[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40125383]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.[/quote]
as with any other amendment to the Constitution. intentionally difficult, but not impossible.
[quote]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.[/quote]
ok, once again the point of an amendment is to go back and change something that was previously true. if it was determined that the second amendment was no longer necessary, it would be possible to abolish it. it doesn't matter that "shall not be infringed" was included in that amendment, because we can change that amendment. that's the point of amendments? amendments amendments amendments amendments
[quote]There would never be 2/3s support from the States and the House to amend the 2nd amendment, much less repeal it.[/QUOTE]
baseless claim implying you know the future of society and its opinions. if you're so sure of it then it's obviously nothing for you to worry about
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;40126002]ok, once again the point of an amendment is to go back and change something that was previously true. if it was determined that the second amendment was no longer necessary, it would be possible to abolish it. it doesn't matter that "shall not be infringed" was included in that amendment, because we can change that amendment. that's the point of amendments? amendments amendments amendments amendments[/quote]
As long as the other amendments exist, the 2nd amendment will always be necessary. The 2nd amendment's purpose is to defend our Bill of Rights. The point in which the 2nd amendment is no longer necessary is the point in which a tyrannical government has taken control.
Also, looking at some of your other comments, if you think that the populace would be overpowered by the military, you are sadly mistaken. There are over 50 million gun owners in the US. The US military is composed of 1.4 million soldiers. Assuming only 25% of gun owners would took up arms against the military, that is a force of 12.5 million. Training and better equipment means little when you are utterly outnumbered. The Battle of Mogadishu is a prime example of this. The U.S. forces were overwhelmed by the sheer number of Somalis, despite being much better equipped, and having air and ground vehicle support. It wasn't until Malaysian and Pakistani forces intervened that the U.S. forces were able to pull out. In the event that the U.S. Government becomes tyrannical, you will have a very large portion of the armed forces (including high ranking officers with access to ships, aircraft, etc.) that would join the populace, and with them the equipment they have access to.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;40126002]baseless claim implying you know the future of society and its opinions. if you're so sure of it then it's obviously nothing for you to worry about[/QUOTE]
Hardly baseless. Since the 1950s, American citizenship support of firearms bans has and continues to drop dramatically. The country as a whole continues to move in favor of gun rights and ownership. There is no basis to suggest that this trend will change.
I can assure you, I have zero worry about any of this, as well as the future. Using the present situation as an example... Since the mass shootings and the talk of gun control erupted late last year, I have said from the beginning that no bans will pass. The bans and restrictions from the past were proven ineffective, and the support of the house for new bills is not there.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40127152]As long as the other amendments exist, the 2nd amendment will always be necessary. The 2nd amendment's purpose is to defend our Bill of Rights. The point in which the 2nd amendment is no longer necessary is the point in which a tyrannical government has taken control.[/quote]
simply not true. it is entirely possible to defend the second amendment without privately owned firearms.
[quote]Also, looking at some of your other comments, if you think that the populace would be overpowered by the military, you are sadly mistaken.[/quote]
i actually stated that they wouldn't be, but it wouldn't be because of privately owned firearms. the people could revolt completely unarmed and they would very successful.
[quote]There are over 50 million gun owners in the US. The US military is composed of 1.4 million soldiers. Assuming only 25% of gun owners would took up arms against the military, that is a force of 12.5 million. Training and better equipment means little when you are utterly outnumbered. The Battle of Mogadishu is a prime example of this. The U.S. forces were overwhelmed by the sheer number of Somalis, despite being much better equipped, and having air and ground vehicle support. It wasn't until Malaysian and Pakistani forces intervened that the U.S. forces were able to pull out.[/quote]
I know, but private citizens and their guns aren't going to win the war, this is:
[quote]In the event that the U.S. Government becomes tyrannical, you will have a very large portion of the armed forces (including high ranking officers with access to ships, aircraft, etc.) that would join the populace, and with them the equipment they have access to.[/quote]
i have stated this numerous times in this thread. this is why the claim that private citizens need firearms in order to overthrow an unjust government is incorrect. they could rebel with nothing but tire irons and baseball bats, they would gain the support of that very large portion of the armed forces and likely be successful in their revolution. privately owned firearms are not necessary to a revolution. communication is. you say you read some of my other posts, but how did you miss my central argument?
[quote]Hardly baseless. Since the 1950s, American citizenship support of firearms bans has and continues to drop dramatically. The country as a whole continues to move in favor of gun rights and ownership. There is no basis to suggest that this trend will change.
I can assure you, I have zero worry about any of this, as well as the future. Using the present situation as an example... Since the mass shootings and the talk of gun control erupted late last year, I have said from the beginning that no bans will pass. The bans and restrictions from the past were proven ineffective, and the support of the house for new bills is not there.[/QUOTE]
Support for outright bans has always been low, of course. Support for increased regulation hasn't. No one wants to ban firearms, but most people think certain regulations should be tighter. Guns won't be taken away overnight. If anything, it will happen very gradually. For example, it might go something like this, with up to several years between steps in order to determine effectiveness/support of new policies: Increased background checks -> required registration/ban of "assault weapon" features (high capacity mags, barrel shroud, whatever) -> required registration of semiautomatic rifles -> required registration of high-caliber rifles -> required registration of semiautomatic pistols -> required registration of all firearms -> mandatory weapon safes in all homes containing firearms -> required storage of semiautomatic/high-caliber rifles in centralized armory -> required storage of all firearms in centralized armory -> government outlaws privately owned semiauto/high-caliber rifles entirely and compensates owners -> etc., until guns are basically gone altogether
[QUOTE=Ridge;39188156]Please, none of this partisan rhetoric. Neither party has been looking out for our rights and freedoms.[/QUOTE]
Correct.
This man has won 5 internets.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;40127445]simply not true. it is entirely possible to defend the second amendment without privately owned firearms.[/quote]
Whether you believe this or not, the purpose of the second amendment is to guarantee the right to privately owned firearms. Suggesting that privately owned firearms would do nothing, or make no difference, is ludicrous.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;40127445]i actually stated that they wouldn't be, but it wouldn't be because of privately owned firearms. the people could revolt completely unarmed and they would very successful.
I know, but private citizens and their guns aren't going to win the war, this is:
i have stated this numerous times in this thread. this is why the claim that private citizens need firearms in order to overthrow an unjust government is incorrect. they could rebel with nothing but tire irons and baseball bats, they would gain the support of that very large portion of the armed forces and likely be successful in their revolution. privately owned firearms are not necessary to a revolution. communication is. you say you read some of my other posts, but how did you miss my central argument?[/quote]
I didn't miss your central argument, I just completely disagree with your assessment. The fact that you think privately owned firearms would do nothing astounds me. Again, look back at the Mogadishu conflict. How do you think the U.S. would have fared if it was only the militants attacking them? The vast majority (75% plus) of the Somalis that took part in the conflict were average citizens (mostly men and male children). They were residents of the town given guns by the militia and told what to do. The Somali residents feared the Government, despite vastly outnumbering them.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;40127445]Support for outright bans has always been low, of course. Support for increased regulation hasn't. No one wants to ban firearms, but most people think certain regulations should be tighter. Guns won't be taken away overnight. If anything, it will happen very gradually. For example, it might go something like this, with up to several years between steps in order to determine effectiveness/support of new policies: Increased background checks -> required registration/ban of "assault weapon" features (high capacity mags, barrel shroud, whatever) -> required registration of semiautomatic rifles -> required registration of high-caliber rifles -> required registration of semiautomatic pistols -> required registration of all firearms -> mandatory weapon safes in all homes containing firearms -> required storage of semiautomatic/high-caliber rifles in centralized armory -> required storage of all firearms in centralized armory -> government outlaws privately owned semiauto/high-caliber rifles entirely and compensates owners -> etc., until guns are basically gone altogether[/QUOTE]
Support for outright bans has always been low? In 1959 more than 60% of the U.S. population supported a handgun ban. That trend remained at a high number, but slowly decreased over time.
As of 2013, while the percentage of support for new legislation has risen since last year, that support is still completely outweighed by the amount of people against new legislation.
[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40131010]Whether you believe this or not, the purpose of the second amendment is to guarantee the right to privately owned firearms. Suggesting that privately owned firearms would do nothing, or make no difference, is ludicrous.[/quote]
Whether you believe this or not, the second amendment only guarantees the right to privately owned firearms for as long as it hasn't been [I]amended.[/I] This is really easy stuff. Just because it's your opinion at this moment that it shouldn't be, doesn't mean it'll be everyone else's at any point in the future.
[quote]I didn't miss your central argument, I just completely disagree with your assessment. The fact that you think privately owned firearms would do nothing astounds me. Again, look back at the Mogadishu conflict. How do you think the U.S. would have fared if it was only the militants attacking them? The vast majority (75% plus) of the Somalis that took part in the conflict were average citizens (mostly men and male children). They were residents of the town given guns by the militia and told what to do. The Somali residents feared the Government, despite vastly outnumbering them.[/quote]
You can't compare a revolution in modern America to the Mogadishu conflict. If anything, compare it to the Arab spring. Similarly oppressed people, whose success was almost entirely because of social networking (communication). They began protesting, rioting, and finally full-scale rebellion when a large portion of their respective militaries defected. In a country of 300 million, privately owned firearms won't make a difference either way in the end. Would people be able to combat the military better (but still be vastly overpowered)? Yes. Would the end result change? No.
[quote]Support for outright bans has always been low? In 1959 more than 60% of the U.S. population supported a handgun ban. That trend remained at a high number, but slowly decreased over time.
As of 2013, while the percentage of support for new legislation has risen since last year, that support is still completely outweighed by the amount of people against new legislation.[/QUOTE]
In 1990, support for stricter legislation was at 78%, stay the same was at 17%, and less strict at 2%. Stricter legislation maintained the majority all the way up until about 2008, at 51%, with stay the same at 39%, and less strict at 7%. The lowest support stricter legislation has ever had was about 44% , where it was approximately tied with stay the same for a year or two. Less strict has never been above 9%. Looking at this data, the only period where more strict was outweighed by stay the same and less strict was that period from about 2010 to just before Sandy Hook. It's going back up; whether it stays there or reverts back to the downward trend remains to be seen.
[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/tqxzoipb8kyae7usyrxldw.gif[/img]
You're right, outright handgun ban support was high, but conveniently, only in the year you mentioned. Just six years later, support was down to 49%. Ten years later it was down to 41%. It has decreased very steadily over time and now sits at around 25%.
[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/iv5s6jznp0yf59wxymd2ig.gif[/img]
Support for enforcing current laws more strictly has been pretty high for a while now, and a considerable portion think new gun laws should be enacted in addition to enforcing current laws more strictly.
[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ulcavq221kyamprem9vnww.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;40131524]You can't compare a revolution in modern America to the Mogadishu conflict. If anything, compare it to the Arab spring. Similarly oppressed people, whose success was almost entirely because of social networking (communication). They began protesting, rioting, and finally full-scale rebellion when a large portion of their respective militaries defected. In a country of 300 million, privately owned firearms won't make a difference either way in the end. Would people be able to combat the military better (but still be vastly overpowered)? Yes. Would the end result change? No.[/quote]
I'm not trying to compare a revolution to the Mogadishu conflict. I'm trying to show what happens when you have sheer numbers with weapons against a much smaller force. It proves that regardless of equipment, training, and support, sheer numbers are devastating, especially when weapons are involved.
Again, to say that firearms would not make a difference is senseless. You suggest comparing it to the Arab spring. In more than one of the conflicts the Governments of the Arab countries are facing armed resistance from defected armed forces and armed citizens. Some of these conflicts have resulted in all out civil war. In some countries where there is no armed resistance (Bahrain), the Governments remain in control and continue to oppress the citizenship. The governments of Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Libya all had violent armed conflicts between the government forces and the citizens.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;40131524]In 1990, support for stricter legislation was at 78%, stay the same was at 17%, and less strict at 2%. Stricter legislation maintained the majority all the way up until about 2008, at 51%, with stay the same at 39%, and less strict at 7%. The lowest support stricter legislation has ever had was about 44% , where it was approximately tied with stay the same for a year or two. Less strict has never been above 9%. Looking at this data, the only period where more strict was outweighed by stay the same and less strict was that period from about 2010 to just before Sandy Hook. It's going back up; whether it stays there or reverts back to the downward trend remains to be seen.
[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/tqxzoipb8kyae7usyrxldw.gif[/img][/quote]
This graph is related to the sale of firearms. You will find that many people, myself included, feel that there needs to be more measures regarding the sale of firearms. As it stands, I can walk into any store in my area and leave with any gun I want (aside from an NFA item) within 10-15 minutes. The 4473 form that is standard is an absolute joke in reality. The system needs an improvement, but the problem is reaching a consensus between the opposing parties on what the improvements should be.
Example: I feel that private sales should never be restricted or controlled in any form. However, penalties are not severe enough to deter criminals from using firearms illegally (firearms that are typically acquired through private sale). These are the types of laws that need to be enforced. Punish the criminal, do not make it difficult for the innocent person
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;40131524]You're right, outright handgun ban support was high, but conveniently, only in the year you mentioned. Just six years later, support was down to 49%. Ten years later it was down to 41%. It has decreased very steadily over time and now sits at around 25%.
[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/iv5s6jznp0yf59wxymd2ig.gif[/img][/quote]
A 1.8% decrease each year is a very gradual decrease like I mentioned. You will also notice increases throughout the years as well, at times when the media is focused on guns. 91-93 were the years leading up to the AWB. After it was passed we started seeing a decrease until the aftermath of Columbine, where we again see a spike. You will also see spikes after the expiration of the AWB. The public's opinion is almost always focused on what is happening in the media, and rarely based on actual knowledge of the subject.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;40131524]Support for enforcing current laws more strictly has been pretty high for a while now, and a considerable portion think new gun laws should be enacted in addition to enforcing current laws more strictly.
[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ulcavq221kyamprem9vnww.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Gun laws is a broad term that is viewed differently by opposing groups. Gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters do actually favor some changes, as well as some new additions, but not the restriction of any firearms or magazines. Anti-gun groups favor changes in the form of restrictions they feel need to be placed on certain types of firearms and their magazines.
I don't really have that much of an opinion about this issue because I'm not a gun owner. The only thing I have to say is that the only thing that should be implemented is the background checks, because if the US Government were to implement extremely strict gun laws then people will start using knifes and hammers just like in the UK.
Going to throw my stance on this in without making a bias from the stuff I read in the thread.
I think that the system we have now works, but like everything else, has loopholes and bugs in it. Banning guns wont solve the issue we have at hand since criminals dont follow the law anyway and if they try to stop the arms sale in the US, they're going to go Canada/Mexico to get them. I believe that we need to close the loopholes at gun shows, increase and improve on background checks, bar mentally ill, domestic abuse, from possessing or buying a firearm. The hi-capacity magazines are stupid and wont work - look at the proposed law in NY about pop. You just buy more smaller ones instead of a few big ones.
They are not attacking your constitutional rights. They arent saying "you cant have firearms" they're just regulating it. Try yelling "fire" in a movie theater. Sure its within your rights, but at the same time, its not because its regulated.
And as we see more and more shootings happen, everyone is going to see that communication in law enforcement sucks. Everyone uses their own databases/records, talking to the feds is a hassle, and there is not information sharing. Because of this lack of information sharing, the shootings happen. In most cases, there are always "Police knew about his intentions" blah blah blah stories. No information. No service.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40070242]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]
Gun owners of course.
The only way to completely eliminate gun crimes is if every single gun of any kind is not only taken away, and destroyed. This won't be happening on any plane of reality. America loves guns, they're in everything; movies, shows, entertainment, everything. I think what the government doesn't really get is the difference between gun [I]confiscation[/I] and gun [I]control.[/I] Ask yourself, do you feel better in a restaurant with a crazy man with a gun eating there, or a crazy man and three sane men with guns in there? Neither is completely comfortable, but I know which situation I'd rather be in.
I believe that we need to take better charge of guns; who sells them, the prerequisites to buy them (i.e., genetic mental health, who you're living with, etc.), but I don't believe in taking them away. Recently, guns have been confiscated from every legal gun owning person in New York. I'm not so mad about this as I am the fact that they are unable to find the [I]illegal[/I] gun owners. Take down the black market, and then we'll talk.
[QUOTE=Rorschach;40235058]The only way to completely eliminate gun crimes is if every single gun of any kind is not only taken away, and destroyed. This won't be happening on any plane of reality. America loves guns, they're in everything; movies, shows, entertainment, everything. I think what the government doesn't really get is the difference between gun [I]confiscation[/I] and gun [I]control.[/I] Ask yourself, do you feel better in a restaurant with a crazy man with a gun eating there, or a crazy man and three sane men with guns in there? Neither is completely comfortable, but I know which situation I'd rather be in.
I believe that we need to take better charge of guns; who sells them, the prerequisites to buy them (i.e., genetic mental health, who you're living with, etc.), but I don't believe in taking them away. [b]Recently, guns have been confiscated from every legal gun owning person in New York.[/b] I'm not so mad about this as I am the fact that they are unable to find the [I]illegal[/I] gun owners. Take down the black market, and then we'll talk.[/QUOTE]
Do you happen to have a source on that bit? I don't doubt you, but last I heard Cuomo said he [i]wanted[/i] to confiscate but decided not to.
[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]
I did some looking and could only find one case where a New York man's handgun permit was revoked because he was taking psychotropic medication, though apparently that's written into their SAFE act. There was another man who had his permit revoked because his son said he was going to bring a [i]water pistol[/i] to school. Aside from the bit about taking guns from those with prescribed psychotropics, I can't seem to find anything that would indicate New York is actively taking guns from law-abiding citizens for no reason.
[QUOTE=Rorschach;40235058]The only way to completely eliminate gun crimes is if every single gun of any kind is not only taken away, and destroyed. This won't be happening on any plane of reality. America loves guns, they're in everything; movies, shows, entertainment, everything. I think what the government doesn't really get is the difference between gun [I]confiscation[/I] and gun [I]control.[/I] Ask yourself, do you feel better in a restaurant with a crazy man with a gun eating there, or a crazy man and three sane men with guns in there? Neither is completely comfortable, but I know which situation I'd rather be in.
I believe that we need to take better charge of guns; who sells them, the prerequisites to buy them (i.e., genetic mental health, who you're living with, etc.), but I don't believe in taking them away. Recently, guns have been confiscated from every legal gun owning person in New York. I'm not so mad about this as I am the fact that they are unable to find the [I]illegal[/I] gun owners. Take down the black market, and then we'll talk.[/QUOTE]
"the black market"
you realize a lot of this comes from criminals buying or stealing guns from family members who obtained their guns legally, and from private street sales where the seller obtained their guns legally, and sometimes even from pawn shop owners who agree to a street sale, who, once again, obtained their guns legally. there isn't some crazy secret black market that's importing guns from all over the world and sending them to criminals. criminals get the vast majority of their guns through someone who got it legally. how do you stop that?
[editline]11th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Purply;40217433]Gun owners of course.[/QUOTE]
it won't be simultaneous. gun owners are not a hivemind who collectively draw the line at 'X' regulation.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40250236]"the black market"
you realize a lot of this comes from criminals buying or stealing guns from family members who obtained their guns legally, and from private street sales where the seller obtained their guns legally, and sometimes even from pawn shop owners who agree to a street sale, who, once again, obtained their guns legally. there isn't some crazy secret black market that's importing guns from all over the world and sending them to criminals. criminals get the vast majority of their guns through someone who got it legally. how do you stop that?
[editline]11th April 2013[/editline]
it won't be simultaneous. gun owners are not a hivemind who collectively draw the line at 'X' regulation.[/QUOTE]
[Quote]
Do Gun Laws Disarm Criminals?
Although gun control advocates devote much attention to the alleged evils of guns and gun owners, they devote little attention to the particulars of devising a workable, enforceable law. Disarming criminals would be nearly impossible. There are between 100 and 140 million guns in the United States, a third of them handguns.[17] The ratio of people who commit handgun crimes each year to handguns is 1:400, that of handgun homicides to handguns is 1:3,600.[18] Because the ratio of handguns to handgun criminals is so high, the criminal supply would continue with barely an interruption. Even if 90 percent of American handguns disappeared, there would still be 40 left for every handgun criminal. In no state in the union can people with recent violent felony convictions purchase firearms. Yet the National Institute of Justice survey of prisoners, many of whom were repeat offenders, showed that 90 percent were able to obtain their last firearm within a few days. Most obtained it within a few hours. Three-quarters of the men agreed that they would have "no trouble" or "only a little trouble" obtaining a gun upon release, despite the legal barriers to such a purchase.[19]
Even if the entire American gun stock magically vanished, resupply for criminals would be easy. If small handguns were imported in the same physical volume as marijuana, 20 million would enter the country annually. (Current legal demand for new handguns is about 2.5 million a year). Bootleg gun manufacture requires no more than the tools that most Americans have in their garages. A zip gun can be made from tubing, tape, a pin, a key, whittle wood, and rubber bands. In fact, using wood fires and tools inferior to those in the Sears & Roebuck catalogue, Pakistani and Afghan peasants have been making firearms capable of firing the Russian AK-47 cartridge.[20] Bootleg ammunition is no harder to make than bootleg liquor. Although modern smokeless gunpowder is too complex for backyard production, conventional black powder is simple to manufacture.[21]
Apparently, illegal gun production is already common. A 1986 federal government study found that one-fifth of the guns seized by the police in Washington, D.C., were homemade.[22] Of course, homemade guns cannot win target-shooting contests, but they suffice for robbery purposes. Furthermore, the price of bootleg guns may even be lower than the price of the quality guns available now (just as, in prohibition days, bootleg gin often cost less than legal alcohol had).
[/quote]
Source: [url]http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa109/pa109index.html[/url]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40257701]Source: [URL]http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa109/pa109index.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
[quote]Even if 90 percent of American handguns disappeared, there would still be 40 left for every handgun criminal.[/quote]
This makes it sound like every gun in America is constantly at any criminal's immediate access. "Hey bro, let's go rob this joint, I'll just grab one of my 40 handguns, you got one of yours?" You can't act like going from over 400 handguns per criminal to just 40 wouldn't make it significantly more difficult for them to acquire them.
[quote]In no state in the union can people with recent violent felony convictions purchase firearms. Yet the National Institute of Justice survey of prisoners, many of whom were repeat offenders, showed that 90 percent were able to obtain their last firearm within a few days. Most obtained it within a few hours. Three-quarters of the men agreed that they would have "no trouble" or "only a little trouble" obtaining a gun upon release, despite the legal barriers to such a purchase.[19][/quote]
Perhaps it's easy for them to get guns because they're not trying to get them through the regular process from gun stores? A study posted earlier in this thread showed that [I]at least[/I] 80% of firearms were essentially obtained legally by proxy, and a significant percentage of pawn shops were willing to do an illegal street sale, skipping a background check. If I were to take a survey right now I too would say I would have little to no trouble obtaining a firearm by bypassing the legal process. I'm surprised only three quarters of them responded by saying it would be little or no trouble.
[quote]Even if the entire American gun stock magically vanished, resupply for criminals would be easy. If small handguns were imported in the same physical volume as marijuana, 20 million would enter the country annually.[/quote]
Because, as we all know, drugs and firearms are smuggled into America the exact same way. Just put that glock in a little balloon and shove it up your asshole, you'll have no problem getting through metal detectors. What an utterly useless statistic.
[quote]Bootleg gun manufacture requires no more than the tools that most Americans have in their garages. A zip gun can be made from tubing, tape, a pin, a key, whittle wood, and rubber bands.[/quote]
Zip guns and other improvised firearms haven't been in widespread use in decades because it's too much effort compared to how easy it is for criminals to obtain firearms in America.
This has already been posted before, but here: [URL]http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf[/URL]
60% of criminals obtained their firearms either from friends/family, or directly from a retail source. The other 40% came from street/illegal sources. About one in five gun salesmen will do an illegal sale. Who knows where the other sales come from? Other criminals, who originally got it from friends/family or a legal source? Craigslist? Theft?
Legal gun owners aren't the ones committing the crimes, at least not most of the time. But they certainly play a huge role in supplying criminals with their firearms, whether intentionally or not.
[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 say yes, there is more to our "need" to have weapons other than its in the Constitution. To find the other reasons you have to look at our history. We're a nation that was founded when firearms were still a relatively new thing - we're a nation that was founded by rebels, armed with firearms, that disliked the crown.
The next cultural aspect to consider is what happened AFTER the United States was formed and the Constitution was formed. We did not have a standing army, at least at first. The 'law' was upheld by the community, which was populated by people who were armed. There is a strong sense of individualism formed here. You want the law to be enforced? Do it yourself. Skip a little further you have people moving Westward, where they where literally at the mercy of mother nature and Indians. You hunted, cooked, built your home, made your own tools, farmed, etc. These people were hard as nails and they did all of this by themselves. These tasks include defending one's own life and the lives of the family/community.
We're a nation of frontiersman that fully embraced the idea of individualism. Owning a firearm to protects one's life is an extension of that sense of individualism.
2.
If the Constitution were changed in such a way that took away any of deemed 'Natural Rights' there would be a civil war and violent overthrow of the government.
[QUOTE=Jin;40264004]I would say yes, there is more to our "need" to have weapons other than its in the Constitution. To find the other reasons you have to look at our history. We're a nation that was founded when firearms were still a relatively new thing - we're a nation that was founded by rebels, armed with firearms, that disliked the crown.[/quote]
Tradition for tradition's sake cannot be used as a reason for keeping something.
[quote]The next cultural aspect to consider is what happened AFTER the United States was formed and the Constitution was formed. We did not have a standing army, at least at first.[/quote]
False. The United States didn't have a real standing army [I]before[/I] the Constitution was adopted, when the governing document was still the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was then adopted over the Articles in large part because it allowed the United States to establish a federal army rather than relying on state militaries to cooperate, which didn't work.
[quote]The 'law' was upheld by the community, which was populated by people who were armed. There is a strong sense of individualism formed here. You want the law to be enforced? Do it yourself.[/quote]
You seem to be implying here, going by the preceding sentences, that the United States military enforces the law. The United States has had law enforcement for as long as it has existed, and while the law was often enforced by the people, that isn't the case any longer. We no longer live in a time where common citizens have to form mobs in order to apprehend outlaws. This point is not applicable, if there is one.
[quote]Skip a little further you have people moving Westward, where they where literally at the mercy of mother nature and Indians. You hunted, cooked, built your home, made your own tools, farmed, etc. These people were hard as nails and they did all of this by themselves. These tasks include defending one's own life and the lives of the family/community.[/quote]
Fortunately, nowadays the western half of the country is no longer a safe haven for outlaws or violent Natives, and people don't too often die to the elements anymore. This is the 21st century. Firearms were important for day-to-day survival back in that period; that is no longer the case.
[quote]We're a nation of frontiersman that fully embraced the idea of individualism. Owning a firearm to protects one's life is an extension of that sense of individualism.[/quote]
We're also a nation of progressive thinkers and innovators, of inventors, of philosophers, of philanthropists, of some of the greatest minds in history. We're a nation that is on top of the world be staying ahead of the curve. We're competitive and we embrace new ideas that will continue to make us the greatest nation in the world. Firearms do not define America. Tea doesn't define Britain. The guillotine doesn't define France. The Autobahn doesn't define Germany. No country should limit itself to one thing that it places in a position of importance above everything else, especially not something like guns. How about freedom of speech and democracy?
[quote]If the Constitution were changed in such a way that took away any of deemed 'Natural Rights' there would be a civil war and violent overthrow of the government.[/QUOTE]
The Constitution is amendable. Opinions change over time. Policies change gradually with opinion. All of these things are true. You can sit and say there would be civil war if guns were taken away all you want, but you aren't correct unless you're either a time traveler or you can see into the future. I think it's safe to assume you aren't capable of either of those things.
You seem to have missed my central argument, and I apologize if I didn't make it clear in my original post:
America is built on a culture of individualism and founded on the idea that the government is corrupt, or will go corrupt. Until you take away the sense of individualism it is going to be hard convincing people that they need to turn in their guns - especially when studies have shown that more armed citizens equates to less violent crime.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40264501]The United States has had law enforcement for as long as it has existed, and while the law was often enforced by the people, that isn't the case any longer. We no longer live in a time where common citizens have to form mobs in order to apprehend outlaws. This point is not applicable, if there is one.[/QUOTE]
It's slowly becoming the case now with police funding being cut across the country. Police are coming out and saying "don't call us if such and such crime happens because of cost/time" and longer 911 queues are becoming a common trend in urban areas**. In all fifty states a citizen has the right to uphold the law if a violent felony is taking place in their presence; this includes protecting the life of themselves or others through lethal force. The citizens also have the right to make a citizen's arrest.
** [URL]http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/chicago-police-will-no-longer-respond-to-burglaries-or-robberies/[/URL]
** [URL]http://blog.thedrahos.net/2011/04/police-no-longer-responding-to-calls-across-the-country/[/URL]
** [URL]http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/09/foghorn/increasing-911-wait-times-when-the-police-are-only-15-minutes-away/[/URL]
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40264501]No country should limit itself to one thing that it places in a position of importance above everything else, especially not something like guns. How about freedom of speech and democracy?[/QUOTE]
America is more about individualism than anything - using a firearm to protect one's own life and the lives of others is an extension of that individualism; again I apologize if you missed my central argument.
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell
[QUOTE=Jin;40267569]You seem to have missed my central argument, and I apologize if I didn't make it clear in my original post:
America is built on a culture of individualism and founded on the idea that the government is corrupt, or will go corrupt. Until you take away the sense of individualism it is going to be hard convincing people that they need to turn in their guns - especially when studies have shown that more armed citizens equates to less violent crime.[/QUOTE]
please link me to these magical, definitive studies that exist
[quote]It's slowly becoming the case now with police funding being cut across the country. Police are coming out and saying "don't call us if such and such crime happens because of cost/time" and longer 911 queues are becoming a common trend in urban areas**. In all fifty states a citizen has the right to uphold the law if a violent felony is taking place in their presence; this includes protecting the life of themselves or others through lethal force. The citizens also have the right to make a citizen's arrest.
** [URL]http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/chicago-police-will-no-longer-respond-to-burglaries-or-robberies/[/URL]
** [URL]http://blog.thedrahos.net/2011/04/police-no-longer-responding-to-calls-across-the-country/[/URL]
** [URL]http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/09/foghorn/increasing-911-wait-times-when-the-police-are-only-15-minutes-away/[/URL][/quote]
No, police in those articles are reiterating what has always been the case; don't use 911 in a non-emergency. Finding your car stolen or finding your house broken into is [I]not[/I] an emergency. This isn't a new policy. If there is someone actively breaking into your car/home, yes, call 911. If you aren't in danger, don't use 911. You file a report, you don't call 911 and delay the process when other peoples' lives are in danger and need an ambulance or whatever else. Yes, citizens have the right to make a citizen's arrest, but that wouldn't change. You can still call the police in case of emergency.
Also, frontpagemag and thetruthaboutguns are incredibly biased sources.
[quote]America is more about individualism than anything - using a firearm to protect one's own life and the lives of others is an extension of that individualism; again I apologize if you missed my central argument.
"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." - George Orwell[/quote]
Why is using a firearm to take a life, justified or not, such an important thing to uphold? That's what I don't understand. Can it be used for good? Yes. But that shouldn't define America's individualism. Freedom of expression should do that. Why can't Americans be proud of that? We were some of the first to do it. It's pretty awesome. It doesn't kill people.
[editline]13th April 2013[/editline]
George Orwell also lived in a different time from now. Firearms are no longer our greatest weapons. Communication is by a long shot. Speech.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40264501]
We're also a nation of progressive thinkers and innovators, of inventors, of philosophers, of philanthropists, of some of the greatest minds in history. We're a nation that is on top of the world be staying ahead of the curve. We're competitive and we embrace new ideas that will continue to make us the greatest nation in the world. Firearms do not define America. Tea doesn't define Britain. The guillotine doesn't define France. The Autobahn doesn't define Germany. No country should limit itself to one thing that it places in a position of importance above everything else, especially not something like guns. How about freedom of speech and democracy?
[/QUOTE]
Who said firearms defined America?
And why should freedom of speech and democracy be any bigger a question than the personal liberty to carry arms?
[editline]13th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40270329]please link me to these magical, definitive studies that exist
Why is using a firearm to take a life, justified or not, such an important thing to uphold? That's what I don't understand. Can it be used for good? Yes. But that shouldn't define America's individualism. Freedom of expression should do that. Why can't Americans be proud of that? We were some of the first to do it. It's pretty awesome. It doesn't kill people.
[editline]13th April 2013[/editline]
George Orwell also lived in a different time from now. Firearms are no longer our greatest weapons. Communication is by a long shot. Speech.[/QUOTE]
Sorry to burst your bubble but contrary to popular belief, America and the world in general is not a civilized place. Communication is not the answer to all problems. "Lower your knife, dude! Robbing people is wrong because you're exploiting people weaker than you for personal gain!"
When it comes down to it people are not civil by nature, but self-serving beasts. So if this facade of civility ever breaks in the future (and it will) don't expect to recover from the chaos by singing Kumbaya at it.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40270374]Who said firearms defined America?
And why should freedom of speech and democracy be any bigger a question than the personal liberty to carry arms?[/QUOTE]
He was saying they symbolized America's individualism. I disagree.
Freedom of speech and democracy are vastly more important because humans don't communicate with gunshots. Firearms don't create ideas or advance mankind in any way. Nikola Tesla didn't need a a glock to invent alternating current. Guns have certainly helped in certain areas, such as revolutions. But usually those revolutions occur because people are unhappy and want to make progress: the result of ideas and speech. Private citizens don't need firearms to accomplish any of these things in the modern age.
[editline]13th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40270374]Sorry to burst your bubble but contrary to popular belief, America and the world in general is not a civilized place. Communication is not the answer to all problems. "Lower your knife, dude! Robbing people is wrong because you're exploiting people weaker than you for personal gain!"
When it comes down to it people are not civil by nature, but self-serving beasts. So if this facade of civility ever breaks in the future (and it will) don't expect to recover from the chaos by singing Kumbaya at it.[/QUOTE]
when did i ever say the solution to an armed robbery was to calmly tell that person to stop, jesus
communication is certainly the answer to a revolution. i was referring to a revolution, as that is what george orwell was referring to. not crime.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40270505]He was saying they symbolized America's individualism. I disagree.
Freedom of speech and democracy are vastly more important because humans don't communicate with gunshots. Firearms don't create ideas or advance mankind in any way. Nikola Tesla didn't need a a glock to invent alternating current. Guns have certainly helped in certain areas, such as revolutions. But usually those revolutions occur because people are unhappy and want to make progress: the result of ideas and speech. Private citizens don't need firearms to accomplish any of these things in the modern age.[/QUOTE]
No, firearms are ONE of the things that symbolize American individualism, and it's right up there at the top with speech and democracy.
And maybe we don't need firearms to accomplish those things in the modern age, but you see, guns are there as a collateral so the government doesn't get any funny ideas. Unfortunately for us, the government has already gotten some funny ideas so more than ever we need to be on our feet and keeping our guns and "assault weapons" just so happens to be how you do that.
I'm all for gun control and I think when you make weapons that easily available- even for an intended noble purpose like defence of freedom you're gonna have a few problems. That said if I lived in America I would own guns because I think, from my limited experience with air rifles, they would be fun to just shoot down a range.
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40270505]He was saying they symbolized America's individualism. I disagree.
Freedom of speech and democracy are vastly more important because humans don't communicate with gunshots. Firearms don't create ideas or advance mankind in any way. Nikola Tesla didn't need a a glock to invent alternating current. Guns have certainly helped in certain areas, such as revolutions. But usually those revolutions occur because people are unhappy and want to make progress: the result of ideas and speech. Private citizens don't need firearms to accomplish any of these things in the modern age.
[editline]13th April 2013[/editline]
when did i ever say the solution to an armed robbery was to calmly tell that person to stop, jesus
communication is certainly the answer to a revolution. i was referring to a revolution, as that is what george orwell was referring to. not crime.[/QUOTE]
What makes you believe that a revolution situation can be resolved through speech? What is different today that makes it so that a revolution can be accomplished by holding hands and singing "We are the world" instead of the historical method which has been used countless times in history and is still being used today, at this very moment, in a country whose denizens care just as much about having freedom as we do?
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40270561]And maybe we don't need firearms to accomplish those things in the modern age, but you see, guns are there as a collateral so the government doesn't get any funny ideas. Unfortunately for us, the government has already gotten some funny ideas so more than ever we need to be on our feet and keeping our guns and "assault weapons" just so happens to be how you do that.[/QUOTE]
I don't want to keep saying this. Private ownership of guns are not needed as that insurance against the government. They are not necessary for a successful revolution.
[QUOTE=lemongrapes;40270620]I'm all for gun control and I think when you make weapons that easily available- even for an intended noble purpose like defence of freedom you're gonna have a few problems. That said if I lived in America I would own guns because I think, from my limited experience with air rifles, they would be fun to just shoot down a range.[/QUOTE]
The issue is that gun control politicians want to steadily remove guns from America by incrementally criminalizing them. I'm all for the closing of the gun show loophole, and I'm all for background checks to make sure guns are getting in the right hands-but a gun registry? An "assault weapons" ban that only gets rid of guns that look like but function nothing like military weapons? A ban on "high capacity" (standard capacity) magazines that would do nothing at all but inconvenience people?
[editline]13th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40270642]I don't want to keep saying this. Private ownership of guns are not needed as that insurance against the government. They are not necessary for a successful revolution.[/QUOTE]
Yes they are. I don't want to keep saying this. If the government has an entire armory, and we don't even have guns, do you think we can stop the government from doing what they want? The government is supposed to serve US, not the other way around.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40270621]What makes you believe that a revolution situation can be resolved through speech? What is different today that makes it so that a revolution can be accomplished by holding hands and singing "We are the world" instead of the historical method which has been used countless times in history and is still being used today, at this very moment, in a country whose denizens care just as much about having freedom as we do?[/QUOTE]
I know I have already explained this to you specifically, and to other people probably four or more times in this thread. Today is very different from the founding of America. Guns were important back then for a revolution for a few reasons. For one, private citizens' firepower was almost on par with the military's. It was more of a fair fight. That fair fight would buy a revolt enough time to spread. Even back then, communication was most important. It was just slower. They had to sustain their rebellion long enough to get the message out to others for them to join the revolution. Without guns, they would have been crushed very quickly.
Today, you don't really need to buy time. We have the Internet, social networking, cell phones. The very moment a revolt began, news would spread throughout the country and the world like wildfire. The revolutionaries would grow in number and the military would be forced to either massacre the people it is sworn to protect or splinter off and join the rebellion. Guns wouldn't change that. Whether the first riots began with AR-15s or with baseball bats wouldn't matter, because the process would be the same. It's probably debatable as to whether an unarmed revolt would actually [I]save[/I] lives. The Arab Spring went through the same thing, and they were even more oppressed than Americans are.
[editline]13th April 2013[/editline]
Note that the above also serves as a reply to this:
[QUOTE=BFG9000;40270656]Yes they are. I don't want to keep saying this. If the government has an entire armory, and we don't even have guns, do you think we can stop the government from doing what they want? The government is supposed to serve US, not the other way around.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40270708]I know I have already explained this to you specifically, and to other people probably four or more times in this thread. Today is very different from the founding of America. Guns were important back then for a revolution for a few reasons. For one, private citizens' firepower was almost on par with the military's. It was more of a fair fight. That fair fight would buy a revolt enough time to spread. Even back then, communication was most important. It was just slower. They had to sustain their rebellion long enough to get the message out to others for them to join the revolution. Without guns, they would have been crushed very quickly.
Today, you don't really need to buy time. We have the Internet, social networking, cell phones. The very moment a revolt began, news would spread throughout the country and the world like wildfire. The revolutionaries would grow in number and the military would be forced to either massacre the people it is sworn to protect or splinter off and join the rebellion. Guns wouldn't change that. Whether the first riots began with AR-15s or with baseball bats wouldn't matter, because the process would be the same. It's probably debatable as to whether an unarmed revolt would actually [I]save[/I] lives. The Arab Spring went through the same thing, and they were even more oppressed than Americans are.[/QUOTE]
Except the Arab Springs weren't won by singing Kumbaya, they were won by revolutionaries with AK-47s
And don't I recall that certain governments were actually shutting down internet and communications services in their countries to try and weaken coordination? Media is very easily controlled, and people can be silenced. Especially considering that our government has a decent amount of technological resources.
[quote]Except the Arab Springs weren't won by singing Kumbaya
And don't I recall that certain governments were actually shutting down internet and communications services in their countries to try and weaken coordination? Media is very easily controlled, and people can be silenced. Especially considering that our government has a decent amount of technological resources.[/quote]
the third time you try to diminish what I'm saying by saying I just want everyone to sing kumbaya. it's so funny and clever and a completely accurate representation of my argument, good point!! now i remember in history class MLK and all his black friends just sang kumbaya until the civil rights act was passed, that's how it happened, ok.
you obviously don't understand the power of effective speech. you cite the use of firearms in history. maybe you should go back and study the importance of something as simple as communication first.
oh, wait, he edited it:
[quote]Except the Arab Springs weren't won by singing Kumbaya, they were won by revolutionaries with AK-47s[/quote]
You do know that I acknowledge that firearms are ultimately what will be used to win the revolution, right? I'm saying that the private citizens don't need them. Because they don't. I'll say this again: the very moment a revolt began, news would spread throughout the country and the world like wildfire. The revolutionaries would grow in number and the military would be forced to either massacre the people it is sworn to protect or splinter off and join the rebellion. Guns wouldn't change that. Whether the first riots began with AR-15s or with baseball bats wouldn't matter, because the process would be the same. It's probably debatable as to whether an unarmed revolt would actually save lives. The Arab Spring went through the same thing, and they were even more oppressed than Americans are.
That last part is kind of important. I would never support any legislation that allows the government to suppress communication or ideas. [I]That[/I] is not what America's about. [I]That[/I] is something to cause a revolt. Because if that didn't, then when [I]would[/I] we revolt? Wait until the government starts massacring us before a rebellion even begins?
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40270907]the third time you try to diminish what I'm saying by saying I just want everyone to sing kumbaya. it's so funny and clever and a completely accurate representation of my argument, good point!! now i remember in history class MLK and all his black friends just sang kumbaya until the civil rights act was passed, that's how it happened, ok.
you obviously don't understand the power of effective speech. you cite the use of firearms in history. maybe you should go back and study the importance of something as simple as communication first.
oh, wait, he edited it:
You do know that I acknowledge that firearms are ultimately what will be used to win the revolution, right? I'm saying that the private citizens don't need them. Because they don't. I'll say this again: the very moment a revolt began, news would spread throughout the country and the world like wildfire. The revolutionaries would grow in number and the military would be forced to either massacre the people it is sworn to protect or splinter off and join the rebellion. Guns wouldn't change that. Whether the first riots began with AR-15s or with baseball bats wouldn't matter, because the process would be the same. It's probably debatable as to whether an unarmed revolt would actually save lives. The Arab Spring went through the same thing, and they were even more oppressed than Americans are.
That last part is kind of important. I would never support any legislation that allows the government to suppress communication or ideas. [I]That[/I] is not what America's about. [I]That[/I] is something to cause a revolt. Because if that didn't, then when [I]would[/I] we revolt? Wait until the government starts massacring us before a rebellion even begins?[/QUOTE]
Yes maybe MLK did sing Kumbaya to the government until the civil rights movement was passed. But this does not apply to every single situation that we will encounter in the future. Trust me, I know the power of speech and I would hope that is our first resort to disputes and problems, but you never know when something else might come up. "Private citizens don't need firearms" is bullshit because they don't need a lot of things. There are so many luxuries that people in this country don't need but have, and guns are one of these more humble luxuries, assuming that "we don't need" them. (Which we do, since at the moment firearms are an effective means of self defense)
In the end it doesn't matter whether the process is the same or not, because if you really think that people don't need firearms, you're talking about stripping rights from a very large amount of people who own or want to own guns in the future for legitimate purposes, and who have done nothing wrong to deserve this punishment.
And going back to the "process being the same";
[QUOTE=Erector Beast;40264501]you aren't correct unless you're either a time traveler or you can see into the future. I think it's safe to assume you aren't capable of either of those things.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
