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.