U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate

[CountArach]

All Americans have the 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.

[naut]

Of course not. What method do you suggest should be used to collect all the currently owned legal firearms? There isn't a single viable, or cost effective way to.

Leave them be, just educate in proper and safe use, ownership and vendition.

[rory_20_uk]

Ask people to register them? Give a deadline a generous 6 months away? Hardly rocket science, is it? The law abiding majority will get them registered. Inform people that if there are any ones that require stronger checks or are now illegal of this fact. There are probably not many that fit into this category.

Education is one of those oft used puff terms that basically means "do nothing, and tut a bit when the next massacre happens".

[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.

[LittleGrizzly]

Exactly! I want to know why nobody will take my proposal to ban all those deadly cars seriously.

Because cars are a rather useless killing implement. Sure loads of people accidently get killed by cars but have you ever purposefully tried to kill someone with your car... its just a little bit harder than killing someone with a gun...

Example 1) Im sat in my house... you want to kill me... you have a gun and a car...

Obviously you knock at my house and shoot me with the gun, with the car you would have to sit outside and hope i come out... then you would need me to be at a part of the street you can get to... and even if i do come out onto the street and try and cross the road, you need to make sure i don't notice you trying to run me over otherwise i can simply jump into someones garden...

Example 2) im am walking through the local high street... you ave a gun and a car...

Again the car is fairly useless here.... for one my local high street contains alot of railings and parked up cars on the side of the road.... makes it extremly hard to get a gap you can fit through to hit me with the car... secondly town is usually packed so your moving fairly slowly (thanks to speed bumps as well) so you would have to do a quick bit of acceleration and given the run up you would need to have a chance at killing me i could have time to run into a shop or behind a metal fence or something...

Whereas with the gun you couldsimply aim and shoot as you were driving past, or park up walk up behind me and shoot

and quite obviously apart from the cars uselessness as a weapon is the fact that cars are pretty much essential for developed economies... people use them all the time... apart from probably the biggest gun nuts and people who don't drive people spend far more time using thier cars than thier guns...

So if anything cars should have a far greater death rate than guns...

[KukriKhan]

6. Restriction on bullet types

Quite by accident, you've uncovered the latest scheme in D.C. to effect "quiet" gun control: don't fight the gun-control fight, you'll lose. Instead, regulate bullets and gunpowder.

"They" are working on it.

[Ronin]

congrats- you just opened a can of worms!
and no, the 2nd must always be upheld!

Very well....then if you are part of a well regulated militia you can have guns....

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Ser Clegane]

Voted "No" as a non US citizen.

Two reasons:
- a majority of US citizens seems to be in favor of having the right to own guns, not my business as a non US citizen to demand that they should give up their right.
- giving up the right to own guns now seems extremely impractical, considering that gun ownership is so embedded in US culture. Forcing people now to give up their guns will lead to a vast amount of illegal guns in circulation and will probably ultimately cause more bad than good.

OTOH I am quite happy with keeping gun ownership as strictly regulated as it is here in Germany.

There is no "one size fits all" solution that works for every country (and that is actually a thing I came to accept following the numerous gun discussions in the Backroom)

[Meneldil]

I contend it does, however this is not absolute. I have a right to defend myself, however that is largely a hollow statement unless I am able to bear arms of similar caliber (not literally, as in gun barrel size) as they who are attacking me. It's like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

It's not a right at all if the most effective means of practicing it are forbidden. It's like saying:

the right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you should be allowed to use mass communications devices.

Aren't we on some kind of loop here? If you need to bear firearms to feel able to defend yourself, then I think something is going wrong in your country.

I have been mugged (sp?) a few times in my life. My city is, according to french standards, somewhat insecure (though not ghetto-like insecure). Yet I've never felt the need to bear a gun.
I mean, if some guy start to piss me off and threaten me if I don't give him 10€ or my cellphone, do I need to shoot him? To threaten him with an automatic weapon or a flamethrower?
Most of the time, I tried to talk my way out of it, give a few euros, and be done with it. Bearing a gun would probably only increase the chance of being badly injured and lead to a growth of violence.

The issue here is that the US is an apparently unsecure country that has to deal with extraordinary levels of violence, not that guns is the best way to defend yourself. I seriously don't think my right to defend myself is not respected because I can't shot people.

Ideally, you would be correct. It seems, however, that the real world is a little different. I mean no offense, those are merely my observations.

Well, my observations are that I never needed and probably will never need a gun. Then we're talking about the US, so my opinion on that matter is worthless.

If anything, given our past presidency, this has simply reaffirmed in my mind the need for Americans to be able to defend themselves against oppressive government.

Aren't most of the pro-gun crowd deeply conservative and pro-Bush? My feeling (and I might very well be wrong) is that the people defending the right to bear firearms would also be the first one to support oppressive governments.
That's probably because the US political scene is completely screwed-up, with people assimilating healthcare with communism and tyrannical government

Ah, of course, "for the greater good." When does the greater good trump individual freedom? Or is individual freedom the greater good?

I believe the latter.

Wait, where did he mention the greater good?
The principle "One's freedom stops where another person's freedom begins" (or something like that, couldn't find a translation) is widely known in Europe.
The constant use of "freedom" as a catch-word shows the limits of liberal ideology.
And the greater good is indeed a valuable and honorable goal. I blame liberalism for the assimilation of state with fascism and what not. I blame liberalism for the failure of the republican ideology, which was IMO much more interesting and intelligent.

To conclude this rather long post:

people shouldnt be afraid of their government-governments should be afraid of their people.-V

Well, if you're trying to show that we should bear guns to fight tyrannical governments, do not quote V for Vendetta as the book is mostly about overthrowing a totalitarian government without any violence (other than V's violence).
I'm not afraid of my government. I'm not afraid of cops. I go on strike, protest, I don't not respect certain symbols of state authority. I don't need a gun to feel free. And I'm fairly sure the french government is more afraid of mass strikes/protests than he would be of a few people bearing firearms.
If, at any point, a western government turns into a totalitarian regime, I'm fairly sure weapons won't be the way to fight it. Intelligence and enlightnment will.

Edit: to be honest, I can't think of any totalitarian/authoritarian regime that has been overthrown by mob violence. Nazi Germany? Check. Fascist Italy? Check. USSR? Check. Cambodia? Check. Romania? Check. Authoritarian Portugal/Spain/Greece? Check.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Aren't we on some kind of loop here? If you need to bear firearms to feel able to defend yourself, then I think something is going wrong in your country.

I have been mugged (sp?) a few times in my life. My city is, according to french standards, somewhat insecure (though not ghetto-like insecure). Yet I've never felt the need to bear a gun.
I mean, if some guy start to piss me off and threaten me if I don't give him 10€ or my cellphone, do I need to shoot him? To threaten him with an automatic weapon or a flamethrower?
Most of the time, I tried to talk my way out of it, give a few euros, and be done with it. Bearing a gun would probably only increase the chance of being badly injured and lead to a growth of violence.

The issue here is that the US is an apparently unsecure country that has to deal with extraordinary levels of violence, not that guns is the best way to defend yourself. I seriously don't think my right to defend myself is not respected because I can't shot people.


Well, my observations are that I never needed and probably will never need a gun. Then we're talking about the US, so my opinion on that matter is worthless.

I'm confident in saying that ~100% of the Americans posting here feel as safe on our streets as you do on yours. You can support the right to self defense without being afraid for your life, just as you can support drug legalization even if you don't take drugs.

[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.

[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.

[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.