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.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Were those guys killed with M855 rounds?

 d-usa wrote:
The American revolution was a successful uprising of US citizens against the United States?

No, but it should because its the same deal. We beat off the most powerful empire in the world.

How many times has the 2nd amendment been successfully used against the United States?

Every time someone exercises it by purchasing a gun.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Were those guys killed with M855 rounds?

It does not say. The figures given were just 5 LEOs killed with any type of rifle, and 2 Federal Agents killed with firearms. So it seems unlikely that all 7 law enforcement personnel were killed using both an AR15, and one firing M855 rounds. Even if we accept that the 5 LEOs were killed with the M855 round that figure stands against the 765,000 sworn officers in the United States.

In fact the issue of the M855 round has been commented on by the Fraternal Order of Police;
“Any ammunition is of concern to police in the wrong hands, but this specific round has historically not posed a law enforcement problem,” said James Pasco, executive director of the Washington office of the Fraternal Order of Police, the world’s largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, with more than 325,000 members.

He told Secrets that the round used mostly for target practice “is not typically used against law enforcement.”

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Were those guys killed with M855 rounds?

 d-usa wrote:
The American revolution was a successful uprising of US citizens against the United States?

No, but it should because its the same deal. We beat off the most powerful empire in the world.

How many times has the 2nd amendment been successfully used against the United States?

How do you prove a negative?

Sometimes people look at the 2A in a very narrow view and think it's just to deter a tyrannical government.

But they forget that:

1. Government doesn't always just mean vs. the entire might of the U.S. armed forces. They'd just hit us with gunships anyway. Rather, it also applies to local oppression on a smaller scale.

2. It is also about the common law and everyone's intrinsic right to self defense.

I was once at a golf club in the Middle East and I saw some royal bash a caddie on the head with a golf club simply because the former had hit a poor shot. Yeah, that ain't happening with 2A.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Were those guys killed with M855 rounds?

 d-usa wrote:
The American revolution was a successful uprising of US citizens against the United States?

No, but it should because its the same deal. We beat off the most powerful empire in the world.

And of course having help from some of the other most powerful empires in the world didn't help at all?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Every time someone exercises it by purchasing a gun.

So your argument is that the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is used against the United States every time someone purchases a gun?

It did help, but the rebellion was well on the way to being successful. French help accelerated it. It was not responsible for the success.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Every time someone exercises it by purchasing a gun.

So your argument is that the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution is used against the United States every time someone purchases a gun?

In so far as that it is a limitation on the governments power, yes.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Every time someone exercises it by purchasing a gun.

So that's a no then.

Unless we count any purchase of the ammo as a threat against cops.

Of course the whole point of this line of questioning is that using "it hasn't happened yet" as a counter argument is stupid.

Edit: correction.

Again, there was the Battle of Athens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29

 Grey Templar wrote:

In so far as that it is a limitation on the governments power, yes.

The Amendment in question limits the Federal (and now State) governments. The purchase of a firearm does not.

 d-usa wrote:


How many times has the 2nd amendment been successfully used against the United States?

Depends on how you define 'used against' and 'successfully'.

Arguably, in the end, the Whiskey Rebellion was ultimately successful in it's resistance to the collection of the Whiskey tax, which was repealed in 1801.

Conversely, the Confederacy was able to create a very real threat to the US government, despite being ultimately unsuccessful due to their inability to garner sufficient foreign support.


Note that neither Washington nor Lincoln made any motion to repeal the 2nd amendment. Washington upheld it, despite his effort to call on the militias to suppress the rebellion causing draft riots, and Lincoln ignored it as he did much of the rest of the Constitution before the Supreme Court reigned him in. (Lincoln also had draft riots, but unlike Washington's deft hand at suppressing them without violence, Lincoln just had the Army slaughter the rioters.)

 KiloFiX wrote:
I was once at a golf club in the Middle East and I saw some royal bash a caddie on the head with a golf club simply because the former had hit a poor shot. Yeah, that ain't happening with 2A.

I could be mistaken, but despite the presence of the second amendment I believe there are still quite a few assaults in this country.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Conversely, the Confederacy was able to create a very real threat to the US government, despite being ultimately unsuccessful due to their inability to garner sufficient foreign support.

That didn't involve the 2nd Amendment at all.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Presumably by using up a year's worth of slippery slope fallacies every time anything remotely resembling gun control is mentioned.

Because the constant effort to rescind or restrict gun rights is not a reality?

I'll ask this again- how many police officers have been shot/injured/killed by the M855 round?

Come on, lets give them a fighting chance.

How many people of any kind have been shot at by someone using an M855 round in the US?

How many armed uprisings by citizens of the United States have been successful?

2. The American Revolution and that one incident in, I want to say, Indiana where there was a rigged election and the citizens rose up and got rid of the corrupt sheriff and his lackeys. Don't remember what it was called.

'Battle of Athens': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

 dogma wrote:

That didn't involve the 2nd Amendment at all.

Where do you think they got many of their initial guns? While they did empty every arsenal they could, it was not near enough to arm everyone. The shipments from England, France, and Prussia didn't just suddenly appear on day one of the Civil War. That's why I said it would depend on what he meant by 'successful' and 'use against'. the Confederates used their privately owned guns to their advantage, against the US. In fact, several units both north and south were entirely armed via the private purchase of firearms, as opposed to being issued weapons by the US government.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Where do you think they got many of their initial guns?

Private purchases made with the aid of largely unregulated international commerce. That's not a 2nd Amendment issue, its an Article 1 Section 10 issue.

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but it should because its the same deal. We beat off the most powerful empire in the world.

A foreign empire that was 3000 miles away. It's kind of an important distinction from something more domestic.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but it should because its the same deal. We beat off the most powerful empire in the world.

A foreign empire that was 3000 miles away. It's kind of an important distinction from something more domestic.

That actually makes it easier in many ways.

The government can't be as heavy handed because it will erode any popular support they might have. When its "over there" its not directly effecting the citizens as much.

It also means there isn't any place that could be called safe from the rebels. The British weren't dealing with attacks on their government in Britain. In the case of a rebellion in the US you most certainly would see military bases and political officials getting attacked. Made more complicated by those places often being in and around civilian population centers.

I really don't understand why we keep talking about wars that happened 150+ years ago. Even if we assume that privately-owned guns had a significant role in those wars military technology was very different back then. The common soldier with a rifle was a much bigger part of a complete army, and modern inventions like machine guns and aircraft didn't exist at all. So if you have a large number of militia with their personal rifles you just need to get some cannons and horses and you've got an army. Now you need tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc, all of which cost obscene amounts of money and will never be available to private owners.

Next person to refer to an entire half of the political spectrum as dancing on the graves of children, or something equally reprehensible, won't be participating for a while. It's a definite violation of rule 1

 Grey Templar wrote:
No, but it should because its the same deal. We beat off the most powerful empire in the world.

The British Empire was no where near the height of their power during the American Revolution, especially compared to the late Empire at the end of the 19th century. They didn't become the "most powerful empire in the world" until the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, which left them expand and exert their influence more or less unchecked for over a century.

And by "we," I hope you also mean us and our very powerful allies.

 Peregrine wrote:
I really don't understand why we keep talking about wars that happened 150+ years ago. Even if we assume that privately-owned guns had a significant role in those wars military technology was very different back then. The common soldier with a rifle was a much bigger part of a complete army, and modern inventions like machine guns and aircraft didn't exist at all. So if you have a large number of militia with their personal rifles you just need to get some cannons and horses and you've got an army. Now you need tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc, all of which cost obscene amounts of money and will never be available to private owners.

You don't need tanks to overthrow a govt from within. But you have made a good argument for why those things should be allowed for private ownership. Sure, most people won't be able to afford those things, but that's irrelevant.

I constantly wonder why everyone assumes that any potential civil war within the United States where the citizen has to rise up against the tyrannical United States Government will necessarily imply the common civilian fighting against the full might of the United States Military. Do people think the US Military (who skew very pro-2nd amendment as a rule) will just wantonly invade and destroy large swathes of the country?

I realize this isn't necessarily an endorsement of the 2nd amendment. There's certainly a segment of the pro-2nd amendment crowd that see themselves as the Red Dawn defense against an overly aggressive military. I think the fact of the matter is that quite a few of those people you would think would be the jack-booted oppressor would instead be the people taking up arms - at least in the sort of fictionalized scenario that gets John Q. Public to spend several thousand dollars on his AR-15.

The government, if it were so inclined, would strip your freedom through legal channels. After all, it is the government. When the constitution is legally amended to outlaw the private ownership of guns, would you then rise up in opposition to it?

The truth is that the government cements whatever power it wants without resorting to banning guns. Banning guns makes for good TV, but isn't strictly necessary. Why should I fear you and your gun when I can seize your property through eminent domain or force you out of work or garnish your wages or any other ways to make you the pariah? If you have no food, no money, and no reputation, then you are no threat.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I really don't understand why we keep talking about wars that happened 150+ years ago. Even if we assume that privately-owned guns had a significant role in those wars military technology was very different back then. The common soldier with a rifle was a much bigger part of a complete army, and modern inventions like machine guns and aircraft didn't exist at all. So if you have a large number of militia with their personal rifles you just need to get some cannons and horses and you've got an army. Now you need tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc, all of which cost obscene amounts of money and will never be available to private owners.

You don't need tanks to overthrow a govt from within. But you have made a good argument for why those things should be allowed for private ownership. Sure, most people won't be able to afford those things, but that's irrelevant.

So government oppression is a big enough danger that there's a need for the populace to be armed, but multimillionnaires being allowed their own private armies isn't a potential disaster waiting to happen?

 Peregrine wrote:
I really don't understand why we keep talking about wars that happened 150+ years ago. Even if we assume that privately-owned guns had a significant role in those wars military technology was very different back then. The common soldier with a rifle was a much bigger part of a complete army, and modern inventions like machine guns and aircraft didn't exist at all. So if you have a large number of militia with their personal rifles you just need to get some cannons and horses and you've got an army. Now you need tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc, all of which cost obscene amounts of money and will never be available to private owners.

What I don't understand is why it matters one way or another.

The logistics and practicality of an armed uprising against the U.S. government by its citizens could be argued ad infinitum, but even if that was done until the death of the universe, at no point would either ever become relevant to the enforcement Second Amendment or the ATF banning of M855 ammo.

That being said, regarding tanks, aircraft and missiles...

Aircraft: Can own. Demilitarized, though.

Tanks: Can own, with functional weapons, too. If the main gun is a muzzle-loader, you don't even need to do any paperwork!

Missiles: OK, you can't own those.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I really don't understand why we keep talking about wars that happened 150+ years ago. Even if we assume that privately-owned guns had a significant role in those wars military technology was very different back then. The common soldier with a rifle was a much bigger part of a complete army, and modern inventions like machine guns and aircraft didn't exist at all. So if you have a large number of militia with their personal rifles you just need to get some cannons and horses and you've got an army. Now you need tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc, all of which cost obscene amounts of money and will never be available to private owners.

You don't need tanks to overthrow a govt from within. But you have made a good argument for why those things should be allowed for private ownership. Sure, most people won't be able to afford those things, but that's irrelevant.

So government oppression is a big enough danger that there's a need for the populace to be armed, but multimillionnaires being allowed their own private armies isn't a potential disaster waiting to happen?

Nah, Kevin Spacey is harmless. It'd be fine.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I really don't understand why we keep talking about wars that happened 150+ years ago. Even if we assume that privately-owned guns had a significant role in those wars military technology was very different back then. The common soldier with a rifle was a much bigger part of a complete army, and modern inventions like machine guns and aircraft didn't exist at all. So if you have a large number of militia with their personal rifles you just need to get some cannons and horses and you've got an army. Now you need tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc, all of which cost obscene amounts of money and will never be available to private owners.

You don't need tanks to overthrow a govt from within. But you have made a good argument for why those things should be allowed for private ownership. Sure, most people won't be able to afford those things, but that's irrelevant.

So government oppression is a big enough danger that there's a need for the populace to be armed, but multimillionnaires being allowed their own private armies isn't a potential disaster waiting to happen?

Correct, it isn't a problem. The majority of the cannons used by the colonial army in the revolution were privately owned and many of the regiments in the ACW bought all their weapons privately. Private citizens in the US today own machine guns but nobody has committed a crime with their privately owned and registered full auto. Private citizens can own tanks but the collectors who have them aren't using them to break the law.

Whether a law abiding citizen is armed with a pistol or a rifle or a tank or a howitzer that person isn't a danger to society. Weapons are inanimate objects they can't make anyone do anything. We have an armed society and since we allow private citizens to own firearms there's no reason for restrictions. How fast a gun can shoot or the capacity of the magazine or the material in the ammo or whether or not it has a foregrip or bayonet etc doesn't matter in regards to how the weapon will be used. An armed citizen can go hurt people and commit crimes with any weapon, arbitrary limits do nothing to stop that possibility.

My neighbors and felloe citizens can a themselves however they see fit in my opinion. I'm not afraid of them the vast majority of them are great people and the tiny minority that are dangerous can be held in check by the vigilance of the rest of us.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You don't need tanks to overthrow a govt from within.

Then what do you do when they army brings its tanks and starts crushing your attempt to overthrow the government?

But you have made a good argument for why those things should be allowed for private ownership. Sure, most people won't be able to afford those things, but that's irrelevant.

So if most people can't afford them then what's the point? Having your single 1970s-era fighter jet that is immediately shot down by a dozen F-22s as soon as you take off isn't meaningfully different than having no jet at all. You're not going to make any difference in the final outcome of the hypothetical revolution, so your private ownership of that tank/plane/whatever isn't really justified by the "defend against the government" argument. And that tiny chance of contributing something is outweighed by the much greater chance that you'll do something stupid with your toy and get people killed.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Private citizens can own tanks but the collectors who have them aren't using them to break the law.

Counter-example: people can own fighter jets, but until the FAA put some very strict limits on flying them there were a lot of crashes involving high-performance military aircraft and under-qualified pilots. You don't have to deliberately murder people to kill them with toys like that.

Whether a law abiding citizen is armed with a pistol or a rifle or a tank or a howitzer that person isn't a danger to society.

Of course they are. A law-abiding citizen with a rifle is pretty limited in how much accidental damage they can do, a law-abiding citizen who doesn't quite understand how strong wind can carry a shell beyond the boundaries of their artillery range is a much bigger danger. The fact that it was a tragic accident isn't going to be worth very much when they blow up a whole apartment building and kill everyone inside.

And then of course there's the question of what happens when they decide not to obey the laws. So far we haven't invented a magic "will this person ever become a criminal" detector that can keep weapons out of people who will someday use them for murder. And I'm pretty glad the upper limit on the damage a murderer can do is set at "shoot some people with a gun" and not "shell half a town off the map with artillery".

Anyone who has the cash to purchase an artillery piece is going to have the foresight to ensure they don't accidentally hit something they shouldn't.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You don't need tanks to overthrow a govt from within.

Then what do you do when they army brings its tanks and starts crushing your attempt to overthrow the government?

Molotov Cocktails, RPGs, IEDs, etc...

Tanks are very vulnerable to infantry and improvised weapons. They're also quite useless against an insurgency that blends into the civilian population.

We weren't using tanks to combat terrorists in Iraq.

I'm still trying to figure out why people are so convinced, were this to happen, a good portion of the military wouldn't side with the people?