Gun Control

[Crni Vuk]

You're right. Fuck it. Now that I think about it, I want the US not to change even a bit. Where would movies get their inspiration from, if they banned weapons and outlawed conflicts.

German action movies simply look shit and don't feel believable. Where would they get the guns from? Hollywood movies work only, because the guns in their movies feel believable in the US. Because the US is full of guns .

The only good thing Germans can do, are war movies. And even here only WW2 ...

 

[Gizmojunk]

...

I thought Ronin was a good action movie.

Actually that's me when I put ketchup on my french fries. What can I say, I like ketchup. Gets me some strange looks at the restarant.

A popular T-shirt here:

 

[Crni Vuk]

I thought Ronin was a good action movie.

It is, but It's not German :p.
Another great movie, with actually somewhat believable gun fights was Heat, which is no surprise when you consider that they had some real SAS guys as advicors. - With the exceptions of firing guns right next to the face of someone or inside cars without proper protection, unless you don't give a fuck about hearing.
Robert De Niro is one of my favorite actors.

 

[Dr Fallout]

I feel like the argument for keeping guns by mentioning the bill of rights is retarded, but only depending on how you view the actual right itself. Just by talking this, 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' we can assume that it's the right of the people to bear guns, but on the other hand, if we take this, 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state' it implies that the right is only applicable to those in a well regulated militia. What do you guys think?

 

[Operation Wignut]

I feel like the argument for keeping guns by mentioning the bill of rights is retarded, but only depending on how you view the actual right itself. Just by talking this, 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.' we can assume that it's the right of the people to bear guns, but on the other hand, if we take this, 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state' it implies that the right is only applicable to those in a well regulated militia. What do you guys think?

Coming back into the mix. Obviously this is still hotly contested, and there's no real "right" interpretation of the Amendment (except applicable judicial cases, where it is legally interpreted in a court of law.)

In my base opinion, "well regulated" isn't something of hard form, with rigid restrictions, but rather something that performs well and runs smoothly. This is interpreted many ways because language has changed a lot since the Bill of Rights.

"Militia", again in my opinion, refers to citizens that are of military age, acting as more of a reserve force for the military than anything else. Now, here is another place that is contentious, because of the fact that the Militia is not well-defined in this instance. In the historical context, militias were citizen fighting forces in the original 13 Colonies. But some militias differed greatly from others in terms of setup, and the world "Militia" itself was used to refer to armed citizens that could be used for fighting, and not actively in duty. Sooooo, it boils down to whatever you want, because the legal interpretation is left to the people who are supposed to interpret the laws to the best ability possible.

Now, if you want the LEGAL interpretations, read District of Colombia v. Heller, which talks about the Supreme Court ruling on individual rights with guns, and Caetano v. Massachusetts, which rules on what guns are allowed under the Second Amendment. I would also recommend reading the briefs on District of Colombia v. Heller to get a sense of the amount of information that the Supreme Court handles before making a decision.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Coming back into the mix. Obviously this is still hotly contested, and there's no real "right" interpretation of the Amendment (except applicable judicial cases, where it is legally interpreted in a court of law.)

In my base opinion, "well regulated" isn't something of hard form, with rigid restrictions, but rather something that performs well and runs smoothly. This is interpreted many ways because language has changed a lot since the Bill of Rights.

"Militia", again in my opinion, refers to citizens that are of military age, acting as more of a reserve force for the military than anything else. Now, here is another place that is contentious, because of the fact that the Militia is not well-defined in this instance. In the historical context, militias were citizen fighting forces in the original 13 Colonies. But some militias differed greatly from others in terms of setup, and the world "Militia" itself was used to refer to armed citizens that could be used for fighting, and not actively in duty. Sooooo, it boils down to whatever you want, because the legal interpretation is left to the people who are supposed to interpret the laws to the best ability possible.

Now, if you want the LEGAL interpretations, read District of Colombia v. Heller, which talks about the Supreme Court ruling on individual rights with guns, and Caetano v. Massachusetts, which rules on what guns are allowed under the Second Amendment. I would also recommend reading the briefs on District of Colombia v. Heller to get a sense of the amount of information that the Supreme Court handles before making a decision.

I personally think the Founding Fathers meant the style of Militia's during the 13 colonies, naturally because that's the closest type of militia they would have seen, using them to fight the British and instigate the revolution. I recommend reading the wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)), as it provides a concise and rather interesting description on how militias were used and seen during the various stages of American history. And thanks to it, I'm sure that by well regulated the government meant well disciplined and restricted, like the army. This is because the founding fathers saw that the style of the militia during the revolutionary war as expensive and unskilled, with Washington denouncing them in private correspondence.

 

[Operation Wignut]

I personally think the Founding Fathers meant the style of Militia's during the 13 colonies, naturally because that's the closest type of militia they would have seen, using them to fight the British and instigate the revolution. I recommend reading the wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)), as it provides a concise and rather interesting description on how militias were used and seen during the various stages of American history. And thanks to it, I'm sure that by well regulated the government meant well disciplined and restricted, like the army. This is because the founding fathers saw that the style of the militia during the revolutionary war as expensive and unskilled, with Washington denouncing them in private correspondence.

The other side of the coin, however, is the emphasis of "Free State".

In the context of Originalism analysis, the Founding Fathers had just gotten out of a war that they believed was caused by tyranny of the government. The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, and subsequently as a response to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, all came from the mindset of separation of power to guide checks and balances.

The Founding Fathers believed that Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches at the Federal level would all check each other to prevent tyranny, and the same idea was put forward in regards to Federal, State and Local (or "Peoples") branches. The Federal government would be allotted a standing force (the modern day Army) and the State would also be allotted a force (realized as the State militias). So we already covered the militias, right?

Except for the fact that the The Militia Act of 1792 clarified what the militia consisted of... "...each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..."

Many militias were made by citizens, for citizens. Many were NOT SPECIFICALLY State militias. This idea of civilian armies balances out with that of the State and Federal forces.

Now, again, this is conjecture based on definitions that have a mistranslated message in modern English. The only way to know for certain is to build a time machine, go to the Founding Fathers and ask them to clarify what they meant. Would they want citizens to have the ability to rise up against the government still? Or would they be appalled at the savagery of the modern day assault rifle in the hands of a teenager? I have NO idea. And neither does the Supreme Court. All I can do is hope they're interpreting the texts to the best of their ability.

EDIT: By the way, this is not challenging you directly, but rather offering up the opposing argument for Originalist analysis.

 

[Dr Fallout]

I have no problem with what you say, I'm just arguing that the idea of merely owning a gun is not what the Founding father's meant.

 

[Operation Wignut]

I have no problem with what you say, I'm just arguing that the idea of merely owning a gun is not what the Founding father's meant.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

Perfect example for your side. Although it may comfort more to know they were having this same discussion back then.

 

[Dr Fallout]

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

Perfect example for your side. Although it may comfort more to know they were having this same discussion back then.

So... the bill of rights may not support the widespread ownership of guns...?

 

[Operation Wignut]

So... the bill of rights may not support the widespread ownership of guns...?

Well, if you want to appeal to original implication...

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.' - Thomas Jefferson, in "Commonplace Book".

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - also Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Major John Cartwrigt Monticello

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams at the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention.

But, again, you can interpret it ANY WAY YOU WANT. If you want to argue that the Bill of Rights didn't support the widespread ownership of guns, I'm sure there's some historical context that could show that. History is never black and white.

 

[GonZo_626]

Also if you want to look at the times that the documents were written everybody pretty much did own a firearm.

I also love the argument that the founding fathers would not approve of the savagery of an "assault rifle" (once again full-auto is in the definition and actually despite what youtube shows you is rare in the US). You probably are right if all I did was bring a semi-auto AR-15 to show them, they would think it is ridiculously over-powered. But they have no context to what firearms are used regularly nowadays by police and military. I mean even a bolt-action .22cal would probably look pretty awesome to them.

But they have no context, perhaps if you showed them the full-auto version used by the military (M4, M-16), or some squad guns (M249, M60). They would probably go why the hell are you not using those. If there intention was for regular citizens to be able to form a militia to keep the government in check if needed, civilians are woefully under armed.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Maybe what the founding fathers would have a problem with, is the stupidity of the average voter, which was already what Winston Churchill complained about when he talked about democracy.

I think a lot of stuff we see today wouldn't find the agreement of the founding fathers, most probably the fact that the US has mutated in to a two party system where politics is ruled now by big money. I just can't picture any world where Washington, Jefferson, Franklin or even Lincoln would feel comfortable with someone like Trump or Hillary, and they would ask them self, how the american people even give those crooks their support. They would probably see weapons as the least of the problems ... and I tend to agree.

The point, I think, isn't what ever if civilians can or should own fire arms. I definetly agree with that sentient. Let people decide for themself if they want to own a weapon or not, within reason - I think we all can agree that nuclear weapons should not be owned by the individual. But, you need informed and well educated citizens first and foremost who are rational and open to reason, for example 40% of the American population beliefs in angels and that the earth is 6000 years old, academic science and research is in serious trouble in the US. And I see that education and the quality of it has been neglected in the US for a long time now. A lot of the institutions are in dire need of reforms, the police, the jurisdiction, many of the government agencies, hospitals, fire departments, schools, the whole infranstructure, you name it.

 

[SuAside]

I also love the argument that the founding fathers would not approve of the savagery of an "assault rifle" (once again full-auto is in the definition and actually despite what youtube shows you is rare in the US). You probably are right if all I did was bring a semi-auto AR-15 to show them, they would think it is ridiculously over-powered. But they have no context to what firearms are used regularly nowadays by police and military. I mean even a bolt-action .22cal would probably look pretty awesome to them.

But they have no context, perhaps if you showed them the full-auto version used by the military (M4, M-16), or some squad guns (M249, M60). They would probably go why the hell are you not using those. If there intention was for regular citizens to be able to form a militia to keep the government in check if needed, civilians are woefully under armed.

As has been stated before in this thread, the war of independence was fought often fought with weapons which were superior to the standard british military issue. These weapons were often privately owned. Hell, a lot of their cannons were privately owned...

It's funny that people keep singling out AR15s, because a semi auto hunting rifle is more of a threat to a modern army than the AR15 is. The AR15 shoots an intermediate cartridge. Hunting rifles shoot full power cartridges and as a result are much more suited for penetration of armor and are more suited for longer distance shooting.

 

[valcik]

True, good luck to anybody facing a shooter wielding more than half a century old SKS rifle loaded with 7.62 steel core WP round.

 

[MutantScalper]

True, good luck to anybody facing a shooter wielding more than half a century old SKS rifle loaded with 7.62 steel core WP round.

As the five cops in Dallas recently found out.

Read somewhere that US blacks actually prefer the SKS over other weapons. It's affordable, powerful and looks 'gangsta', especially with a long magazine.

 

[Crni Vuk]

The real power of a military isn't as much the weapon of their choice, but their discipline and training. It really doesn't matter that much if your army is equiped with the latest in rifle technology or some 40 year old self loading rifles. If they are highly trained with their weapons, motivated and commanded by skilled officers. There is very little that can stop them.

Take the Germans in WW2 as example. When they started their campaign against France and Britain in 1940, they had not only a suitable military, but they had a chance to gain experience and to test their doctrine in the spanish Civil war and poland. In many ways the German army was inferior to the French or only equal when it came to the equipment. They definetly lacked the necessary armor to rival the French and British forces on a one on one engagement. Hell, no German tank had the gun to penetrate a behemoth like the Char B1! Particularly the medium Somua S-35 was pretty much superior to any German tank of 1940. Their most powerfull weapons have been 3,7 mm anti tank guns and short barreled 75mm weapons with the intention to fight infantry units and soft targets with rather mediocre accuracy for a tank gun. Only very few of their 75mm guns had actually shells that could engage protected targets with shaped charges.

And yet, they achieved most of their victories in that short time period against what was considered as one of the most formidable armies of that time. It wasn't because of their equipent, but of their doctrine which was heavily about a relatively small number of highly mobile units, that would concentrate their attention on a single point, to brake trough and attack rear positions, disrubting communications, attacking supply lines and attacking rear formations, while the large bulk of the army would encircle the enemy forces.

 

[Operation Wignut]

The real power of a military isn't as much the weapon of their choice, but their discipline and training. It really doesn't matter that much if your army is equiped with the latest in rifle technology or some 40 year old self loading rifles. If they are highly trained with their weapons, motivated and commanded by skilled officers. There is very little that can stop them.

Take the Germans in WW2 as example. When they started their campaign against France and Britain in 1940, they had not only a suitable military, but they had a chance to gain experience and to test their doctrine in the spanish Civil war and poland. In many ways the German army was inferior to the French or only equal when it came to the equipment. They definetly lacked the necessary armor to rival the French and British forces on a one on one engagement. Hell, no German tank had the gun to penetrate a behemoth like the Char B1! Particularly the medium Somua S-35 was pretty much superior to any German tank of 1940. Their most powerfull weapons have been 3,7 mm anti tank guns and short barreled 75mm weapons with the intention to fight infantry units and soft targets with rather mediocre accuracy for a tank gun. Only very few of their 75mm guns had actually shells that could engage protected targets with shaped charges.

And yet, they achieved most of their victories in that short time period against what was considered as one of the most formidable armies of that time. It wasn't because of their equipent, but of their doctrine which was heavily about a relatively small number of highly mobile units, that would concentrate their attention on a single point, to brake trough and attack rear positions, disrubting communications, attacking supply lines and attacking rear formations, while the large bulk of the army would encircle the enemy forces.

Which is why people like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington emphasized conscription of every citizen (at that point) in the Militia. The Militia was supposed to be an alternative form of defense from a standing army, one that would serve to protect the home country but one that would be UNABLE to be utilized to attack other countries. This might have become a reality if it wasn't superseded by participation in more wars and a change of ideals.

I think a good question to ask is if we should mandate firearms training before a gun license is issued. It would certainly fit more in line with the ideals that the Founding Fathers held, even if it's not as in-depth as real military training.

 

[GonZo_626]

Which is why people like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington emphasized conscription of every citizen (at that point) in the Militia. The Militia was supposed to be an alternative form of defense from a standing army, one that would serve to protect the home country but one that would be UNABLE to be utilized to attack other countries. This might have become a reality if it wasn't superseded by participation in more wars and a change of ideals.

I think a good question to ask is if we should mandate firearms training before a gun license is issued. It would certainly fit more in line with the ideals that the Founding Fathers held, even if it's not as in-depth as real military training.

Hey I'm Canadian so I had to go through firearms training. And I am not against licensing, I mean we are licensed to drive our cars, and it makes for easy criminal record checks. But beyond that one small concession on keeping the crazy people, and criminals out I believe that there should be no restrictions on magazines or types of firearms that can be owned and used, as these forms of gun control will only affect someone who follows the law, and wont break it. A criminal does not care about any form of gun control and will break the law no matter what law it is. If they want to, they will do as they please and limiting the legal firearms only makes it slightly harder to get what they want.

 

[Operation Wignut]

Hey I'm Canadian so I had to go through firearms training. And I am not against licensing, I mean we are licensed to drive our cars, and it makes for easy criminal record checks. But beyond that one small concession on keeping the crazy people, and criminals out I believe that there should be no restrictions on magazines or types of firearms that can be owned and used, as these forms of gun control will only affect someone who follows the law, and wont break it. A criminal does not care about any form of gun control and will break the law no matter what law it is. If they want to, they will do as they please and limiting the legal firearms only makes it slightly harder to get what they want.

Well, if the common citizen can no longer purchase weapons that are outlawed, then companies will stop producing them en masse, and it will become harder to buy them legally. No longer will criminals or the mentally unfit be able to buy high-powered rifles so readily. Or at least that's an argument I would pose against yours.