Write4U
Valued Senior Member
The Second Amendment could be amended with just a few words.
Why is gun control so difficult in the US?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
Strawman argument? Hm, okay - show me how a small-town militia armed with, lets say, Winchester Model 70 30-06 rifles, would fare against an MQ-8B Fire Scout UAV?
No, seriously - how, exactly, do you think it would go down if the full might of the US Armed Forces turned on her citizens? If the Military and Government went rogue, and the men and women in uniform didn't about face and tell those giving them orders that countermanded the dictate to protect and serve, I don't see any real way for a meaningful defense to happen.
Sure, the US Citizenry could stand and fight to the last... and they would die accomplishing very little. Look at what is going on in the Middle East as an example - even if the US and other forces were to withdraw, what would be left? How long would it be before some opportunist swooped in to claim the ashes for themselves?
There is literally no scenario in which Citizens come out on top that doesn't require at least a significant portion of the Military to support them.
Utterly irrelevant in the face of modern day force multipliers. Any sort of civilian resistance would be forced into small-scale guerrilla warfare, and even that would be exceptionally difficult thanks to FLIR, Satellite Imagery, and other such detection technologies. At best, an armed city working as a functional unit (highly improbable as, short of veterans, the average Citizen has little training in warfare) might be able to ambush a military group moving through its territory. Guess what, though - if things have gone to hell such that the US Armed Forces are being deployed en-mass against her own citizens (and they haven't given a mighty fuck you to whomever gave that order) then I have little reason to believe they wouldn't simply wipe out whatever and whoever is putting up said resistance in the most economical and efficient means possible.
And the type of tactics that enabled this to happen would fare quite poorly today. Trying to compare tactics from 1776 to modern warfare is foolish at best; hell, recall what happened when previous generation trench-warfare tactics faced Machine Gun emplacements in the World Wars...
Not only were the Vietnamese fighting with the home-turf advantage (and the drive to win at all costs derived thereof), but America was barely invested in that war. Once the decision was made to stop propping up the artificial construct that was South Vietnam went *poof* the moment we decided it wasn't worth fighting for anymore.
Now, if you propose that American Civvies have the ability to create a similar situation today... well, perhaps. However, if we have reached the point where the Military has forsaken its purpose to defend her people... well, things have gone so utterly tits-up that I have to wonder what the actual intent is, at that point.
Fighting a war halfway around the world, against an enemy that is being propped up by numerous outside entities, is a bit different than putting down an home-turf insurgency.
Who is suggesting destroying the leadership - the entire premise of this argument (that Guns allow the People to protect themselves) is predicated on the design that the Military is following the orders of a government gone rogue. Ultimately, the best hope in a situation where the US Government has gone batshit is that the Military, upon being ordered to crack down on the inevitable protests and fighting, turns around and gives a one finger salute, then goes to stand with the citizens.
I dunno... it'd be difficult for a 9mm or 30-06 to stop a Stryker or LAV-25... come to think of it, there is precious little that a rando civvie can own that would do the job.Maybe in some situations size does matter.
Maybe not so much so in military affairs.
Which is the true cause for concern here - it's like a bunch of country bumpkins flinging their dicks around claiming to have the biggest one and thinking their tough as nails, when in reality if the merde hits the ventilateur, most of them would likely piss themselves in fear.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Unfortunately there are too many unregistered guns, which are untraceable and can be bought on the black market.
Of course, if we had started registration 50 years ago, that problem would not exist.
It is the lack of traceability which gives criminals access to guns. Even if the gun's registration number is filed off, if we had a sample of the striations of its bullets, we could still trace the gun.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
True, I was more referring to the underlying secular (all inclusive) principle behind the law.
It was an obtuse comparison, I admit.....
The solution I feel is to make the NRA responsible ( including funding) for gun control, regulation and most importantly School security. It would be impressive to see how quickly military weapons get banned once the NRA takes the responsibility and is open to litigation.
Yep, that's the strawman argument. You have a good handle on it. But why? It makes absolutely no difference. That entire silliness is worthless outside of Hollywood, and by focusing on goofball irrelevancies and Hollywood fantasy you create the impression you have no idea what the real issues are.
Sounds like the makings of a screenplay with potential, in the action hero with lots of explosions genre.
Are you planning to deal with the arguments over gun control any time soon?
Nonsense.
A rogue government would do what rogue governments have always done - disarm the citizenry, set up roving death squads and brownshirts and terrorist outfits loosely affiliated with the police or National Guard.
We saw that with the Confederate reassertion of racial control after Reconstruction, for example - the KKK, not the US military, oppressed the systematically disarmed black people. The immediate examples in front of the authors of the US Constitution were the British col0nial tactics, in Scotland and Ireland especially, and the Spanish or French in the Caribbean and Mexico.
Last edited:
If the laws were changed so that it is mandatory to be a registered and licensed member of the NRA to have ownership or possession of any fire arm and the NRA being potentially liable for it's members use of military style weapons would this not serve to regulate the so called "militia"?
At first glance this would appear to give the NRA way too much power, yet with power comes responsibility. It would be easier to determine the legality of weapons and would force all weapon holders to be on a data base and subject to uniform across the union screening.
The risk of allowing military style weapons would be too great if NRA liability for their criminal use was pursued and so they would most likely be either heavily restricted (license grade) or banned all together by the NRA with government support.
The most important point is to get the NRA to take the lead instead of fighting them.
At first glance this would appear to give the NRA way too much power, yet with power comes responsibility. It would be easier to determine the legality of weapons and would force all weapon holders to be on a data base and subject to uniform across the union screening.
The risk of allowing military style weapons would be too great if NRA liability for their criminal use was pursued and so they would most likely be either heavily restricted (license grade) or banned all together by the NRA with government support.
The most important point is to get the NRA to take the lead instead of fighting them.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
You don't know the definition of a strawman argument.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Yeah, if it passed the process. The vested interested will do their damnedest to make that not happen.
well... make the vested interest legally responsible for the outcome...
Last edited:
Personally, I would like a combination of what Australia does (http://time.com/4172274/what-its-like-to-own-guns-in-a-country-with-strict-gun-control/)
Category A is .22s, shotguns and air rifles. That’s the easiest license to obtain. No semiautomatics are allowed.
Category B is for center fire rifles. You have to provide a reason for why you need a more powerful gun. I shoot feral pigs and foxes; that’s a valid reason. Again, no semiautomatics.
Category C is available only to farmers; they can own a semiautomatic shotgun or .22 but the cartridges are limited to five shots for the shotgun and 10 shots for the .22.
Category D, for semiautomatic guns and rifles, is only for professional shooters: you have to have a registered business and prove that you are earning an income through shooting.
and what Japan does, having mandatory inspections of gun safes and such, to make sure personal firearms are stored safely and properly.Category B is for center fire rifles. You have to provide a reason for why you need a more powerful gun. I shoot feral pigs and foxes; that’s a valid reason. Again, no semiautomatics.
Category C is available only to farmers; they can own a semiautomatic shotgun or .22 but the cartridges are limited to five shots for the shotgun and 10 shots for the .22.
Category D, for semiautomatic guns and rifles, is only for professional shooters: you have to have a registered business and prove that you are earning an income through shooting.
I mean, it just makes sense. You don't let some rando drive a semi without training and a licence! You don't give people power over others without training and strict follow up... so why is it acceptable to allow Joe Rando to have unfettered access to a tool that can be used to end a dozen or more lives in a few seconds?
There's no need to ban or outlaw firearms; a bit of common sense (treating them like the tools they are) as well as better mental health accessibility would resolve a large part of the issues America faces...
The issue is that if you even hint at changing the laws, the 2A thumpers go apeshit without even bothering to understand the what and why.
So you don't have a counter-argument beyond shaking your head and screaming "nope", got it.
Again, it seems you have no valid counter-argument beyond what seems to be either a red herring or personal incredulity (or a mix of the two). If you feel such a situation is somehow so improbable, then show how/why it is... the technology is there (and in use) for such an event to happen. I like to believe that our men and women in uniform wouldn't forget their intended purpose (to protect America and her Citizens from all threats) but... well, indoctrination is a helluva thing.
And this has what, exactly, to do with the Citizens standing up and defeating a US Government and Military Gone Rogue?
Disprove a simple statement for me:
If the US Government goes rogue, and the Military stands with the Government, an "armed citizenry" will not be able to overthrow said authoritarian regime.
At best, after years of guerrilla warfare and hit-n-run attacks (that will become continually less effective as hideouts are found and destroyed and continually more advanced technology is brought to bear against the citizens), America will be in a shambles and not worth living in or fighting for any longer.
If "roving death squads" become a thing, do you really expect them to be akin to British Redshirt patrols? No, I suspect they would be armed UAV's capable of anything from eliminating a single person to busting an MBT, all controlled by someone sitting safe and sound far out of the reach of Joe Hunter and his 30-06...
Not exactly a "good ending" for the citizens.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
a few words?
see post 106
Definitely.
I agree. Nor do I see any problem with requiring him to get specific training / registration / insurance to use that weapon.
If I had a neighbor with a big yard I would not want to deny him the right to have a helicopter. (After all, they kill far fewer people than guns do.) But he is going to have to get a license, and register the helicopter, and get appropriate training. His helicopter is going to need to comply with a lot of laws pertaining to safety equipment and minimum airworthiness standards. And he might have to agree not to take off before 8am for the sake of the neighborhood. Not because I "hate helicopters" but because he has to live in a society with a bunch of other people.
Yes - because the freedom of others to live trumps the freedom of their neighbor to do whatever they want to with their guns.
Definitely. The two must be traded off against each other.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
No one talks about repeal!Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
OK so an amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment is possible
............
(good luck with that)
....................................................
I ain't gonna vote for it.
A simple restrictive amendment to the 2nd amendment would accomplish two things.
a) get rid of weapons of war.
b) vetting of people wanting to buy a gun of any kind.
c) registration of all guns sold commercially or privately.
d) holding the registered owner responsible for the use of the gun (except in case of theft)
Yes, I do. That is a type specimen, right here:
And it - that particular one - has taken over so much of the public discussion it almost deserves a name, as a category of obstacle to reasonable gun control:
The "Can't Fight the Army" irrelevancy? Something - - . Crazy on both sides. It's like watching people debate the various hazards of AI by arguing over whether it's possible to win against a superintelligent army of cyborgs.
Sometimes it's exactly like that:
Americans, Americans of all people, with their recent KKK history and Latin American examples right in front of them, should know that it's not the government's army you have to watch out for, when a flip to authoritarian rule is in the balance. That's not how it happens.
When the KKK took over the former Confederacy, ended Reconstruction, and restored subjugation of black people for an entire generation - and let's not quibble about the labeling, that is a fair description of what happened - the US army was not involved. Shoot, the Army was more or less on the other side. It was people with weapons, terrorizing and thereby governmentally oppressing people without weapons. It was an illustration of the rule of thumb: "An unarmed people is subject to slavery at any time". And we have white people arguing that this is moonshine, fantasy, Hollywood paranoia?
You can have all that without touching the Constitution, if your politics are in order. All the good side of gun control is available with the 2nd Amendment in place.
If they aren't, and you can't, politically, do that without screwing around with the Constitution, then what you get after screwing around with the Constitution will be something other than what you seem to expect.
Making this a 2nd Amendment fight is lose/lose, for liberals. There's a reason that's an NRA tactic - it's a win/win for authoritarian government.
Last edited:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
It seems that the only way to "add a few words to an amendment" is with another amendment.
The process is spelled out in article V of the constitution.
(which I have posted above)
All of our conversation herein and the lunacy gatherings on social media and in parks and parking lots is meaningless.
..........................................
Some argue for "legislating from the bench"
This blurring of the lines of the 3 branches of government is something that George Washington warned us about in his farewell address.
George's caveat aside:
Can it be done that way
In other circumstances, it has been done that way.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
It won't affect the Constitution in any way. We're talking about the 2nd Amendment. Amendments themselves do not appear in the Constitution, but were used to clarify the general nature (the principles) of the Constitution.
What is so bad to amend an amendment? In Law this is done all the time.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Amendment+(U.S.+Constitution)
There is no law that forbids an amendment to an Amendment.
Last edited: