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.

 Alfndrate wrote:


Except that the health department didn't go, "Oops, we were just kidding." They were told, "You're fething stupid you can't regulate how much non-alcoholic drink someone imbibes."

Time and money was still wasted on a state-mandated health directive.

The same FDA that also have banned harmful substances in the past, substances often put in by Big Phrama, troll harder good Patriot, troll harder.

I actually believe that the FDA has a mission. The organization has been compromised by the very industry it is supposed to regulate.

And yet, it doesn't say, "to keep your arms inside the city limits of NYC." it says you can keep them, which this law is still allowing you to do. You are allowed to keep your rifle or shotgun regardless of how many rounds it can hold, but if you wish to keep it in the city limits, you must pin it to hold no more than 5. Otherwise you have to keep it outside of the city limits.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Your refutation does not address the fact that the law is unconstitutional.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Are you actually arguing that the definition of "keeping" in this usage.

If you store your car in my garage, and I live 20 miles away, is it in your keeping? or is it in mine?

Not sure what you are failing to understand about, "...shall not be infringed"

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:


Except that the health department didn't go, "Oops, we were just kidding." They were told, "You're fething stupid you can't regulate how much non-alcoholic drink someone imbibes."

Time and money was still wasted on a state-mandated health directive.

New York City =// State of New York.

It was a city health department mandated health directive, not a state-mandated health directive.

Facts are hard...

Perhaps you are just unable to discern meaning through context?

State in this usage is, "a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government".





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Despite it being a NY or a NYC health department code the fact is time and money was still wasted. Taxpayer money at that.

jamesk1973 wrote:


Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Your refutation does not address the fact that the law is unconstitutional.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Are you actually arguing that the definition of "keeping" in this usage.

If you store your car in my garage, and I live 20 miles away, is it in your keeping? or is it in mine?

Not sure what you are failing to understand about, "...shall not be infringed"

It depends on how you define the word 'keep.

If 'Keep' is simply given to mean 'own' or 'possess ownership of', then it isn't being infringed. Nobody is saying you cannot own them after all, they're simply placing geographical limitations on the location of the item.

Alternatively, if we understand 'keep' to mean 'store', then the law would be being broken.

If we want to be real sticklers to the letter of the law you could even argue that the 2nd doesn't mention anything about actually using your weapons.

You could keep them, and you could bear them, and they could pass laws throwing you in prison forever if you discharged any of them and it wouldn't be unconstitutional since the constitution never mentions letting you fire them.

 Ketara wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:


Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Your refutation does not address the fact that the law is unconstitutional.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Are you actually arguing that the definition of "keeping" in this usage.

If you store your car in my garage, and I live 20 miles away, is it in your keeping? or is it in mine?

Not sure what you are failing to understand about, "...shall not be infringed"

It depends on how you define the word 'keep.

If 'Keep' is simply given to mean 'own' or 'possess ownership of', then it isn't being infringed. Nobody is saying you cannot own them after all, they're simply placing geographical limitations on the location of the item.

Alternatively, if we understand 'keep' to mean 'store', then the law would be being broken.

I should also point out that there is precedent for laws prohibiting the possession of a firearm within a city's limits.

Anyone remember Tombstone??? Anyone? I'm not saying that any such laws work, just that they have been done in the past.

Jamesk, I'm not being obtuse, the 2nd amendment allows US citizens to legally own a firearm. States and.cities are allowed to govern their domain as they see fit. If the city of New York wishes to explicitly say where its residents may keep their firearms, then as long as they don't restrict your ability to own a firearm (which they're not) then they're not breaking the 2nd Amendment. If they said, you're not allowed to own a rifle or a shotgun if you live in the city (regardless of where that firearm is stored), then id say you have a decent case of a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Edit: As a note, we already infringe the right of certain US citizens to own firearms, if Irremember correctly, felons cannot own a firearm due to having committed a crime. But I'm sire that's a bird of a different feather.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Jamesk, I'm not being obtuse, the 2nd amendment allows US citizens to legally own a firearm.

I know it is semantics, but feel in this case the difference, though subtle, is important. The 2nd does NOT allow US citizens to bear arms, it denies the federal government the ability to take that right away. Recent SCOTUS cases have further interpreted that this denial applies to state and local governments.

But it's not absolute. NYC can ban magazines with a capacity in excess of X rounds just as surely as the state of Iowa prohibits me from owning an automatic weapon, even if I have an otherwise lawful NFA stamp.

 d-usa wrote:
IYou could keep them, and you could bear them, and they could pass laws throwing you in prison forever if you discharged any of them and it wouldn't be unconstitutional since the constitution never mentions letting you fire them.

IANAL but I suspect firing them recreationally falls under bearing them, since it's otherwise redundant in that sentence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
why IS this thread about guns now, by the way?

 Ouze wrote:
But it's not absolute. NYC can ban magazines with a capacity in excess of X rounds just as surely as the state of Iowa prohibits me from owning an automatic weapon, even if I have an otherwise lawful NFA stamp.

We'll see what happens when it hits SCOTUS. This one isn't done yet.

And regardless, my point on the 2nd denying gove't power stands. In fact the bill of rights as a whole exists to deny the gov't specific powers in favor of individual and state rights.

Well, I'm just making the silly argument of what happens when you say that everything applies exactly as written and ignore intend in the process.

In the pre-"not just militias" ruling from SCOTUS you could argue that owning and bearing is needed for the possibility of raising militias, but since it doesn't mention actual use of the arms it could be restricted by the state until a militia is raised.

It's a silly argument of schematics, but that's what happens when you argue written text over intend.

I had a coworker who was a super strict "if it doesn't explicitly say it then it's not allowed, the constitution is not organic" adherent. He never could answer me how he could be in the Air Force considering that our non-organic constitution lets us have an army and a navy but no military branch full of airplanes...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Ouze: because for a certain something its a game of "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon can't have my guns"

CptJake, thank you for that clarification.

 Ouze wrote:

why IS this thread about guns now, by the way?

the original post was about the NSA overstepping its bounds.

Followed by the hypothesis that government is becoming more tyrannical and unconstitutional as individual rights are being trampled.

Followed by a lot of nay-saying

Followed by specific examples of individual rights being violated to support the hypothesis.

Followed by more nay-saying.

Followed by what it always comes down to. Firearms in the hands of private citizens is what keeps the government from completely ignoring the BoR when convenient.

jamesk1973 wrote:

Followed by what it always comes down to. Firearms in the hands of private citizens is what keeps the government from completely ignoring the BoR when convenient.

I advise you to go read a history book or two if you truly believe that nonsense...

PhantomViper wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

Followed by what it always comes down to. Firearms in the hands of private citizens is what keeps the government from completely ignoring the BoR when convenient.

I advise you to go read a history book or two if you truly believe that nonsense...

I love these people who think they could last in a armed conflict against the government. It's so cute how they blatantly ignore the obvious They don't seem to realize that could all be wiped out in about nine seconds via tactical missile strikes.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

Followed by what it always comes down to. Firearms in the hands of private citizens is what keeps the government from completely ignoring the BoR when convenient.

I advise you to go read a history book or two if you truly believe that nonsense...

I love these people who think they could last in a armed conflict against the government. It's so cute how they blatantly ignore the obvious They don't seem to realize that could all be wiped out in about nine seconds via tactical missile strikes.

If we are gonna go that route I applaud your use of 'could be' instead of 'would be'. Seems insurgents around the globe have been able to hold their own against governments more than once, even against the might of the US gov't. Once you factor in how US troops would react to having to fight an insurgency on US soil it gets hairy. It is also good to remember there are a lot of recent combat vets scattered around the country.

I submit the Battle of Athens in 1946 shows that at the local level it does not always work out for the Gov't.

 CptJake wrote:

If we are gonna go that route I applaud your use of 'could be' instead of 'would be'. Seems insurgents around the globe have been able to hold their own against governments more than once, even against the might of the US gov't. Once you factor in how US troops would react to having to fight an insurgency on US soil it gets hairy. It is also good to remember there are a lot of recent combat vets scattered around the country.

I submit the Battle of Athens in 1946 shows that at the local level it does not always work out for the Gov't.

Honestly, I think a goodly portion of the US Military would side with the people... and use the very same insurgency tactics used against us, against the "Gov't"

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I love these people who think they could last in a armed conflict against the government. It's so cute how they blatantly ignore the obvious They don't seem to realize that could all be wiped out in about nine seconds via tactical missile strikes.

Approximately 1,000,000 active, reserve, and guard service members.

An estimated 100,000,000 firearm owners in America, who own an estimated 300,000,000 firearms.

The service member to rebel/citizen kill ratio would have to be 1:100 to even hold their own.

Our most "killy" service service member accounted for less than 100 enemy dead.

History and numbers are still firmly on the side of the armed citizens.

In such a scenario the guys instigating an open revolt vs the government will get assassinated or kidnapped, tortured and locked away without a public trial long before your millions of would-be revolutionists will even know what's happening. Anti-terror-laws and ubiquitous surveillance will be enough to ensure safety for the upper caste.

 Minx wrote:
In such a scenario the guys instigating an open revolt vs the government will get assassinated or kidnapped, tortured and locked away without a public trial long before your millions of would-be revolutionists will even know what's happening. Anti-terror-laws and ubiquitous surveillance will be enough to ensure safety for the upper caste.

...and this is exactly why we nip the NSA problem in the bud.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I love these people who think they could last in a armed conflict against the government. It's so cute how they blatantly ignore the obvious They don't seem to realize that could all be wiped out in about nine seconds via tactical missile strikes.

Approximately 1,000,000 active, reserve, and guard service members.

An estimated 100,000,000 firearm owners in America, who own an estimated 300,000,000 firearms.

The service member to rebel/citizen kill ratio would have to be 1:100 to even hold their own.

Our most "killy" service service member accounted for less than 100 enemy dead.

History and numbers are still firmly on the side of the armed citizens.

Then there is the fact that those are mostly hunting rifles and revolvers, not fully automatic assault rifles, that not all of the owners would revolt, that the US government has things like tanks and planes, that the government could just carpet bomb the area where the revolters are, stuff like that. Besides, if it was really that bad, they could just nuke it .

Also from the wonders of the internet

United States Army 541,291
United States Marine Corps 195,338
United States Navy 317,237
United States Air Force 333,772
United States Coast Guard 42,357
United States Army National Guard 358,200
United States Army Reserve 205,000
United States Marine Corps Forces Reserve 39,600
United States Navy Reserve 62,500
United States Air National Guard 105,700
United States Air Force Reserve 70,880
United States Coast Guard Reserve 9,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_United_States_military_land_vehicles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_United_States_military_watercraft

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Honestly, I think a goodly portion of the US Military would side with the people... and use the very same insurgency tactics used against us, against the "Gov't"

A lot depends on the scale and location(s) and the types of incidents Unca Sam tries to use active duty forces (or even federalized NG) to deal with.

A single city riot (Watts type) would not garner the same types of response from the troops that an actual civil war would.

We could go into possible scenarios and prospective 'kick off' events but it would destroy this topic, so this will be my last post on the subject.

In such a scenario the guys instigating an open revolt vs the government will get assassinated or kidnapped, tortured and locked away without a public trial long before your millions of would-be revolutionists will even know what's happening. Anti-terror-laws and ubiquitous surveillance will be enough to ensure safety for the upper caste.

I suspect you have little understanding of the US, our laws, how they are passed and enforced, how insurgencies start and maintain themselves, or how civil wars break out.

Then there is the fact that those are mostly hunting rifles and revolvers, not fully automatic assault rifles, that not all of the owners would revolt, that the US government has things like tanks and planes, that the government could just carpet bomb the area where the revolters are, stuff like that. Besides, if it was really that bad, they could just nuke it .

And yet we use NONE of those techniques overseas. What odds to you place on a US pilot being willing to carpet bomb or nuke US citizens? Could you get enough pilots to do so to make a difference? (would the insurgents present the type of target that tactic would make sense against?). How many ground crews maintain planes that are used to carpet bomb US civilians?

If only we had used tanks and jets against insurgents in other recent wars, since they would seem to be weapons you feel no insurgent can face....

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I love these people who think they could last in a armed conflict against the government. It's so cute how they blatantly ignore the obvious They don't seem to realize that could all be wiped out in about nine seconds via tactical missile strikes.

Approximately 1,000,000 active, reserve, and guard service members.

An estimated 100,000,000 firearm owners in America, who own an estimated 300,000,000 firearms.

The service member to rebel/citizen kill ratio would have to be 1:100 to even hold their own.

Our most "killy" service service member accounted for less than 100 enemy dead.

History and numbers are still firmly on the side of the armed citizens.

Then there is the fact that those are mostly hunting rifles and revolvers, not fully automatic assault rifles, that not all of the owners would revolt, that the US government has things like tanks and planes, that the government could just carpet bomb the area where the revolters are, stuff like that. Besides, if it was really that bad, they could just nuke it .

Also from the wonders of the internet

United States Army 541,291
United States Marine Corps 195,338
United States Navy 317,237
United States Air Force 333,772
United States Coast Guard 42,357
United States Army National Guard 358,200
United States Army Reserve 205,000
United States Marine Corps Forces Reserve 39,600
United States Navy Reserve 62,500
United States Air National Guard 105,700
United States Air Force Reserve 70,880
United States Coast Guard Reserve 9,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_United_States_military_land_vehicles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_United_States_military_watercraft

Ad hominem much?

Approximately 2.2 million active, reserve, and guard service members.

Still approximately a 1:50 kill ratio to hold their own.

No doubt there would be casualties, heavy casualties.

jamesk1973 wrote:
Ad hominem much?

How so?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Then there is the fact that those are mostly hunting rifles and revolvers, not fully automatic assault rifles, that not all of the owners would revolt, that the US government has things like tanks and planes, that the government could just carpet bomb the area where the revolters are, stuff like that. Besides, if it was really that bad, they could just nuke it .

Armed rebellion against incumbent military really isn't about beating the government with military muscle. It's about standing up long enough that eventually the soldiers get sick of killing their brothers and friends.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Ad hominem much?

How so?

Rather than arguing the premise (armed rebellion).

You drew up the specific numbers of service members versus the approximate numbers of service members as refutation in toto that armed rebellion will not succeed.

Then made a snarky "wonders of the internet" comment.

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Ad hominem much?

How so?

Rather than arguing the premise (armed rebellion). You drew up the specific numbers of service members versus the approximate numbers of service members as refutation in toto that armed rebellion will not succeed. Then made a snarky "wonders of the internet" comment.

Still not actually an ad hominem argument. I was just giving a more exact amount and links to how many vehicles that the US military has to show how outclassed a civilian militia would be. I was reiterating my previous argument. If I called you an idiot and made personal remarks about you, then it would be ad hominem.

Also, the "wonders of the internet" was a joke, not meant to offend or insult anyone, and giving where I got the information from as well (the internet).

merriam-webster wrote:Definition of AD HOMINEM
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

So are all civilian weapon owners just assumed to automatically join this rebel alliance?

How many fully operational battle stations does Darth Obama possess?

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:

Followed by what it always comes down to. Firearms in the hands of private citizens is what keeps the government from completely ignoring the BoR when convenient.

I advise you to go read a history book or two if you truly believe that nonsense...

I love these people who think they could last in a armed conflict against the government. It's so cute how they blatantly ignore the obvious They don't seem to realize that could all be wiped out in about nine seconds via tactical missile strikes.

If we are gonna go that route I applaud your use of 'could be' instead of 'would be'. Seems insurgents around the globe have been able to hold their own against governments more than once, even against the might of the US gov't. Once you factor in how US troops would react to having to fight an insurgency on US soil it gets hairy. It is also good to remember there are a lot of recent combat vets scattered around the country.

I submit the Battle of Athens in 1946 shows that at the local level it does not always work out for the Gov't.

The "Battle of Athens" was fought against a 1946, rural America police force. Their level of training and equipment would be considered completely inadequate even by the standards of a modern city police force, let alone the US Army.

Also jamesk1973 over there isn't talking about a local riot, he is talking about how owning a few guns will allow him and his buddies to overthrow the Federal Government of the United States and their standing army...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jamesk1973 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

I love these people who think they could last in a armed conflict against the government. It's so cute how they blatantly ignore the obvious They don't seem to realize that could all be wiped out in about nine seconds via tactical missile strikes.

Approximately 1,000,000 active, reserve, and guard service members.

An estimated 100,000,000 firearm owners in America, who own an estimated 300,000,000 firearms.

The service member to rebel/citizen kill ratio would have to be 1:100 to even hold their own.

Our most "killy" service service member accounted for less than 100 enemy dead.

History and numbers are still firmly on the side of the armed citizens.

"Stuff that I just made up" doesn't really count as history... So what history are you talking about?

There is, AFAIK, a single recorded incident where a massed number of heavily armed people rose up against the Federal Government (and the army), when they thought that said government was trampling over their rights... I think you guys call it the American Civil War or something like that... How did that end up for the insurgents again?

PhantomViper wrote:

"Stuff that I just made up" doesn't really count as history... So what history are you talking about?

The American Revolution?

The ACW was a loss for the South but it does show that such an uprising can occur.

Pretty much any coup or overthrow of any government by the people since the beginning of time.

Take you pick.