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.

Yes, due to the Militia clause of the 2nd Amendment, and the definition of who is the Militia, such sweeping laws, like those recently established in Florida, are unconstitutional. Restricting the rights of those 17-20 year olds to purchase firearms directly violates the capability of the militia to be armed.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Is there an age restriction on being elected to congress or the presidency?

Yes.

In the United States, a person must be aged 35 or over to be President or Vice President, 30 or over to be a Senator, and 25 or over to be a Representative, as specified in the U.S. Constitution.
...

Exactly.

So it's not impossible to have different ages of accession to constitutional rights.

I know the Supreme Court has ruled that even minor children have free speech rights in school.

Insurgency Walker wrote:

The national guard is something different from the Militia.

BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I think you need to look up the law. . . the national guard is, per federal law the "organized militia" and you're quite simply wrong here.

Actually, you're the one who's wrong:

U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 12 › § 246 wrote:

(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.

Edit: Ah, Insurgency walker beat me to it, but I quote the actual law in question so he can't claim it doesn't really say that.

Left the part of his quote where he says NG is not militia up in quotes. Care to try again?

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Also, someone asked earlier about taking out a tank with things available to civilians. Here we go: One half pound coffee can, a road flare, a mix of 50% iron oxide and [ingredient omitted to avoid mod anger]. Put it all together inside the coffee can with the flare accessible and get it up on the engine deck of the AFV. Or anyplace else that it won't roll off before it does it's work. Because that will burn right through the tank.

Hell, cap the fuel truck and take out a whole company of tanks. Abrams are gas hogs. Kill enough fuel truck drivers and folks will be pretty reluctant to drive fuel trucks...

I know there are tons of graduates of "Pineland University" who can teach regular folks all kinds of cool tricks. That is what they do.

 CptJake wrote:

Hell, cap the fuel truck and take out a whole company of tanks. Abrams are gas hogs. Kill enough fuel truck drivers and folks will be pretty reluctant to drive fuel trucks...

I know there are tons of graduates of "Pineland University" who can teach regular folks all kinds of cool tricks. That is what they do.

Yeha, but this works on anything, not just the fuel pigs.

Just to be clear, this is all hypothetical discussion, mister NSA agent guy.

 djones520 wrote:
Just to be clear, this is all hypothetical discussion, mister NSA agent guy.

NSA agents don't blow tanks with IEDs they have drones for that.


But my point stands, that the idea that the US population could never fight the US Military is itself a bit absurd.

Also, those looking to the Civil War for your inspiration, let me make a point: comparatively, the US Federal Government would be the Confederates, not the Union in this scenario. The South had superior commanders and in many cases, more experienced troops. The Union had numbers. In a uprising situation, 10% of the population rebelling would be a force that outnumbered the US military, reserves included, by about 4-5 to 1. This assumes that the National Guard remains loyal to the government. Which the military is not assuming in that situation.

Granted, this ignores things like mass conscription, etc, representing the situation at the outset.

Does civilian uprising need it’s own thread?

Because I haven’t seen much talk about the Sante Fe tragedy for a few pages now...

 Xenomancers wrote:
I was simply making the point that the Union had a lot more expendable bodies to send into battle. The civil war was about who was willing to lose more men. Many died on all sides from all over the place. Today things would be much different. We appreciate life a lot more today. Look at Palestine. 50 People die in Gaza and the world reacts against it. Imagine how the world would react to hundreds of Americans dying in the same way - waving american flags and screaming about the core values of democracy...the war would be over before it even started.

War builds an immense tolerance to casualties, very quickly. The invasion of Crete was at the time a costly battle for Germany, 6,000 paratroops were lost and this shocked Hitler to the point where he stopped using paratroops in operations like that for the rest of the war. Within a couple of years operations on the Eastern Front that cost just 10,000 lives were barely even noted.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Just to be clear, this is all hypothetical discussion, mister NSA agent guy.

NSA agents don't blow tanks with IEDs they have drones for that.


But my point stands, that the idea that the US population could never fight the US Military is itself a bit absurd.

Also, those looking to the Civil War for your inspiration, let me make a point: comparatively, the US Federal Government would be the Confederates, not the Union in this scenario. The South had superior commanders and in many cases, more experienced troops. The Union had numbers. In a uprising situation, 10% of the population rebelling would be a force that outnumbered the US military, reserves included, by about 4-5 to 1. This assumes that the National Guard remains loyal to the government. Which the military is not assuming in that situation.

Granted, this ignores things like mass conscription, etc, representing the situation at the outset.

You don't know much about the history of insurrections and guerilla wars, do you?


The United States Armed Forces, despite all the new toys procured to fight goat herders with rusty Enfields and Kalashnikovs, still suffers from the same issue that many national militaries in modern history suffered from (even today): The U.S. Military is primarily equipped, trained, and focused on fighting and smashing another state's military forces.


The kind of insurgency you would see in the United States won't be Bubba with his shotgun playing ISIL, or even playing Taliban. What you would have be be more along the lines of a resistance/underground movement, with a bit of partisan thrown in.


And for that kind of war, you don't use the military. The military would be a case of overkill, and largely ineffective unless all the stops are pulled out. And the last thing the Federal Government wants to do is start bombing whole populations out of existence because:

A: It would cancel out any sympathy for the government and armed forces.

B: No amount of damage control from the controlled, corporate media cartels will work. Word WILL get around fast. And

C: It defeats the purpose of being tyrannical holes if you don't have people to oppress.


No, to combat such opposition, you need an exansive, well equipped police force doing secret police-y things. And against even a paramilitary police force, the playing field will be leveled for the resistance.



A F-35 can't patrol the streets, standing on the corner to enforce curfews. A Predator can't kick in the door at 3 A.M. to drag some poor slob off into the night, never to be seen again. Abrams MBTs are of little use in the underground is operating on a cell structure. Military surveillence systems effectiveness against a relatively low tech resistance groups has been highly overblown in the movies and on television. Police can do those things and do them better than a military force could. But the police are far more vulnerable to resistance actions, since in terms of arms there is parity. In terms of numbers, the resistance would have the advantage even if only a small percentage of the population takes up arms. And local resistance cells would have other advantages over a police force bent on being tools of oppression. You would have sympathizers in said police forces that would undermine operations and provide intelligence, to name one example. Another is that the streets are full of potential terrorists and informants watching the police's every move.


And the above is just the tip of the iceberg. Any type of rebellion against a hypothetically tyrannical U.S. government would work. The resistance doesn't have to win militarily. All they have to do is to make it not worth the trouble to keep on, and drag it out longer than the general population will stomach. Governments, even rich, tech driven governments like ours, are not all powerful or invincible. And tyrannies still require a certain amount of consent (through apathy and fear) to continue to operate. Get rid of that, and even a militarily powerful tyranny will collapse.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
However, if reasonable gun control legislation was enacted and did provoke a civil war which was won by the pro-gun side, the situation would arise that the militias formed with the purpose of defending the rule of law against tyranny would have ended up imposiing tyranny over the rule of law at the point of the gun. This would be most ironic, I feel.

The greatest irony would come in the wake of the victory, when the pro-gun forces ensured the anti-gun forces remained permanently disarmed.

 sebster wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I was simply making the point that the Union had a lot more expendable bodies to send into battle. The civil war was about who was willing to lose more men. Many died on all sides from all over the place. Today things would be much different. We appreciate life a lot more today. Look at Palestine. 50 People die in Gaza and the world reacts against it. Imagine how the world would react to hundreds of Americans dying in the same way - waving american flags and screaming about the core values of democracy...the war would be over before it even started.

War builds an immense tolerance to casualties, very quickly. The invasion of Crete was at the time a costly battle for Germany, 6,000 paratroops were lost and this shocked Hitler to the point where he stopped using paratroops in operations like that for the rest of the war. Within a couple of years operations on the Eastern Front that cost just 10,000 lives were barely even noted.

That was a different kind of war and a different time.


Since the end of World War II, the tolerance in a large number of body bags being filled has decreased significantly over time. Especially if a conflict was drawn out.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You could still have straw purchases that way. You simply say you've lost/destroyed the weapon, give the purchaser the weapon, and part ways.

The point is a register would flag people who 'lose' a couple of pistols a month. The mass of black market firearms isn't fueled people who straw purchase one pistol, one time. It's fueled by networks of people doing it regularly, which would be picked up by a national register.

I have a question.

Imagine the following scenario;

- The democratically elected government of the United States decides to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

- This goes through about a year of discussion and debate in the House and Senate, and then a bipartisan bill repealing the 2nd Amendment is proposed, voted on and passed with a super-majority in both House and Senate.

- The democratically elected President takes his time, orders a few inquiries, reads their reports and then makes an unusual move.

- The President calls for a national referendum. He will allow the American people to have a direct say on the matter.

- The referendum on the repeal of the 2nd Amendment passes with a super-majority after countless town hall meetings and rallies.

- The Supreme Court rules on the constitutional legality of the bill, sets down a special task force of constitutional scholars and legal experts......and then signs off on the bill.

- Three fourths of the states then ratify the repeal after much discussion in the state legislatures.

- The 2nd Amendment is now repealed.

- Congress and the Executive branch decides to institute a buy-back program, thereby ensuring that no American is economically hurt by giving up their guns. Every (now illegal) gun is bought by the government at full price.


Would any of you consider this an act of a tyrannical government, that would warrant an armed insurrection?

Please, keep on point. Don't try to derail the question by addressing whether it is likely or even realistic that the above can happen.
Address the scenario exactly as presented.



..

 Ouze wrote:
I see what you're saying.

Ultimately no right is 100% unlimited, even if constitutionally protected, because it can be amended. So I guess a better, more complete answer would have been that gun rights are protected by the constitution, and as such there is a steep political cost to infringing upon them, sure to incur litigation by a powerful and passionate lobby with a large percentage population backing it - there is no such lobby or political appetite to have an 18 year old senator.

Roughly three quarters of Americans support raising the age of gun ownership to 21.

I agree there's a powerful lobby that opposes it, but it's worth noting the real dynamic at play here. Of the 75%, maybe only a handful would be voting on that one specific issue. Whereas of the 25%, maybe a third would vote on that specific issue only if it was seriously raised in legislation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Also, someone asked earlier about taking out a tank with things available to civilians. Here we go: One half pound coffee can, a road flare, a mix of 50% iron oxide and [ingredient omitted to avoid mod anger]. Put it all together inside the coffee can with the flare accessible and get it up on the engine deck of the AFV. Or anyplace else that it won't roll off before it does it's work. Because that will burn right through the tank.

See, this is the kind of thing that just needs to end. It is fundamentally not sensible. It is playtime soldiering.

The challenge with taking out a tank isn't in getting a weapon of sufficient power, it's getting that weapon in contact with the tank. Which means isolating the tank by killing or suppressing all supporting infantry, and then co-ordinating an advance by some troops in to contact with the tank, and doing all that while the tank and all its supporting forces are firing on you and causing all manner of chaos.

If you have an insurgency cell capable of that level of co-ordination under fire, then getting your hands on a direct contact anti-tank weapon is easy. The point is that developing an insurgency cell capable of that level of tactical operation is no easy thing, it is what militaries train soldiers for years to be capable of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Also, those looking to the Civil War for your inspiration, let me make a point: comparatively, the US Federal Government would be the Confederates, not the Union in this scenario. The South had superior commanders and in many cases, more experienced troops. The Union had numbers. In a uprising situation, 10% of the population rebelling would be a force that outnumbered the US military, reserves included, by about 4-5 to 1. This assumes that the National Guard remains loyal to the government. Which the military is not assuming in that situation.

You've made two big assumptions that are false.
1) You've assumed the government has no local support of its own. Even if the population is majority in support of the rebellion, other civil wars have shown it'll be 2:1 at most, at least at the outset.
2) You've assumed all people deciding to fight against the government have become part of the fighting arm. Other insurgencies have shown you need at least 10:1 support to soldier, and in areas controlled by government that ratio can reach 100:1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
That was a different kind of war and a different time.

You've missed the point completely. As my example already showed, early in the war Crete was deemed a shocking loss of life, despite costly a relatively small 6,000 deaths. If Hitler had taken to the podium in the late 30s and said in a few years time he would invade Russia and reach the suburbs of Moscow for the loss of just a million German and allied lives, he would have been ousted from power within a week. But when Barbarossa happened it was heralded as a great triumph.

Violence builds a tolerance to greater violence, which builds a tolerance to even greater violence.

In 2002 do you think a single person would have supported overthrowing Saddam if they were told it would cost 5,000 US soldiers their lives? Yet once the casualties came in many people still supported the war.

We don't have the tolerance for mass casualties right now, because we aren't in any conflicts where casualties are routine. If a war broke out costing 100 lives a month, well if that reaches 200 a month it's not that different. If it reached 500 a month, not that different. Keep going and you can reach the WWII scale where whole divisions were lost in a day's fighting, and recorded as a footnote.

Steelmage99 wrote:
I have a question.

Imagine the following scenario;

Spoiler:

- The democratically elected government of the United States decides to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

- This goes through about a year of discussion and debate in the House and Senate, and then a bipartisan bill repealing the 2nd Amendment is proposed, voted on and passed with a super-majority in both House and Senate.

- The democratically elected President takes his time, orders a few inquiries, reads their reports and then makes an unusual move.

- The President calls for a national referendum. He will allow the American people to have a direct say on the matter.

- The referendum on the repeal of the 2nd Amendment passes with a super-majority after countless town hall meetings and rallies.

- The Supreme Court rules on the constitutional legality of the bill, sets down a special task force of constitutional scholars and legal experts......and then signs off on the bill.

- Three fourths of the states then ratify the repeal after much discussion in the state legislatures.

- The 2nd Amendment is now repealed.

- Congress and the Executive branch decides to institute a buy-back program, thereby ensuring that no American is economically hurt by giving up their guns. Every (now illegal) gun is bought by the government at full price.


Would any of you consider this an act of a tyrannical government, that would warrant an armed insurrection?

Please, keep on point. Don't try to derail the question by addressing whether it is likely or even realistic that the above can happen.
Address the scenario exactly as presented.



..

The 2nd Amendment could be lawfully repealed tomorrow and all of the Federal laws governing the lawful purchase of firearms and firearm ownership would still be in effect. The majority of the 50 states that have the lawful ownership of firearms guarantees in the state constitution and all of the laws governing the lawful purchase and ownership of firearms in those states would still be in effect. Everyone who lawfully purchased a gun would still have ex post facto protection from any new state or federal laws that criminalized any aspect of gun ownership if such new laws were passed and upheld by the courts.
Would I believe that the lawful repeal of the 2nd amendment was a lawful act? Yes. Would the repeal suddenly strip away all of the other extensive legal protections of my right to lawfully own all of the firearms I currently possess? No. Could the Federal govt lawfully offer a gun buyback program? Yes. Could I be lawfully prosecutes for not participating in it? No. Would an attempt by the Federal govt to illegally compel gun owners to give up theor guns be an illegal act of tyranny in my opinion and the opinion of any judge or lawyer or govt official that knows and values the law? Yes.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Insurgency Walker wrote:

The national guard is something different from the Militia.

BaronIveagh wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I think you need to look up the law. . . the national guard is, per federal law the "organized militia" and you're quite simply wrong here.

Actually, you're the one who's wrong:

U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 12 › § 246 wrote:

(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.

Edit: Ah, Insurgency walker beat me to it, but I quote the actual law in question so he can't claim it doesn't really say that.

Left the part of his quote where he says NG is not militia up in quotes. Care to try again?

The national guard is a Militia. But it is not the Militia referred to in the second amendment. They are related but very different things because the people do not have control over the weapons of the national guard. The Spanish American war caused the government to make some changes. In 1903 they stopped arming the army with a Norwegian rifle and instead copied a German one. The govt. decided they needed something more organized than the Militia which had failed to maintain any effectiveness, so they passed the rules in the title above and created the civilian marksmanship program to foster basic rifleman skills while subsidizing military rifles ownership in the unorganized Militia.
Different programs for different needs.

 CptJake wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Also, someone asked earlier about taking out a tank with things available to civilians. Here we go: One half pound coffee can, a road flare, a mix of 50% iron oxide and [ingredient omitted to avoid mod anger]. Put it all together inside the coffee can with the flare accessible and get it up on the engine deck of the AFV. Or anyplace else that it won't roll off before it does it's work. Because that will burn right through the tank.

Hell, cap the fuel truck and take out a whole company of tanks. Abrams are gas hogs. Kill enough fuel truck drivers and folks will be pretty reluctant to drive fuel trucks...

I know there are tons of graduates of "Pineland University" who can teach regular folks all kinds of cool tricks. That is what they do.

This can be taken the other way as well. Kill enough people trying to sit tin cans down on tanks (lol) or people shooting gas drivers and they won't want to try it anymore.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Does civilian uprising need it’s own thread?

Because I haven’t seen much talk about the Sante Fe tragedy for a few pages now...

 sebster wrote:
See, this is the kind of thing that just needs to end. It is fundamentally not sensible. It is playtime soldiering.

The best part of gun ownership is playing pretend.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats because its impossible to enforce laws against Straw Sales except for after the fact. Unless you keep everybody under constant surveillance all the time then they can't stop someone who has no criminal record of any kind from buying a gun and then later selling it to someone in a private deal. Active enforcement is pretty much impossible for any sort of law like this.

Long Guns aren't used much in crime even today. And all guns have working applications. I'm going to use my AK to go deer and hog hunting later this year.

No it's like any crime. Stings work well. Following on reporting of straw purchasers by the sellers works well. Tracing the guns used in crimes back to the sellers works well.

But these have to be pursued.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
So based solely on how this thread has derailed to all sorts of wierd topics, I am going to guess that the Santa Fe Shooting will lead to no new legislation on guns, school shootings, or anything really before the mid-terms.

People are too busy worrying about civil wars, the actual Civil War, revolution, etc. to worry about school shootings.

I think you're right. Plus its an election year. Plus Congress doesn't appear to be voting on anything. I think Congress has taken a multiyear vacation now.

I think Trump thinks its a win if he passes one thing a year.

Oops this is a US politics post, my bad.

Frazzleds Model 2018 Firearms Act (Federal)
*Incentives for states to provide information for the background check-charges, convictions, and mental health (federal can't mandate).
*Requirements for all federal agencies to provide such information.
*All firearms sales will require a background check.
*National Hearing Act
*CHL Reciprocity Act

Frazzled's Model State 2018 Firearms Adjustment
*All firearm transfers require a background check.
*Background system automatically reports a change. If there is a change, see Model Cali law below.
*All medical personnel must update the NCIS.
*Model California law: after adjudication if someone is found permanently or temporarily mentally unstable, firearms can be temporarily taken and given to a relative or other disgnatee.
*Straw sales are subject to Class A Felony.
*Illegal firearm transfers are subject to a Class A Felony.
*Firearm sales minimum age: 21.

Aren't straw sales already a felony? The problem is enforcement. And that can't really happen without a register.

Over here every firearm has its unique ID that must always accompany the weapon. When you sell the gun to someone else, you register the transaction with the cops and the ID goes to the new owner.

Straw purchasing is basically nonexistent this way.

Class a felony-same as murder.

What is straw purchasing?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What is straw purchasing?

Straw purchasing

Basically when you get someone else to buy something for you because you are barred from doing so. I used to straw purchase booze for my younger brother.

Looks like we are well past discussing the shooting in Santa Fe.

Feel free to continue the broader political discussion regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, and gun policy in the US Politics thread, as/when it is reopened.

Thanks!