutional law the opinions of Grey Templar, internet poster, don't mean a damn thing.

Right, and your views also "don't mean a damn thing". Just so we are clear.

My views as a citizen do matter however, I vote. I personally think the Judicial branch's powers are far too overextending due to them having no responsibility to the voters. I am not sure on how to curb that, but that is another discussion.

They also never envisioned a time when global trade was such an incredible force, and material goods in such abundance that arms to supply a revolutionary force could be easily acquired once decent cell structures were in place.

And why is this important? The goal is to make the revolution as easy as possable.

I've seen people putting their beliefs onto the founding fathers before, but never quite this obviously.

Do you have anything that would counter that?

The purpose of the Second is so the citizens could resist a tyrannical government.

It is clear that any resistance to a government that is armed with fully automatic weapons, tanks, and an airforce would be nigh impossable to do if you are only armed with pistols and hunting rifles.

Therefor, it is a logical conclusion that the second amendment allows for the ownership of things like fully automatic weapons, anti-tank weaponry, and tanks and that is what the founding fathers intended.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Why do you think all oppressive government have restricted civilian ownership of weaponry?

Complete and utter myth. Total tosh. Utter fantasy. Generally built around a complete lie on gun policy in Nazi Germany, pretending that the 1938 German Weapons Law restricted guns. It actually repealed or minimised the gun control laws put in place by the previous centre left government. The requirement to register long arms was entirely removed. The legal age for owning a gun was lowered from 20 to 18. Restrictions on the amount of guns and ammo a person could own were dropped.

This would only change when all privately owned firearms were ordered to be collected by the ruling powers. But that was in 1945, and the man who gave that order was Eisenhower.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Right, and your views also "don't mean a damn thing". Just so we are clear.

Absolutely. But the simple fact remains that the Supreme Court has found some limitations on weapons to be constitutional. Just claiming that such things aren't constitutional is meaningless.

My views as a citizen do matter however, I vote. I personally think the Judicial branch's powers are far too overextending due to them having no responsibility to the voters. I am not sure on how to curb that, but that is another discussion.

There remains no possible source of constitutional review other than the judiciary.

And why is this important? The goal is to make the revolution as easy as possable.

Then fight for the civil liberties that make revolution unecessary. Knowing that if it ever becomes needed, it will be a horrendously bloody, ugly affair that would drag on for possibly generations. And understand that owning guns will not make that materially easier.

Do you have anything that would counter that?

Counter it? By putting my thoughts into the heads of the founding fathers? It's a nonsense exercise.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Tanks are... a right as a citizen of this country.

 Grey Templar wrote:
it is a logical conclusion that the second amendment allows for the ownership of things like fully automatic weapons, anti-tank weaponry, and tanks and that is what the founding fathers intended.

I... what?

I'll give you one chance to redeem yourself.

I'm pretty sure that the Jews in the Warszawa ghetto had guns. Not that it did them much good in the end.

I just wish people would stop pretending that it'd be completely impossible to stage an uprising without private firearms. It's not as though the military is some sort of monolith that isn't made up of individuals. And even if that were the case there's no flippin' way a militia, even one with tanks, could stand up to a military that is dead set on killing every single one of them when said military has, and is ready to use, NBC-weapons, aircraft and stuff that no militia is ever going to afford purchasing.

I'll give you one chance to redeem yourself.

I'd say US v Miller would do that nicely (Though the decision has other points that can be argued for the other side.) One of the implications being that a sawed off shotgun wasn't protected under the 2nd precisely because it -wasn`t- a common piece of military equipment.

I think it would take a particular kind of "Gifted" to say that about machine guns at the moment.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the Jews in the Warszawa ghetto had guns. Not that it did them much good in the end.

I just wish people would stop pretending that it'd be completely impossible to stage an uprising without private firearms. It's not as though the military is some sort of monolith that isn't made up of individuals. And even if that were the case there's no flippin' way a militia, even one with tanks, could stand up to a military that is dead set on killing every single one of them when said military has, and is ready to use, NBC-weapons, aircraft and stuff that no militia is ever going to afford purchasing.

Never mind, how looney you sound if the reason you bought a gun is the fear that the government could go tyrannical at any moment.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the Jews in the Warszawa ghetto had guns. Not that it did them much good in the end.

I just wish people would stop pretending that it'd be completely impossible to stage an uprising without private firearms. It's not as though the military is some sort of monolith that isn't made up of individuals. And even if that were the case there's no flippin' way a militia, even one with tanks, could stand up to a military that is dead set on killing every single one of them when said military has, and is ready to use, NBC-weapons, aircraft and stuff that no militia is ever going to afford purchasing.

Never mind, how looney you sound if the reason you bought a gun is the fear that the government could go tyrannical at any moment.

That too. "Hey, the government is coming, I'm gonna kill them all, because I'm Rambo!"

And even if that were the case there's no flippin' way a militia, even one with tanks, could stand up to a military that is dead set on killing every single one of them when said military has, and is ready to use, NBC-weapons, aircraft and stuff that no militia is ever going to afford purchasing.

Have you turned on the news recently by chance?

 SOFDC wrote:

And even if that were the case there's no flippin' way a militia, even one with tanks, could stand up to a military that is dead set on killing every single one of them when said military has, and is ready to use, NBC-weapons, aircraft and stuff that no militia is ever going to afford purchasing.

Have you turned on the news recently by chance?

Bolded the important part. I don't see the US carpet bombing Afghanistan with NBC weapons or al-Assad dropping Sarin on his own people.

 SOFDC wrote:

And even if that were the case there's no flippin' way a militia, even one with tanks, could stand up to a military that is dead set on killing every single one of them when said military has, and is ready to use, NBC-weapons, aircraft and stuff that no militia is ever going to afford purchasing.

Have you turned on the news recently by chance?

pretty much, modern powerful armies can't defeat a bunch of civilians using home made bombs and using a variety of Small arms. Examples : Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Vietnam.

Bolded the important part. I don't see the US carpet bombing Afghanistan with NBC weapons or al-Assad dropping Sarin on his own people.

Because clearly, a nation actively using WMDs/Indescriminate conventional weapons on its people won't have bigger problems than an insurrection.

Just because a government has access to X, doesn't mean it would use X in any remotely plausible battle plan. Otherwise the US would simply glass any country we go to war with.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Never mind, how looney you sound if the reason you bought a gun is the fear that the government could go tyrannical at any moment.

The more puzzling thing is that of the crowd that thinks they need to own guns in case the government suddenly goes tyranical, very few make any noise about any of the various civil rights issues. How many are vocal about the continued operation of Gitmo? Or the use of torture in the war on terror? Or the use of drones to kill people without trial, including Americans.

But they're almost entirely silent on those issues, leaving it up to pinkos like the ACLU. Instead they just buy guns, go out shooting and figure they're ready for the day when they have to start shooting fellow Americans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Bolded the important part. I don't see the US carpet bombing Afghanistan with NBC weapons or al-Assad dropping Sarin on his own people.

And more to the point, Syria shows that when a functioning revolutionary movement forms, then higher end weapons is not that big of a deal. The revolutionary forces have been supplied with weapons to take out tanks, and they've taken so many choppers down the Syrian pilots have been refusing to fly sorties.

If your cause has any chance of succeeding, it will need foreign friends. And if it has foreign friends then there will be all kinds of military gear available. It isn't for lack of gear that revolutions fail.

But they're almost entirely silent on those issues

This has not been my experience. At all.

leaving it up to pinkos like the ACLU.

You might be surprised at how many of us support those "pinkos" on issues OTHER than gun control.

then higher end weapons is not that big of a deal.

And even less of a deal when the populace has the capacity at the start of the conflict, which is the point.

 SOFDC wrote:

And even less of a deal when the populace has the capacity at the start of the conflict, which is the point.

On the other hand, who decides what constitutes tyrrany? With everyone armed to the teeth a small set of individuals can cause major damage to society, in exchange of a theoretical revolt being more hi-tech. Is that worth it? That's where our opinions differ.

When all else fails vote from a rooftop.

Do any of the other Americans on here get offended when someone from another country is arguing about this topic? I mean you guys have the right to your opinion's but ultimately this is an American issue. Most of Europe has decided to severely restrict guns, fine that is what you want and it's your country.

But this is a US issue. Owning a firearm was built into our Constitution due to us being a nation founded on revolting from a tyrannical government. When you guys who have European flags next to your names post telling us we are wrong for our thinking it just offends me to no end (edit: saying this dakka has put a SIngapore flag for some bizarre reason next to my name).

This is a worldwide public forum and it is good to hear everyone's opinion but a little more tact is in order. I don't criticize your countries laws or beliefs so I ask some of you be a little more polite when you do so regarding ours.

We wrote:
Do any of the other Americans on here get offended when someone from another country is arguing about this topic? I mean you guys have the right to your opinion's but ultimately this is an American issue. Most of Europe has decided to severely restrict guns, fine that is what you want and it's your country.

But this is a US issue. Owning a firearm was built into our Constitution due to us being a nation founded on revolting from a tyrannical government. When you guys who have European flags next to your names post telling us we are wrong for our thinking it just offends me to no end (edit: saying this dakka has put a SIngapore flag for some bizarre reason next to my name).

This is a worldwide public forum and it is good to hear everyone's opinion but a little more tact is in order. I don't criticize your countries laws or beliefs so I ask some of you be a little more polite when you do so regarding ours.

If you can't handle people participating in a thread on a public, international forum without being offended then perhaps you should rethink your priorities. Especially seeing as the US isn't exactly innocent in the department of telling other nations what to do. If you think that the US is unique in achieving independence from a foreign "tyrranical" power you might want to look up the history of Canada, which strangely enough gets away without being anywhere near the level of gun-saturation the US has.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Pretty much the above. Although for certain guns they require a background check and a waiting period while you do.

There are also age restrictions on certain guns too. Namely pistols. A 12 year old could own a shotgun but not a .45 for example.

Some guns don't require an ID check or a waiting period. Like a shotgun at Walmart.

It all depends on the place where you are buying the gun too.

I know here the Walmarts card you for ammo (must be 18 to purchase) and even air rifles. No 12 year old is buying a shotgun at Walmart around here.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
A part of me want things to escalate, just to see how much ''dead finger prying'' will actually take place.

The other part also want things to go 'boom', just because, hey, it's not my country going boom.

Careful what you wish for Canuck. If Texas secedes it will go after the oil countries. Kiss Western Canada goodbye. You can keep Quebec.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gunslingerpro wrote:
It would be safe to say that a 'finger prying' scenario would end poorly for millions of americans, as well as brave storm troopers just doing their jobs.

This entire issue is misplaced hostility.

Corrected your typo. At that point they go from "police" to "occupiers."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Just like the severe gun restrictions in Chicago don't lower crime, instead Chicago has very high crime.

Very high relative to what cities?

Houston. Atlanta. Any place but Detroit.

I had a PM discussion with Frazzled about this a couple of years ago, but the thing I've always thought was the best about the American Constitution is that it can be amended to meet new challenges and situations, it doesn't have to be set in stone. In fact, we are talking about an amendment right now.
Sometimes when arguing online, I've seen Americans using "well, the constitution says!" as a kind of trump card, and it's always confused me, because it isn't some sort of holy writ.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

We wrote:
Do any of the other Americans on here get offended when someone from another country is arguing about this topic? I mean you guys have the right to your opinion's but ultimately this is an American issue. Most of Europe has decided to severely restrict guns, fine that is what you want and it's your country.

But this is a US issue. Owning a firearm was built into our Constitution due to us being a nation founded on revolting from a tyrannical government. When you guys who have European flags next to your names post telling us we are wrong for our thinking it just offends me to no end (edit: saying this dakka has put a SIngapore flag for some bizarre reason next to my name).

This is a worldwide public forum and it is good to hear everyone's opinion but a little more tact is in order. I don't criticize your countries laws or beliefs so I ask some of you be a little more polite when you do so regarding ours.

If you can't handle people participating in a thread on a public, international forum without being offended then perhaps you should rethink your priorities. Especially seeing as the US isn't exactly innocent in the department of telling other nations what to do. If you think that the US is unique in achieving independence from a foreign "tyrranical" power you might want to look up the history of Canada, which strangely enough gets away without being anywhere near the level of gun-saturation the US has.

Canada had its independence granted once asked for, we didn't achieve independence by the strength of arms, and really we're still subjects of Her Majesty the Queen so formally we haven't achieved independence at all.

But if you really want to get an American riled up you insult their beer for the urine flavoured water it is, not discuss gun policy.

Da Boss wrote:
I had a PM discussion with Frazzled about this a couple of years ago, but the thing I've always thought was the best about the American Constitution is that it can be amended to meet new challenges and situations, it doesn't have to be set in stone. In fact, we are talking about an amendment right now.
Sometimes when arguing online, I've seen Americans using "well, the constitution says!" as a kind of trump card, and it's always confused me, because it isn't some sort of holy writ.

Indeed, the Constitution can be amended. It just takes effort. Frankly, it should. It gathers and builds public support, and helps settle the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

We wrote:
Do any of the other Americans on here get offended when someone from another country is arguing about this topic? I mean you guys have the right to your opinion's but ultimately this is an American issue. Most of Europe has decided to severely restrict guns, fine that is what you want and it's your country.

But this is a US issue. Owning a firearm was built into our Constitution due to us being a nation founded on revolting from a tyrannical government. When you guys who have European flags next to your names post telling us we are wrong for our thinking it just offends me to no end (edit: saying this dakka has put a SIngapore flag for some bizarre reason next to my name).

This is a worldwide public forum and it is good to hear everyone's opinion but a little more tact is in order. I don't criticize your countries laws or beliefs so I ask some of you be a little more polite when you do so regarding ours.

Yep. Then I realize, my family has more military might than most countries, and it is only because of our Inherent Greatness that restrains us from taking over their country. Then I feel better.

Da Boss wrote:
I had a PM discussion with Frazzled about this a couple of years ago, but the thing I've always thought was the best about the American Constitution is that it can be amended to meet new challenges and situations, it doesn't have to be set in stone. In fact, we are talking about an amendment right now.
Sometimes when arguing online, I've seen Americans using "well, the constitution says!" as a kind of trump card, and it's always confused me, because it isn't some sort of holy writ.

The constitution is deliberately hard to amend. I suspect amending any of the first 10 amendments, known as The Bill Of Rights would be harder than other amendments to get support for. It would be fun to see the anti-gun crowd attempt to go that route. I honestly don't think they have it in them.

Personally, I'm hoping the next amendment puts term limits on congress critters.

We wrote:
Do any of the other Americans on here get offended when someone from another country is arguing about this topic? I mean you guys have the right to your opinion's but ultimately this is an American issue. Most of Europe has decided to severely restrict guns, fine that is what you want and it's your country.

But this is a US issue. Owning a firearm was built into our Constitution due to us being a nation founded on revolting from a tyrannical government. When you guys who have European flags next to your names post telling us we are wrong for our thinking it just offends me to no end (edit: saying this dakka has put a SIngapore flag for some bizarre reason next to my name).

This is a worldwide public forum and it is good to hear everyone's opinion but a little more tact is in order. I don't criticize your countries laws or beliefs so I ask some of you be a little more polite when you do so regarding ours.

Offended? No. It's pretty funny.