U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[rory_20_uk]

Personally I'm against arms, but I do understand the "then only criminals have them" argument, which is a valid one.

The armed citizenship overthrowing the government? The entire Population vs. the Marines, my money is on the marines!

The average joe is undisciplined, unfit, risk-averse and poorly trained. Verses highly motivated, extremely fit and well equipped forces they'd be slaughtered, those that didn't just run.

I would propose:

1. fingerprint / rung tagged guns
2. Guns licensed to a person and an address
3. Bullet proof vests also need to be registered to a person and an address
4. need to report it stolen ASAP
5. Restriction on types: hunting rifles need a concurrent hunting lisence
6. Restriction on bullet types
7. Ban on ceramic / plastic firearms
8. Encourage tazers as "less lethal" alternative
9. Ban on anti-fingerprint technology on weapons
10. Large penalties on breaking rules

Self defence does not need an assault rifle with Teflon coated, steel core bullets. Nor does hunting.
If you need a Magnum then you'd better show due care.

[Hooahguy]

The armed citizenship overthrowing the government? The entire Population vs. the Marines, my money is on the marines!

i think its possible to overthrow the government. eventually the people will overwhelm the marines with sheer numbers, plus some military personnel would go on the peoples side.

[CountArach]

i think its possible to overthrow the government. eventually the people will overwhelm the marines with sheer numbers

I'm willing to bet that the first thousand deaths would be enough to quell most uprisings for quite a bit after that.

[Hooahguy]

well, did it stop the patriots of the American revolution?

[rory_20_uk]

i think its possible to overthrow the government. eventually the people will overwhelm the marines with sheer numbers, plus some military personnel would go on the peoples side.

Side with the traitors? Like hell! The marines would gun them down mercilessly. They're MARINES, not flower packing, flag burning, oath breakers. I'm sure the sentiment would be napalm would be too quick a death.

Overwhelm guns that can fire thousands of bullets a minute? You really think that the american public is going to engage in Human Wave tactics? As CountArach points out, most uprisings anywhere peter out after at most a few thousand are killed. Perhaps forces such as the North Korean Army might fight on climbing over their dead into the maw of death, hoping that the other side will run out of bullets but I can't think of anyone else.

The patriots did win, or to be more accurate the Brits stopped fighting. Other things on their side: a Government weeks travel away. A King who was insane. Backing from the second biggest power at the time. If at the time Britain had sought to keep the 13 colonies irrigardless of risk or loss elsewhere they most likely would have done - with the massive loss of power in what were deemed more important areas, and probably the deposition of the king to boot.

[Spino]

Side with the traitors? Like hell! The marines would gun them down mercilessly. They're MARINES, not flower packing, flag burning, oath breakers. I'm sure the sentiment would be napalm would be too quick a death.

Overwhelm guns that can fire thousands of bullets a minute? You really think that the american public is going to engage in Human Wave tactics? As CountArach points out, most uprisings anywhere peter out after at most a few thousand are killed. Perhaps forces such as the North Korean Army might fight on climbing over their dead into the maw of death, hoping that the other side will run out of bullets but I can't think of anyone else.

The patriots did win, or to be more accurate the Brits stopped fighting. Other things on their side: a Government weeks travel away. A King who was insane. Backing from the second biggest power at the time. If at the time Britain had sought to keep the 13 colonies irrigardless of risk or loss elsewhere they most likely would have done - with the massive loss of power in what were deemed more important areas, and probably the deposition of the king to boot.

The problem with a US pro-gun revolution vs. the Marine Corps scenario is that most Marines, like most people in the US military, are pro-gun conservatives. Ordering US troops to fire on say, rioters, looters, domestic terrorists, etc. is one thing but asking them to fire on a cross section of the population fighting to uphold the 2nd Amendment? Good luck with that. Having the US government suddenly label the members of such a movement as traitorous enemies of the state is just asking for a mutiny and/or military coup.

[Ironside]

The problem with a US pro-gun revolution vs. The Marine Corps scenario is that most Marines, like most people in the US military, are pro-gun conservatives. Ordering US troops to fire on say, rioters, looters, domestic terrorists, etc. is one thing but asking them to fire on a cross section of the population fighting to uphold the 2nd Amendment? Good luck with that. Having the US government suddenly label the members of such a movement as traitorous enemies of the state is just asking for a mutiny and/or military coup.

And having enough influence on the military that goverment cannot use the military against it's own population is only about 1000 times more important than the amount of small arms among the population the day the revolution comes...

On the issue at hand I would say that a nation obsessed with the idea of no gun restrictions aren't a nation that should have it.


Edit: BTW how did the Iraqi military fare vs the might of the US military? Are the average US citizen more armed than that?

And don't come with the insurgancy. A: You're supposed to be liberating the country. B: You can withdraw and aren't stuck in a death match scenario. C: The US losses are a fart in the wind compared to the amount of troops there.
FYI the amount of troops vs population would be higher in the second US civil war than what it is in Iraq.

[Sheogorath]

Anybody find the poll results rather amusing?
Almost exactly in line with my prediction :P

[Hooahguy]

Side with the traitors? Like hell! The marines would gun them down mercilessly. They're MARINES, not flower packing, flag burning, oath breakers. I'm sure the sentiment would be napalm would be too quick a death.

Overwhelm guns that can fire thousands of bullets a minute? You really think that the american public is going to engage in Human Wave tactics? As CountArach points out, most uprisings anywhere peter out after at most a few thousand are killed. Perhaps forces such as the North Korean Army might fight on climbing over their dead into the maw of death, hoping that the other side will run out of bullets but I can't think of anyone else.

The patriots did win, or to be more accurate the Brits stopped fighting. Other things on their side: a Government weeks travel away. A King who was insane. Backing from the second biggest power at the time. If at the time Britain had sought to keep the 13 colonies irrigardless of risk or loss elsewhere they most likely would have done - with the massive loss of power in what were deemed more important areas, and probably the deposition of the king to boot.

as Spino said, many military personnel own guns outside of the military and will not give them up. plus with their military advice the people can become quite a powerful force. again, look at the american revolution. rag-tag bands of militia with good leadership beat the british army.

[rory_20_uk]

as Spino said, many military personnel own guns outside of the military and will not give them up. plus with their military advice the people can become quite a powerful force. again, look at the american revolution. rag-tag bands of militia with good leadership beat the british army.

Did you read my post? The British stopped fighting, rather than the Americans fielding a great army. Similarly a few vets with old guns doesn't make an army. You're also assuming that they'd all side with the traitors rather than the President.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Did you read my post? The British stopped fighting, rather than the Americans fielding a great army. Similarly a few vets with old guns doesn't make an army. You're also assuming that they'd all side with the traitors rather than the President.

In what fraction of the possible scenarios where the citizenry has to fight the government would an armed populace be helpful? Even disregarding the self defense factor, is that fraction enough in your eyes to justify the law?

[Hooahguy]

Did you read my post? The British stopped fighting, rather than the Americans fielding a great army. Similarly a few vets with old guns doesn't make an army. You're also assuming that they'd all side with the traitors rather than the President.

i have a pretty decent knowledge of US history. from my knowledge, after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Brits withdrew. so technically we did beat them, AFAIK.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Personally I'm against arms, but I do understand the "then only criminals have them" argument, which is a valid one.

The armed citizenship overthrowing the government? The entire Population vs. the Marines, my money is on the marines!

The average joe is undisciplined, unfit, risk-averse and poorly trained. Verses highly motivated, extremely fit and well equipped forces they'd be slaughtered, those that didn't just run.

I would propose:

1. fingerprint / rung tagged guns
2. Guns licensed to a person and an address
3. Bullet proof vests also need to be registered to a person and an address
4. need to report it stolen ASAP
5. Restriction on types: hunting rifles need a concurrent hunting lisence
6. Restriction on bullet types
7. Ban on ceramic / plastic firearms
8. Encourage tazers as "less lethal" alternative
9. Ban on anti-fingerprint technology on weapons
10. Large penalties on breaking rules

Self defence does not need an assault rifle with Teflon coated, steel core bullets. Nor does hunting.
If you need a Magnum then you'd better show due care.

Well crap man, should free speech be similarly registered and restricted? Let's just make every house a surveillance outpost of the government.

And the marines would survive for a few months tops. The key to a violent anti-government movement would be to avoid direct combat and to hit them in the resources and supply (and if necessary, supporters). You don't try and take out a tank, you hit the fuel depot. Similarly, in the ridiculous "everyone vs. marines" scenario, how would the marines resupply?

[Fragony]

I find the government against the people a bit an of argument we have better ways to deal with political devision nowadays. If you want 'the people' to be able to raise an army to challenge the government, that's a bit much for me some weapons should be restricted. Once the thugs have installed hauwitzers I might reconsider.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The armed citizenship overthrowing the government? The entire Population vs. the Marines, my money is on the marines!

In all fairness rory, they said that about the redcoats as well - and look who won that one.


EDIT: Everyone in this thread, arguing on either side, should watch...

...this
...and all three parts of this.

[Strike For The South]

In all fairness rory, they said that about the redcoats as well - and look who won that one.


EDIT: Everyone in this thread, arguing on either side, should watch...

...this
...and all three parts of this.

I've seen that video a thousand times. The fact is 1 anecdote=/= policy. This is of course true if someone puts a grieving mother of columbine up.

Instead of posting violent language and emotive arguments we should argue the merits of firearms ownership and how far we are willing to take it.

We know guns kill people just like we know alcohol kills people

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I've seen that video a thousand times. The fact is 1 anecdote=/= policy. This is of course true if someone puts a grieving mother of columbine up.

It isn't her story so much as her explanation of what the Second Amendment is really about. The arguments I like to leave to the second video series.

[Strike For The South]

It isn't her story so much as her explanation of what the Second Amendment is really about. The arguments I like to leave to the second video series.

No her argument is about conceal and carry in a private establishment. Not firearm ownership. She owned the gun but could not bring it in to a private establishment. Which if the Lubys decides to make policy they have the right to refuse her service.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No her argument is about conceal and carry in a private establishment. Not firearm ownership. She owned the gun but could not bring it in to a private establishment. Which if the Lubys decides to make policy they have the right to refuse her service.

Only it wasn't the Luby's, it was the State of Texas, correct? Regardless, your point does not disprove mine.

[Strike For The South]

Only it wasn't the Luby's, it was the State of Texas, correct? Regardless, your point does not disprove mine.

Correct, however even under current laws. Lubys still would be within its rights.

[Fragony]

Instead of posting violent language and emotive arguments we should argue the merits of firearms ownership and how far we are willing to take it.

As far as a democratically elected government has the time to react to excesses imho. If streetgangs have machineguns and the government doesn't have the means to act against it it should step back.