194 replies to this topic

[SacKen]

I found this really insightful post on: http://www.allegianc...i-want-fly-f-14

This line of thinking - particularly with regard to present reality behind the notion of defense against tyranny - has occurred to me over the course of this debate. This guy put it in words pretty well if you ignore some of the "less eloquent" bits around the ends of his argument.

That argument has come up before and it is flawed in many ways. First, the assumption is that the men and women in the military would all choose to follow the dictator that is telling them to subdue their own people. I would hope, and expect based on the members of military I know, that this would not happen. If we don't believe this, then it's over for us and we might as well give up. The Constitution is dead and we have no more power.

Second, I've had people say that it would be pointless to go against our military since they are so powerful and would squash us. I say to them, ask the dictators in the Middle East, or even our own military members that were in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, how an armed population with mediocre weapons and ingenuity can cause trouble for a military power.

Third, I've actually had people say that we should abolish the 2nd Amendment because it is no longer necessary. Assuming that this is true, it ignores the fact that we have reached a point where we believe it is not necessary BECAUSE of it. If we did not have the rights provided us in the Constitution, and a people that have taken it to heart to protect it and not let it get ripped up, we probably would have been disarmed a long time ago and would already have a dictatorial government by now. My guess is that the Civil War is where our freedom experiment would have ended.

So, regardless of how relevant we think it is, the Constitution and core "safety against the Government" Amendments must remain in place to protect from the unknown future more than to protect from what we perceive as the current relevance.

[SacKen]

Regarding the need for the firepower during times of mass chaos in society, we would still have access to those weapons from the controlled arsenal. It just wouldn't be in your house. That's why I think this is a better plan. If we don't do something like this, your ability to have powerful weapons will slowly be taken away. It's coming. Most people already fail to realize the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Once you ignore that purpose, it becomes really hard to argue your rights to kill a deer with an AR or the need to own a couple dozen weapons. At least focusing on the "regulated militia" aspect, may actually alllow you to have access to true, military grade firepower.

[SacKen]

...
By lower calibre do you mean .45 and less or are you thinking .22's? IMO, 22's only annoy criminals, they won't stop them.

I wasn't really thinking anything specific. Just general concepts. I was just saying that you don't need large capacity clips or an AR to protect yourself. So arguing for self-protection is not enough of a reason to keep so-called "assault weapons". An old-fashioned .44 revolver works pretty well at stopping an intruder.

[mando]

That argument has come up before and it is flawed in many ways. First, the assumption is that the men and women in the military would all choose to follow the dictator that is telling them to subdue their own people. I would hope, and expect based on the members of military I know, that this would not happen. If we don't believe this, then it's over for us and we might as well give up. The Constitution is dead and we have no more power.

Second, I've had people say that it would be pointless to go against our military since they are so powerful and would squash us. I say to them, ask the dictators in the Middle East, or even our own military members that were in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, how an armed population with mediocre weapons and ingenuity can cause trouble for a military power.

Third, I've actually had people say that we should abolish the 2nd Amendment because it is no longer necessary. Assuming that this is true, it ignores the fact that we have reached a point where we believe it is not necessary BECAUSE of it. If we did not have the rights provided us in the Constitution, and a people that have taken it to heart to protect it and not let it get ripped up, we probably would have been disarmed a long time ago and would already have a dictatorial government by now. My guess is that the Civil War is where our freedom experiment would have ended.

So, regardless of how relevant we think it is, the Constitution and core "safety against the Government" Amendments must remain in place to protect from the unknown future more than to protect from what we perceive as the current relevance.

I don't entirely disagree with your first two points above, but I don't feel that they entirely refute the points of the comments I re-posted. Plus, if your first point prevails (which frankly I trust it will), then we have even less to worry about. With regard to the third point, I think it is far fetched to think that our democracy has succeeded thus far because our citizens are armed - I think it has far more to do with the size and strength of the middle class which has a mutual interest in preserving civic decorum (this is why democracies don't succeed in countries with severe disparities in wealth).

Let me turn this around... what is a realistic scenario for "defending against the tyranny of the Government"?

I don't see one that doesn't involve mass civil disobedience by many, predominantly unarmed or lightly armed (by choice) people. And to this end, the first amendment is much more relevant than the second.

[mando]

Regarding the need for the firepower during times of mass chaos in society, we would still have access to those weapons from the controlled arsenal. It just wouldn't be in your house. That's why I think this is a better plan. If we don't do something like this, your ability to have powerful weapons will slowly be taken away. It's coming. Most people already fail to realize the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Once you ignore that purpose, it becomes really hard to argue your rights to kill a deer with an AR or the need to own a couple dozen weapons. At least focusing on the "regulated militia" aspect, may actually alllow you to have access to true, military grade firepower.

The arsenal idea makes some sense to me... but will the people who conventionally possess these arms now really trust others to control access to the arsenal?

[tsukiji]

That argument has come up before and it is flawed in many ways. First, the assumption is that the men and women in the military would all choose to follow the dictator that is telling them to subdue their own people. I would hope, and expect based on the members of military I know, that this would not happen. If we don't believe this, then it's over for us and we might as well give up. The Constitution is dead and we have no more power.

Second, I've had people say that it would be pointless to go against our military since they are so powerful and would squash us. I say to them, ask the dictators in the Middle East, or even our own military members that were in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, how an armed population with mediocre weapons and ingenuity can cause trouble for a military power.

Third, I've actually had people say that we should abolish the 2nd Amendment because it is no longer necessary. Assuming that this is true, it ignores the fact that we have reached a point where we believe it is not necessary BECAUSE of it. If we did not have the rights provided us in the Constitution, and a people that have taken it to heart to protect it and not let it get ripped up, we probably would have been disarmed a long time ago and would already have a dictatorial government by now. My guess is that the Civil War is where our freedom experiment would have ended.

So, regardless of how relevant we think it is, the Constitution and core "safety against the Government" Amendments must remain in place to protect from the unknown future more than to protect from what we perceive as the current relevance.

I didn't even think that article warranted a response and acknowledgement. Fail in so many ways.

[tsukiji]

I wasn't really thinking anything specific. Just general concepts. I was just saying that you don't need large capacity clips or an AR to protect yourself. So arguing for self-protection is not enough of a reason to keep so-called "assault weapons". An old-fashioned .44 revolver works pretty well at stopping an intruder.

Responding to the handgun related comments, I guess the concerns I have here are (of which you are probably familiar):
1) "an intruder" -- what if there are multiple?
2) Handgun calibers are not the one shot stoppers the media would like us to believe. They don't blow you backward through windows. In fact, unless you hit something that immediately stops the body from mechanically functionally, the generally accepted practice is to shoot until the threat stops. You don't stop at a single shot.
3) what about when you're not a point blank range. And even then, if you're moving to cover and the threat is moving, it's challenging to make effective shots. This gets increasingly difficult with small increases in distance and as the threat moves unpredictably. And what if this is compounded by multiple threats from different directions? And what if your shooting hand is injured and you're shooting weak hand? And what if ......

I still strongly maintain the opinion that a law abiding citizen should retain the right to be:
1) better armed than a threat
2) better stocked than a threat.
3) prepared for the worst, hoping for the best

And as previously posted, rifles do have a very appropriate need in personal defensive situations. These situations may differ from what you're envisioning as likely scenarios for you, but they are viable and real for others.

[mando]

I didn't even think that article warranted a response and acknowledgement. Fail in so many ways.

I'd really want to know why you think so. How do you see yourself defending against tyranny? Help me visualize how this might play out?

[Carl G]

Regarding the need for the firepower during times of mass chaos in society, we would still have access to those weapons from the controlled arsenal. It just wouldn't be in your house. That's why I think this is a better plan. If we don't do something like this, your ability to have powerful weapons will slowly be taken away. It's coming. Most people already fail to realize the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Once you ignore that purpose, it becomes really hard to argue your rights to kill a deer with an AR or the need to own a couple dozen weapons. At least focusing on the "regulated militia" aspect, may actually alllow you to have access to true, military grade firepower.

I was thinking about an armoury approach from a business point of view, kind of an Easy Storage for Guns. My problem with a forced approach to this is that a government that wants to take control knows where all the guns are. Block access to the armoury and you prevent serious armed resistance.

[SacKen]

Two quick thoughts

1) I believe you are addressing this largely from a city dweller perspective. If I'm in rural Sacramento County or in the middle of Montana I would want more and higher firepower.

2) When addressing battling thugs with guns, the problem I see is the total lack of regard for human life in many parts of society. Living here in Folsom I felt comfortable getting ride of my guns because of my children. If I lived in less desirable areas I would likely think differently. Where I live would strongly dictate what types of weapons I would want.

1) Why is that? An intruder in your home is about the same threat regardless of where you live. Why would you need more firepower living in a rural Sacramento?

2) True, to some extent. I grew-up, and my family still lives in, a neighborhood that is Crip territory. Some of my friends in Blood territory. However, the type of gun really isn't the factor. You really aren't much safer in your home because you have an AR vs having a 9mm handgun. And really, the gun in the home isn't much of a factor. Other than petty-theft break-ins, there's not much personal threat inside your home. The real threat is outside the home. Conceal & Carry is really what you need more of.

Which brings me to another point that wasn't really mentioned before. I think we need MORE conceal and carry, but make it more difficult to get. Not difficult as in you need to have a reason for a C&C, but requiring you to pass a tactical test that shows you could, if needed, draw your weapon and effectively use it without harming yourself or bystanders (within reason... since that obviously can't be guaranteed). In other words, you can effectively and safely go from holster to hitting a target in a timely manner.

[SacKen]

The arsenal idea makes some sense to me... but will the people who conventionally possess these arms now really trust others to control access to the arsenal?

I was thinking about an armoury approach from a business point of view, kind of an Easy Storage for Guns. My problem with a forced approach to this is that a government that wants to take control knows where all the guns are. Block access to the armoury and you prevent serious armed resistance.

I think this option is a last resort. It's not a matter of people choosing to do this now. It is a matter of the options being a compromise like this or even more restriction being put into place that remove the options you have now. I don't think it is too far-fetched to see things shift to have the type of restrictions I mentioned in the second group and the first group is gone entirely. People already forget about the 2nd Amendment intent. Most public gun rights arguments already focus on the second group I mentioned, with total disregard for the first group. So you could see greater restriction since the focus is on what you need for recreation and personal protection without any consideration of the "militia" aspect.

As for who controls the arsenal, that's why it would have to be a civilian group, like a gun club. It would essentially be your "buddies" and even yourself, as a group, controlling the arsenal. There are obviously issues with this, such as blocking access, but at least it is there. The other option may be that there is no access to anything because they don't exist.

[tsukiji]

1) Why is that? An intruder in your home is about the same threat regardless of where you live. Why would you need more firepower living in a rural Sacramento?

2) True, to some extent. I grew-up, and my family still lives in, a neighborhood that is Crip territory. Some of my friends in Blood territory. However, the type of gun really isn't the factor. You really aren't much safer in your home because you have an AR vs having a 9mm handgun. And really, the gun in the home isn't much of a factor. Other than petty-theft break-ins, there's not much personal threat inside your home. The real threat is outside the home. Conceal & Carry is really what you need more of.

Which brings me to another point that wasn't really mentioned before. I think we need MORE conceal and carry, but make it more difficult to get. Not difficult as in you need to have a reason for a C&C, but requiring you to pass a tactical test that shows you could, if needed, draw your weapon and effectively use it without harming yourself or bystanders (within reason... since that obviously can't be guaranteed). In other words, you can effectively and safely go from holster to hitting a target in a timely manner.

1) There are reasons but it's probably best discussed over that beer you mentioned before.

2) I'd disagree. But again, over beer is better.

Your final point -- I agree in more LTC. But including a qualification (which is actually part of the Sac County LTC process, for example) sounds nice on paper but it is a slippery slope. Who defines the qual? And at some point, for example, the governing body can make the qual so difficult that no one passes. And this ignores the fact that this puts a qualification on a natural right; the Second Amendment, again, is not a privilege. The Second Amendment is only confirming a right.

We have rights that the government should not block, and we have privileges. Putting quals on rights makes them privileges. Consider a different perspective: how would the government qualify a person on their unalienable right to Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness? If you qualify one right, you open the door to subject qualification to all rights.

[SacKen]

Responding to the handgun related comments, I guess the concerns I have here are (of which you are probably familiar):
1) "an intruder" -- what if there are multiple?
2) Handgun calibers are not the one shot stoppers the media would like us to believe. They don't blow you backward through windows. In fact, unless you hit something that immediately stops the body from mechanically functionally, the generally accepted practice is to shoot until the threat stops. You don't stop at a single shot.
3) what about when you're not a point blank range. And even then, if you're moving to cover and the threat is moving, it's challenging to make effective shots. This gets increasingly difficult with small increases in distance and as the threat moves unpredictably. And what if this is compounded by multiple threats from different directions? And what if your shooting hand is injured and you're shooting weak hand? And what if ......

I still strongly maintain the opinion that a law abiding citizen should retain the right to be:
1) better armed than a threat
2) better stocked than a threat.
3) prepared for the worst, hoping for the best

And as previously posted, rifles do have a very appropriate need in personal defensive situations. These situations may differ from what you're envisioning as likely scenarios for you, but they are viable and real for others.

This sounds more like what you see in the movies and TV. In real life, how often are there multiple threats in an environment where you would have your high powered option available? There's not roving bands of people bursting into homes. You get large groups in smash & grab store robberies or multiple "bad guys" in a mob type environment in a public location. Having an arsenal at home really won't help either situation.

As for a single shot being effective, I have to disagree. Unlike the movies, people don't keep coming at you after getting shot. I've known people who have been shot and they laugh at movies where the person just continues on like nothing happened. I do concede that some drugs can change that reaction and a shot that physically disables is necessary to stop them. Which goes back to the shotgun being the best choice for novices.

[tsukiji]

This sounds more like what you see in the movies and TV. In real life, how often are there multiple threats in an environment where you would have your high powered option available? There's not roving bands of people bursting into homes. You get large groups in smash & grab store robberies or multiple "bad guys" in a mob type environment in a public location. Having an arsenal at home really won't help either situation.

As for a single shot being effective, I have to disagree. Unlike the movies, people don't keep coming at you after getting shot. I've known people who have been shot and they laugh at movies where the person just continues on like nothing happened. I do concede that some drugs can change that reaction and a shot that physically disables is necessary to stop them. Which goes back to the shotgun being the best choice for novices.

I guess there are differences in perspectives. One can look to the past and decide what is necessary. Or one could consider the future and decide what is necessary.

In either case, it doesn't matter. This doesn't change the fact that we as a people have certain rights. We have people who would take away or limit those rights. We have people who would give up those rights. And we have people that believe in those rights. Statistics and normal distributions. I'll not debate your points. We just fall into different parts of the curve.

[SacKen]

...
Your final point -- I agree in more LTC. But including a qualification (which is actually part of the Sac County LTC process, for example) sounds nice on paper but it is a slippery slope. Who defines the qual? And at some point, for example, the governing body can make the qual so difficult that no one passes. And this ignores the fact that this puts a qualification on a natural right; the Second Amendment, again, is not a privilege. The Second Amendment is only confirming a right.

We have rights that the government should not block, and we have privileges. Putting quals on rights makes them privileges. Consider a different perspective: how would the government qualify a person on their unalienable right to Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness? If you qualify one right, you open the door to subject qualification to all rights.

I fully agree with your sentiment. But they already limit the ability to carry and have qualifications. That slope already exists and is a pretty steep one. That's why I think you eliminate most (all) of the other requirements and increase the one that matters and eliminates the "public safety" argument against C&C... do you have the skill set to use the weapon if needed (remembering that you've already passed the basic "are you mentally sound" checks to get a gun in the first place). If not, you shouldn't carry one for public safety reasons... which is the argument that has already won the day over those basic rights.

Keep in mind that this isn't an argument from scratch where we have full gun rights and are arguing to keep them. We've already lost many of these rights. I'm entertaining the idea that, through some compromise, we could have additional checks and balances to get those rights back for the average citizen.