gun show loophole rant
Quote: AZDuffmanKnives are too sharp and filing them down is solution to soaring violent crime, judge says
They banned guns, but people found a way!
For some reason you think this is a good point?
A guy stabbing someone won't hit someone across the street. And a knife won't likely kill someone by accident while being handled.. And if you run away, it's unlikely they can kill you from a distance. And innocent people won't get stabbed because they were too far away to be identified correctly.
Heck, even if the reduction is just unintended victims, that's a major improvement, IMO. Even if intended victims are still getting it, the unintended should be reduced just due the nature of the instrument used.
Quote: rxwineQuote: AZDuffmanKnives are too sharp and filing them down is solution to soaring violent crime, judge says
They banned guns, but people found a way!
For some reason you think this is a good point?
A guy stabbing someone won't hit someone across the street. And a knife won't likely kill someone by accident while being handled.. And if you run away, it's unlikely they can kill you from a distance. And innocent people won't get stabbed because they were too far away to be identified correctly.
Heck, even if the reduction is just unintended victims, that's a major improvement, IMO. Even if intended victims are still getting it, the unintended should be reduced just due the nature of the instrument used.
It is a good point, and you just helped me make it. You clearly state the gun, not the person, is the problem. But they banned the guns, not the argument is, "Why does anyone need a knife?" Violence will remain.
Quote: EvenBobSo you're saying Chuck Conners was lying
in his book, he knew he had the number
wrong. Do you have a source for that or
is it just a bad guess on your part. All I
was doing was quoting Chuck, I assumed
he would know, it being his show and all.
You are still quoting him in spite of all sorts of evidence to the contrary. I don't see much difference between knowingly spreading a lie and lying itself. I even showed you the video with every death.
Quote: billryanYou are still quoting him in spite of all sorts of evidence to the contrary. I don't see much difference between knowingly spreading a lie and lying itself. I even showed you the video with every death.
Chuck Connors obviously has confirmation bias. He might have 'killed' many more times if you count the many takes they may do for each shooting. But why can't you two stick to arguing Bob's point that "Hollywood" began the glorification of violence and that the Rifleman is a good example of such, whether he killed 140 or 340 during the show's run?
"The Complete Massacre"
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: rxwineQuote: AZDuffmanKnives are too sharp and filing them down is solution to soaring violent crime, judge says
They banned guns, but people found a way!
For some reason you think this is a good point?
A guy stabbing someone won't hit someone across the street. And a knife won't likely kill someone by accident while being handled.. And if you run away, it's unlikely they can kill you from a distance. And innocent people won't get stabbed because they were too far away to be identified correctly.
Heck, even if the reduction is just unintended victims, that's a major improvement, IMO. Even if intended victims are still getting it, the unintended should be reduced just due the nature of the instrument used.
It is a good point, and you just helped me make it. You clearly state the gun, not the person, is the problem. But they banned the guns, not the argument is, "Why does anyone need a knife?" Violence will remain.
I supported your gun argument only in ruining it.
I pointed out even with knives being substituted it is a better situation. I'll add even one more, it's unlikely knives will be sprayed into a crowd in a drive-by, killing more innocent people.
Quote: TankoOther TV lawmen only shot the bad guys once. Lucas used his modified Winchester to shoot them four or five times.
"The Complete Massacre"
McCain was not a lawman. He was a private citizen exercising his first amendment rights. It's bizarre that the same people who insist they need unlimited access to weapons for self defense are condemning a show that should be their poster child.
Whatever happened to the whole "good guy with a gun" stops bad guys motif?
Quote: SOOPOO"Hollywood" began the glorification of violence and that the Rifleman is a good example of such, whether he killed 140 or 340 during the show's run?
Yup, the actual number of fake deaths
is irrelevant. Shows like this slowly
chipped away at our taboo against
killing somebody that eventually led to
school shootings. In 1955 you could
buy a handgun in a dept store or a
hardware or a pawn shop or from Sears
catalog, no permit required. How many
mass school shootings were there in
the 1950's. If there was none, what is
the logical reason for that. It certainly
wasn't that guns werem't available.
https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/britain-has-fallen-journalist-jailed-for-covering-child-sex-trafficking-trial/ Jailing reporter for reporting on sex trafficking.Quote: AZDuffmanKnives are too sharp and filing them down is solution to soaring violent crime, judge says
They banned guns, but people found a way!
Quote: TankoOther TV lawmen only shot the bad guys once. Lucas used his modified Winchester to shoot them four or five times.
"The Complete Massacre"
Highly entertaining video, I ate this
stuff up when I was a kid. Imagine
presenting this now as a new show
to a network. You'd probably be
arrested. But in the 50's and 60's
we saw this nightly on Cheyenne,
Bonanza, Have Gun Will Travel,
Gunsmoke, Lone Ranger, Rawhide,
Wagon Train, Wanted Dead or Alive,
and many many others.
Gunsmoke had Matt Dillon gun
somebody down in the opening
every week:
It's been all over the news: https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/oklahoma-restaurant-shooting-armed/2018/05/25/id/862404/Quote: billryanWhatever happened to the whole "good guy with a gun" stops bad guys motif?
Quote: billryanI find it fascinating that someone wants to blame a fifty year old tv show
No no no. The TV shows were part
of the societal transition towards
desensitizing us to death and violence.
We came to view violence as all right
and commonplace because of TV,
movies and violent video games.
There is no other explanation except
a change in society. The fact that
guns were as available as soda pop
for most of the history of this country
and there were no mass school shootings,
this takes all the blame away from guns
and put's it squarely on the values of
society changing.
Or that American movies and television is shown worldwide and hasn't resulted in epidemics of shootings elsewhere.
Quote: billryanThat might make sense except for pesky things like the fact that the U.S. is much less violent today
But this is about school shootings,
and why massacres are OK to do
now. Something changed, and it
was not the availability of guns.
Some fundamental thing in us is
now askew, and disarming the public
will not make it go away.
Quote: billryanRight. Let's blame a tv show that aired before the shooters parents were born, and the reason the show gets blamed is a grossly inaccurate quote made years later
I don't think Bob is blaming The Rifleman alone, but rather it and other TV shows, video games, movies, media exploitative coverage, etc.... and bill, get OFF the number of shootings in the Rifleman.... NOT relevant....
As Hillary said, "why does it matter"?
Quote: SOOPOOI don't think Bob is blaming The Rifleman alone, but rather it and other TV shows, video games, movies, media exploitative coverage, etc.... and bill, get OFF the number of shootings in the Rifleman.... NOT relevant....
I disagree. EB posting untrue stats and then claiming them valid is absolutely relevant. No matter what some people say, facts do matter.
The average woman has 1.9 children.Quote: billryanI disagree. EB posting untrue stats and then claiming them valid is absolutely relevant. No matter what some people say, facts do matter.
Quote: billryanI disagree. EB posting untrue stats and then claiming them valid
To Chuck Conners they were valid, they
did the math, he said. Take it up with
him. I'm sticking with the guy who
did all those faked killings, Chuck
is the man..
Quote: petroglyphThe average woman has 1.9 children.
That has recently fallen to 1.76 I believe.
Liberals on here get bent out of shape when I say that liberals "want to ban guns." I get told that they "just want 'sensible gun control.'"
I know better, even if a campaign manager did not!
Quote: AZDuffmanDem's campaign manager quits after video shows candidate secretly backing gun ban.
Liberals on here get bent out of shape when I say that liberals "want to ban guns." I get told that they "just want 'sensible gun control.'"
I know better, even if a campaign manager did not!
I don't think you do.
It's not news that "assault rifles" being specifically mentioned is anything new. It certainly doesn't mean all guns.
Quote: rxwine
It's not news that "assault rifles" being specifically mentioned is anything new. It certainly doesn't mean all guns.
So you think. I doubt it. Gun grabbers do not want to stop at one class of weapon. They may find it impolitic to want to ban all guns in one swoop, but don't think they want to stop.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo you think. I doubt it. Gun grabbers do not want to stop at one class of weapon. They may find it impolitic to want to ban all guns in one swoop, but don't think they want to stop.
Coming from somewhere where we find the whole gun culture completely foreign I’d be interested to know what sort of weapons you think you should be allowed to own? Should you be allowed to own the same sort of guns the military has? What about arming yourself with things like a rocket launcher or setting up some sort of anti-aircraft system in your back yard like you see on a navy ship?
Sorry if this sounds absurd but my knowledge of weapons is extremely limited. If you’ve answered if before I apologise but just interested as to where you believe the right to bear arms ends.
Quote: AussieComing from somewhere where we find the whole gun culture completely foreign I’d be interested to know what sort of weapons you think you should be allowed to own? Should you be allowed to own the same sort of guns the military has? What about arming yourself with things like a rocket launcher or setting up some sort of anti-aircraft system in your back yard like you see on a navy ship?
Sorry if this sounds absurd but my knowledge of weapons is extremely limited. If you’ve answered if before I apologise but just interested as to where you believe the right to bear arms ends.
I do not have any defined end. If the anti-aircraft system is good with their HOA it is fine with me.
More seriously, rational people will set their own limits. But as I have said before, when the cops and feds are worried about getting their heads blown off when they serve that no-knock warrant, all of the sudden they will be less excited about serving it. The USA has a militarization problem with all levels of police today. It is not a good sign, An armed public keeps the freedom.
Quote: AZDuffmanI do not have any defined end. If the anti-aircraft system is good with their HOA it is fine with me.
More seriously, rational people will set their own limits. But as I have said before, when the cops and feds are worried about getting their heads blown off when they serve that no-knock warrant, all of the sudden they will be less excited about serving it. The USA has a militarization problem with all levels of police today. It is not a good sign, An armed public keeps the freedom.
This makes you the anti-American extremist wacko. No one else wants MS-13 to be allowed to mount automatic weapons to the hood of their vehicle as they roll down our city streets. No one else wants ISIS trained radical Muslims to carry their guns onto commercial airplanes. To everyone else who truly respects our country and our way of life we understand that the right to bear arms may not be infringe on the rights of anyone else.
Quote: TomGThis makes you the anti-American extremist wacko. No one else wants MS-13 to be allowed to mount automatic weapons to the hood of their vehicle as they roll down our city streets. No one else wants ISIS trained radical Muslims to carry their guns onto commercial airplanes. To everyone else who truly respects our country and our way of life we understand that the right to bear arms may not be infringe on the rights of anyone else.
The solution to the first part is don't vote for the liberals who defend MS-13. Vote for the people who want to secure the border.
For the second, support the muslim travel ban and profiling passengers. Though I still support no weapons on airplanes. Muslim radicals are fixated on planes, so extra defense is necessary.
Bearing arms does not infringe on the rights of others. Radical gun control laws do, though.
Quote: TomGThere are gang members and radical Muslims who were born in America (gang and religious affiliations are both protected by the Constitution). Border Walls and travel bans would be worthless against them. Laws on where those people can point their weapons do help protect our rights to life and liberty
Why not just make it illegal to shoot people? Then they will follow the law and all will be well.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy not just make it illegal to shoot people? Then they will follow the law and all will be well.
Perfect example of how gun laws make us safer
Quote: TomGPerfect example of how gun laws make us safer
But why do we need the gun laws if it is illegal to shoot people?
Quote: AZDuffmanBut why do we need the gun laws if it is illegal to shoot people?
Because it is illegal to shoot someone proves that we already do have gun laws. And for many of theses laws -- such as bringing weapons onto airplanes or mounting rocket launchers to the hood of a car -- the only opposition comes from anti-American extremists.
Quote: TomGBecause it is illegal to shoot someone proves that we already do have gun laws. And for many of theses laws -- such as bringing weapons onto airplanes or mounting rocket launchers to the hood of a car -- the only opposition comes from anti-American extremists.
You still are not saying why we need more gun laws.
Quote: AZDuffmanBecause it is illegal to shoot someone proves that we already do have gun laws. And for many of theses laws -- such as bringing weapons onto airplanes or mounting rocket launchers to the hood of a car -- the only opposition comes from anti-American extremists.You still are not saying why we need more gun laws.
It shows the silly logic that support of one type of gun law automatically means someone wants to take away all guns. For example
Quote: AZDuffmanGun grabbers do not want to stop at one class of weapon.
Your inability to apply these labels and these conclusions to Trump when he came out in favor of banning bump stocks and circumventing due process show how wrong and illogical your conspiracy theories are.
“Take the guns first, go through due process second." Yet not a "Gun Grabber." That is the most brilliant mental hoop jumping I've ever seen
Quote: AZDuffmanI do not have any defined end. If the anti-aircraft system is good with their HOA it is fine with me.
More seriously, rational people will set their own limits. But as I have said before, when the cops and feds are worried about getting their heads blown off when they serve that no-knock warrant, all of the sudden they will be less excited about serving it. The USA has a militarization problem with all levels of police today. It is not a good sign, An armed public keeps the freedom.
I appreciate your honest response. To take it one step further, do you think you should be allowed to purchase enriched uranium at a shop (gun/weapons shop for example) and construct your own nuclear weapon? Actually forget about having to construct it yourself, how about fully operational nuclear weapons being able to be purchased?
I realise that almost noone will want to do this but do you think you should have right to do that if you choose?
taken away has nothing to do
with guns being dangerous
and killing people. It's about
limiting our constitutional
freedoms. Speech and press
would be next. Lefties hate
the constitution whether or
not they even realize it. How
can they get everything they
want with it standing in their way.
The Constitution does not specify that as God-given "right."Quote: AussieI appreciate your honest response. To take it one step further, do you think you should be allowed to purchase enriched uranium at a shop (gun/weapons shop for example) and construct your own nuclear weapon? Actually forget about having to construct it yourself, how about fully operational nuclear weapons being able to be purchased?
Go
I realise that almost noone will want to do this but do you think you should have right to do that if you choose?
Quote: AussieI appreciate your honest response. To take it one step further, do you think you should be allowed to purchase enriched uranium at a shop (gun/weapons shop for example) and construct your own nuclear weapon? Actually forget about having to construct it yourself, how about fully operational nuclear weapons being able to be purchased?
I realise that almost noone will want to do this but do you think you should have right to do that if you choose?
Why not?
Easier to get Plutonium but harder to make a device with it. I don't see Tractor Supply stocking such an item due to low demand at the moment. One day though could be in every corner store.
Quote: AussieComing from somewhere where we find the whole gun culture completely foreign I’d be interested to know what sort of weapons you think you should be allowed to own? Should you be allowed to own the same sort of guns the military has? What about arming yourself with things like a rocket launcher or setting up some sort of anti-aircraft system in your back yard like you see on a navy ship?
Sorry if this sounds absurd but my knowledge of weapons is extremely limited. If you’ve answered if before I apologise but just interested as to where you believe the right to bear arms ends.
I am going to try and give a second response to the above, one that doesn't end with the ridiculous notion that nuclear weapons & enriched uranium will one day be available at the local Tractor Supply, because that isn't going to happen.
I believe the majority of the pro Second Amendment crowd are satisfied with a law that doesn't restrict the right to own any form of semi-automatic weapon (semi-automatic equals one trigger pull equals one bullet being fired). No one is promoting bringing back the legalization of fully automatic machine guns (think Tommy guns in the Mafia movies)...these are guns that spray bullets as fast as the mechansim can feed ammunition by holding down the trigger of a weapon.
The "movement" for infringement of the Second Amendment that exists today wants to categorize some semi-automatic rifles as "assault weapons" or "weapons of war" when in fact they function no differently than a Glock Pistol. These rifles are generally black in color, they will have a vented cover surrounding the barrel that is essentially a heat shield, they have grips that are like a pistol grip versus a traditional wood butt stock found on what you might identify as a traditional hunting rifle. Like semi-automatic pistols, they hold multiple rounds in magazines that are removable, and they have the ability to attach a flash suppressor or similar device that decreases the sound or flash when a bullet is fired (sound and flame are not eliminated...guns flash when they are fired and are loud regardless). But once again, they fire just like a semi-automatic pistol (think James Bonds Walther PPK) when it comes to quantity of bullets fired.
The big conundrum with what the anti-gun movement wants to limit in this country is that there really is no effective way to ban these scary assault weapon rifles based on their features because they operate just like a pistol. There is no political will in this country to take away a citizens right to carry a semi automatic pistol for personal and home defense. To outlaw what the anti-gun movement wants to get rid of, they would need to outlaw all guns, despite what they believe is possible, This is why the pro-gun side of the discussion insists the anti's won't be happy until they outlaw all guns.
What has been just so interesting with the last two mass shootings in this country since Parkland is that both were committed using shotguns and pistols, frankly very good weapons to use in close combat situations like home invasion defense. Since these weapons of choice don't fit the anti-gun narrative of this critical need to ban "assault weapons" and other sensible gun laws to make us safe, you haven't seen any marches or mass demonstrations after the Texas school shooting or the newspaper shooting in Baltimore. In fact the anti's have been completely silent after Texas and Baltimore...like they don't want to face the questions of how banning assault weapons wouldn't have made one bit of difference in these two incidents and perhaps the idea that banning these assault weapons really won't solve the problem and make us "safer". If they were true to their cause, the "ban assault weapons" crowd would be honest and start calling for the banning of shotguns and pistols as well. I mean they were the "weapons of choice" in these last two incidents weren't they?
Their problem is you just can't get very many US Citizens rallying and excited about banning shotguns and pistols in this country, and there lies the reason why no real legislation to help the fill some holes like the gun show loophole (which I believe should be closed) ever get done. The "loophole" here is that I can sell you a gun at a gun show in some states and you will never have to undergo a background check to legally buy my weapon from me as a private party transaction.
What weapons do I feel are covered under the Second Amendment of our Constitution? Weapons that are in common use by everyday citizens for hunting and target practice. Those guns today are semi-automatic weapons of all shapes and sizes. No I don't think the Second Amendment covers fully automatic weapons, or rocket launchers or tanks or nuclear weapons. But it does cover shotguns, semi-auto pistols, revolvers and semi automatic rifles...those aren't going away anytime soon.
Hope that gives you a bit more clarity on the state of gun debate here in the US.
Some of the differences that make comparing Glock pistols to rifles invalid in this case:
Range
Power
Accuracy
Quote: ParadigmI am going to try and give a second response to the above, one that doesn't end with the ridiculous notion that nuclear weapons & enriched uranium will one day be available at the local Tractor Supply, because that isn't going to happen.
I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting that it would be available at the corner store and nor do I think the notion of the hypothetical question is ridiculous. I was not asking would or could these items ever be available to purchase at a shop it was “do you think you should have the right to then if you choose”. I certainly appreciate AZD’s honest response. While I disagree, I’m not really interested in debating it back and forth. It’s good to have an understanding of how highly he prizes this particular personal freedom.
Why don’t you feel the 2nd amendment covers these types of weapons? What in its wording excludes them? There are “arms” are they not?
Quote: Paradigm
Their problem is you just can't get very many US Citizens rallying and excited about banning shotguns and pistols in this country, and there lies the reason why no real legislation to help the fill some holes like the gun show loophole (which I believe should be closed) ever get done. The "loophole" here is that I can sell you a gun at a gun show in some states and you will never have to undergo a background check to legally buy my weapon from me as a private party transaction.
The hidden agenda on the so-called "loophole" is to try to end gun shows. Simple as that. We have seen no evidence of this loophole being used to commit crimes. And law enforcement has not provided a way to do an instant or near-instant check at this time.
That role is alternately embraced in rather simplistic form or dismissed as an absurdity: how could ragtag bands of rednecks with AR-15s ever hope to take on the U.S. military, with its full panoply of tanks, helicopters, and elite troops? The same people who say this will also insist that any American military action overseas is a mistake, because the U.S. military, with its full panoply of tanks, helicopters, and elite troops, can never hope to defeat ragtag bands of insurgents with AK-47s. But don’t look for consistency in partisan politics, and don’t be surprised when a Democratic politician wanders off script and suggests that if President Trump were to “ignore the courts,” then “this is where the Second Amendment comes in, quite frankly.”
Some declare flatly that this would never even be necessary, because “in a democracy, the government is the people’s government.” That begs a very big question. I wish I could be so complacent that it can’t happen here.
The Founding Fathers didn’t ask why it was necessary to provide the people the means to resist a tyrannical central government. It was a problem they had very recently encountered in real life, in the form of thousands of Redcoats sent across the Atlantic by a distant central government to suspend civil rights and enforce oppressive laws. So when they drafted their own system of central government and provided it sufficient military force to repel or deter foreign threats, they were profoundly concerned that this new national government would not be able to turn its power back against its own citizens.
Their solution was to make sure that the government drew its military power from the citizens themselves. That is the meaning of the much misinterpreted preamble to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” The idea was to rely for our defense primarily on an armed citizenry that can be called up as a militia. If the people themselves are the military power of the state, then that power cannot be used against the people. That’s what they meant when they called this system “necessary to the security of a free state.”
None of this is obsolete, despite advances in weapons, training, tactics, and the professionalization of the military. We still adhere to this system, both in letter and in spirit, in three ways: an armed citizenry, a military of citizen soldiers, and the National Guard.
Developing Citizen Soldiers
Let’s start with an armed citizenry. Throughout the twentieth century, for example, the U.S. government operated or supported the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which sponsored shooting competitions at rifle ranges and offered participants steeply discounted semi-automatic military surplus rifles. That these were military rifles wasn’t an accident. The program began as a way of encouraging civilians who were used to bolt-action rifles to train with the new semi-automatic rifles adopted by the military. It continued as a way of developing a reserve of trained marksmen among the civilian population. The point was that in time of war, when the military recruits thousands or millions of new soldiers, they want as large a supply as possible of men who can put ten rounds into the black at 400 yards with iron sights.
This naturally feeds into an army of citizen soldiers. Throughout history, and still in many places today, the military has been treated as a special or exclusive caste, with its own culture, institutions, privileges, and interests. The ancient Greek hoplites, for example, were heavily armed foot soldiers often drawn exclusively from a city’s ruling class.
The extreme case was the Spartans, who were an elite of professional soldiers drawn from a restricted class of citizens, ruling over a vastly larger number of oppressed helots. America, by contrast, has a tradition of drawing its soldiers from a cross-section of the civilian population, to which most of them return after a stint of four or six years. One of the implications is that in addition to having an armed population, we also have a large population of trained and experienced veterans with a close connection and kinship to those currently serving.
Again, the point is to have as small a gap as possible between the government and the people. An army of citizen soldiers drawn from the general public and reflecting its values is not likely to blindly follow orders to oppress their fellow citizens.
Dispersing Military Power Among the People
Finally, the military power in the United States is not concentrated solely at the federal level. The modern successor to the state militias is the National Guard. Not only are these part-time warriors who return to their normal jobs when not training or actively deployed, but their units are run by and under the command of the governors of the various states until they are called into active duty. This means that the military power of the federal government is partly distributed among the states rather than being centralized in the capital. For that reason, this is the only military power normally deployed domestically to keep the peace (as in the 1992 Los Angeles riots).
The same applies to an even greater extent to the non-military use of force. Despite a worrying expansion of federal law enforcement in recent decades, the vast majority of police power remains where it always has: on the state and local level. If you remember the recent fake outrage when Attorney General Jeff Sessions referred to our “Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement,” you might recall that he was specifically talking about the uniquely Anglo-American office of the sheriff, the point of which is to vest law-enforcement authority in a local official answerable to local constituents. The Constitution didn’t supersede this kind of local police power with a federalized police force, because the whole point was to preserve and respect the legitimacy of the state and local governments from which the Union was formed.
We all know—at least, those of us who have bothered to study the Constitution—about the importance of separation of powers between the various branches of the federal government. Our system tries to prevent the abuse of power by dividing it between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. But our system also includes a division of powers by scale, in which government power is distributed at different levels: federal, state, and local. The animating idea behind this system is to prevent the concentration of coercive power in a single institution, class, or capitol.
Or to put it in less legalistic and more philosophical terms, the division and dispersal of the coercive power of government embodies the idea that government authority is dependent on the consent of the governed.
To my knowledge, the closest that the Founding Fathers got to discussing all of this in detail was in The Federalist, No. 46, where the Father of the Constitution himself, James Madison, addresses the role of the state governments as counterbalances to the federal government. As a last resort, he contemplates the prospect of a tyrannical federal government using the army to impose its will on the states.
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Let’s update Madison’s numbers. A federal army at 1 percent of the population today would be an army of 3 million troops. Our regular armed forces are currently less than half that, about 1.3 million. Against that, the National Guard and reserves—those under the command of the states or dispersed among the civilian population—are about 850,000. Then there are about 22 million veterans among the civilian population, and while the World War II and Korea vets might seem a bit too elderly to be threatening—though I wouldn’t exactly count them out, if I were you—about 7 million veterans served from the Gulf War on.
That’s a very large population with military experience and training. The civilian population as a whole owns somewhere around 300 million guns, of which roughly half are probably owned by 3 percent of the population. If that seems like a small number, reflect that this means there are nine to ten million heavily armed people out there, and it’s likely that there is a significant overlap between Americans who own multiple guns and those who have served in the military. So the dispersal of coercive power through the American population today is considerable and makes the imposition of tyranny from above impossible to contemplate.
The Goal Is Preventing Civil Unrest
The point of The Federalist No. 46 was not to game out the details of this kind of conflict between a federal army and state militias allied with an armed citizenry. Madison’s point was to demonstrate how the whole constitutional system was designed to prevent such a conflict. The point was to set up a system where a revolution would never be needed in the first place, by ensuring that there is as little distance as possible between the coercive power of government and the people it governs. An armed citizenry and state militias, along with a military of citizen soldiers, are all part of that system.
This system is built to prevent tyranny, but it cannot prevent all conflict. It certainly did not keep Americans from shooting each other over slavery. Notice in that case, though, that the regular army was as divided as the rest of the country, to the point where top Union officers—including Gen. Robert E. Lee, who was originally offered the Union command—defected to the Confederate cause. If the purpose of the division and dispersal of coercive power is to ensure there is no separation between the military and the people, that doesn’t help when the people themselves are truly divided.
Despite the overdramatization among the chattering classes, we are fortunately very far from reaching that breaking point today. We should not tempt fate, though, by blithely dismissing or tearing down any part of the system that keeps us from getting there by shortening the distance between the government and the governed.
Quote: Dalex64Rifles and Glock pistols are not the same, and you shouldn't be casting your argument to justify having guns like a Glock pistol and applying them to rifles.
Some of the differences that make comparing Glock pistols to rifles invalid in this case:
Range
Power
Accuracy
I agree Dalex, rifles have more of all of what you list. But when the big issue surrounding the “we need sensible gun legislation” is a reduction of mass shootings in schools & other public spaces...having a Glock 41 with .45 ACP and a pump action shotgun with 8+1 and tube speed loaders in a confined space like a school/restaurant/movie theatre is going to do enough damage that not having an AR-15 is irrelevant.
That’s my point...creating new laws to ban new sales of what someone somewhere determines is a bad semi auto rifle from an OK semi auto rifle is not the right approach. The consistent attempt to make that the narrative by the anti’s results in universal background checks/private party sales/magazine restrictions and other limits that the majority of Americans may vote for never come to the table and get accomplished.
Quote: AussieI don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting that it would be available at the corner store and nor do I think the notion of the hypothetical question is ridiculous. I was not asking would or could these items ever be available to purchase at a shop it was “do you think you should have the right to then if you choose”. I certainly appreciate AZD’s honest response. While I disagree, I’m not really interested in debating it back and forth. It’s good to have an understanding of how highly he prizes this particular personal freedom.
Why don’t you feel the 2nd amendment covers these types of weapons? What in its wording excludes them? There are “arms” are they not?
My mistake...I thought you were interested in the debate.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe hidden agenda on the so-called "loophole" is to try to end gun shows. Simple as that. We have seen no evidence of this loophole being used to commit crimes. And law enforcement has not provided a way to do an instant or near-instant check at this time.
Probably because a gun show would only be a last resort for someone who can easily get a gun before that elsewhere. If we ever close the initial loopholes, then we'll have to worry more about guns purchased from this last loophole.
However, no telling how many guns have been purchased from gun shows, by people who were already suppose to be prohibited from owning them, whether they later committed a crime or not. Just like I suspect the majority of people driving with suspended or revoked licenses never get caught. Just like there is not enforcement to catch 99 percent of the people speeding every day.
Quote: ParadigmI agree Dalex, rifles have more of all of what you list. But when the big issue surrounding the “we need sensible gun legislation” is a reduction of mass shootings in schools & other public spaces...having a Glock 41 with .45 ACP and a pump action shotgun with 8+1 and tube speed loaders in a confined space like a school/restaurant/movie theatre is going to do enough damage that not having an AR-15 is irrelevant.
That’s my point...creating new laws to ban new sales of what someone somewhere determines is a bad semi auto rifle from an OK semi auto rifle is not the right approach. The consistent attempt to make that the narrative by the anti’s results in universal background checks/private party sales/magazine restrictions and other limits that the majority of Americans may vote for never come to the table and get accomplished.
It would be much harder to accomplish things like the Mandalay Bay shootings with the weapons you just listed.
I think you can definitely draw a line between a bad semiautomatic rifle and a good one.
Here is an example of a six-shooter - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RG-6_grenade_launcher
Managed to draw a line there.
I'm not sure, but it looks like .410 is the largest shotgun pistol you can have. Another line drawn somewhere.
I think people are barking up the wrong tree when going after things like pistol grips, when instead they should be looking at things such as magazine capacity, quick loaders, since you mentioned them, grains in a cartridge, kinetic energy delivery.
Quote: Dalex64It would be much harder to accomplish things like the Mandalay Bay shootings with the weapons you just listed.
I’ll counter your position with the 2007 Virgina Tech attack which left 33 dead & 23 wounded where a Glock 19 and Walther P22 were the only weapons user...Columnine happened with pistols, shotguns and a 9mm carbine...Las Vegas could have been a lot worse had the bastard used a semi-automatic 30-06 hunting riflle with a scope and a bipod and he actually targeted people as opposed to randomly spraying bullets.
Quote: Dalex64I think you can definitely draw a line between a bad semiautomatic rifle and a good one.
OK, I’ll bite...what really is the line you would draw between a good and bad semi-automatic rifle? And how would that line have stopped Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sante Fe, TX High School shooting & Baltimore newspaper shooting?
You’re right that people are barking up the wrong tree going after pistol grips, barrel shrouds, suppressors, etc...but kinetic energy in a 30-06 hunting cartridge is pretty high...how are you going to ban that round? So you ban AR-15 .223 rounds, do you really think that is the fix? How is that possibly the fix with some much history of significant damage having been done with pistols, shotguns and non-AR-15 semi auto rifles?
