Controlling firearms

[Adios]

No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both. - Wm. Rawle

The stupidity of some people should not, can not infringe on the rights and freedoms of all people... or the whole system is nothing more than a long and elaborate joke.

Hell, I have 3 nukes in silos in my back yard right now.
Clearly nuclear arms are covered as well. Just because there are people who would cause nuclear winter doesn't mean our right to bear nuclear warheads should be infringed.

[Golden Applesauce]

Many people seek to restrict many rights and freedoms based on making themselves richer, safer of more comfortable.

These people should die with their organs stuffed in their mouth after they have been forcefully ripped off of their bodies.

I know there's a very popular Ben Franklin quote about trading freedom for safety, but the truth is that some level of safety is a prerequisite for freedom.  As an extreme example, if anyone was free to murder you because they don't like what you say, then de facto you do not have freedom of speech.  It just would just be someone other than the government taking away your rights.  If the roads were packed full of drunk, texting teenagers driving around cars at over 150 km/hr, then you don't have the ability to travel anywhere safely, which takes a big bite out of any freedom that can be exercised outside of your house.  If industry is free to dump teratogens and carcinogens into your water supply, you lose the freedom to raise a healthy family, go swimming, and fish.

If you want to operate a firearm, then you have a responsibility to know how to operate one responsibly, just like with any other dangerous device (cars, underwater oil wells, anesthesia, etc.)  I suspect you would also agree that sacrificing the rights of students to bring guns into a classroom is worth the safety and piece of mind it grants to teachers and other students.

would you mind using words and sentences to communicate your opinion? for the sake of the discussion? cause all this emoticon tells me is "I disagree and can't be arsed to explain why" which makes it rather hard to put value to your opinion, regardless whether I agree myself or not.

Of course. I didn't mean to imply that no restrictions would be a good thing. I assumed that my intent would be known. I think private businesses, etc should have control of what comes in and out. I, for one, would not want to go to any more bars where people were carrying guns, especially in this society.

AS far as teens texting and driving I doubt laws have much, if any effect on that.

It's like the lines on the road to control traffic, they won't stop you if you decide to cross them.

I do not support anarchy.

Here's the thing:
What you said was that anyone who would impose on someone else's freedom for their safety should be disemboweled to death.  That doesn't leave room for any kind of restriction or legislation at all, on any subject, reasonable or not.  It doesn't even leave room for discussion, as it calls for the violent death of everyone who disagrees with you.

So no, if your intent was anything other than anarchy, your intent did not come across clearly.

[Golden Applesauce]

I'm not sure your average citizen really needs to own any kind of heavy or auto/semi-auto weaponry.  I'm perfectly fine myself with bans on assault weapons, weaponry that goes above and beyond defending yourself and are designed to inflict harm on multiple targets and in quick fashion.  But I'm not too hot and bothered by it as it seems humans are pretty good at finding a way to kill someone they want to kill whether they have a gun or not. 

Except bans like that void the intent of the amendment which the people would at least have a decent chance of fighting tyrants on their own soil. Which is why I was thinking collective ownership of firearms or at least cleaning up the city park while you wait out your waiting periods.

The only problem with the "allow guns to allow fighting tyrants" approach to the 2nd amendment is that military hardware is so much more advanced compared to the 18th century.  If the available weapons are rifles and cannons, then I'd estimate that you'd need at least a third of the armed population in the area willing to fight against a tyrant and goodly number of cannons to have a fighting chance at a grass-roots succession.  There's an inherent stability there, because it takes more than a handful of paranoid crazy people to overthrow a perceived tyrant - if enough riflemen are willing to risk their lives fighting against a tyrant to have a chance of succeeding, then they probably have some legitimate grievances.

But today, if you wanted to really wage a war against, say, a corrupt US government from the continental US, you'd need a lot more than rifleman.  You need some way to counter ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, battleships, and chemical warfare.  If the government is determined, you'd need to break their military infrastructure to make them leave you alone for good, and that would require having bombers, cruise missiles, and other weapons that are effective against city-scale targets.  But then the numbers break down - you don't need a majority of citizens to agree that the government is tyrannical, you just need however many guys it takes to launch enough cruise missiles to obliterate Washington DC.  They're almost guaranteed not to succeed, but a lot of people would still be dead.  If the general public collectively had enough military hardware to stand a chance in open warfare against the US government, then the Birthers alone would control enough firepower to destroy a city of their choice.

[BabylonHoruv]

I'm not sure your average citizen really needs to own any kind of heavy or auto/semi-auto weaponry.  I'm perfectly fine myself with bans on assault weapons, weaponry that goes above and beyond defending yourself and are designed to inflict harm on multiple targets and in quick fashion.  But I'm not too hot and bothered by it as it seems humans are pretty good at finding a way to kill someone they want to kill whether they have a gun or not. 

Except bans like that void the intent of the amendment which the people would at least have a decent chance of fighting tyrants on their own soil. Which is why I was thinking collective ownership of firearms or at least cleaning up the city park while you wait out your waiting periods.

The only problem with the "allow guns to allow fighting tyrants" approach to the 2nd amendment is that military hardware is so much more advanced compared to the 18th century.  If the available weapons are rifles and cannons, then I'd estimate that you'd need at least a third of the armed population in the area willing to fight against a tyrant and goodly number of cannons to have a fighting chance at a grass-roots succession.  There's an inherent stability there, because it takes more than a handful of paranoid crazy people to overthrow a perceived tyrant - if enough riflemen are willing to risk their lives fighting against a tyrant to have a chance of succeeding, then they probably have some legitimate grievances.

But today, if you wanted to really wage a war against, say, a corrupt US government from the continental US, you'd need a lot more than rifleman.  You need some way to counter ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, battleships, and chemical warfare.  If the government is determined, you'd need to break their military infrastructure to make them leave you alone for good, and that would require having bombers, cruise missiles, and other weapons that are effective against city-scale targets.  But then the numbers break down - you don't need a majority of citizens to agree that the government is tyrannical, you just need however many guys it takes to launch enough cruise missiles to obliterate Washington DC.  They're almost guaranteed not to succeed, but a lot of people would still be dead.  If the general public collectively had enough military hardware to stand a chance in open warfare against the US government, then the Birthers alone would control enough firepower to destroy a city of their choice.

I don't think the US government would use ballistic missiles and whatnot against an internal insurgency. 

[the last yatto]

Was thinking more local then again youtube seems to do a much better job at fighting the man then any firearms could

[Requia ☣]

No, I mean of course its a long and elaborate joke.

Primate social structure always has alphas, who make the rules and reap the benefits, betas, who enforce the rules due to fear of the alphas and minor perks, and everyone else, who sucks it up until they go "crazy" and stab an alpha through the eye with a sharpened piece of bone or something.  Which I generally approve of, though there are circumstances where other actions may be more prudent.

Any attempt at fairness is generally a cover for a more pernicious form of control, in that you think the system is generally alright and so put up with its excesses through rationalization of its actions or stressing their exceptionally, when they are in fact at the heart of the entire social system.  I mean, come on, George Washington's first act as President was to crush the Whiskey Rebellion which, IIRC, had something to do with taxes and Hamilton's power grab for the new Treasury.  Americans are allowed to keep their weapons insofar as they're never going to use them in a large scale manner to overthrow the Federal Government.  I'm just surprised Ratatosk hasn't figured that out already.

The Whiskey tax rebellion may have been defeated in the conventional military sense, but it succeeded in making the whiskey tax unenforceable.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

I don't think the US government would use ballistic missiles and whatnot against an internal insurgency. 

I do!

[Don Coyote]

Seems more likely they would use UAVs than ballistic missiles.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

Seems more likely they would use UAVs than ballistic missiles.

Kind of depends on how much of the population they want conveniently gone doesn't it?

I have no doubt in my mind the US government would bomb US citizens without giving it more than a passing thought.

[Triple Zero]

But today, if you wanted to really wage a war against, say, a corrupt US government from the continental US, you'd need a lot more than rifleman.  You need some way to counter ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, battleships, and chemical warfare.  If the government is determined, you'd need to break their military infrastructure to make them leave you alone for good, and that would require having bombers, cruise missiles, and other weapons that are effective against city-scale targets.  But then the numbers break down - you don't need a majority of citizens to agree that the government is tyrannical, you just need however many guys it takes to launch enough cruise missiles to obliterate Washington DC.  They're almost guaranteed not to succeed, but a lot of people would still be dead.  If the general public collectively had enough military hardware to stand a chance in open warfare against the US government, then the Birthers alone would control enough firepower to destroy a city of their choice.

For the general idea I think you are right, but to be specific, I agree they wouldn't use ballistic missile and high firepower stuff.

Rather I think you'd have a lot to worry about the typical crowd control weaponry, like teargas, tazers, those microwave heat weapon things, sonic blasts, or what not. And of course riot police with their armour, helmets, weaponsticks, etc.

Combine that with better training and higher level strategic overview,

and of course, last but not least, PROPAGANDA. because prevention is the best cure.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

But today, if you wanted to really wage a war against, say, a corrupt US government from the continental US, you'd need a lot more than rifleman.  You need some way to counter ballistic missiles, stealth bombers, battleships, and chemical warfare.  If the government is determined, you'd need to break their military infrastructure to make them leave you alone for good, and that would require having bombers, cruise missiles, and other weapons that are effective against city-scale targets.  But then the numbers break down - you don't need a majority of citizens to agree that the government is tyrannical, you just need however many guys it takes to launch enough cruise missiles to obliterate Washington DC.  They're almost guaranteed not to succeed, but a lot of people would still be dead.  If the general public collectively had enough military hardware to stand a chance in open warfare against the US government, then the Birthers alone would control enough firepower to destroy a city of their choice.

For the general idea I think you are right, but to be specific, I agree they wouldn't use ballistic missile and high firepower stuff.

Rather I think you'd have a lot to worry about the typical crowd control weaponry, like teargas, tazers, those microwave heat weapon things, sonic blasts, or what not. And of course riot police with their armour, helmets, weaponsticks, etc.

Combine that with better training and higher level strategic overview,

and of course, last but not least, PROPAGANDA. because prevention is the best cure.

Yes, I agree with you, however, y'all need to stop kidding yourselves.  The governement would not hesitate to use bombs to gain control over a situation they felt was not in their control.  They'd knock them out with tear gas then go in guns blazing.  And that is presuming they don't think the people do not have bombs of their own. If they think that?  Then the compound, house, farm, town, wherever will be razed!

It would all be explained as for the good of the people and most of the people would be all "OMG How terrible they had to blow those people up.  Can you imagine?"  Still doesn't stop the fact that it can and probably at some point will happen!!!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I understand the game Cain

The basic point is this. The Constitution is clear on the topic. IF its a bad idea because we have flamethrowers and rockets, then there needs to be an amendment to modify the Second.

Personally, I think its an emotional issue that isn't being well thought out on either side... "THEY WANNA TAKE OUR GUNS!!!" vs "OMGZ GUNS CAN KILL PEOPLE"

Interestingly, in the time period when the amendment was added, Madison and others compared the position to that of England and other nations which did not want an armed populace.

http://davidkopel.com/2A/LawRev/19thcentury.htm   <--- interesting commentary from the time period.

[BabylonHoruv]

Seems more likely they would use UAVs than ballistic missiles.

That's likely.  UAV's are already being used by the insurgents in Iraq, they aren't that difficult or expensive to build.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

The basic point is this. The Constitution is clear on the topic. IF its a bad idea because we have flamethrowers and rockets, then there needs to be an amendment to modify the Second.

Don't forget nuclear arms you libertarian wingbat.

[Requia ☣]

I think we can excuse from the second ammendment anything that *nations* aren't allowed to have, nuclear weapons, anthrax, fragmenting rounds, that kind of thing.