Obama considering an executive order on gun control (Page 4)

drewb8 - 2013-01-10 12:20 PM The militias in the American Revolution also had access to the same level of weaponry as their oppressors.  If they'd been limited to pistols we'd probably still have an English accent.  And although their competency varied, the militias were subject to training and organization, not every citizen for himself doing their own thing to battle the British.   That's why 2A hsa two parts - they knew simply having armed citizens acting individually and doing their own thing would not be a sufficient defense against a standing army, a competent, trained militia along with an armed citizenry is what's needed to defend against tyranny. 

I guess I'm unaware of the roles of militias in the French Revolution.  In fact, a common argument of the founders for the need for 2A was that European rulers kept their populations unarmed and supposedly this kept them from overcoming tyranny.  The French Revolution seems to prove them wrong although it should also be noted that the French Revolution did not end in a free state, it ended in a different tyrannical rule by an emperor this time so I don't know if I'd call that successful.

If like you say, it doesn't matter who has the most, best guns (merely owning a weapon is all you need, capability doesn't matter) when it comes to defying tyranny, than a ban on military style weapons such as the AR-15 should be fine as long as everyone has say, a bolt action .22, right? 

drewb8 - 2013-01-10 1:53 PM I believe for the most part they were part of a militia, even if it was just their town, but the training in militias varied from nonexistant and disorganized to pretty good (though I think those were the exception rather than the rule).  By the end of the war though the organization and skill was much closer to that of a regular army though.  I cuold be wrong about that though, so maybe someone more knowlegable could chime in.

The fact that the militias were made up of individual citizens though is why I have a hard time squaring how you could have any sorts of restrictions at all. If 2A is meant as a last defense against state power, than means that all of the other protections of the BOR are gone and any type of restriction, even on military hardware is handicapping the ability to resist against a strong oppressor.  But if you allow restrictions, say on military style weapons like in Heller, you're basically saying that it's all symbolic.  You're allowed to fight against tyranny but only up to a point and the real defenses against oppression lie in the other amendments.

TriRSquared - 2013-01-10 11:56 AM

The US had far fewer muskets than the British.  Also the British has cannons, the equivalent of today's machine guns (one shot multiple kills).  Both are examples of the under-armed populous overthrowing the current government.  That's the only point I was trying to make.

TriRSquared - 2013-01-10 10:56 AM

The US had far fewer muskets than the British.  Also the British has cannons, the equivalent of today's machine guns (one shot multiple kills).  Both are examples of the under-armed populous overthrowing the current government.  That's the only point I was trying to make.

Left Brain - 2013-01-10 12:24 PM 

Syria....the Syrian Military was every bit as overwhelming to the rebels as ours would be, proportionally speaking. The rebels are kicking their arse.  Ho wabout Mexico?  How's the govt. and the Army (used extensively) doing against the drug cartels.  I'd get bored going over all of the successes by rebels against established govts. 

What, do you think none of us can fly choppers? Or jets?  Or operate mortars, or tanks?  You think we couldn't get our hands on them?  You know what it takes to capture a jet sitting on a runway?  Yep, a gun.

drewb8 - 2013-01-10 3:05 PM

Sure there are lots of examples of successes by rebels against established governments, but with the exception of one, 200 years ago, I can't think of any that actually resulted in a free country governed by rule of law (and even that was not a sure thing, there were people calling for Washington to be appointed king).  Almost invariably they end up in just a different kind of tyranny whether it's by tribal factions, religious factions or whatever.

 

drewb8 - 2013-01-10 10:20 AM The militias in the American Revolution also had access to the same level of weaponry as their oppressors.  If they'd been limited to pistols we'd probably still have an English accent.  And although their competency varied, the militias were subject to training and organization, not every citizen for himself doing their own thing to battle the British.   That's why 2A hsa two parts - they knew simply having armed citizens acting individually and doing their own thing would not be a sufficient defense against a standing army, a competent, trained militia along with an armed citizenry is what's needed to defend against tyranny. 

I guess I'm unaware of the roles of militias in the French Revolution.  In fact, a common argument of the founders for the need for 2A was that European rulers kept their populations unarmed and supposedly this kept them from overcoming tyranny.  The French Revolution seems to prove them wrong although it should also be noted that the French Revolution did not end in a free state, it ended in a different tyrannical rule by an emperor this time so I don't know if I'd call that successful.

If like you say, it doesn't matter who has the most, best guns (merely owning a weapon is all you need, capability doesn't matter) when it comes to defying tyranny, than a ban on military style weapons such as the AR-15 should be fine as long as everyone has say, a bolt action .22, right? 

drewb8 - 2013-01-10 12:05 PM

Sure there are lots of examples of successes by rebels against established governments, but with the exception of one, 200 years ago, I can't think of any that actually resulted in a free country governed by rule of law (and even that was not a sure thing, there were people calling for Washington to be appointed king).  Almost invariably they end up in just a different kind of tyranny whether it's by tribal factions, religious factions or whatever.

 

crusevegas - 2013-01-10 1:09 PM

That is an excellent point and one that should be considered every time that our Federal Govt. takes a bite at our freedoms. When was the last law put into place that gave us more freedom?

Puppetmaster - 2013-01-10 3:16 PM

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them … Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here."

Fienstien 1993

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=blXkl9YVoHo

 

Kido - 2013-01-10 1:13 PM

Strictly speaking is that possible?  Laws, EVERY law, takes freedoms away (and sometimes, that's not a bad thing!)

But only removing or changing existing laws get us MORE freedom.  There can't be a law the GIVES freedom.  Unless someone can give me an example.

crusevegas - 2013-01-10 12:56 PM

What Military uses the AR15?

BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-10 8:02 AM

You forgot this one:

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

-- Adolf Hitler

Nobody in his administration is even remotely close to calling for an all-out ban on private gun ownership. You could actually listen to what he's said in interviews AFTER Newton:

OBAMA: We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.

trinnas - 2013-01-10 1:36 PM

That is a cultural thing I think not so much a weaponry thing.  The rebels are not always any better than the government.

Kido - 2013-01-10 1:40 PM

We had cannons as well.  But yes, they had the numbers and more equipment.

I think what won that war was that we had to adapt to more gorilla tactics and also developed technology.  I the rifling was invented/used by the colonists which allowed for snipers and selective targeting rather than lining up and exchanging volleys.

The British also had to contend with supplying from Britain.  It's hard to be the occupying nation and that is shown throughout history.  The empire probably came to the conclusion it just wasn't worth it.  Afghanistan vs USSR is similar.  Out gunned, out manned, but got some SERIOUS home field advantage.

crusevegas - 2013-01-10 1:19 PM

I think the law & war outlawing slavery could be an example. States that have added/changed laws to allow same sex marriage would be another.

Another example would be legislation that did away with laws that prevent law abiding citizens to carry a Swiss army knife.

I probable should have used the term legislation instead of "law".

drewb8 - 2013-01-10 9:19 AM I agree that that's its purpose, but if that's true, than what I struggle with, is how can you justify any sort of regulation on any kind of armament at all?  

drewb8 - 2013-01-10 11:53 AM I believe for the most part they were part of a militia, even if it was just their town, but the training in militias varied from nonexistant and disorganized to pretty good (though I think those were the exception rather than the rule).  By the end of the war though the organization and skill was much closer to that of a regular army though.  I cuold be wrong about that though, so maybe someone more knowlegable could chime in.

The fact that the militias were made up of individual citizens though is why I have a hard time squaring how you could have any sorts of restrictions at all. If 2A is meant as a last defense against state power, than means that all of the other protections of the BOR are gone and any type of restriction, even on military hardware is handicapping the ability to resist against a strong oppressor.  But if you allow restrictions, say on military style weapons like in Heller, you're basically saying that it's all symbolic.  You're allowed to fight against tyranny but only up to a point and the real defenses against oppression lie in the other amendments.

drewb8 - 2013-01-10 2:38 PM Ok, but if we assume that an under-armed population is still these days able to militarily overthrow an oppressive gov't like during the Revolution, than if the point of the 2A is to guard against oppression, wouldn't that mean that there's nothing wrong with most gun regulations since they wouldn't have any bearing on the functioning of 2A?  

drewb8 - 2013-01-10 1:25 PM

To me that points to militias being a poor, or at best inconsistent defense against tyranny though.  I think it's pretty clear the founders intended the 2A as a bulwark against tyranny and given that, I have a really hard time seeing how any sort of regulation is allowable.  I'm still having trouble with that part. But I also think 2A is by far the least effective of these measures.  Freedom of speech, religion, the press and assembly, due process all have much better tracks records in fostering freedom and defending against tyranny.  

If the rebels are not always any better than the government than that doesn't give me much comfort that if militias were needed to overthrow a tyrranical gov't here they would be any better.  If we're at the point where treason against the country is the only option left I'm not sure I trust our previous traditions and culture to save us.  Like Cruse says, makes you appreciate what the founders did that much more.  Anyways, I gots to run, it's been interesting, thanks.

Cruse - I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new, but the AR-15 was developed for the military by Armalite who was asked to "come up with designs for a high-velocity, full and semi auto fire, 20 shot magazine, 6lbs loaded, able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters".  The fully auto version went into service in the army as the M16.  If that's not a military weapon in the spirit of Heller (which specifically mention the M16) I'm not sure what is.

crusevegas - 2013-01-10 2:24 PM

Wouldn't  a military weapon be used by a military?

I'll ask again what military uses the AR 15?

There are a lot more powerful civilian weapons than the 5.56 round.

The Military version is capable of full auto, 3 round bursts, semi auto mode.

Civilian AR15 is capable of semi auto mode.

Here is a picture of an AR15

Here is a picture of a .223 hunting rifle.

Give me a logical reason that the AR15 should be banned?

Kido - 2013-01-10 2:29 PM

Um, I would agree with you EXCEPT, if they all come in the Hello Kitty Motif, PLEASE BAN THEM!

And if I had to choose a weapon if I had to "Red Dawn" it?  It would be the .223 hands down.

powerman - 2013-01-10 3:28 PM

Drew... the argument that I should be able to own anything is another distraction. No Supreme Court Justice has ever claimed we should own anything, and even the NRA has never made such a proposal. The intent of the 2A was for "The People" to own common arms of the type he would bring for militia duty. That does not mean a rocket launcher, that does not mean a tank, that does not mean claymore mines... it mean fire arms in common use... which most certainly are semi-auto rifles... and one could argue full auto rifles... but there has not been much complaining about not having those.

Jackemy1 - 2013-01-10 4:02 PM

It isn't in the enumerated powers of the Supreme Court or any of the branches of the federal government, especially the executive one, to define what is meant by "arms". 

But you find me a candidate for Governor with a campaign pledge to legalize personal nuke devices and I'll show you a candidate that will get blown out on election day.