The 2nd Amendment and Gun Control

[SandsOfTime404]

@marharth

Yep, 500k military means that many more bodies to scavenge for a uniform my size. I'd rather have 500,000 crazies that probably have rarely/never seen combat than 100,000 combat veterans.

What? How is the military not trained in combat?

 

I am not sure if people are understanding what I am saying... I am saying since the military currently has over 1 million people in it, during a situation of a revolution around half would leave. The half that didn't leave would probably be fairly crazy due to the fact there is a revolution going on and they are still supporting their government.

I fail to see how them standing by the government they signed up to potentially die under makes them crazy... I'd also like to know where you're getting your statistics here. You can't simply assert that only half would leave. Depending on the circumstances, all or none might leave just as easily. Back up the claim.

[Aurielius]

@marharth

Yep, 500k military means that many more bodies to scavenge for a uniform my size. I'd rather have 500,000 crazies that probably have rarely/never seen combat than 100,000 combat veterans.

What? How is the military not trained in combat?

 

I am not sure if people are understanding what I am saying... I am saying since the military currently has over 1 million people in it, during a situation of a revolution around half would leave. The half that didn't leave would probably be fairly crazy due to the fact there is a revolution going on and they are still supporting their government.

I fail to see how them standing by the government they signed up to potentially die under makes them crazy... I'd also like to know where you're getting your statistics here. You can't simply assert that only half would leave. Depending on the circumstances, all or none might leave just as easily. Back up the claim.

I totally agree with SandsOfTime. Marharth you have made several claims with no supporting evidence, either put up or back down. Do you just make up facts that seem to support your world view?

[marharth]

I haven't made many statistical claims...

 

I thought a lot of people knew about the wikileaks articles that disclosed information about US troops killing over 6,000 innocents. My point is that just because soldiers are trained with guns doesn't mean they will use them right. Everyone with a gun might not use it right. Gun control won't always work due to this.

 

Anyone could snap at any point, should we limit a person freedom to carry a firearm just to make sure that they don't use it wrong?

 

I think people are misunderstanding what I said before. I was just saying in a situation where citizens would try to rebel against there government, that the military would probably split. The side that is still with the government probably wouldn't be too great, people don't start a revolution for nothing. My "statistics" were not statistics at all. It was just a hypothetical number I was using to demonstrate the military split.

[RZ1029]

<snip>

I thought a lot of people knew about the wikileaks articles that disclosed information about US troops killing over 6,000 innocents. My point is that just because soldiers are trained with guns doesn't mean they will use them right. Everyone with a gun might not use it right. Gun control won't always work due to this.

 

Anyone could snap at any point, should we limit a person freedom to carry a firearm just to make sure that they don't use it wrong?

<snip>

 

Have you read the documents in question? Or just the 'interpretation' provided by journalists who have little to no understand of military protocol and whatnot. Now, I'm no expert either, but I did download the better part of it out of curiosity. I haven't made it through the entire set yet, because it's not that interesting of a read. I've run into a lot of documents that probably shouldn't have been leaked, about troop movement and such, but I've only seen about a half-dozen or so detailing reports larger civilian casualties. I've seen dozens of reports with one or two civilian casualties, often due to friendly fire when patrols are engaged in a firefight. I'd say I've seen about 200-300 civilian casualties from about half the reports so far. So unless I find some report detailing a nuke being dropped within danger close range of civilian occupations, I'm not seeing the 6000 casualties. Now, if they added wounded and injured from IEDs/firefights/etc, I could see it reaching 6000, but as a direct result of US troop actions? I don't see it there.

 

As for limiting their right to carry, depends on their history. If they've proven unstable in the past by either prior arrests, mental issues, or things of the similar nature, I'd say no guns for them. If they've been upstanding citizens, give 'em a gun and hope for the best. Ideal world, they go about their lives and never need to use it. Real world? Based on the projected rate of crime which I believe I mentioned in an earlier post, something like 80% of Americans are (statistically) going to be robbed/assaulted at least once in their life.

[marharth]

<snip>

I thought a lot of people knew about the wikileaks articles that disclosed information about US troops killing over 6,000 innocents. My point is that just because soldiers are trained with guns doesn't mean they will use them right. Everyone with a gun might not use it right. Gun control won't always work due to this.

 

Anyone could snap at any point, should we limit a person freedom to carry a firearm just to make sure that they don't use it wrong?

<snip>

 

Have you read the documents in question? Or just the 'interpretation' provided by journalists who have little to no understand of military protocol and whatnot. Now, I'm no expert either, but I did download the better part of it out of curiosity. I haven't made it through the entire set yet, because it's not that interesting of a read. I've run into a lot of documents that probably shouldn't have been leaked, about troop movement and such, but I've only seen about a half-dozen or so detailing reports larger civilian casualties. I've seen dozens of reports with one or two civilian casualties, often due to friendly fire when patrols are engaged in a firefight. I'd say I've seen about 200-300 civilian casualties from about half the reports so far. So unless I find some report detailing a nuke being dropped within danger close range of civilian occupations, I'm not seeing the 6000 casualties. Now, if they added wounded and injured from IEDs/firefights/etc, I could see it reaching 6000, but as a direct result of US troop actions? I don't see it there.

 

As for limiting their right to carry, depends on their history. If they've proven unstable in the past by either prior arrests, mental issues, or things of the similar nature, I'd say no guns for them. If they've been upstanding citizens, give 'em a gun and hope for the best. Ideal world, they go about their lives and never need to use it. Real world? Based on the projected rate of crime which I believe I mentioned in an earlier post, something like 80% of Americans are (statistically) going to be robbed/assaulted at least once in their life.

You would have to add everything up to get close to that number. Anymore then 100 isn't a accident.

[RZ1029]

Well, the Iraq War began in 2003, it's now almost 2011, that's nearly 8 years. 6000/8 = 750/365 = 2. That averages two civilian deaths per day. Now, if I understand what you're saying, then you agreed that included the civilians who died as a result of IEDs as well as accidental casualties from friendly fire and such. I don't know how often IEDs are encountered, if we've got anyone with experience over in Iraq/Afghanistan and the such, I'd appreciate you chiming in on this one. However, I have read numerous reports of IEDs where civilians have been caught in them, along with US troops. Unfortunately, civilians don't often have Kevlar vests or armored vehicles.

 

That being said, in combination with Marharth's guestimations regarding the loyalty of the military, I'm curious to see what you think would happen if they took all rights to own any sort of gun from American citizens and went around confiscating guns.

[Trandoshan]

Disclaimer: The following is opinion.

 

As a psychological component to support 2nd Amendment rights, I propose the entry of Mutually Assured Destruction to the conversation.

 

Public order may increase by dissolving heavy gun control laws.

 

According to the source posted Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is the doctrine of a situation in which any use of nuclear weapons by either of two opposing sides would result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender'. I hear a lot of chatter in the earlier posts of this thread about mass murder between people if gun control laws were not in place, and I believe that MAD may have a personal psychology behind it as well as a restriction to nuclear war. If two people in a society which openly supports gun ownership have a conflict against each other, and knew or believed one another to carry such weapons, there would be a reluctance to use such a weapon on one another in fear of retaliation. Wouldn't robbing a bank be a tad harder when everyone working at the bank could defend themselves? Only the military or assasins uses guns to kill people, the common robber (who would have a gun in a gun restrictive society anyways) uses the weapon only to scare people into giving them what they want. Psychopaths are a different debate.

 

National defense benefits for the same general reason...

 

You could say that if an entire populace was armed with small-arm type weapons, a neighboring nation may think twice about invasion. I can call one famous quote that applies to America before all of this second amendment debate nonsense existed. Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto said the following quote, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".

 

I'd say any nation would benefit from a repeal of gun laws due to the amount of money they could save in a national defense budget. A militia network does not need to be maintained by the government, and requires little training. America needs this the most it seems, but instead decreases rights of all people in its nation in order to supplement its national defense. It doesn't make sense to me why America is banning one of the few things that have made it unstoppable, but society is evolving I suppose. The next point should explain it partially.

 

General moral of the people in power should 'theoretically' increase...

 

There are plenty of peasant revolts in history that pertain to mistreatment of a particular caste or group of people within a nation. I believe there have been enough for the ones in the hierarchy of a society to have enough history to know this. If a populace is armed, the leader of a nation would think twice before imposing radical law on a nation in which the people of that nation do not support or mistreatment of the majority/minority of a populace. A particular excerpt from this article made me think about it while I was researching evidence to support my opinion. It reads 'Does anyone believe that 12 million armed Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals would have been herded into cattle cars by Nazis and shipped away for extermination?', which speaks to me in a certain volume. It does speak a certain amount of truth, no? You could say that is one of the reasons that Europe and now the U.S., are against gun laws as of recent. Not to conspire, but if the populace has no way of defending itself it will be more susceptible to popularly unwanted change.

 

Of course if such a change happens there will always be someone to supply arms to those who are willing to pay for them. Where there's demand there is supply, that's capitalism! The market is an all balancing tool, is it not?

 

 

 

Source list...

 

A few revolts due to caste/group mistreatment for reference - http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/351-11.htm

French Revolution - http://www.victorianweb.org/history/hist7.html

 

Source for the quote - http://www.larrywillis.com/quotes.html

 

The rest is personal Philosophy. Have fun.

 

 

Well, the Iraq War began in 2003, it's now almost 2011, that's nearly 8 years. 6000/8 = 750/365 = 2. That averages two civilian deaths per day. Now, if I understand what you're saying, then you agreed that included the civilians who died as a result of IEDs as well as accidental casualties from friendly fire and such. I don't know how often IEDs are encountered, if we've got anyone with experience over in Iraq/Afghanistan and the such, I'd appreciate you chiming in on this one. However, I have read numerous reports of IEDs where civilians have been caught in them, along with US troops. Unfortunately, civilians don't often have Kevlar vests or armored vehicles.

 

That being said, in combination with Marharth's guestimations regarding the loyalty of the military, I'm curious to see what you think would happen if they took all rights to own any sort of gun from American citizens and went around confiscating guns.

 

I'll tell you what I'd think. We are seeing a decline in people who support gun ownership within the last twenty years (Will cite statistic if anyone cares), but it's still not a low enough margin of people in the U.S. to incite such a law. If it's done suddenly without proper transition, we will see gun owners turning weapons on the police. I'd compare it to a healthy man taking bread from a starving man. Not only that, we'd see profit drops from gun-producing companies which have significant sway in politics and a few visits from NRA lobbies would cause political backlash from a sudden move to take gun rights away. Those in power know the importance of a slow transition from one unpopular policy to another, and wouldn't risk a collapse or losing control of the populace due to a massively imposing law. At least I couldn't imagine it.

[RZ1029]

I actually mentioned MAD in an earlier post, I believe. Except it was in the form of a quote from War Games, an movie from the... 90s?

 

But you're right in a lot of ways. I'd also like to mention that Switzerland gives its citizens assault weapons as part of their militia program, and they have little issues. They also have required training and proficiency, but have a different society.

[Trandoshan]

Wikipedia Link :(

 

The Fins have something similar. In Finland military service is mandatory, and those who serve in the military for a number of months (six) get to keep their weapons. Some Finnish people have a small arsenal of weapons passed on from generation to generation. It's really quite amazing what other nations allow, and what my nation restricts. I have to walk on pins and needles just to own my firearm, and the police can confiscate it if they decide I shouldn't own one. That includes getting into a fistfight at a bar. Whatever at the least bit classifies you as slightly impulsive and they can remove your privilege to own a firearm. Oh, and by god don't use that gun to protect life, liberty, and property.

 

Case point

 

Cases like these are used by prosecutors to further gun restriction agendas. There are many examples of people defending themselves from druggies, robbers, and murderers, AND getting prosecuted. Will re-find them again if God wills it.

----

 

Europe is the birthplace of Liberty and Rights Activism, and there are many examples of the good that releasing the strictness of gun control would do.

 

You could argue, though, that Switzerland and Finland are both smaller and more controlled environments. Therefore it's easier to give people more freedoms in gun control.

 

America can't risk a Venezuelan, French, or Socialist Popular revolution in its own borders, so I guess taking the people's guns are the right thing to do. Sometimes I think people are secondary class citizens.... :(

Edited January 4, 2011 by Trandoshan

[RZ1029]

I'm not that worried about a French revolution, things never go well for them when it comes to war. /end bad/nationalistic joke

 

But you're right, I've seen quite a few examples like that one, as they're often mentioned in the NRA magazine. Usually right below their stories about homeowners across the country defending themselves because they had weapons. Obviously, though, that's biased material. The NRA's not about to say much anti-gun, it would probably spell their doom if they did.

 

Another big difference in Switzerland, and Finland is the society though. I noticed in the Wikipedia article (which I take with a grain of salt regarding the culture, due to the nature of the website) that in Finland, there was a big family history with armed service as well. I think another thing that makes it more... ok? Popular? Whatever you want to call it, is that the family history is much more emphasized.

 

I'm also tempted to ask why you crossed out Socialist, but I think I already know the answer.