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.

 The Airman wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Lol. You think that's a thrashing? A long essay about how, back in 2013, Obama said some vague things about how nice it would be if we had more gun control and then did absolutely nothing to pass those laws?

Yes, it is a thrashing. And yes, the political left does have an anti-firearm agenda. It's not paranoia if they've said it themselves; refer to Dreadclaw69 for some learnin'.
.

Clearly American politicians only ever state things that they honestly believe in, and refrain from any of the empty political posturing, lie-filled manifestos, and half truths we endure over here in Britain. It must be a great thing to belong to a nation where you can take the word of a politician as a gospel truth without having to try and discern deeper motives.

 Ketara wrote:

 The Airman wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Lol. You think that's a thrashing? A long essay about how, back in 2013, Obama said some vague things about how nice it would be if we had more gun control and then did absolutely nothing to pass those laws?

Yes, it is a thrashing. And yes, the political left does have an anti-firearm agenda. It's not paranoia if they've said it themselves; refer to Dreadclaw69 for some learnin'.

Clearly American politicians only ever state things that they honestly believe in, and refrain from any of the empty political posturing, lie-filled manifestos, and half truths we endure over here in Britain. It must be a great thing to belong to a nation where you can take the word of a politician as a gospel truth without having to try and discern deeper motives.

 Grey Templar wrote:

I said its not in the Constitution. Try reading what people post.

Then why did you try to pretended it was implied?

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

I said its not in the Constitution. Try reading what people post.

Then why did you try to pretended it was implied?

I didn't. Clearly your reading comprehension is off today.

 Ketara wrote:

 The Airman wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Lol. You think that's a thrashing? A long essay about how, back in 2013, Obama said some vague things about how nice it would be if we had more gun control and then did absolutely nothing to pass those laws?

Yes, it is a thrashing. And yes, the political left does have an anti-firearm agenda. It's not paranoia if they've said it themselves; refer to Dreadclaw69 for some learnin'.
.

Clearly American politicians only ever state things that they honestly believe in, and refrain from any of the empty political posturing, lie-filled manifestos, and half truths we endure over here in Britain. It must be a great thing to belong to a nation where you can take the word of a politician as a gospel truth without having to try and discern deeper motives.

I don't know, this one got a lot of support from figures like Obama. I implied the duplicity of politicians, not the honesty -- but nice misrepresentation of what I said, however.

I picked the wrong few years to not own a gun & ammo store. :(

 The Airman wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 The Airman wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Lol. You think that's a thrashing? A long essay about how, back in 2013, Obama said some vague things about how nice it would be if we had more gun control and then did absolutely nothing to pass those laws?

Yes, it is a thrashing. And yes, the political left does have an anti-firearm agenda. It's not paranoia if they've said it themselves; refer to Dreadclaw69 for some learnin'.
.

Clearly American politicians only ever state things that they honestly believe in, and refrain from any of the empty political posturing, lie-filled manifestos, and half truths we endure over here in Britain. It must be a great thing to belong to a nation where you can take the word of a politician as a gospel truth without having to try and discern deeper motives.

I don't know, this one got a lot of support from figures like Obama. I implied the duplicity of politicians, not the honesty -- but nice misrepresentation of what I said, however.

Misrepresentation? I was merely congratulating you on having a nation that has successfully advanced beyond any need for interpretation of political motives. I think it must be a wonderful thing.

 Grey Templar wrote:

I didn't. Clearly your reading comprehension is off today.

Really?

 Grey Templar wrote:

The right to defend yourself is one of those inalienable rights that isn't defined in the constitution because its a blatantly obvious basic human right to anyone with a brain.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Isn't that what I said? Its not in the Constitution because the Founders would never have fathomed anyone thinking you didn't have the right to protect yourself.

Back then if someone attacked you and you shot them nobody blinked.

It seems quite clear that you want the Constitution to protect things that it does not, pretending that said document implies whatever you want it to.

So when people argue that they have a constitutional right to carry a gun on their hip, they are arguing that they have a constitutional right to protect themselves in case they run into the Queen while she is in the process of taking the colonies back, or to shoot a politician that is just a bit too tyranical of they see him on the street?

Because if the right to shoot a guy trying to rob you isn't part of the 2nd, since it's inaliable and the 2nd only covers protection from tyrants and government, then I need my single shot .22 in case I run into the crown prince of Austria.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

I didn't. Clearly your reading comprehension is off today.

Really?

 Grey Templar wrote:

The right to defend yourself is one of those inalienable rights that isn't defined in the constitution because its a blatantly obvious basic human right to anyone with a brain.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Isn't that what I said? Its not in the Constitution because the Founders would never have fathomed anyone thinking you didn't have the right to protect yourself.

Back then if someone attacked you and you shot them nobody blinked.

It seems quite clear that you want the Constitution to protect things that it does not, pretending that said document implies whatever you want it to.

Again, my posts really don't say what you think they're saying.

I never claimed it was in the Constitution, and my posts don't say otherwise.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats a pretty strong assertion.

And a pretty accurate one. I have yet to see any proposed scenario where armed revolution by civilians with their own weapons is both justified and possible.

Yes.

So you support the right to own a nuclear weapon for defense?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats a pretty strong assertion.

And a pretty accurate one. I have yet to see any proposed scenario where armed revolution by civilians with their own weapons is both justified and possible.

Well this country exists for starters because of that.

 The Airman wrote:
I don't know, this one got a lot of support from figures like Obama.

Yes, it got support, but not enough support from its own party to pass. And it's a pretty safe assumption that all of the party leadership knew that the bill would fail, because part of running a political party is knowing which way your members are going to vote before you ever have an official vote. They made their token effort to say "look, we're trying to do something about those evil guns" in the aftermath of a shooting that left a lot of people screaming for gun control, and then they did absolutely nothing to get the bill passed. A party that really wants something done doesn't just put a bill up for vote and then say "well, I guess that didn't work" when it fails. They lobby, they make deals, etc, until they either have enough votes or they're out of office. So we can conclude from this that Obama and the rest of the democrats are willing to offer a lot of empty talk about how nice gun control is, but when it comes to actually passing gun control laws they don't give a about it as long as their voters are distracted by some other news story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well this country exists for starters because of that.

I'm talking about a revolution NOW, not a revolution with 1700s technology against an enemy on the other side of an ocean.

Also, you didn't answer the question about owning a nuclear weapon: do you support the right to own one for self defense and/or protection against the government?

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well this country exists for starters because of that.

I'm talking about a revolution NOW, not a revolution with 1700s technology against an enemy on the other side of an ocean.

Yup... I totally believe it can happen.

Do I think I'll see it in my lifetime? Not even close.

Also, you didn't answer the question about owning a nuclear weapon: do you support the right to own one for self defense and/or protection against the government?

Classic strawman.

To answer that question... nope. It's illegal under some act I can't remember right now....

EDIT: found it... it's under: Title 18 USC Section 921

 whembly wrote:
Yup... I totally believe it can happen.

Then could you describe a plausible situation where it does? Please be sure to include information about why the revolution is justified, and how the civilians with private weapons aren't just slaughtered.

Classic strawman.

It's not a strawman, it's a demonstration of the fact that nobody believes that the right to own weapons should be truly unlimited. We all agree that some kind of limits are necessary, we're just debating exactly which kinds of weapons should be illegal and which should be banned. So talking about the second amendment as some kind of absolute right to ownership of any weapon you want is not useful.

I'll bite on that trolltastic strawman...

I don't really have any fundamental problem with people owning nuclear weapons. They're exceptionally difficult to manufacture and not trivial to deploy. Case in point: terrorists. If they could make a nuclear weapon and set it off somewhere in the US tomorrow, they would. Nothing is holding them back - they don't give a damn about the law. The inherent difficulty in manufacturing nuclear weapons is stopping them.

Legalize nuclear weapon ownership in the US tomorrow and I guarantee you that within 20 years, STILL nobody you would ever have to worry about would ever be able to manufacture one. Ownership might be legal, but good luck finding the stuff you need to make it.


If you look at terrorists who have used NBC weapons in the past (Aum Shinrikyo cult, for example), the attacks had lower body counts than many carried out using conventional weapons. And it made it exceptionally easy to figure out who did it. Sarin is fairly difficult to manufacture, but FAR easier than a functional nuclear weapon. Bad people wanting to do bad things can do really really bad things with stuff that is a lot easier to make than a nuclear bomb.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I'll bite on that trolltastic strawman...

I don't really have any fundamental problem with people owning nuclear weapons. They're exceptionally difficult to manufacture and not trivial to deploy. Case in point: terrorists. If they could make a nuclear weapon and set it off somewhere in the US tomorrow, they would. Nothing is holding them back - they don't give a damn about the law. The inherent difficulty in manufacturing nuclear weapons is stopping them.

Legalize nuclear weapon ownership in the US tomorrow and I guarantee you that within 20 years, STILL nobody you would ever have to worry about would ever be able to manufacture one. Ownership might be legal, but good luck finding the stuff you need to make it.


If you look at terrorists who have used NBC weapons in the past (Aum Shinrikyo cult, for example), the attacks had lower body counts than many carried out using conventional weapons. And it made it exceptionally easy to figure out who did it. Sarin is fairly difficult to manufacture, but FAR easier than a functional nuclear weapon. Bad people wanting to do bad things can do really really bad things with stuff that is a lot easier to make than a nuclear bomb.

Bingo. Everything he said is accurate.

Ok, so let's use a different example then if you think nobody will ever get a nuke: fighter jets. If you're going to fight a revolution against the government you'll probably need some, so they certainly qualify as a defensive weapon. And you can buy them fairly cheap (MIG-21 for under $200k, guns not included). But because of the unfortunate history of crashes involving high-performance military aircraft flown by under-qualified pilots the FAA has some pretty strict laws about who can fly one, where you can fly it, etc. Do you think that this is a sensible approach to regulating a dangerous weapon, or do you think that the FAA's rules are a violation of your second amendment rights?

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, so let's use a different example then if you think nobody will ever get a nuke: fighter jets. If you're going to fight a revolution against the government you'll probably need some, so they certainly qualify as a defensive weapon. And you can buy them fairly cheap (MIG-21 for under $200k, guns not included). But because of the unfortunate history of crashes involving high-performance military aircraft flown by under-qualified pilots the FAA has some pretty strict laws about who can fly one, where you can fly it, etc. Do you think that this is a sensible approach to regulating a dangerous weapon, or do you think that the FAA's rules are a violation of your second amendment rights?

You won't need fighter jets to topple the government.

You fight them by blending into the civilian population and conducting a guerrilla war. That eliminates the usefulness of a lot of military hardware which is only practical against another armed military force.

The government can't take the drastic actions necessary to root you out because that would involve alienating the entire population, by way of indiscriminate killings and brutal oppression. Which only fuels the rebellion more, and causes the soldiers in your army to like you less(after all they're citizens too, they have families in the population)

Besides, owning fighter jets isn't illegal as you pointed out. Anyone can buy them and learn to fly them. And fighter jets aren't weapons, the machine guns and missiles they carry are the actual weapons.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, so let's use a different example then if you think nobody will ever get a nuke: fighter jets. If you're going to fight a revolution against the government you'll probably need some, so they certainly qualify as a defensive weapon. And you can buy them fairly cheap (MIG-21 for under $200k, guns not included). But because of the unfortunate history of crashes involving high-performance military aircraft flown by under-qualified pilots the FAA has some pretty strict laws about who can fly one, where you can fly it, etc. Do you think that this is a sensible approach to regulating a dangerous weapon, or do you think that the FAA's rules are a violation of your second amendment rights?

I don't *think* nobody will ever get a nuke - it's almost certain that a lone private citizen couldn't manufacture one. Look at Iran - the whole fething country is behind the push and it's taken them over a decade with underground Dr. Evil laboratories.

Airspace is already regulated. The plane isn't the weapon - the things that go on it are weapons. I don't see a problem with licensing pilots for the exact same reason I don't have a problem with the DMV requiring licensing for drivers' licenses, even though a sedan could be used as a car bomb and that is technically an improvised "arm."

If Cletus wants to own a fething mk82 then more power to him. It'd make a hell of a conversation piece, but I'm not particularly threatened by it. I'm more worried about the guy with tons of fertilizer and nothing to lose.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You fight them by blending into the civilian population and conducting a guerrilla war.

Which implies that most of the civilian population is against the government and doesn't just turn you in to the secret police. If this is the case then why hasn't the government been voted out of office and replaced? Why hasn't the military intervened to remove such an unpopular government?

The more likely scenario is that the government is still in power because most of the population wants it to be in power, and your guerrilla war has no chance of success.

Besides, owning fighter jets isn't illegal as you pointed out. Anyone can buy them and learn to fly them.

Yes, but only under very strict regulations. Regulations that are pretty comparable to a hypothetical law that you can own an AR-15, but you have to keep it locked up at a licensed gun range and can only use it under the direct supervision of the range officials.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
The plane isn't the weapon - the things that go on it are weapons.

This is just nitpicking. By this argument it's fine to ban "assault weapons" because an AR-15 is just a device that holds the bullets, and as long as you're allowed to buy bullets your rights haven't been violated.

I don't see a problem with licensing pilots for the exact same reason I don't have a problem with the DMV requiring licensing for drivers' licenses, even though a sedan could be used as a car bomb and that is technically an improvised "arm."

Ok, so you accept that government regulation of weapons is allowed, and now we're just working out the details of which weapons should be banned or restricted.

If Cletus wants to own a fething mk82 then more power to him. It'd make a hell of a conversation piece, but I'm not particularly threatened by it.

You don't see any problem with unqualified idiots owning a 500lb bomb? I would think it would be pretty obvious why people with no training in handling weapons like that shouldn't be allowed to own them. Do you really want to have Cletus accidentally blow up a whole apartment building and kill all of his neighbors because he thought it would be cool to own a bomb?

 Peregrine wrote:

 The Airman wrote:
I don't know, this one got a lot of support from figures like Obama.

Yes, it got support, but not enough support from its own party to pass. And it's a pretty safe assumption that all of the party leadership knew that the bill would fail, because part of running a political party is knowing which way your members are going to vote before you ever have an official vote. They made their token effort to say "look, we're trying to do something about those evil guns" in the aftermath of a shooting that left a lot of people screaming for gun control, and then they did absolutely nothing to get the bill passed. A party that really wants something done doesn't just put a bill up for vote and then say "well, I guess that didn't work" when it fails. They lobby, they make deals, etc, until they either have enough votes or they're out of office. So we can conclude from this that Obama and the rest of the democrats are willing to offer a lot of empty talk about how nice gun control is, but when it comes to actually passing gun control laws they don't give a about it as long as their voters are distracted by some other news story.

I'm not convinced that there isn't a strong, political group that wants to ban firearms all together, or at least post restrictions upon them. This entire time we have demonstrated this to you and you deem it acceptable to just brush it off as paranoia or pandering to demographics.

But, again, you're ignoring the baseline here: can you VERIFY or at least try to prove the ATF's claims on this matter, or are you going to keep redirecting this conversation? M855 isn't currently banned because it's used for plinking and sporting, but is it a legitimate threat to the United States when fired out of AR pattern pistols even when standard rounds do the same thing? That's where the disconnect is -- their reasoning is entirely crap.

 Ketara wrote:
Misrepresentation? I was merely congratulating you on having a nation that has successfully advanced beyond any need for interpretation of political motives. I think it must be a wonderful thing.

Dear friend, please explain to me how these motives should be interpreted.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats a pretty strong assertion.

And a pretty accurate one. I have yet to see any proposed scenario where armed revolution by civilians with their own weapons is both justified and possible.

Well this country exists for starters because of that.

If you honestly believe that (and I'm sure you do), a history lesson might be of good use to you.

Real life wasn't a subpar Mel Gibson movie.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats a pretty strong assertion.

And a pretty accurate one. I have yet to see any proposed scenario where armed revolution by civilians with their own weapons is both justified and possible.

Well this country exists for starters because of that.

If you honestly believe that (and I'm sure you do), a history lesson might be of good use to you.

Real life wasn't a subpar Mel Gibson movie.

Do you honestly think the Revolution wasn't achieved through violent means? I think you're the one in need of a history lessen if thats the case.

For the record, I've never seen The Patriot.

 d-usa wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm gonna be that guy: where in the constitution is the right to ammunition established?

It's just part of the whole "bear arms" package, since arms without ammo are pretty damn useless.

I thought the bear arms package only applied To well regulated and maintained militias? America must have a LOT of those then...

 Da krimson barun wrote:

I thought the bear arms package only applied To well regulated and maintained militias? America must have a LOT of those then...

You'd be wrong in your thinking.

 Peregrine wrote:


Yes, but only under very strict regulations. Regulations that are pretty comparable to a hypothetical law that you can own an AR-15, but you have to keep it locked up at a licensed gun range and can only use it under the direct supervision of the range officials.

The regulations for owning a MIG are different than the regulations for owning a G6?

 Peregrine wrote:


This is just nitpicking. By this argument it's fine to ban "assault weapons" because an AR-15 is just a device that holds the bullets, and as long as you're allowed to buy bullets your rights haven't been violated.

That's a ridiculous interpretation by any stretch at all. The JET is a VEHICLE. An AR15 is a WEAPON. If you can't see the difference then there really is no purpose continuing to engage you.

What would you call a Toyota Tacoma, a weapon because when you mount a DSHK to it, it becomes a technical?

 Peregrine wrote:


Ok, so you accept that government regulation of weapons is allowed, and now we're just working out the details of which weapons should be banned or restricted.

No. You fail at reading comprehension. A PLANE is not a WEAPON. A CAR is not a WEAPON. Flying a plane requires a license the same as driving a car.

 Peregrine wrote:

You don't see any problem with unqualified idiots owning a 500lb bomb? I would think it would be pretty obvious why people with no training in handling weapons like that shouldn't be allowed to own them. Do you really want to have Cletus accidentally blow up a whole apartment building and kill all of his neighbors because he thought it would be cool to own a bomb?

I don't have a problem with someone owning it, assuming they can legally obtain it. General Dynamics is the only company currently certified to manufacture bombs for the military, and it's the seller's discretion as to whether or not they're going to sell to a customer. This precedent can be seen especially in the body armor industry. Plenty of companies won't sell armor to civilians.

This approach to ownership vs. purchase has a precedent - the FDA's regulation of lasers. It's illegal for manufacturers to sell you an IZLID laser, but there are grey market sources you can buy them second hand. Just look at AR15.com...plenty of civilians own high power IZLID and other infrared lasers that will fry your eyeballs in half a second, even though they're VERY difficult to purchase. These guys also live in million dollar houses, and are giant fething nerds. I'm really not worried about them doing anything stupid with them...anyone who can afford an IZLID probably did something right with his life.


Every few years in Israel, they ask citizens to bring back stuff that they stole from the army, no questions asked. Every year they get back TANKS, HELICOPTERS, LAW launchers, things like that. How often do you read about Israelis negligently discharging their Merkava into the neighbor's house? It DOES NOT HAPPEN. Given the number of safety briefings we received in the IDF, and the content, I can tell you that more accidents happen in the military than would ever happen outside of it, among people who have the means to procure expensive and rare items.

Thats what the precious 2nd ammendment says.Well regulated militia blah blah blah. If another law says anyone can have a gun then why is this used as an excuse?

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Thats what the precious 2nd ammendment says.Well regulated militia blah blah blah. If another law says anyone can have a gun then why is this used as an excuse?

It also says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed, and the right to keep and bear arms has consistently been upheld by our courts to be an individual right. Your interpretation is not only uniformed, it is blatantly incorrect.

 Da krimson barun wrote:
Thats what the precious 2nd ammendment says.Well regulated militia blah blah blah. If another law says anyone can have a gun then why is this used as an excuse?

The term militia in the United States has been defined and modified by Congress several times throughout U.S. history. As a result, the meaning of "the militia" is complex and has transformed over time.[1] It has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services). From the U.S. Constitution, Article II (The Executive branch), Sec. 2, Clause 1: "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States."

Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:

The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29