Gun control, the constitution and you, let's keep it civil.

[Asysin2leads]

The point I'm trying to make is that in a lot of cases the thing that defends people from corrupt governments is the federal government. The federal government ended slavery. They put Al Capone in jail when Chicago and Illinois couldn't, or rather wouldn't. Its not the federal government scooping up American citizens and throwing them in jail because they look brown, that's Joe Arpaio. The federal government tries to stop things like that. Read up on the New Orleans Police Department. Would you want them being in charge without the DOJ stepping in? What about the financial sector? What happened when the SEC blinked briefly back in the early 00's? Do you have any idea what Wall Street bankers would do to you, your family, and perhaps your sister if the federal government wasn't watching them like a hawk?

I don't want to come off like I'm championing the feds, who believe me, have their share of cock ups. But I just want to clue you in on something I've learned. The people who complain about the federal government are usually these big fishes in their little ponds of their local areas, who want to abuse their power and get away with it. Also, on its face value answering the question "Why do you need an assault rifle" with "so I can shoot government officials if I need to" does not particularly put me at ease or invoke my trust.

[DwayneEMTP]

But it was also the federal Govt, led by the FBI, that did those things at Waco, right?

And I'm not suggesting that a time to rise up and violently defend ourselves against any level of govt is here, or even near, but only that to wait to prepare until the s/s of such a need appear would make it a bit late, don't you think? As well, that the attempts by our govt to infringe on a basic constitutional right should be considered one of the signs and symptoms that should perk up people's ears and raise suspicions that things are going sideways.

A woman can not choose to abort her own fetus, a gay couple can not be recognized in the face of the law, we have kids in prison for lifetimes for selling/smoking weed when the much more destructive drug, alcohol, is sold freely, we have people being beaten to death by the police on video tape without the slightest punishment being delivered, the govt has begun passing laws to which they have exempted themselves, etc, etc, yet for some reason, when the govt suggests that I should relinquish my ability to defend myself against them, I'm seen as unreasonable when I choose not to trust in them to behave logically, and/or in my best interest?

What in the above situations is logical? Why should I suddenly believe that their handling of my right to bear arms will be more so?

It truly makes me batshit crazy when people say, "Well, yeah, Waco. That was a mess, but they were just a bunch of idiots anyway..." Waco wasn't a mess. It went on for WEEKS, every govt agency in the country had the time and ability to step in an stop it, even to the point of several of the FBI units walking away and abondoning their stations in protest of the actions taken, yet the country watched as those people were burned to death. Then we watched on national television as the FBI destroyed and altered evidence....yet nothing was done...I don't know why more people aren't horrified by that.

Now, many would have us all sit in front of our televisions and watch again as they attempt to disarm us, using the "no need for these weapons for hunting" argument....The second amendment isn't about hunting, it's about freedoms. Freedoms that we enjoy, and the freedoms that we need to feel obligated to violently defend should that need be forced upon us.

Again...I'm not Minuteman...I don't like guns much though I grew up as a hunter. I spend a lot of time out of the country so I have two handguns at home for defense purposes...mine is not an argument for a call to arms...but a search for some kind of realistic view of the situation. Should we have mandatory background checks and training in order to own firearms? Of course...can we? No...Why? Because there is much, much more evidence than should be necessary to show that the govt, at any level, has proved that they are not able to handle that type of responsibility morally and ethically...

[Asysin2leads]

But Dwayne, even the really dubious argument that "I need this much firepower to prevent government tyranny" is ineffectual. You would need a lot more than a Bushmaster to have any chance against a modern government. Things like Javelin missile launchers and anti-satellite missiles would need to be legalized. I've tried to picture in my mind what this doomsday scenario would look like, and really, it had better be over something than whether you can 5 or 10 rounds in your ammo magazine at any given time. What would be the breaking point? Suspension of habeas corpus? Already happened during the Civil War. How about government takeover of manufacturing? That happened too. World War II. How about a president elected in a highly contested election that had to be brought in front of the Supreme Court? That was the year 2000. Martial law? Hurricane Katrina. Well, technically that wasn't really martial law, but a state where laws were suspended and evacuations were ordered. I think that happened during Sandy, too.

I just want to know Dwayne, what is the eventuality that's being considered? How plausible is that scenario? And if that scenario unraveled, how long do you think your average armed citizen would last in that modern battlefield scenario? Do you harbor the illusion that they could hide in the woods like the Viet Cong or something?

[chbare]

Yes and no Dwayne. Government has had spectacular success and failure. In chbare's perfect world, we would all live in an anarcho-capitalistic society where the "government" would be exceptionally limited and private interactions between people would be the rule with the principles of liberty, individual sovereignty and the non-aggression axiom would be the standard operating procedure.

However, that is not the case and I have to admit, I am not sure what is really best for me on most days let alone what is best for everybody else. I do know that the founding fathers put in the ability to amend the constitution and the supreme court has the ability to interpret the constitution. Therefore, what we consider fundamental "rights" can and have changed as our society evolves. At the end of the day I think a majority of people want something done with the gun issue, but what should be done is the $60,000 question.

I think what a woman wants to do with her body is a medical decision between her and her physician. I think consenting adults regardless of their gender or gender identification should be able to enter into pretty much whatever living arrangement they want (including marriage). I also believe that the criminalisation of drugs has been a failed, harmful policy.

But Dwayne, even the really dubious argument that "I need this much firepower to prevent government tyranny" is ineffectual. You would need a lot more than a Bushmaster to have any chance against a modern government. Things like Javelin missile launchers and anti-satellite missiles would need to be legalized. I've tried to picture in my mind what this doomsday scenario would look like, and really, it had better be over something than whether you can 5 or 10 rounds in your ammo magazine at any given time. What would be the breaking point? Suspension of habeas corpus? Already happened during the Civil War. How about government takeover of manufacturing? That happened too. World War II. How about a president elected in a highly contested election that had to be brought in front of the Supreme Court? That was the year 2000. Martial law? Hurricane Katrina. Well, technically that wasn't really martial law, but a state where laws were suspended and evacuations were ordered. I think that happened during Sandy, too.

I just want to know Dwayne, what is the eventuality that's being considered? How plausible is that scenario? And if that scenario unraveled, how long do you think your average armed citizen would last in that modern battlefield scenario? Do you harbor the illusion that they could hide in the woods like the Viet Cong or something?

I saw relatively ill equipped people in Afghanistan best the modern military organisations of NATO all day long.

Edited January 14, 2013 by chbare

[Asysin2leads]

Maybe those brave men who go play paintball on the weekends could tolerate living in caves for a little while, chbare. But as soon as the power gets shut off and they lose wi-fi, they'll find their popular support among their constiuents dropping rather quickly.

I'm still waiting to hear how these scenarios would play out. The last time there was a show down with the feds was probably Little Rock, Arkansas. The National Guard was federalized and that was the end of the story. I assure you the civil rights movement was far more divisive then the current debate on firearms, and all that came out of that showdown was a General having to ask a governor politely to step aside.

You had the Freemen. They lost. You had those F.E.A.R. guys. They lost. You had all those fun leftist groups back in the 60's and 70's. They either lost or became yuppies. No grassroots or separatist effort in the history of the United States has been able to resist the federal government by force to anything even close to an appreciable level outside of the Civil War, which was actually kind of a blow out. The only problem was that the modernized weapons caused a staggering amount of casualties. You can stockpile .223 ammo and make all the venison jerky you want. The Army Rangers have more rounds, better training, and probably more jerky, too. Its a delusion.

[chbare]

I didn't see people living in caves. Not that I have any notion to involve myself in such activity, but it has been shown time and time again that an insurgency can be effective even when faced with a well equipped and well trained military. I worked with many "regular" folks who were part of the Mujahideen. In fact our cook was one such person, who basically, as a peasant, took up arms against a superior military and we all know how that turned out.

[chbare]

However, I have to say that fantasies about fighting a theoretical future government probably should not get in the way of sensible policies. Yet again, what constitutes sensible policy continue to be the biggest hurdle IMHO.

[cscboulder11]

Late to the party, but this has gotten very interesting. I'm of the opinion that if a person desires a gun for self-defense, they don't need anything bigger than a handgun (and certainly not a .44 Magnum). Hunting is a bit trickier. I understand that some people depend on hunting for food ( http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=subsistence.main ) so rifles are the best choice, but there should be a limit to the power of the rifles available for use. Since I'm not all that familiar with rifles, I can't say where the limit should be. Shotguns are even trickier. They're used for both hunting and in combat, so it's hard to say what should be available to civilians. I do believe that any automatic shotguns should not be for sale to the public though. To me, those are combat shotguns only.

Required gun safety classes, proof of purchase of a strongbox, and background checks should all help for safer ownership. That being said, I don't think there's anything that will keep guns, knives, and other dangerous objects out of the hands of people who have mental health issues due to two things; the 'black' market of guns being sold on the street, and the bigger factor, carelessness on the owner's part.

Now, I know that all of the restrictions I said above won't be passed for a very long time, if ever, so I'll be more realistic. All assault weapons and anything used by the military should be banned. Since I know the definition was questioned earlier, I'll list my criteria of what makes an assault weapon:

-Selective firing

-Magazine of 20 rounds or larger

-Used by the military

-Primary purpose is to kill people (handguns excluded)

-Able to take modifications, such as a laser, under barrel shotgun, or grenade launcher

If it meets 4 of 5 of the above, it's generally considered an assault rife by me.

To me, there's no reason why the average Joe needs an AR-15 (the civilian, semi-automatic equal of the M-16 in use by the military). If you need home defense, a handgun should be enough. If you need to go hunting, use a rifle/shotgun. There's no need for anything else to be used by the public.

[DwayneEMTP]

Hey all...Sorry, only have a little time with internet, not nearly enough to respond as everyone deserves and won't be able to before it's time for me to fly home likely...

I don't believe that all the guns in the world would allow me to defend myself from an out of control govt, yet I also don't see where saying, "screw it, I can't have enough guns, so I might as well not have any." The spirit in the gun ownerships is the same I think.

Maybe my biggest argument is that once again we're going to try and demonize certain weapons instead of identifying and mitigating the pathologies in our society that are truly causing the issues.

We've demonized drugs and put a ton of people into prison for them, without creating any type of measureable gain. Demonized sex, yet kids are getting pregnant younger and younger, demonized prostitution, yet it thrives and is often visited by those making the laws against it.

Now we want to demonize a class of weapons despite 99.999% of those weapons being used in a law abiding manner, simply so that we can allow a ton of people in the country to feel that something productive is being done when once again we're just pretending...

I'm really tired of watching society apply bandaids to cancers....And even more tired of watching the celebrating afterwards of those saying, "See! We can't see the cancer any more! It's the same as being cured!"

Blah...

[Happiness]

Here is an interesting artical of stats/ Take it for what it is I guess but I did fine the last bar graph interesting....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state