Gun rights/control/ownership

[Slaskia]

Although it has been repeatedly pointed out that if the government really wanted to enforce anything then, given the current levels of military technology the US does, the average citizen wouldn't stand a chance, armed or not.

FYI the oath our military takes is to protect the Constitution.

 

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)." (source)

 

Also notice the order of things. Protecting the Consititution comes first, then obeying the President, followed by obeying the orders of other superior officers. The Consititution comes first, above everyone else, even the President, which means that if the government disregards the Consititution, or even try to abolish it, the military will not necessarily stand by them when/if the citizianship rises against them.

 

In other words: don't automatically assume that if a revolt happens, the citizens have no chance against the miltary....the military is very likely (at least a good chunk of it) to fight with said civilians.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Slaskia

[Vhale]

If a large number of people rebelled I guess it would end up like the middle east, or Syria. Drones etc are overwhelming one on one, but they can only be so many places at once. Not that I don't find that idea horrifying.

 

On an interesting historical note, there was at least one armed rebellion in Athens, Tennessee. Article on the Event

 

Granted, most of the time when I've heard of people pushing back against the government, it's small groups of labor vs business. And hasn't always been pleasant.

Ludlow Massacre

[TikindiDragon]

FYI the oath our military takes is to protect the Constitution.

 

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962)." (source)

 

Also notice the order of things. Protecting the Consititution comes first, then obeying the President, followed by obeying the orders of other superior officers. The Consititution comes first, above everyone else, even the President, which means that if the government disregards the Consititution, or even try to abolish it, the military will not necessarily stand by them when/if the citizianship rises against them.

 

In other words: don't automatically assume that if a revolt happens, the citizens have no chance against the miltary....the military is very likely (at least a good chunk of it) to fight with said civilians.

At which point why would the citizens need to be armed if the military was on their side? If the military was against them, their chances are slim even if armed, if the military is with them why would they need to be armed in the first place?

[Kestra15]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Where is this well-regulated militia, just out of interest? And surely, 'well-regulated' means that gun control is a part of the constitution?

Edited January 21, 2013 by Kestra15

[Shienvien]

If the military was against them, their chances are slim even if armed, if the military is with them why would they need to be armed in the first place?

It's probable the military would split into factions in this kind of situation. So in the end there would be people both against and for them.

[Slaskia]

At which point why would the citizens need to be armed if the military was on their side? If the military was against them, their chances are slim even if armed, if the military is with them why would they need to be armed in the first place?

Because the Constitution gives them that right to be armed even if the military was with them. Plus, unfortunately, there well be a sizeable chunk of the military that will side with the government regardless of their oath (sadly).

 

Also, numbers: there are almost 400mil people in the country, while only roughly 400 thousand are currently in the military (that number flutates and Obama wants to reduce that number by roughly half). Even if most of the miltary does break their oath and side with the government, they will have a lot of trouble fighting despite their better equipment. You just have to look what is going on in Iraq and Afganistan: we are better equiped and trained, but the terrorists there still take a heavy toll on our numbers using Guerrilla tactics and IEDs. Hell, that's what we did in the Revolutionary War against the British!

 

And that's not taking into account the fact that a good part of the citizanship will side with the government as well. Not to mention the government would likely get 'outside help' from other nations to help it.

[Kestra15]

Not to mention the government would likely get 'outside help' from other nations to help it.

Doubtful. As you pointed out, 400 milllion people, in a country that takes most of a continent. You'd be on your own in a civil war.

[Obscure_Trash]

Also, this is /facepalm worthy

This past weekend was/is the Gun Appreciation Day. At 3 different events, people accidentally discharged their weapons and got shot.

Oops

>.<

I would like to take a moment to go back to this and to point out the other victims of gun violence on that day alone:

 

http://gawker.com/5977431/heres-a-list-of-...ppreciation-day

 

=(

[James]

I know it is sad, I saw in the news the other day that a sister shot her brother while posing for a FB picture. However, this should not even be happening, a 14-year old boy should not be playing with a handgun, it is not a toy, nor should anyone ever point a firearm at something he/she is not prepared to destroy, this is from another 14-year old male. "A Huntsville woman shot her boyfriend after the two had an argument." If it were not a gun, it would have been a knife, if not then something else, he would have died anyway. "A 7-year-old boy in Tallahassee shot a 5 year old with a gun he found in a 22-year-old relative's room." This would have not happened, and the relative IS facing neglect charges, and by the looks of him, he does not look like a trustworthy person (if you clicked on the link inside of the article); could qualify for gang-banger. I could keep going on, but it would be pointless.

 

Most homicides are committed against a person whom personally knows the criminal, guns make killing easier, not impossible (even a pencil can be used to kill someone).

 

Again, I do feel sorry for those whom accidentally killed others, but it almost always boils down to firearm safety violations.

[~Kat~]

Idaho Planned Community, The Citadel, Would Require Everyone to Bear Arms

 

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2013/01/17/...26pLid%3D260359

 

Wonder if they are doing this just in case the USA economy collapses

[LascielsShadow]

Somehow, I doubt it. Can I just point this out:

The group, led by the III Arms gun company

 

An arms company is behind the whole thing. Guess who benefits most from a walled compound full of paranoid people required to own guns? (Hint: it's the guys who own/head the arms company that's going to build a walled off compound and plunk a factory in the middle.) Has that even occurred to the people who are so eager to live there? Do they care? How does "We're taking money from people and starting an arms company to fund our idea to build a compound full of preppers and survivalists (who will then buy their guns from us)" make sense to or really benefit anyone but the people who own the company? The added aspect of it potentially being a tourist spot (making it sound like a really terrifying, demented Disney World full of people with AR15s) isn't exactly confidence-building.

 

I'd find the whole thing funny if it weren't so pathetically transparent. There is, at the very least, a scam going on with that $208 fee for people applying to live there. Fantastic way to make money, really bloody unlikely to actually happen in this version of reality. I'm not surprised there's no shortage of credulous individuals willing to hand over their money to the guy behind this without actually thinking about the logistics of the plan, though.

 

Nothing says FREEDOM! like armed guards and concrete walls, right?

Edited January 23, 2013 by LascielsShadow

[TikindiDragon]

Somehow, I doubt it. Can I just point this out:

The group, led by the III Arms gun company

 

An arms company is behind the whole thing. Guess who benefits most from a walled compound full of paranoid people required to own guns? (Hint: it's the guys who own/head the arms company that's going to build a walled off compound and plunk a factory in the middle.) Has that even occurred to the people who are so eager to live there? Do they care?

 

I'd find the whole thing funny if it weren't so pathetically transparent. There is, at the very least, a scam going on with that $208 fee for people applying to live there. Fantastic way to make money really bloody unlikely to actually happen in this version of reality. I'm not surprised there's no shortage of credulous individuals willing to hand over their money to the guy behind this without actually thinking about the logistics of the plan.

 

Nothing says FREEDOM! like armed guards and concrete walls, right?

Damn, that plan of that thing looks more like a prison compound. Not a place I'd be comfortable raising kids, it must be said. Even if there *wasn't* a requirement for everyone to bear arms.

[LascielsShadow]

Nor would I. The prison compound feel alone is enough to make me very wary of having children there.

 

 

[Obscure_Trash]

I know it is sad, I saw in the news the other day that a sister shot her brother while posing for a FB picture. However, this should not even be happening, a 14-year old boy should not be playing with a handgun, it is not a toy, nor should anyone ever point a firearm at something he/she is not prepared to destroy, this is from another 14-year old male. "A Huntsville woman shot her boyfriend after the two had an argument." If it were not a gun, it would have been a knife, if not then something else, he would have died anyway. "A 7-year-old boy in Tallahassee shot a 5 year old with a gun he found in a 22-year-old relative's room." This would have not happened, and the relative IS facing neglect charges, and by the looks of him, he does not look like a trustworthy person (if you clicked on the link inside of the article); could qualify for gang-banger. I could keep going on, but it would be pointless.

 

Most homicides are committed against a person whom personally knows the criminal, guns make killing easier, not impossible (even a pencil can be used to kill someone).

 

Again, I do feel sorry for those whom accidentally killed others, but it almost always boils down to firearm safety violations.

So what's the problem with more regulations, more education, and less guns so that these accidents don't happen?

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/oft-cited-a...re-the-problem/

 

The site is kind of off-tangent, but links the study: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcont...ntext=honors_et

 

A wide variety of other factors are more important antecedents of aggression than violent video games, including child abuse and neglect, victimization, bullying, drug and alcohol abuse, exposure to violence in the home, neurobiological indicators, low socioeconomic status, and access to guns.

 

~

 

Reading some of my sites, I ran across this:

 

Columbine had an armed guard.

 

Virginia Tech had its own police dept.

 

Ft. Hood was a military base.

 

And today, there were armed guards at Lone Star College.

 

Did you know that there have been five school shootings since the start of 2013? We’re three weeks in. Three weeks, five school shootings. Just let that marinate.

 

Just part of the reason I'm for regulation and not just protection and education.

[Kestra15]

Idaho Planned Community, The Citadel, Would Require Everyone to Bear Arms

 

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2013/01/17/...26pLid%3D260359

 

Wonder if they are doing this just in case the USA economy collapses

Sounds like the Boomer Camp in Fallout: New Vegas.

[philpot123]

Where is this well-regulated militia, just out of interest? And surely, 'well-regulated' means that gun control is a part of the constitution?

“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?...Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

 

-Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress.

 

The 2nd Amendment applied to both formal (organized) and non-formal (unorganized) militia service. According to the words of those who had a say in the wording of the amendment, the militia consists of the people. All of the people. The right to bear arms is an individual right according to the Supreme Court. According to Federal Law I AM the militia.

 

Title 10 U.S.C. Section 311

 

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

( The classes of the militia are—

 

 

 

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

 

 

 

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

The entire bill of rights consists of things the government is NOT allowed to do. It would be illogical to assume that the provisions in the 2nd Amendment uniquely give the government some power when the purpose of the first 10 Amendments was to fence off the government and say DON'T TOUCH THESE THINGS. Too bad every single one of them has been violated in some form or fashion.

[TikindiDragon]

“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?...Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

 

-Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress.

 

The 2nd Amendment applied to both formal (organized) and non-formal (unorganized) militia service. According to the words of those who had a say in the wording of the amendment, the militia consists of the people. All of the people. The right to bear arms is an individual right according to the Supreme Court. According to Federal Law I AM the militia.

 

Title 10 U.S.C. Section 311

 

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

( The classes of the militia are—

 

 

 

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

 

 

 

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

The entire bill of rights consists of things the government is NOT allowed to do. It would be illogical to assume that the provisions in the 2nd Amendment uniquely give the government some power when the purpose of the first 10 Amendments was to fence off the government and say DON'T TOUCH THESE THINGS. Too bad every single one of them has been violated in some form or fashion.

By the exact wording of that women that are not members of the National Guard, and men under 17 or over 45 are not considered to be part of the militia and therefore do not have the right to bear arms.

 

Which means, even if nothing were to change at present, by your own constitution the owning of arms by those people is not protected by the constitution.

 

Although, funnily, isn't it mostly men over 45 carping about their right to bear arms in the press?

[Kestra15]

The 2nd Amendment applied to both formal (organized) and non-formal (unorganized) militia service. According to the words of those who had a say in the wording of the amendment, the militia consists of the people. All of the people. The right to bear arms is an individual right according to the Supreme Court. According to Federal Law I AM the militia.

 

Title 10 U.S.C. Section 311

 

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

( The classes of the militia are—

 

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

 

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I want to be a citizen of the US. I can haz gun plz kthnxbye!

 

More seriously, it seems that yes, the 2nd Amendment has been violated. By the very people who (as usual) want to enforce it to the full without ever having read it. Seriously, if they want to protect this Constitutional 'right,' they should at least know what they'reprotecting.

 

So, just while we're debating this, let's check out how the first 23 days of 2013 are going for gun-happy America:

 

- 5 injured from negligent discharges at 3 gun shows, showing a critical failure in people being properly educated in how to use firearms. Namely carrying a loaded weapon during non-tactical movement. Seriously, who carries around their guns with a round in the chamber and the safety off when it's in a bag? And if you manage to shoot yourself in the hand that shows another failure of basic weapon-handling (never rest or hold the muzzle to any body part), and clearly doesn't know how to appropriate load a weapon. And another man shot his friend, because even though he took the magazine out he forget to check the chamber was clear (failure of basic weapon handling), and was pointing the weapon at someone, again failing one of the six rules (never point your weapon at someone, even in jest). And that last guy was the *salesman.*

 

- 3 injured at a shouting in Houston when he got in an argument with someone and pulled a gun on them. Why were they carrying guns into college, and why did they do something so inflammatory and immature as start using guns to threaten one another? They're not toys for intimidation, they're tools for killing.

 

- From the Centre of Disease Control and Prevention:

-The mayhem included:

 

-A student with mental illness and a violent past shot a downtown St. Louis business school official yesterday after he lost his financial aid, before shooting himself, according to authorities.

 

-A gunman firing into a parked car at a Kentucky community college killed a man and woman sitting inside and wounded a girl who was with them. Police suspect it was a domestic dispute, although they haven't made an arrest.

 

-A dramatic increase in gun violence in Baltimore so far this year continued with three shootings, including the killing of a 17-year-old girl in an alley. No one was arrested.

 

If Americans misbehaved on Jan. 15, 2013, as they typically do, then there were 30 gun-related murders and 162 people wounded by firearms in the country, based on the most recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On top of that, another 53 people kill themselves with a firearm each day, according to the CDC.

 

Breaking it down further, three people are killed by a gun per hour and almost seven people are shot every 60 minutes.

 

And yet in the face of this, people honestly believe that more guns and more lax gun control will honestly remedy this?

 

Here's something interesting, this is an attempt to mark every gun-related death or suicide since Newtown. Other news sources have claimed that this is inaccurate only because not every death has been reported - so the common census seems to be that this is the minimum number of deaths. And that's just deaths, not injuries as well. This graphic uses the same data, and some of the scarier things you can read include:

 

- A three year old shooting himself in the head with his family gun.

- A two year old shooting himself by accident with his grandfather's gun.

- Another two year old shoots himself in the chest with a gun lying on the table.

- A ten year old shot and killed by a pellet gun which his friend didn't know was loaded.

- A twelve year old shot by his cousin with his Xmas present - a shotugn - that he didn't know was loaded.

 

All tragic, but more importantly avoidable. Who leaves any firearm, let alone one that is loaded and the safety off, lying around where kids can get to them? Who buys their kid a shotgun for Christmas? Didn't anyone ever teach kids how to use firearms safely, if you *really* feel the need to own guns.

 

Sorry America, harp about your Constitution all you want, but this is what the rest of the world sees; selfishness and stupidity.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Kestra15

[philpot123]

By the exact wording of that women that are not members of the National Guard, and men under 17 or over 45 are not considered to be part of the militia and therefore do not have the right to bear arms.

 

Which means, even if nothing were to change at present, by your own constitution the owning of arms by those people is not protected by the constitution.

 

Although, funnily, isn't it mostly men over 45 carping about their right to bear arms in the press?

The 2nd Amendment does not solely apply to the legal definition of the militia. As the Supreme Court has ruled, it's an individual right. That law only provides weight to the fact that common people can be considered part of a "militia," even if they are not part of the Guard.

 

So, I was saying that EVEN IF the 2nd Amendment only applies to those in a militia, which is an erroneous conclusion if you're basing your interpretation on legal precedent and original intent, common citizens still have that right, because many of us are part of the informal militia.

 

Women have the right to bear arms because being in a militia is not a prerequisite for owning a firearm according to the proper interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

So, just while we're debating this, let's check out how the first 23 days of 2013 are going for gun-happy America:

 

Kestra, I agree with every opinion expressed in regards to the ridiculously unsafe handling of firearms in those two examples. Basic firearms safety goes a long way. However, as you've mentioned, those people were violating many restrictions that were already in place. Gun shows typically don't allow loaded firearms inside, and the ones that do require it be a permitted carry handgun in a holster on your person. Beyond the actual ban and seizure of firearms, what policies do you believe would have prevented that idiot from mishandling his weapon? What policies do you believe would have prevented that college student from carrying his firearm to a place where it wasn't allowed anyways, where he subsequently used it in an illegal manner? What do you believe would have helped? I recognize that there is a problem with violence coupled with gun usage in our culture, but I just don't believe that government regulation will solve the problem. If the US government categorically banned all semi-automatic firearms and performed house-to-house seizures, no doubt there would be a decrease in gun violence. But I don't believe that would be legal or proper. I know we fundamentally disagree about the necessity of firearm ownership in general, as well.

 

I understand where you and others are coming from completely. I'm just retardedly consistent in my resistance to government regulation of anything.

 

All tragic, but more importantly avoidable. Who leaves any firearm, let alone one that is loaded and the safety off, lying around where kids can get to them? Who buys their kid a shotgun for Christmas? Didn't anyone ever teach kids how to use firearms safely, if you *really* feel the need to own guns.

 

Yes, very avoidable through basic firearms safety. I tend to think of that as the answer, or part of the answer. Having an accessible loaded gun in the same house as a small child is a poor choice, and we can all agree on that. I'm sure those parents who failed so drastically are paying the price, emotionally and legally, for their neglect. Those who own a firearm should take the time to know how to handle it safely and teach the same to anyone with access to the gun.

Edited January 23, 2013 by philpot123

[Kestra15]

If the US government categorically banned all semi-automatic firearms and performed house-to-house seizures, no doubt there would be a decrease in gun violence. But I don't believe that would be legal or proper.

Which is where I think we differ, as you say. I would see that as a legal and proper, but more importantly it would be something that I feel will *only* benefit. I cannot see where removal of such powerful weapons and tighter restrictions would genuinely be at a disadvantage, other than the usual flight of fantasy that is the constant fire of midnight gun-wielding madman, who will probably win regardless of what gun you fumble for in the darkness when you're half-asleep and utterly disorientated.

I'm sure those parents who failed so drastically are paying the price, emotionally and legally, for their neglect.

But why should the parents of the Newtown massacre have to pay that price too?

Edited January 23, 2013 by Kestra15

[philpot123]

Which is where I think we differ, as you say. I would see that as a legal and proper, but more importantly it would be something that I feel will *only* benefit. I cannot see where removal of such powerful weapons and tighter restrictions would genuinely be at a disadvantage, other than the usual flight of fantasy that is the constant fire of midnight gun-wielding madman, who will probably win regardless of what gun you fumble for in the darkness when you're half-asleep and utterly disorientated.

Well, in the US, it would be unconstitutional for sure. 2nd and 10th amendments. Whether or not that's a good thing, that's arguable.

 

Ehh, "probably"? That's really reaching. The fact that people use guns so often in self-defense testifies to the fact that it IS useful in certain situations to have one on hand. If the madman would probably win, why are so many people successful at defending their homes?

 

But why should the parents of the Newtown massacre have to pay that price too?

 

They shouldn't. But again, we have a situation that could have been prevented with simple gun safety. A gun lock or a gun safe could have saved 20 lives.

Edited January 23, 2013 by philpot123

[TikindiDragon]

Well, in the US, it would be unconstitutional for sure. 2nd and 10th amendments. Whether or not that's a good thing, that's arguable.

The Constitution *has* been changed in the past. Why should it not be changed now?

[philpot123]

The Constitution *has* been changed in the past. Why should it not be changed now?

Oh, it could be. And you could argue that it should be. But I'm saying according to our current system of government, any such efforts would be unconstitutional and illegal. Change to the Constitution SHOULD come before action.

[TikindiDragon]

Oh, it could be. And you could argue that it should be. But I'm saying according to our current system of government, any such efforts would be unconstitutional and illegal. Change to the Constitution SHOULD come before action.

Historically it hasn't, though. There's precedent. At the time Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation he knew it was technically Unconstitutional, and it was only in effect in certain States (those in the CSA, funnily enough). The Thirteenth Amendement was pushed through an end-of-term Congress the way it was because Lincoln knew fell well he'd be open to legal challenges over it.

 

I would also argue that dispute coule be made over the wording of the Second Amendment in the first place. Although that could turn into a very tedious discussion. Which I don't feel inclined towards.

 

Suffice it to say it would not be the first time a President had changed a law first, then amended the Constitution afterwards.

[Vhale]

Given the current climate, where we have elected officials claiming the UN is going to swoop in and get our guns. And I think 35%? of the Repubs don't even believe Obama isn't Kenyan, I can't help but think it would be a disaster. IE, Christian Jihad.

 

What prompted Canada's actions and was the country this split when it happened?