Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I think considering the US has the biggest and most powerful professional military in the world the right to bear arms becomes void considering the need for a peoples militia is 100% unnecessary.

When the 2nd amendment refers to a militia, they are referring to the state run military, not a bunch of civs carrying muskets. To clarify, read the 2nd amendment as follows: "Because the government must maintain a military to protect itself and its people, the people should have the right to bear arms to protect themselves against that military if it is ever used to infringe the rights of the people."

It only says that because the British were coming.
The British already came. Then they left.
I don't think they're coming back.

The American Revolution ended in 1783, well before the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. I'd say something about how Canadians are taught American history, but we Americans are fed the same junk history in the states as well.

[Fox 6]

Originally Posted by Professor S

"Because the government must maintain a military to protect itself and its people, the people should have the right to bear arms to protect themselves against that military if it is ever used to infringe the rights of the people."

Thats works for that time period, but now?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Fox 6

Thats works for that time period, but now?

Well, if you want to know if a bunch of untrained, but armed people, can legitimately fight an organized and professionally trained and armed military... just watch the news. No army on the planet can subdue the will of an armed populace without consent of those people. Only by getting the civilian authorities on the side of US military did we succeed in Iraq.

If your comment is about whether or not its necessary to arm a populace to defend against a tyrannical government in today's day and age: Well, if you could fit all of civilized history into an hour, true democratic governments would take up about 5 seconds. Democracy as we know it (and its various iterations) is a relatively new idea and is still the minority in the world.

[Fox 6]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Well, if you want to know if a bunch of untrained, but armed people, can legitimately fight an organized and professionally trained and armed military... just watch the news. No army on the planet can subdue the will of an armed populace without consent of those people. Only by getting the civilian authorities on the side of US military did we succeed in Iraq.

If your comment is about whether or not its necessary to arm a populace to defend against a tyrannical government in today's day and age: Well, if you could fit all of civilized history into an hour, true democratic governments would take up about 5 seconds. Democracy as we know it (and its various iterations) is a relatively new idea and is still the minority in the world.

Those types of arms are not that comparable. You should also know that those people are fighting with surplus soviet arms including 107 mm rockets, 82 mm mortars, C4, RPGs, (any of those can be made into IEDs) recoil-less rifles, etc. All of those arms are illegal (at least i would hope) in the US. Those are the real killers, I think it takes around an average 2,500 rounds fired to account for 1 kill.


EDIT, my bad, it wasnt that many.......... it takes 250,000 for each kill. as an underestimate

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ed-508299.html

You also seem to forget that we are trying to win the hearts and minds of those people in order to establish a self supporting entity, and that often gets in the way of firefights, operations, even scouting of enemy positions.

Insurgents in iraq and Afghanistan have been fighting for years and years and years, that hardly qualifies them as inexperienced. A lot of the fighters have military training and knowledge.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Fox 6

You should also know that those people are fighting with surplus soviet arms including 107 mm rockets, 82 mm mortars, C4, RPGs, (any of those can be made into IEDs) recoil-less rifles, etc. All of those arms are illegal (at least i would hope) in the US.

Get 350 million people fired up and they would overthrow any army with .22s. They likely could overthrown the government with pitchforks.

You also seem to forget that we are trying to win the hearts and minds of those people in order to establish a self supporting entity, and that often gets in the way of firefights, operations, even scouting of enemy positions.

And why do you think we're trying to win the hearts and minds of those people? Its our best chance of winning and the only reason why we won in Iraq.

Insurgents in iraq and Afghanistan have been fighting for years and years and years, that hardly qualifies them as inexperienced. A lot of the fighters have military training and knowledge.

And so would we if we fought for years and years against what we thought was a tyrannical government. They had success before they ever had that experience. If they didn't have an success... they never would have gotten any experience... they'd be dead.

Lets say you're right, though, and it still changes nothing. The 2nd amendment still grants the right to keep and bear arms. Until that is changed, all our modern wrangling over the necessity of bearing arms is useless.

[Fox 6]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Get 350 million people fired up and they would overthrow any army with .22s. They likely could overthrown the government with pitchforks.



And why do you think we're trying to win the hearts and minds of those people? Its our best chance of winning and the only reason why we won in Iraq.



And so would we if we fought for years and years against what we thought was a tyrannical government. They had success before they ever had that experience.

1. Then why not limit the 2nd amendment to .22's and pitchforks if that's all it takes?

Also you magically made up about 50 million people....

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...can+population

2. if the US populace had to rise up and fight the government in this age that would be a fictional "apocalyptic" situation. Part of my reasoning about the "that works for that time period, but now?" comment is that you are the friggin USA, The government and military would never turn against the populace at all. That is the whole point of democracy, and if you think its going to crumble and some crazy regime is going to sprout up, then you may be reading too many right wing news letters or attending too many conspiracy meetings. Also i think you should use the term "won" loosely, as you are still fighting, and only time will tell if the desired outcome happens when western forces leave the middle east.

3. Now you're just throwing "ifs" around and dabbling in hypothetical situations to aid your point. AMERICANS haven't had to fight a tyrannical governments have you? so again, you cant compare fighting insurgents to the American populace and call them both untrained combatants.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Fox 6

1. Then why not limit the 2nd amendment to .22's and pitchforks if that's all it takes?

Because the intent of the 2nd amendment wasn't to arm civilians "just enough". If you disagree with it, ok, work towards an amendment.

Also you magically made up about 50 million people....

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=...can+population

Ok. I was mistaken. Doesn't change my opinion on the result of a mass uprising.

2. if the US populace had to rise up and fight the government in this age that would be a fictional "apocalyptic" situation. Part of my reasoning about the "that works for that time period, but now?" comment is that you are the friggin USA, The government and military would never turn against the populace at all. That is the whole point of democracy, and if you think its going to crumble and some crazy regime is going to sprout up, then you may be reading too many right wing news letters or attending too many conspiracy meetings.

I don't think we're anywhere close to having a situation where the people would be forced to rise up against their government. As you said, we are a democracy. But all that needs to happen for violence to become necessary is for the democratic process to end. I don't see that happening any time soon, but that doesn't mean that it will never happen.

Also i think you should use the term "won" loosely, as you are still fighting, and only time will tell if the desired outcome happens when western forces leave the middle east.

Point taken. I only use "win" only in Iraq, BTW, because it looks like we have won in general terms. That can change, but I don't think I'm being overly optimistic.

3. Now you're just throwing "ifs" around and dabbling in hypothetical situations to aid your point. AMERICANS haven't had to fight a tyrannical governments have you? so again, you cant compare fighting insurgents to the American populace and call them both untrained combatants.

Do you have any numbers or proof that these people were trained combatants? To my knowledge, most were simply loosely trained armed populace. Keep in mind, RPGs and Aks are loved by resistance fighters BECAUSE they are easy to come by and require almost no training.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I'd say something about how Canadians are taught American history

We learn Canadian history in Canada.


Anyways, all I'll say about the gun laws is this:

They're out-dated, and un-needed. People need guns for one thing, hunting.

I stand by my statement of guns beget more guns.

If you have a knife to defend against a guy with fists, he'll get a knife. If you have a gun to defend your home against a guy with a knife, the next guy will have a pistol. If you get a shotgun to defend that pistol, the next guy will have two shotguns. If you get a mounted turret to protect against a guy with two shotguns, he'll get explosives.

The system never ends, and it is that 'constitutional law' to have guns that not only started the chain of events you have in your country, but keeps it progressing.

And I honestly think all of the United States' violence and gang problems stem from that one single 'right'.

It started as a way to backhandedly cut down on policing and government armament. If people police themselves, all is well. It was a few hundred years ago after all. But as time went on and civilization evolved and advances into a technological age, the right to have a deadly weapon remains, and is backed up with "our forefathers said yadda yadda."

To which I say "Big fucking whoop." It's 2010. 2000 years after Jesus, and more than 200 years after some guy said "Sure, have a gun. Write that down there, too."

"Freedom to own a gun" is a joke. There is no such thing as freedom. If you want to talk about freedom run down the street naked and brandish your gun. Then say you have the right to have a gun, and be naked if you so choose. You're only as free as the rules allow you to be. And this is one specific case where nobody anywhere in the world should be free to have a gun.

Guns beget guns, which beget bigger guns, which beget bigger guns.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

We learn Canadian history in Canada.

Obviously.

Anyways, all I'll say about the gun laws is this:

They're out-dated, and un-needed. People need guns for one thing, hunting.

I stand by my statement of guns beget more guns.

If you have a knife to defend against a guy with fists, he'll get a knife. If you have a gun to defend your home against a guy with a knife, the next guy will have a pistol. If you get a shotgun to defend that pistol, the next guy will have two shotguns. If you get a mounted turret to protect against a guy with two shotguns, he'll get explosives.

The system never ends, and it is that 'constitutional law' to have guns that not only started the chain of events you have in your country, but keeps it progressing.

And I honestly think all of the United States' violence and gang problems stem from that one single 'right'.

It started as a way to backhandedly cut down on policing and government armament. If people police themselves, all is well. It was a few hundred years ago after all. But as time went on and civilization evolved and advances into a technological age, the right to have a deadly weapon remains, and is backed up with "our forefathers said yadda yadda."

To which I say "Big fucking whoop." It's 2010. 2000 years after Jesus, and more than 200 years after some guy said "Sure, have a gun. Write that down there, too."

"Freedom to own a gun" is a joke. There is no such thing as freedom. If you want to talk about freedom run down the street naked and brandish your gun. Then say you have the right to have a gun, and be naked if you so choose. You're only as free as the rules allow you to be. And this is one specific case where nobody anywhere in the world should be free to have a gun.

Guns beget guns, which beget bigger guns, which beget bigger guns.

Well your argument is age-old, but it really has nothing to do with guns. Its about freedom vs. safety, and that debate has been going on since civilization began. You don't believe in freedom, but you believe in safety. That's certainly one way to look at it.

[Typhoid]

Well your argument is age-old, but it really has nothing to do with guns. Its about freedom vs. safety, and that debate has been going on since civilization began. You don't believe in freedom, but you believe in safety. That's certainly one way to look at it.

As I said "Freedom" is a concept. You're not free. And I'm not free. At least not in the definition of the meaning "free", which is "To do whatever one pleases." Considering there are people in jail, I'd assume they broke a law, which means they went against a rule. Which means they weren't free to do as they pleased.

We are, however "free" compared to less developed nations, or developing nations. Does this make us have "freedom"? No. Freedom is a concept. "Freedom" is another term for democracy, essentially - Which I highly disagree with [using].

If anything I've said [Such as "Don't own a gun", or "Guns are bad"] makes me hate freedom, then I suppose disliking the ownership of guns makes me hate freedom. Good thing for me I live in a country that has freedom defined as "Not being able to own a gun."

The problem, Strangler - is that it has to do with guns. Without the law for ownership of guns, you wouldn't need guns to protect yourself. It all stems from that one law you have. It's turned into a myriad of issues that all starts with "We're free to own guns."

I've posted the violent crimes numbers [which was per capita] for Canada [where we don't have guns] in comparison with the US numbers [where you have guns] and your violent crime numbers are well above the ones here.

As I said before, I don't 'believe' in guns for anything other than hunting. Will someone somewhere use a hunting gun to commit a crime? You bet they will. But that doesn't mean I'd jump on the "Holy fuck, we all need guns to protect ourselves" bandwagon. Guns aren't the answer, solution or question. Guns are the entire problem.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

As I said "Freedom" is a concept. You're not free. And I'm not free. At least not in the definition of the meaning "free", which is "To do whatever one pleases." Considering there are people in jail, I'd assume they broke a law, which means they went against a rule. Which means they weren't free to do as they pleased.

We are, however "free" compared to less developed nations, or developing nations. Does this make us have "freedom"? No. Freedom is a concept. "Freedom" is another term for democracy, essentially - Which I highly disagree with [using].

If anything I've said [Such as "Don't own a gun", or "Guns are bad"] makes me hate freedom, then I suppose disliking the ownership of guns makes me hate freedom. Good thing for me I live in a country that has freedom defined as "Not being able to own a gun.

I didn't say that you didn't believe in freedom because you're against gun ownership. I said you didn't believe in freedom because you said you didn't believe in freedom.

There is no such thing as freedom.

I'm sorry if you made yourself misunderstood, but that is hardly my fault.

Freedom comes with inherent dangers and vast helpings of personal responsibility. As you mentioned, you can't run down the street brandishing a gun (but you can have one holstered or even concealed if licensed). That is a trade in of freedom to gain safety, and I think a reasonable one, but still a trade all the same.

The balance between freedom and safety is where the argument will always lie.

[Typhoid]

I don't believe "Freedom" exists. And it doesn't. Freedom is anarchy.
Do I enjoy the North American meaning of Freedom which is substituted for Democracy? Yes. I quite enjoy Democracy. But I would not call Democracy freedom.

"Freedom" is one of those bullshit words thrown around now to try make a point more valid when you don't have anything to back it up with other than "freedom".

The balance between freedom and safety is where the argument will always lie.

Yes, but as I've been stating - and you've been avoiding - the reason in your country that the argument is between "freedom" and safety is because of the 'right to own a gun'. Without that 'right', you wouldn't need one to defend yourself with a gun.

If you remove the right to own a gun for purposes other than hunting, in a few generations, things will change.

Like I said:

"The problem, Strangler - is that it has to do with guns. Without the law for ownership of guns, you wouldn't need guns to protect yourself. It all stems from that one law you have. It's turned into a myriad of issues that all starts with "We're free to own guns."

I've posted the violent crimes numbers [which was per capita] for Canada [where we don't have guns] in comparison with the US numbers [where you have guns] and your violent crime numbers are well above the ones here.

As I said before, I don't 'believe' in guns for anything other than hunting. Will someone somewhere use a hunting gun to commit a crime? You bet they will. But that doesn't mean I'd jump on the "Holy fuck, we all need guns to protect ourselves" bandwagon. Guns aren't the answer, solution or question. Guns are the entire problem."

Semi-off topic edit:

I also stand firm in the belief that every countries "Rights" should be updated every so often to fit the current social and economical structure that the world is in. I don't think we [general 'we'] should be following rules made by people 200+ years in the past. That seems ridiculous. I'm not saying a complete overhaul is constantly needed - just a keen eye for revision.

[Professor S]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the chicken and egg theory around guns and violence (and my disagreement is in regards to your certainty, not with your belief), but there is ample research and evidence that supports both of our points of view.

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I also stand firm in the belief that every countries "Rights" should be updated every so often to fit the current social and economical structure that the world is in. I don't think we [general 'we'] should be following rules made by people 200+ years in the past. That seems ridiculous. I'm not saying a complete overhaul is constantly needed - just a keen eye for revision.

I agree they should be updated as well, and we have a process for it. That process was put in place over 200 years ago.

That is what you seem to misunderstand about the constitution. The constitution isn't really a list of laws, but instead is a framework where people, through democratic action, can evolve their own government and society without having to worry about a temporary political windfall or a one vote majority in the Senate removing their individual rights forever.

To amend the constitution and change people's rights (quotations unnecessary), there must be an overwhelming societal shift in that direction. It is not the federal government that is given the power to change it, but the combination of the federal government and the states.