Court Strikes Down Hand-Gun Ban

[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.

[Fox 6]

Originally Posted by Professor S

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.

That was one of the first asked questions when the insurgents started fighting back...........

Investigations have shown that the ideal insurgent candidate are those with military training.

This is recent stuff, but you dont go through 60+ years of conflict and not have experience with weapons and guerrilla fighting. Of course this stuff was happening against the Soviets, and Israel.

I don't get how you can't concede the fact that militant insurgent groups are at a higher level of conflict experience than the American public. That is a positive for the American public! You just chose a bad example saying that insurgent groups are a model for how Americans would use their guns to fight their own military.

Most of the casualties are caused by IED's which take military level training and more importantly MILITARY MUNITIONS (c4, rockets, large caliber shells, mortars, etc) to make effectively. I think around 75% in Afghanistan casualties and around 60-65% in iraq are caused by IEDs, not small arms.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64T0U920100530

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11941340/

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/0...istan_060209w/

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/0...s_ieds_040309/

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22330.pdf

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Fox 6

That was one of the first asked questions when the insurgents started fighting back...........

Investigations have shown that the ideal insurgent candidate are those with military training.

This is recent stuff, but you dont go through 60+ years of conflict and not have experience with weapons and guerrilla fighting. Of course this stuff was happening against the Soviets, and Israel.

I don't get how you can't concede the fact that militant insurgent groups are at a higher level of conflict experience than the American public. That is a positive for the American public! You just chose a bad example saying that insurgent groups are a model for how Americans would use their guns to fight their own military.

Most of the casualties are caused by IED's which take military level training and more importantly MILITARY MUNITIONS (c4, rockets, large caliber shells, mortars, etc) to make effectively. I think around 75% in Afghanistan casualties and around 60-65% in iraq are caused by IEDs, not small arms.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64T0U920100530

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11941340/

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/0...istan_060209w/

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/0...s_ieds_040309/

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22330.pdf

Ok, I concede that middle eastern insurgents had far more fighting experience than American civilians from the very beginning of the conflict. I was not a aware of a lot of those stats you posted, thanks.

It still does not change my opinion on a mass uprising in the US, experienced combatants or not. We've veered waaaayyyy off topic anyway. This thread really isn't about the pros and cons of gun ownership, its about what rights our governing documents guarantee.

I am not a gun nut by any means, nor am I against gun controls (I'm not necessarily for them either as the data is conflicted at best as to whether or not gun control reduces gun related crime in countries with a history of gun ownership). What I am against are laws, like the one that was rightfully overturned, that violate the constitution.

You want to revise/repeal the 2nd Amendment? Ok. It will take another amendment. That's the entire point of the protections given by the constitution. Certain individual rights are not to be repealed unless their is a massive movement in public opinion, and even then, some general rights are inalienable, meaning people cannot even amend them away.