The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA

[Marshal Murat]

Chance or likelihood is a question indeed, for example, if pink elephants would ramble on the streets of San Francisco and rape women, the local council could make a law, that it is illegal to breed, keep, sell or buy pink elephants. What are the chances? Close to zero. What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

False analogy.

[drone]

What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too.

Actually, the chance is exactly zero. US citizens cannot buy machine guns from their local gun shop.

Your facepalm image is hotlinked, host it yourself.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The right to bear arms has not and is likely not to be changed, but not due to the "well-armed militia" argument. Chance or likelihood is a question indeed, for example, if pink elephants would ramble on the streets of San Francisco and rape women, the local council could make a law, that it is illegal to breed, keep, sell or buy pink elephants. What are the chances? Close to zero. What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

Pink elephants don't exist. Whereas this nation was founded by throwing off the tyranny of a nation (in fact, the nation with the greatest military power in the world at the time) by citizens with guns.

And it isn't a valid argument too, that once it was useful, so let's keep this law. For instance, it is illegal in Tennessee to catch a fish with a lasso. Why? Some day, back in 18.. a weirdo decided to hunt fish with a lasso and incidentally hurt his fishing buddy, who died of a heart stroke. So the good state of Tennessee made a law to ban fishing with a lasso to prevent similar unlucky accidents. How smart. And centuries later, they forgot to abolish this law.

Another bad example. People could still be hurt by lasso-fishing, if that's why the law was written. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make it less dangerous.

See- this is why antis refer to the "common sense" argument - they don't have any others.

CR

[Strike For The South]

Ah the Red X. A truly powerful image.

I at least hope you're serious. Becuase if this is a troll then you have way to much times on your hands.

[Kralizec]

What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

The chance of a militia in say, Ohio, capturing Washington DC and thus overthrowing the government there would be slim at best.

The chance of a seceding state protecting its autonomy is much greater, especially if other states would follow its example.
I know you're thinking about the Confederacy now, but you have to realize that it comprised less than a third of the total population and the Union's success depended on the willingness of the population to fight a rebellion they viewed as illegitimate. If the US government were to become truly tyrannical it's questionable wether people would agree to be drafted to supress rebels.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Main Entry: ig·no·rance Pronunciation: \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\ Function: noun
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

It appears "common sense" is really an oxymoron in this thread, doesn't look to be that ...common. Some of the statements eschewed as "facts" simply leave me speechless. Now pardon me, but I'm late for the machine gun store. Musn't forget the grenades for our pink elephant hunt this weekend...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

omg, unfrickin' believable

[HoreTore]

Pink elephants don't exist. Whereas this nation was founded by throwing off the tyranny of a nation (in fact, the nation with the greatest military power in the world at the time) by citizens with guns.

Oh come on. Comparing that situation to the current world has so many glaring errors it's getting ridiculous.

In the Rodney King riots in the early 1990s, the LAPD pulled their officers off the streets for the officer's safety. Guns let business owners defend themselves and their stores.

Yes. You didn't pay enough taxes, thus leaving your policemen understaffed, overworked and unable to both prevent such a situation from ever occurring, as well as stopping it once underway.

Be a patriot, double your taxes

[drone]

Yes. You didn't pay enough taxes, thus leaving your policemen understaffed, overworked and unable to both prevent such a situation from ever occurring, as well as stopping it once underway.

Be a patriot, double your taxes

[Tribesy][/Tribesy]

Prevent it? You are aware that the LAPD caused the Rodney King riots, right? Strike 2!

[PowerWizard]

Ah the Red X. A truly powerful image.

I at least hope you're serious. Becuase if this is a troll then you have way to much times on your hands.

Some people get so sensitive by a single picture. :D

People could still be hurt by lasso-fishing, if that's why the law was written. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make it less dangerous.

People could be still hurt by bungee-jumping, dog keeping, cycling, packing crates and slicing a bread. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make them less dangerous. So why aren't those activities banned in laws?

See- this is why antis refer to the "common sense" argument - they don't have any others.CR

You're right, why do you, Americans need common sense, when you have laws?

[AussieGiant]

The budget for the DOD is about 600 billion dollars in 2010. Up around 4%.

The US military battle of order represent the single most devastating military force available on the planet by a factor of same considerable margin.

Owning a gun, to prevent a tyrannical government and its action against the populace, is entirely and utterly a distant second on the "To Do List" when it comes down to the bottom line.

The number one issue is....who is in command and control of the US military? If anyone thinks otherwise then they are on some serious drugs.

Not only does the US military have better guns, they have more, and they have far superior training.

Don't let insurgent success in Iraq and Afghanistan delude you. The reason they have success is because of the extremely restrictive rules of engagement placed on them by civilian governments.

If it was in fact left up to the military to simply achieve objectives, with far less regard for a number of "engagement rule" issues, like civilian casualties, weapon types available etc etc, I'd say the result would be far, far different. The consequence of course would be that no one would be able to sleep at night due to the horrors committed. However make no mistake, there would not be much of an insurgent force left in reality.

In the context of a tyrannical government and what that entails by definition, well then I'll leave it up to your collective imaginations as to what the military could be ordered to do.

It certainly is becoming ironic that the 2nd amendment, written in a vastly different time, in vastly different circumstances, is being upheld for those vastly out of date reasons. In contrast, the US government is currently in control of a military force that makes the civilian ownership of any type of weapons completely redundant.

Keep in mind that the personal weapon used at the time of the writing of the constitution was entirely similar to that of the military. A smooth bore musket. While the military at the time had the use of cannon that was the only real technological difference.

If we could time warp Lincoln to 2009, I'm sure the gentlemen would look at the USS Enterprise and then at the smooth bore musket and realise something was vastly out of date...that being the words written on the paper he signed.

[HoreTore]

Prevent it? You are aware that the LAPD caused the Rodney King riots, right? Strike 2!

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot

Or it might've helped to use some money to get an actually functioning judiciary system. Or trying to be less racist. Or even have police officers who don't get a woody from beating up citizens.... The thing is; every such incident has a cause. And every such cause can be neutralized. Hiring your own army of mercs will lessen the effect, but it won't address the cause. However, if you address the cause, you can hop around naked preaching peace and love, hippie-style

[Strike For The South]

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot

Epic US history failure.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

In spoilers for language:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Enjoy.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

You really should read the last gun control debate thread, which answers your questions.

[PowerWizard]

You really should read the last gun control debate thread, which answers your questions.

I did, and believe it or not, I made me think about some of my views. It didn't change my mind though about the "well-regulated militia" argument.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I did, and believe it or not, I made me think about some of my views. It didn't change my mind though about the "well-regulated militia" argument.

Hence the link I provided.

[drone]

...
Utter destruction of a rebellion by US military forces
...

A citizens' revolt could be easily crushed by the US military, and the tyrannical government would cease to exist due to the economical cost of the aftermath. Who would pay to build it back up again? China isn't going to fund that bill. Smoking rubble and an oppressed citizenry make for a horrible economy.

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot

Strike 3! The upper income tax bracket in the 60s was 70%+. Income taxes across the board were much higher than today. It wasn't until Reagan when the tax rates were significantly reduced.

[PowerWizard]

Hence the link I provided.

The link you provided is funny, but it doesn't counter my points. It says:

"Why the word people? Because the people who wrote this had just fought a war for 2 years against a tyrannical state. They knew the time would come, when they have to that again."

Which leads us back to the first post.

[AussieGiant]

drone

I'd appreciate it if you didn't misquote me so directly.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Insurgence is quite fine in the US: vast expenses filled with the most diverse guerrila friendly terrain, from marshlands to rocky and hilly ground. The US military, as intimidating as it might have seemed, was unable to fully fight the power of the VC back in 'nam near their own nose. Now to guard the whole country against insurgents would be beyond their capabilities, and eventually their strained operational capabilities would be slowly grinded in a low intensity guerrila movement.

[drone]

drone

I'd appreciate it if you didn't misquote me so directly.

I didn't want to repeat 40 lines of text into the discussion, so I summed it up.
You are correct, if the US military removed the restrictions meant to prevent civilian casualties and used it's full force to suppress a rebellion, they could do it quite easily. And the US Treasury would never recover. A secondary goal in Iraq is to leave a functioning state behind, the methods you describe would make this goal impossible. Total war doesn't work when you are at war with yourself.

[AussieGiant]

I didn't want to repeat 40 lines of text into the discussion, so I summed it up.
You are correct, if the US military removed the restrictions meant to prevent civilian casualties and used it's full force to suppress a rebellion, they could do it quite easily. And the US Treasury would never recover. A secondary goal in Iraq is to leave a functioning state behind, the methods you describe would make this goal impossible. Total war doesn't work when you are at war with yourself.

Ah, ok now I understand. No problem then.

And yes I agree with your context. However limited levels of severe destruction by the US military controlled by the government would do the trick nicely.

In the end as I mentioned, back when the document was written, parity of weapons between the people and the militia was very real.

Now it's beyond comprehension and something those learned gentlemen back then could never have even contemplated. I just don't get it.

But as long as no American complains about the consequences then I guess it's fine.

[Crazed Rabbit]

People could be still hurt by bungee-jumping, dog keeping, cycling, packing crates and slicing a bread. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make them less dangerous. So why aren't those activities banned in laws?

I thought your point with the Tennessee law against lassoing fish was to say it was now a stupid law that had passed its usefulness. I was pointing out that circumstances that made lasso-fishing dangerous haven't changed. So another bad argument on your part.

You're right, why do you, Americans need common sense, when you have laws?

What's the point?

What's really funny about this thread is the huge amount of ignorance of US history and law being put on display here:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

It's a fact, that Marines will obey anything they are told, except for maybe killing their own mother.

It is light years far from being a fact, it is your personal opinion that lacks any kind of proof. The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained. If they are told, that evil men funded and staffed by terrorist organizations are willing to overthrow the federal government and establish a Muslim Republic, they won't hesitate shooting their own compatriots.

Two things:

- As shown by both Iraq and Afghanistan, a crazy amount of insurgents did not deter the US in the slightest.

Chance or likelihood is a question indeed, for example, if pink elephants would ramble on the streets of San Francisco and rape women, the local council could make a law, that it is illegal to breed, keep, sell or buy pink elephants. What are the chances? Close to zero. What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

Yes. You didn't pay enough taxes, thus leaving your policemen understaffed, overworked and unable to both prevent such a situation from ever occurring, as well as stopping it once underway.

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot

If we could time warp Lincoln to 2009, I'm sure the gentlemen would look at the USS Enterprise and then at the smooth bore musket and realise something was vastly out of date...that being the words written on the paper he signed.

As for gun-owning citizenry being of no danger to an established government - well, it makes me wonder why so many authoritarian states banned their subjects from having guns.

CR

[AussieGiant]

I meant George Washington. Sorry CR.

-EDIT-

They were probably nations that didn't govern the worlds most impressive military force at the time. Meaning an armed militia could have been a credible adversary to those authoritarian states. The US military is far different.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

This isn't a general firearms debate, so please focus your replies on the following argument of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, typically sounding like this:



First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

We can't "buy an AK-47 on every corner". Nice strawman though.

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

I don't think it's likely. But I don't think that's the purpose of the 2A.

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

If a third of the US supported the revolution, it would be hopeless for the Marines and the entire armed forces to put down such a movement, except perhaps locally. It wouldn't be fought conventionally, civilian rifles against tanks. It would be fought as a guerrilla war, hitting military targets where they are weakest (behind the lines, supply depots, that sort of thing). Not to mention that parts of the military are likely to join any popular revolution.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

Groups that openly advocate such as usually dealt with. If it is done in secret, how will disarming the population change things?

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

The "historical context" argument supports gun rights.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

Well that's nice. You can say "you're argument is stupid" and it just goes away?

[Reverend Joe]

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

Fairly good, considering that both parties have not only totally consolidated power in the election system (thus effectively eliminating choice) and that both parties are slowly growing more totalitarian in nature. I personally see no difference in the overall goal of both parties, aside form the fact that the Democrats want a Communist state, and the Republicans want a Fascist state run by their bigtime corporate buddies. Basically, it adds up to the same thing: no free market or state, or choice.

Color me paranoid.

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

An invasion is very unlikely given the current circumstances. However, if the populace were forced to break their "contract" with the Government, it would not only necessitate the use of powerful weaponry, but it would also greatly increase the likelihood of foreign intervention. In such a case, I will admit that those who would style themselves to be prepared to resist the crazy train would need actual training in partisan warfare if they want to have a chance.[/quote]

Maybe they should learn a little from the Iraqi Parisans.

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

Very bad, if they don't know what they are doing. If they do, well, it's a known fact that a populace which does not wish to be conquered, will never be conquered.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

It may arm psychopaths, but it also allows regular citzens to defend their homes (and I do mean their HOMES -- I absolutely disagree with any firearm-related action extending beyond your property grounds, as it gets far too iffy in legal and realistic terms.) It also gives the rest of us a chance just in case. And yeah, you can bitch and whine about "realistic," but if you don't ever have a plan B, you will be screwed when the time comes, no matter how low the chances.

Hell, there's a latent fear that honey-bees are dying off. That's a big problem; all major crops depend upon bees for productivity. Do we have a plan B? No, until just recently, when people started looking at Carpenter bees and other types of bees. Seems crazy, but the collapse of a small part of our system can lead to disastrous consequences.

Point is, you best have a plan B.

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

A "well-regulated milita" means an armed populace by its original definition, and I find it to be equally applicable now as ever. And don't insult our intelligence, please. It's rude.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

Anyhow, sorry for reading ZERO of this thread, but I felt like dropping my own arguments at random. Let's see how it works, eh?

[Marshal Murat]

Just for the purposes of debate (with my previous ideas already stated), why has the British nation not yet succumbed to tyranny with a lack of weaponry available to the common citizen?

[Reverend Joe]

Sure, but what happens if in 50, 100 or 200 years time America is threatened by the Enemy Within who seek to destroy all that America stands for? If the loons in the Pentagon advocating nuclear war with Russia during the Cold War are anything to go by, I doubt you woud lack people in the military who believe that like in Ancient Rome, in times of crisis one must suspend certain liberties in order to destroy this enemy and anyone who sympathises with them.

Besides, say a potential megalomaniac hell-bent on becoming Emperor of America is elected President, and manages to amend the constitution through Congress. All privately-owned guns are banned, citing the reasonable grounds of crime-prevention. What are you going to do when asked to hand in your gun? Shout "You'll never take me alive!" before barricading yourself in your house staging your one-man rebellion?

Henry, I find your arguments interesting, but does it not occur to you that the same slippery-slope situation is occurring among the American populace? Because it is; there's far more paranoid anti-government people in the US than there were 50, 100, or 200 years ago. Anyhow, I would advise you to examine how your local Catholics handled the situation, because it's remarkably similar to how the drug users in the US face the "Drug War": just slip it by. Don't get caught so you can practice your God-given freedoms out of Big Brother's gaze.

[Reverend Joe]

Just for the purposes of debate (with my previous ideas already stated), why has the British nation not yet succumbed to tyranny with a lack of weaponry available to the common citizen?

Well, 1) it's kinda close, from what I hear, and 2) apparently there are more illegal guns there now than there were legal and illegal guns before the ban.

Edit: 20 more posts and I have 4200 posts...

...get it?

Edit 2: is nobody else reminded of Paranoid?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Just for the purposes of debate (with my previous ideas already stated), why has the British nation not yet succumbed to tyranny with a lack of weaponry available to the common citizen?

A lack of weaponry does not mean there will be a tyranny. It merely means there is one less recourse to use against such a thing.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The link you provided is funny, but it doesn't counter my points. It says:

It does, if your point is that gun rights should not exist unless there is a "well-regulated militia."

Regardless, the historical context argument does support the right to own firearms, as previously stated. Jefferson.