You only need a license to drive a car on public roads. There is no licensing requirement to drive around on your own property.
So the analogy fails, because you suggest a required license to keep a firearm on your own property. Almost all states already require a license to carry in public (if they allow it at all).
Well, I also believe a valid driver's license should be required in order to purchase a car, so at least I'm consistent even though you're right.
Violent crime in Japan is through the roof, yet they have strict restrictions on firearms just like Germany does.
WTF? Japan has one of the world's lowest crime rates.
While Britain has one of the highest. Gun control has no effect on violent crime except in the tools used.
Okay, they do a background check, that's pretty cool. I still like the idea of forcing people to be trained on use and maintenance of a firearm if they want to buy something like a pistol. Hell, even the non-restricted license application says you should take a course (I did back when I was 16 - makes it more likely to actually be approved). You have to take a test to be licensed to drive a car and cars are way more ubiquitous that guns.
Then you'd probably get into questions of the cost of such classes, and how often they're available. Also, whether or not the criteria to pass is subjective. Basically you'd have to show that the classes don't in some way act as a de facto ban on ownership for broad categories of people. The kinds of restrictions you're allowed to put on a right must meet a much higher standard than those on a privilege...hence the reason (if I remember correctly) states can't require a special tax for voting.
A class that costs $200 and only meets on weekdays (thus meaning another $50-$100 of lost wages for most low-income applicants) isn't exactly a reasonable restriction on a Constitutional right. A class where the instructor can simply not pass you because he doesn't like the look of you isn't either.
EDIT: So it's clear, I'm not saying a required class in and of itself is unreasonable. But the cost would need to be insignificant compared to the cost of the gun (so, since a pistol can be had for about $200 to $300, say $20 for the class), it would need to be on a flexible schedule (six days a week, maybe a couple evenings), and it would need to have relatively straightforward and objective criteria for passing. Basically, it would need to be easier to get than a driver's license. Which might seem to defeat the purpose, but hey rights are rights. Then again, it'd probably be an improvement in most states...the people I see who own guns but know jack shit about guns or gun safety frighten me sometimes.
That's not legally obtained, Than.
Quite the opposite, in fact. I'm wondering just how many guns used in the commission of crimes were legally obtained by the person using them. I'd be unsurprised if the percentage was pretty low.
Yes, because criminals who use guns to aid in the commission of crimes always obtain them legally.
Yes, and I'm sure none of them are ever paid for in cash, then "lost" by gun dealers.
I would imagine this to be a rare occurence, at best. Obtaining an FFL is strenuous in itself, with all the background checks and ATF paperwork, and gives the ATF virtually the ability to audit your business at any time they please and shut you down if they feel you're breaking any laws. In fact, the ATF can shut you down and confiscate all the firearms you have in stock if they think you might be breaking any laws. You are required to keep detailed track of all guns within your posession, and file reports for all guns that are sold, lost or stolen. If you are breaking laws, the ATF will catch you, fine you a substantial amount of money, and make sure you spend time in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
We have anti gun laws here. Everyone just stabs each-other instead.
Or barring that, things like Moltovs aren't terribly hard to make...
Wouldn't apply to random crime, but you think someone who plans ahead then goes in and shoots shit up would just go "oh, can't buy a gun, better bug off then".
I'm aware. However, if guns weren't so prevalent, it also wouldn't be so easy. So, implying that the presence of legal guns has absolutely nothing to do with the presence of illegal guns is highly misleading.
Let's be honest, here: if the American government ever decided to go all tyranny on our asses with the support of the military, there's not a goddamn thing we could do about it, regardless of how many guns we might have in the basement.
I used to agree with this, but the war in Iraq changed my opinion. It seems like a proliferation of small arms in an urban environment can have a pretty significant impact on a modern military.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm aware. However, if guns weren't so prevalent, it also wouldn't be so easy. So, implying that the presence of legal guns has absolutely nothing to do with the presence of illegal guns is highly misleading.
One might suggest that a blanket ban (like that in DC or other areas) is not the least restrictive means to address that issue, though.
Let's be honest, here: if the American government ever decided to go all tyranny on our asses with the support of the military, there's not a goddamn thing we could do about it, regardless of how many guns we might have in the basement.
I used to agree with this, but the war in Iraq changed my opinion. It seems like a proliferation of small arms in an urban environment can have a pretty significant impact on a modern military.
Depending on the defenition of Small Arms. A handgun ban does not cover an AK. You're not seeing our troops killed by 9mm fire, they're being killed by long rifles and things that classify as assault weapons. Those ARE useful to fight a military.
Let's be honest, here: if the American government ever decided to go all tyranny on our asses with the support of the military, there's not a goddamn thing we could do about it, regardless of how many guns we might have in the basement.
I used to agree with this, but the war in Iraq changed my opinion. It seems like a proliferation of small arms in an urban environment can have a pretty significant impact on a modern military.
Remember the Iraqi military? Remember how America utterly crushed it during Bush 41? Remember how after that, Saddam Hussein still was able to maintain his power in Iraq with a militarily that, before it had been nigh-completely destroyed, still wasn't anywhere near as effective as the U.S. military?
We can crush all opposition in Iraq anytime we want to; all we have to do is employ the same tactics that Saddam Hussein did. We'd be about a thousand times better at it than he was, too. No tyrant is going to handle the people of his country with kid gloves. This argument for the 2nd amendment being our protection against tyranny is not only ridiculous, it's goddamn dangerous, because the majority of the gun-toters are going to be part of the real threat to democracy and freedom in America, which is us willingly handing ourselves over to a tyrant, asking for someone to rule us with an iron fist. Pretending that the 2nd amendment will protect us from that is a distraction from the very real threats to the institutions of this country.
Well, it's obvious that D.C.'s stringent anti-gun laws have made it a crime-free utopia.
Yes, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the redneck free-for-all going on in Virginia.
I am not sure where you're going with this, as I know it's sarcasm, but not what it's sarcasm for... however, I don't think the rednecks of Virginia are driving all the way out to the DC area to shoot each other. The area immediately surrounding DC is pretty damn redneck free... unless you're talking about the "help."
In this case, instead of an assault weapons ban (which is always under attack for "what the hell is an assault weapon"), it's banning handguns on the basis that they serve no purpose beyond shooting another person.
My response to this whole concept is "yeah, and?" Guns, handguns, long-guns, or shotguns really were invented to kill people, and the amendment was specifically added with the idea that, for the protection of the state, either collectively or individually, you were given the right to be armed for a situation where you might have to kill someone. That's the purpose. There is no other purpose that can be justified under the constitution, beyond training. That part about how they make hunting easier is anciliary. Either get over it or don't, but the hem-hawing on this by folks like the NRA fighting for "hunter's rights" pisses me off to no end. Address the point. It also doesn't have anything in there that says "you don't really need a gun if the cops can save your ass, either."
If I remember correctly they also argued in some brief or another that an absolute ban on handguns, combined with a requirement that any long guns be either disassembled or locked (even in homes), didn't infringe on somebody's right (assuming it exists) to defend themselves with a firearm.
Might as well not have it if I gotta tell you "wait til I put it together, Mr. Bad Guy, before you come in." All it can be used for if it's disassembled is to sodomize me with it. Hell's bells, I can put an M-16/AR-15 together blindfolded and I know that. People on both sides of the issue are fantasizing too much.
Exactly. I heard one of the lawyers or lawmakers or something on NPR saying that there is no need to have a firearm in a purely urban environment like DC.
Which makes sense to me, but it's basically an argument on exactly what you said above.
Why would I need a firearm more in a suburban or rural environment?
It seems to me that in the original wording it wouldn't apply to individuals these days. It's pretty clear that it applied to militias, which used to be made up of civilians, but now, for lack of a better organization to compare it to, it's the National Guard.
This is where the wording of the amendment confuses things.
People fight over three words -- regulated, militia, and state -- and how they interact. The rest of it is clear (some people fight about "people" as well, but state kinda covers that), but the argument is basically:
Does regulated mean "laws" or "trained"? In the words of that day, it's more likely it means "trained", but it's hard to know for certain. Trained may imply either a overall organization (like the Guard) or the idea that having a firearm around would imply that you know how to use it.
Does militia mean a formalized militia? Does it mean that you and your neighbors can form a SHTF militia? Is it something that kinda flows from the "regulation" above as training that implies that in order to put together a militia quickly everyone needs to have a firearm and the ability to use it... ability which is gained by owning a firearm? (see also Knuckle Dragger's post)
Do regulation and militia go hand in hand? Is it a legal militia, is it a trained militia... what do these words really mean in combination?
Does state mean the government and it's assets, the community and it's assets (we the people), or yourself (me the people).
Depending on how everything is interpreted, it could be that the Guardsmen are the only ones who should be armed or that everyone should be armed but can only use their firearms in defense of the community... which means that you really don't have a right to bust a cap in someone who is trying to hurt you, unless you can say that defending yourself is defending the community.
Regardless, I'd say that every male registered with selective service is (to some extent) part of the "militia." While they will be provided with a weapon when the time comes, I'd say familiarity with firearms and perhaps some skill with their use would be beneficial. You can't really teach all that much in the way of marksmanship in nine weeks of basic training.
The idea of calling in a militia usually means that you don't have nine weeks to give someone basic training. You need them assembled and you need them assembled immediately to act in defense immediately. The British aren't coming in 9 weeks. The British are here. And they think your daughter is a hottie.
Okay, they do a background check, that's pretty cool. I still like the idea of forcing people to be trained on use and maintenance of a firearm if they want to buy something like a pistol. Hell, even the non-restricted license application says you should take a course (I did back when I was 16 - makes it more likely to actually be approved). You have to take a test to be licensed to drive a car and cars are way more ubiquitous that guns.
There is no amendment that gives you a right to own a car and says that no one can infringe that right.
Though, about the licenses... honestly, I kind of like the idea of mandatory firearm training, in the spirit of the amendment. However, the idea of the gubment getting their hands into a "range tax" is repulsive.
Let's be honest, here: if the American government ever decided to go all tyranny on our asses with the support of the military, there's not a goddamn thing we could do about it, regardless of how many guns we might have in the basement.
I used to agree with this, but the war in Iraq changed my opinion. It seems like a proliferation of small arms in an urban environment can have a pretty significant impact on a modern military.
Only if they want to leave your buildings standing.
Let's be honest, here: if the American government ever decided to go all tyranny on our asses with the support of the military, there's not a goddamn thing we could do about it, regardless of how many guns we might have in the basement.
I used to agree with this, but the war in Iraq changed my opinion. It seems like a proliferation of small arms in an urban environment can have a pretty significant impact on a modern military.
Only if old artillery rounds and AT missiles are also available to the public. Which they are not.
We can crush all opposition in Iraq anytime we want to; all we have to do is employ the same tactics that Saddam Hussein did. We'd be about a thousand times better at it than he was, too. No tyrant is going to handle the people of his country with kid gloves. This argument for the 2nd amendment being our protection against tyranny is not only ridiculous, it's goddamn dangerous, because the majority of the gun-toters are going to be part of the real threat to democracy and freedom in America, which is us willingly handing ourselves over to a tyrant, asking for someone to rule us with an iron fist. Pretending that the 2nd amendment will protect us from that is a distraction from the very real threats to the institutions of this country.
Tyrants and dictators happen. History is full of them. Shit, the 20th century is full of them.
Having the right to bear arms means the military does not have a monopoly on all the weapons. When you start taking away weapons, the civilians have no means of defending themselves. As a government you can essentially do whatever you want to them (Hitler, Stalin, etc). Having a well-armed civilian population means we would at least have the right to stand up to a government, which is more than a lot of the oppressed peoples of past centuries could do.
The likely hood of our government doing something like that is far fetched, but always a possibility. Nice to know we've got that option. When we have police coming door to door seizing people's weapons because we're no longer legally allowed to own them, that tells me we're heading somewhere dangerous.
Well, it's obvious that D.C.'s stringent anti-gun laws have made it a crime-free utopia.
Yes, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the redneck free-for-all going on in Virginia.
I am not sure where you're going with this, as I know it's sarcasm, but not what it's sarcasm for... however, I don't think the rednecks of Virginia are driving all the way out to the DC area to shoot each other. The area immediately surrounding DC is pretty damn redneck free... unless you're talking about the "help."
No, he means that it's kind of hard to ban something when you can get the thing a mile away. Hell, most of the guns used in crimes in New York come from that area.
If I remember correctly they also argued in some brief or another that an absolute ban on handguns, combined with a requirement that any long guns be either disassembled or locked (even in homes), didn't infringe on somebody's right (assuming it exists) to defend themselves with a firearm.
Might as well not have it if I gotta tell you "wait til I put it together, Mr. Bad Guy, before you come in." All it can be used for if it's disassembled is to sodomize me with it. Hell's bells, I can put an M-16/AR-15 together blindfolded and I know that. People on both sides of the issue are fantasizing too much.
Or you could just use a lock (would that be a trigger lock or a locked case?) I'm betting more people die from having an unsecured gun that from an oversecured one. Hell, an analyst on the issue said that there's data showing that the criminal is more likely to use it than you are.
What's interesting about the Heller case is that the govt lawyer is taking the position that an individual right absolutely exists, with allowable regulation that doesn't need to be subject to strict scrutiny.
One of the most important aspects of the 98-minute hearing was the steadfast commitment that the federal government’s lawyer, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, held to the position he had expressed in a brief that has come under heavy fire from inside the White House and from a wide swath of the gun-owning community. Clement had written that, while there should be an individual, private right to have a gun in one’s home, it should be subject to regulation by government that would not have to meet the strictest constitutional test. At the podium, he several times repeated his criticism of the D.C. Circuit Court for raising a higher constitutional bar to gun regulation — even though his critics (including Vice President Cheney) passionately support exactly what the Circuit Court did in striking down the District of Columbia’s 1976 ban on any private ownership or use of handguns.
I'm fairly certain the court will decide on an individual right, but it's not really clear yet how they'll feel about what kind of regulation of that right is allowed.
We can crush all opposition in Iraq anytime we want to; all we have to do is employ the same tactics that Saddam Hussein did. We'd be about a thousand times better at it than he was, too. No tyrant is going to handle the people of his country with kid gloves. This argument for the 2nd amendment being our protection against tyranny is not only ridiculous, it's goddamn dangerous, because the majority of the gun-toters are going to be part of the real threat to democracy and freedom in America, which is us willingly handing ourselves over to a tyrant, asking for someone to rule us with an iron fist. Pretending that the 2nd amendment will protect us from that is a distraction from the very real threats to the institutions of this country.
Tyrants and dictators happen. History is full of them. Shit, the 20th century is full of them.
Having the right to bear arms means the military does not have a monopoly on all the weapons. When you start taking away weapons, the civilians have no means of defending themselves. As a government you can essentially do whatever you want to them (Hitler, Stalin, etc). Having a well-armed civilian population means we would at least have the right to stand up to a government, which is more than a lot of the oppressed peoples of past centuries could do.
The likely hood of our government doing something like that is far fetched, but always a possibility. Nice to know we've got that option. When we have police coming door to door seizing people's weapons because we're no longer legally allowed to own them, that tells me we're heading somewhere dangerous.
I really hate to rain on your "glorious uprising against fascist gouverment oppression" parade here, but please consider this:
In Nazi Germany, every young male over 14 was trained in small arms use. The Hitler Youth stored those guns locally, a determinded public would have been able to seize them and was (obviously) trained in their use, older males had full scale military training. Yet in 12 years, there was no uprising.
And if you say "but the germans did not want to, they liked the Nazis", well, the GDR gouverment was as unpopular as any dictatorship in the public. They had one million men, out of 16 million people, under arms. That means including worker brigades, civil defense - average people. And they, too, had manadatory military training for every able bodied man AND women. Yet in 40 years, there was no armed resistence of any kind against the gouverment. The revolution was brought about by peacefull means.
The ability of a public to resist a dictatorship is mainly determined by its ability to organize and its willingness to "see this through", much more then its ability to arm itself. Not to mention that, as Thantos (I think) said, if the army sides with the gouverment, you are fucked anyway, if it doesn't, its going to be the shortest coup ever seen.
Well, it's obvious that D.C.'s stringent anti-gun laws have made it a crime-free utopia.
Yes, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the redneck free-for-all going on in Virginia.
I am not sure where you're going with this, as I know it's sarcasm, but not what it's sarcasm for... however, I don't think the rednecks of Virginia are driving all the way out to the DC area to shoot each other. The area immediately surrounding DC is pretty damn redneck free... unless you're talking about the "help."
No, he means that it's kind of hard to ban something when you can get the thing a mile away. Hell, most of the guns used in crimes in New York come from that area.
specially when the godsdamned dumbass southies won't relinquish their retarded gun shows.
I really hate to rain on your "glorious uprising against fascist gouverment oppression" parade here, but please consider this:
I didn't realize I was having a fascist gouverment oppression parade, but thanks for letting me know. I also respectfully disagree with your assumption that the military would "ZOMG PWN UR ASS SO DONT EVEN TRY". I don't want to derail this thread and go into battlefield tactics, how our government would crush the puny civilians and all of the other inane tangets threads in D&D go off on, but our country was founded on an armed rebellion against the supposed "world's greatest military super-power". That's precisely why the 2nd amendment is there. It is a measure to keep balance to the power of the military, and it's role in a civilian government. Take it out, and you give too much power to one side.
Wait, are we comparing a military with muskets against civilians, vs a military with weaponry that can level cities. This strikes me as pretty stupid for a number of rather clear reasons.
Well, it's obvious that D.C.'s stringent anti-gun laws have made it a crime-free utopia.
Yes, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the redneck free-for-all going on in Virginia.
I am not sure where you're going with this, as I know it's sarcasm, but not what it's sarcasm for... however, I don't think the rednecks of Virginia are driving all the way out to the DC area to shoot each other. The area immediately surrounding DC is pretty damn redneck free... unless you're talking about the "help."
No, he means that it's kind of hard to ban something when you can get the thing a mile away. Hell, most of the guns used in crimes in New York come from that area.
Perhaps the more effective legislation would be for Virginia (and other states) to ban gun sales to out-of-staters? Even Texas does that.
Well, it's obvious that D.C.'s stringent anti-gun laws have made it a crime-free utopia.
Yes, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the redneck free-for-all going on in Virginia.
I am not sure where you're going with this, as I know it's sarcasm, but not what it's sarcasm for... however, I don't think the rednecks of Virginia are driving all the way out to the DC area to shoot each other. The area immediately surrounding DC is pretty damn redneck free... unless you're talking about the "help."
No, he means that it's kind of hard to ban something when you can get the thing a mile away. Hell, most of the guns used in crimes in New York come from that area.
Ah, ok. My brain is getting it now. Sometimes I short-circuit on the subtlety.
One of the things about these laws that gets me is that I'm not sure whether or not the politicians actually believe the measures would work. I wonder if part of it is trying to get votes by looking like they're "doing something" and if there's another part of it where they're just trying to tack more jail time on people they collar for other crimes.
I really hate to rain on your "glorious uprising against fascist gouverment oppression" parade here, but please consider this:
I didn't realize I was having a fascist gouverment oppression parade, but thanks for letting me know. I also respectfully disagree with your assumption that the military would "ZOMG PWN UR ASS SO DONT EVEN TRY". I don't want to derail this thread and go into battlefield tactics, how our government would crush the puny civilians and all of the other inane tangets threads in D&D go off on, but our country was founded on an armed rebellion against the supposed "world's greatest military super-power". That's precisely why the 2nd amendment is there. It is a measure to keep balance to the power of the military, and it's role in a civilian government. Take it out, and you give too much power to one side.
You gotta be kidding me.
One: Britain would have crushed us if they hadn't given up and gone home to deal with their real threat, France. They didn't see it as worth it anymore.
Two: As Than pointed out, if a true tyrant were in charge of the military, there would be not a fucking thing you could do against that military. The full force of the US Army, Navy, and Air Force against your fucking house, without any problematic little guidelines like "Don't seek to kill as many civilians as possible?"
Are you insane? What are you gonna do, fire your little pistol at an F-22 as it flies overhead, raining bombs on your town? Yeah, that'll work well.
Something to consider in the whole armed populace vs military thing is that if the government were to take some action that led to a significant portion of the population taking up arms, it would not just be a matter of pistols and shotguns vs. tanks for a number of reasons, most notably because at least some of the military would likely desert or defect; enlisted men swear to both defend the constitution and obey they orders of the president, while officers swear only to defend the constitution. Even with soldiers that do not defect, soldiers serving on bases are going to have ties to the local community and might be hesitant to fire on a mob. It's one thing to order a soldier to shoot some Iraqis they don't know; it is something else to tell them to shoot your kid's soccer coach.
It still wouldn't be a symmetrical fight, but also consider that between the coalition forces, Peshmerga and Iraqi army, there are more than twice as many soldier per civilian in Iraq than we would have in the US if we recalled the entire armed forces including reserves.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
If they are committed to leveling your state then, yes, small arms aren't going to do much. If the Army wants to quell some sort of uprising among the population without turning the area into a sheet of glass then they are going to need to use people, and that's where the small arms would be better than nothing. Taking the gloves off doesn't turn Joe Soldier into invincible killbot 4000.
If they are committed to leveling your state then, yes, small arms aren't going to do much. If the Army wants to quell some sort of uprising among the population without turning the area into a sheet of glass then they are going to need to use people, and that's where the small arms would be better than nothing. Taking the gloves off doesn't turn Joe Soldier into invincible killbot 4000.
Edit: too slow
The best defense against either is going to be the chain of command all the way down to the guy with his finger on the button/trigger being extremely unwilling to blow up a bunch of US citizens in Ohio or wherever, despite what his superiors are telling them to do.
Well, it's obvious that D.C.'s stringent anti-gun laws have made it a crime-free utopia.
Yes, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with the redneck free-for-all going on in Virginia.
I am not sure where you're going with this, as I know it's sarcasm, but not what it's sarcasm for... however, I don't think the rednecks of Virginia are driving all the way out to the DC area to shoot each other. The area immediately surrounding DC is pretty damn redneck free... unless you're talking about the "help."
No, he means that it's kind of hard to ban something when you can get the thing a mile away. Hell, most of the guns used in crimes in New York come from that area.
Perhaps the more effective legislation would be for Virginia (and other states) to ban gun sales to out-of-staters? Even Texas does that.
Gun shows are unregulated, and it's now illegal to track rogue sellers due to Tihart.
If they are committed to leveling your state then, yes, small arms aren't going to do much. If the Army wants to quell some sort of uprising among the population without turning the area into a sheet of glass then they are going to need to use people, and that's where the small arms would be better than nothing. Taking the gloves off doesn't turn Joe Soldier into invincible killbot 4000.
Edit: too slow
The best defense against either is going to be the chain of command all the way down to the guy with his finger on the button/trigger being extremely unwilling to blow up a bunch of US citizens in Ohio or wherever, despite what his superiors are telling them to do.
Not privately owned firearms.
I don't recall stating that they were mutually exclusive - someone else pointed out the community factor earlier in the thread too, and it is a great point.
Posts
Well, I also believe a valid driver's license should be required in order to purchase a car, so at least I'm consistent even though you're right.
WTF? Japan has one of the world's lowest crime rates.
While Britain has one of the highest. Gun control has no effect on violent crime except in the tools used.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Then you'd probably get into questions of the cost of such classes, and how often they're available. Also, whether or not the criteria to pass is subjective. Basically you'd have to show that the classes don't in some way act as a de facto ban on ownership for broad categories of people. The kinds of restrictions you're allowed to put on a right must meet a much higher standard than those on a privilege...hence the reason (if I remember correctly) states can't require a special tax for voting.
A class that costs $200 and only meets on weekdays (thus meaning another $50-$100 of lost wages for most low-income applicants) isn't exactly a reasonable restriction on a Constitutional right. A class where the instructor can simply not pass you because he doesn't like the look of you isn't either.
EDIT: So it's clear, I'm not saying a required class in and of itself is unreasonable. But the cost would need to be insignificant compared to the cost of the gun (so, since a pistol can be had for about $200 to $300, say $20 for the class), it would need to be on a flexible schedule (six days a week, maybe a couple evenings), and it would need to have relatively straightforward and objective criteria for passing. Basically, it would need to be easier to get than a driver's license. Which might seem to defeat the purpose, but hey rights are rights. Then again, it'd probably be an improvement in most states...the people I see who own guns but know jack shit about guns or gun safety frighten me sometimes.
Quite the opposite, in fact. I'm wondering just how many guns used in the commission of crimes were legally obtained by the person using them. I'd be unsurprised if the percentage was pretty low.
I would imagine this to be a rare occurence, at best. Obtaining an FFL is strenuous in itself, with all the background checks and ATF paperwork, and gives the ATF virtually the ability to audit your business at any time they please and shut you down if they feel you're breaking any laws. In fact, the ATF can shut you down and confiscate all the firearms you have in stock if they think you might be breaking any laws. You are required to keep detailed track of all guns within your posession, and file reports for all guns that are sold, lost or stolen. If you are breaking laws, the ATF will catch you, fine you a substantial amount of money, and make sure you spend time in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
There are thousands of break-ins and burglaries yearly, and guns are often stolen.
Or barring that, things like Moltovs aren't terribly hard to make...
Wouldn't apply to random crime, but you think someone who plans ahead then goes in and shoots shit up would just go "oh, can't buy a gun, better bug off then".
I used to agree with this, but the war in Iraq changed my opinion. It seems like a proliferation of small arms in an urban environment can have a pretty significant impact on a modern military.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Depending on the defenition of Small Arms. A handgun ban does not cover an AK. You're not seeing our troops killed by 9mm fire, they're being killed by long rifles and things that classify as assault weapons. Those ARE useful to fight a military.
We can crush all opposition in Iraq anytime we want to; all we have to do is employ the same tactics that Saddam Hussein did. We'd be about a thousand times better at it than he was, too. No tyrant is going to handle the people of his country with kid gloves. This argument for the 2nd amendment being our protection against tyranny is not only ridiculous, it's goddamn dangerous, because the majority of the gun-toters are going to be part of the real threat to democracy and freedom in America, which is us willingly handing ourselves over to a tyrant, asking for someone to rule us with an iron fist. Pretending that the 2nd amendment will protect us from that is a distraction from the very real threats to the institutions of this country.
My response to this whole concept is "yeah, and?" Guns, handguns, long-guns, or shotguns really were invented to kill people, and the amendment was specifically added with the idea that, for the protection of the state, either collectively or individually, you were given the right to be armed for a situation where you might have to kill someone. That's the purpose. There is no other purpose that can be justified under the constitution, beyond training. That part about how they make hunting easier is anciliary. Either get over it or don't, but the hem-hawing on this by folks like the NRA fighting for "hunter's rights" pisses me off to no end. Address the point. It also doesn't have anything in there that says "you don't really need a gun if the cops can save your ass, either."
Might as well not have it if I gotta tell you "wait til I put it together, Mr. Bad Guy, before you come in." All it can be used for if it's disassembled is to sodomize me with it. Hell's bells, I can put an M-16/AR-15 together blindfolded and I know that. People on both sides of the issue are fantasizing too much.
Why would I need a firearm more in a suburban or rural environment?
This is where the wording of the amendment confuses things.
People fight over three words -- regulated, militia, and state -- and how they interact. The rest of it is clear (some people fight about "people" as well, but state kinda covers that), but the argument is basically:
Does regulated mean "laws" or "trained"? In the words of that day, it's more likely it means "trained", but it's hard to know for certain. Trained may imply either a overall organization (like the Guard) or the idea that having a firearm around would imply that you know how to use it.
Does militia mean a formalized militia? Does it mean that you and your neighbors can form a SHTF militia? Is it something that kinda flows from the "regulation" above as training that implies that in order to put together a militia quickly everyone needs to have a firearm and the ability to use it... ability which is gained by owning a firearm? (see also Knuckle Dragger's post)
Do regulation and militia go hand in hand? Is it a legal militia, is it a trained militia... what do these words really mean in combination?
Does state mean the government and it's assets, the community and it's assets (we the people), or yourself (me the people).
Depending on how everything is interpreted, it could be that the Guardsmen are the only ones who should be armed or that everyone should be armed but can only use their firearms in defense of the community... which means that you really don't have a right to bust a cap in someone who is trying to hurt you, unless you can say that defending yourself is defending the community.
The idea of calling in a militia usually means that you don't have nine weeks to give someone basic training. You need them assembled and you need them assembled immediately to act in defense immediately. The British aren't coming in 9 weeks. The British are here. And they think your daughter is a hottie.
There is no amendment that gives you a right to own a car and says that no one can infringe that right.
Though, about the licenses... honestly, I kind of like the idea of mandatory firearm training, in the spirit of the amendment. However, the idea of the gubment getting their hands into a "range tax" is repulsive.
Only if they want to leave your buildings standing.
Only if old artillery rounds and AT missiles are also available to the public. Which they are not.
And that's why we need prohibition!
Tyrants and dictators happen. History is full of them. Shit, the 20th century is full of them.
Having the right to bear arms means the military does not have a monopoly on all the weapons. When you start taking away weapons, the civilians have no means of defending themselves. As a government you can essentially do whatever you want to them (Hitler, Stalin, etc). Having a well-armed civilian population means we would at least have the right to stand up to a government, which is more than a lot of the oppressed peoples of past centuries could do.
The likely hood of our government doing something like that is far fetched, but always a possibility. Nice to know we've got that option. When we have police coming door to door seizing people's weapons because we're no longer legally allowed to own them, that tells me we're heading somewhere dangerous.
official transcript here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf
Or 28 Days Later. Look where Britain's strict gun control landed them.
Or you could just use a lock (would that be a trigger lock or a locked case?) I'm betting more people die from having an unsecured gun that from an oversecured one. Hell, an analyst on the issue said that there's data showing that the criminal is more likely to use it than you are.
I'm fairly certain the court will decide on an individual right, but it's not really clear yet how they'll feel about what kind of regulation of that right is allowed.
I really hate to rain on your "glorious uprising against fascist gouverment oppression" parade here, but please consider this:
In Nazi Germany, every young male over 14 was trained in small arms use. The Hitler Youth stored those guns locally, a determinded public would have been able to seize them and was (obviously) trained in their use, older males had full scale military training. Yet in 12 years, there was no uprising.
And if you say "but the germans did not want to, they liked the Nazis", well, the GDR gouverment was as unpopular as any dictatorship in the public. They had one million men, out of 16 million people, under arms. That means including worker brigades, civil defense - average people. And they, too, had manadatory military training for every able bodied man AND women. Yet in 40 years, there was no armed resistence of any kind against the gouverment. The revolution was brought about by peacefull means.
The ability of a public to resist a dictatorship is mainly determined by its ability to organize and its willingness to "see this through", much more then its ability to arm itself. Not to mention that, as Thantos (I think) said, if the army sides with the gouverment, you are fucked anyway, if it doesn't, its going to be the shortest coup ever seen.
I didn't realize I was having a fascist gouverment oppression parade, but thanks for letting me know. I also respectfully disagree with your assumption that the military would "ZOMG PWN UR ASS SO DONT EVEN TRY". I don't want to derail this thread and go into battlefield tactics, how our government would crush the puny civilians and all of the other inane tangets threads in D&D go off on, but our country was founded on an armed rebellion against the supposed "world's greatest military super-power". That's precisely why the 2nd amendment is there. It is a measure to keep balance to the power of the military, and it's role in a civilian government. Take it out, and you give too much power to one side.
8-)
Perhaps the more effective legislation would be for Virginia (and other states) to ban gun sales to out-of-staters? Even Texas does that.
One of the things about these laws that gets me is that I'm not sure whether or not the politicians actually believe the measures would work. I wonder if part of it is trying to get votes by looking like they're "doing something" and if there's another part of it where they're just trying to tack more jail time on people they collar for other crimes.
You gotta be kidding me.
One: Britain would have crushed us if they hadn't given up and gone home to deal with their real threat, France. They didn't see it as worth it anymore.
Two: As Than pointed out, if a true tyrant were in charge of the military, there would be not a fucking thing you could do against that military. The full force of the US Army, Navy, and Air Force against your fucking house, without any problematic little guidelines like "Don't seek to kill as many civilians as possible?"
Are you insane? What are you gonna do, fire your little pistol at an F-22 as it flies overhead, raining bombs on your town? Yeah, that'll work well.
Get fucking real.
It still wouldn't be a symmetrical fight, but also consider that between the coalition forces, Peshmerga and Iraqi army, there are more than twice as many soldier per civilian in Iraq than we would have in the US if we recalled the entire armed forces including reserves.
- John Stuart Mill
In the Heller case, the justices seemed more concerned with home defense, anyway.
Edit: too slow
Yes. Let's keep the discussion not-retarded, people.
The best defense against either is going to be the chain of command all the way down to the guy with his finger on the button/trigger being extremely unwilling to blow up a bunch of US citizens in Ohio or wherever, despite what his superiors are telling them to do.
Not privately owned firearms.
Gun shows are unregulated, and it's now illegal to track rogue sellers due to Tihart.
I don't recall stating that they were mutually exclusive - someone else pointed out the community factor earlier in the thread too, and it is a great point.