Let’s face it, BrainGlutton is not going away.
The central component of the 2nd amendment is self defense. That will never be obsolete. Glad to have cleared that up for you.
I’m as pro gun as you get, but this isn’t a reasonable argument any more. Sure, in 1850, maybe it would have been possible to overthrow a tyrannical government. (Or not, as was demonstrated a little over a decade later) Today, though? When even a small, mid-west town police force can bring a tank to your door? It’s just not realistic to think that even if every civilian in Texas strapped up, they could take down the US military.
Self defense is a civil right, but that doesn’t mean you’re allowed any tool you want to practice it. Self defense is still practicable without guns.
I think it’s a silly argument too, however you aren’t taking into account that small town cops and the folks in the US military aren’t robots or martians…they are Americans as well. And it’s doubtful that, despite what some liberals and lefties seem to think (or, to be fair, loony right wingers and conservatives), the military or police force would be in lock step support (marching with their jackboots of tyranny of course) in fighting fellow Americans. So, while small town coppers from East Bumfuck might have a tank, the National Guard Armory down the street might disagree with them about their use of said tank on the towns citizenry and demonstrate this disagreement forcefully with a hellfire or two.
I think that it’s unlikely in the extreme that ordinary Americans would rebel against the government to the point where we’d have such a civil war, but I also think that people discount the fact that the citizenry is armed today as being useless and/or moot, when in fact it’s not. It wouldn’t be ordinary citizens armed with his or her home weapons against all of the local, state and federal governments might, it would be much more complex than that…and all those guns in the hands of ordinary citizens would make a difference (on both sides, since, again, it’s not going to be so cut and dried as citizens verse government).
Geez ! The money one could make from these people !
Start a film company called Freedom or something trite… Get the Great State of Texas to host and underwrite the production… accept God-fearing donations… postulate the US Government has been taken over by the One World United Nations despots… a cross between Revolution 2012 and Eisenstein… copy the founding fathers’ over-wrought propaganda… begin with sonorous voice-overs, 'For as long as human history has existed’ ( nod and a wink by showing a clock ticking off 6000 years ) ‘tyrants have sought to crush freedom’ … show black uniformed soldiers reducing American villages… cut away to dead baby on lawn… beat, beat to allow “AWW” from the audience… show blazing homes… show vast tank armies with Obama like leader giving the Roman Salute… hint at Satanic ceremonies with very rich trust directors ( Fords, Rockefellers etc. )… show half-naked young women being dragged to training camps… counter this with same young women rescued in cut-offs shooting long rifles and AKs at the enemy… show ordinary people rising up and overthrowing the tyrants with their courageous guerilla tactics, sheer moxie and ability to shoot handguns at tanks…
Hire untrained locals as amateur actors, spend a lot on glossy production values. and don’t stint on post-production geniuses. and advertise like crazy wherever two or more of these people are gathered in Gun’s Name. Take donations.
Millions, I tell you !
And has been declining as a % of the population over the past several decades.
- That is freaking genius
- I would totally watch it
That’s not what Heller says. Heller says one is entitled to self defense using weapons which are in customary use. This is in line with the other individual protections of the Constitution.
Would you say that since free speech is practicable without the internet that the government can punish you for political speech on the internet?
And such the same as I cannot own an ICBM, I cannot broadcast my political message over the neighborhood at 3a.m. with loudspeakers.
Self defense with handguns fits neatly into the framework established for other individual rights.
6009 murders by handgun- pretty bad. 50,000 NON-smokers dying each year from Second hand smoke- which is not in any way protected by the Bill of Rights.
Good call.
Tell that to the police.
If no one chose guns as a means of self defense, perhaps an argument could be made that their prohibition didn’t run afoul of the 2nd amendment. Another reason to buy more guns.
I’m curious what non-gun self defense weapon should people camping where wolves have be reintroduced carry? How about those that fish the Kenai peninsula where grizzly bears are know to appear occasionally? I bought my only hand gun for back country fishing in mountain lion and black bear country, of course I also traveled with my dog but what should I have used?
FWIW, I loved your posts in this thread! I thought your detractors demonstrated themselves to be … [well, I’ll save that opinion for the Pit].
In Newtown, Paris, Colorado Springs, Aurora, New Orleans, and San Bernardino, among other places in the news recently, someone clearly was out to get them. And unfortunately, a lot of them were got. Not to mention the thousands of shootings, stabbings, beatings and rapes that occur on a daily basis all across the country.
Do you think pepper spray and a rape whistle would have been enough to stop Robert Dear? That’s not what the professionals used when they eventually stopped him.
You can’t have it both ways. Either self-defense is outdated, or gun crime is out of control. Holding both positions at the same time is illogical.
I worked in the bush in British Columbia for many years, both on my own (timber cruising and silviculture) and on crews (dead-pitching salmon streams). Wolves, cougars, moose, and for the most part black bears, were never a concern. As long as you made enough noise you would never see any of these animals. The only time I/we took a firearm was when there was a good chance of encountering a grizzly. In those cases we took a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with solid slugs and 000 buckshot. And we had one person dedicated to guarding the crew. A handgun in a holster isn’t likely to be much use if a grizzly attacks…
Other than when concerned about bears, I mainly armed myself with a whistle. These days I’d add some bear spray. But I was never worried about spending time in the bush.
Thank you! I love getting positive feedback at the SDMB. It’s almost as if the general vitriolic culture makes the actual compliments even sweeter. 
I think you may have missed the point completely. The point was not just in another room, but in another zip code all together.
Let’s see how I can simplify this…
People are scared, so they want guns.
I think we should look into the fear and see what’s going on.
When you respond that the guns are needed because there is so much to fear, you are just proving my point. That the reason people want guns is because they are afraid.
My suggestion would be to make the fear go away.
People who use guns to kill others seem to do it mainly out of anger. Anger is a result of fear. So once again, it would make sense to look at the emotion. Why are people so angry? Can we make that anger go away?
Guns don’t kill people, fear and anger kills people. Guns just makes it easier.
Now I can understand people defending their right to own certain things, but I can not understand people defending their right to be scared and angry.
Feel free. 
Are you trolling us? Or do you somehow not realize that you are a part of that “general vitriolic culture”? Go read your first post in this thread again. It’s filled with vitriol (and not much else). “gundamentalists” “collective mental illness” “paranoid” “magic” “manliness” “magic sticks”. I don’t think you could have crammed more stupid (and vitriolic) stereotypes into that post if you’d been trying to.
I’ve got to agree and I’m not remotely a gun-rights guy. I was just about to post how unhelpful it is to describe all gun owners as angry scaredy-pants.