The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

[WildCat]

They lost in Vietnam because they didn't adjust their tactics accordingly, and have had problems in Iraq because they didn't learn from Vietnam. Last I check, though, they seem to have the Iraq situation figured out. So if they ever come at you with your little dear riffle, I wouldn't count on guerrilla tactics to win.

The average deer rifle is far more powerful than the infantry rifle US soldiers use. Far longer range too.

Point of fact, a variation of one of the most popular hunting rifles in the USA is used by US military snipers, and the civilian hunting version was around for decades before the military version.

 

[WildCat]

Hope this helps.

I know there's large caliber and small caliber weapons, but "high" caliber is as new one for me.

Can you define it?

 

[Mudcat]

I know there's large caliber and small caliber weapons, but "high" caliber is as new one for me.

Can you define it?

High is to large as low is to small.

 

[Mudcat]

The average deer rifle is far more powerful than the infantry rifle US soldiers use.

Tell it to the SAWs.

 

[Mudcat]

You could have fooled me.

Um... No. I could not have fooled you, you have fooled yourself. Before that post I haven't stated what kinds of tactics that gun owners would use if the military would use.

I assume that the statistics are true and that the majority of gun owners are former military, so they would have some familiarity with military tactics and as such would opt not to get into a blaze of glory stand up fight if they were forced to fight the military.

 

[lionking]

So what specifically is NOT happening in Vermont? They have guns and low murder rates . . . .

Excellent cherry pick!

This thread is about the US, not a minuscule part of it. If someone here picked out a small hamlet in Scotland with no violence and said "see, no violence in Scotland", you may just have a point......Nah, not even then....

 

[GlennB]

So since the right to free speech is also already infringed we should just do away with that too.

Wow. How did you get from what I said to 'scrapping' anything?

The point is that the law already does interpret and modify the application of the 2A. That further laws might also modify the application of the 2A would not make such laws unconstitutional and crying "Unconstitutional! The 2A!" as an objection to any potential change is deeply illogical.

The US is already heaving with modifications to the literal interpretation of the 2A that are totally accepted by the people.

 

[Polaris]

Tell it to the SAWs.

Same caliber as the M4/M16 family, so still smaller than the average deer rifle.

Um... No. I could not have fooled you, you have fooled yourself. Before that post I haven't stated what kinds of tactics that gun owners would use if the military would use.

I assume that the statistics are true and that the majority of gun owners are former military, so they would have some familiarity with military tactics and as such would opt not to get into a blaze of glory stand up fight if they were forced to fight the military.

You assume. I call you out on an assumption - which you deny is an assumption, then immediately follow up that denial with another assumption, and here you assume again.

You should stop assuming what gun owners think.

 

[Mudcat]

You assume. I call you out on an assumption - which you deny is an assumption, then immediately follow up that denial with another assumption, and here you assume again.

One assumption, based upon evidence. In more enlightened circles they would call that a hypothesis.

 

[WildCat]

Tell it to the SAWs.

The SAW used by the US military is small caliber, 5.56 NATO. Same as that used in the infantry rifle and far less powerful than a typical deer hunting round. In fact the 5.56 (or .223) is illegal to use for deer hunting in many US states because it's not powerful enough and will wound a deer rather than kill it.

 

[Xulld]

Excellent cherry pick!

This thread is about the US, not a minuscule part of it. If someone here picked out a small hamlet in Scotland with no violence and said "see, no violence in Scotland", you may just have a point......Nah, not even then....

So are you saying that falsification is unimportant to the theory that access to firearms leads to increases in murder rates?

Pointing out inconsistencies in a theory is NOT cherry picking. It is part and parcel to good science. It needs to be explained or else it is a serious problem for the stated theory. Ignoring that fact reveals a very real dissonance.

The three states mentioned are hardly comparable to a small hamlet. These are states with millions of citizens and large population centers over 250K residents. A good scientist asks these questions with full honesty willing to accept that the answer may be to change the theory.

 

[Polaris]

The government has armored tanks, flying gunships, naval warships that can launch missiles at you over half a continent away, aerial drones that can wipe you out before you even know that they're there, as well as all the high calibre weapons the infantry uses and you think if they ever attack you that you would stand a chance with your piddly little dear riffle? Yeah, good luck with that.

Assumption.

I don't assume that.

Denial of assumption.

People who masturbate over the idea of fighting it out with the evil empire government are the ones who probably have this grand idea of pitched battle with a decidedly superior foe and emerging victorious but are probably in the minority of gun owners. The majority probably see that for the death wish that it is and would more likely to choose guerrilla tactics instead.

However I don't see guerrilla tactics as being successful for any length of time these days, what with lessons that the military hopefully learned in Vietnam and Iraq.

Assumption.

Um... No. I could not have fooled you, you have fooled yourself. Before that post I haven't stated what kinds of tactics that gun owners would use if the military would use.

Those are your words I quoted at the beginning of this post, so add back-pedaling to the assumptions.

I assume that the statistics are true and that the majority of gun owners are former military, so they would have some familiarity with military tactics and as such would opt not to get into a blaze of glory stand up fight if they were forced to fight the military.

Assumption.

Too bad there isn't a term for someone who dishonestly manipulates other posters posts.

Are you saying someone else posted what is written on this thread by Mudcat?

 

[Sabretooth]

Excellent cherry pick!

This thread is about the US, not a minuscule part of it. If someone here picked out a small hamlet in Scotland with no violence and said "see, no violence in Scotland", you may just have a point......Nah, not even then....

But it does have weight in the argument. Comparing the USA to Scotland is silly. Comparing individual states within the USA makes a whole lot more sense.

Comparing states identifies the issues at a manageable level. Plus, with different state politics and laws, one can show a correlation between states with high gun ownership versus one with low...one with high gun crime, one without.

In one of these threads, back some months ago, I used statistics to show that the main problem was low-income, high population centers. I'll have to dig for the thread.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Wow. How did you get from what I said to 'scrapping' anything?

The point is that the law already does interpret and modify the application of the 2A. That further laws might also modify the application of the 2A would not make such laws unconstitutional and crying "Unconstitutional! The 2A!" as an objection to any potential change is deeply illogical.

The US is already heaving with modifications to the literal interpretation of the 2A that are totally accepted by the people.

Perhaps I misunderstood your position. Do you agree or disagree that there is a right to bear arms? I am opposed to repealling the second ammendment. I'm not opposed to reasonable restrictions. I stated this earlier.

While I agree that the Founding Fathers would be astounded at the power of an AR-15, the basic principle still applies. I have a right to bear arms. As reasonable citizens we can decide how new advancements in weaponry should be available to the public. I wouldn't be opposed to restricting semi-automatics from citizens if it can be done in a reasonably fair way and I own semi-automatics. I wouldn't lose any sleep over being restricted to revolvers, bolt-action, lever action, pump-action, etc. firearms. I think it would be an easy line to define and enforce. Manual actions good, automatic and semi-automatic bad. I would still be able to hunt and defend myself in a reasonable way.

However, one proposal that has been put forth is requiring all guns to be stored at a remote location like a gun club or an armoury. That clearly is at odds with the intent of the second ammendment. I have a right to bear arms. I can walk around my home or property with a pistol on my hip. I have a permit from my local government to carry one concealed in public. I don't need permission from anyone to take my rifle to the woods for hunting or to take my handgun to the practice range. There can be no bureaucratic obstacles to me physically possessing what I legally own.

 

[The Norseman]

Perhaps I misunderstood your position. Do you agree or disagree that there is a right to bear arms? I am opposed to repealling the second ammendment. I'm not opposed to reasonable restrictions. I stated this earlier.

Yeah, be careful with that phrase "reasonable restrictions" because it's the bleat of the anti-gunners. I support restrictions that can be shown with reasonable evidence that these restrictions will be effective in doing whatever the law is supposed to address. Perfect example: the assault weapons ban in the 90's. It was in effect for ten years then it sunsetted. FBI statistics shows there was no level of decrease in any crime or activity relating to firearms that wasn't already happening before the ban. In other words, crime has already been declining before this law was in effect. This past year, they wish to re-institute the same ban which has been shown to be useless in combating crime; all it does is place onerous burdens on already law-abiding citizens.

 

[GlennB]

Perhaps I misunderstood your position. Do you agree or disagree that there is a right to bear arms? I am opposed to repealling the second ammendment. I'm not opposed to reasonable restrictions. I stated this earlier.

There is no absolute 'right to bear arms' in the USA, none whatsoever. The 2A has been modified and interpreted out of its original existence. But it remains as a bugle-call to anyone who wishes to invoke it whenever further laws are proposed to redefine the relative rights of US citizens to own and use firearms.

If the 2A had any absolute meaning then you'd have the 'right' to carry a loaded AR-15 into the office where you work and leave it propped in the corner. You cannot do that (I presume), thus your 2A 'rights' have already been infringed by various federal and state laws and by work practices laid down by your employer.

Are you suing your state or its agencies - invoking the 2A - for demanding that you carry a hunting licence when out in the woods? For insisting that your daughter reach a certain age before she goes hunting? For being able to take away your guns if you acquire a serious criminal conviction?

And this is what drives people nuts in these discussions - the pro-gun side quotes the 2A as if it's an absolute and invoke it at the slightest mention of new restrictions. Your 'rights' have already been 'infringed', and yet you're mostly happy with those infringements.

 

[Information Analyst]

In pre-firearm days people were far more likely to die a violent death than they were once firearms came into common use.

You mean back in the days when unchecked infection mean that pretty much any wound beyond a superficial one could likely kill?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

There is no absolute 'right to bear arms' in the USA, none whatsoever. The 2A has been modified and interpreted out of its original existence. But it remains as a bugle-call to anyone who wishes to invoke it whenever further laws are proposed to redefine the relative rights of US citizens to own and use firearms.

If the 2A had any absolute meaning then you'd have the 'right' to carry a loaded AR-15 into the office where you work and leave it propped in the corner. You cannot do that (I presume), thus your 2A 'rights' have already been infringed by various federal and state laws and by work practices laid down by your employer.

Are you suing your state or its agencies - invoking the 2A - for demanding that you carry a hunting licence when out in the woods? For insisting that your daughter reach a certain age before she goes hunting? For being able to take away your guns if you acquire a serious criminal conviction?

And this is what drives people nuts in these discussions - the pro-gun side quotes the 2A as if it's an absolute and invoke it at the slightest mention of new restrictions. Your 'rights' have already been 'infringed', and yet you're mostly happy with those infringements.

Then my previous analogy stands. You cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. Therefor, there is no absolute right to free speech. The NSA can monitor your cell phone and internet activity. Therefor, there is no absolute right to privacy.

 

[lionking]

But it does have weight in the argument. Comparing the USA to Scotland is silly. Comparing individual states within the USA makes a whole lot more sense.

Utter nonsense. It is an argument used only by those disparate to try to show (unsuccessfully) that the US doesn't really have a gun violence problem. Just take out gangs, states with large illegal Mexican populations, Chicago, Detroit etc etc and everything's a okay....

 

[WildCat]

You mean back in the days when unchecked infection mean that pretty much any wound beyond a superficial one could likely kill?

No, back in the day when sacking a city meant killing everyone in it right then and there, not scratching them and waiting for an infection to kill them.