no doubt. except for the most extremist of people, even us 3%ers would love to avoid any violence over the issues, preferring to be able to get them righted either through new legislatures or the courts. Barring that working though, and submission or violence is the only alternatives, I know which one i'm choosing.

People, the government is not going to come take your guns. They just aren't.

But congratulations on falling for the "Culture of Fear" that the right wing has cooked up the past 20 years. I'm sure they're thrilled.

No they won't come get them. They will do exactly what they are doing now by teaching young kids in school guns are bad and continuing this left wing liberal indoctrination throughout college all the while hammering it time and time again with attempts at new laws making them illegal to buy certain ones. They outlaw a few here and there because they are so "scary looking". Soon that list will grow one by one to include them all. It's easier to take the cowardly approach to divide and conquer a God given right to freedom than to take the direct approach and knock on your door and ask you to hand that freedom over. The liberals on here are somewhat right, not every gun owner is going to give their life to protect the Second Amendment but even if a small percentage of gun owners do it will be a bloodbath and the government knows this.The die has already been cast and it may not be in my lifetime but I doubt my great-great grand children get to enjoy a day at the range or an afternoon sitting in the woods, its just a matter of time. The amount of time is the only question left.

Can you point me to a source that confirms this school "anti-gun agenda"...is it in the lesson plans, the textbooks or just word of mouth?

Or can you point to any recent attempts at new federal laws that stood any chance of passage?

I can point you to the NRA's $40 million misinformation campaign about Obama's position. Its done wonders for their fund raising...a common tactic...scare enough people and they will contribute.

The NRA and GOA outspend the gun control advocacy organizations by more than 20 to 1 in political contributions, lobbying, communications, etc.

-----Added 8/1/2009 at 06 : 37 : 31-----
I can also point you (for the third time - I must be using an invisible font!) to the Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment and Obama's vote with the Republican majority....

To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law.
U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

....and not the 16 Democrats (Boxer, Clinton, Durbin, Feiinstein, Kennedy, Shumer.....) who voted against it.

But some of you guys just wont accept it.

H.R. 1022 by New York Democrat Carolyn McCarthy and 67 co-sponsors.

Wait, so owning a handgun is a God given right? Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not kill, and thou shalt own a pistol?

I grew up in Michigan, so I have some familiarity with guns and people who own and use guns, but I cannot understand this gun fetishism. A gun is nice to have. It can protect you and your family from people who want to hurt you. A rifle is good to have for hunting. I can understand all of this, and I've thought about purchasing a gun myself. But the idea that the right to own a gun is the most important right, which is what the rhetoric of the NRA and its supporters suggest, is not something I get.

..

I think that a lot of people find the 2nd amendment appealing because owning a gun allows them some respite from feeling helpless. It doesn't necessarily make them any less helpless, but it's useful at providing the illusion of power.

Never even got to Committee in the House and no companion bill in the Senate.

I asked for a bill that had a chance of passage. This was DOA right from the start....despite the fact that a renewal of an assualt weapons ban has overwhelming public support and even widepsread support among many gun owners.

I'm still waiting for the school "anti-gun agenda" that is poisoning the minds of America's youth against of gun ownership.
-----Added 8/1/2009 at 11 : 23 : 06-----
The question that begs to be asked is who is really spreading the propaganda?

Didn't you hear? Guns... they're magical safety badges!

Much in the way having a cell phone will save you when you're mugged because you can call the cops. Much in the way that we'll always have plenty of food in grocery stores as long as you have a credit card. Much in the way that traveling to work is possible as long as you have a car, gasoline, and insurance.

...

I concur. We're all helpless.

...

Oh, I'd say that would be the media. Remember, according to your local nightly news: AK-47s eat children who stay up late and Glocks will instantly kneecap you if you don't wash behind your ears, cheat on your wife, or forget to pay the mortgage. :surprised:

As you educated types know, the media is all about scaring us. First it was people with dark skin, then it was people who might be commies... throw in some of those job-stealing south-of-the-border terrorists... include how your minivan will explode and decapitate your toddler... and make sure to capitalize on the tools that moronic humans use to commit crimes.

GUNS: They're like cold steel zombies, but more dangerous. Single-minded sentient murder machines! They'll sodomize your siblings! Film at 11.

Turns out I'm a stereotypical college student right this minute and lemme tell ya... I believe that the anti-gun thing stems from the fear-mongering Mediazilla and rich whitebread yuppie types (such as college kid parents) who equate firearms with manual labor tools like shovels and pitchforks: things their fancy-pants kids should never touch. Perhaps it is because only heathens own guns... and because guns, like manual labor, can kill people.

Then again, my major promotes the use of responsible firearm ownership. I may be biased like everyone else in this thread.

...

Gun control is a lousy way to get at the real cause of crime. Hell, that's kinda like taking the penises away from every kid born in 2003 because one of them still wets the bed.

i think the class war element of this is really interesting, crompsin--thanks for saying that.

this seems to cut to the heart of the matter.
for the gun fetishist set---which is a subset of gun onwers, a small, terrified subset---and this distinction is important to maintain---having a weapon is of a piece with a general sense of petit bourgeois precariousness--it's a way of responding to the sense of tenuousness of one's material existence.

opposed as much to the left--mostly a phantom left---as to the state, which is framed as it's material extension, these folk seem to channel their anxiety into a fantasy of return to a lost state of national purity. if you think about it that way, the militia-specific political worldview--a hodgepodge of libertarianism, strict construction in legal terms, and radical nationalism---fits together---and guns operate as a signifier which helps maintain the possibility of bringing this lost purity back into existence.

the sense of alienation from capitalism filtered through a panic at the idea of the left which is embodied in the state...the absence of a sense of viable political alternatives, including organization of opposition itself...the only way to maintain an imaginary trajectory leading to redress or more is holding onto the gun.

and as political reality changes and the far right finds itself drifting back into the margins, the need to maintain this imaginary alternate possibility becomes more and more hysterical.

this is not new--it happens alot, has happened alot, from the militia movement in the states to poujadisme in france in the 50s to fascism in the 20s and 30s.

to be blunt, i don't particularly oppose guns. this is not an issue that occupies me. but i do oppose fascism. that's what i see militia groups as being--american-style fascists.

think about it---if guns are a condition of possibility for violently opposing the state, and if the state is coded as a material expression of the political left--if people from the militia set were to come to power, it is pretty obvious that people like me would be in serious serious trouble.

I concur. Most (tempted to say all, somebody tell me what type of upstanding, educated citizen joins such an organization?) militia-types seem to be fascist-echoing blue collar Nazi wankers. They don't just fear the government, they fear skin pigmentation, social equality (all dem homuhseckuhls gonna burn in hell!) and a world that isn't down on its knees for (white) Jesus. Guns are their security blanket much in the way the dorky goth kids in the late '90s used to wear a lot of spiked jewelry: "I'm a pussy, but I'm a spiked pussy who aspires to look dangerous to others (but mostly just myself - boohoo)."

I get your point. I suppose my follow-up to that would be: I hope there are more decent people with guns at that point than nutjobs.

Fear not. If the militia-types were to come to power... I'd be in a slit trench crumpled up next to your bearded self with my gun taken from my "cold dead hands." Just because I own firearms doesn't mean I'm "in the club" with a bunch of GI Bubbas. I'm more of a threat to the fascists because I own guns (and because I don't believe their bullshit party line). The ideology is the same regardless of who is in "power" at the time: people with guns are dangerous to us and we should stop them, ya know, protect society from 'em. Even the "good" guys do it and it's perfectly understandable: you can't "push" a man with a gun as far as a man without one. Guns are magical talismans of rights... people feel like they have more rights when they have them even though Molotov cocktails and lead pipes are often just as effective (see: Africa vs. any invading force in the 1900s). Gun solutions are for people who missed MacGyver.

...

Much like the class war element, I want to dispel the "good guy" and "bad guy" thing from guns. I can say it a million times but it doesn't seem to come across just right. Guns don't do anything. Heroes and idiots do things. When a hero uses a gun... they make a John Wayne movie about it. When an idiot uses a gun? We get nervous legislation. In both cases: the gun didn't do anything. Silly people use guns are "bad things happened" scapegoats.

To paint all gun owners as the poor illiterates and militia types is wrong. There's literally millions of "educated" gun owners and the militia types are but a very tiny subset and percentage. Most gun owners just enjoy a day at the range or a day in the woods and mainly just want to be left alone and just want to let it be there is plenty of regulations and hoops to jump through now as it is. I believe Crompsin to be correct in stating the media plays into both sides fears simply for headlines and ratings. RB I don't think you have anything to fear as most gun owners are quite embarrassed by and really don't want anything to do with the skinhead or militia types.

This doesn't help our case. That and most (all) of the stuff posted by Telluride, Timalkin and my homeboy, DK.

Telling someone you have fists and will punch them in the face if they do "X" is a great way to be labeled a douchebag.

...

Yeah... we have guns. That doesn't mean a god damn thing. Stop posturing like a yappy chihuahua.

I'm not afraid of someone who yaks all the time... I'm afraid of the person who says nothing at all.

...

This thread is arma virumque cano and all that.

To paint schools as having some undefined anti-gun agenda is also wrong and makes your case much less legitimate and reasoned.


Guns as a phallic symbol?.......my gun is bigger than yours?
-----Added 9/1/2009 at 08 : 50 : 46-----
You sound like a responsible gun owner.

I cant say the same for some of your colleagues here who appear to be on a “noble” (disillusioned) crusade, based on fear and propaganda (starting with the OP and "If you go by Obama's voting record, he is as anti-gun as they come...") , to save America from itself by arming the populace.

Pfft... your gun might be bigger than mine, but my scrotum holds 75 shots.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a13...Ballsack-1.jpg

scout---i tried to make the distinction clear, but to head off trouble, i'll say it again:

and i'm not exactly concerned by the possibility of these folk actually getting into power---but i oppose the politics behind most militia outfits nonetheless, both in principle and in detail.

This thread is moving fast. Sorry this is late.

I fail to see where his argument was effective. It illustrated an impossible situation (untrained people with tiny guns prevailing against the best-trained military in the world with big guns) and then put forward a "we gotta do it in case the government gets oppressive" argument, which might be valid if it weren't for the fact that the government is already oppressive to an Orwellian degree, and no one's shooting.


That's irrelevant since I'm not going around spewing Rambotalk about how I'm gonna shoot the cops.

Are you seriously suggesting the public should have all along been acquiring tanks and RPGs? Where did you think we were going to get the money for it? Or are you suggesting that we shouldn't have given the government the money for weaponry, in which case we'd currently be under Soviet control .. .

Regarding militias, my observation has been that there are two types of people who join them:

1) Libertarian types who simply want the government to leave them alone. These are basically the "Founding Father"-ideology militias.

2) Fascist types who like big government...just not the big government advocated by their political foes. This is where you get the Neo-Nazis and that sort.

If fascists came into power, I'd be in the trenches with you and the bearded person you were talking about.

His argument wasn't one of the peoples uprising success, it was one of how many people are you willing to kill. Some people here might be quite comfortable if 800,000 people have to die to promote a totalitarian state of a big government nanny state. Lots of others are not.


What I was specifically referring to was the NFA of 34, then later the GCA of 68, and even later, the post 86 machine gun ban. This applies credibility to the anti argument of 'who needs a machine gun or assault rifle', simply by reciting a discredited theory that the 2nd Amendment applied only to the military, police, and national guard.

Whether that argument is valid or not (and to be fair the Supreme Court seems to agree with your perspective), I view the machine gun ban as one of practicality. Having the machine guns won't help us in a fight against the government because they still have more powerful weapons. But a machine gun in the hands of a criminal /will/ hurt society.

The cost/benefit analysis of civilians having machine guns is tilted entirely toward the negative. There is absolutely nothing you can do with that machine gun that will help our country, and there is plenty that you can do with it that will hurt us.

I should make it clear that I am against banning guns, but for common sense regulation of them. I want the people that have guns to be proven to be intelligent, responsible, and sane. Even if you're not yet a convicted felon, if you're on the edge of insanity I really don't want you to have a gun.

I also want the guns to be for a non-criminal purpose. A deer rifle's purpose is clear. A pistol can be used for defense, assuming the person with the gun is well-trained (and he's probably not, realistically).

An M16 can't really be used effectively for hunting unless all you want is hamburger. As a personal protective weapon it is entirely over-the-top, especially since its rounds have a bad habit of still having energy after passing through the intended target. There is nothing the M16 is good for that regular guns are not equally good for except for killing multiple targets at once. You don't need that for hunting, unless you're hunting people. We've already established that the argument is that you guys want to kill the cops and any other agent of an oppressive government, and we've already established that if you're going to do that, you'll need a lot more than a gun, no matter what gun that is. So why should they be allowed?

let me make sure i understand your position with this,

Even though at the onset of our new country, where the founders and framers believed that ONLY free citizens being armed could ensure the security of a free state, but they did believe that it would also require a standing military as long as that military was not more powerful than the populace, but since we've gone so far past that state of thinking now, we might as well chuck the framers intent and reduce the 2nd Amendment to hunting and self defense against criminals and we'll trust the government and military to respect our rights and freedoms and not oppress us? therefore civilians no longer should have weapons available to foot soldiers?

I think you misread my post or perhaps reading a meaning that isn't there. It was in no way posturing but merely making an observation as to what will happen if the government goes house to house in search of guns. You and I both know this isn't going to happen, at least in our lifetimes. I truly believe the die has been cast and in 50 years give or take no one will own any firearms and it will be accomplished without anyone firing a shot or anyone losing their life. There is no blustering or yapping, just a sad resolved certainty.

The last time federal gun control legislation was enacted was 15 years ago.

The chance that there will be gun control legislation enacted in Obama's first term is just about zero.

Which is why I think the tone of this thread, starting with the OP, has been based in large part on false characterizations, misrepresentations, and ideological bluster of having to prepare for the likelihood or even possibility of something that is not going to happen any time soon.

Fifty years from now? Who knows. I'll be dead.

I think the odds of a new AWB or high capacity mag ban will be 50/50 by august

Based on what?

I would suggest that you havent looked at the profiles of the new Congress.

An AWB ban couldnt get a hearing in the House or a even a draft bill in the Senate in the 110th Congress..there is nothing to indicate it will change in 111th Congress.

While the Democrat majority in both houses have increased, the number of gun control members have not.

Most new Democrats elected in 06 and 08, particularly from the West and South (eg Tester, Webb, Salazar, Udall in the Senate - and dozens of House members from swing districts) are gun rights advocates...or at least, not gun control advocates.

Because democrats are evil. Even gun-toting pseudo-democrats like Crompsin.

...

Shakran:

Rambotalk is my new favorite phrase, btw. "NOTHING... IS OVER!" "You don't just turn it off!"
-----Added 9/1/2009 at 12 : 41 : 14-----
From a gunshot wound?

nothing more than a personal gut feeling at this point. The Dem leadership hasnt changed, only the junior body. Again, this is just a personal feeling and my opinion, but with the total overhaul of rule changes Pelosi is making, combined with the fractured republicans and a huge media push to portray the NRA/gun lobby as without influence, I think you'll see a tremendous effort to bring the junior democrats in line for a push to a permanent AWB.

Dont get me started on the misrepresentation of the recent House rules changes which is far less restrictive on the minority party than the "Hastert rule" that applied when the Republicans were last in charge.
-----Added 9/1/2009 at 12 : 59 : 50-----
And there is absolutely NO WAY that the Senate will get a 60 vote, fillibuster proof, majority on an AWB this year or any time soon.

If there is a thread on that, i'd be interested to read it.

I wasn't aware that a senate vote on an AWB needed to be 60. despite that, and i'm not doubting you yet, I know that there are both pro and anti of both parties and that there are probably enough republican votes to actually bypass any filibuster. This issue could be used as a wedge issue to oust democrats like what happened in 94. Fairly lousy tactics again, but the republicans currently in office haven't shown too much ingenuity or originality in anything lately.

I'll point out that this was a very good idea - - a military that's not more powerful than the populace - - back when the worst thing any army could do to you is shoot a canon. If we followed that doctrine today we'd be annihilated by the first country that got a whim to do so. The only way to avoid that would be to give the civilians free aircraft carriers and the like. .



The framers' intent has been chucked by the world moving on. . . There is no possible way to comply with the framers' intent without weakening the military to the point that Hugo Chavez can defeat us. . .



You keep saying this, but you never explain how you intend to stop the government from oppressing us even if you can buy any weapon you can afford, considering that whatever you buy will be up against something that is orders of magnitude more powerful.

The only response I usually see when I pose that question is something along the lines of "If they come to take my guns they'll find out why I have guns," or "They'll pry it from my cold dead hands," or other similar pseudo toughguy talk that is frankly such transparent testosterone-filled puffed up bullshit as to be laughable.
Would you mind telling me what the point of giving machine guns to gangbangers is, when considered in the light that it won't help us carry out the purported purpose of the 2nd?

shakran, your argument and mine is doing nothing but turning circles. You keep saying that the government can supress us at will because civilians can't own military weaponry and I keep saying because we can't own military weaponry, the government can easily supress us. What part of fixing this is not being understood?

What i'm hearing is that since the US military has tanks, bombers, and nuclear weapons, that it would be easy to decimate and overbear american citizens, but do you see the government going to that extent, even if it meant to tyrannize us? That was originally what the posse comitatus act was for, if I remember correctly, yet it's ignored nowadays. A majority of Americans have lost that martial aspect of a free nation that was there when this country was founded. Do we even try to get it back? Would a government even allow that anymore?

Maybe we already are beaten because we've let it get so bad.

it would seem to me that the decision to create a standing army--and within that the "modernization" of war, which coincides with the adoption of the doctrine of total war as a way of thinking about what the military does when it wheels into action----and the transition into a modern legal system that substitutes the state for individuals as victims of crime (which entailed a transfer of police functions) obviated the framers' intent in these areas a priori---the rules changed significantly with these transitions.

so for that matter did the nature of revolutionary political action.
but this is left political stuff---after marx became a dominant touchstone for thinking revolutionary politics, the entire understanding of what revolution is split away from the older understanding of it as an attempt to restore some previous state of affairs. because it's left tradition thinking, i'm not sure how much to say about it here...but anyway, there we are.

it's not an issue of whether or not the government will let us, dk. It's an issue of, even if we're allowed, we still can't do it. There's no law saying I can't go to the moon but it's not gonna happen either. As to whether the government will use tanks against us. . .Yes, they will. They have. Go watch file video of Waco. The ATF had a tank. If I recall it was a ramming tank, but it was a tank nonetheless.

I'm not even getting into the nuclear weapons or the 22 million dollar fighter planes. . .Let's just talk tanks. Only the most wealthy of us can afford the damned things, and the likelihood of them turning against the government is slim to none - it's very, very rare for people who are making incredible sums of money under the current government to revolt against that government.

That's why I find the "we need our guns to fight the big bad government" argument so laughable. It's a bullshit argument, because your guns aren't going to let you fight the big bad government any more than a paper towel will stop a flood.

We should all get to have broad swords, though.

Everybody knows that Hamilton wrote in "On Liberty and Cutting Shit Up" about how the last refuge of scoundrels was in two pieces on either side of his arcing broadsword.

I mean, if the man comes aknockin, he sure isn't going to want any of what you got if you answer the door with a broadsword in your hands. I don't give a fuck, son. Y'all bitches can die on your knees. Me? Ima go down swinging a giant, throbbing broadsword.

They're good for home defense too, provided your hallways aren't too narrow.

and yet there are guerrilla forces fighting, and usually defeating, our tanks right now. IED's can be a wonderful thing as well.

I'm not saying that if 'revolution' were to ever start that we should go toe to toe like we did with the british. hit and run attacks, sniping, IED's, and the like would be a long slow road of attrition. anyway, tactics are another topic altogether.

In reference to the other portion of your statement, since the government HAS used military vehicles against it's own population in the past, there is nothing to say it won't be used again in the future, do you still believe that it's beneficial to society to deny military weapons to the public because bad people will use them also?

They sure can. And if we get to the point where we need to fight the government, I'm sure you won't feel the need to ask Congress' permission to build a few of them, will you? And I'm sure you'll agree than an IED is not a machine gun, won't you, and is therefore not germaine to this conversation.

If we get to the point where we can, and do, start blowing up tanks, then we can get hold of automatic weaponry, too. If nothing else, snatch it off of the guys in the tank you just killed.

I agree. Hit and run attacks wouldn't work very well unless you were hitting them with something better than a gun. Sniping would be better accomplished with a scoped deer rifle than with a machine gun. IED's as we have established have nothing whatsoever to do with machine guns. You still haven't explained what you're gonna do with that machine gun - the one that, while we're waiting around for dksuddeth to begin his revolution, is being played with by some idiot that might just decide to shoot me.

If the military weapons that the public is capable of getting hold of are incapable of carrying out the objective for which we are getting hold of them, then yes. A machine gun is not capable of stopping a tyrannical government. So there isn't any point in having one for that purpose.

The idea that gun ownership is the linchpin of individual freedom baffles me, especially when you consider the level of sophistication we get in Western governments. If you observe things on multiple levels, you will find that governments maintain power (you might even call some of it "suppression") by structuring itself around the idea that individuals are entitled to freedom and autonomy. It governs the people through this freedom. We aren't merely free people; we are required to be free. This is something Foucault observed in his concept of governmentality. Essentially, these governments "build" their citizenry as people who have access to free enterprise and private property, and they do this so that they can empower the policies they want to enact or already have in place.

We are all accounted for, both in policy and in the spaces in which we live—geometrically and mentally. Guns don't make us any more or less free in a system of this nature. We are all subjects, regardless. Actually, taking away all the guns would be counterproductive to the power structure of the government in the United States. Any legislation related to guns is not so much about limiting individual freedom as it is about the management of our perceptions of a stable society in which it is our inescapable duty to be free. It's all about keeping the tax dollars flowing, really.

because destroyed machine guns work just as well as new ones in our safes. :shakehead:

We're talking tactics again, but you apparently are ill informed or unknowledgable about squad tactics, as small hit and run tactics work beautifully, especially when done with automatic fire. I had to study basic military tactics as a squad leader in the marines. I do know what i'm talking about.

there is absolutely nothing stopping said idiot from shooting you with a hunting rifle/shotgun, handgun, or even a bb gun. Do you think that denying machine gun possession suddenly makes said idiot a genius?


Then there wouldn't be any point in arming standing military troops with machine guns either, would there? what you're attempting to do is elevate standing troops as superior to civilians because of 'training'. What you're failing to take in to account is the number of FORMER military people who also have that training. Do you think they deprogrammed me after my enlistment?
-----Added 9/1/2009 at 03 : 05 : 50-----
One of the things I really get tired of seeing, and start refusing to acknowledge eventually, is the total misnomer that gun owners are somehow less 'sophisticated' than non gun owners. It smacks of ad hominen, elitism, or just plain envy over anothers apparent nonfear of weapons. It's really getting old.

Here is where are cultures differentiate from one another. European culture seems to have it in their mindset that their benevolent government granted them freedom and rights and are bent on protecting those rights and freedoms. Back in the 1700s, the american colonists saw things from a whole other viewpoint. They saw their granted rights easily trod upon by this supposed benevolent government. They therefore decided that people had inalienable rights granted by their creator, not by their government, hence government could only deny rights, not eliminate them. The way to protect those rights from being denied was to be equal with a government agent in the ability of force.

That may be the case in England. It is probably the perceived situation by a majority of americans who are ignorant of history. It is not the case by a sizable percentage of individuals though. We are citizens, free citizens, and not subjects.

Great. Remember the part where they said "Unless the tank sucks or you're incredibly lucky a machine gun is not going to kill a tank?" . . .Or did they leave that out of your training?


correct, but there is something stopping him from mowing down 25 people at once with it - - namely, refire/reload rate.






Standing military troops are supported by tanks, and airplanes, and armored vehicles, and RPGs, and grenade launchers, and missiles, and bombs, and howitzers, among other high-powered weaponry. If we civilians were able to be supported by the same, then the machine guns would mean something.


Well, there is that aspect, yes, but I mainly speak of them being superior to civilians because of 'hardware.'


So. . you training your neighbors then? Or were you planning to pull a Stephen Segal and take on the bad guys all by yourself? Hint: As a Marine you should know that oppressive governments are not overthrown in 2 hours after the preview of coming attractions.

You misread what I wrote (and rather far, at that). The sentence isn't meant to be unattached from the paragraph from which it is derived. I meant that Western industrialized governments are more sophisticated than other governments.

Either case fits in nicely with governmentality. In both cases, the citizenry are required to be free. There is no opting out of this freedom. (Assuming we are talking about law-abiding citizens.) How they get or protect this freedom differs, sure, but that doesn't stop any government from governing through any form of freedom as a precondition to obtaining and maintaining power.

This is the thing. Governmentality suggests that everything has been accounted for. Policies are created and maintained though the condition that every citizen is free and autonomous. This not only empowers government, it also maintains its power. Citizens under these governments are free and autonomous, but only because they are subjects of said governments that govern through such freedom.

of course not, but then again, I never said anything about assaulting a tank with a machine gun, did I?


so 25 dead people are ok as long as it's done single shot style? like virginia tech?


I say this again, but apparently it's not a credible belief, that it would be total political suicide for a government entity to order artillery attacks on american citizens. why is this hard to believe? Tanks with CS gas in WACO caused such a public outrage, can you imagine what the result would be from actual exploding shells coming from them?


Again, that deficiency is the result of a single minded group of people. So the ability/possibility of military/government brutality is the fault of that very group. It shouldn't be that way, if you go by the founders intent.

No, I do not train my neighbors. For one, I have nothing to train them with. I can't afford anything more than a handgun right now. Two, out of the neighbors I have, 2 of the 4 are already former military. The other two I don't know well enough to know how their political affiliations are. Three, instead of attempting to belittle parts of my argument you have no rebuttal for, reread what i've actually written. I've stated as such that ANY violent revolution will be a long drawn out process......like afghanistan during the russian occupation.
-----Added 9/1/2009 at 05 : 31 : 22-----
Governments are created by man. Governments are created to serve and protect the rights of man. Citizens are not subjects of the government, otherwise you place government as the master and the US constitution says the complete opposite.

Again, that may not be the way that european countries work, but it is supposed to be that type of relationship here in the US.

Shakran, have you ever served in the military?

You are entirely correct that a tank is probably not going to be stopped by a machine gun. You would have also been correct to assume that no self respecting 'freedom fighter' would be dumb enough to try. Instead, they will simply shoot the softer targets that supply fuel and munitions to the tank, feed the crew, etc. Insurgencies are not successful when they fight an enemy directly (at least not until later stages). Instead, they go after the supply lines, small patrols, people who support the bad guys, etc. It is very hard to use tanks and air support to defend against that kind of action. Particularly when it is in an urban environment (ref. Palestine).

Plenty of insurgents across the globe are successfully employing machine guns against a far superior enemy every day. They are effective, and a necessary part of small unit tactics.



Oh, and if there was an active Insurgency in this country then Yes, DKSuddeth would probably be training his neighbors, or at least his cell in basic military tactics.

nice try. if you want to use Va Tech as an example, then having him armed with a machine gun would have resulted in a lot more than 25 deaths. you can try to twist it all you like, but there is NO reason for a civilian to own a machine gun. NONE.

The security of the nation depends on the people being disarmed.

I am not in a position to get involved with technical debates about American gun laws, but the security of the state is decreased by every citizen is armed.

The people must be subjugated equally to ensure peace.

Say... have you ever fired a "machine gun" in real life? Turns out it doesn't work like in [your favorite video game here]. Automatic weapons are extremely difficult to use effectively outside of the movies. They require a lot of training to become competent.

Firing a reasonably weighted personal automatic weapon, such as the M249 SAW, require thousands of rounds to get down to a useful level of skill... handling an "assault rifle" sized personal weapon, such as the M4 carbine or AK47, with an automatic firing option is downright horrible at anything beyond spitting distance for even the most well trained shooters I've seen. Basically: you can't hit shit. Semi-automatic weapons are more dangerous for nutjob shooters because the require more brainpower to operate and are generally more forgiving.

A semi-auto rifle such as a civilian-legal AR or AK would be much more dangerous in the hands of a dumbass school shooter as it would at least limit them to as fast as their finger can operate, mitigating some of the recoil impulse and improving overall accuracy.

Maybe you should just try to ban all guns with a catchy slogan:

Semi-automatic weapons: Training wheels for mass murders!

...

People who write gun laws know nothing about firearms outside of their Hollywood education.

Are you suggesting America should do away with such things as the Pledge of Allegiance and such trappings of nationhood that encourages its citizens to recognize and/or declare their status as subjects?

If you don't believe you are a subject of the U.S., the next time you go to a Third World country, toss out your passport. And when you try to leave, tell them you are a "freeman," not a subject of the U.S., and that you are free to go wherever you please and see what happens. If they decide to deport you, do you think you'll be free to choose where to go?

If you don't believe you are a subject, stop recognizing all American laws and see how fast you realize how "free" you are. Stop paying all your taxes, "freeman," and see what happens.

It is that you are a subject of the U.S. that you are protected by the U.S. Constitution. It is why I'm not protected by it but instead by Canada's constitution. I'm a subject of Canada. The Queen of England is my head of state, regardless of what I think.

I think you might be missing the point. You are subject of a nation that demands you be free and autonomous. How is that suggesting mastery over you? This is far different than what you'd get, say, in North Korea, which has a different set of demands.

All this is why your government will not take away all your guns. It's not interested in that.

Does this include those with their own firearms collections?

Usually

I'm sure they do. I'm also sure that small classrooms full of students with no escape route could be gunned down fairly efficiently from close range.

You are 'surely' wrong.

I'm not saying a nut couldn't figure out how to do a tremendous amount of damage with a machine gun, but in a VA tech type situation they would be far less useful than a rifle or pistol. They are great outside in the open, while firing from the prone, but not in a building. They are heavy, large, very difficult to fire while standing, slow, and far less reliable than a regular rifle. They have an important niche for the military, and a nut could employ one with horrible effectiveness, but not in the way you are thinking.

By making false suppositions you are undercutting your own argument.

Worked real well in the USSR and Nazi Germany...

This sort of thinking does not go over well in the US, we have a constitutional RIGHT to firearms to ensure our freedom and a legit government.

so wait---what you're saying is that it is guns not only determine individual freedom, but also shape the overall character of a political system, that the united states is x + guns, and the soviet union and nazi germany x - guns?

so that people have guns determines all of history.

what planet are you on?

The American political system--and its inherent power--is built around the fact that the citizenry has guns. Firearms don't ensure freedom; firearms are a fetishized manifestation of freedom. There are many other examples too. The political system itself is what ensures personal freedom; it is the freedom of its citizens that validates (i.e. legitimizes) its power.

When people are disarmed, they are powerless.

I think Gandhi or Martin Luther King would disagree...

you can be armed to the teeth and you'd still be powerless against the US government. seriously, this point of view is a pipe dream

Nonsense.

A more objective observer might suggest that it is from the Constitution in its entirety from which the "people" maintain their power....a free press, free speech and rights of redress, protection from search and seizure, due process under law....rights guaranteed by most free democracies in the world.

The most glaring difference between the US and the other free democracies is that most others do not have a guaranteed right to bear arms, other then through some nebulous reference to earlier common law...yet their citizens are no more powerless in their respective countries than the citizens of the US.
-----Added 10/1/2009 at 11 : 59 : 37-----
IMO, the "people" would be much more powerless w/o the first amendment or the fourth...or the fifth...or the sixth amendment...all of which potentially would have a much more nefarious impact, if those rights were lost.

The gun crap issue is about nuts who want to protect other nuts who are stupid enough to shoot people for no damn good reason. Unbelievable is what the gun lobby is/ farfetched foolhardy freaks pushing ammunition down the throats of all America.
Go shoot yourself!

Do you really believe that? I haven't heard anyone on here arguing to remove penalties for murder, or to allow criminals to own guns. It's about gun nuts who want to be able to protect themselves. At the core it's a matter of personal responsibility...both for an individual's well being as well as that of his government.

The 2'nd amendment provides a last refuge of the citizenry against a tyrannical government. Remember, our founding fathers had just successfully fought and won an insurgency against the most powerful empire in the world when the constitution was written. They were certainly concerned their 'experiment' might fail and result in another tyrannical government. Also, much of the continental US was unexplored and/or lawless so the means of self defense really was necessary for the "maintenance of a free state." You may feel times have changed and I am inclined to agree with you, however things could very easily change for the worse some time in the next 200 years. All it would take is one huge catastrophe and 'temporary' martial law....it's hard to surrender power after you have had it and most governments don't last very long at all.


Oh, and as far as "no good reason" to shoot people, do you mean to tell me that an armed intruder in your house, or a carjacker, or a rape attempt do not constitute good reason? Would you prefer the women just take one for the country?

I'm sorry... did your mummy and daddy take away your PS3 again?

...

Hell, I wish someone would push ammunition down my throat. That stuff is expensive! I remember when a box of 9mm FMJ used to be $5.99 / 50. Now you're lucky if you get it for $13. Maybe the ammunition industry should get a bailout package.

...

And when was the last time a responsible gun owner ever demanded that anybody who was opposed to firearms to go buy a gun? I surely haven't. I suggest training classes to those who are interested. Those who aren't interested in guns have plenty of other expensive hobbies to sink their finances into... like golf and mistresses.

Going through some of my Constitutional Law textbook and the Federalist papers, it seems as if the 2nd Amendment was put in place as a military check against the government, if necessary.

Lucky for us, there are multitudes of other checks on the government, including, as dc_dux has said, the 1st, 4th, 5th amendments, division of powers, 2 yr house elections, executive veto power etc.

I think it would be foolhardy to say that the 2nd amendment is "unecessary" (no one has really said that, yet.) I tend to think of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) as a measure of last resort against an oppressive government. Fortunately, the government hasn't made egregious oppressive moves, and even then as others have frequently stated, using unorganized military force to check the national government would be near impossible (but it would make a strong political statement, wouldn't it?).

Either way, the 2nd amendment is not for hunting.
========================

I wish ammunition prices would go down too. I can barely find any .45ACP, and Walmart is *completely* out of .45.

I think it's pretty clear that the only "government oppression" that would actually make gun owners take up arms would be the taking away of guns.

Congratulations on feeding the troll.

and who would that be?

I don't mean to be a poop stirrer but it seems my jingling change I throw in sometimes does that so here it goes.
1. As to Obama wanting your guns in the shredder; I think in his idea of a more perfect world, there would not be "assault weapons" or any other type of weapon that could possibly take someone's life. Taking life is for the courts/state to decide.
So being busy with a lot of big box issues will leave him no time for anything other than rubber stamping whatever the socialized socialites on the Hill come up with at a time that will make him look good. There are enough anti-gun people on the Kennedy staff to handle this minor issue.
2. If you have trouble understanding the "whys" of the way gun control goes, you need to study the National Firearms Act ca. 1934
A lot of the thrust of the decisions of the Supreme Court over Miller vs United States dealt with a struggle over what weapons were considered to be a functional part of personal military arms as opposed to in modern parlance "squad or crew served" weapons.
The reason the definition of "well regulated militia" is attacked by gun control proponents is because if the meaning is changed to define militia as National Guard or State Guard, etc. then no personal attachment is left and the goverment is free to do as it pleases.
In the 30's the Roosevelt Administration's Justice Department formed the bill which became the NFA. They were keenly aware of the then current understanding of the 2nd Amendment and tried to steer clear of getting into court. However that is exactly what happened. The Supreme Court undertook to decide what constitutes weapons needed for the "Militia".
In point I will use Virginia as an example since it's Militia definition predates the Constituion, and still retains the primitive definition.
At the most basic level the consitution of the Commonwealth recognizes a regular militia and a irregular militia. (this is similar in Pennsylvania as I recall) these are distinct from the Military Forces of the Commonwealth but are subject under it in time of emergency. The regular militia is considered to be persons under arms within the jurisdiction of the adjutant general of Virginia and formed into companies for purpose of defense. The Irregular militia is comprised of all other citizens that are armed and within the same prescribed limits and jurisdiction but are basically a last line of defense. Sadly to say similar to the Home Guard in Britain and Germany during WWII. Of course we shipped rifles and handguns to England during the war for exactly that reason, they had been stripped of the right to possess arms for defense.
In like manner the "militia" was always understood to "comprise the body of the whole citizenry" "except a few public officials" according to George Mason. "Well regulated" meant to have arms reasonable to defend and repel.
3. In the Supreme Court findings one of the issues settled around handguns. Is a handgun a normal weapon needed for a well regulated militia? The finding was yes. Why? Because in discussion and research it was determined that provosts and NCO's had the need for handguns to enforce lawful orders, prevent desertion and restore lawful order if need be by summary execution on the field of battle. This had been shown time and again. Similar action related to the roll of shotguns in war and in companies both in use by guards and by military police function. Because of this limits on short barrel shotguns went forward because ones with 18 inch barrels and longer were the only ones "typically" deemed to have a regular purpose.
4. In basic, a weapon which could be used by one person went under the wire and larger weapons were allowed to be regulated.
As to "other weapons" in many places you won't find a restriction on flame-throwers in respect to firearms ( no pun intended)
This usually comes under other headings and local or state restrictions which cover them specifically.
5. One of the basic erosions that has fostered anti-liberty issues and militated against personal liberty as opposed to class or civil liberties is this; the rewriting of fundamental rules on WHO has the vote. This isn't a racial issue or religious issue or really even political issue, it is a power issue ( you may read this as a MONEY issue)
The vote I refer to is your Federal Senator, and he or she is indeed Federal. (This wasn't always so children)
Before the 17th amendment, the State goverments chose the Senators and were able to hold the Federal gov. in check to some degree. Because of Senate rules, it is the most entrenched body in Washington. There were no problems present then that the 17th amendment was supposedly meant to address that has actually been solved; there are a few it has brought up. (I have 2 possible solutions to this part of the problem but can't get enough helium to float lead, the only source of gas up here is hot air that erodes the ozone layer over the Beltway, it is unsafe and unsuitable for floating good ideas)
6. There are psychological implications to gun-control that serves the powers that be, better as a fight than as a win/lose battle.
7. The NRA isn't the only organization up here that generates millions of dollars pertaining to gun control issues.
8. Currently gun owners have more to worry about from their own statehouses than from the Whitehouse.

If I have offended anyone please let me know now. I am bending over to feed the troll, so I am presenting the perfect target for punts, kicks or darts.

Firearms aren't weapons unless they're used to hurt people. My guns have never hurt anybody. They're not weapons.

Confusing? Try this: A ballpoint pen isn't a weapon until someone gouges it into another person's eyeball.

Better terminology would be item specific: rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc.

...

Other language issues: Assault is a human behavior, not an adjective as seen in "assault rifle."

/NRA-style politically correct pro-gun yuppie-feed

...

Turns out gun companies want a little gun control, too... as long as they can jack up prices and blame the government for it. Conflict breeds opportunity. Market would be okay with 1920s-esque gun freedoms... but I figure it's better now, at least financially, because guns are "on the verge of being banned as you read this!" If the maker of those Beta-C magazines didn't have the "high capacity mag ban is in the works" angle... they'd have a hard time selling their poopy products for the inflated several hundred dollars. Companies that sell ARs are having a great time right now. They can't get enough the paranoia. They're gonna sell you a M4 look-alike for a grand plus when it's worth maybe $750. Should a similar Clinton ban pass? They'll sell you one with a fake sliding stock and muzzle brake for the same grand. Ballistics and application-wise, the guns are the same damn thing... but the "pre-ban" one is cooler.

I feel that, for the most part, guns are a luxury commodity in the United States... a business designed to make money and no different than golf clubs, cigars, skimpy lingerie and pricey booze. They might be good quality (fancy pants 1911 guys) or craptacular (Llama or Phoenix Arms) but they're all out to sell you something because at the end of the day (if you live in the city) you can't eat guns... and they certainly can't put braces on your brat and push 'em through college (legally) in any of the 50 nifty United States. Whether it's a 13-month calendar featuring thong-clad bikini models posing awkwardly with Brand X assault rifles or the "Next Uber Epic Attack On Your 2nd Amendment Rights!" line, it's all about the Benjamins. To assume gun manufacturers are virtuous freedoms advocates is to assume General Motors cares about your long term investment in one of their vehicles. No, they just wanna sell you "The Pistol Favored by Special Operations Forces for OBLITERATING TERRORISTS" or whatever lunchbox gimmick of the year is on top of the pile.

Don't get me wrong... I love guns. They're a great, rewarding hobby and I'll continue to study, use, and buy them... I just don't have any illusions about them as magical badges. They're no different than kitchen appliances or car parts. They don't "make freedom" anymore than baseball bats or Molotov cocktails, they don't provide anything that doesn't already rest in the hands of a determined individual, and they don't really do a whole lot except propel metallic projectiles on command.

All this inflated "Rambotalk" (TM) about revolution and The Man and such... hogwash. People were having revolutions long before black powder was invented and they'll continue to do such when we're blasting each other with phased plasma rifles in 40 watt range. Guns might make us more equal in the method by which we kill each other (e.g. versus a sword or longbow), but they don't change IQs.

Weapons change... people stay the same.

...

If you really wanna revolt against The Man... stop paying your taxes.

i still do not accept the equation of gun ownership and political dissent.
what guarantees dissent--to the extent that anything does--are freedoms of speech, press and assembly. without a political project, a gun is just another thing--a dependent variable if you like (pace crompsin directly above)...

if you want to play the game of linking the 2nd amendment to the historical context in which the constitution was framed, that's fine. it seems to me that it is a residuum which speaks to the simple fact that had there not been guns around it would have been difficult to organize militias to carry out the war against the british. but this does not mean that the 2nd amendment is either a description of or theory about the revolution--without extensive ideological and political work carried out across the late 1760s and through the 1770s using pamphlets, broadsheets and other textual devices and through the development of social networks that connected the colonies together laterally (as opposed to connecting them together by way of britian, which is how they were organized economically) there'd have been no project that shaped the actions which began in 1776--and so guns would have remained just guns, used for whatever.

in other words, it is simply inaccurate to attribute the american revolution to the ownership of guns alone.

nor is it accurate to link the capacity for political dissent to gun ownership.
for example, it might be edifying for my colleagues on the right to consider the glorious history of the left in the united states and the extent to which the american state was wiling to go (the colorado coalfield wars are a good example) to crush it. a parallel kind of history can be found in the lovely history of my favorite group of moustachioed mercenaries, the pinkertons, and the situations in which they were used to eithehunt down and murder trade union activitist or to engage in battles to prevent unions from entering particular facilities (river rouge) or industries (good ole henry ford, my favorite american fascist, and this literally)....or you could look at the repeated uses of red scares to mobilize popular support for campaigns ideological and material to suppress the left.
people had guns throughout. i don't recall it making any difference at all.

but then again, maybe the problem is that the sustained war on the left would not register with my colleagues on the right as problematic because they would have and perhaps do support such actions.

this loops onto the question of what oppressive means.
if "an oppressive government" had an obejective meaning--if oppression was a feature of phenomena in the world and not an effect of statements about phenomena in the world--perhaps things would have gone otherwise with the history of the left. perhaps these heroes on individual liberties on the right would have been inclined to react to this, figuring that suppression of the right to dissent on the left would put their own abilities to dissent in peril.

or maybe they were just fine with that.

the point is that without political work, without arguments and information and relations staged between them, there is no political action. a gun is simply a tool that may or may not enable particular types of action to be undertaken *in the context of a political project*....

there are other problems, lots of them, but i'll leave it at this for the moment.

This is nice spin, but here's the difference: a ballpoint pen's designed use is to create marks on paper. A gun's designed use is to project bullets at things at a high velocity. The fact that a pen can be used as a weapon is a secondary "trait" of the object, not it's intended use. A gun's intended use is to shoot things.

...shoot things. Things, huh? Like paper targets. Or animals for dinner. Or maybe the psycho trying to attack my girlfriend?

...

Funny how owning guns doesn't give you a license to kill. Apparently it should because that seems to be a gun's primary use "trait" in your opinion. I'm sending all of mine back the manufacturer with a letter of complaint. I demand the legal right to use their product for its primary purpose.

(throws up into his own mouth, swallows)

Mmm. You sir? I like your logic.

Sure. I didn't say kill, I said shoot things. The end result of shooting things COULD result in harm or death of a person. The end result of writing a shopping list with a pen is considerably less potentially fatal.

It agree, it doesn't, yet some people on your side seem to have no problem threatening to do so if anybody trespasses, poses some vague level of threat or tries to take their guns away.

Hot dog! Sounds like a people problem.

Human responsibility: the root of all evil.

...

Fuck guns, let's regulate who can have kids.

Get to the root cause of the problem here.

go back and find where i've ever posted that I think guns should be taken away from anyone. go ahead, I'll wait

Cool. You go back and find where I posted that you suggested it.

...

Okay, nevermind. We'll both have Confucius beards by that point. Neither exists.

...

I want you to go on the TFP range trip with us. Start driving right now.

you're certainly arguing with me as if that were my position

no thanks. I have zero interest in ever holding a gun much less shooting one

Wow, you're about as open-minded as the "out to get me" types. :thumbsup:

I'm curious as to why the pro-gun side in here feels the need to justify their possession of firearms.

"We need it to shoot the cops if they try to take our guns."
"I need it to shoot the psycho that's attacking my girlfriend."
"I need it to put food on the table."

Who cares why you need it? It's irrelevant. The fact that you're justifying having the gun is weakening your claim that having a gun is one of the basic human rights defined in the constitution. If it's a basic human right, then I don't need to tell you why I have a gun. I just need to have it. You don't hear me running around saying "well I need to talk because . .. " in order to defend the 1st, do you?

This debate, as with most gun debates, comes down to whether or not having a weapon (keep and bear arms) is an inalienable human right acknowledged by the constitution. The consensus of the country and of the (heh heh. . activist? ;) ) judges on the supreme court currently seem to hold that it is. If it is, indeed, an inalienable human right to have a weapon, then the government cannot and should not stop me from acquiring, possessing, and carrying a weapon, whether that weapon is a knife, a gun, or a missile. If you are proposing that, then I suggest you start shooting the cops to stop them from taking your knives away, because they're doing that every day.

Those of you who are pro-gun in this thread, and who disagree with the previous paragraph, are admitting that having a weapon is not an inalienable human right, is not constitutionally protected under the second, and that the government can, as it does now, regulate what kind of weapon you are allowed to have. (This explains why in some states you can have an AK-47 but you can't have a 3 inch knife, and it also explains why owning a set of nunchaku is a crime in many states).

If you admit that, then you are admitting that the cops do have the right to take your gun away, and are, those of you who are threatening to shoot anyone who tries, admitting that you are contemplating unjustified homicide.

(wonders how DK got Shakran's login)

...

I'm the reasonable one here.
-----Added 13/1/2009 at 04 : 56 : 06-----
Can't get a 10 page thread without it from both sides, bro.

...

Can I get a super moderator to tell me the purpose of the TFP, again?

Using force to protect and keep your rights is unjustifiable? Pray tell, how does one protect and keep their rights then?

I suggest the two of you read, carefully, my post again. . .

ok, I reread it....again. The only question I had was for the part I quoted. As to the rest, I agree. I've stated my point and case many times, I'm pretty much done with that as it seems most people have made up their minds one way or the other.

Back to my question though, is using force justifiable in protecting and maintaining your rights? any of them?

Yes, I think it is. So why aren't you shooting? They confiscate knives, which last time I checked were weapons, also known as "arms," all the time. If the 2nd is an absolute right to keep and bear arms, then you should be fighting the oppressive government that is trying to deny us that right.

Shakran,

If the government decreed that you could only speak after filling out 3 forms and being mute for 5 days, then...would you start justifying the right to speech?

KirStang. No. I don't have to justify it. Once I start justifying it, it's admitting that the government has the right to remove my right to speak unless I can give them a good enough reason not to. I have the right to life. I don't have to justify to the government why I should live, because it is a right. The /right,/ is why I should live. Similarly, I do not have to justify why I should be allowed to speak. I have the right to freedom of speech. the /right,/ is why I should be allowed to speak.

And, to bring it to the context of this thread, if you feel the need to justify having a gun then you are implicitly admitting that it is not a /right,/ but a /privilege that you feel is a necessity./ If having a gun is a /right,/ then you do not have to justify having one. It is your right to have one. That is all that needs to be said.

The government has imposed limitations on speech - hate speech, "fighting words", slander, obscenities over the air waves,.....
-----Added 13/1/2009 at 06 : 29 : 12-----
The NRA and some gun rights advocates (in this discussion) have used fear and propaganda to misrepresent Obama's position..that is a fact.

The framers of the Constitution did not put the 2nd amendment above all others....that is a fact.

Obama and the 111th Congress wont enact any gun control legislation...that is a near certainty as well.

To draw a parallel to Shakran's point, because there are limitations on the freedom of speech I should rebel against the government because 'they are taking my right away and are doing it every day.'

To wit, there are reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech; there are also reasonable restrictions on the possession of firearms. I think we've long submitted to the social contract theory which dictates that we curb our freedoms to the extent necessary to avoid intruding on other's freedoms.

Blegh, I can wax on about the logic of it all, but whatever. I'm happy so long as more legislation isn't passed out of fear rather than logic.

Actually it's smacked down laws which limit pure hate speech (i.e. hate speech that does not include a threat) - for example, look up Colin v. Smith, 1978, 7th circuit, in which the American Nazi Party prevailed in getting laws which prevented them from expressing their anti-semetic opinions struck down.

Both examples of using your rights to impose on mine, which basic human rights concepts were never meant to allow for.


And in my opinion, that's wrong. But then state governments also pass laws about not selling booze on Sundays for fear of pissing God off. . . Just because the government does it, doesn't mean they're right in doing it.


In this thread, I am saying that if keeping and bearing arms is in fact an unqualified right as many are saying (meaning you don't have to be in a "well regulated militia" in order to qualify for that right) then the government is violating our rights by passing ANY laws against weapon ownership with the exception of laws which prevent people from owning/using the weapons in such a way as to violate the rights of others. In other words, laws which say "You are not allowed to randomly stab people" are fine, but laws which say "you may not own a knife" are not.

Future attempts at gun control legislation will be guided by the Heller decision, particularly:
Limits on who can own....limits (conditions and qualifications) on the sale of weapons....limits on the type of weapons.

*Edit 1: *Nevermind. :)

*Edit 2*: Haha too late, Dux quoted me.

Even going by the Heller decision, knives are protected, and yet the government is confiscating them routinely and often. We should be defending our right, according to dksuddeth and others. I am curious as to why this isn't happening.

Many of the new Democrats in the Congress, particularly from the west and south, are not anti-gun.

And the Senate majority is not filibuster-proof.

Add to that the fact that they have much more pressing issues on their plate, like rebuilding the economy and trying to repair the damage Bush has done. Obama literally needs to pull off a second FDR administration, and he doesn't have 3-and-change terms to do it in. This is not the kind of guy who gets distracted by less-important-things, as we saw in how he conducted himself in the campaign. Even if he secretly wants to steal every gun in the country, which he doesn't, he realizes he doesn't have time to even think about it.

it's not about being open minded, it's about being uninterested. i simply have no interest, desire, or curiosity about firing a gun. i don't like guns, and want nothing to do with them.

And thus know little about the items themselves and the vast variety of people who choose to own and use them.

Research helps. Not that I'd know (I care little for statistics, as you've discovered), but I'm sure it does.

the question of when it's justifiable to use weapons for political ends is pretty difficult ethically, but it's central to any revolutionary politics--if you consider that it is inevitable that you will end up moving outside of conventional processes. nothing about it is broached by questions of whether one does or does not have a formal right to own a gun. nothing about it is broached when you talk about your heroism in situations that are entirely in the subjunctive.

one way the old left dealt with it was the loop it through engels--the state will attempt to suppress any threat to it's political legitimacy and will use violence to do it--which in a sense evacuates the ethical problems by making what you, as putative revolutionary, would then do as reactive. so even as much of that strain of revolutionary theory is opposed to the capitalist order in general, and to the state as an expression of theclass structure, as an instrument of bourgeois power, it still relies on the state to set its project into motion.

there's also a long tradition of criticism of leninism in that the vanguard party is effectively a military structure--top down hierarchy for example---so that should a situation present itself that a revolutionary organization actually gets to power, chances are that it will impose on the next phase of things not what it says about organization, but it's own pattern of organization. this is at the base of many left critiques of the russian revolution and of leninist organization.

i've been more interested in variants of the general strike model (in the old school framework) which gave way to revolutionary action as a type of ideological conflict that is capable of undermining the legitimacy of the existing order by exploding the way it orders its surroundings ideologically--by structuring dominant worldviews, modes of thinking and doing.

the problem this runs into is a version of the repressive tolerance thesis: the dominant order deals with dissent by accepting its premises.

which leads to the question of whether there is or can be a revolutionary political movement.
i think there can be one, but that it's a long process to build it and requires steady work and the fashioning of continuity.

if any that holds, then the question of gun ownership is trivial.
it doesn't enable you to defend your rights because you tend, we tend, being nice adaptive creatures, to move with the dominant frame of reference, either by assent or by standing it on it's head, which repeats the same thing except upside down. so it's likely that you will either not recognize infringements on your prerogatives or rights because you agree to give them away, or everything is an infringement on your prerogatives or rights, in which case you're just a paranoid. either way you loose. and having a gun isn't going to help you.

you have to get outside the dominant ways of thinking. but the dominant ways of thinking are what enable you to get outside, so it's never complete--and they allow for communication of your positions, which means that you can't loose contact with it or you'll end up talking a private language--so you loose again. and having a gun will not help you sort this out. having a gun in this case really is like having a shower curtain of a tennis shoe.

it does different things, of course, but it's no different in kind.

Pfft, knives were cool when you were 15 and your alternative was a Red Ryder pellet gun.

I can make a decent knife by hand in less than an hour with the tools in my sock drawer.

Try making a decent firearm. It's difficult.

...

Lemme see if I get you:

I have a "right" (intangible thing) according to an ancient asswipe document and tiddly-winks court system that couldn't be more confusing with the help of the conservative Peewee Herman known as Justice Antonin Scalia... so I don't have to tell anybody about my "right" (intangible thing).

Man, I shouldn't even have to talk about something that I am for and a lot of people are against and wish to completely deprive me of ever accessing.

Issues like sport enjoyment, hunting, and self defense aren't things worthy of discussion.

...

You're kidding.

I totally don't get your logic here. Do explain. This smells an awful lot like what teenagers hear when their parents try to offer them those eye-rolling "valuable life lessons" regarding tattoos, car racing and premarital sex.

"Don't do it. Why? Because I said so."

...

US Govt: "I'm here to take your guns."

DK: "But I have a right."

US Govt: "Says who?"

DK: "You did... once."

US Govt: "Too bad!"

DK: "I don't have to justify anything."

US Govt: "Good. What kind of cuffs do you like? Chain or hinge?"

/non-Crompsin post-apocalyptic pro-gun wet dream scenario w/ new added "Don't Justify" maneuver

...

Rights, like guns, aren't magical merit badges. Rights don't mean a damn thing unless you can justify them and back up that justification with some kind of tangible force... like the end results of law (gag) or DK's Chevy Silverado-mounted GE M134D minigun.

Ya know... if he had one. He should name it "The Justificationator."

...

I think our "rights" are "protected" by a "system" led by "men" with soft hands and $800 haircuts.

So because Crompsin doesn't consider knives . .. Cool. . .we should ban them. . . Gotcha ;)


...
-----Added 13/1/2009 at 07 : 07 : 52-----

The same ancient asswipe document you and your side uses to loudly proclaim that the government cannot take your guns. . . .

No.

I did explain. Read again. If you have a right to something, you do not have to justify having it. You're already entitled to it. I don't have to start my newscasts with an explanation of why I should be allowed to broadcast them, and a plea to government censors not to block their transmission because, having a right to free speech, the government isn't allowed to take it away from me, even if they don't like my reason for exercising it.

If indeed you have a right to bear arms, then you don't have to explain why you need to have a gun. You are entitled to the gun, even if I or the government think your reason is stupid or unpalatable.

Well the threats to shoot cops in this thread clearly show the tangible force (though it doesn't amount to much up against the government's tangible force. As far as justifying rights, clearly you do not understand the difference between a right and a privilege. Perhaps that's half the problem.

This reminds me that I need to drink more.

I don't want to know about them, that's the point.

Did you just pigeonhole me? Sweet. I'm "One of Them." Lemme guess... you're a star-bellied sneetch.

Check my posts. I don't threaten violence, I'm not a paranoid weenie-hat, etc. I'm Mr. Reasonablepants.

-----Added 13/1/2009 at 07 : 25 : 11-----
Enlighten me. I don't really see anything in the US as a right. They're all privileges, pretty much. "Good judgment." "Reasonable and prudent person." Etc. Flavor of the week.
-----Added 13/1/2009 at 07 : 26 : 59-----
Entitled would be wrong. I have to be a certain age, residency, criminal status, etc. Sounds like a privilege to me.

You're suggesting: Let gun people babble and "your kind" can stop telling us we're "wrong?"

...

TFP is a forum, right?
-----Added 13/1/2009 at 07 : 31 : 17-----
I wish somebody would feed me but I'm not... I'm not radical enough.

Jazz... Jazz... I'm so hungry. God, can't you spare me some pearls of wisdom?

Does that make the NRA Sylvester McMonkey McBean?