America has an astonishing prison rate. Seriously. It’s a completely indefensible position that we’re more reluctant to punish than other countries.
I think you over estimate yokels with guns and confuse yokels with militias and armies.
Afgani militias tossed the Soviets out with a lot of support from the CIA (weapons, intelligence and so on). The Taliban is hardly giving us a very hard time. 628 deaths to date in Afghanistan to US military. For comparison some 4200 have been killed in Iraq (US soldiers) and over 4400 murders in New York City in that same timeframe (give or take a few months). The Viet Cong had the NVA behind them and they had the Soviets supplying them as well. Also note that Vietnamese had been occupied for a hundred years so hardly hugely effective in kicking foreigners out. During the Revolution things actually were not going well for the Americans at the outset. We got lucky getting the support we got which had as much to do at least with geopolitics of the time as it did with anyone’s desire to actually help Americans. Without that foreign support it is very likely the American Revolution would have failed.
Mostly these forces are annoyances. In no way do they remotely threaten the likes of the Soviets or the US. Unfortunately they live there and have nowhere else to go so annoy the occupiers at every chance. Hopefully the occupier figures it really is not worth the bother and go home. Without outside military support (ammo, weapons, intelligence, etc.) rifle armed yokels are a mere nuisance at best to a modern military.
Well, I was trying to leave the door open to griffin1977’s point that amateur soldiers are of limited effectiveness. I’m not really sure it’s an apples-apples comparison for all these situations. The 2nd amendment was written with a domestic insurgency in mind, while technically the Afghans and Viet Cong were responding to an invasion by an external force not native to their country. And like griffin1977 says, both those groups got advanced training and weaponry from elsewhere. The Viet Cong, in particular, were not amateurs or yokels.
But I do agree its a well-established point that motivated irregulars with even modest weaponry have a chance against more modern forces. They aren’t guaranteed to win, but technical superiority can be ameliorated by tactics, especially if the more modern force cannot respond effectively. This was the chief military lesson of Vietnam, IMHO, and we are re-learning it in Asia all over again. 
The point I was making was relevant to the OP… I agree indeed that the invention of repeating arms does have great implications for the validity of the 2nd amendment in modern times. But not because it allows AK-47s, Armalites and Tommy Guns, (and the various other military weapons discussed above) but because it allows “Saturday night specials” and other easily concealed, semi-automatic, handguns.
No, locking someone up for only 3% of the maximum possible term for a violent crime is what’s indefensible.
Just because we’re locking a lot of people up doesn’t mean we’re doing it for the appropriate length of time.
Check out the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA.
“Weaselly” may not be a real word, but it is a real sentiment, and it really applies to the tactics of certain gun control advocates.
I’m with griffin1977 in that I also agree that technological advances should force us to take a look into the 2nd Amendment for possible changes. Unlike a lot of you, I could care little for the intent of the FF. What I care about is how laws written hundreds of years ago affect us now. In that vein, it makes little sense to me to try and probe the inner recesses of the FF’s minds for what they intended and what they wanted. They’re dead now and the world’s different.
The application of the law should rightly be made by people who are living now. Thats not to say that I dont respect the FF’s opinions on the matter; far from it, I think that on the whole, they were great men ahead of their time in reasoning and philosophy, and this country would be worse off had they believed different. I dont want anybody mistaking what I feel is a generation issue with one of veneration. Good people can be wrong, and time changes all things, those are mottos I hold close to my heart
Law exist to protect people and enforce justice (whatever the standard of justice the society feels is appropriate). The purpose of them existing isnt just for show or tradition, but to actually, you know, help people. When one ceases to do that, or ceases to be relevent to the age, we must be able to have an honest debate about it. The 2nd Amendement was written in a different time, and over a period of centuries its become used to justify things that do not promote its original intention. I say that without a trace of sarcasm or irony because the ones opposing its change are the ones who feel tradition and intention means something. To them, it should matter. What? Do people think the FF just wrote the 2nd Amendment for a lark? Do people think that they wrote it in order to harm people? Of course not! They wrote it in a way that conveys the broaded protection on gun owners which they believe would further enforce justice, protection, and equality. Had they known that weapons now could destroy cities, its inconceivable that they wouldnt have made arrangements to limit the rights
Think of it this way: if the 2nd Amendment was written today, could you imagine men like Washington and Franklin and Madison handing a suitcase nuke to a black guy or a woman and trusting that it would be safe in their hands, that it would promote rather than violate rights?
And yes, in fact we should look at the 1st Amendment and the internet. And when we do, we can see that most people would agree they should be extended. What is freedom of speech designed but to allow distasteful, unpopular, even violent ideas to have an equal voice? Sure, you cannot incite violence, but you can certainly say you wish the president died, or the US hit by a meteor. No matter what you believe the 1st Amendment stands for, it would take a stretch of the imagination to say that it doesnt also apply to the internet. But I suppose thats just my opinion
The prison rate is a math function that combines numbers of people detained and the length of their sentence. We’re locking up more people than anyone else, and we’re locking them up for longer stretches of time than anyone else.
It seems to me to be a numbers game that is deluding some to that conclusion. A murderer that gets 99 years + my armed robber that got 3 averages out to 51 years each, but that’s not reality.
I’ll stipulate that Wisconsin is terribly liberal, especially the Milwaukee County area, and the sentences here may not be like those that are given in, say, Texas (no cite, I have no idea what’s being handed out in Texas).
But at least around here, if serious offenders were given real time, in 26+ years of law enforcement I would not have come across so many 30 year olds that had multiple convictions for robbery, battery, burglary, etc. and were still on the street.
This is the norm I’ve come across.
I feel compelled to mention it was not uncommon for there to be regulations about the storage of black/gunpowder in the time of the FF. Five pounds seems to be common for a limit. As far as accidental detonation is concerned, a suitcase nuke is probably safer than a five pound barrel of gunpowder.
While I think they’d probably agree that it would be reasonable to require safeguarding (in the technical sense… meeting international atomic safeguards would make it impractical for most private citizens to own a significant quantity of fissile material, weaponized or not) I wouldn’t be so sure they’d be persuaded to an outright ban on lawful ownership based on an argument from potential for destruction resulting from intentional misuse.
Point One: “The ones opposing its change” are also, apparently, the majority in this country. That is why it has not changed. I would not say the debate is over, but if that is what you desire, you must face the possibility that you have lost or will lose such a debate. If Americans no longer took the right to keep and bear arms seriously–whatever its practical merits–the debate would’ve been resolved long ago. Yet it is not.
Point Two: I’m getting really tired of seeing guns compared to small nuclear weapons. I believe the fancy debate term for this is either red herring or a false dichotomy. No, I DON’T think the Founding Fathers would’ve wanted black people to have personal nukes, because they would’ve recognized that nuclear bombs are strategic military weapons, and firearms are not. For the same reason, if I discover I have rodents in my house, the proper solution is poison, not burning down the building.
You’re absolutely right. However, in your one post, you’ve claimed “The world has changed” as a reason to restrict the 2nd Amendment, then basically said “The world has changed” is NOT a reason to restrict the First. You can get away with this logical contradiction only if you (and everyone else) believe the Second Amendment is irrelevant and can be ignored. Is that the case? See Point One.
Excluded Middle is probably the best fit.
And according to your link, the early prohibition in Boston of loaded guns wasn’t against weapons but basically a fire code ordinance intended to keep unsupervised black powder away from the open flames that were ubiquitious in colonial times. Interesting.
But the FF did not use the term “gun” or “firearm”, they used “arms” which is synonomous with “weapons”.
The fact that folks privately owned cannon and explosive shell at least as recently as the Civil War interferes with this interpretation somewhat, but I’ve read some pretty convincing stuff explaining the difference between “arms”, “artillery”, “ordnance”, etc. arguing that “arms” is not necessarily synonymous with “weapons.”
I think that sort of argument is trying to change the second amendment by interpretation rather than consider that the founding fathers might see the value of private citizens (themselves) being able press a tyrant (the king) with essentially unanswerable force (atomics).
What do you do with the first guy who obtains an megaton IRV, wires it up to a deadman switch monitoring his heart, and drives around with it as a sidecar attached to his motorcycle? “Tattoo ‘Poor Impulse Control’ on his forehead” is not an option.
During the time period we mention, pistols existed, and, in fact, were supplied to the military. They were especially handy for the cavalry.
At the time, while repeating pistols were unknown, the pepperbox pistol was extant.
And easily concealed under a jacket. (The two-barrel turnover mentioned was reasonably popular during the period.)
Do you think our founding fathers saw no need for an assassin’s gun?
Well, until I can find a plate glass window…
Build a helical structure designed to be compressed by plastic explosives, arm it, and stuff it down his pants.
Either that, or just hit it with a big-ass hammer.
(The second method is a reference to a science fiction story. The first is not. Both would work, applied properly.)
Your premise is flawed. The 2nd is not an individualist document, it’s a communitarian document. The people were to keep & bear arms in common defense–what we’d now call policing. Violent revolt was contrary to that. Or do you think Washington was violating the Constitution by putting down Shay’s Rebellion?
I agree with this as a practical matter.
The right to bear arms is not the right for an individual to bear all arms, else there would be no federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms. There is no contradiction in permitting ownership of small arms by law-abiding citizens while limiting ownership of heavy ordnance & denying licenses to felons.
They may be the majority, but it wasnt my point. My point was that a great deal many of them are also the ones using the “tradition and intention” argument, something that I’ve argued makes little sense in light of the radical advancements in technology. Until we as a country see that tradition and intent is a poor substitution for honest debate, then we’ll never move past this divide
I disagree. First, as it has been mentioned before, the text said “arms”, and if it simply were that easy, then lots of things would be banned right now, and, I believe, there would be a good case made for automatic and large caliber weapons since there really is no need for such things in the hands of private citizens. However, if I were to take you at your word, then your view conflicts with many other pro-gun people on this board. They are afraid of the slipperly slope, you dont seem to. If thats true, then people really only need handguns, rifles, and shotguns for defense. The real red herring would be the constant harping on some nonexistent future threat of a government turned against its own people.
And second, my point was that intent may matter to you, but it shouldnt. Even if men like the FF made exceptions to nukes, we should be able to, and as a matter of responsibility, reevaluate our laws according to the values and technology we have now, not simply blindly follow the ethos of a bunch of men 200+ years ago.
Actually no, you misunderstand. I never meant that “The world has changed” is NOT a reason to restrict the First", I said that even if we reevaluate the 1st Amendment taking into account the internet, I believe things wouldnt change. Thats even if decide to debate it, something many 2nd Amendment defenders refuse to do. The world may have changed, but if you reevaluate everything, not everything will need to change. And that really, the necessity, is why we need to look at the 2nd again. If an honest debate concludes that it needs no change, then fine, I’ll accept it. But I dont believe such a debate has occurred. Though I believe this forum a lot smarter than another one I go to, when pressed, every defender of the 2nd there eventually conceded that its a paranoia of the government going Nazi on us that has them defend it so vehemently