Question of gun rights........

[Bart*Simpson]

Did the Native Americans have a right to bear arms?

Yes. And the tribes that did not wage war against the colonists and the United States (like a few of the New England tribes that were not forced out of the East Coast) were never deprived of this right.

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe would be a very good example of such a tribe.

 

[Kwatt]

Wonder if those guys in the ditch gave up their firearms to save lives.


It worked! Sorta.





It certainly saved some lives of the ones not in the ditch.




.

 

[Moonbeam]

The rationalization you use for the reduction in rights is to save the ~5k of non-gang, non-crime, non-suicide deaths per year which may or may not have occurred anyway without a gun. Furthermore, the rationalization you use is a reduction in homicides, which hasn't been supported by Australia or other countries, nor have violent crimes committed through other means.

So that's your rationalization, eliminate rights for a few thousand deaths which will likely occur anyway. You could require ignition interlock on every single vehicle to probably nearly 100% eliminate DWI related accidents and fatalities and save more lives. How about that?

What about banning smoking. There's millions of lung cancer and other smoking related deaths eliminated. What about Bloomberg's Big Gulp ban, or shit, just ban sugar and require a minimum of 1hr of exercise a day, subject to jail time. You'll prevent millions upon millions of diabetes or obesity related fatalities.

Just how far would you be willing to go?

And on the topic of defense against governments (including our own), the size of the US military is pretty small compared to the size of the armed US population. 100mm people fighting against the government, not concentrated in one space, would be very difficult to battle, even with modern weapons. Especially considering various laws. It wouldn't be nearly as clean as the Civil War since the differences are ideological, not really geological.

The notion may be somewhat far fetched, but the idea that we would go quietly as herded sheep would be gone.

I gave you my answer to where the emphasis should go to reduce the threat of mass deaths in the modern world, focusing on raising children that don't want to kill each other because they grow up with their empathy intact. You keep battling away at your imagination of what I think, that I think the answer is to ban guns. I am saying that we create what we fear and if the fear is that guns will be taken they will be taken. I really don't much care. My interest is to try and understand the gun issue and where it may lead as far as how the 2nd amendment will be undone even more than it already has. I find your argument of 100 million armed Americans to be a threat to a military take over silly. Those 100 million could not stop it nor is there any real risk that it will happen because effectively, it already has. We are not allowed to have the kind of weaponry that it would take to stop a military coup. My effort so far is to point out that you are dreaming. I don't know how many guns you have but I have more than I can tick off in my head partly because I never counted and I they are put away where I rarely see them

 

[Knowing]

If militia is every single person in the country why didn't authors of the constitution just say "every single person in the country"?

Because militia membership wasn't required to exercise the right to bear arms and it has never ever been a requirement. However, even if you grant the premise that militia membership is a requirement then the militia is "the whole people, excepting a few public officials."

In fact, if you dig in to the militia acts you'll find the requirement to arm yourself in preparation for being called up for the militia with congress being tasked with incentivizing such arming. (please ignore the completely fabricated nonsense that a military musket was somehow different from a normal musket, it is slate after all) So, since legal compliance is becoming a big deal for this administration perhaps all able bodied males 18-45 should become overnight black powder enthusiasts.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Because militia membership wasn't required to exercise the right to bear arms and it has never ever been a requirement. However, even if you grant the premise that militia membership is a requirement then the militia is "the whole people, excepting a few public officials."

In fact, if you dig in to the militia acts you'll find the requirement to arm yourself in preparation for being called up for the militia with congress being tasked with incentivizing such arming. (please ignore the completely fabricated nonsense that a military musket was somehow different from a normal musket, it is slate after all) So, since legal compliance is becoming a big deal for this administration perhaps all able bodied males 18-45 should become overnight black powder enthusiasts.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

 

[LegendKiller]

I gave you my answer to where the emphasis should go to reduce the threat of mass deaths in the modern world, focusing on raising children that don't want to kill each other because they grow up with their empathy intact. You keep battling away at your imagination of what I think, that I think the answer is to ban guns. I am saying that we create what we fear and if the fear is that guns will be taken they will be taken. I really don't much care. My interest is to try and understand the gun issue and where it may lead as far as how the 2nd amendment will be undone even more than it already has. I find your argument of 100 million armed Americans to be a threat to a military take over silly. Those 100 million could not stop it nor is there any real risk that it will happen because effectively, it already has. We are not allowed to have the kind of weaponry that it would take to stop a military coup. My effort so far is to point out that you are dreaming. I don't know how many guns you have but I have more than I can tick off in my head partly because I never counted and I they are put away where I rarely see them

100 million couldn't stop a military coup?

Lol. Do you realize the size of the military? They couldn't even control a country 0.63x the size of Texas.

You realize that the British military was one of the strongest fighting forces in the world and a bunch of poorly equipped, poorly organized, and poorly disciplined armies managed to take them on for most of the war, albeit with some french help.

The British had better training, better food, better canons, better health...etc.

 

[shady28]

... I find your argument of 100 million armed Americans to be a threat to a military take over silly. Those 100 million could not stop it nor is there any real risk that it will happen because effectively, it already has. We are not allowed to have the kind of weaponry that it would take to stop a military coup. My effort so far is to point out that you are dreaming. I don't know how many guns you have but I have more than I can tick off in my head partly because I never counted and I they are put away where I rarely see them...

It really would not take 100 million, though you're the one that is delusional in saying that number wouldn't be able to stop the military. This isn't the 18th century, people don't line up in a neat little line across a field and shoot lead balls at each other. High tech weapons are only good if you can find the enemy.

That number would be able to destroy the entire infrastructure of the country in very, very short order and they would not even need guns to do it.

If only 1% actively resisted, that would be 1 million.

If 1/2 of 1% actively resisted, that would be 500,000.

Many of that 500,000 would be in the military, or state and local police forces.

Many others would be independent actors, with few or in some cases no associates.

All of them however would have one central goal - to bring down the federal government.

Think about that.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

It really would not take 100 million, though you're the one that is delusional in saying that number wouldn't be able to stop the military. This isn't the 18th century, people don't line up in a neat little line across a field and shoot lead balls at each other. High tech weapons are only good if you can find the enemy.

That number would be able to destroy the entire infrastructure of the country in very, very short order and they would not even need guns to do it.

If only 1% actively resisted, that would be 1 million.

If 1/2 of 1% actively resisted, that would be 500,000.

Many of that 500,000 would be in the military, or state and local police forces.

Many others would be independent actors, with few or in some cases no associates.

All of them however would have one central goal - to bring down the federal government.

Think about that.

Iraq, Afghanistan.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm glad we can still have this debate, because it really helps out my movement to change that horrendously ambiguous first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Clearly, freedom only applies to speech or the press. We can finally get these damned "free speech" nutters under control and make sure that only those speaking in person and those who are officially a federally approved member of the press using the technology of the time (movable type) are allowed to discuss politics freely. People have shown they can't be trusted with free speech, and it's time the Constitution was brought up to date to make sure these individuals like Moonbeam and eskimospy can't spread their dangerous ideas. There's no way the writers of the Constitution could have imagined the Internet and the damage these insane people could do.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm glad we can still have this debate, because it really helps out my movement to change that horrendously ambiguous first amendment.



Clearly, freedom only applies to speech or the press. We can finally get these damned "free speech" nutters under control and make sure that only those speaking in person and those who are officially a federally approved member of the press using the technology of the time (movable type) are allowed to discuss politics freely. People have shown they can't be trusted with free speech, and it's time the Constitution was brought up to date to make sure these individuals like Moonbeam and eskimospy can't spread their dangerous ideas. There's no way the writers of the Constitution could have imagined the Internet and the damage these insane people could do.

You make an excellent case and just as with your right to own arms that equal the federal military, your rights to free speech and privacy vanished some time ago. You are free to speak as long as big brother can listen and as long as your speech has no political effect.

 

[Moonbeam]

It really would not take 100 million, though you're the one that is delusional in saying that number wouldn't be able to stop the military. This isn't the 18th century, people don't line up in a neat little line across a field and shoot lead balls at each other. High tech weapons are only good if you can find the enemy.

That number would be able to destroy the entire infrastructure of the country in very, very short order and they would not even need guns to do it.

If only 1% actively resisted, that would be 1 million.

If 1/2 of 1% actively resisted, that would be 500,000.

Many of that 500,000 would be in the military, or state and local police forces.

Many others would be independent actors, with few or in some cases no associates.

All of them however would have one central goal - to bring down the federal government.

Think about that.

They would be able to destroy the entire infrastructure of the country. Now there's an idea. And imagine, you asked me to think.