The 2nd Amendment

[Dirty Penguin]

If our government really, I mean really, wanted to screw you, they could. Trying to physically take your life would be a complete afterthought. Your credit, gone. All loans, defaulted. Cyber identity, shattered. All income could be ceased and seized. Assets frozen. Car impounded. All services stopped. No fly list. Passport blacklisted; etc etc etc.

Then, you expect me to believe that a mob of farmers with AR-15's is going to stand against a military that declares martial law? The same military capable of reaching any one point on this earth. Tell me, how many aircraft carriers are you the admiral of? How about long range artillery? How many squadrons of f-16's do you possess? Drones, do you have them and how would you deal with them? Do you have tens of thousands of specially trained operatives to fight back with? How about a specialized network of intelligence? Frankly, anyone suggesting that their precious AR-15 would be enough to stand against a rogue government is delusional. Period.

Priceless.....just Priceless.....You got me laughing so hard over here.....:clap

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And your typical American is not savvy enough to reinvent his life?
Seen Doomsday Preppers?

Seen Osama Bin Laden....? All it takes is a very small specialized group of soldiers to deal with nut job types like these bunker rats you see on TV. The assumption is your federal govt. don't know about them and where they are. Our soldiers are skilled at attacking at night using sophisticated equipment the average Joe doesn't have. The 2nd. Amendment didn't foresee the advancements in technology in order for the citizens to be able to combat that.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

In regards to pop-tarts, to be fair, there is not much expectation that a government would want to ban them. There is a reasonable expectation that governments will want to ban guns, whether through altruistic or nefarious motivations.

This is why I say the Federal Government, for the most part, are the least of our worries. Much of the true life impacting rules/regulations/laws are being implemented at the local government level (see: Michigan, Virginia etc.)....If there will be any ban on Pop-Tarts (and I don't mean to through the thread off track)....it will happen in New York considering the mayor likes to ban food/drink related items....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It is a fallacy to believe that regulation cannot reduce the risks posed by madmen.

This....:yes:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All this gun control talk is just an emotional response and will not achieve the desired results.

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.

The only solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

If certain guns are outlawed, you just created a lucrative black market for them which will make them more accessible to the bad guys.

Addendum: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will MANUFACTURE OR IMPORT guns. There is no magic gun pixie leaving pistols under the pillows of criminals. Virtually every firearm used criminally started out as a legal weapon.

Edit: however, the more and more I think about it, the more I think it's a matter to be dealt with through accountability and personal responsibility. When a firearm or ammunition manufacturer, distributor, etc. knows, or ought to have known that they were feeding criminal demand for their product, make them legally and financially responsible for their decision to enable these criminals.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

IF MURDER IS OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL COMMIT MURDER.

Should we legalize murder since it doesn't stop murders from occurring?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

IF MURDER IS OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL COMMIT MURDER.

Should we legalize murder since it doesn't stop murders from occurring?

Good one.....:beach:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hasn't the experiment of banning guns (or certain kinds, or certain licenses) already been performed in many countries besides the U.S.? It should be an empirical fact whether or not, indeed, outlaws run amok in those countries.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hasn't the experiment of banning guns (or certain kinds, or certain licenses) already been performed in many countries besides the U.S.? It should be an empirical fact whether or not, indeed, outlaws run amok in those countries.

I suspect the statistics is a bit all over the place.

I looked into California in comparison to other states a few weeks ago. California has some of the stricter gun laws (not the top, but up there), but it's still in the top 10 when it comes to gun crimes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just to note the obvious: viewing the 2nd Amendment as no longer relevant is not equivalent to advocating a general ban on guns.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hasn't the experiment of banning guns (or certain kinds, or certain licenses) already been performed in many countries besides the U.S.? It should be an empirical fact whether or not, indeed, outlaws run amok in those countries.

One data point:

In Canada, handguns are effectively illegal for private citizens - you can get a licence for one if you work in certain professions (e.g. armored car driver), but the average person can't get one.

In 2005, there were 52 firearm-related murders in Toronto (population at the time: 2.5 million). Local media declared it "the Summer of the Gun", there was a fair bit of public panic, and several police and government initiatives were launched to address this "unprecedented" problem.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Just to note the obvious: viewing the 2nd Amendment as no longer relevant is not equivalent to advocating a general ban on guns.

Adding to the obvious: implementing rational and reasonable gun control and tracking measures also is not equivalent to advocating a general ban on guns.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Adding to the obvious: implementing rational and reasonable gun control and tracking measures also is not equivalent to advocating a general ban on guns.

Adding the necessary to the obvious: being a U.S. citizen is not in and of itself sufficient warrant to resist the rational and reasonable.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Adding the necessary to the obvious: being a U.S. citizen is not in and of itself sufficient warrant to resist the rational and reasonable.

Sounds like some kind of commie talk to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

One data point:

In Canada, handguns are effectively illegal for private citizens - you can get a licence for one if you work in certain professions (e.g. armored car driver), but the average person can't get one.

That is pretty much true of Brazil as well. A national public referendum in 2005 attempted to restrict them even more, but was ultimately turned down.

 

[Thief]

It is a fallacy to believe that regulation cannot reduce the risks posed by madmen.

And therefore the risk is reduced......how?

Arming every American....with a high capacity handgun.

 

[Thief]

Seen Osama Bin Laden....? All it takes is a very small specialized group of soldiers to deal with nut job types like these bunker rats you see on TV. The assumption is your federal govt. don't know about them and where they are. Our soldiers are skilled at attacking at night using sophisticated equipment the average Joe doesn't have. The 2nd. Amendment didn't foresee the advancements in technology in order for the citizens to be able to combat that.

So let's go the full ten yards.....
Arm every American with top of the line body armour and night vision.

Subduing bad guys and resisting oppressing regimes ain't easy.

 

[LuisDantas]

And therefore the risk is reduced......how?

Arming every American....with a high capacity handgun.

That serves little purpose other than enabling otherwise unarmed dangerous people to actually carry their own guns by stealing, borrowing or third-partying them. It also teaches those of ill intention that they better be armed, and impressively so at that, and act in groups if at all possible.

 

[Thief]

Maybe it would be cheaper to arm all Afghan civilians and let them fight their own oppressors?

 

[Thief]

That serves little purpose other than enabling otherwise unarmed dangerous people to actually carry their own guns by stealing, borrowing or third-partying them. It also teaches those of ill intention that they better be armed, and impressively so at that, and act in groups if at all possible.

Don't trust your neighbor to behave well?
We already know the madman won't behave well.