Egypt should be a lesson to "some ardent gun enthusiasts" in our country...

[Silent3]

..that the Second Amendment (especially their particular take on the amendment which disregards the phrase "well-regulated militia") is hardly the only guarantee of freedom from oppression.

Insistent peaceful protest has achieved results far better than any right-wing fantasy of armed revolt, a fantasy in which the people must have the right to own the deadliest of weapons, lest their lack of fully automatic machine guns and their lack of 31-bullet clips puts them at too big a disadvantage to overthrow the government.

Not that I expect this message to actually sink in.

In the only version of a fight for freedom the some "ardent gun enthusiasts" understand, rather than the death of hundreds of Egyptians, more the regrettable enough, there would have been the death of tens of thousands. For the survivors of such a conflict the economic hardships afterward would have been even worse than the hardships that drove them to revolt in the first place.

While the future of Egypt going forward is hardly certain, the Egyptians are in far, far better place right now to create a positive future than a major armed conflict would have produced.

PS: This post is NOT a post AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT. It is a post against EXCESSIVE, INFLEXIBLE, and UNREASONABLE interpretations of that amendment that treat every attempt to regulate gun ownership and ammunition, no matter how limited and reasonable, as a terrible and hideous threat to the very foundations of freedom.

[villager]

1. Dutifully unrecc'd by the NRA-ophiles here, for whom the OP does not, cannnot, compute

n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

41. I'm a member of the NRA and I recommended the post. n/t.

,

[villager]

44. Well then you are truly "Atypical!" ;-)

n/t

[Euromutt]

120. Nothing of substance to contribute, as usual

It's vaguely amusing how villager is so quick to issue knee-jerk whinges about other people's supposed knee-jerk reactions.

[xchrom]

2. recommend

[Statistical]

3. Strawman. There hasn't been any "reasonable" attempts made in the last decade.

The gun control side can't propose the same tired unreasonable restrictions and then say "see they are against reasonable control".

McCarthy could have chosen a reasonable number to ban high capacity magazines like 20 but she chose 10 instead despite most STANDARD capacity magazines in the last 20 years have been 13-18 rounds. Just one example but "reasonable gun control" has lost all meaning when any piece of shit bill is passed of as "reasonable".

[Silent3]

11. So the fact that 13-18 round magazines exist...

...and have been sold for a while somehow makes it automatically unreasonable to propose a lower capacity for magazines manufactured and purchased in the future?

[Statistical]

14. What is the rational basis to ban 11 round magazines?

The burden of proof is on the govt to prove that a compelling governmental interest exists and that such interest can't be achieved by alternative means.

Just because someone wants to ban 10 round magazines doesn't make it reasonable. What exactly makes it reasonable? That you say it is reasonable?

[Silent3]

29. Any law has to balance public interest vs. private interests

...and for the most part I think a government should have to show public interest strongly overrides private interests before passing any restrictive law.

The public interest in limiting cartridge capacity is to help prevent the ease of one person unleashing a lot of mayhem all at once, like in the shootings in Arizona.

If you don't have a personal need to kill lots of people quickly, and if fantasies of citizen militias who can't overthrow an oppressive government with their own firepower unless they've got really big gun clips are just that - fantasies, then what is the overriding private interest in favor of large capacity magazines? Too much trouble to reload at the gun range?

[Statistical]

33. You haven't answered the question. What is the rational for banning 11 round magazines?

Not "large capacity" in general but specifically 11 rounds.

"then what is the overriding private interest in favor of large capacity magazines? "
Your understanding of Constitutional law is FAIL. There is no need for a compelling personal interest. The burden of proof is SOLEY on the government. Period. There could be no reason what so ever and the burden is still on the government. In challenging such a law the plaintiff need to do NOTHING except show the government failed to meet the level of Constitutional Scrutiny and win by default.

So I will ask once again. What is the compelling governmental interest to ban magazines with 11 rounds. Not 31 rounds, not 25 rounds but 11 rounds. Where is the proof by the government that this goal couldn't be achieved by a less narrow law like banning 31 rounds or 25 rounds, or even 20 rounds.

If you can't answer those questions then you have no basis to claim the bill is "reasonable". It is not only unreasonable it is potentially Unconstitutional.

[Silent3]

46. Why is voting age 18 rather than 17 or 19 and 3/4?

If you're going to draw a line at some point, you have to pick a point, even if the exact value is somewhat arbitrary. 10 seems like a good round number to me for a gun owner defending his home against an intruder, with a generous margin for error if he/she has pretty sloppy aim.

"There is no need for a compelling personal interest."

Certainly there is. In any area of the law where there isn't a specific constitutional guarantee of freedom (and we obviously disagree with the full range of freedom conferred by the Second Amendment), the government represents the collective will of the people. The majority of people certainly have a right to tell the minority of people what they can or cannot do, so long as the majority doesn't encroach on basic liberties like freedom of expression (even that isn't absolute, as laws against slander and libel prove), association, assembly, etc.

In my opinion, the "right" to own a 31-round clip isn't a basic and fundamental right. I certainly believe that government regulations of any sort, even when they don't intrude upon fundamental rights, should have to meet some burden of compelling state interest, but that outside of basic fundamental rights the private citizen also has some obligation to "prove" (I say "prove" in scare quotes because no one on any side of this is hardly ever likely to reach anything like mathematical or scientific levels of proof, just verbal arguments of arguably better or worse weight) his or her own private interests outweigh those of the public. If private interests always outweighed public interests until completely unassailable ("bulletproof" if you'll pardon the pun) 100% proof of the government position is achieved, democratic government would be impossible.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

86. Because that was the age men could drafted into the army.

It was thought if you could be drafted you should be able to vote. I assume the military conducted studies to arrive at 18 as an age where most draftees of that age were of mature sound mind and optimum physical ability to send off to war. You don't want a bunch of immature weak children running around fighting your battles. For males anyways, the difference between the average 18 yr old and 16 yr old is huge.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. From what I've read hi-cap magazines are unwieldy and near-impossible to conceal

Surely those weigh against those trying to create mayhem.

Yet, people do live in gang-infested areas.

I would also argue that even if a strictly sports shooter wants a hi-cap magazine they should have every right. Just like I think people who drink beer should be allowed to buy 24-can cases even if all they can "reasonably" drink is 3 or 4.

I'm also not sure the idea of citizen militia is powerless against modern militaries; witness, numerous guerrilla wars around the world. That is not to suggest those guerrillas are also saints or that the US military is dangerous to common Americans; I'm just saying the point may not be as valid as imagined.

[YllwFvr]

62. low cap mags didnt hinder other shooters

how would this save even one persons life? Jared may have done more damage with magazines that didnt jam and break like his did.

[Hoopla Phil]

76. Um, not exactly.

Again from Heller.

"But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."

This is the same logic that got us such things as "the exclusionary rule" and the "Miranda warning"



I just have to ask, Have you read Heller?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. No the fact that magazine capacity is irrelevant practically means you should quite harping on it

[Hoopla Phil]

26. Correct, such a ban is unreasonable and contrary to the 2A and the Heller finding.

Some selected quotes from Heller that may apply to a magazine ban.



"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time”


"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—
in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster."

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."


"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding."


"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

[Silent3]

32. That says nothing about magazine capacities.

If the argument is that citizens must be "capable of military service", does this means there should be no legal distinctions at all between private and military armaments, that unless we let citizens have private nukes we're in violation of the Second Amendment?

[Statistical]

34. One can't bear a nuke. The term "bearing arms" has a specific meaning.

Had you actually read Heller you would have been informed.

[Hoopla Phil]

42. This case did not address nukes and you are moving the goal posts.

Yes it does as the magazine is an integral part of the firearm and included in the definition of "arms".

"does this means there should be no legal distinctions at all between private and military armaments" The Heller finding, while stopping short of nullifying the Huges amendment, did mention the M-16 specifically. So yes, if the militia is called up they need to report with arms (magazines included) of like and kind (the definition of "well regulated" within the scope of the 2A) as is issued to current military service personnel.

Please keep in mind that the 2A protects "arms" not ordnance.

[Hoopla Phil]

77. Waiting on your return to this sub thread.

[safeinOhio]

90. Did you read Citizens United v. FEC

Same court you take for gospel.

[Hoopla Phil]

103. Yes I did. I take the Bill of Rights as gospel. And Heller as a correct interpretation

that is well cited.

I notice that you do not address trying to square a magazine ban with the finding and reasoning in Heller but take some kind of shot at a court. Not sure if you are either supporting or critisizing it either. I don't care about clarification on that but would consider reading your thoughts on how a magazine ban will stack up against the 2A and Heller.

Some selected quotes from Heller that may apply to a magazine ban.



"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time”


"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—
in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster."

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."


"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding."


"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

The 2A is there to protect a persons ability to defend

them self

their family

their community

their country.


And when called up they are supposed to show up ready to fight a battle with weapons that are of like and kind (magazines included) as currently issued to today's service personnel.

[safeinOhio]

112. I hope you revere Jefferson more than Scalia

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and of... ordering its own affairs . . . Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before." ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1816

[beevul]

114. Are you cognizant of what Jefferson is saying there?

Are you cognizant of what Jefferson is saying there?

Nobody here is claiming the constitution is beyond amendment.


Most of us simply say that creative interpretation I.E. the "collective rights interpretation" and such similar efforts, are not in any way shape size or form the same thing as actually "amending" the constitution.

If you actually want to amend the constitution - and I'm not saying that you do want to - then direct your efforts accordingly.

[Hoopla Phil]

115. I'm aware of that and the amendment process. If you do not like it then

amend it. So I must restate, again.

I notice that you do not address trying to square a magazine ban with the finding and reasoning in Heller but take some kind of shot at a court. Not sure if you are either supporting or critisizing it either. I don't care about clarification on that but would consider reading your thoughts on how a magazine ban will stack up against the 2A and Heller.

Some selected quotes from Heller that may apply to a magazine ban.



"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time”


"The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—
in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster."

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."


"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding."


"We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment
is outmoded in a society where our standing army is
the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces
provide personal security, and where gun violence is a
serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is
not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to
pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

The 2A is there to protect a persons ability to defend

them self

their family

their community

their country.


And when called up they are supposed to show up ready to fight a battle with weapons that are of like and kind (magazines included) as currently issued to today's service personnel.

[benEzra]

58. By "for a while" you mean since 1861 for civilian rifles and the early 1900's for handguns.

I would take you more seriously if you were proposing a 20-round upper bound for handguns, and 31 for civilian rifles, rather than trying to throw us back into the mid-19th century.

Trying to turn the clock back to 1860 on rifles and 1930 for handguns is prima facie unreasonable, as is banning and/or confiscating a quarter-billion magazines owned by ~40 million lawful citizens. A whole lot of us choose to trade lower power for more ammunition in the magazine, and that is not an unreasonable choice.

IMO magazine capacity bans are absolutely worthless from a violence prevention standpoint. They are very, very good at harassing lawful users, though.

[Codeine]

4. Why did you restart a locked thread? nt

[Silent3]

8. It was not locked for the subject matter...

...but for the use of a phrase that combined a word for a particular type of weapon with a word for a dry fruit consisting of an edible kernel or meat enclosed in a woody or leathery shell.

The apparently offensive term has been removed.

[Codeine]

9. Ah, fair enough. nt

[quinnox]

5. kicked and recommended

"Gun nuts" is prohibited now? Wow, news to me.

[hlthe2b]

6. The success of non-violent protest....

is the antithesis to the premise that only more and more guns can protect from tyrany. K&R

[lawodevolution]

71. 300 people dead, explain how that is not violent

[hlthe2b]

85. Are you really that obtuse? If so, no explanation would matter.

Good God... Try googling nonviolent protest movements, maybe read just a bit about MLK and Gandhi. If you don't understand how the democratic revolution was launched with nonviolent methods, then there is little anyone can say. I will feel great sadness for you, if so.

[Euromutt]

133. Gandhi and MLK had the advantage of operating under democracies

The British and American governments of the time were subject to their electorates, which contained people sympathetic to the causes of Indian independence and African-American civil rights. Both Gandhi and King made a tactical decision--not a principled one--to eschew violence so as not to alienate or marginalize these sympathizers.

Non-violent campaigns don't have a very good track record against regimes that aren't democratic to at least some extent.

[ileus]

7. It's post Mubarak they'll realize they need the right to SD arms.

[Codeine]

10. I imagine all the guns in the hands of the military may have played

a role as well.

[Silent3]

20. No disagreement there. But that's not private ownership.

If an armed revolt ever became necessary in the US to overthrow a tyrannical government (you know, the kind of government that dares to put higher taxes on millionaires and provide health care for all of it's citizens!) success would be entirely dependent on defection of police and military units to the anti-government side of the conflict.

How much firepower was in purely civilian hands beforehand would have little or nothing to do with the eventual outcome of that kind of conflict, hence it is a fairly ridiculous argument when the NRA treats every proposal for gun control as if it was a fundamental assault on ALL freedoms, not just weapons ownership freedoms.

[Statistical]

35. Even IF you are right the futility of the 2A doesn't negate the 2A.

People have a Constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms, no matter how futile (in your opinion) that right might be.

[safeinOhio]

91. Subject to change as time passes

according to Jefferson


"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did beyond amendment. . . . Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable of taking care of itself, and of... ordering its own affairs . . . Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before." ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1816


but what would he know about a Constitution?

[Hoopla Phil]

124. Yes, there is an amendment process.

Till then, "what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." Nor any right held by the American people.

[tridim]

12. Guns are tools of the weak. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Indeed they are, to protect themselves from the predators in society

[Atypical Liberal]

43. Touche.

[tridim]

49. "Weak" defines more than just muscle. Get it?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

52. It depends on context...my statement is correct as it stands

[Hoopla Phil]

28. You're finally starting to come around there aren't ya.

They are used to defend against unlawful deadly force and are very affective in that capacity.

[tridim]

50. Weak minds, not just weak muscles.

[Hoopla Phil]

57. And there I was thinking you had opened up you mind to more forward thinking.

Oh Well.

[tridim]

63. Nothing closes minds more than guns and bombs.

Don't believe me? Just look at 2000-2008, the Bush/Cheney administration.

Need another example? The armed Teabaggers.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

66. I have always wondered how the anti gunners felt about those unable to protect themselves

[Statistical]

37. Exactly. Guns defeat the concept of "might makes right".

A young athletic violent criminal can be defeated by an older WEAKER victim via the effective use of lethal self defense.

[DrDan]

13. rec

[toddwv]

15. The very thought had crossed my mind.

I was pondering reasons why the right would try to demonize the events in Egypt. There are a few legitimate reasons as to why true proponents of democracy would be a bit worried but the end result is that the people must want democracy, it can't be forced upon them. The people in Egypt want the political freedom but there are factions who will work against them.

[Kingofalldems]

16. K and R for the gungeon

[Riftaxe]

18. I see what your getting at here, through

relatively non-violent means, the Egyptian people have gone from being under control of their military to still being under control of their military...but with the option of selecting a new "pre-approved of course" face?

[Hoopla Phil]

21. Why is it being reported that the military had a lot to do with this "decision" to leave?

And the last time I checked the military has lots of guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. That sounds "reasonable" to me.

[safeinOhio]

94. 2 things about that.

1. the military is made up of conscripts.

2. one million in the military against 183 million citizens.

When a cause is great enough for the majority to rebel, there are not enough guns to stop it. Then you could have a state like Somalia with easy access to guns and a violent minority made up of "militias" can rule the roost. That may be the problem with modern military weapons, only the rich and crooked can afford the best. Drugs and high jackers qualify. Egypt proves the power of the people and the WWW are more potent than crooked thug rulers.

[Hoopla Phil]

107. About your 2 things.

1. So what?

2. It was not one million in the military against 183 million citizens. It was the military (with their guns)supporting the 183 million citizens and telling Mubarak to get out.

With regard to the rest - you might want to get started on that repeal of the 2A cause as SCOTUS said.
"what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." nor any other right I would add.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. Calling something reasonable doesn't make it so.

It's just a label.

[petronius]

24. There are few if any people who believe that firearms are the "only" guarantee

of anything, the only path to anything, or the most desirable path to anything. There are also few if any people who oppose every firearms-related regulation. You've certainly delivered a stinging rebuke to your hypothetical "some", but given the near-imaginary nature of your target, where's the actual lesson?

[Silent3]

55. The NRA and the gun lobby are certainly not hypothetical

They might not represent the majority of the country, or even the majority of the NRA's membership in some cases, but these are real and quite influential people who are out there in the real world, representing extreme views, and still scaring off Congress from the slightest action.

[X_Digger]

82. Please cite some of these 'exteme views'. (with citations, please.) n/t

[safeinOhio]

96. Barack Obama’s 10 Point Plan to “Change” The Second Amendment

WWW.NRAILA.ORG/obama

[X_Digger]

97. I said 'extreme'..

That's hyperbole, based on fact for the most part.

See the footnotes at the bottom.

[safeinOhio]

104. Extreme hyperbole.

[petronius]

The stereotypical "gun enthusiast" you concocted in the OP doesn't even describe the NRA

You're hearing what you want to hear, and drawing the lesson you want to draw. Egypt shows that peaceful protest can bring about change, which is something everyone (with perhaps the most infinitesimal exceptions) already knew. But there's no deeper lesson in the way you claim...

[Recursion]

25. Maybe we wouldn't want a military coup like Egypt just had?

When the populace is unarmed that's the only option.

[Silent3]

53. We'd need police and military units to defect too...

...in order to win a conflict against the US government if peaceful means were insufficient. There's no way that the difference between the degree of firepower in the hands of private citizens alone, with or without gun regulation of the typical sort often proposed and often fought against tooth-and-nail by the NRA, would make the difference between victory and defeat.

If we tried to overthrow the US government, peaceful protest didn't work, and the police and military stayed firmly on the government's side, the only types of resistance that would matter would be massive strikes, infrastructure sabotage, and guerrilla attacks of the sort that we'd somehow manage to pull together the necessary equipment for anyway, regardless of whether people had to undergo background checks, or couldn't buy 31-bullet clips, before the conflict broke out.

[slackmaster]

27. We Democratic gun owners get it. You are preaching to the choir.

Nobody on DU seriously embraces the right-wing wet dream of an armed popular uprising.

[Silent3]

48. I wouldn't be so certain of that...

...given some of the responses in this thread. I think most DUers do get it, but not all of them.

[slackmaster]

54. If you're determined enough to see something, you'll find it whether it's really there or not

Typical.

[Silent3]

56. See the posts in this very thread...

..., by fellow DUers, trying to argue that limiting gun clips to 10 rounds would somehow violate the most fundamental principles of freedom.

[slackmaster]

59. I've read every reply. Every post opposing capacity limits is based on lack of a rational reason...

...to do so, not because such a limit would hamper the ability of gun owners to oust the government.

BTW, I oppose magazine capacity limits because I see no rational reason to do so. I'm OK with limits on magazine size for specific purposes such as hunting.

[Hoopla Phil]

60. You cannot refute that a magazine ban would violate the 2A or the Heller finding.

The 2A is there to protect a persons ability to defend

them self

their family

their community

their country.


And when called up they are supposed to show up ready to fight a battle with weapons that are of like and kind (magazines included) as currently issued to today's service personnel.

[Silent3]

89. The idea that in this day and age that we need a population...

...sufficiently armed so they can be assembled into battle-ready units who arrive with their own military-grade weaponry is absurd. I don't give a damn what the "Heller finding" says about it or not. It's clearly not an interpretation of the Second Amendment that I agree with.

[Hoopla Phil]

106. You didn't read all those quotes I gave you did you? You really should,

and you should read the whole documents along with the citations. It is very informative with lots of info from the people that wrote our Bill of Rights and what they meant.

That reason for the 2A may be absurd in your opinion but that does not make it so. It is the clear meaning of what the 2A intended and if you read the citations in Heller you will see why.

Now if you want to be intellectually honest about it I believe what you are advocating is a repeal of the 2A. Because as SCOTUS said "what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." Nor is it their role to pronounce ANY right extinct.

So, how again do you see a magazine ban passing constitutional muster?

[The abyss]

30. Rather like comparing apples to oranges

Sigh! I guess I'll add my 2 cents worth (again) on this thread

Neither country shares much with either the current situation nor the dim past.

The US was born out of a violent revolution that went on for years. Easy access to arms, local arms production were primary aids. Violent revolutionaries were not likely to give up those arms to a newly formed government no matter what was being promised.

That type of individual was bred out of the system by the late 19th century. Now days most just think the 2nd was written for "hunting" or "personal protection".

The Federalist papers and the Anti-Federalist papers still remain the best information on just why the 2nd was written.


I may not agree with the op but I do think this topic needs to be here, in the clear on DU

[spin]

31. Egypt is in the first stages of a major change in their government

and not all revolutions are the same.

Reading about the type of oppression that they have suffered through for 30 years led me to think that had they been as well armed as Americans, they would have overthrown their government years ago.

As far as regulating gun ownership and ammunition, many gun owners do approve of many of the laws we currently have and consider them reasonable. Wat we disagree with is the attempt to implement "feel good" laws which do nothing to address the problem of gun violence but instead target honest gun owners who are not the problem for harassment.

Exactly what limited and reasonable laws do you favor?

[Silent3]

36. Better enforcement of background checks...

...limits on firing rate and capacity, educational requirements for gun owners, penalties for reckless handling and storage of guns.

[slackmaster]

39. What do you mean by "firing rate"?

FYI, fully automatic firearms have been strictly regulated since 1934, along with several other kinds of weapons.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/

[Hoopla Phil]

45. I'm all in favor of "educational requirements" for voters too.

See how that works.

[The abyss]

47. The 2nd was written as a guarantee for people like samuel whittemore

Ol' Sam and the rest of the survivors would never have supported anything less.

Those people trusted no government in any form - hence the 2nd was written.

Really too bad that the denizens of the US have lost so much of that original Independence.

[safeinOhio]

98. I like the other Ol' Sam

"In monarchy the crime of treason may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death"
Samuel Adams

either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.

Samuel Adams, essay in The Public Advertiser, Circa 1749

[Hoopla Phil]

128. Then there's good ol Thomas Jefferson.

You know, that crazy guy that wrote the Declaration of Independence.

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press."

[benEzra]

61. All civilian guns fire one and only one shot when the trigger is pulled

The vast majority reload the chamber after each shot, which I assume is what you are proposing to outlaw?

[guitar man]

68. yep

I've noticed "semi automatic" as a prefix to "high capacity" in the anti-gunner's pejorative jargon a lot lately. It used to be just "automatic" but they've been busted on their bullshit about somebody "spraying automatic gunfire" when the weapon as actually a semi so many times that they've finally changed it.

[Silent3]

88. Everyone seems to be assuming...

...that when I'm asked "what kind of regulation do you support?" that I have to answer with only new regulation. I'm stating the principles of regulation I support, whether they are currently in effect or not.

My comment about firing rate was about automatic and semiautomatic weapons. There are people, maybe not a majority of gun aficionados, but they're still out there, who'd probably even like to see those existing limits overturned.

[guitar man]

110. I'm fine with the limits where they are

We currently have 22,000+ federal,state and local laws regarding guns and gun ownership in this country, before we go adding more I think we should make sure the laws already on the books are being enforced.

I also want to see a large reduction in gun violence but I don't think grabbing and restricting more hardware is the answer. I think a huge step would be mandatory sentencing and ending plea bargain deals for violent firearm offenders. If we have to let non violent pot smokers out of jail to make it happen, so be it.

And while we are at it, just end the damned failed "war on drugs" already. It causes many gun deaths and is just a big dismal failure. If we end the war on drugs and then take a look at the stats a year later, I think we might be surprised.

[benEzra]

137. One and only one shot per trigger pull *is* semiautomatic.

To use a familiar analogy, an office stapler is semiautomatic (one staple at a time); a sewing machine is automatic (press the pedal once and it lays down multiple stitches).

The vast majority of civilian guns sold annually in the United States are semiautomatic, and were what I was describing in my prior post. The reason I didn't use the term is that the media often uses "semiautomatic" in a way that implies it is something other than an ordinary, one-shot-per-trigger-pull civilian gun.

Semiautomatics are currently subject to exactly the same regulations as any other civilian gun, so if you are speaking of restricting semiautos, then those would be new bans.

As to the existing 76-year-old restrictions on automatic weapons---which are a 10-year Federal felony to possess outside of government/military use or their supply chain---I am not aware of any effort at all to repeal the National Firearms Act. I think a lot of people would be OK with reopening the NFA registry, though, since it makes little sense to regulate automatic small arms differently than 105mm howitzers, 500lb bombs, or shoulder fired rocket launchers.

[guitar man]

64. "limits on firing rate" ?

Clarify please. Fully automatic weapons are very heavily restricted, to the point where they are very rare in relation to the total number of arms owned by the public.

That leaves semi automatic, lever action, bolt action, pump action and single and double action revolvers, all of which have "firing rates" that depend on how fast the human holding them can operate them.

How do we set limits on human capability?

[YllwFvr]

74. what type of storage requirements do you support?

[spin]

84. You and I are not that far apart ...

I have no problems with requiring gun owners to be educated in firearm safety and legal firearm use. I have advocated a firearms card that would be presented when buying a firearm or ammunition that would be similar to a scuba diving certification card. I have a concealed weapons permit and had to meet a training requirement. I believe that firearms safety training should be offered by high schools as a mandatory course as should first aid.

I believe that many states have penalties for reckless handling of firearms and requirements for storage if children could possibly access the weapons.

The firing rate of a semi-auto weapon is largely dependent on how fast an individual can pull the trigger as the weapon fires once for each time the trigger is pulled. Fully automatic firearms can fire at very rapid rate, but they are already heavily regulated and have been since 1934.

The National Firearms Act

By the 1920s lightweight fully-automatic firearms were available for sale to the general public. Private ownership of fully-automatic firearms resulted in no particular crime problem, but became an issue after the prohibition of liquor in 1919 by the 18th Amendment, (repealed in 1933 by the 21st Amendment). Prohibition was followed by an increase in organized crime, which anti-gun politicians over-estimated to involve the use of submachineguns, especially the Thompson .45 caliber, nicknamed the "Tommy Gun." Following passage of restrictions on fully-automatic firearms in several states, the administration of the newly-elected president, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, launched a campaign for a federal restriction. In a style of language copied by President Clinton in his war against semi-automatic firearms, President Roosevelt claimed in 1934 that "Federal men are constantly facing machine-gun fire in the pursuit of gangsters."5 The result of FDR's campaign was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which to this day requires that before a private citizen may take possession of a fully-automatic firearm he must pay a $200 tax to the Internal Revenue Service and be approved by the Treasury Department to own the firearm, which is registered to the owner with the federal government.6

***snip***

The Hughes Amendment

In 1986, to reaffirm Congress's intent in passing the GCA and prevent improper law enforcement by BATF, Congress approved the Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA).7 Near the end of debate on the measure, late at night with most members of the House of Representatives absent, Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) introduced an amendment related to fully-automatic firearms. Despite an apparent defeat of the amendment by voice vote, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding over the proceedings, declared the amendment approved. Hughes and Rangel were longtime "gun control" supporters.

BATF interpreted the amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986. The effect of the interpretation has been to "freeze" the number of privately owned fully-automatic firearms at roughly 150,000, an exact figure being unavailable due to privacy protection requirements that apply to tax-based laws such as the National Firearms Act. The crime-fighting utility of the 1986 "freeze" was questionable, since no legal, civilian-owned fully-automatic firearm had been used to commit a violent crime. BATF's director at the time, Stephen Higgins, had testified before Congress in 1986 that the misuse of legally-owned fully-automatic firearms was "so minimal as not to be considered a law enforcement problem." Farmer v. Higgins
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=130

Many modern pistols have a magazine capacity above 10 rounds. For example a Glock 19 has a standard magazine that holds 15 rounds, but magazines that extend beyond the frame can be installed and these can hold 17, 19 and 33 rounds. The more rounds a magazine holds, the more likely the possibility of a misfeed of a round causing the gun to jam. History shows that a massacre can be accomplished without a high capacity or extended magazine. Magazines can be changed quickly with a little practice. Most people can easily swap out a magazine in two or three seconds, an expert can accomplish a magazine change in on second or less.

There are literally millions of h-cap and extended magazines in the hands of the public right now and the last time a limit was placed on magazine capacity, the manufactures went to 24/7 production to turn out a large quantity of these magazines before the date where production had to stop. These magazines sold like hotcakes for a high price and probably another such ban would have the same results.

Many but not all gun owners will agree with me. We too want to see unnecessary gun violence decrease. Criminals and the seriously mentally insane individuals who decide to commit mass murder paint us in an extremely bad light and encourage those who would pass draconian gun laws in an attempt to disarm honest and responsible gun owners.

We are often accused of opposing every "reasonable" gun law, but if you examine the issue carefully, we often oppose those laws which serve no purpose but to make some people feel good.

If you have ideas which might work to reduce gun violence, accidents or gun massacres why not simply post them here and read the replies with an open mind. We may be able to show why some ideas will fail as experienced shooters have a lot of knowledge about the subject.

[Atypical Liberal]

40. I have been waiting to post the same thing.

As many of you know, I'm an ardent supporter of the 2nd amendment. I believe it was built into our Constitution as the ultimate "reset switch", making sure that the people always had the means of violent revolution.

At least three times now in modern history we have seen relatively non-violent revolution, the latest being Egypt.

I have wondered, "Why is this?" And I think I know at least part of the answer. It may very well be in this day of modern and instant communications that it is no longer possible for oppression to go unnoticed by the world. There will probably never be another Hiroshima or Nagasaki or Dresden. Or even an Omaha Beach. Not because it may not be necessary or even right to do it, but because the aftermath of such an attack would be instantly and globally publicized. Instant global shame would await.

When people rise up in revolt today, governments will have a much, much harder time suppressing it, and suppressing world notice. I imagine the Chinese are quite worried by what they have seen in the last three weeks. If the Internet and cell phone technology of today existed in 1989 Tienamen Square might have had an entirely different outcome.

So it gives me great hope for humanity. What it says is that when we as a people are confronted with violence and oppression, we are ashamed of it. And those who see it are eager to support its defeat, and those who perpetrate it are exposed by the harsh global spotlight for what they are.

This is potentially a great, great advancement of the state of humanity. What it says is that the lack of secrecy, which we often bemoan as a loss of privacy, means that it is harder and harder to keep injustice hidden from the world.

This said, I'm not sure it is ever wise to give up the tools of the ultimate last resort. In this case, it seems, possibly, that the Egyptian Army was on the side of the people. If they had been on the side of the government, things could have been very different. And in fact, it remains to be seen just how cooperative their military will be with reform.

Peaceful revolution should always be the preferred course of action. But people should be prepared in case it fails.

[HankyDubs]

51. yeah don't expect

the message to sink in here.

"Insistent peaceful protest has achieved results far better than any right-wing fantasy of armed revolt, a fantasy in which the people must have the right to own the deadliest of weapons, lest their lack of fully automatic machine guns and their lack of 31-bullet clips puts them at too big a disadvantage to overthrow the government."

Certainly true. Guns do not protect freedoms.

[lawodevolution]

70. 300 people dead in Egypt thanks to mubaraks gun control

Nothing to celebrate. Well have to wait and see who is the next dictator

[marybourg]

73. How many would have been dead in our country when the

"well armed militia" met the undercover thugs? Or if the Egyptian protesters had pulled out their AK-47s instead of rocks. To my mind this revolution demolished any argument for a populace to be armed beyond hunting rifles.

[lawodevolution]

80. yet you ignore the protests in yemen, the second most armed civilian

population on earth that had the same type of protests over the same time period and without international pressure on their government got their president to promise not to go for reelection and there were no deaths. Armed revolution would be necessary to go against a very strong oppressive government, but the government of egypt was dependent on foreign powers.

[YllwFvr]

78. certainly didnt with the birth of our country

[lawodevolution]

65. Again this crap is posted. There was plenty of violence in Egypt, what about Yemen where the people

Accomplished the same thing with a fraction of the protesters and no deaths so far. They own a lot of guns. The protesters didn't get Mubarak to step down, it was the pressure from the international community

[HankyDubs]

67. again your crap is posted

I asked you when you first posted this crap, WHERE WERE THE GUNS in the Yemeni protests? Non-violence wins, gun violence loses.

The violence in Egypt was initiated by pro-Mubarak forces, but the pro-democracy folks won because for the most part they resisted provocations and remained peaceful.

[lawodevolution]

69. You will never learn, that's ok I'll explain it again and again for you

I didn't make it out there to do a survey on how many guns were there but Yemen has the second largest rate of civilian gun ownership on earth, so I would guess there were many guns at both the anti and pro government protests, and this is why neither side tried to force themselves on the other, due to the possibility that the other side was armed.

The way gun control works is it gives the government control of who owns the guns, in Egypt Mubarak decided who gets to own guns, so it is no surprise the only people with guns were pro Mubarak and while y'all are proud of what happened in Egypt you should be ashamed of the massive violence that occurred there.

Egypt protests: 300 dead
Yemen protests: zero dead

[HankyDubs]

108. still refusing to answer

WHERE WERE THE GUNS? Now you can offer all kinds of specualtion and horsehooey, but you cannot for one instant show that Yemen is an example of people using guns to overthrow their government. This assertion is purest crap.

"you should be ashamed of the massive violence that occurred there"

Why? Considering the size of the protests, and deliberate provocations by the dictator, this level of violence is VERY low. I'm certain that Gandhi's struggle in India resulted in far more death, as did the struggle against segregation in the US.

If the Egyptians had resorted to gun violence, which is what you wanted them to do, they would have been cracked down upon and we would be looking at massive numbers of casualties.

[ZombieHorde]

72. Firearms for the purpose of defending oneself against the government has been a poor argument for

many years now. Citizens versus Marines would not be a battle, it would be a mass execution.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. I don't marines would attack Americans but

guerilla wars do exist even in the face of modern militaries.

[Hoopla Phil]

79. But why do you think it would be a head to head battle.

The colonists learned very quickly that such a strategy would not work against the British Regulars. How did that one turn out again?

The other think that you seem to forget is what sparked the first shot.

[ZombieHorde]

93. The British Regulars did not have satellites, night vision, helicopters, etc.

I don't think the comparison fits. The ME conflicts would be closer, and the body count definitely favors the US military.

[Hoopla Phil]

105. The militia does not have satellites, helicopters? maybe, night vision? most definitely.

AND they get to pick the time and place.

So, do you remember what sparked that first shot? You know, the "one heard around the world"?

[ZombieHorde]

113. If you have a point to make, just make it. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

118. I did make my point. So do you know why that "shot heard around the world" was fired? n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. And yet the Taliban do well without one single tank or airplane.

There's no doubt it would be a bloody affair, but it wouldn't be a pushover, either

[ZombieHorde]

102. The US has determined the fate of the Iraqi government and no one seems to control Afghanistan.

The Taliban has been able to hurt people, especially civilians, but that is all they can do. If the Taliban gains control of Afghanistan, it will be because the US government has decided to hand power over to them.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

87. "Civilian Firearm Owners" outnumber "Marines" 333 to 1

"Citizens" outnumber "Marines" 1250 to 1

Typical Marine combat loads don't even include enough ammo to shoot that many people in a single engagement.
What were you saying?

[ZombieHorde]

92. ...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

95. Asymtric warfare...

If you want to truly beat an oponent you have to control the population (the streets and houses). Any armed forces will control the air and sea... but the land is a whole other animal. At some point, the boots have to hit the dirt and the armed has to go to towns and cities door to door to fight. That's where The People win. There is simply not enough troops to control the population with sheer manpower. And technological force can only do so much.

And then you have to realize you are fighing Americans hiding amongst Americans. Nearly impossible to easily deiscern friends and foes unless they want you to know. Finally, American troops aren't going to go around levelling thier own cities and infrastructure. Winning a war on your own turf is pretty pointless when all you've won is a pile of rubble. Not to mention the international fallout you'd recieve for dropping bombs on your own citizens.

The fucking troops can't even beat a bunch of cavedwelling-camel-riding religious zealots.
No way does it beat millions of armed combatants.

[ZombieHorde]

111. The US military does beat the zealots, but they keep recruiting.

The US would actually have a much easier time if they were combating the civilians instead of secret terrorist cells.

And then you have to realize you are fighing Americans hiding amongst Americans...

We are not talking about the current US government, we are talking about a hypothetical US government which kills its own citizens. Otherwise the citizens would not need to protect themselves.

[The abyss]

100. LOL you crack me me up

Tell that one to the little brown guys, in a place called Vietnam.

They took home the bacon and fried it up in a pan.

[ZombieHorde]

109. The US government has more control over its cities than it did over Vietnam's jungles.

The US government also already has bases and equipment all over the US. The US government has a really nice satellite system now as well. I don't think the comparison is valid.

[The abyss]

116. OK - I can see you really don't get it.

I've got a movie to watch...

in fact I think I'll spool up the 1990 version of Night of the Living Dead.

Patricia Tallman!

[beevul]

122. DAMN YOU!!! =D

Patricia Tallman!

MMMMMMM.



Damn you.

Now you got me thinking of the other one too



My two favorite women of sci-fi.

Honorable mention goes to Claudia Black :

[The abyss]

123. Sorry about that...

but I'm sure you understand!

zombiehorde... guns.... Pat Tallman.... you know it all kinda fits :)

Now where did I put that damn movie?!?

[Hoopla Phil]

127. Trivia: What move did Patricia Tallman show her boobs in?

Yes, I know the answer. . . .

[beevul]

129. Was it...

Was it nightriders (sp)?

[Hoopla Phil]

131. Spelled

Knightriders. And yes that's it. More trivia, Ed Harris on more than one occasion has denied being in that movie. LOL

btw, I've got the DVD.

[Hoopla Phil]

125. Trivia: What move did Patricia Tallman show her boobs in?

Yes, I know the answer. . . .

[ZombieHorde]

140. You're right, I don't see disorganized mobs taking out tanks with their

firearms. I don't see the mostly untrained, unfit, and poorly armed populace defeating the US military.

[rrneck]

142. insurgencies don't have to win

They just have to not lose

[PavePusher]

119. Not that many bases or that much equipment...

when you have to control some 3.8 million square miles and 300 million people with 2 million combined military (and the Navy will do fuck-all good in Topeka), and really only 1/16th to 1/8th, at a stretch, being useable as infantry.

And that assumes the military hasn't fragmented in the Civil War.

Yeah, good luck with that.

[ZombieHorde]

139. Do we have modern examples of citizens using violence to overthrow their own government? nt

[PavePusher]

117. I can take one of those down with a handgun.

Granted, I may not live through the experience.... but it can be done.

Also, a cross-fire of RPG's or Stingers and dummy rockets... Well known techniques in the 'stans regions.

[Hoopla Phil]

126. Thermite. Just get em on the ground. And there's plenty on the inside

that will do it. Works real good to when set on top of the engine cover of a tank. Makes it all the way through the block.

[PavePusher]

134. No need for even that.

A screwdriver and a 5-lb hammer can keep one dead-lined for weeks. Months, if you know the right parts to break...

[ZombieHorde]

141. How often are military helicopters taken down by a handgun?

What if a tank rolls into town? What if ten tanks roll into town? How will you stop missiles from military ships? What will people eat? How will people stay warm? Who do you think is going to control the hospitals?

[Hoopla Phil]

143. What if, What if, What if. How about this.

You do not meet them head on. You drop a coke can of thermite on top of a tanks engine compartment while it is parked and no one is in it. The engine block will be completely destroyed.

You are making the exact same mistake that our leaders made in Vietnam. You are thinking head to head fighting that would never take place. Americans are Americans with no physical descriptions that separate them from one another. They all blend in together. A five person rifle team that fires on targets 400 - 500 yards out with one shot only and then fades away will have a devastating affect over time. Helicopters, probably not flying as they are very susceptible to sabotage (and thermite).

You are boxed in on your thought on how such engagements would take place. Believe me, there are a lot of civilians in the U.S. that have been trained to think outside that box.

[ZombieHorde]

145. "Americans are Americans with no physical descriptions that separate them from one another."

We're talking about a hypothetical US government that kills its own citizens, we are not talking about our current US government defending against militia/terrorist cells. If the US Government is being peaceful, the people don't need to defend themselves against it.

[lawodevolution]

83. the protests in egypt were some of the most violent events that we have seen in our lifetime

with 300 people killed in 3 weeks in such a small area. The fact that anti-gun activists not only dismiss this fact but continue to call the protests in egypt peaceful is disgraceful. But what is worse is yall are trying to act as if this is a point against armed civilians even though in yemen the second most heavily armed civilian population on earth had the same kind of protests with almost no violence.

it's sad yall are so blinded by your faith in the very same gun control that put all the guns in the hands of the pro Mubarak people that resulted in the violence that ended up taking 300 lives.

[safeinOhio]

101. In the American revolution

where every one had guns and the population was way smaller than the 183 million in Egypt, there were 25,000 deaths. Pretty high compare to 300.

[PavePusher]

135. Very different time spans...

And Egypt has not yet gone to all-out civil war/revolution.

Hopefully they won't have to.

[benEzra]

138. That's because British military and law enforcement fought for the government in the 1770s,

instead of more or less protecting the protesters as the military did in Egypt in 2011. A disarmed populace was successful in Cairo, but was unsuccessful in Tienanmen and would have been unsuccessful in British America.

Nor should one forget that the first shots in the American revolution were fired when British law enforcement tried to confiscate some farmers' guns in 1775. That ill-advised attempt at weapon confiscation was part of a broader effort by Thomas Gage to disarm Massachusetts colonists in an attempt to head off social unrest---an effort that was, of course, shockingly counterproductive.

In this country, unlike Egypt, citizens do widely own firearms, and new bans and/or confiscation attempts here would be profoundly destabilizing. Gun ownership is a fact here, whether or not gun control advocates choose to accept that reality.

[Hoopla Phil]

144. Do you recall what sparked that "shot heard around the world"?

[derby378]

99. You know what? I get it

Nobody can deny the power of a peaceful revolution. And I'm not saying that the only way to defend your freedom is with a gun in your hand.

There are different types of courage in this world. Standing up to a phalanx of tanks takes a quiet courage that stuns the world.

:hi:

[krispos42]

121. That's the official NRA line, and of course it's bullshit

The same people clapping when Wayne LaPierre repeats the talking-point are the same people that cheered the Patriot Act and warrantless illegal domestic surveillence and torture and indefinite detention without access to courts or lawyers.


Changes happen in a variety of ways. Violent revolution is only one of many.

[Hoyt]

130. Great Post. Hope it's read by a lot here.

[Callisto32]

132. Initiating violence is wrong.

Having the tools and skills to do so is not.

I don't think anybody has every suggested that violent insurrection is the best, or even a good, manner of affecting....anything.

[jpak]

136. "Not that I expect this message to actually sink in."

:thumbsup:

:rofl: