[QUOTE=Rangergxi;39986396]Well recently in Libya the people have risen against their government. Despite overwhelming weapon superiority on the side of the government, using advanced tanks and African mercenaries the citizens have met relative success. Without guns this revolution would have probably failed.[/QUOTE]
Guns isn't the reason for the revolutions success.
In fact, large parts of the military kept defecting and crumbling all the time.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39986451]Guns isn't the reason for the revolutions success.
In fact, large parts of the military kept defecting and crumbling all the time.[/QUOTE]
Which would happen in the US as well, however it wouldn't have been possible without armed civilians. As a matter of fact, a large portion of the rebellion was run and fought by citizens, as is the one in Syria.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39986493]Which would happen in the US as well, however it wouldn't have been possible without armed civilians. As a matter of fact, a large portion of the rebellion was run and fought by citizens, as is the one in Syria.[/QUOTE]
Tunis also managed a revolution, despite having on average a single firearm per thousand people: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country#List_of_countries_by_number_of_guns[/url]
Yemen has many firearms (54.8 per hundred people), despite not being known as a bulwark of freedom.
[quote]it wouldn't have been possible without armed civilians.[/quote]
Wrong. There is no correlation between political freedom and firearm ownership rates.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39986606]Tunis also managed a revolution, despite having on average a single firearm per thousand people: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country#List_of_countries_by_number_of_guns[/url]
Yemen has many firearms (54.8 per hundred people), despite not being known as a bulwark of freedom.
Wrong. There is no correlation between political freedom and firearm ownership rates.[/QUOTE]
Tunisia never had a violent revolution, they had a peaceful one.
And I'm talking about the fact that the majority of the Rebel Army in Libya was made up of civilians with guns, hence the revolution wouldn't have been possible without armed civilians.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39986694]Tunisia never had a violent revolution, they had a peaceful one.
And I'm talking about the fact that the majority of the Rebel Army in Libya was made up of civilians with guns, hence the revolution wouldn't have been possible without armed civilians.[/QUOTE]
And where did they get the guns?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39986857]And where did they get the guns?[/QUOTE]
What does that even have to do with anything? Many of them simply had guns, many recieved guns from foreign intervention, Brotherhood/NATO, etc.
The right-to-bear-arms argument espoused by gun advocates on the premise of needing them to be able to overthrow a potentially tyrannical government makes absolutely no sense to me. If criminals are able to acquire firearms as easily as gun advocates are claiming, then wouldn't their pragmatic concerns of the government banning firearms be largely misplaced since citizens would be able to acquire them anyway?
I mean, it's not like you can make the argument that criminals would be vastly more adept at acquiring firearms than your average law-abiding citizen, since at that point the government would become so tyrannical that the deleterious effects it would have on society would further blur the already distorted line between what we consider "criminals" and "law-abiding citizens."
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;39986886]What does that even have to do with anything? Many of them simply had guns, many recieved guns from foreign intervention, Brotherhood/NATO, etc.[/QUOTE]
And the point is that they did not originally own them. Instead they got them from abroad or defectors.
Private gun ownership won't matter a jot in a revolution. The original rulers of the 13 colonies recognized the need for firearms for the following reasons:
1. To ensure some form of basic vigilante policing and military force could be established.
2. To repress slave rebellions.
They didn't have a standing army, so they had to rely on the people.
Even if you still argue that they thought it was for a revolution, bear in mind the revolution is more of a "bunch of farmers chase rich guy out of his house" instead of "350 million people descending into mindless anarchy".
I think that if guns were banned, there would be a flowing black market for guns.
But that is not the point. I think that guns should not be banned (go on, pacifists) as we need them for self defense. What I think should truly be controlled is [B]ammo[/B]. I think the government should control the amount of ammo you can hold at the time and you need a license. You can have a gun, but you can't fire it without ammo.
Well, there can also be a black market for ammo.
I think we should go with the Netherlands' drug policy on this one. We should lower the price of ammo to a nearly non-profit state so it's better to buy it legit than buy it off the Black Market, which is sure to have higher prices.
[QUOTE=MyBumBum;40030451]I think that if guns were banned, there would be a flowing black market for guns.
But that is not the point. I think that guns should not be banned (go on, pacifists) as we need them for self defense. What I think should truly be controlled is [B]ammo[/B]. I think the government should control the amount of ammo you can hold at the time and you need a license. You can have a gun, but you can't fire it without ammo.
Well, there can also be a black market for ammo.
I think we should go with the Netherlands' drug policy on this one. We should lower the price of ammo to a nearly non-profit state so it's better to buy it legit than buy it off the Black Market, which is sure to have higher prices.[/QUOTE]
Then what happens to the people who shoot thousands of rounds a week in competitive shoots and reload the ammo? And often times these people shoot thousands of rounds of different calibres. Some people, a rather large number actually, depending on the type of shooting they may be doing or the frequency, will have in their possession tens of thousands of rounds of ammo, and will buy rounds by the thousands to save money, then reload the spent brass.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40030493]Then what happens to the people who shoot thousands of rounds a week in competitive shoots and reload the ammo? And often times these people shoot thousands of rounds of different calibres. Some people, a rather large number actually, depending on the type of shooting they may be doing or the frequency, will have in their possession tens of thousands of rounds of ammo, and will buy rounds by the thousands to save money, then reload the spent brass.[/QUOTE]
Ahh, I see your point and I agree. What about giving special licenses?
[QUOTE=MyBumBum;40030589]Ahh, I see your point and I agree. What about giving special licenses?[/QUOTE]
The license numbers would need to be in the tens of millions at least in the US, it's cost-prohibitive and a bureaucratic nightmare, not to mention who sets the eligibility for these licenses? Who gets them and why, and who sets that criteria? Do you need to shoot in a competition already, therefore barring you from getting the initial ammo to get started? Do you only issue them to people with a lot of guns who need ammo for all of them? Do you issue it per calibre and depending on how many guns in that calibre the person has? What about the people who buy 1400 rounds of ammo for their AK/SKS/whatever Russian gun simply because it only costs $150 and they want to have some ammo for the range that'll last them for a few months/years? Does thel icense cost money? How much? Are there additional requirements for storage? Is the cost of the license or storage accommodations going to prohibit the "lower-class" from getting involved in shooting sports? Not to mention limits on ammunition aren't really going to accomplish anything, people can lie and find ways around it, like buying brass and loading rounds themselves, or casting brass themselves if you try to ban pre-cast brass cases, or as it's been mentioned the "black market".
Limiting ammo is a logistical nightmare, rather ineffective, and hard, if not impossible, to enforce.
Then just increase VAT on munitions depending on their make.
I'm not from the USA so I have a couple of questions.
1. Would Americans feel the need to own weapons if the constitution had never existed?
2. What would the repercussions of changing or removing the constitution be?
The perception I've always had of the USA was one of a country where everyone felt the need to own weapons, rather than just wanting to. The inevitable problem with a need-to-own mentality is that lots of people will have weapons and a certain number of them will turn out to be murderers. As a result of this mentality that everyone has, a potential ban would just lead to a black market. This is a stark contrast to the UK where very few people have weapons at all. Most criminals don't even own guns. As a result, shootings are few and far between.
As an outsider it's easy to say 'well just change the constitution' but I imagine the uproar from any government attempting that would just end in chaos.
[QUOTE=halflife_123;40033017]I'm not from the USA so I have a couple of questions.
1. Would Americans feel the need to own weapons if the constitution had never existed?
2. What would the repercussions of changing or removing the constitution be?
The perception I've always had of the USA was one of a country where everyone felt the need to own weapons, rather than just wanting to. The inevitable problem with a need-to-own mentality is that lots of people will have weapons and a certain number of them will turn out to be murderers. As a result of this mentality that everyone has, a potential ban would just lead to a black market. This is a stark contrast to the UK where very few people have weapons at all. Most criminals don't even own guns. As a result, shootings are few and far between.
As an outsider it's easy to say 'well just change the constitution' but I imagine the uproar from any government attempting that would just end in chaos.[/QUOTE]
1. I would. It's a basic human right to be able to defend yourself, I want something that is at least on par with what a criminal would be using on me.
2. Oh man. I honestly think civil war will break out.
1. You're not on par with criminals.
2. Gun rights, if anything, will be taken away piece by piece, not all at once, and then who decides at what point they have gone too far?
[QUOTE=halflife_123;40033017]I'm not from the USA so I have a couple of questions.
1. Would Americans feel the need to own weapons if the constitution had never existed?
2. What would the repercussions of changing or removing the constitution be?
The perception I've always had of the USA was one of a country where everyone felt the need to own weapons, rather than just wanting to. The inevitable problem with a need-to-own mentality is that lots of people will have weapons and a certain number of them will turn out to be murderers. As a result of this mentality that everyone has, a potential ban would just lead to a black market. This is a stark contrast to the UK where very few people have weapons at all. Most criminals don't even own guns. As a result, shootings are few and far between.
As an outsider it's easy to say 'well just change the constitution' but I imagine the uproar from any government attempting that would just end in chaos.[/QUOTE]
1. In all honesty, probably not. What a lot of people do not realize, even Americans, is we are raised with different mentalities than other countries. The reason for these mentalities is a direct result of the U.S. Constitution. Had our founding fathers never invited the 2nd Amendment, mentalities in this country would be very different today.
2. The best way to answer this question is to simply say that neither will ever happen. The amount of revolt it would cause would be catastrophic.
I'm trying my best not to sound ignorant but to me, a piece of legislation that can't be changed or removed without massive upheaval sounds kind of stupid. I totally get having guidelines to run a country by but an actual document that overrides any law doesn't make any logical sense. As far as gun legislation goes, in America it seems that everyone is in a position where they need to own a gun just to be on par with everyone else. Even if the constitution was ignored and gun restrictions were in place, so many people already own weapons so it would be impossible to take them off people. It seems to be a lose-lose position for everyone.
[QUOTE=halflife_123;40073631]I'm trying my best not to sound ignorant but to me, a piece of legislation that can't be changed or removed without massive upheaval sounds kind of stupid. I totally get having guidelines to run a country by but an actual document that overrides any law doesn't make any logical sense. As far as gun legislation goes, in America it seems that everyone is in a position where they need to own a gun just to be on par with everyone else. Even if the constitution was ignored and gun restrictions were in place, so many people already own weapons so it would be impossible to take them off people. It seems to be a lose-lose position for everyone.[/QUOTE]
The Constitution is not just a piece of legislation, it is what our country was created around. It's supreme law of the land.
[QUOTE=halflife_123;40033017]I'm not from the USA so I have a couple of questions.
1. Would Americans feel the need to own weapons if the constitution had never existed?
2. What would the repercussions of changing or removing the constitution be?
[/QUOTE]
I'm not American and i feel the need to own weapons.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40074419]The Constitution is not just a piece of legislation, it is what our country was created around. It's supreme law of the land.[/QUOTE]
It's the supreme law of the land that includes the ability to amend it, as we have done twenty-seven times since adopting it. The founding fathers explicitly included the ability to do so because they knew they couldn't predict the future, and that things would change, and this allows us to make changes. Arbitrarily saying "it's the CONSTITUTION, it CAN'T CHANGE it's PERFECT and has NO FLAWS and the founding fathers were GODS AMONG MEN" does nothing when they added a clause letting you change what they wrote at the time.
At the time it was written, guns were absolutely necessary, for hunting for food, defending yourself, and for the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. Now, however, little handguns and AR-15s and 12-gauges aren't going to overthrow a government. It was a level playing field back then, but not today. Today, we'd need the support of at least a chunk of the military for a real revolution. Civilians using their privately-owned firearms wouldn't make a difference. Self-defense and hobbies are one thing, but claiming you need to keep your firearms in case you need to fight the government is delusional and ludicrous.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;40074933]It's the supreme law of the land that includes the ability to amend it, as we have done twenty-seven times since adopting it. The founding fathers explicitly included the ability to do so because they knew they couldn't predict the future, and that things would change, and this allows us to make changes. Arbitrarily saying "it's the CONSTITUTION, it CAN'T CHANGE it's PERFECT and has NO FLAWS and the founding fathers were GODS AMONG MEN" does nothing when they added a clause letting you change what they wrote at the time.
At the time it was written, guns were absolutely necessary, for hunting for food, defending yourself, and for the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government.[B] Now, however, little handguns and AR-15s and 12-gauges aren't going to overthrow a government.[/B] It was a level playing field back then, but not today. Today, we'd need the support of at least a chunk of the military for a real revolution. Civilians using their privately-owned firearms wouldn't make a difference. Self-defense and hobbies are one thing, but claiming you need to keep your firearms in case you need to fight the government is delusional and ludicrous.[/QUOTE]
I'd disagree with this bolded part.
Urban warfare is extremely difficult for the attacking side even if they are much more advanced.
A few thousand people hiding within a city would be almost impossible to root out quickly.
Unless of course you just completely anhilate the city.
But I would think that if the government anhilated one of its own cities to end a revolt, they would end up having a bigger revolt.
Thank god then this ain't a world where we must justify what we buy!
[QUOTE=Valnar;40076716]I'd disagree with this bolded part.
Urban warfare is extremely difficult for the attacking side even if they are much more advanced.
A few thousand people hiding within a city would be almost impossible to root out quickly.
Unless of course you just completely anhilate the city.
But I would think that if the government anhilated one of its own cities to end a revolt, they would end up having a bigger revolt.[/QUOTE]
Look, if there was a large-scale revolt, guns wouldn't be needed. First, they would be futile against an organized, well-armed military. Yes, there would be an insurgency, but an insurgency wouldn't be necessary, for the second reason here. The second reason is exactly what you said, "they would end up having a bigger revolt." If people begin protesting on a large scale and it erupts into violence and into an actual revolution, the federal government's only option in controlling it is to use the military. The military [I]will not[/I] massacre its own people. I know this because people in the military are just like those outside of it; they're not mindless puppets with firearms. In the event of an actual rebellion against a tyrannical government, at least a sizable portion, if not the majority, of the military will inevitably defect to the rebel side, and suddenly you have a very winnable revolution. Some would likely open fire on unarmed civilians, but it won't just be an insane slaughter of hundreds of millions.
Privately-owned firearms are not needed for that. The initial revolutionaries could be using nothing but baseball bats, crowbars, and rocks. The most important thing, and I've said this before, is communication. Social networking helped the Arab spring explode and it would do the same thing here. Back in the 1700s, the fastest way to communicate was by sending a dude riding to the next town on horseback. They needed firearms in order to sustain their rebellion long enough for it to spread. In the present day, word of that rebellion would spread like wildfire. Unarmed revolts would accomplish the same thing armed ones would, thus guns are not a necessity for this purpose.
I drew the line at those Massachusetts truck stops getting their light gun games taken away.
its just like birth control, its stupid
[QUOTE=giliinc1;40079151]its just like birth control, its stupid[/QUOTE]
Would you care to explain your opinion?
I'm pretty sure he was joking
[QUOTE=Valnar;40076716]I'd disagree with this bolded part.
Urban warfare is extremely difficult for the attacking side even if they are much more advanced.
A few thousand people hiding within a city would be almost impossible to root out quickly.
Unless of course you just completely anhilate the city.
But I would think that if the government anhilated one of its own cities to end a revolt, they would end up having a bigger revolt.[/QUOTE]
Most revolutions aren't clearcut and easy things.
At best, if the US government became a tyranny and confiscated guns, it would be overthrown and replaced with a barely functioning government, with the country taking decades to recover.
This is of course, ignoring all the competing factions in America, foreign intervention, the massive size of the country, logistics, planning, etc.
At worst, the USA would cease to exist, and the new states would probably end up banning guns anyways.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;40074933]It's the supreme law of the land that includes the ability to amend it, as we have done twenty-seven times since adopting it. The founding fathers explicitly included the ability to do so because they knew they couldn't predict the future, and that things would change, and this allows us to make changes. Arbitrarily saying "it's the CONSTITUTION, it CAN'T CHANGE it's PERFECT and has NO FLAWS and the founding fathers were GODS AMONG MEN" does nothing when they added a clause letting you change what they wrote at the time.
At the time it was written, guns were absolutely necessary, for hunting for food, defending yourself, and for the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. Now, however, little handguns and AR-15s and 12-gauges aren't going to overthrow a government. It was a level playing field back then, but not today. Today, we'd need the support of at least a chunk of the military for a real revolution. Civilians using their privately-owned firearms wouldn't make a difference. Self-defense and hobbies are one thing, but claiming you need to keep your firearms in case you need to fight the government is delusional and ludicrous.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for putting words in my mouth, because I can clearly see where I said it could not ever be amended. (That is sarcasm just in case you do not realize it). He was talking in the lines of complete removal or complete change. Also, while it technically can be amended, it would be very difficult to do it properly. The 2nd amendment was specifically made to be difficult to amend, just read it. Summarizing...
"The right to keep and bare arms" - This is what the second amendment guarantees.
"Shall not be infringed" - This is the wording including to help prevent change to the second amendment. The key word is infringement. While we all know it's meaning, it is still entirely up to interpretation by any party or individual. There would never be 2/3s support from the States and the House to amend the 2nd amendment, much less repeal it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
