A Model for Effective Gun Control: The CHL

[mavs>spurs]

Gun nuts acting as if they'd ever rebel against the government.

All it takes is the government saying "Terrorists!" or "Messicans!" and "Jigaboos!" and every Bazooka Joe is willing to lay their life for the cause.

lol government getting their asses waxed by a bunch of towel heads with these very same "assault weapons"

[CosmicCowboy]

The reason why it's false is because a lock can in many cases deter a would be thief. Therefore, it's prudent to lock up for safety.

The doctrinal basis for the right to bear arms is the citizens right to overthrow tyrannical governments. The cons ution was heavily informed by a severe mistrust of central government. And having said arms made sense back when the worst thing the state could point at you was a musket or a cannon. Now, that basis falls apart when the state has things like tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets. There is absolutely no point in saying we need guns to defend ourselves in a fight that is comically mismatched. What's the point to having a gun when the government could kill you just by pushing a button?

Obviously this situation is pretty far out there. But it does show that the cons utional/legal basis for having guns is really weak. So weak that prudential concerns like stopping school shootings should outweigh outdated constructional rights.

The theory that having tanks, fighter jets, and helicopters makes you an automatic winner has pretty well been destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have to control the ground and occupied sentiment to really win. When every citizen is armed and dangerous they can't ever control the ground. I'm not advocating violence or anti-establishment revolution but I do like the check/balance provided by private gun ownership. Seriously, if they activated the full might and power of the US government to invade and conquer Houston (as an example) do you really think they could do it?

[vy65]

And a the prospect of facing a gun can deter the same thief.

It's not meant to deter thieves. See below.

That's a bit silly. There's no right to overthrow a government. Who's going to enforce that right? There's a call to do so, but a right? When you have no authority having jurisdiction over that right (the same government you're overthrowing would have to protect that "right", therefore making even having it pointless) you have no rights.
Worst thing? Ever faced either a musket or a cannon? Death is death. Those aren't Nerf toys. That was maximum force then, we have maximum force now, but the difference is that we do not have a balanced mediation ability. That's not a call to surrender your only defense. It's a call to increase it.

It's not silly at all. First, the time period in question was informed by a heavy mistrust for government. We just won a war against an oppressive and tyrannical king. The articles of confederation weakened the central government to the point that it could not function. The cons ution passed only because the bill of rights were thrown in as a final safeguard against the federal government. There was a severe distrust of central authority and that distrust heavily colors the amendments themselves.

Second, the basis for do ents like the cons ution and the Declaration of Independence was the people's right to defend themselves from government. The 1st prevents the government from interfering with your religious exercise, the 4th prevents it from searching you unreasonably, and the 8th prevents it from torturing (the fact that we needed an amendment saying no torture should give you a good idea of people's opinion of the government at that time). A necessary corollary to that basis is the people's inalienable right to overthrow oppressive government.

Third, the amendments text refers to state militias. Those militias were not considered part of the government and in fact were somewhat hostile to the federal government. Taken together, the amendment's design was to safeguard the people from a central government on a rampage.

I've never faced a musket. But that's wholly irrelevant. Do you think there is a greater asymmetry in force in facing a cannon or an apache helicopter? Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument is a call for the cons utional right to bear an f16 fighter jet, which is just a bad idea.

You assume the right is based solely on the US government. How about local governments, or even a hyper aggressive HOA?

States and HOAs are non-federal en ies and outside the scope of this debate.

Sorry, you cannot obfuscate the situation by wrongly equating "Cons utional" with "legal". The Bill of Rights are not exhaustive, but there is a US Supreme Court in place to interpret the Bill of Rights as they pertain to new laws or cases. Though no freedom is absolute (you can lose the right to vote), the USSC has repeatedly rules that the 2nd Amendment grants the individual the right to keep and bear arms. It does not concern itself with why we may need guns just as it does not concern itself with why we may need freedom of speech. These rights are individual rights, not up for majority speculation.

I'm not obfuscating anything. The cons ution is a legal do ent enshrining rights. I agree that SCOTUS interprets those rights, but that also means, necessarily, that rights and laws change with the courts composition.

As for rulings like er, those decisions are far from set in stone. It's entirely conceivable that later courts will interpret the second amendment to mean something entirely different. In fact, several justices disagree with Scalia's interpretation and view the amendment as a protection for state militias, not individual defense.

Finally, I disagree that the amendment doesn't address why we need guns. The text refers to state militias. You can't just read that language out. The amendment doesn't refer to individuals. It doesn't refer to self protection. It says militias. Accordingly, the right protected is not for guns as such. Rather, it's a protection for the ins ution of the militia. Expanding gun rights beyond that context impermissible stretches the amendments scope as it is not textually supported.

[vy65]

There were senseless killings then as well. Equal force is a right, it doesn't have to be an ability.

You are the one who attempted to state what 1787 was like.

Why does the 1st Amendment or the 4th not also get the same scrutiny?

But there is no equal force today. People don't have the right to bear tanks.

What I stated was a common sense understanding of the arms people had in 1787. Is my assessment wrong.

The 1st and 4th get different treatment because of how they're worded. Those amendments refer to personal or individual rights. There's no mention of the militia. The second amendment on the other hand does refer to the militia. The right protected is not individual -- it's the right of the militia. Hence the different treatment.

[vy65]

The theory that having tanks, fighter jets, and helicopters makes you an automatic winner has pretty well been destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have to control the ground and occupied sentiment to really win. When every citizen is armed and dangerous they can't ever control the ground. I'm not advocating violence or anti-establishment revolution but I do like the check/balance provided by private gun ownership. Seriously, if they activated the full might and power of the US government to invade and conquer Houston (as an example) do you really think they could do it?

If the government was really crazed and wanted to occupy Htown, they'd probably level it with missles. No arsenal of weapons is going to stop that.

[mavs>spurs]

If the government was really crazed and wanted to occupy Htown, they'd probably level it with missles. No arsenal of weapons is going to stop that.

the same reason assad hasn't done it in syria, there are international laws and russia/china would use it as a pretext to finally take us down. the world wouldn't stand by while a government mass murdered their own people, just like they stood up to hitler reluctantly. they'd lose all legitimacy if they aerial bombed our cities..and lose all their support and most of the military would defect (like syria and other countries) to fight them.

[mavs>spurs]

also, they'd lose all of their supporters and destroy their infrastructure/kill slaves which are making them all the money and doing all the work to keep the machine running. they aren't as stupid as you, "vinceyoung65"

[baseline bum]

The theory that having tanks, fighter jets, and helicopters makes you an automatic winner has pretty well been destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan. You have to control the ground and occupied sentiment to really win. When every citizen is armed and dangerous they can't ever control the ground. I'm not advocating violence or anti-establishment revolution but I do like the check/balance provided by private gun ownership. Seriously, if they activated the full might and power of the US government to invade and conquer Houston (as an example) do you really think they could do it?

Agreed. The only way the government could reasonably squash an armed uprising supported by the people is by carpet bombing neighborhoods, and I don't think those in the military would go for it. It's one thing for them to take down a few hundred people who had access to rifles, quite another to indiscrimiantly execute their own fellow citizens by the thousands. Of course, can't say I'd want a military dictatorship either, which is what would happen with a successful armed revolt by the people.

[vy65]

That's a bit silly. There's no right to overthrow a government.

Belief in the principle of revolution is deep in our traditions. The right of revolution is a part of the fabric of our ins utions.

Scales v. U.S., 367 U.S. 203 (1967).

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/...ip&sei-redir=1

[vy65]

also, they'd lose all of their supporters and destroy their infrastructure/kill slaves which are making them all the money and doing all the work to keep the machine running. they aren't as stupid as you, "vinceyoung65"

Lol foreskin
Lol rape clubs
Lol UTA
Lol Alex Jones
Lol calling anyone stupid

[mavs>spurs]

well thought out and intelligent rebuttal, bro.

lol our honorable servicemen bombing their friends and family

[vy65]

Lol comparing the US to Syria.

If you were paying attention, you'd know I think the scenario is far-fetched. That's why I don't think there's a cons utional basis for amassing a small arsenal.

Although, Isn't this scenario the sort of garbage Alex Jones pumps into your weak mind?

[Borat Sagyidev]

Scott tries to have a reasonable discussion and gets bukaked with stupid.

You guys aren´t beating the govt in any conflict. You´re too stupid and too pussified to do anything about it, which is why the govt walks over everyone right now in the first place.

If the government wanted turn the middle east into a glass plate, they could. They just chose not to eliminate everyone and let the puppet democracies continue, it gives some legitimacy to the whole stealing oil campaign.

Guerilla war only works when you have an opponent willing to engage in it with comparable arms. Most of these arms are useless if the govt get serious by details I won´t get into. Just as physicists ruled WW2, they could again if needed.

[spursncowboys]

The more I hear the arguments, the more I am bunkering down and going farther towards no regulations.

What really bothers me is that this is the dems capitalizing on a tragedy! An assault weapon wasn't used. Unless the new talk is outlawing all weapons, this would have happened anyway. But before the tragedy, the government was already taking my freedom to defend myself by openly buying guns (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2640/text).

[spursncowboys]

Politically, this is going to make BHO a lame duck. No Dem-lite, or MSM can save him from this. We'll see in two years how H.R. Clinton will act. I think the Dems need to just be happy they snuck Obamacare through and try and keep that, while keeping their social programs funded (with no clue of how to fund it).

[TheSanityAnnex]

Scott, you've mentioned stricter control instead of an all out ban, here's what I have to say to more control, that. These "compromises" gun owners have made will never stop. They aren't compromises at all, they are methods used to slowly disarm our citizens. Do you want to live in a society where citizens have no way to protect themselves
?

also, anyone got any 20 round pmags they want to sell me for a reasonable price? A $12 may is now going for $50.

[Shastafarian]

Scott, you've mentioned stricter control instead of an all out ban, here's what I have to say to more control, that. These "compromises" gun owners have made will never stop. They aren't compromises at all, they are methods used to slowly disarm our citizens. Do you want to live in a society where citizens have no way to protect themselves
?

also, anyone got any 20 round pmags they want to sell me for a reasonable price? A $12 may is now going for $50.

What compromises have you made?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Got an idea, let's make the theft of assault weapons illegal.

[spursncowboys]

lol government getting their asses waxed by a bunch of towel heads with these very same "assault weapons"

you're such a pussy

[Borat Sagyidev]

The more I hear the arguments, the more I am bunkering down and going farther towards no regulations.

What really bothers me is that this is the dems capitalizing on a tragedy! An assault weapon wasn't used. Unless the new talk is outlawing all weapons, this would have happened anyway. But before the tragedy, the government was already taking my freedom to defend myself by openly buying guns (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr2640/text).

Scott, you've mentioned stricter control instead of an all out ban, here's what I have to say to more control, that. These "compromises" gun owners have made will never stop. They aren't compromises at all, they are methods used to slowly disarm our citizens. Do you want to live in a society where citizens have no way to protect themselves
?

also, anyone got any 20 round pmags they want to sell me for a reasonable price? A $12 may is now going for $50.

Defending one self doesn´t mean having the ability to shoot up a luby´s full of patrons you ing lunatics. Any all out ban would repeal the 2nd amendment and that´s not happening.

You aren´t defending yourself against the government with these weapons no matter the case.

Like I said, Scott posts a reasonable discussion and gets bukkaked with stupid.

[spursncowboys]

Scott, you've mentioned stricter control instead of an all out ban, here's what I have to say to more control, that. These "compromises" gun owners have made will never stop. They aren't compromises at all, they are methods used to slowly disarm our citizens. Do you want to live in a society where citizens have no way to protect themselves
?

also, anyone got any 20 round pmags they want to sell me for a reasonable price? A $12 may is now going for $50.

pmags suck. I always break the plastic on top that holds the round.

[spursncowboys]

It's funny how everyone made fun of Pro-Gun people when they would say that BHO was coming after their guns. Good call G. Beck.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I am limited to 10 round magazines, had to install a "bullet button" on my mag release, and had to permanently attach my muzzle device to get my 14.5 barrel over 16".

now, these are just a nuisance to me, but a compromise nonetheless. Now explain to me exactly how these regulations have made my gun any safer. This is what is so annoying to me, the gov just doesn't get it. It's not the guns, it's the ed up people in our country.

Anyone here remember learning about that barn massacre that took the lives of 30+ people back in the early 1900's? Pretty sure semi autos weren't around back then. People are crazy, and crazy people will continue to do crazy .

[Borat Sagyidev]

What compromises have you made?

[Borat Sagyidev]

I am limited to 10 round magazines, had to install a "bullet button" on my mag release, and had to permanently attach my muzzle device to get my 14.5 barrel over 16".

now, these are just a nuisance to me, but a compromise nonetheless. Now explain to me exactly how these regulations have made my gun any safer. This is what is so annoying to me, the gov just doesn't get it. It's not the guns, it's the ed up people in our country.

Anyone here remember learning about that barn massacre that took the lives of 30+ people back in the early 1900's? Pretty sure semi autos weren't around back then. People are crazy, and crazy people will continue to do crazy .

You have to have some skill to do that. I can shoot 30 rounds in a minute with .38 special revolver, that was my grandfathers aircrew issue from WW2 but that is because I was trained to do it over years. The average person cant do that nearly as easy with a semi auto.