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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
With regard to the argument that the 2nd amendment is needed to fight off tyrannical governments, it's an argument I'm 50/50 on to be honest.

Twice, my country tried to kill the American nation (1776, 1812) and of course the USA had a battle for national survival in 1861, so there's some merit in saying the 2nd was needed to stop that.

But on the other hand, and this is a drum I've banged many a time before, I would argue that in many respects, the tyrannical government is already here.

As far as I'm concerned, the 4th amednment is dead, buried, and we're back home having a memorial service and awkwardly sharing anecdotes about it.

The 1st amendment is under state of constant siege, and the 5th looks like it's going the way of the 4th.

And what has the American reaction been to all this? A shrug of the shoulders.

Now, my own country is going a similar way, as ancient British rights seem to be going out the window, but nobody can seriously argue that the 2nd is an effective counter against tyranny, because nobody seems to give two hoots about their rights going up in smoke.

The 2nd amendment is the final defense against a tyrannical government. Not the first. The first is using the democratic process to change the government from within through elections. We're not so far gone as to need to have a 2nd American Revolution, yet.

I wouldn't say we've been completely shrugging our shoulders either. The last 6 months, especially the Berkely thing, has shed light on how much damage has been done to free speech by those who purport to support it. We might see a backlash against the limitations which have been thrown up over the last 60 years against all Constitutional rights.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Personally, as a neutral observer, and student of American history, I don't like them either. Why? Because during the civil rights era, and back in the day when gun laws were being passed that were designed to stop African-Americans getting their hands on guns, who supported the gun laws?

You guessed it, the NRA.

Yes. But a bigger thing to point out is that at the time the party of gun control(for those same Racist reasons) wasn't the Republican party. Gun control has its roots in racist policies to keep black people unarmed.

Which is only a thing to point out if you're wilfully ignoring the Southern Strategy and the political shift of the 60's like people always do. It's dishonest as hell, and you should know better.

Not this myth again...

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
With regard to the argument that the 2nd amendment is needed to fight off tyrannical governments, it's an argument I'm 50/50 on to be honest.

Twice, my country tried to kill the American nation (1776, 1812) and of course the USA had a battle for national survival in 1861, so there's some merit in saying the 2nd was needed to stop that.

But on the other hand, and this is a drum I've banged many a time before, I would argue that in many respects, the tyrannical government is already here.

As far as I'm concerned, the 4th amednment is dead, buried, and we're back home having a memorial service and awkwardly sharing anecdotes about it.

The 1st amendment is under state of constant siege, and the 5th looks like it's going the way of the 4th.

And what has the American reaction been to all this? A shrug of the shoulders.

Now, my own country is going a similar way, as ancient British rights seem to be going out the window, but nobody can seriously argue that the 2nd is an effective counter against tyranny, because nobody seems to give two hoots about their rights going up in smoke.

The 2nd amendment is the final defense against a tyrannical government. Not the first. The first is using the democratic process to change the government from within through elections. We're not so far gone as to need to have a 2nd American Revolution, yet.

I wouldn't say we've been completely shrugging our shoulders either. The last 6 months, especially the Berkely thing, has shed light on how much damage has been done to free speech by those who purport to support it. We might see a backlash against the limitations which have been thrown up over the last 60 years against all Constitutional rights.

Yea well said.

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Anti gunners are always terrified at the prospect of following the established procedures to amend the Constitution.

Why do that when they can take nibbles here and there, slowly erode the rights over time so people never really notice.

there's already 20,000 gun laws on the books, what harm would a few more to close the gun show loop holes, and mandatory waiting periods really do?

Gun show loop holes doesn't exist.

As for mandatory waiting periods... I'm ambivalent to that. It won't do what you think it would...

Not selling guns to people who need a caretaker to manage their funds and run their households seems like a no brainer. Yet trump revoked that one.

Trump restored due process in this case. You can still be adjudicated in front of a judge to determine if your mental illness should prohibit your from purchasing/own weapons.

Not selling guns to people on the terrorist watch list seems like another good idea, except to trump and the NRA.

Also ACLU and other prominent groups objected to this.

I get why some dakka members are against that idea, and that can easily be fixed by allowing people to contact the fbi and ask if they're on the list and provide a means to contest it.

The issue is simply that its still exceedingly difficult to get your name OFF the list. Some Congress critters found themselves on this list!

Now... the "no fly" list? We can talk about this... as long as there are robust procedures to review/clean this list up.

I'm the only one saying repeal the 2nd, as I don't think americans are mature enough to handle guns anymore. everyone else just wants rational gun laws so you can't walk into a store during a lunch break and buy enough weapons to shoot up your office or yourself.

Statements like this isn't helpful...

statements like that show the huge error in the system as it's a factual statement

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/Gun-Show-Loophole-Firearms-Facts/2015/03/08/id/626647/

doesn't exist eh?

2. Background checks aren't required for gun show purchases in most states: The District of Columbia and 17 states require background checks for some or all private firearm sales but the remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of used firearms between private individuals, whether at gun shows or elsewhere..

3. "Gun show loophole" question has triggered controversy: The term "gun show loophole" has been used to refer to private sellers at gun shows not being required to perform a background check on or record the sale of firearms to private buyers. Gun control advocates complain that the loophole enables prohibited buyers to use gun shows to purchase weapons without a background check. It indicated gun rights enthusiasts counter that there is no loophole and that a federal law requiring background checks for all private party sales, whether at gun shows or not, would exceed the government's authority and be a prelude to registration and confiscation.

it does in 33 states.

That's not a "gun show loophole".

I've never been to a gun show where I can purchase a gun from a private dealer without a background check. Maybe that's something either the venue is requiring that for liability reasons (most likely) or the city/state is requiring that.

Now, a private person (non-FFL dealer) to private person? Oh hell yes those things happen.

However, if you knowingly or unknowlingly sell a gun to a prohibited possessor... guess what? You've broken federal laws that puts you in legal jeopardy. And that's even BEFORE an civil liability that may open yourself to if that prohibited possessor used said guns in any criminal act.

It's not a gun show loophole. There is no federal law that requires background checks on face to face sales of privately owned firearms so that requirement varies by states. Whether you're at the gun show or at your residence or at a WalMart parking lot the law is the same. I don't have to go to a gun show to buy a rifle without a background check, I can legally do that anywhere in the state already. It's a state law issue and 33 states have permissive laws regarding firearm sales that you don't like. It's not a loophole it's state laws that have been on the books for decades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
That's not a "gun show loophole".

I've never been to a gun show where I can purchase a gun from a private dealer without a background check. Maybe that's something either the venue is requiring that for liability reasons (most likely) or the city/state is requiring that.

Now, a private person (non-FFL dealer) to private person? Oh hell yes those things happen.

However, if you knowingly or unknowlingly sell a gun to a prohibited possessor... guess what? You've broken federal laws that puts you in legal jeopardy. And that's even BEFORE an civil liability that may open yourself to if that prohibited possessor used said guns in any criminal act.

If you have an FFL you have to run background checks whether you're selling from your store or at a gun show. If you don't have an FFL and are making a private sale then you're not required by federal law to run a background check, you just have to abide by the federal standards for prohibited persons and comply with any state laws regarding firearm purchases.

 whembly wrote:
However, if you knowingly or unknowlingly sell a gun to a prohibited possessor... guess what? You've broken federal laws that puts you in legal jeopardy. And that's even BEFORE an civil liability that may open yourself to if that prohibited possessor used said guns in any criminal act.

But making things double plus illegal means we are doing something, and something must be done, anything, this is a thing, lets do it! Think of the children!


Canada has the holy grail of gun laws, every safety feature, BG check, license+registration, mag limits, warrentless searches, you name it.

Yet, even when its in another country, every times some one person abuses firearms there is always a push for yet more restrictions as we still have "too loose" gun laws.

I have no free speech and can technically be exposed to legal ramifications for misgendering someone, free speech has been restricted to death by the same people pushing for ever more gun restriction.

Don't restrict the 1st amendment because nazi's might abuse it, and dont restrict the 2nd because crazy people abuse it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
With regard to the argument that the 2nd amendment is needed to fight off tyrannical governments, it's an argument I'm 50/50 on to be honest.

Twice, my country tried to kill the American nation (1776, 1812) and of course the USA had a battle for national survival in 1861, so there's some merit in saying the 2nd was needed to stop that.

But on the other hand, and this is a drum I've banged many a time before, I would argue that in many respects, the tyrannical government is already here.

More to the point, I think this idea is woefully outdated.

Back when the 2nd amendment was written, guns were muzzle-loading muskets with a rate of fire measured in minutes per round, and the army any tyrannical government might field would just be a lot of guys with those muskets.

Ok, now the citizen militia has semi-automatic rifles and whatnot - but the army has battle tanks, APCs, helicopter gunships. The air force has even more toys - smart bombs, JSOWs, stealth bombers. How does a civilian militia fight against the modern US war machine?

Crispy78 wrote:
How does a civilian militia fight against the modern US war machine?

With patriotism and the second amendment, obviously.

Crispy78 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
With regard to the argument that the 2nd amendment is needed to fight off tyrannical governments, it's an argument I'm 50/50 on to be honest.

Twice, my country tried to kill the American nation (1776, 1812) and of course the USA had a battle for national survival in 1861, so there's some merit in saying the 2nd was needed to stop that.

But on the other hand, and this is a drum I've banged many a time before, I would argue that in many respects, the tyrannical government is already here.

More to the point, I think this idea is woefully outdated.

Back when the 2nd amendment was written, guns were muzzle-loading muskets with a rate of fire measured in minutes per round, and the army any tyrannical government might field would just be a lot of guys with those muskets.

Ok, now the citizen militia has semi-automatic rifles and whatnot - but the army has battle tanks, APCs, helicopter gunships. The air force has even more toys - smart bombs, JSOWs, stealth bombers. How does a civilian militia fight against the modern US war machine?

In theory? Same way the Afghans, Iraqi's, Viet Cong, etc have, It's not about defeating the forces of the state in open battle.

Crispy78 wrote:

Ok, now the citizen militia has semi-automatic rifles and whatnot - but the army has battle tanks, APCs, helicopter gunships. The air force has even more toys - smart bombs, JSOWs, stealth bombers. How does a civilian militia fight against the modern US war machine?

Current half-baked nihilistic theory that I've heard is that it provides enough of a symbolic but credible threat that it would force active violent response from the military, and with that, eventually, the military would begin to suffer attrition from the weariness and psychological damage of killing their own countrymen en masse. I find it an impressive combination of pessimistic and optimistic, but in all the wrong ways.

From a somewhat more practical point of view, the military appears to have a genuine difficulty coping with people armed with small arms in spite of all its technology, otherwise ours wouldn't have been perpetually playing in the sand for years.

The issue with the gun show loophole is that the two sides view it completely different. The simple fact is this:

I can have two buildings here in Oklahoma City: the big gun store right on I-40, and the building at the fairgrounds not 5 miles from that store. I can walk into both buildings, browse through hundreds of guns and rifles, and buy as many weapons as I want. All the weapons in one building are sold by one person, and all the weapons in the other building are sold by fifty different people. One building has background checks, the other building does not.

One side will argue that there is no gun show loophole, and that private sellers should always be treated as private sellers, even if they come together collectively to create a virtual one-stop store. The other side argues that creating a virtual store should require the same treatment as a real store and that letting private sellers sell collectively is a loophole to avoid the same treatment a single large store would have to follow to sell the same collection of weapons.

And that’s what it boils down to, should a collective of private sellers be classified as private sellers or should they be classified as a collective store.

Personally, I have no problems with regulations that would require background checks for all sales at gun shows. Every art show I have been to manages to have individual artists selling stuff, and the event handles all the payments. You pick what you want, the artist gives you the bill, you pay it at the event office, you go back and pick up your art. There is no reason why gun shows can’t do that. Heck, you can even do that without passing any laws requiring private sellers to conduct background checks. Pass a law that requires organizers of events where private sellers can come together to provide background checks for any weapons sold at their events. No burden for the individual sellers, but a burden for the person organizing the event.

Related question to the gun show issue: is there a limit to how many weapons someone can buy and sell before they become a dealer instead of a collector? And during gun shows in states with waiting lists, does the list apply to gun shows?

Crispy78 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
With regard to the argument that the 2nd amendment is needed to fight off tyrannical governments, it's an argument I'm 50/50 on to be honest.

Twice, my country tried to kill the American nation (1776, 1812) and of course the USA had a battle for national survival in 1861, so there's some merit in saying the 2nd was needed to stop that.

But on the other hand, and this is a drum I've banged many a time before, I would argue that in many respects, the tyrannical government is already here.

More to the point, I think this idea is woefully outdated.

Back when the 2nd amendment was written, guns were muzzle-loading muskets with a rate of fire measured in minutes per round, and the army any tyrannical government might field would just be a lot of guys with those muskets.

Ok, now the citizen militia has semi-automatic rifles and whatnot - but the army has battle tanks, APCs, helicopter gunships. The air force has even more toys - smart bombs, JSOWs, stealth bombers. How does a civilian militia fight against the modern US war machine?

A minor correction - it was not 'minutes per round' - it was still rounds per minute, just not a lot of them.

I have fired Revolutionary era weapons more often than I have fired modern arms - and I can get in about three shots per minute. (To be clear - I am not a particularly fast shot - there are many, many people that are faster than I at loading a Brown Bess.)

There is also a very strong argument that the 2nd amendment has very little to do with rebelling or protecting against a tyrannical force, and a great deal to do with making sure that organized militias were allowed and available for putting down slave revolts - in other words - being the tyrannical force.

Remember, by the time the Constitution was signed into law, the US had already put down an armed rebellion.

The Auld Grump

Here's a better description of the problems with "gun show loophole".

It's premised on the idea that there are laws on the books that required everyone to have a background check done prior to purchasing the weapon.

Which is patently false.

Private sales of guns (outside of gun shows) are legal in just about every state, just as it is perfectly legal to sell one’s car or house to another person without going through a dealer or agent.

Gun shows are subject to all gun laws without exception. There is no loophole that allows any gun laws to be circumvented at gun shows.

Yes, guns are sold and traded at gun shows but mostly by federally firearm licensed (FFL) dealers that must do NIC background checks on every customer. Only a very small number of tables are rented by individual private gun collectors who are not required to be federally licensed. Those individual private owners are NOT federally required to perform the NIC background check... that's the big distinction.

But these private citizens are, however, beholden to the same laws as FFL dealers in making sure that their transactions does not involve prohibited possessors.

Hell... i don't think a law would be necessary... just make that background check simple/easy to access that law abiding private citizen will utilize it for their transactions. (I know I would).

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Anti gunners are always terrified at the prospect of following the established procedures to amend the Constitution.

I am all for going this route. Have been the whole time. I believe I have made myself clear on the subject quite a bit. The problem is that it requires a good deal of work to accomplish and we all know congress avoids work like cockroaches avoid light.

We also know there is one side of the aisle that is bought and paid for in large part thanks to the NRA--so it wouldn't happen.

Pretending that "anti-gunners are terrified" of trying to use established procedures is ridiculous. You can't have established procedures function properly when half of a two-party system has been hijacked with obstructionists that work so hard to keep the other party(when they're the minority or the majority) from being able to use those procedures in good faith.

According to OpenSecrets, a site that tracks money in politics, the NRA spent $984,152 on campaign contributions during the 2014 election cycle. It also spent more than $3 million on lobbying in both 2013 and 2014.

So they bought half of congress with 4 million bucks? Seriously?

Or do you think the 30 or so million they spent directly on ads was enough o buy half of congress?

Or maybe, just maybe, you're not quite correct...

http://fortune.com/2015/12/03/san-bernadino-nra-political-spending-gun-violence/

 CptJake wrote:

According to OpenSecrets, a site that tracks money in politics, the NRA spent $984,152 on campaign contributions during the 2014 election cycle. It also spent more than $3 million on lobbying in both 2013 and 2014.

So they bought half of congress with 4 million bucks? Seriously?

Or do you think the 30 or so million they spent directly on ads was enough o buy half of congress?

Or maybe, just maybe, you're not quite correct...

http://fortune.com/2015/12/03/san-bernadino-nra-political-spending-gun-violence/

Imagine how evil that makes Goldman Sachs by comparison.

Crispy78 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
With regard to the argument that the 2nd amendment is needed to fight off tyrannical governments, it's an argument I'm 50/50 on to be honest.

Twice, my country tried to kill the American nation (1776, 1812) and of course the USA had a battle for national survival in 1861, so there's some merit in saying the 2nd was needed to stop that.

But on the other hand, and this is a drum I've banged many a time before, I would argue that in many respects, the tyrannical government is already here.

More to the point, I think this idea is woefully outdated.

Back when the 2nd amendment was written, guns were muzzle-loading muskets with a rate of fire measured in minutes per round, and the army any tyrannical government might field would just be a lot of guys with those muskets.

Ok, now the citizen militia has semi-automatic rifles and whatnot - but the army has battle tanks, APCs, helicopter gunships. The air force has even more toys - smart bombs, JSOWs, stealth bombers. How does a civilian militia fight against the modern US war machine?

Our army has plenty of trouble with poorly equipped jihadis running around in the desert planting IEDs, performing ambushes, etc...

And everything those insurgencies have thrown at our armed forces pale to what an insurgency here in the US could accomplish. Plus in the event that we do have a 2nd American Revolution, it's quite likely that a good portion of the existing armed forces would also defect and/or get their military bases overrun by rebels who would loot any equipment quite happily. Plus who knows what National Guard units would end up doing.

An insurgency in the US, even if was only a small portion of the population(as happened during the actual revolutionary war), would utterly kick the US army's ass even assuming there was no sympathy for the rebels among the armed forces. We have 308 million people as of the 2010 Census. If you include National Guard and all Army Reserves, the US has about 1 million soldiers. That's 1 soldier for every 308 civilians. 1 soldier for every 9 square kilometers of land area.

But we don’t need guns to defeat our military, guns don’t make a difference, we could do it if we really wanted to by driving a car into the military or by taking over a plane.

Crispy78 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
With regard to the argument that the 2nd amendment is needed to fight off tyrannical governments, it's an argument I'm 50/50 on to be honest.

Twice, my country tried to kill the American nation (1776, 1812) and of course the USA had a battle for national survival in 1861, so there's some merit in saying the 2nd was needed to stop that.

But on the other hand, and this is a drum I've banged many a time before, I would argue that in many respects, the tyrannical government is already here.

More to the point, I think this idea is woefully outdated.

Back when the 2nd amendment was written, guns were muzzle-loading muskets with a rate of fire measured in minutes per round, and the army any tyrannical government might field would just be a lot of guys with those muskets.

Ok, now the citizen militia has semi-automatic rifles and whatnot - but the army has battle tanks, APCs, helicopter gunships. The air force has even more toys - smart bombs, JSOWs, stealth bombers. How does a civilian militia fight against the modern US war machine?

Ask the Talibs...

 Grey Templar wrote:
[

And everything those insurgencies have thrown at our armed forces pale to what an insurgency here in the US could accomplish. Plus in the event that we do have a 2nd American Revolution, it's quite likely that a good portion of the existing armed forces would also defect and/or get their military bases overrun by rebels who would loot any equipment quite happily. Plus who knows what National Guard units would end up doing.

What could the local fatuous cheeseburger militia fantasists accomplish that overseas insurgents, many of whom have been fighting in multi-generational conflicts now, could not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
But we don’t need guns to defeat our military, guns don’t make a difference, we could do it if we really wanted to by driving a car into the military or by taking over a plane.

Deliciously droll. Well done, sir

 feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
[

And everything those insurgencies have thrown at our armed forces pale to what an insurgency here in the US could accomplish. Plus in the event that we do have a 2nd American Revolution, it's quite likely that a good portion of the existing armed forces would also defect and/or get their military bases overrun by rebels who would loot any equipment quite happily. Plus who knows what National Guard units would end up doing.

What could the local fatuous cheeseburger militia fantasists accomplish that overseas insurgents, many of whom have been fighting in multi-generational conflicts now, could not?

First off, we've got more resources available here. You can do seriously scary stuff with every day household chemicals. It's much easier to source all the materials you'd need for a insurgency here.

Plus it's a numbers thing. There are way way more people here than in Iraq or Afghanistan. You'd be dealing with just way more insurgents than you would over there. Plus you have the psychological deal with your troops fighting their fellow citizens.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 whembly wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Anti gunners are always terrified at the prospect of following the established procedures to amend the Constitution.

Why do that when they can take nibbles here and there, slowly erode the rights over time so people never really notice.

there's already 20,000 gun laws on the books, what harm would a few more to close the gun show loop holes, and mandatory waiting periods really do?

Gun show loop holes doesn't exist.

As for mandatory waiting periods... I'm ambivalent to that. It won't do what you think it would...

Not selling guns to people who need a caretaker to manage their funds and run their households seems like a no brainer. Yet trump revoked that one.

Trump restored due process in this case. You can still be adjudicated in front of a judge to determine if your mental illness should prohibit your from purchasing/own weapons.

Not selling guns to people on the terrorist watch list seems like another good idea, except to trump and the NRA.

Also ACLU and other prominent groups objected to this.

I get why some dakka members are against that idea, and that can easily be fixed by allowing people to contact the fbi and ask if they're on the list and provide a means to contest it.

The issue is simply that its still exceedingly difficult to get your name OFF the list. Some Congress critters found themselves on this list!

Now... the "no fly" list? We can talk about this... as long as there are robust procedures to review/clean this list up.

I'm the only one saying repeal the 2nd, as I don't think americans are mature enough to handle guns anymore. everyone else just wants rational gun laws so you can't walk into a store during a lunch break and buy enough weapons to shoot up your office or yourself.

Statements like this isn't helpful...

statements like that show the huge error in the system as it's a factual statement

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/Gun-Show-Loophole-Firearms-Facts/2015/03/08/id/626647/

doesn't exist eh?

2. Background checks aren't required for gun show purchases in most states: The District of Columbia and 17 states require background checks for some or all private firearm sales but the remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of used firearms between private individuals, whether at gun shows or elsewhere..

3. "Gun show loophole" question has triggered controversy: The term "gun show loophole" has been used to refer to private sellers at gun shows not being required to perform a background check on or record the sale of firearms to private buyers. Gun control advocates complain that the loophole enables prohibited buyers to use gun shows to purchase weapons without a background check. It indicated gun rights enthusiasts counter that there is no loophole and that a federal law requiring background checks for all private party sales, whether at gun shows or not, would exceed the government's authority and be a prelude to registration and confiscation.

it does in 33 states.

That only applies to people selling from their private collections. As long as they are not in the gun business to make a living, they can sell the weapons they personally own without a FFL.

FFL holders are required by FEDERAL LAW to conduct background checks at gun shows and have the BATFE Form 4473 filled out before the transfer can go through.

If a private individual wants to sell their personal firearms, they'll do so, whether at a gun show or out of their house. That's why this "gun show loophole" garbage is just that: GARBAGE.

How many guns can I buy/sell as a private person before I become a dealer?

The assumption that US civilians would be a more effective opposition to the US military than the insurgencies that have been fighting it and its allies overseas is disappointingly hubristic.

nfe wrote:
The assumption that US civilians would be a more effective opposition to the US military than the insurgencies that have been fighting it and its allies overseas is disappointingly hubristic.

No, it's really not. Read up on insurgencies. The US is one place you would never want to fight an insurgency in.

Crispy78 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
With regard to the argument that the 2nd amendment is needed to fight off tyrannical governments, it's an argument I'm 50/50 on to be honest.

Twice, my country tried to kill the American nation (1776, 1812) and of course the USA had a battle for national survival in 1861, so there's some merit in saying the 2nd was needed to stop that.

But on the other hand, and this is a drum I've banged many a time before, I would argue that in many respects, the tyrannical government is already here.

More to the point, I think this idea is woefully outdated.

Back when the 2nd amendment was written, guns were muzzle-loading muskets with a rate of fire measured in minutes per round, and the army any tyrannical government might field would just be a lot of guys with those muskets.

Ok, now the citizen militia has semi-automatic rifles and whatnot - but the army has battle tanks, APCs, helicopter gunships. The air force has even more toys - smart bombs, JSOWs, stealth bombers. How does a civilian militia fight against the modern US war machine?

I had the great pleasure of knowing a man that fought with the French Resistance in WWII. If he were still alive I'd want someone to argue that a militia wouldn't have been effective. They managed with antique firearms and whatever they could capture.

Crispy78 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
With regard to the argument that the 2nd amendment is needed to fight off tyrannical governments, it's an argument I'm 50/50 on to be honest.

Twice, my country tried to kill the American nation (1776, 1812) and of course the USA had a battle for national survival in 1861, so there's some merit in saying the 2nd was needed to stop that.

But on the other hand, and this is a drum I've banged many a time before, I would argue that in many respects, the tyrannical government is already here.

More to the point, I think this idea is woefully outdated.

Back when the 2nd amendment was written, guns were muzzle-loading muskets with a rate of fire measured in minutes per round, and the army any tyrannical government might field would just be a lot of guys with those muskets.

Ok, now the citizen militia has semi-automatic rifles and whatnot - but the army has battle tanks, APCs, helicopter gunships. The air force has even more toys - smart bombs, JSOWs, stealth bombers. How does a civilian militia fight against the modern US war machine?

Repeating firearms existed prior to, or developed/produced, during the American Revolution.


Puckle Gun-1718

Giradoni Air Rifle-1779 (famously carried during the Lewis and Clark Expedition)

Kalthoff Repeater-Late 17th Centurt

Cookson Repeater-Late 17th Century

Belton Flintlock-circa 1777: This one was demonstrated to members of the Continental Congress.


So, this tired, old argument of the Founding Fathers crafted the Second with only single shot, muzzle loading flintlock muskets in mind doesn't hold water.

 d-usa wrote:
How many guns can I buy/sell as a private person before I become a dealer?

Honestly I think people just get distracted by the wording, and by that I mean people who want to ignore the discussion see "loophole" and realize they have an out from actually talking about the topic because it's not really a loophole. A loophole defines an ambiguity or absence in law that allows something that logic/reason/rationality would suggest shouldn't be allowed under said law. For example a law that bans the distribution of alcohol to minors but does not define what distribution means as the law is concerned.

Technically there is no loop hole in gun control laws as it pertains to gun shows. It's just a normal hole, and to be fair I think it's important to recognize this is a hole not just for gun sales but sales of a lot of things. There are innumerable ways to operate as a "private seller" who is for all intents and purposes an unregistered and unlicensed business that completely avoids most of the taxes and regulations associated with being a business. The "gunshow loop hole" is really the same thing, because the laws and regs that define what a business is are pretty easy to avoid if you dash in a little communism, operate out of your garage/shed, wave an American flag, and talk about freedom and how much this big rifle will help you protect yours

 d-usa wrote:
How many guns can I buy/sell as a private person before I become a dealer?

It's more to do with intent than anything else. If you are trading in firearms with the express purpose of making a profit (i.e. running a business) without a Federal Firearms License, you do so at your own risk. It's a felony under Federal Law. And it's easier to get caught than many might think.

I love the "Red Dawn" fantasies in this thread.

The problem is, the fantasy involves killing their own countrymen. SAD!