So the workers can overthrow their masters and seize the means of production. It’s true that in some revolutions the police or the military is on the side of the rebellion, but that’s more of a best case scenario.
Back to the very first post and its header…
One might ask, “Why should drones (UAVs, i.e., remotely-controlled quadcopters and the like) be legal?”
They are basically a hobby/entertainment to most amateur operators, just like guns are to many gun-owners. It’s easy to find news stories of drones interfering with commercial flights and rescue operations, there are huge privacy issues involved, they have been repeatedly used to try to smuggle materials into prisons, and now we have some additional news about the catastrophic results of drones being ingested by jet engines. But instead we try to set up safety classes for drone operators, publish rules/laws for safe operation that are nearly unenforceable, and try to create “safe” areas for their operation.
I see a lot of parallels here just in regard to the personal freedom to own and operate certain types of machinery in a responsible manner and within rational restrictions.
Personally, I would rather see a blanket prohibition on the operation of personal (non-commercial or non-governmental) drones than on firearms.
I think a fact that has been overlooked is that a government can enforce any thing it wants by the simple expedient, used by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al, of throwing every transgressor into prison. Stalin happily starved over 20 million people whose only sin was not believing in his brand of communism. We could do something like that here, too, but not with our system of government.
Heck, Prohibition could have been easily enforced if the Feds had been willing and/or able to throw all the drinkers and bootleggers into jail. This didn’t happen.
I guess it’s basically comes down to what kind of government you want to live under.
Instead they deliberately poisoned them.
*
" by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people."*
I do not think people can have “sovereign rights” (unless you are a king/queen and a literal sovereign). Maybe I am missing something though.
Amazingly enough, in 40+ years of gun ownership, I’ve yet to kill anyone or anything with a gun. Or a bow. Or crossbow, spear, sword, dagger, knife, club, slingshot, rock, stick, or even my own bare hands.
Puzzling.
Maybe I’m not doing the whole “gun ownership” thing right.
I think I can maybe see that I have a massive “murder deficit” that I maybe ought to immediately get started on rectifying.
Or I can, you know, sit here peacefully, and mind my own business. With a gun safe full of guns.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive, I reckon. Too bad others feel differently.
I can safely say that if I had a nuclear bomb for the past 40 years I would not have used it.
I do not think that is a compelling argument that people should be allowed to possess nuclear bombs though.
And if, at some future point, I make an argument that the 2nd Amendment permits civilian ownership of such devices, feel free to reference the above rebuttal to an position I haven’t taken in this thread.
Meanwhile, care to address the point that I did make?
What point did you make? You listed a lot of weapons. I added one. What are you objecting to?
Check the 2nd amendment again. It does not specify guns. Seems to me the 2nd amendment covers “arms” which includes nukes and everything else on your list. Are you ok with the court arbitrarily deciding what things on a list of “arms” you can and cannot have?
You added one that I didn’t. I also didn’t list aircraft carriers, strategic bombers, jet fighters, tanks, artillery guns, napalm, nerve gas, nuclear submarines, or orbital death rays.
Arms, in common parlance, can refer to those things. In legal and Constitutional terms, it doesn’t, and never has. You’ll notice that everything on my list does pass Constitutional/2nd. Ad. muster as arms; from Federalist 29 to District of Columbia v. Heller, it bears out my position.
And you know this.
So quit with the BS argument, and counter the point I made in rebuttal the OP’s assertion that “…there’s only one use for a gun: killing things.”
My point, and you seem to agree, is the Supreme Court gets to define what is and is not protected under the 2nd Amendment and you seem ok with that. Something I will remind you of should the Supreme Court ever be more expansive in their definition.
And OP was wrong that guns only have one use but they do not have many uses and all of them are destructive.
Target shooting. Skeet shooting. Collecting. Cowboy Action shooting. Giving a owner peace of mind.
Those are very common uses and not destructive. In fact few guns are ever used to kill *anything. *
Why should they be legal? Because otherwise only the state has guns. That isn’t a good thing as the framers of the Second Amendment well knew.
The state has tanks and fighter planes and missile drones and nukes and a lot of things citizens do not have. If it ever comes to a revolution with citizens vs the US military the citizens are going to get destroyed with ease. The best they will manage is an ongoing low-level insurrection that kills some troops here and there in terror attacks and does nothing to save us from the now tyrannical government.
I’m from the UK not the USA so I’m probably not very clued up on this, but some of the Americans I have spoken to say it’s in case of a tyrannical government.
The problem with referencing the UK is that we have a Constitutional Monarchy, and while the powers of the Monarchy is limited (especially since 2011), we do still have some means of defence against a tyrannical government. While our Queen cannot dissolve Parliament, she can certainly cause a lot of disruption and the military serves the Monarchy too. Australia is a similar case.
The USSR was brought down from within despite all it’s tanks and planes.
A war against an opposing force is different than the ability to hold on to political power. One has a clearly defined army and real estate that can be attacked and the other does not.
Imagine thinking the American military is invincible at any point after Vietnam, let alone in 2017.
Here is a good documentary on preventing school gun violence without resorting to any anti-American gun grabbing.
Brought down without guns too.
If the argument is we need guns to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government then one supposes it is a shooting war and the government is holding on to power and the military is on the government’s side. That’s why we presumably need the guns.
Any civil-war scenario in this country involving some kind of “tyrannical government”, whatever the hell that means, would probably see the military divided. And I suspect that most of the guys capable of operating the serious death machinery - the planes, the missiles, the submarines - are going to be too well-educated and disciplined to go along with the “tyrant” in this scenario. I don’t think that guys who went to Annapolis and have Master’s degrees in aeronautical engineering are going to be willing to carpet-bomb American civilians. But I really have no idea how such a conflict would play out. It’s impossible to speculate. America is not Vietnam or Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, notwithstanding all the other and more destructive weaponry available to the government - if a basic rifle wasn’t useful in combat, our military wouldn’t issue it to troops.