Obama Administration to ban 5.56mm bullets.

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.

**AlmightyWalrus**

CptJake wrote:
I guess another way to ask the same question would be:

Would you be willing to go to war and allow thousands if not millions to die in order to repeal the 2nd amendment?

Isn't that just as stupid to go to war over?

I'm pretty sure the "revolution against the tyrrany of Washington!" rhetoric isn't being pushed by gun control advocates. They tend to work within the existing democratic framework.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
djones520 wrote:
I don't exactly like the direction of where this conversation is going, but I'd like to remind everyone of what the first battle of the American Revolution was fought over.

The sovereign government trying to take our bloody weapons away from us.

If tomorrow the second amendment was repealed and Britain-like gun laws were put in place, would you be willing to go to war over that? Would you allow thousands, if not millions, of people die over that?

Most people wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't, and I've slowly been leaning towards a "stop making stupid gun laws" stance. Not only would it be your very last option, if you aren't completely insane, it id just a stupid thing to go to war over. If there were massive 1st amendment, and voting rights restrictions, I could see it, but all peaceful methods would have to have been tried first before I would condone it.

A revaluation would not just be a simple march into the capital or something like that, it would mean another civil war, and we sure as hell don;t want another one of those.

Also, do some research *why* the founding founders had the 2nd Amendment. There was a fairly LARGE point.

And... the reason came from British Law.

**Co'tor Shas**

I have, I just think that right now having a revolution over something like that is extremely wrong morally and logically.

**CptJake**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I have, I just think that right now having a revolution over something like that is extremely wrong morally and logically.

And some would argue it is morally wrong and not logical to desire to take away the right the 2nd amendment protects.

**Co'tor Shas**

I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I have, I just think that right now having a revolution over something like that is extremely wrong morally and logically.

If they are trying ton confiscate firearms is because the Bill of Rights has finally fallen, so you better believe the war starts then.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it

It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I have, I just think that right now having a revolution over something like that is extremely wrong morally and logically.

Eh... I still think you're missing the point.

The Bill of Rights (where the 2nd Amendment is derived) was about restraining the Federal Government.

Which was essentially cribbed from the English's Bill of Rights. (Kings were disarming their political oppositions).

Another way to look at your statement, is the fact that no one has attempted to overthrow democracy from within, in America, is not proof we don’t need the Second Amendment... it's proof it is working.

**Co'tor Shas**

ninjed

**Jihadin**

sebster wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Think you need to refresh on the Bosnian War/Genocide

That genocide was committed in captured territory is completely irrelevant to the point - any organisation that wants to take up arms will get them. Even with a total arms ban there an organisation can access an immense number of small arms.

Granted weapons were supplied but being a typical Russian satellite state they already had a huge stockpile of small arms and freaking landmines. Also in typical Russian fashion Yugoslavia was a main producer of landmines and AK's. The ban effected western nations most of all and not the countries surrounding Bosnia/Kosovo. So refresh your knowledge or not. Bosnia/Kosovo was already flushed with weapons.

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
I have, I just think that right now having a revolution over something like that is extremely wrong morally and logically.

If they are trying ton confiscate firearms is because the Bill of Rights has finally fallen, so you better believe the war starts then.

Because repealing the 2nd amendment means that they have relaed the 1st and 26th? Didn't know the constitution worked that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it

It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

You can releal ammendments you know...

**Jihadin**

Some are starting to sound like Constitutional lawyers

**AlmightyWalrus**

Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it

It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

Wait, repealing the 2nd Amendment is illegal now? Wut?

**A Town Called Malus**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it

This. I mean, even Che Guevara believed that armed revolution should only be a last resort when all democratic avenues for change had been blocked.

Pro-gun people in the USA can hardly claim that if guns were banned there would be no avenue for a peaceful change to that law, unless they believe that the entire US system of government is broken and doesn't represent the people, at all on any policy.

If they don't think that but want armed revolution anyway, then just point out to them that they are even more extreme in their beliefs about tyrannical governments than Che was, who they probably believe was a mass-murdering psychopath. Might give them a bit of perspective.

**whembly**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it

It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

Wait, repealing the 2nd Amendment is illegal now? Wut?

Take away going rights <> repealing the 2nd.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it

This. I mean, even Che Guevara believed that armed revolution should only be a last resort when all democratic avenues for change had been blocked.

Pro-gun people in the USA can hardly claim that if guns were banned there would be no avenue for a peaceful change to that law, unless they believe that the entire US system of government is broken and doesn't represent the people, at all on any policy.

If they don't think that but want armed revolution anyway, then just point out to them that they are even more extreme in their beliefs about tyrannical governments than Che was, who they probably believe was a mass-murdering psychopath. Might give them a bit of perspective.

Wow... quoting a murderer mobster like Che.

Makes me wanna go out and purchase some more gunz 'n ammos.

**CptJake**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
I have, I just think that right now having a revolution over something like that is extremely wrong morally and logically.

If they are trying ton confiscate firearms is because the Bill of Rights has finally fallen, so you better believe the war starts then.

Because repealing the 2nd amendment means that they have relaed the 1st and 26th? Didn't know the constitution worked that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it

It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

You can releal ammendments you know...

And yet, none of the 10 amendments making up the bill of rights has been repealed. And none of the gun control types seem to have the intestinal fortitude nor the support to attempt to repeal the 2nd. It would be fantastic if they did in my opinion. It would end a lot of the argument one way or the other. Instead, gun control types are using the 'cook the frog' technique, turning up the heat a bit at a time and hoping the frog gets used to the new higher temp before they incrementally turn it up a bit more. Unfortunately for them, a lot of frogs seem to be catching on.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:
It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."

If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.

**Co'tor Shas**

CptJake wrote:

And yet, none of the 10 amendments making up the bill of rights has been repealed. And none of the gun control types seem to have the intestinal fortitude nor the support to attempt to repeal the 2nd. It would be fantastic if they did in my opinion. It would end a lot of the argument one way or the other. Instead, gun control types are using the 'cook the frog' technique, turning up the heat a bit at a time and hoping the frog gets used to the new higher temp before the incrementally turn it up a bit more. Unfortunately for them, a lot of frogs seem to be catching on.

Good thing too, IMO. Although I know of lots of people who want to repeal parts of the 1st mostly separation of church and state).

I'm not arguing for gun control here. Keep your guns. You should be allowed to. I am arguing against the idea of armed rebellion because of a removal of gun rights. I know quite a few people who would love to have Britain-esque gun laws. While I see where they are coming from, I don't really agree with them. But the idea of making another civil war over gun laws is laughable at best, horribly depressing at any other time.

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
I have, I just think that right now having a revolution over something like that is extremely wrong morally and logically.

If they are trying ton confiscate firearms is because the Bill of Rights has finally fallen, so you better believe the war starts then.

Because repealing the 2nd amendment means that they have relaed the 1st and 26th? Didn't know the constitution worked that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it

It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

You can releal ammendments you know...

I don't know about relealing

but repealing requires serious hurdles to cross, such that I can only think of one time that occurred, and that was over....whiskey.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it

It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

Wait, repealing the 2nd Amendment is illegal now? Wut?

Unless its done via the Constitution its illegal. Judges can't do it. Thats how judges end up...

**Co'tor Shas**

Oh, god. Releal isn't even a word! I don't know what's happened to me lately.

edit:Although I do think it's impressive that they managed to pass prohibition. But TBF, prohibtionists were even more crazy than anyone on either side of the gun debate.

**Frazzled**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
I can't belive I have to say this, but:
Two wrongs don't make a right.

If gun rights are taken away within the legal system then you have two choices:
a. reinstate them via the same system
or
b. deal with it

This. I mean, even Che Guevara believed that armed revolution should only be a last resort when all democratic avenues for change had been blocked.

Pro-gun people in the USA can hardly claim that if guns were banned there would be no avenue for a peaceful change to that law, unless they believe that the entire US system of government is broken and doesn't represent the people, at all on any policy.

If they don't think that but want armed revolution anyway, then just point out to them that they are even more extreme in their beliefs about tyrannical governments than Che was, who they probably believe was a mass-murdering psychopath. Might give them a bit of perspective.

Brits should not presume to talk about this subject. You're not a citizen. You're a subject.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."

If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.

Only amendment has been repealed. Contrary to the govenrment confiscators, gun rights have massive support in this country. Ask the Colorado politicians thrown out after they passed unfavorable legislation.

**A Town Called Malus**

whembly wrote:

Wow... quoting a murderer mobster like Che.

Makes me wanna go out and purchase some more gunz 'n ammos.

Better stock up before Obama takes away all your gunz

My point was not supporting Che's actions. He did a lot of wrong, no denying that. It was pointing out that when even a hardline communist revolutionary from the Cold War like him says you need to try every avenue of democratic change before you are justified to use violence against governments which are imprisoning and killing their own people, it makes people who would be willing to go to war because the government took away their guns through a democratic and legal process look pretty damn psychotic.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Brits should not presume to talk about this subject. You're not a citizen. You're a subject.

I'll have you know that I am serf to the Lord in his castle on the hill, thank you very much

**Xenomancers**

sebster wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Why is it hilarious? The purpose of the 2nd Amd is to protect our people against tyrannical government. If it came down to it - I'm sure the tyrants soldiers are going to be wearing armor - why should we not be properly armed to meet the threat? Banning a single type of 5.56 ammo wouldn't start a revolution but what do you think would happen if they say...banned all rifle ammo larger than .22. What do you think would happen then?

It's hilarious because while an effective revolution is incredibly hard, it isn't because guns can be hard to come by. Any revolt that's worth half an donkey-cave will get its hands on way more guns than it can use.

You can take an example - look at Bosnia War. Here you had a country with near to zero military following the collapse of Yugoslavia, with little military industry, with its territory being steadily taken by Serbian military and Bosnian Serb paramilitaries. With a new complete misunderstanding the situation (possibly on purpose), the UN General Assembly actually banned any weapon imports in to Bosnia (thinking that it would disarm both Bosnian and Bosnian Serb milities, not realising that most Serb weapons and fighting troops were supplied by Serbia). Bosnia still raised and equipped a sufficient military to stop the Serb advance, inflict heavy casualties, and undertake successful conventional military offensives of its own. Despite the weapons ban, more than 100 million bullets were supplied to its militias, and countless small arms. These weapons were brought in through smuggling operations, and built in improvised workshops within Bosnia.

Simply put - revolutions don't fail because the revolutionaries lack for small arms. Maintaining some kind of operational effectiveness in the face of combat and your inevitable casualties, that's stuff if hard. Outlasting the various counter-insurgency operations is hard.

Just buying a gun and thinking you've got the capability to take on your government is fantasy roleplaying.

It's called being prepared.

Revolutions don't fail when revolutionaries outnumber the army 10:1 or even 20:1. Ofc this is crazy talk because it will never happen. Nor do I want it to happen. The question you have to ask yourself is what do "they" want.

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Oh, god. Releal isn't even a word! I don't know what's happened to me lately.

edit:Although I do think it's impressive that they managed to pass prohibition. But TBF, prohibtionists were even more crazy than anyone on either side of the gun debate.

Well its an interesting historical event. At the time alcoholism was off the chart, and politicians didn't want to look bad. note the President actually vetoed the legislation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

My point was not supporting Che's actions. He did a lot of wrong, no denying that. It was pointing out that when even a hardline communist revolutionary from the Cold War like him says you need to try every avenue of democratic change before you are justified to use violence against governments which are imprisoning and killing their own people, it makes people who would be willing to go to war because the government took away their guns through a democratic and legal process look pretty damn psychotic.

Note the Cuban communists later took all the firearms, after they had won their revolution...

**KiloFiX**

I'm for the 2A, but no point trying to legally or constitutionally (rationally) convince someone about it if they are already entrenched in an opposing view.

And further, I would probably say that they're entitled to their own view.

At that point, only personal experience might changed their mind.

(Btw the above doesn't imply that we don't fight for it).

**Forar**

So, I read the first page, and then skipped to the last page.

Out of curiosity when does the revolution start? I'm guessing it's detailed somewhere in the intervening 8 pages, because people here seem awfully convinced that this time, they really are coming for the guns. All the guns. And the revolution begins when?

I mean, so I can start ferrying some friends out of the warzone before the citizenry rise up against their oppressors.

Just checking in.

**Xenomancers**

sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."

If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.

Amendments designed to protect you from your government should be permanent. The writing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" implies a degree of permanency.

**Co'tor Shas**

But they aren't. Unless you write a new constitution that can't be changed and get it recognized, you have to live with the fact that if a group can get congress and a majority of the states to agree on something it can be made constitutional law. Or unmade in this case.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

CptJake wrote:
And yet, none of the 10 amendments making up the bill of rights has been repealed. And none of the gun control types seem to have the intestinal fortitude nor the support to attempt to repeal the 2nd. It would be fantastic if they did in my opinion. It would end a lot of the argument one way or the other. Instead, gun control types are using the 'cook the frog' technique, turning up the heat a bit at a time and hoping the frog gets used to the new higher temp before they incrementally turn it up a bit more. Unfortunately for them, a lot of frogs seem to be catching on.

Repealed? No. Limited? Yes. The Eighteenth Amendment has been the only one repealed so far (by the Twenty-first Amendment in 1933).

As others have said, it is extremely difficult to completely repeal a constitutional amendment and outside of a few wingnuts, I don't think that there is a serious foundation for a complete repeal of the Second Amendment (which would be impossible anyway). However, it has been well documented by the courts that there are limits to constitutional rights, meaning that none are absolute. There are Supreme Court cases dealing with limitations to every amendment in the Bill of Rights (save the for the Third Amendment, which has never been the basis of a Supreme Court ruling) and even in Scalia's opinion in Heller addressed the very idea that even the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Xenomancers wrote:
sebster wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.

It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."

If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.

Amendments designed to protect you from your government should be permanent. The writing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" implies a degree of permanency.

Funnily enough, I'd argue that to be actual tyrrany; if future generations are not allowed to decide their own laws then what's the point in defending "freedom"?

**Xenomancers**

Forar wrote:
So, I read the first page, and then skipped to the last page.

Out of curiosity when does the revolution start? I'm guessing it's detailed somewhere in the intervening 8 pages, because people here seem awfully convinced that this time, they really are coming for the guns. All the guns. And the revolution begins when?

I mean, so I can start ferrying some friends out of the warzone before the citizenry rise up against their oppressors.

Just checking in.

There won't be a warzone. More than likely it would be our own military seizing power from a corrupt congress and presidency in a coup d'etat. It would last a few hours. New legestlation would be passed to protect against future corruptions and wed all go on with our little lives.