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.

 don_mondo wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


Also, where do you live that people breaking into your house to kill you at night is a big enough threat that you are buying guns to help you kill anyone who breaks into your house ever and you've formed very detailed plans on how to kill an intruder with a variety of weapons?

Well, the last time my home was broken into in the middle of the night while we were asleep upstairs was in the housing on the military base I was stationed on. You would think that would be fairly safe, wouldn't you. But yeah, they bypassed the locked doors, rifled through the lower level, stole a bunch of stuff and took my wife's keys and stole my car, all while we slept upstairs. And as others have already stated, if someone is willing to break into a home that they know is currently occupied, they have already decided that they are willing to inflict harm on anyone in that home. Had we woke up I would have been at the top of the stairs with a pistol (so I could protect children sleeping in their bedrooms as well as my wife in our bedroom) while my wife called 911. We were lucky, they didn't come upstairs. Bu the possibility and the threat were real. And you bat or you sample core aren't going to do much if the intruder has a firearm... So yeah.

We've had numerous break ins in my community recently. The population is about 70% military and police. You'd think that would make you safe...

We've had several home invasions result in murders in my city in the last year.

It's a fact of life. Now odds are that it'll never happen to me and my family. Who is anyone though, to tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to take reasonable steps to help increase my family's level of protection though?

Didn't the storage act just die as well? Saw some Facebook post about it. Apparently it got shot down due to murky wording, go figure.

It's kind of funny, these kind of laws are the same ways conservative areas fight abortion. For example, Kentucky banned abortions after the 20th week. No, they didn't explicitly ban abortions outright, they just made it more difficult for people wanting to get one. Snuck through because it didn't generate as much publicity as an outright ban would. I imagine most people won't even know about it until it's "too late" and they'll have to do it in another state. It's the death by a thousand cuts and both sides are pretty bad about this kind of thing. I'm against this no matter where I see it, it always feels like the other side throwing a tantrum because they couldn't get a ban passed, so this is the next best thing in their eyes.

I don't know why any sane person would back gun control right now from a political standpoint. Gun owners have proven to be one of the most dedicated voter groups around, and gun control couldn't even get passed with majority senate and a Democrat president. It's just not really grabbing the "silent majority" and ultimately seems like a waste of time. Their time would be better spent fighting for civil rights issues, abortion, enviornmental concerns, you know, things that still show you're a Democrat but actually serve a purpose.

I actually find myself wanting to vote democrat most of the time but the absolutely asinine position many Democrats take on gun control seriously hurts them. I don't think they realize how many people in the south would vote blue if it weren't for the fact that Democrats are so notorious for it. Not among the hardcore guys that own the scary black rifles (although you'd be surprised that even there there are liberal type people) but the countless outdoorsmen, hunters, and fudds that plink with 22lr. Going for gun control honestly only helps in a couple of areas and usually just lets the Republicans sick the NRA on you for free votes. Say what you want about the NRA (and trust me, even most gun owners don't like them) other lobbying groups could learn a thing or two from them. They get results at least.

Granted I lost all my guns in a tragic kayaking accident, it's the principle of the matter that counts

 djones520 wrote:

 don_mondo wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:


Also, where do you live that people breaking into your house to kill you at night is a big enough threat that you are buying guns to help you kill anyone who breaks into your house ever and you've formed very detailed plans on how to kill an intruder with a variety of weapons?

Well, the last time my home was broken into in the middle of the night while we were asleep upstairs was in the housing on the military base I was stationed on. You would think that would be fairly safe, wouldn't you. But yeah, they bypassed the locked doors, rifled through the lower level, stole a bunch of stuff and took my wife's keys and stole my car, all while we slept upstairs. And as others have already stated, if someone is willing to break into a home that they know is currently occupied, they have already decided that they are willing to inflict harm on anyone in that home. Had we woke up I would have been at the top of the stairs with a pistol (so I could protect children sleeping in their bedrooms as well as my wife in our bedroom) while my wife called 911. We were lucky, they didn't come upstairs. Bu the possibility and the threat were real. And you bat or you sample core aren't going to do much if the intruder has a firearm... So yeah.

We've had numerous break ins in my community recently. The population is about 70% military and police. You'd think that would make you safe...

We've had several home invasions result in murders in my city in the last year.

It's a fact of life. Now odds are that it'll never happen to me and my family. Who is anyone though, to tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to take reasonable steps to help increase my family's level of protection though?

We live in a quiet area too with little crime. Before I moved here someone tried to break into the house while my wife was at home. We have had attempted break ins throughout the area recently, as well as people attempting to break into cars.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I am not sure if I agree with the slippery slope argument. The 2nd amendment is unique because the other rights are not related to weapons. It's far more difficult to make a compelling case to limit, say, the 1st amendment.

The particular legislation being proposed here is one thing, but I do not feel like any right should be beyond scrutiny if it is so potentially harmful.

The First Amendment is unique because no other Amendment guarantees right to exercise your religion, or the peaceful assembly to request redress from your government
The Third Amendment is unique because no other Amendment prevents soldiers being quartered in domestic residences
The Fourth Amendment is unique because no other Amendment protects against illegal search and seizure
The Fifth Amendment is unique because no other Amendment protects against double jeopardy
The Sixth Amendment is unique because no other Amendment protects the right to a speedy trial

Each Amendment is unique because it speaks to a different right. Trying to set aside the protections inherent in a Constitutional right just because of the topic is asinine

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also, from a civil rights perspective, once you start heavily regulating a right (and the right to own and bear arms has been affirmed as an individual right and incorporated to the states by the supreme court), it quickly ceases to become a right and in turn becomes a privilege, even if otherwise such regulations make sense.

I would be all in favor of requiring mandatory training and education to own a firearm, in concept I dont think that is at all a bad idea, but to do so undermines the concept of firearms ownership as a right, and that same line of thinking could then be used to attack and "regulate" other rights down the road.

Any right should be discussed and evaluated and may be rescinded based on its own merits vs its cost, not the merits of other rights.

The slippery slope argument only really applies of a government actively trying to quash rights for the sake of control, but it applies far less so to an educated society deciding as a whole which rights to limit, which rights to eliminate or indeed which new rights to institute.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also, from a civil rights perspective, once you start heavily regulating a right (and the right to own and bear arms has been affirmed as an individual right and incorporated to the states by the supreme court), it quickly ceases to become a right and in turn becomes a privilege, even if otherwise such regulations make sense.

I would be all in favor of requiring mandatory training and education to own a firearm, in concept I dont think that is at all a bad idea, but to do so undermines the concept of firearms ownership as a right, and that same line of thinking could then be used to attack and "regulate" other rights down the road.

Any right should be discussed and evaluated and may be rescinded based on its own merits vs its cost, not the merits of other rights.

The slippery slope argument only really applies of a government actively trying to quash rights for the sake of control, but it applies far less so to an educated society deciding as a whole which rights to limit, which rights to eliminate or indeed which rights to institute.

Separating these things is difficult and treacherous, and often, or even usually, the former is just masquerading as the latter, particularly with firearms, especially with stuff like this proposal from Washington and other associated "assault weapon" legislation. In these cases it's just designed to make things difficult for people who chose to exercise those rights, there's nothing actually being made safer because all of the legislation surrounding these weapons can by bypassed by furniture changes that make the guns look goofy or handle a bit comfortable but that don't otherwise have any bearing on the actual operation and capabilities of the firearm.

The execution of such laws are often also are routinely somewhat...scummy and build upon each other other time.

It's not just the 2A stuff, look at how government surveillance and intrusion into private communications over the last 20 years has exploded and supposedly thoughtfully crafted legislation that ostensibly features checks and controls and balances is routinely abused.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Each Amendment is unique because it speaks to a different right. Trying to set aside the protections inherent in a Constitutional right just because of the topic is asinine

What the law is about is actually very important. Firearms are materially different to religious freedom, for example. There are different laws about different things because they: are different things.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Each Amendment is unique because it speaks to a different right. Trying to set aside the protections inherent in a Constitutional right just because of the topic is asinine

What the law is about is actually very important. Firearms are materially different to religious freedom, for example. There are different laws about different things because they: are different things.

According to the constitution, there really is not a difference regarding rights.

As a neutral, it always strikes me as strange how self-defence and firearm ownership are regarded as one and the same.

Everybody has the right to self defence. I agree with that 100%.

Now, obviously, the USA has a 2nd amendment. And obviously, firearms are a very efficient way of defending yourself.

But you could just as easily defend yourself with fists and feet, swords, battle axe, etc etc

IMO, in order to have a reasoned debate on self-defence, firearm ownership and self defence should be given equal weighting.

British law says I have a right to protect life, limb, and property if somebody kicks in my front door at 3am, and a gun would probably make this easier, but it can also be done with trusty guard dogs, and a sturdy piece of oak that I keep close to hand as a precaution. Naturally, of course, if I succeed in driving away the intruders, I can't pursue them for miles. The self-defence law stops outside my front fence.

So yes, in a country such as the USA where there are more guns than people, you need a gun to defend yourself, as the odds say that attacker will probably be armed.

But countries such as the UK show that there can be the universal right to self-defence without guns.

 Vaktathi wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Also, from a civil rights perspective, once you start heavily regulating a right (and the right to own and bear arms has been affirmed as an individual right and incorporated to the states by the supreme court), it quickly ceases to become a right and in turn becomes a privilege, even if otherwise such regulations make sense.

I would be all in favor of requiring mandatory training and education to own a firearm, in concept I dont think that is at all a bad idea, but to do so undermines the concept of firearms ownership as a right, and that same line of thinking could then be used to attack and "regulate" other rights down the road.

Any right should be discussed and evaluated and may be rescinded based on its own merits vs its cost, not the merits of other rights.

The slippery slope argument only really applies of a government actively trying to quash rights for the sake of control, but it applies far less so to an educated society deciding as a whole which rights to limit, which rights to eliminate or indeed which rights to institute.

Separating these things is difficult and treacherous, and often, or even usually, the former is just masquerading as the latter, particularly with firearms, especially with stuff like this proposal from Washington and other associated "assault weapon" legislation. In these cases it's just designed to make things difficult for people who chose to exercise those rights, there's nothing actually being made safer because all of the legislation surrounding these weapons can by bypassed by furniture changes that make the guns look goofy or handle a bit comfortable but that don't otherwise have any bearing on the actual operation and capabilities of the firearm.

The execution of such laws are often also are routinely somewhat...scummy and build upon each other other time.

It's not just the 2A stuff, look at how government surveillance and intrusion into private communications over the last 20 years has exploded and supposedly thoughtfully crafted legislation that ostensibly features checks and controls and balances is routinely abused.

Yeah but none of that addresses the point I was discussing in your post I originally quoted, which is that I think it's a bit of a diversionary tactic to talk about a slippery slope affecting other rights (like free speech). Just because society wants 1 right rescinded doesn't automatically mean they're coming after all your other rights too. Each right is a right unto itself.

Specifically in the context of gun control, I don't really have a strong opinion either way to be honest on whether guns should be restricted or should not (other than the opinion that many people from both sides make a huge amount of lame arguments). Though I am of the opinion if guns are going to be restricted, it has to be an all-or-nothing thing, either you make it hard as all hell for people to get their hands on a gun and large penalties for owning a gun outside of a small number of specific circumstances, OR you just let people have their guns with minimal interference. The only benefit I see to partially restricting the right to own guns is if your long-game is to completely restrict them.

But either road you go down on the gun ownership rights thing, when the question of removing gun ownership rights comes up I think the "but free speech is also a right!" is of limited value. Free speech can stand or fall on its own.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Now, obviously, the USA has a 2nd amendment. And obviously, firearms are a very efficient way of defending yourself.

But you could just as easily defend yourself with fists and feet, swords, battle axe, etc etc

That really is not accurate at all. Take my wife as an example. At 5'3" and 130 pounds, having broken her back and her pelvis, her ability to defend herself with fists and feet against someone my size and strength is about zero, and I'm not a big guy at 5'8" 160. Swords/axes mean allowing an attacker within sword or axe range, and in our house space to swing isn't all that great even if you assume she was trained on those things. And training to be efficient with a sword or axe against a determined attacker is much more difficult and lengthy than training on our Mossberg 500T for example. Give me 2-3 hours and I can have you pretty proficient with that shotgun, to include safety/handling issues.

Allowing a 'right to self defense' is pretty silly if you make the easiest and one of the most efficient tools to use illegal or very difficult to legally obtain.

Then of course there is the fact that 'self defense' was never really the primary intent of the 2nd amendment.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Now, obviously, the USA has a 2nd amendment. And obviously, firearms are a very efficient way of defending yourself.

But you could just as easily defend yourself with fists and feet, swords, battle axe, etc etc

That really is not accurate at all. Take my wife as an example. At 5'3" and 130 pounds, having broken her back and her pelvis, her ability to defend herself with fists and feet against someone my size and strength is about zero, and I'm not a big guy at 5'8" 160. Swords/axes mean allowing an attacker within sword or axe range, and in our house space to swing isn't all that great even if you assume she was trained on those things. And training to be efficient with a sword or axe against a determined attacker is much more difficult and lengthy than training on our Mossberg 500T for example. Give me 2-3 hours and I can have you pretty proficient with that shotgun, to include safety/handling issues.

Allowing a 'right to self defense' is pretty silly if you make the easiest and one of the most efficient tools to use illegal or very difficult to legally obtain.

Then of course there is the fact that 'self defense' was never really the primary intent of the 2nd amendment.

For people like your wife, firearms are the best method of self defence, and you'll get no disagreement from me on that. Firearms are the most effective and efficient method we have for self-defence.

I was merely making the point that firearm ownership, and self defence, although close bedfellows, are not one and the same thing, Britain being a prime example of that.

But you did state "you could just as easily defend yourself with fists and feet, swords, battle axe, etc etc".

That is what I was arguing against. I just do not believe that statement at all. Swords and fists are not 'just as easy' to be effective with.

 CptJake wrote:
But you did state "you could just as easily defend yourself with fists and feet, swords, battle axe, etc etc".

That is what I was arguing against. I just do not believe that statement at all. Swords and fists are not 'just as easy' to be effective with.

The vast majority of healthy and able bodied adults could defend themselves with alternative weapons given time and training. History is proof of that.

Obviously, exceptions do exist, disabled people etc etc

Apologies for going slightly OT.

Also, people often overlook the well regulated militia wording in the 2nd. So there is an expectation that even the right to carry guns carries with it some knowledge, training, and responsibility.

A compromise has existed in the 2nd from day one, because your idea of a well regulated militia could be different from mine etc etc

 CptJake wrote:
Then of course there is the fact that 'self defense' was never really the primary intent of the 2nd amendment.

I wonder how many firearms in the US are in the service of a well regulated militia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The vast majority of healthy and able bodied adults could defend themselves with alternative weapons given time and training. History is proof of that.

You could defend yourself.... most likely not successfully, but you could try

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Then of course there is the fact that 'self defense' was never really the primary intent of the 2nd amendment.

I wonder how many firearms in the US are in the service of a well regulated militia.

I'll wager not that many.

But briefly, the 2nd has evolved somewhat. IMO.

IMO, the militia was the main focus in the birth of America. A collective right rather than an individual right.

But after the war of 1812, militias fell out of favour after the Washington debacle.

Up until the Civil War, with the Wild West and expansion etc etc, numerous anti-firearm laws existed. Wild West saloons etc etc

but after the Civil War, and the terror inflicted on the African Americans, the 2nd evolved into an individual right, with the 14th amendment backing this up.

Then we had the gangster panic in the 1930s, and the NFA, then we had laws in the 1960s and 1970s which were primarily designed to keep guns away from African Americans, and then the Heller case.

To sum up the history of the 2nd amendment is complex, long, interesting, and fascinating to study.

It is always changing, and this is driven by the prevalent mood in American society at the time.

For the record, I believe it started as a collective right, but is now an individual right.

 thekingofkings wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Each Amendment is unique because it speaks to a different right. Trying to set aside the protections inherent in a Constitutional right just because of the topic is asinine

What the law is about is actually very important. Firearms are materially different to religious freedom, for example. There are different laws about different things because they: are different things.

According to the constitution, there really is not a difference regarding rights.

Sure, but fortunately we are not ensorcelled by it and can think and reason in ways contrary to the US constitution or otherwise not covered by it. That's rather in the spirit of allowing for amendments and, well, rebelling against the government and writing new laws.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Each Amendment is unique because it speaks to a different right. Trying to set aside the protections inherent in a Constitutional right just because of the topic is asinine

What the law is about is actually very important. Firearms are materially different to religious freedom, for example. There are different laws about different things because they: are different things.

According to the constitution, there really is not a difference regarding rights.

Sure, but fortunately we are not ensorcelled by it and can think and reason in ways contrary to the US constitution or otherwise not covered by it. That's rather in the spirit of allowing for amendments and, well, rebelling against the government and writing new laws.

Then the process to make an amendment should be followed rather than attempts to erode the right.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Naturally, of course, if I succeed in driving away the intruders, I can't pursue them for miles. The self-defence law stops outside my front fence.

This is generally the same in the US as well.... Various places have different wording than others. IIRC, some places say that you are no longer in "self-defense" if the assailant is retreating at all, some places it no longer applies once they are beyond your property line. Then of course, there are the oft misunderstood "stand your ground" laws. Washington's is pretty good in that it has been upheld in court to mean that if a person has a legal right to be in a place, they have a legal right to complete self-defense.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Then of course there is the fact that 'self defense' was never really the primary intent of the 2nd amendment.

I wonder how many firearms in the US are in the service of a well regulated militia.

Well regulated militias *is* another way of saying 'abled bodied men'.

To to answer to your question, about 100 million of us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Then of course there is the fact that 'self defense' was never really the primary intent of the 2nd amendment.

I wonder how many firearms in the US are in the service of a well regulated militia.

I'll wager not that many.

But briefly, the 2nd has evolved somewhat. IMO.

That's incorrect, it's intent was always about the individual right.

IMO, the militia was the main focus in the birth of America. A collective right rather than an individual right.

Nope.

But after the war of 1812, militias fell out of favour after the Washington debacle.

The term militia back then isn't synonmous to what you think of our National Guard...

For the record, I believe it started as a collective right, but is now an individual right.

You would be mistaken. It always started as an individual right... the only reason people thought there were ambiguity was the misunderstanding of the 'well regulated militia'.

In a sense, 'well regulated' means having proper arms with you, and 'militia meant 'able bodied men'.

EDIT: for historic perspective, read this 1803 book 'View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings':
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/tucker-view-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-with-selected-writings

Particularly this tidbit:

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most government it has been the study of rules to confirm this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color of pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As a neutral, it always strikes me as strange how self-defence and firearm ownership are regarded as one and the same.

Everybody has the right to self defence. I agree with that 100%.

Now, obviously, the USA has a 2nd amendment. And obviously, firearms are a very efficient way of defending yourself.

But you could just as easily defend yourself with fists and feet, swords, battle axe, etc etc

Hrm, as someone who does 6-10 hours of fencing every week with Longsword, Rapier, Dussack and Ringen am Schwert, if I'm in a self defense situation, and I have any choice at all, I'll take a Glock over any of those for self defense. If you're having to get into hand to hand combat to defend yourself, the chance of failure or injury to yourself goes wayyyyy up (first rule of a knife-fight, don't get into one, you'll probably get cut even if you defeat your attacker no matter how good you are), physical characteristics come into more play (body mass, height, strength, etc), and quite frankly swinging a sword or axe inside a confined space like a hallway or bedroom is...difficult. With a handgun, I don't have to worry about being less strong than my opponent, I don't have to worry about confined spaces (aside from the hearing damage it will do), I don't have to worry about putting myself in range where an opponent can strike me back (unless they too have a firearm), and in general it levels out the playing field a whole lot more.

IMO, in order to have a reasoned debate on self-defence, firearm ownership and self defence should be given equal weighting.

British law says I have a right to protect life, limb, and property if somebody kicks in my front door at 3am, and a gun would probably make this easier, but it can also be done with trusty guard dogs

Dogs kept specifically for guard duty require specialized training and handling, and don't generally make great house mates for most families (and are usually way more expensive than a firearm, putting them out of the reach of many people). Pet dogs make great alarms, but not usually great guards. Dogs also have ways of being worked around, and someone with a baseball bat is going to have a field day with a dog.

and a sturdy piece of oak that I keep close to hand as a precaution.

If I'm not mistaken, under UK law that would be an illegal "Offensive Weapon" would it not?.

Naturally, of course, if I succeed in driving away the intruders, I can't pursue them for miles. The self-defence law stops outside my front fence.

This is generally true in the US as well, if you are no longer under direct threat your right of self defense ceases.

So yes, in a country such as the USA where there are more guns than people, you need a gun to defend yourself, as the odds say that attacker will probably be armed.

But countries such as the UK show that there can be the universal right to self-defence without guns.

In some ways, sure, but there's a lot of differences. I would argue that the difference is that you have the right to fight back in self defense (a universal right), but not necessarily a legal right to the *means* to effectively do so.

Many things are situation dependent. We've had 3 people shot and killed in my city in the last year in self defense during home invasions by women or over 50's that may otherwise have been overpowered by larger and/or younger attackers.

Likewise, the right to self defense in the US extends outside the home. The carry of firearms in public is legal (to varying degrees and in different ways) in all 50 US states, the carrying of knives is legal just about everywhere (with weird restrictions on length or folding blades in some places but I can carry a 3-4" folding unassisted opening knife just about everywhere I can think of), and one can carry a baseball bat just about anywhere for any reason at any time, etc. If I'm walking home from the pub or bar I can carry a knife for self defense in case I'm mugged in an alley during the 2 mile walk home.

In the UK, at least as I understand it, you can't carry anything that could be used as a weapon unless it has some other purpose you're putting it to at that moment (e.g. you can't carry a a knife or cricket bat around everywhere for self defense, only if you have some other "legitimate" use for it, if carried for self defense it becomes an "Offensive Weapon" if I'm not mistaken).

The UK also has different demographics, geographic issues, criminal challenges, and cultural nuances. Even taking out all gun related crime in the US, there is a much higher incidence of violence in general. There are various reasons for this, and in most places there won't be much of a difference, such violence is generally geographically centered around a few dozen spots, but it is a fact of life in the US. The US is a much larger place with a more thinly spread population (about 1/7th the population density of the UK) and long land borders that do generate some issues, and generally a different cultural outlook on what self defense and the bearing of arms means.

@whembly. If you want a debate on the 2nd, I'm always interested in one, so send me a PM. Needless to say I disagree with your earlier points.

@Vaktathis.

Of course, despite the shared heritage and language of the USA/UK, there are big cultural differences.

You may think of the UK as a hippy, commie, free for all, where the citizens are denied guns and reduced to defending ourselves with guns made from sawdust or something but it wasn't always like that.

Before the 1920s firearms act, Britain was the place to be for gun production and gun ownership.

British citizens could buy what they wanted when they wanted. None of this NFA nonsense

In short, back then, the UK made Texas look like California, and it was backed up by the English bill of rights, which as you know, was the inspiration for the 2nd amendment.

Problems arose with the Siege of Sidney Street in London. To cut a long story short, Russian radicals had a gun battle in the streets with British police. The radicals had the latest Mauser pistols, and the police using old revolvers were seriously out gunned.

The police were reduced to asking passing citizens for extra guns to fight back.

Winston Churchill, then home secretary, turned up with cannons to blast out the radicals and it all got a bit messy

This was not an uncommon event in Britain in those days

Back OT. Violence is not unique to America, obviously, and for a large, rural state like Washington, I understand and appreciate that the police could be 2 hours away, and by then, it could be too late, so having a gun for self-defence makes perfect sense in that situation.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Then of course there is the fact that 'self defense' was never really the primary intent of the 2nd amendment.

I wonder how many firearms in the US are in the service of a well regulated militia.

The militia is defined as;
"(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."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

At the time it was written "well regulated" meant that it was adequately supplied, not that it was burdened with overbearing legislation

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@whembly. If you want a debate on the 2nd, I'm always interested in one, so send me a PM. Needless to say I disagree with your earlier points.

@Vaktathis.

Of course, despite the shared heritage and language of the USA/UK, there are big cultural differences.

You may think of the UK as a hippy, commie, free for all, where the citizens are denied guns and reduced to defending ourselves with guns made from sawdust or something

Oh not at all, I know that there are some weapons that can be owned and some firearms that people can have, and that there are some silly laws there just as anywhere else, it's just different from the US in regards to weapons

but it wasn't always like that.

Before the 1920s firearms act, Britain was the place to be for gun production and gun ownership.

British citizens could buy what they wanted when they wanted. None of this NFA nonsense

In short, back then, the UK made Texas look like California, and it was backed up by the English bill of rights, which as you know, was the inspiration for the 2nd amendment.

Oh absolutely, though it's interesting how that right and that industry in general appears to have rather withered in the UK while in the US it has become a political lightning rod and is an increasingly growing industry (albeit in different ways from older eras).

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Then of course there is the fact that 'self defense' was never really the primary intent of the 2nd amendment.

I wonder how many firearms in the US are in the service of a well regulated militia.

The militia is defined as;
"(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."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

At the time it was written "well regulated" meant that it was adequately supplied, not that it was burdened with overbearing legislation

Thanks for posting that. My question for those who believe the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, rather than an individual right (even though the bill of rights focuses primarily on individual rights), is this: If the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, the effect is basically giving the state permission for the state to possess arms for defense of the state. Why would a government need to provide a legal protection for itself to possess arms, particularly in a document focusing on the rights of the citizens? That interpretation, to me, seems to boil down to the state giving itself permission to possess arms for the use of the people in service to the state...which strikes me as pretty far apart from anything the founding of the US was trying to accomplish. I'm not trying to be flippant about it either, I'm seriously asking. If "collective 2nd amendment rights" supporters are intending something else by their interpretation, I'm genuinely curious what that is and what the purpose of that would be.

 Hordini wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Then of course there is the fact that 'self defense' was never really the primary intent of the 2nd amendment.

I wonder how many firearms in the US are in the service of a well regulated militia.

The militia is defined as;
"(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."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

At the time it was written "well regulated" meant that it was adequately supplied, not that it was burdened with overbearing legislation

Thanks for posting that. My question for those who believe the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, rather than an individual right (even though the bill of rights focuses primarily on individual rights), is this: If the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, the effect is basically giving the state permission for the state to possess arms for defense of the state. Why would a government need to provide a legal protection for itself to possess arms, particularly in a document focusing on the rights of the citizens? That interpretation, to me, seems to boil down to the state giving itself permission to possess arms for the use of the people in service to the state...which strikes me as pretty far apart from anything the founding of the US was trying to accomplish. I'm not trying to be flippant about it either, I'm seriously asking. If "collective 2nd amendment rights" supporters are intending something else by their interpretation, I'm genuinely curious what that is and what the purpose of that would be.

This is something that has always bothered me as being nonsensical as well, and that I've never really found a way to make sense. About the only thing I can think of would be a restriction on the Federal government not being allowed to tell the States that they can't possess arms, but that seems like something odd to be specifically called out on its own in a set of amendments largely otherwise aimed at individual rights and that would have been covered anyway under the 10th amendment.

As I've mentioned before, I'm a student of American history, and I do enjoy looking at the history of the 2nd amendment.

This point is addressed mainly at Hordini.

Anyway, it's important to remember what was NOT included in the 2nd.

We know from James Madison's letters that he wanted a pacifist clause in the 2nd, which would have allowed Quakers and the like to opt out from gun ownership and militia duty.

So, IMO, if the 2nd was an individual right, why would you need a pacifist clause? Because if it was an individual right, you would exercise your choice to NOT own a gun.

Therefore, IMO, the collective was the main focus, which is no surprise. The colonists just defeated the British army, and the founders were deeply concerned about standing armies emerging in the new Republic.

Citizen armies were the solution to this. Therefore, the 2nd, IMO, was logically a collective right.

But this changed after the civil war, and became a individual right for a variety of different reasons.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As I've mentioned before, I'm a student of American history, and I do enjoy looking at the history of the 2nd amendment.

This point is addressed mainly at Hordini.

Anyway, it's important to remember what was NOT included in the 2nd.

We know from James Madison's letters that he wanted a pacifist clause in the 2nd, which would have allowed Quakers and the like to opt out from gun ownership and militia duty.

So, IMO, if the 2nd was an individual right, why would you need a pacifist clause? Because if it was an individual right, you would exercise your choice to NOT own a gun.

Therefore, IMO, the collective was the main focus, which is no surprise. The colonists just defeated the British army, and the founders were deeply concerned about standing armies emerging in the new Republic.

Citizen armies were the solution to this. Therefore, the 2nd, IMO, was logically a collective right.

But this changed after the civil war, and became a individual right for a variety of different reasons.

If I understand your interpretation correctly, it almost sounds like the 2nd amendment, as a collective right, would be a right afforded to the state (rather than the people as individuals) and protected by requiring the people to keep and bear arms in order to defend the state (thus James Madison's desire for a pacifist clause exempting pacifists). Basically, a "right" mandating the people as a collective to take some action (in this case, keeping and bearing arms). That still doesn't make sense to me, particularly when part of the bill of rights (for example, the third amendment) specifically pointing out things that the people were not required to do. It seems a bit beyond the pale to suggest that the second amendment would require individuals to keep and bear arms in defense of the state, and then contrast that to the third specifically enumerating that the people had no responsibility to quarter troops.

I'm not trying to construct some type of strawman, so if I'm legitimately misunderstanding your point, please let me know. It just seems odd to me that the bill of rights, most of which are focused on protecting the rights of individuals, would also include a "right" of the state as a collective, founded on requiring individuals to do some service to the state. I suppose, if I was going to present some sort of argument against that, is that James Madison's pacifist clause wasn't required, because the text of the 2nd amendment as it stand does not place a responsibility on people to actively keep and bear arms, but rather that their right to do so cannot be infringed - which again, leads me back to the question of why a state would feel the need to specifically restrict itself from infringing on a right of the state.

Note - I'm using "state" here to refer to the nation/government body, not as in one of the individual states making up the US.

I saw no mention of military personnel. We are often issues magazines(no ammo) and keep them in our gear which we transport back and forth as needed. I know once in New York a Soldier from FT. Drum got in serious trouble due to the laws even though he was issued them. Would this still apply. There are more than a few installations there, to include Joint Base Lewis-McChord.