Pro-guns and pro registration

Great Debates
1

Note: throughout this post, the use of “government” as an entity, except where obviously different, refers to law enforcement agencies and their power and actions.
I am stoutly pro-gun. But SenorBeef’s recent thread got me to thinking about the second amendment.

What would you think about a requirement to register guns, but a lift on bans of guns? I personally oppose gun registration because, hell, the government has almost reduced the right to resist to nothing but a pistol and a shotgun. Not enough to compete with the SWAT teams or National Guard, even. Hell, if it weren’t for gangs and other black market entities I would think that we are virtually defenseless against the possibilty of tyrrany. A few pea-shooters in my gun rack (which I don’t have, but whatever… I don’t have to own a gun to support gun ownership) aren’t going to amount to squat as far as armed resistance goes.

But, on the other hand, if we were allowed to own assault rifles and other high-powered weapons unilaterally, I really wouldn’t mind registering them. In fact, I would down and out support it. Name on a list? Hell yes! I want them to know how many of us are out there as a check on their actions. I want the data on gun ownership versus crime to be much more well-founded. I don’t care if my name is on a list for owning an assault rifle. When the time comes that I want to use that assault rifle, the list is meaningless. The list is political, the threat of violence on me (ie-when I would use an assault rifle) is physical. So I don’t care if my name is on a list of gun owners. As long as I have my gun. As long as I have the means to defend myself from my own government should the government decide that political power just ain’t cutting it. Because face it: that’s why the government has guns, so they can use them when peaceful coexistence fails.

The government would like the ability to enforce peace by removing firearms from the public (not ownership per se, but rather no guns carried around all the time). In the ideal anti-gun world I have no problem with it, either. In that world we don’t have the threat of dirty cops. In that world peaceful assembly doesn’t lead to riots. In that world criminals are scared off by a light turning on, and in the rare circumstance where they manage to steal something (without assault, of course) they are immediately caught by a perfect police force and your goods are returned undamaged. In that world the political process invoked by the public voting on issues and writing their congressmen works almost flawlessly, and the ACLU is downsized worse than the steel industry because no political agencies try to pull one over on us.

We don’t live in that world. And removing guns from public ownership isn’t going to make it happen. If anything, bans on guns could be seen to select for governments which try to pigeonhole the public as much as they can without severe civil unrest. And when the civil unrest reaches a critical mass as it can in large crowds, the crowd faces police officers and other law enforcement personell who are far better armed than the rest of us.

If democracy were really about public vigilance, wouldn’t gun ownership as a check on government physical power be a logical conclusion of that? We try to set up a government which has its own checks and balances to monitor itself, but without public viligance even this can go astray. And since the public has its own lives to live, their own jobs to do, the requirement that we be as vigilant as the legislators (whose only job is to make laws) is unreasonable. Thus, bad things will slip through the cracks.

So I say: give me my guns, or at least the right to have them. In exchange for that, on a good-faith initiative, you are welcome to keep a list of all the guns I purchase. You are welcome to demand such a list. Because I want you to know you can’t get one by us. I want you to know you can’t bypass your political power and go straight for the jugular. I want to agree to use the political machinations of government, not be fored into it by a government which is absurdly better armed than its citizens.

You can keep your draft, because I am obviously willing to fight for what I believe in. **But why make it so that the only way I can stand on equal grounds with my own government’s law enforcement is if I am a criminal? **

2

I really don’t know what to say, except I don’t agree with your thinking. I can’t imagine letting the general public arm to an extent that they could in any manner resist or overthrow our military. In the first place if our military was that weak, we sure wouldn’t be the strongest nation in the world. Secondly, even small arms such as mortars are weapons that I wouldn’t want my neighbors to be out practicing with or private pilots to be tooling around the skies in Stealth fighters and bombers. What are they going to get proficent with? Perhaps bombing old barns and strafing livestock? This almost sounds funny, but I’m not kidding about it scaring me. The only way I see that your idea works is if we do what they have done in Costa Rica and get rid of the military all together. It works for them, but I’m not convinced it would work for us.

3

One of the big things to remember is that there are a hell of a lot more civillians than police officers, nat guard, etc. If we as a nation heard that squads of soldiers were going around confiscating weapons alot of the “you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand” crowd will be out making life very difficult for the millitary. Many of them would die but how many “impromptu snipers” would be plinking at the soldiers doing the collecting. How many soldiers would die from a shot from a rooftop three blocks away and never be able to find the shooter.

Also bear in mind that soldiers ARE NOT going to want to be turned against the people of this country.

No matter how much technology is out there the millitary is still people, people are not bulletproof. Tanks and jet aircraft are not the weapon of choice for fighting civillian militia in a city. Infantry has to be the ones to clear houses and such. If you lose a man every ten houses to an armed homeowner we would have no army left after clearing out one or two major cities

I agree

There has to be a limit somewhere… if finaces are the only limit you would see an even greater “the rich have the power” world because they can afford to drive an Apache helicopter to work, and don’t even think about taking his parking place. I would think (and I know it gets into another terminology debate) whatever a single infantryman might be issued as a weapon, why not. Infantry Support weapons OTOH (like mortars, LAW’s, heavy machine guns, recolless rifles, etc) I think have ZERO place in the hands of a civillian. You want an Uzi, fine. You want a Tow launcher for your Suburban, no.

4

Our nation’s military is that weak in a sense that for the military to attack its own country it cannot go on a scortched earth policy since the infrastructure that supports the military is what they would be destroying. It is a little tought to fight a war of attrition on your own turf, because the longer the fight goes on the less there is worth fighting for.

Well, I was talking about guns, not floor mounted rocket launchers. A civilian resistence movement with run-of-the-mill high powered rifles and similar gear couldn’t take down tanks and planes, but that’s about all I can think of.

It is our government. We should never give up the right to be able to take it back.

5

Looking at it from a distant point of view, I would very much like to see the hunting rifles go up against the well trained well regulated soldiers of the United States should they decide <snicker> to go house to house and take away everybody’s guns. Hunting Rifle vs. Tank. Thanks folks, but I will take the tank.

Where perhaps the pro-gun can clarify something for me, is this need to have a right to resist against a threat that is only theoretical at best? If that is the case, then I want a contitutional right to eat eggs, because the government might come and take them away from me. AMENDMENT 9! AMENDMENT 9!

6

I never said I was worried about anyone coming into my house to take my gun (were it that I had one to take).

:confused: You’ve taken history courses, right?

You are missing the thrust of what I am saying. Rights not based on force are strictly political rights and operate within the political framework. If it somes to the point where we, as a people, need to resist our government, obviously the point for voting on the right to eat eggs or have a speedy trial has ended. As such, the only right which remains, practically speaking, is the right to defend yourself. Removing an ability to resist effectively from grassroots militias effectively makes the right to resist pointless. There is no sport that I can’t do with a pellet gun or bow and arrow that I could do with assault rifles and other automatic or high-powered riflery. The only motivation for keeping such weapons in the public domain is to allow the public to defend themselves if they will it, and the ultimate thing one can defend one’s self from in a free country is the tyrrany of a corrupt government.

7

“You are missing the thrust of what I am saying. Rights not based on force are strictly political rights and operate within the political framework. If it somes to the point where we, as a people, need to resist our government, obviously the point for voting on the right to eat eggs or have a speedy trial has ended. As such, the only right which remains, practically speaking, is the right to defend yourself. Removing an ability to resist effectively from grassroots militias effectively makes the right to resist pointless. There is no sport that I can’t do with a pellet gun or bow and arrow that I could do with assault rifles and other automatic or high-powered riflery. The only motivation for keeping such weapons in the public domain is to allow the public to defend themselves if they will it, and the ultimate thing one can defend one’s self from in a free country is the tyrrany of a corrupt government.”

Wow so because other countries have had to face a resurgent uprising, that means that this one will? Resist from what? Pro-gun advocates constantly wonder why they are considered a little nuts, when they are jumping at shadows! You claim you need the right to resist, as a protection from a tyrannical governement. Show me the tyrannical government that you need to resist from. IF its the U.S. fine, then here is an idea, try not voting for the tyrants. Dont think your vote counts(thanx Supreme Court), then organize a way to get things changed on a more massive scale. That is how it works. That is the scope of work you are charged with, instead, pro-gun advocates seem to have read one too many Clancy novels, and have fallen in love with the romanticized view of a rag-tag militia overthrowing a superpower in the face of tyranny. No one is trying to take your guns away, they are trying to make them safe. They are trying to impose waiting periods, stricter penalties, trigger locks, etc. You can have guns, fine. Personally I would never own one. But there is no need for an assault rifle, because there is no tyrannical government! Show me the tyrant, that is all that I ask. THEN you have a point.

8

That kind of talk sounds dangerous to me. That really makes me feel safer to know that people are dreaming up and getting off on the idea of revolting for no logical reason. If I said what I feel this would be in the Pit.

I think that you need to be a little plainer here. Are you talking about the American Revolution? I hope you’re not also including the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. I did major in political science so I’ve heard of checks and balances, which seem to have worked for over 200 years.

I’m with Frenzy1023 I want the right to bear eggs.

9

Nope. [at kniz, too]But just because we’ve done tolerably well for the past 200 or so doesn’t mean it would automatically last forever, either. It would be naive to assume either.

The shadows of people pushing for gun legislation. The shadows of laws which can take your property that was used in the commission of a crime that the owner had nothing to do with. The shadows of legislation which can give the executive branch of the government arbitrary power in a time of crisis.

Duh. The right to resist doesn’t mean that I currently need to resist. It is there to ensure that, should the need arise, I can exercize it.

I’m sorry, I have never read Clancy.

No one wants to take my gun away? You sure about that? Oh, and you can have your eggs. But first you have to sign this form in triplicate. And you must wait three days from when you filled out the forms. And you must make sure your refrigerator is inspected. And they must be kept at 38 degrees farenheight, +/- 1.8 degrees. And when cooking, you must use canola oil, no butter. And you can only purchase six eggs at a time.

But sure, enjoy your eggs. Oh, no cheese, either.

And my point is that if we can keep assault rifles we can stop tyrranical government, perhaps even from ever forming in the first place.

If I felt threatened by tyranny I can guarantee you I wouldn’t be barking about it on a message board. :rolleyes:

10

I dont agree with gun registration because the criminals are the ones that cause most of the problems and they are not going to register their weopons. The only people to reg. their guns…are law biding people. More contol for the government and a huge cash grab. But it will come to the states. Canada is in the process now…Beware.

11

And what happens when you climb out of that tank to take a leak? Or get some water, or food? Or take a nap?

And Anti-gun advocates constantly wonder why Pro-gun advocates dismiss them so quickly, when they are always mischaracterizing the opposition.

Another example of mischaracterization (and demonization). Methinks that if you need to justify your own beliefs by personally portraying everyone who disagrees with you as violent, illogical, or “getting off” on their beliefs, then you need to rethink your own beliefs.

12

There’s a general misconception that the US army could easily trash civilian resistance.

The US army has well under a million combat deployable troops. Let’s assume, generously, that every single one of them decided to violate their oath to the Constitution, and fought us.

We have dozens of millions of gun owners, but it’d be silly to assume all of them would fight. We’ve got millions of rural hunters - who are generally conservative and distrustful of government. If there was a massive tyranical situation such as this, a large percentage of them would fight.

You have to understand that hunting rifles are designed to kill large animals at long range. Hunters are skilled in their use. Hunters also have camoflagued tailored to their environment, and woodsmanship skill. In addition, they know the terrain they fight on.

You’d have a huge army of snipers, very willing to defend their country, with woodsmanship knowledge and detailed knowledge of their terrain, with weapons that could easily kill soldiers, even in body armor, from hundreds of yards away.

Add in a few people who are willing to resist with regular old shotguns and handguns, and then even us Evil Assault Weapon owners, and you’ll have an atrocious rate on the US army that they could not even hope to sustain.

Their heavy weapon systems are largely moot. What are they going to do, carpet bomb detroit? Destroy suburban Washington DC with tanks? Call airstrikes in to destroy small towns in Wisconsin? They can’t be that stupid, whatever popular support they had, they’d lose. Everyone would mobilize against them.

Sure, the US army has tons of heavy equipment, but what use is it when you’re killing more of your own civilians than those who’re resisting? You’d only serve to lose the very support you need. The heavy weapon advantage is negated.

Besides, it’s very unlikely that the army and national guard would unilaterally decide to wage war against the people of the United States. Much more likely, a large section of the army or national guard would be on our side.

And so you’ve got millions of people that fit in perfectly with everyone else in the crowd, who you can’t distinguish between the very citizens you need for support. Hunters who could easily use their skills to become snipers. Even people with “grandpa’s old .45” can pop a soldier in the head and take his assault rifle. If the US military was truly waging war against it’s citizens, there’d be popular support - hiding, supplies, etc. for those who chose to resist.

There’s a misconception that we would stand no chance against the US military. In reality, they would stand no chance against us.

13

That is, an atrocious rate of attrition.

14

Until a full gun ban is in effect.

15

How can anyone be so paranoid as to sit around and dream up ways that the military can be defeated. No one is coming to get your guns. It is just as simple as that.

16

Well, I’m glad it is that simple! Whew! I guess this thread is over now, nothing to see here.

17

First of all, let me say that the fantasy some people have of a tyrannical government suddenly taking away our rights, leading to a full scale popular revolt is pretty ludicrous.

But, my main point is that gun registration will help reduce gun ownership by criminals, and help investigations of crimes, because it will make it more possible to track firearms and find out how people who commit crimes are getting their guns. It could also let law enforcement agencies find out which gun fired which bullet.

18

I’m not paranoid. People make the assertion that “gun owners couldn’t possibly take on the US military”. In response to this assertion, I laid out a rational analysis about why this is true.

Essentially, what you’re saiyng is:

“Gun owners have no chance against the US military!”

“Well, yes, we do, here’s why…”

“Oh man, you’re a paranoid nutcase!!!”

19

On what grounds? And it is not some fucking fantasy. Really, it isn’t like I sit here and jerk off over it.

Thanks for the smear campaign.

20

First I disarmed your link, because I don’t want anyone to think I am connected to it in any way. If I had a point to make and the only thing I could find to back it up was a site like that one, I would forego the idea of linking to anything.

As to this thread being over, there is no chance of that and even if it ended right NOW, there are still at least two more threads on the same subject going on in Great Debates. Very few threads are started on gun control by people that want to control guns, most are started by those that want to say “They’re coming to get us.” They aren’t.