Guns

[yossarian22c]

I've said before and I'll say again. Banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines will not stop mass shootings but they would lower the body count. Assault rifles and high capacity magazines serve no purpose for self defense or hunting.

Is the counter argument the second amendment is absolute and we should quit regulating 50 caliber machine guns? Is it I like my gun and I don't care how many people get killed by AR-15's with high capacity magazines I want to keep mine. I don't understand people supporting the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

I know this only addresses a very small subset of gun violence, but it seems to be the lowest hanging fruit. The bigger step would be to find a way to track guns to find out how gangs and criminals are being armed. Shut down the bad gun dealers and straw purchases and get guns out of the hands of criminals.

[cherrypoptart]

"Assault rifles and high capacity magazines serve no purpose for self defense or hunting."

Neither of which is the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

What is the real purpose? Look at Myanmar and the "Everything will be OK" angel protestor.

And I'm leaning towards the "something has to be done" camp when any nut can go on a random shooting spree, and they do. But bringing up hunting and self-defense against criminals is irrelevant since that's not the issue. The issue is how would we prevent a tyrannical government from doing to us what the military is doing in Myanmar?

Nothing our government is doing right now is trust inspiring.

[NobleHunter]

If you're interested in fighting a tyrannical government you should be pushing to legalize IEDs and military grade weaponry. Pontificate all you want about an armed populace but AR-15s will not win many battles if both the cops and military go against you.

[TheDrake]

At the time of the cease fire the ira decommissioned the following

1,000 rifles
2 tonnes of Semtex
20–30 heavy machine guns
7 surface-to-air missiles
7 flame throwers
1,200 detonators
11 rocket-propelled grenade launchers
90 handguns
100+ grenades

Unless you think that the power sharing agreement constitutes breaking free of a tyrannical government, it's just an obsolete argument.

Or are you thinking more about freedom fighter Ammon Bundy?

[yossarian22c]

"Assault rifles and high capacity magazines serve no purpose for self defense or hunting."

Neither of which is the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

What is the real purpose? Look at Myanmar and the "Everything will be OK" angel protestor.
...
The issue is how would we prevent a tyrannical government from doing to us what the military is doing in Myanmar?

Nothing our government is doing right now is trust inspiring.

Then you better get on that militia clause. Have state governments take bigger control over the national guard or train up a defense force because a bunch of unorganized yahoos with AR-15's are going to get slaughtered by real military units with air support and armor.

[TheDrake]

Let's also not overstate ineffectiveness of armed resistance. The Vietnamese communists did a pretty good job of holding off a modern army, and so did the afghans. But they were backed by major powers providing supplies and other support, in these cases China and America. You tell me which major power is going to back qanon resistance.

[NobleHunter]

If armed resistance can work it still needs heavier weapons than you can buy at Walmart.

I'm not sure Vietnam and Afghanistan shows that armed civilians or irregulars can hold off today's US military.

[Fenring]

I think we've had a thread about this once before, but it was brought up then that the most likely situation is a splintering of the U.S. military should it come to a full-out open rebellion. Presumably the rebellion is caused by some sort of unacceptable act or decision, and presumably many in the military would find it equally unacceptable. To the extent that this would be a civil war, not every area would have symmetrical dispersion of strength, but a pretty well-armed civilian quarter could well balance the scales if either a small military presence is all that area has, or else the two military forces are comparable in strength and the civilians put one side over the top. The scenario of a U.S. populace alone going against the entire might of the armed forces isn't really a serious scenario. How could that ever happen after all? It would require the civilians to be united against the government, and all of the armed forces united on the side of the government. I can't envision a situation where that happens.

But in the case of split up forces, or small areas of skirmish amidst a larger civil war, a well-armed civilian district could no doubt defend itself against a smallish military force that could otherwise wipe the floor with a passive population.

[yossarian22c]

Let's also not overstate ineffectiveness of armed resistance. The Vietnamese communists did a pretty good job of holding off a modern army, and so did the afghans. But they were backed by major powers providing supplies and other support, in these cases China and America. You tell me which major power is going to back qanon resistance.

Russia and China. The opportunity to cause chaos and civil war in the US. I'm sure they would be finding ways to get weapons in the hands of any armed insurrection that could last long enough to cause damage, destruction, and chaos in the US.

[yossarian22c]

But in the case of split up forces, or small areas of skirmish amidst a larger civil war, a well-armed civilian district could no doubt defend itself against a smallish military force that could otherwise wipe the floor with a passive population.

And hunting rifles for range, shotguns and handguns for close in fighting would have the same impact.

I'm not proposing an all weapons ban. I'm saying that we eliminate the weapon of choice for mass shooters. It won't stop them, the same guy walking into that store with two handguns and a couple magazines probably kills 5 people. But he doesn't kill 10. We lower the body count.

Also we get a handle on the illicit gun trade in the US. Drugs come into the US but guns go out. We need to get serious about keeping guns out of the hands of gangs and cartels.

[NobleHunter]

I think we've had a thread about this once before, but it was brought up then that the most likely situation is a splintering of the U.S. military should it come to a full-out open rebellion. Presumably the rebellion is caused by some sort of unacceptable act or decision, and presumably many in the military would find it equally unacceptable. To the extent that this would be a civil war, not every area would have symmetrical dispersion of strength, but a pretty well-armed civilian quarter could well balance the scales if either a small military presence is all that area has, or else the two military forces are comparable in strength and the civilians put one side over the top. The scenario of a U.S. populace alone going against the entire might of the armed forces isn't really a serious scenario. How could that ever happen after all? It would require the civilians to be united against the government, and all of the armed forces united on the side of the government. I can't envision a situation where that happens.

But in the case of split up forces, or small areas of skirmish amidst a larger civil war, a well-armed civilian district could no doubt defend itself against a smallish military force that could otherwise wipe the floor with a passive population.

The most likely scenario is something closer to what we saw in January. A bunch of deluded idiots think they've got support in overthrowing the government except instead of a riot enabled by a pathetic police response, they decide to start shooting up Federal buildings or something. At which point they find out that their "well-armed militia" is as about effective as a screen door on a submarine. What happens next is a much more complicated question but it's not going to come down to which side has more AR-15s.

[Fenring]

The most likely scenario is something closer to what we saw in January.

Well that sort of contradicts the premise, which is that in the event that a general revolt is called for (whatever that means) the people can offer real resistance. You could argue that only a few yahoos would ever delude themselves into thinking they're revolting, but that's just negating the premise, rather than a playing out of how the premise would work in practice.

[NobleHunter]

That's because the premise is faulty. And bringing the army into it contradicts the essential belief of the 2nd Amendment rebellion fetishists because it means illegal or highly restricted weapons will be available as armories are opened and shared around.

[rightleft22]

Is there any point in debating this issue when the dead lock in government is not going to anything even if 80% of the population wants change.

I personally agree with John Neely Kennedy who linked gun control to drunk driving.  A person should have to pass a test to get a license and lose it if abuse the right.  Ofcourse he didn't mean that when he pointed to drunk driving. 

Maybe it might be best if as a society we accept the fact that we love our guns and don't really care when people die. Well as long as its not us or anyone close to us. Its the price we pay for loving our guns and worth the cost.

[TheDeamon]

If armed resistance can work it still needs heavier weapons than you can buy at Walmart.

You're fighting a 3rd generation war, in a fifth generation warfare environment. For a domestic insurrection in the United States, small arms and the right knowledge in chemistry and electronics(Improvised Explosive Devices, after all) is all a group needs to wage an effective campaign against the Government. If they use the right strategies. We've been lucky in that nearly all of the bad actors seen to date either were operating at the wrong scale, or idiots, if not both.

I'm not sure Vietnam and Afghanistan shows that armed civilians or irregulars can hold off today's US military.

You're forgetting that matter of who is in the US Military and how they'd possibly respond to certain permutations of a domestic civil war in the United States. They're going to have family members involved on one side or the other of that fight. That's a very different thing to Iraq or Afghanistan where the vast majority of them probably don't have a common ancestor with anyone there that can be traced back to within 500 years. For most of them, you'd probably need to go back thousands. (By current estimations, if you go back to about 3500 BCE a great many men in the 'Stans(in some populations up to 80% of men) and the northern regions of India share a common male-line ancestor with me according to our current understanding of Y Chromosomal DNA; but that hardly makes them "close cousins" in my book)

[TheDeamon]

I think we've had a thread about this once before, but it was brought up then that the most likely situation is a splintering of the U.S. military should it come to a full-out open rebellion. Presumably the rebellion is caused by some sort of unacceptable act or decision, and presumably many in the military would find it equally unacceptable. To the extent that this would be a civil war, not every area would have symmetrical dispersion of strength, but a pretty well-armed civilian quarter could well balance the scales if either a small military presence is all that area has, or else the two military forces are comparable in strength and the civilians put one side over the top. The scenario of a U.S. populace alone going against the entire might of the armed forces isn't really a serious scenario. How could that ever happen after all? It would require the civilians to be united against the government, and all of the armed forces united on the side of the government. I can't envision a situation where that happens.

But in the case of split up forces, or small areas of skirmish amidst a larger civil war, a well-armed civilian district could no doubt defend itself against a smallish military force that could otherwise wipe the floor with a passive population.

It isn't just that. US Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq were hard to "Defeat in detail" because the US military is very good at logistics, and most of its logistics train exists in the continental United States, where the Afghans and the Iraqi's couldn't reach it. In a US Civil War scenario? US Citizens are going to be able to attack every step in that process.

You don't need to attack the Tank. You attack the pipelines and tankers which help get the fuel to the tank. Or you go even bigger and hit the refineries themselves.

You don't need to attack the done, when you can cut the power and supply support to the base that is flying the drones in the first place.

Likewise, good luck keeping your forces supplied with things for very long when you can attack the workers involved in producing those war supplies.

There is a heck of a lot of "tail" involved in making the US Military work, and it works well on the foreign side because getting to the domestic side of things is a major PITA for a foreign power. But in a Civil War scenario? Where you have US Military Veterans(and defectors from the Active Duty side) going against the US Military? The entire logistics chain for the US Military is going to be attacked. From the very start all the way up to the entering the front gates of the Military Base. And they're going to be favoring Logistical targets instead of the hard targets(those tanks and planes people like to talk about).

[NobleHunter]

You're fighting a 3rd generation war, in a fifth generation warfare environment. For a domestic insurrection in the United States, small arms and the right knowledge in chemistry and electronics(Improvised Explosive Devices, after all) is all a group needs to wage an effective campaign against the Government. If they use the right strategies. We've been lucky in that nearly all of the bad actors seen to date either were operating at the wrong scale, or idiots, if not both.

Right! Practising that knowledge is ridiculously illegal. Which kind of makes the whole "we need the 2nd amendment in case we have to overthrow the government" argument moot. It's not protecting the weapons these would-be traitors need.

[yossarian22c]

Is there any point in debating this issue when the dead lock in government is not going to anything even if 80% of the population wants change.

And this goes to the outsized power of a big enough group of single issue voters. If 20% of the population will votes on only one issue then they can have an outsized influence on elections. The Republican party has two large groups of single issue voters, guns and abortion, that will largely vote for them regardless of all other issues. Its how so many things that have 60+% approval in the general populace yet get zero republican support in congress. Because it doesn't matter what a guns rights or anti-abortion advocate thinks about the minimum wage or any other issue their vote is locked in.

[DJQuag]

A patriot died tonight fighting against...something.

Look, some crazy *censored* did some crazy *censored*, but in this difficult time I feel it's really important that we all decide it's Obama's fault because reasons or maybe it's Biden's fault because he's old.

[cherrypoptart]

https://news.yahoo.com/myanmar-activists-hold-shoe-protests-043944613.html

"Anti-coup demonstrators in Myanmar fought back with handmade guns and firebombs against a crackdown by security forces in a town in the northwest but at least 11 of the protesters were killed, domestic media reported on Thursday.

Initially, six truckloads of troops were deployed to quell protesters in the town of Taze, the Myanmar Now and Irrawaddy news outlets said. When the protesters fought back with handmade guns, knives and firebombs, five more truckloads of troops were brought in.

Fighting continued into Thursday morning and at least 11 protesters were killed and about 20 wounded, the media said. There was no word of any casualties among the soldiers."

I notice that the debate swirled around how effective, or not, civilians with guns would be against the military but nobody made the case for why that isn't something we'd have to ever be worried about in America, the government turning tyrannical and using the military against us like we're seeing in Myanmar.

I guess it's kind of difficult for the Democrats who want to ban guns to make that case after all the things they just got done saying about former President Trump.

[cherrypoptart]

https://news.yahoo.com/myanmar-activists-hold-shoe-protests-043944613.html

"Anti-coup demonstrators in Myanmar fought back with handmade guns and firebombs against a crackdown by security forces in a town in the northwest but at least 11 of the protesters were killed, domestic media reported on Thursday.

Initially, six truckloads of troops were deployed to quell protesters in the town of Taze, the Myanmar Now and Irrawaddy news outlets said. When the protesters fought back with handmade guns, knives and firebombs, five more truckloads of troops were brought in.

Fighting continued into Thursday morning and at least 11 protesters were killed and about 20 wounded, the media said. There was no word of any casualties among the soldiers."

I notice that the debate swirled around how effective, or not, civilians with guns would be against the military but nobody made the case for why that isn't something we'd have to ever be worried about in America, the government turning tyrannical and using the military against us like we're seeing in Myanmar.

I guess it's kind of difficult for the Democrats who want to ban guns to make that case after all the things they just got done saying about former President Trump.

But if people really want to ban guns and get rid of the 2nd Amendment, the purpose of which is to help civilians defend themselves against an evil government gone rogue, it seems like the first step would be to persuade people that such a scenario isn't plausible or one they have to worry about, not with our government and the protections we have in place. Of course making that argument gets a lot harder when the same people say the police are racists out to murder innocent black people and the military is full of rapists and baby killers while the former President was a Russian puppet and one of the most evil, corrupt, racist, unstable, dangerous, narcissistic, power hungry orange people ever to illegally rig an election and seize power. When it comes to making the case for how the American government could never be a danger to the people, kind of shot yourselves in the foot there, as it were.

[NobleHunter]

I'm certainly not making the argument the military is full of rapists and baby killers. Even if it is, that doesn't preclude the military from remaining loyal to the constitution in the event a President goes off the rails. The military also sees itself as part of the American people which would make using it to enforce tyranny rather problematic.

[Aris Katsaris]

In the Arab spring, the only nation that managed to overthrow its dictatorship was the nation whose citizenry was the *least* armed -- Tunisia.

While brutal dictatorships, like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, had most households own a gun. And it never got overthrown in a revolution, only via an external invasion. I mean this gun ownership may have helped them fight against the American invasion, I guess, but I don't think resistance against the American-installed regime is what you're actually talking about.

Anyway, all in all, the above facts make me very dubious about the usefulness of gun possession in regards to resisting a dictatorship.

[yossarian22c]

I notice that the debate swirled around how effective, or not, civilians with guns would be against the military but nobody made the case for why that isn't something we'd have to ever be worried about in America, the government turning tyrannical and using the military against us like we're seeing in Myanmar.

I guess it's kind of difficult for the Democrats who want to ban guns to make that case after all the things they just got done saying about former President Trump.

Standing in the street with an AR-15 against the American military is a death sentence. If they want you dead you'll be hit with a drone strike before you get to fire a shot with your rifle.

If your belief is that civilians need to be well armed enough to form an armed resistance to the military then you should be advocating for the legalization of grenades, surface to air missiles, anit-tank weapons, and heavy machine guns. The majority of Democrats are calling for restrictions on semi-automatic rifles with large magazines. Not a full gun ban. Pistols, shot guns, and hunting rifles would all still be around and you should be able to pretend those will keep you as safe from a tyrannical government as an AR-15. Because in reality both are equally effective in any conceivable armed domestic conflict.

[ScottF]

People like to strawman the idea of rebel civilian forces marching in the streets and directly facing off against an existing US military as a way of demonstrating how silly the 2a origin argument is.

In the beginning, an armed rebellion would attack the edges, infrastructure, and supply chain/logistics of the occupying force. You don't fight tanks, drones and missiles with assault rifles. But you would definitely need them for guerilla tactics to target and cripple the support structure controlling them.

You can argue that we shouldn't have a country whose constitution would even allow that possibility, but that's a different discussion.

[yossarian22c]

You can argue that we shouldn't have a country whose constitution would even allow that possibility, but that's a different discussion.

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.

I would argue that the 2nd amendment was written so that local militias could be established that would play a role like the minute men did to bolster the armed forces in a conflict like the war for independence. I really don't see how people read that and come up with individuals should be armed to possibly overthrow the free state.

[yossarian22c]

People like to strawman the idea of rebel civilian forces marching in the streets and directly facing off against an existing US military as a way of demonstrating how silly the 2a origin argument is.

In the beginning, an armed rebellion would attack the edges, infrastructure, and supply chain/logistics of the occupying force. You don't fight tanks, drones and missiles with assault rifles. But you would definitely need them for guerilla tactics to target and cripple the support structure controlling them.
...

So they need explosives and some small arms to attack soft targets. The explosives are already illegal so this argument kind of falls flat. Also I don't agree the second amendment means that people should be armed to defend themselves from the state but rather they should be armed to help fight an invasion by foreign powers.

Some arms are already restricted. We don't allow people to mount 50 caliber machine guns on trucks and drive around. Nor do we allow any kind of fully automatic rifle or gun. In my mind the only purpose of an AR-15 instead of a pistol, hunting rifle, or shotgun is that an AR-15 is a much better weapon to use in a mass shooting.

Banning them won't stop mass shootings, but they will lower the body count. I really don't understand the rational behind we need keep AR-15s in case we want to fight an insurgency against the US government. That is not what the constitution says nor is it what it intended.