Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:11 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigene View Post
Where is it in the constitution where the main purpose of militias were to suppress insurrections? My previous education indicates that the purpose was for the people to be able to preserve their liberties.
Why not just read the whole thing? It isn't that long.

Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16:
Quote:
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
  #52  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:12 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Serious question: If the government does go door-to-door confiscating guns, would gun owners really open fire on federal agents?
There are a lot of people posting that kind of brave stuff anonymously on the Internet.
  #53  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:15 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Serious question: If the government does go door-to-door confiscating guns, would gun owners really open fire on federal agents?

Is it worth it to lose one's life for the sake of the guns that one has in one's closet or basement, etc.? Especially a gun battle that one has no chance of winning? (I'm assuming that federal agents wouldn't be going alone by themselves, but rather, in a fairly large unit at a time, heavily outnumbering the gun owners at any particular residence.)
You're thinking "door to door" like in an urban neighborhood block or something. The reality is more like the government has to go to thousands of 10-acre parcels of land in the middle of nowhere to take guns away from guys armed with AR-15s and enough ammunition to last into the fourth millennium....I'd say they're in for a challenge, to put it mildly.
  #54  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:17 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Why not just read the whole thing? It isn't that long.

Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16:
So Congress decides whether militias should be called up to defend against insurrection and/or defend the country, and it is also the role of Congress when it comes "to organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"? Sounds fair to me.
Which militias in the U.S. have been organized and or used as it says above?
  #55  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:19 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 15,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Serious question: If the government does go door-to-door confiscating guns, would gun owners really open fire on federal agents?
Not enough to make a difference. It's a dangerous sounding proposition, but it still comes down to: could the average person bring himself to shoot a single burgling intruder in the first place? I'd say most couldn't make themselves do it. Throw in a badge & uniform, a front door knock, a search warrant, and a team--no, Joe gun owner isn't going to shoot anybody. There will be lots of bravado and "If they come around here..." and that will evaporate just as soon as They actually come around. Now, that might change if the feds have been regularly getting up to shenanigans--kicking in doors, warrantless searches, midnight raids, disappearing neighbors, families, and neighborhoods, using lethal force to violently suppress otherwise peaceful protests, etc. But in a case where 2nd is legitimately repealed with public support, that dark of an atmosphere doesn't seem likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
The reality is more like the government has to go to thousands of 10-acre parcels of land in the middle of nowhere to take guns away from guys armed with AR-15s and enough ammunition to last into the fourth millennium....I'd say they're in for a challenge, to put it mildly.
And the irony is, those yahoos aren't the ones killing people, and they're certainly not going to be stocking the black market. Those guns have a purpose, and it ain't so they can become commodities. .

Last edited by Inigo Montoya; 01-10-2019 at 03:22 PM.
  #56  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:22 PM
Velocity Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 13,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
You're thinking "door to door" like in an urban neighborhood block or something. The reality is more like the government has to go to thousands of 10-acre parcels of land in the middle of nowhere to take guns away from guys armed with AR-15s and enough ammunition to last into the fourth millennium....I'd say they're in for a challenge, to put it mildly.
Yes but what's in it for the gun owners?

A) Firing at the federal agents leads to only two possible outcomes: Immediate death, or a life as a fugitive.

B) Whereas giving up your guns just means you won't have them, and you'll likely get financial compensation. Not as much as one would like, but better than nothing.


Seems like B wins out over A in every scenario.
  #57  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:22 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Which militias in the U.S. have been organized and or used as it says above?
The state militias were made the National Guard via the Militia Act of 1903. So, them.
  #58  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:25 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The state militias were made the National Guard via the Militia Act of 1903. So, them.
Sounds good to me. Thanks.
  #59  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:27 PM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 15,110
But really, collecting the guns is a fool's errand--it would take too many agents and too much coordination & monitoring to make sure stuff's not getting hidden, stashed, moved around to already "cleaned" areas, etc. Just ban the sale of ammunition and the guns turn into mere curiosities in fairly short order.
__________________
Y'all are just too damned serious. Lighten up.
  #60  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:32 PM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Serious question: If the government does go door-to-door confiscating guns, would gun owners really open fire on federal agents?

Is it worth it to lose one's life for the sake of the guns that one has in one's closet or basement, etc.? Especially a gun battle that one has no chance of winning? (I'm assuming that federal agents wouldn't be going alone by themselves, but rather, in a fairly large unit at a time, heavily outnumbering the gun owners at any particular residence.)
Maybe not the first time, but after seeing these heavily armed units going home to home, ransacking the houses, on their T.V. night after night (this would take YEARS), I could see some people starting to. And then I could see those people getting blown away by these heavily armed units, on their T.V. night after night, and then I can see a bunch of people (it wouldn't take a whole lot) becoming radicalized by these horrible optics to become Tim McVeigh-level terrorists. And those people won't be using puny firearms to make their statements.
  #61  
Old 01-10-2019, 03:39 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Maybe not the first time, but after seeing these heavily armed units going home to home, ransacking the houses, on their T.V. night after night (this would take YEARS), I could see some people starting to. And then I could see those people getting blown away by these heavily armed units, on their T.V. night after night, and then I can see a bunch of people (it wouldn't take a whole lot) becoming radicalized by these horrible optics to become Tim McVeigh-level terrorists. And those people won't be using puny firearms to make their statements.
So if both sides act like one-dimensional characters in a William Johnstone militiaporn paperback, the revolution will happen?
  #62  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:00 PM
EscAlaMike EscAlaMike is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Serious question: If the government does go door-to-door confiscating guns, would gun owners really open fire on federal agents?

Is it worth it to lose one's life for the sake of the guns that one has in one's closet or basement, etc.? Especially a gun battle that one has no chance of winning? (I'm assuming that federal agents wouldn't be going alone by themselves, but rather, in a fairly large unit at a time, heavily outnumbering the gun owners at any particular residence.)
(Bolding mine)

That's a misconception. No one is willing to die for a gun.

It's the greater principles involved that one may be willing to die for.

The perception may be that if guns are outlawed in a society, that society has reached a threshold of tyranny or oppression that is intolerable, justifying lethal resistance.
  #63  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:27 PM
Urbanredneck Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6,904
In the meantime I'm finding it interesting that more Europeans are now buying guns.
  #64  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:27 PM
Lamoral Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Maybe not the first time, but after seeing these heavily armed units going home to home, ransacking the houses, on their T.V. night after night (this would take YEARS), I could see some people starting to.
I think it would take perhaps a week of media coverage and online communication, and then we'd see gun owners converging on individual farms and ranches in groups of 50 to 100, scattered all over the country, gathered for a standoff, waiting to see if the government is willing to call their bluffs. "The government" here means a bunch of young soldiers and/or law enforcement agents, many of whom come from the same cultural milieu that they are being deployed into to confiscate guns, so I'm guessing that in a lot of cases the government won't be willing to call their bluffs. Which is why I think the whole scheme would probably fail.

Last edited by Lamoral; 01-10-2019 at 04:28 PM.
  #65  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:45 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Serious question: If the government does go door-to-door confiscating guns, would gun owners really open fire on federal agents? ...
Serious answer: Yes, some of them would. The smarter ones will not wait until the SWAT team is literally on their porch and the APC parked on their front yard before acting. They'd be a bit more pre-emptive, which is why this sort of thing isn't usually discussed in polite company.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Yes but what's in it for the gun owners?

A) Firing at the federal agents leads to only two possible outcomes: Immediate death, or a life as a fugitive.

B) Whereas giving up your guns just means you won't have them, and you'll likely get financial compensation. Not as much as one would like, but better than nothing.


Seems like B wins out over A in every scenario.
Winston Churchill once said:

Quote:
If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
The "worse case" involves the asahi's of the world herding us into camps. The SWAT team on your porch is a "fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival" scenario. Better to fight them at a time and place of our choosing. Better still would be to not fight them (at least in the literal sense) at all and just vote Dems out of power.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 01-10-2019 at 04:47 PM.
  #66  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:49 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya View Post
But really, collecting the guns is a fool's errand--it would take too many agents and too much coordination & monitoring to make sure stuff's not getting hidden, stashed, moved around to already "cleaned" areas, etc. Just ban the sale of ammunition and the guns turn into mere curiosities in fairly short order.
You have no concept of how many rounds of ammunition are already in private hands, do you?
  #67  
Old 01-10-2019, 04:57 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
In reality, it would likely be a lot of law abiding types turning in all their guns, some chunk turning some in, but not all and some turning none in at all.
No. By definition all law-abiding people would turn in their guns if there was a law prohibiting guns. Anybody who kept a gun after that would no longer be law abiding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
And in that last group, I'd imagine that criminals would be disproportionately represented. Why WOULD a criminal turn their guns in? They're now armed better than most citizens, and have less to fear and more to intimidate with.
The same process that stops other crimes. After you enact the law, you enforce it. The illegal owning of guns would be stopped by the same means that we stop the illegal robbing of banks, the illegal sale of drugs, and the illegal committing of murder.

Sure, there are criminals who break all of these law. But that doesn't mean the laws are pointless.
  #68  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:49 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
No. By definition all law-abiding people would turn in their guns if there was a law prohibiting guns. Anybody who kept a gun after that would no longer be law abiding.
Currently law-abiding then. Substitute in "rule following" if you prefer. My point was that there's a lot of people who would turn them in because they were told to by the authorities, a lot that would "interpret" that law creatively, and a fair number who would flat out ignore it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The same process that stops other crimes. After you enact the law, you enforce it. The illegal owning of guns would be stopped by the same means that we stop the illegal robbing of banks, the illegal sale of drugs, and the illegal committing of murder.

Sure, there are criminals who break all of these law. But that doesn't mean the laws are pointless.
You're just adding one more law that people will ignore; it would probably be a lot like Prohibition- some people would quit drinking, some would cut back, and some would brew their own beer, distill their own bathtub gin, and smuggle liquor from all parts of the globe, despite there having been laws against all those things.

And like I said earlier (math corrected), collecting 99% of guns would still leave 3.5 million hanging around, all in the hands of non-law abiding sorts, and that number would include pretty much EVERY gun possessed by criminals right now.

So I'm not sure what that would accomplish exactly; it probably wouldn't mitigate gun crime all that much. It didn't enact that much change in the UK

http://theconversation.com/dunblane-...aces-now-55896
  #69  
Old 01-10-2019, 05:58 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Again, I'm surely projecting, as as non-gun-owner, but if I had Glocks and Berettas in my basement and federal ATF agents come knocking and say, "We are acting under lawful orders, surely you've heard of recent Law XXX that calls for the confiscation of firearms, now here we are to offer you fair court-ordained compensatory value of $ _____ for your guns, now please produce them"
The odds of the ATF offering $ as compensation for confiscated weapons is about as low as the odds of such confiscation ever occurring in this country.

I once read an article in a survivalist magazine about how gun owners should prepare for eventual confiscation by hiding extra weapons (i.e. burying them in such a way as to preserve them from rusting, thwart ground-penetrating radar* etc.).

A fly in the ointment (aside from not having weaponry ready to hand) is finding the buried guns later on. There was one such owner mentioned in the article who actually had lost track of one or more buried guns but was optimistic about finding them eventually. I guess you'd need a map with detailed coordinates - and of course you'd have to hide that securely as well...

*pro tip from the article - bury your guns in a junkyard or auto graveyard, since all that metal theoretically will make it impossible to detect a few guns. Still, you'd have to be confident the junkyard will still be there years later when you need your guns, instead of being turned into a Superfund reclamation site or the site of a giant Hindu temple.
  #70  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:03 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Mine were on the boat when it sank. Is the thought that agents of the government are going to rip up the floorboards, sort through attic storage, etc to prove there are no munitions hidden?
For the people who believe this, the answer is yes. They also seem to have no qualms about bragging online that they have them, not seeming to realize that these posts can be easily traced, and if you do that on social media, when the time comes, I guess they'll just have to get on their knees to pray and kiss their asses goodbye.

IMNSHO, those people are precisely the ones who shouldn't have guns, but what can we do if they get them on the black market, which some of them readily admit they do? (I post on another board that has a very small but extremely vocal minority who do and believe this, and they also do things like homeschool their kids so authorities don't know about it.)

Last edited by nearwildheaven; 01-10-2019 at 06:04 PM.
  #71  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:05 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
As far as I can tell, for some folks, their guns are like their security blanket, except to the Nth degree. Take them away, and they won't just cry, they won't be able to function at all. Not every gun owner is like this, quite obviously, but in my experience, some are. Their guns are their life. They work to have money to buy guns. They structure their lives around recreational shooting and around fantasies of shooting bad guys. To these folks, even the slightest possibility of "taking their guns away" is a threat to their entire world.
Ammosexuals are an interesting breed, and not in a good way.
  #72  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:11 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
"The people in this country that have guns"?
If a law is passed restricting gun access to those of the Muslim religion will patriots rise up with their weapons to defend them?
The kind of people I think you're talking about probably would.

Here's another angle: There are some areas, small towns in the Deep South of course, where gun ownership was made mandatory, "and crime went way down." Really? Really? REALLY?!?!? How would that be enforced, and what would the penalties be for violators?
  #73  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:11 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno Bear_Nenno is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 8,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves
It's called enforcing a law that had been democratically passed for the benefit of We the People. Why would you fear it? Perhaps it's something else that you fear.
You seriously wouldn't be concerned with a repeal of the 1st of the 4th amendment? You would just accept that it was "democratically passed for the benefit of We the People"? No fear or concern for what the government might be capable of if somehow they managed to ban free speech or ban due process?
  #74  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:15 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno Bear_Nenno is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 8,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
We live in that country now and have been since 1789. There has always been legal means to amend or repeal any portion of the Constitution.
Yes, and after more than 200 hundred years, we haven't touched the Bill of Rights. While there remains a legal process for taking those rights away, they've endured over 200 years. You would not be concerned if those rights--any of them--were repealed?
  #75  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:16 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
There are a lot of people posting that kind of brave stuff anonymously on the Internet.
They're also the same kind of people who go on social media and say that they have concealed carry, in case someone else pulls out a gun and starts shooting. My guess is that were this ever to actually happen to them, they'd run away as fast as possible while simultaneously wetting their pants. I actually told this to a former co-worker on Facebook.

A man at the Tucson shooting who had a legal concealed carry almost shot the wrong person because he saw a man holding a rifle, and then decided not to because he wasn't 100% certain that man was the shooter. And he wasn't; he had wrestled the shooter to the ground and grabbed his rifle.

And then there are people who die by "friendly fire." (What a bullshit term!) The officer who died in the nightclub shooting lost his life this way, which is proof that bullets don't know who you are.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...y-fire-n945321
  #76  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:22 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
The same process that stops other crimes. After you enact the law, you enforce it. The illegal owning of guns would be stopped by the same means that we stop the illegal robbing of banks, the illegal sale of drugs, and the illegal committing of murder.

Sure, there are criminals who break all of these law. But that doesn't mean the laws are pointless.
Lots of people are saying this about gun-free zones, but the reason they exist is this: If you DO have one, and get caught one way or another, the penalties are higher. That's it.
  #77  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:29 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno Bear_Nenno is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 8,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves
It's called enforcing a law that had been democratically passed for the benefit of We the People. Why would you fear it? Perhaps it's something else that you fear.
Suppose Trump's base voters came out in force over the next couple elections, empowering some of the most conservative zealots this country has to offer. Then, they decide that they're so fed up with "fake news" that they're going to go ahead and repeal freedom of the press. Would you be comfortable with that?
  #78  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:40 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
So I'm not sure what that would accomplish exactly; it probably wouldn't mitigate gun crime all that much.
I'm not saying the heavy gun control laws would end all gun-related crimes. But let's face it, the Second Amendment hasn't ended all gun-related crimes either, has it? If gun ownership was a perfect solution, then everyone would own a gun and no crimes would ever occur because everyone would have the means to defend themselves. That's obviously not the reality.

So private gun ownership is one attempt to prevent crimes which doesn't provide a perfect solution to the problem. And gun control laws are a different attempt to prevent crimes which wouldn't provide a perfect solution to the problem. Now that we've acknowledged that neither approach is perfect, can we compare them and see which one produces better results?
  #79  
Old 01-10-2019, 06:51 PM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 79,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Yes, and after more than 200 hundred years, we haven't touched the Bill of Rights. While there remains a legal process for taking those rights away, they've endured over 200 years. You would not be concerned if those rights--any of them--were repealed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Suppose Trump's base voters came out in force over the next couple elections, empowering some of the most conservative zealots this country has to offer. Then, they decide that they're so fed up with "fake news" that they're going to go ahead and repeal freedom of the press. Would you be comfortable with that?
I think it's a circular argument to say that the rights in the Bill of Rights are important because they're in the Bill of Rights.

No, I wouldn't be happy if freedom of speech and freedom of the press were abolished. But that's because I think those particular rights are important in and of themselves not because they're in the Bill of Rights. I don't attach the same importance to my constitutional right to have a jury trial in lawsuits involving property worth more than twenty dollars.
  #80  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:02 PM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,212
First of all, to actually repeal the Second Amendment there would have to be an enormous shift in American society, with gun owners reduced to a negligible minority and the overwhelming supermajority of Americans being willing to actively support the measure. This isn't as implausible as relegalizing slavery but it sort of begs the question: if that many people wanted to ban guns and that few people were left who didn't, guns would be banned.

What gun owners fear is that a clique of strident social engineers will seek to impose their vision of what American society ought to be on the public: by spurring a moral panic against guns, by demonizing gun owners, by a steady trickle of precedents that eat away at legal protection for owning guns. A formal constitutional amendment would be honest and forthright by comparison. If what was clearly at the time intended to be a protection for a fundamental right can be interpreted out of existence, what about the rest of the Bill of Rights?

So why would gun owners hate to see guns banned? For starters self-defense is a legitimate concern. The muzzle of a gun is a sight that deters all but the most violent and/or insane from attacking the gun's holder. Even if you postulate "but what if the bad people have guns too" firearms still favor the outnumbered, who push come to shove can use them to put a higher price on their lives. Robbers, rapists and thugs want easy victims, not a fight for their lives or a murder conviction if they do use deadly force and are then caught.

As for the tyrannical government argument: history is not in the least encouraging about what happens when the common people are forbidden to possess weapons and their possession and use restricted to an elite class of government enforcers. The people with weapons have inevitably told those without "shut up and do what you're told". Has modern liberal society somehow transcended this? We'd like to think so, but a lot of the world isn't modern or liberal. If nothing else, the private possession of guns keeps the government (less un-)honest. Banning guns might not mean a tyranny but a tyranny would have to ban guns; and no government that would have to ban guns just to remain in power could be called a democracy. Think of guns as the canary in the coal mine. The canary keepers are leery of being told "Oh we don't need those any more; our modern ventilation systems will never allow a dangerous gas buildup".
  #81  
Old 01-10-2019, 07:04 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 11,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Suppose Trump's base voters came out in force over the next couple elections, empowering some of the most conservative zealots this country has to offer. Then, they decide that they're so fed up with "fake news" that they're going to go ahead and repeal freedom of the press. Would you be comfortable with that?
Like it or not, we're on that slippery slope right now.
  #82  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:12 PM
kayT kayT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,978
I wish everyone would go read Lumpy's post #80 a few times. Well done, Lumpy.
  #83  
Old 01-10-2019, 09:21 PM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno Bear_Nenno is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 8,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think it's a circular argument to say that the rights in the Bill of Rights are important because they're in the Bill of Rights.

No, I wouldn't be happy if freedom of speech and freedom of the press were abolished. But that's because I think those particular rights are important in and of themselves not because they're in the Bill of Rights. I don't attach the same importance to my constitutional right to have a jury trial in lawsuits involving property worth more than twenty dollars.
Fair enough. But understand that people need to realize other people do. And this thread is asking about those other people. The OP's question asking, "What scary thing might happen after all the government thugs kick in doors and take everyone's guns following a gun ban?" That's the scary thing people fear. It's not necessarily what happens next. That's the terminal event; the sum of all fears. Every piece of gun legislation, they fear, puts us one step closer to the day when guns are banned and the government comes to get them. It would be more productive to discuss why they fear that. The question should be, "Why are people so scared of the government stripping away their constitutional rights, entering their home without permission, and taking their legally purchased property?" And in my opinion, it's because it's a scary thought to live in a country that could so easily vote away a major right, and a major part of their identity, and then send in armed government thugs to enter their homes to take their property.
I dunno, the OP just struck me as strange to frame a question that basically says, "Suppose the country becomes a dystopian police state. What is the feared result of that?" The country becoming a dystopian police state is the feared result.
  #84  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:59 PM
kopek kopek is offline
born to be shunned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 13,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
"The people in this country that have guns"?
If a law is passed restricting gun access to those of the Muslim religion will patriots rise up with their weapons to defend them?
Oh Hell yeah. The NRA and its core membership is like the ACLU (when they fought for the Nazis who wanted the march near Chicago) in that they will fight tooth and nail for people they may not like very much whenever it involves what they see as "gun rights". You can love them, hate them, or be totally meh about the whole thing; but they are consistent like that.
  #85  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:28 AM
thelurkinghorror thelurkinghorror is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Venial Sin City
Posts: 13,457
If you went through the regular process to abolish any amendment, then you'd assume at that point that most people would be okay with it.

If you waved a magic wand and abolished say, the 2nd amendment, then you'd find that a good number of states would immediately make their own 2nd amendment. Many of them actually already have that language in their constitutions (40 of them, apparently), though it remains to be seen what force they actually have. In other words, a repeal wouldn't change a whole lot, but fighting for it is against the political will of most people. The point is that none of the amendments actually grant rights, they only recognize what is believed to be a natural right, and redistrict infringements of said rights.
  #86  
Old 01-11-2019, 03:48 AM
Spoons Spoons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 15,461
I haven't read the entirety of the thread, but I have to ask: why does abolition of the Second Amendment mean that guns are banned?

I live in a country where guns are allowed, but are not a constitutional right. Nobody in a uniform has shown up on my doorstep demanding to see papers, or demand to see storage. Sure, they could (well, no, not without a search warrant), but they aren't. I don't have the right to possess firearms, but I am allowed the privilege to own them. And I have, for years, as a responsible gun owner.

Abolishing the right to gun ownership is not the same as a gun ban. You can still own guns--you just have to do so within parameters laid down by the government you elected, and if your breach those parameters--wll, bye-bye gun privileges.

Last edited by Spoons; 01-11-2019 at 03:52 AM.
  #87  
Old 01-11-2019, 07:00 AM
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
Inigo Montoya Inigo Montoya is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: On the level, if inclined
Posts: 15,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You have no concept of how many rounds of ammunition are already in private hands, do you?
I do, but there's a lot being sold every day as well. I'm not a proponent, but I'm thinking the easiest way to eliminate firearms is to 1) stop selling them, and 2) stop feeding them. The desired result would not be immediate, but it would come gradually, which is a necessary pace when you're looking for a peaceful cultural change. But it won't happen because no single politician would have a result to crow about in their reelection campaign--there's no money in stepping in the right direction and letting the next generation reap what you've sown.

But we're turning this into a gun control thread.
  #88  
Old 01-11-2019, 07:59 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
You seriously wouldn't be concerned with a repeal of the 1st of the 4th amendment? You would just accept that it was "democratically passed for the benefit of We the People"? No fear or concern for what the government might be capable of if somehow they managed to ban free speech or ban due process?
Please tell us what you think it takes to amend the Constitution. You could read it and find out, if you're not sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
First of all, to actually repeal the Second Amendment there would have to be an enormous shift in American society, with gun owners reduced to a negligible minority and the overwhelming supermajority of Americans being willing to actively support the measure.
Yes, and that's one of the ways we advance as a society.

Quote:
If what was clearly at the time intended to be a protection for a fundamental right
There is, as you might admit, considerable disagreement about that claim. To put it mildly.

Quote:
So why would gun owners hate to see guns banned? For starters self-defense is a legitimate concern. The muzzle of a gun is a sight that deters all but the most violent and/or insane from attacking the gun's holder.
Yet the concealed-carry types claim they'd be heroes, and even victorious, when seeing such a thing in the hands of a Bad Guy. The anonymous Internet claims are brave, but the reality, not so much.

Quote:
As for the tyrannical government argument
It's just silly, especially given your acknowledgment right above, in thais very post, about the changes that would have to occur among We The People before the gun-grabbing could commence. You really ought to be ashamed to bring it up.

Quote:
history is not in the least encouraging about what happens when the common people are forbidden to possess weapons and their possession and use restricted to an elite class of government enforcers.
Except for most of the world.

Quote:
The people with weapons have inevitably told those without "shut up and do what you're told".
That is, essentially, what people who cannot make a convincing argument to the majority in a democracy has to do. Your claim is that it constitutes tyranny, not your own failure.

Quote:
no government that would have to ban guns just to remain in power could be called a democracy.
Why do you think the Founding Fathers thought they'd need militias to suppress insurrections?

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 01-11-2019 at 08:01 AM.
  #89  
Old 01-11-2019, 08:46 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,133
Several in the thread have mentioned the Siege of Waco as the government tyranny "we" need our guns to protect against. For the young'uns, here's an excerpt from Wikipedia to give some insight into these all-American gunlovers that the oppressive Feds besieged.
Quote:
... After the death of Lois Roden and probate of her estate in January 1987, Howell [aka David Koresh] attempted to gain control of Mount Carmel Center by force. George Roden had dug up the casket of Anna Hughes[who?] from the Davidian cemetery and had challenged Howell to a resurrection contest to prove who was the rightful heir to the leadership. Howell instead went to the police and claimed Roden was guilty of corpse abuse, but the county prosecutors refused to file charges without proof. On November 3, 1987, Howell and seven armed companions tried to get into the Mount Carmel chapel, with the goal of photographing the body in the casket as evidence to incriminate Roden. Roden was advised of the interlopers and grabbed an Uzi in response. The Sheriff's Department responded about 20 minutes into the gunfight, during which Roden had been wounded. Sheriff Harwell got Howell on the phone and told him to stop shooting and surrender. Howell and his companions, dubbed the "Rodenville Eight" by the media, were tried for attempted murder on April 12, 1988; seven were acquitted, and the jury was hung on Howell's verdict. The county prosecutors did not press the case further.

While waiting for the trial, Roden was put in jail under contempt of court charges because of his use of foul language in some court pleadings; he threatened the Texas court with sexually transmitted diseases if the court ruled in favor of Howell. The next day, Perry Jones and a number of Howell's other followers moved from their headquarters in Palestine, Texas, to Mount Carmel. In mid-1989, Roden used an axe to kill a Davidian named Wayman Dale Adair, who visited him to discuss Adair's vision of being God's chosen messiah. He was found guilty under an insanity defense and was committed to a mental hospital....
On August 5, 1989, Howell released the "New Light" audio tape, in which he said that he had been told by God to procreate with the women in the group to establish a "House of David" of his "special people". This involved separating married couples in the group, who had to agree that only he could have sexual relations with the wives, while the men should observe celibacy. Howell also said that God had told him to start building an "Army for God" to prepare for the end of days and a salvation for his followers.
...
... an investigation concluded in 2000 that sect members had started the fire ... The Texas Rangers' arson investigator report assumes that many of the occupants were either denied escape from within or refused to leave until escape was not an option.
The actions of the jackbooted gun-grabbing state seem, if anything, over-restrained here. I'm rather befuddled that the events at Waco are cited by gun nuts as a point in their favor.

(No, I don't know know who Anna Hughes is either.)
  #90  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:15 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
So if both sides act like one-dimensional characters in a William Johnstone militiaporn paperback, the revolution will happen?
Timothy McVeigh was a real person, not a one-dimensional character. I'm not saying all gun lovers will turn into Timothy McVeigh, but it won't take a whole lot of them and based of some of the militia stuff I've seen there are probably hundreds that are a hair's breadth away from him right now.

And the only way to confiscate all the guns is through armed ransacking. *knock knock knock* "Ya got any guns? No? Okay have a good day citizen." ain't gonna work.
  #91  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:20 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
I haven't read the entirety of the thread, but I have to ask: why does abolition of the Second Amendment mean that guns are banned?
You're right, it doesn't. IIRC, 44 states have gun rights built into their constitution. So it still fall into a states right's issue. But the first step to nation-wide gun confiscation would be repealing the 2nd (which isn't going to happen either).

Actually, the first step is a national gun registry, but that's another topic.
  #92  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:31 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 30,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
I haven't read the entirety of the thread, but I have to ask: why does abolition of the Second Amendment mean that guns are banned?
Why else go through the process of abolishing the amendment?
  #93  
Old 01-11-2019, 09:49 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 80,824
Quote:
Quoth kopek:

Oh Hell yeah. The NRA and its core membership is like the ACLU (when they fought for the Nazis who wanted the march near Chicago) in that they will fight tooth and nail for people they may not like very much whenever it involves what they see as "gun rights". You can love them, hate them, or be totally meh about the whole thing; but they are consistent like that.
Cite? Because whenever I've seen any issue about blacks or Hispanics with guns, the NRA never seems to have their backs. Like, that black guy who was shot because he told a cop that he had a concealed carry, and then followed the cop's instructions: Did the NRA push for the cop's prosecution?
  #94  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:05 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,071
Yeah, I gotta admit the NRAs position vis-a-vis persons of color is dodgy at best.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...police/570124/

There's clearly a disconnect there in which the organization's communications people are stuck between 'defend from crime' and 'black men with guns'.
  #95  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:10 AM
Jonathan Chance Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
What gun owners fear is that a clique of strident social engineers will seek to impose their vision of what American society ought to be on the public: by spurring a moral panic against guns, by demonizing gun owners, by a steady trickle of precedents that eat away at legal protection for owning guns.
Which, I might point out, is what other conservative - I won't speculate on the overlap between the gun guys and the anti-abortion guys - have been doing for a few decades about abortion. Small steps, chipping away at a right defined by the Supreme Court leading to a hoped-for ability to ban abortion completely.

What the gun guys fear, outlined above, is a reasonable thing given that their own allies are using the same approach. A man fears most what he knows HE would do in the same situation.
  #96  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:18 AM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 16,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I'm not saying the heavy gun control laws would end all gun-related crimes. But let's face it, the Second Amendment hasn't ended all gun-related crimes either, has it? If gun ownership was a perfect solution, then everyone would own a gun and no crimes would ever occur because everyone would have the means to defend themselves. That's obviously not the reality.

So private gun ownership is one attempt to prevent crimes which doesn't provide a perfect solution to the problem. And gun control laws are a different attempt to prevent crimes which wouldn't provide a perfect solution to the problem. Now that we've acknowledged that neither approach is perfect, can we compare them and see which one produces better results?
I'm actually an advocate of fairly strict licensing requirements for gun ownership; the problem isn't with the guns themselves, and there are too many extant guns to reasonably deal with in any realistic time period, so I'd think that putting the emphasis on the people buying/using the guns is the right place to go. Mostly in hopes of identifying and prohibiting the mentally ill from having access to guns, as criminals already don't pay attention to the laws (why they're criminals!). It's not a perfect scheme either- someone could be duly licensed and still commit a crime of passion, but if done right, could prevent a lot of the mass shootings we see. (part of my idea would be that licensing would require insurance, and that insurance would require verified secure storage or else the premiums would be astronomical)
  #97  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:28 AM
Barbarian Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: is french for rental
Posts: 5,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
In the meantime I'm finding it interesting that more Europeans are now buying guns.
Russia Today is a propaganda website. I suggest you search for another, legitimate source for this supposed information.
__________________
First thing we do is, we kill all the market researchers.
  #98  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:35 AM
Royal Nonesutch Royal Nonesutch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Like, that black guy who was shot because he told a cop that he had a concealed carry, and then followed the cop's instructions: Did the NRA push for the cop's prosecution?
Can you say specifically which "black guy" this is who you are referring to?
  #99  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:37 AM
kayT kayT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Which, I might point out, is what other conservative - I won't speculate on the overlap between the gun guys and the anti-abortion guys - have been doing for a few decades about abortion. Small steps, chipping away at a right defined by the Supreme Court leading to a hoped-for ability to ban abortion completely.

What the gun guys fear, outlined above, is a reasonable thing given that their own allies are using the same approach. A man fears most what he knows HE would do in the same situation.
I'm not a gun "guy" (female) and the anti-abortion folks are definitely not my allies. I consider myself as leaning liberal and I own a gun. I am concerned about government's relationship to gun ownership, as well as many people on this very thread who I believe identify as "liberal" and yet are willing, even eager, to give up rights to their "government" without recognizing that yes, one thing really does lead to another. As for fearing most what he (sic) knows HE (sic) would do: I know I would not paint the whole world with the broadest brush possible.
  #100  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:38 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarian View Post
Russia Today is a propaganda website. I suggest you search for another, legitimate source for this supposed information.
A cursory glance at the article shows it was sourced from Reuters. Is Reuters good enough for you?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKCN10Y19U

Last edited by Ashtura; 01-11-2019 at 10:39 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017