The Second Amendment is collapsing under the weight of modernity.

[Sinue_v2]

Considering the recent political developments, I thought I'd make a thread to get some thoughts out of my head and invite comments and conversation on the topic of the 2nd Amendment.

My proposition; Arguments on the potential violations of the 2nd Amendment by the new gun violence prevention bill are neutered (and moot) by the decreasing relevance of the 2nd Amendment in today's modern society. I'll try to avoid bogging the issue down in interpretations of what the 2nd Amendment was actually intended to mean, and focus more on the spirit of the Amendment which most people seem to have enshrined.

To most people, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is "primarily" to arm the population as a check against out of control government, to ensure that we don't fall into a tyranny. Thus, any limitation on the legality of firearms is often seen as a move by the government to shift the balance of power in their favor, and against the populace. This also applies to foreign governments invading. Secondarily, the 2nd Amendment provides the people with a means of protecting their families and property against other citizens who may wish them harm.

On the first issue, I think the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant. It hinges on the assumption that the populace will/could have the same offensive capacity as the military. In the days of ball muskets and kentucky long rifles, this wasn't an issue. Further, the destructive capacity of armaments in colonial days was minimal... and the infrastructure available to be destroyed was generally low-impact. A single man (or small group) with a musket, or even cannons, couldn't wreak that much destruction before being taken out. In contrast, today's weapons are far more destructive, and our society much more vulnerable to infrastructure disruption. As has been popularly repeated, we are rapidly entering a time in which anybody will have the capability to kill everybody. We're not there yet, but we ARE currently at the point where it is feasible for very large institutions and governments (nuclear, biological & chemical warfare, etc) to come close. On the individual level, high grade explosives (rockets, grenades, napalm, etc) can wreak havok in a metropolitan area... allowing the level of destructive capabilities in seconds what would have taken an individual hours to accomplish in the 18th century. Naturally, most of these weapons are highly illegal for civilian possession. (Though this doesn't stop improvised devices, as demonstrated by the '95 Oklahoma City bombing)

By limiting access to Stinger missiles, body armor, claymores and whatnot, we've already created a massive imbalance. In Colonial days, military grade armaments were roughly of the same capabilities as civilian grade arms. This is no longer the case, as the US Military boasts the most advanced (and most expensive) armaments in the world. There's simply no means for the average citizen militia to stand up to the combined and bloated might of the US Air Force, Navy, Army, and Marines. I don't care how high capacity your clips are, they're not going to stop a fucking drone, let alone an A10 or M1 Abrams. (This is also why the South will never rise again)

So aside from massive cuts to the military in order to make it more manageable by the offensive capabilities of the population, which would in turn make them useless as a defensive (let alone an offensive) force, there's little that could be done. You'd have to rely on military defectors taking their hardware with them, alliances with foreign governments, procurement of military bases/hardware, or (and most importantly) on arms traffickers to funnel military grade hardware into any resistance effort. All of which make the 2nd Amendment totally irrelevant, since these strategies would work even without ever having a governmental guarantee of the right to bear arms in the first place. I think this has been demonstrated quite well by the uprisings of the Arab Spring and the resistance we've faced in Iraq & Afghanistan.

On the issue of defense against foreign invaders, there's several problems here as well. First off, the continued advance of globalization is creating an ever more stable and secure world in which the soft-power of commerce and culture dominates the hard power of military arms and the need to protect territory. It's doubtful that any developed nation capable of invasion would risk such a move, because of what it means to their own bottom line in regards to trade and global support. Secondly, any attack on U.S. soil would more likely be an effort to cripple our offensive capabilities and reduce our global influence - rather than trying to take us over. Third, and I may be wrong on this point, but our military is pretty finicky about their chains of command and keeping a tight reign on their ability to control and formulate strategic maneuvers within a theater. The last thing they want is to be hindered by a bunch of unreliable and untested yahoo's playing cowboy on their chessboard. We already have a national defense force that works with and compliments the US military... it's called the National Guard.

Finally, the issue of personal self-defense against fellow citizens. On this issue, I more or less agree with the gun proponents. Though I fully acknowledge that such a measure is largely just an elaborate safety blanket to provide a little false security in an unpredictable and (at times) dangerous world. The fact is, without proper and regular firearms training, your gun will be near useless in an actual emergency situation, and in the chaos that ensues - you're far more likely to increase your chance of getting shot - or shooting a bystander - than you are to actually protect yourself. Unless you have shitloads of training (like the cops or soliders undergo) to build up muscle memory and almost instinctual tactics, your bodies natural fight or flight mechanisms will actually work against you to cloud your judgement and make you a more vulnerable target. Despite this, I think this is an issue that we as a society have still more or less come together and acknowledged that we want to keep firearms available for that safety blanket, despite the risks and costs associated with it. That's fine. I'm also all for recreational hunting and sport.

I'm in support of 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms, and if folks want to join a local militia and play soldier, then I see no harm in letting them be... at least so long as they don't prove to be a threat to others (e.g. Hutaree). But because it is, largely, just a false sense of security - I don't see where assault rifles, "cop killer" AP bullets, and high capacity magazines are justifiable - or how their banning will affect anyone's right to bear arms... especially in a pragmatic and wider perspective on the issue. So while I still support the 2nd Amendment, I realize that by and large, it is an outdated and unnecessary provision which has little to no meaning or place in modern society.

(Also, just for the record, the proposals given by Obama (from what I've read, and where applicable to this issue) on controlling gun violence seems to be largely a reinstatement of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban which was already on the books and was simply allowed to expire a few years ago. So it's not like what he's proposing is really anything new aside from the expanded mental health care provisions and universal background checks - closing the "gunshow" loophole.)

[Akaimizu]

Sounds like a reasonable argument, but I think a lot of people somehow still don't believe the "overwhelming arms advantage of the government" reality and will have a major affront to any tiny little budge in gun control laws. There are people who want free reign on all kinds of firearms, regardless, with the idea that if criminals manage to get themselves assault rifles, that a person with a different armament would be any less protected. Of course, this only applies to well-trained gunmen, and perhaps they're the only ones that have such issues with it, today.

To them. Assault Weapons Guns > everything else. It is every bit of what they count as liberties. And they happen to be the loudest at it. The closing loophole thing is also a big affront. Times have changed, and the scenario isn't the same, either.

Still, it seems everything possible to put on any table is a rather touchy subject. Has people gotten to such a boiling point? Or is it moreso that television has gotten so sensationalist that everybody chosen to talk tends to be some hot-headed rallying person trying to get people to rage?

[AC9breaker]

You've brought up a lot of good points, so I'll just jump around and rebuttal at random. I think you're only seeing a limited picture. Sure in a straight up face to face match the average joe would flop over against your modern day grunt but war is hardly ever fought like that these days. Guerilla warfare and insurgent tactics are a huge modifier against advance technology and firepower. Then you've got to look at the numbers, less then 5% of our population actually serve in the armed forces. In the end those numbers are a huge difference maker if everyone was armed.


As for the foreign invaders, I agree with you on most you have stated except for a few key things and I feel that is because of complacency that I think most of us americans have adopted. Life is so good and things seem to be going so good (for the most part) that it just doesn't even seem feesible that we'd ever be attacked. However this world has more then enough crazy leaders who would actually give zero fucks and would do some thing crazy like attack someone. Israel and N.Korea are the obvious suspects but then there are our passive aggressive relationships with countries like Russia, and Venezuela. The fact is that their are enough people who could potentially view us as a common enemy which is always a strong uniting point. Although the probability of some kind of coalition of evil uniting to attack america is absurdly low, it never hurts to plan for the worst and hope for the best. I dunno, maybe my perspective is slightly skewed on this point being that I am in the military myself and I am routinely briefed or informed on threats or possible threats that I just am more paranoid.

Finally on your argument of personal defense, I really don't know how I feel about the assault rifle stuff. I will say that I would like to own my own personal assault rifle someday so that I could go to the range and maintain my marksmanship. It's a pretty great stress relief as well.

I think it's complacency that is killing the 2nd amendment not modernity.

[Sp-24]

The countries with crazy leaders that you've mentioned all seem to possess nuclear weaponry, so I'm pretty sure that unless they legalise personal GMD systems, you're screwed in case their leaders do go nuts. You might need personal firearms in the post-apocalyptic world that will follow, though.

In a slightly milder scenario, when a country simply throws trained and organised troops at your city for whatever reason and with whatever purpose in mind, you, as a well-trained military person, probably know that you need to be a well-trained military person to hold your own against other (possibly well-)trained military persons. And that .45 or semi-automatic rifle may save your life, but it may just as easily promote you from a civilian to a hostile target during an occupation. It is true that your weapons will come in handy in case you need to resort to guerrilla tactics, but again, I don't know of a country with a big enough army to consider the crazy idea of invading USA and without a nuclear armament to first throw the entire world into oblivion.

The more likely scenario is some extremist group taking over some kind of a building with hostages inside. Your guns can save you in such a case, but only provided that you are not the only one carrying them, trained at using them and capable of operating in an impromptu squad with limited equipment and no briefing against a very much "promptu" one.

And something makes me think that it's not complacency that makes people not like the second amendment as much as they are supposed to. Those last two shootings that have made people talk about lax gun control were less than calming, for example. Though it turns out that they may have been caused by violent videogames, so instead of stealing your guns, the government may just preemptively put everybody who has got their Ranger and Gunner to lv.50 in jail.

[Georgey1]

I don't see where assault rifles, "cop killer" AP bullets, and high capacity magazines are justifiable - or how their banning will affect anyone's right to bear arms...

JathTech 3 weeks ago

"The difference in time would probably have been made up in pauses that occurred during the actual shooting anyway.

Law abiding citizens who carry guns usually only carry one magazine with that gun. A criminal planning an attack will carry as many as he needs. Limiting magazine capacity only hurts law abiding citizens. It makes their defense less effective."

The problem people have with all of the "limitations" on the 2nd Amendment are just that. It's limitations.

Criminals don't abide by the law. That's why they are criminals. Like the old saying goes, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." If a person wanted to get a gun to start killing people, they probably would find a way, even if guns were illegal. And if by some chance they couldn't, they would simply use something else. It wouldn't matter if it was swords or bow and arrows. If you still don't think high capacity magazines are justifiable, then I will direct you to what is said at 6:22 in the that video I linked.

Anyway, my point is a lot of people don't like these limitations because it hinders the average citizen, not the criminal. You are correct that times are changing, and we live in a very different world now, but people still want to be able to defend themselves. True, if the military went head-on against the populace, it would win no doubt. The thing that guns can protect people from the most are the regular scum (robbers, muggers, etc.) To be honest, that's what most people who own guns are really concerned with when it comes to self-defense.

I'll leave you with this: http://www.theblattners.com/wierdstu...nserative.html

That is meant to be taken more as a light-hearted joke, but it's also an example of why people want their guns.

I think there are many crimes that could be avoided if people had guns.

*Someone robs a store* "THIS IS A HOLD UP!" *Everyone in the store pulls out a gun at once* "You were saying?" "Oh... on second thought... I'll just buy these instead..."

If everyone has a gun, no one is in trouble. haha

[ShinMaruku]

You know what I find amusing. militias thinking they can stop the military.
For example most of those militia meat heads cannot even begin to cope with Small Pox (Yes I know an extreme usage of weapons) with nobody even getting immunized against it (Unless they were in the military before) or just the might of the modern military with technology. If the military was feeling pretty cruel and hard assed just dropping smallpox on where they think militias are would deal with the issue.

Also the founding fathers had the idea that every few year the Constitution should be renewed and reviewed something writtend long ago does not fit with the world of today. Just 400 years ago blinding was considered properly decent. Is it now? I'd hope not.

[Sinue_v2]

Just to reiterate a main point before continuing: The modern arms trafficking market, built largely by the Cold War and the Drug War, deal a devastating blow to one of the key arguments for the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't matter if guns and high explosives are legal now or not, when they are needed - they WILL be available... and in mass quantities. Gun running has been a key means for large nations to extend their influence without direct involvement in conflict for ages now, but never on this scale... and the scale won't decrease so long as it is more profitable for a nation to fight by proxy than risk open warfare. The trend towards globalization is so strong that I doubt we will see a reversal in this anytime soon.

Guerilla warfare and insurgent tactics are a huge modifier against advance technology and firepower. Then you've got to look at the numbers, less then 5% of our population actually serve in the armed forces. In the end those numbers are a huge difference maker if everyone was armed.

Yes, but that makes a very large assumption that is, "if everyone was armed". Realistically, your best/most effective fighters would be from a rather narrow spectrum of the population - largely males from about 17 to 35. Of this spectrum, about half do not own a gun of any kind. Of those that do, most of what they own are handguns and have little to no formal training in their use, let alone regular practice. Ok, now lets sub-divide those numbers again. How many of that group would actually be willing to fight in any given such rebellion? How many would join the Military or a militia aligned with the government? How many would simply take their guns and use them to commit crime (whether for survival or profit) in the absence of regular infrastructure? And finally, remember also that we have a rather bad obesity problem in the US. About 20% of the remainder would be too fat and out of shape to fight effectively... a problem the military doesn't have. Most of these figures wouldn't change in the slightest if we were to broaden gun laws to encompass more deadly armaments.

(Numbers largely pulled from the DoJ & Gallup)

So when you add all of that up, the numbers of effective soldiers on the ground - even in a guerrilla campaign - begin to narrow. Considering the substantial advantage the Military has in technology and resources, I can't see a civilian resistance effort posing much of a threat. The difficulties we've faced fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan don't necessarily reflect the success or failure in this. Generally, our offensive campaigns have been successful with relatively small numbers of highly trained soldiers and surgical strikes taking out much larger forces of insurgents... but with the problem coming in holding and securing territory. They had an important advantage and exploited it... the fact that we have to go home sometime. They can run and wait us out. That isn't possible here at home, because while insurgents may be able to harass our armed forces - they're not going anywhere, and the military will put the full brunt of it's might against resistance forces if they legitimately feel the Government is in danger. Not to imply that those fighting now aren't giving their all, far from it... but the scale of mobilization is a very different ball game when the stakes are the very survival of the US government.

There's also the issue of centralization within the Military vs. fractured, unorganized, (and at times opposing) militias that I haven't gotten into. You would almost need a splinter of the US Military to break away and provide the logistical support structure needed to organize, arm, and direct an effective rebellion. We wouldn't have won the War of Independence or the War of 1812 without a strong continental army to back the people (or vice versa)... and we had to lean on France in the Revolution to support that military when it was still weak.

Life is so good and things seem to be going so good (for the most part) that it just doesn't even seem feesible that we'd ever be attacked. However this world has more then enough crazy leaders who would actually give zero fucks and would do some thing crazy like attack someone. Israel and N.Korea are the obvious suspects but then there are our passive aggressive relationships with countries like Russia, and Venezuela.

Attack, yeah... I don't see it as likely, but it's possible. Especially with arms and armaments funneled through independent/terrorist organizations. But that's much different than a full on invasion, i.e. Red Dawn. Small arms aren't really going to protect against terrorism or strikes on infrastructure.

it never hurts to plan for the worst and hope for the best.

Except when planning for the worst requires you to incorporate dangerous elements into a society that account for 12,000 deaths per year. That's a pretty fallacious statement, I admit. Overall I think it's fairly impressive how few people are shot annually, and violent crime across the board (including gun violence) has been trending steadily downward since the mid-80's.

It's a pretty great stress relief as well.

Damned straight it is. I only own a .38 Colt (Police Edition) and a .410 pump, but my cousin has a Bushmaster AR-15 and it is a blast to shoot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oURZ3LxYhIY

*Someone robs a store* "THIS IS A HOLD UP!" *Everyone in the store pulls out a gun at once* "You were saying?" "Oh... on second thought... I'll just buy these instead..."

If everyone has a gun, no one is in trouble. haha

If everyone had a gun, it could also just as easily go;

"*Someone robs a store* "THIS IS A HOLD UP!" *Everyone in the store pulls out a gun at once. One of them is shakey and discharges their weapon, causing another person to discharge theirs... who misses and hits the cashier. A third misjudges the situation in the confusion and fire and mistakenly shoots an armed individual running through the aisles."

If you're going to support the argument based on an idealized fantasy of what could happen during an armed robbery, then you have also consider the consequences of what happens in a worst case scenario.

What are the risks and consequences of both scenarios? Does the ability to stop a criminal from snagging a few hundred dollars from a cash register really out weight the possibility of innocent people being hurt or killed in a crossfire?



Now, it could well be that an armed society might help reduce crime because of the anticipation of deadly resistance is greater than that of the actual threat. Then again, you could also flip that and say that gun violence increases in an armed society since criminals expecting the possibility of armed resistance will opt for a gun or rifle rather than a knife or other weapon.

It'd be nice to have some solid statistics on gun violence when it comes to self-defense, but information is sparse from what I see. The Kellerman Study suggests that having a firearm in the home makes you significantly more vulnerable to accidental or intentional shooting than it does to protect you. Harvard has done a number of studies on the topic and found a positive correlation between gun ownership and increased mortality rates. In their own words, "For every age group, where there are more guns there are more accidental deaths. The mortality rate was 7 times higher in the four states with the most guns compared to the four states with the fewest guns."

While I wouldn't necessarily draw any conclusions from that in itself, it's not a good indicator.

I think there are many crimes that could be avoided if people had guns.

Well, I don't think that's true. Going just by the rate of intentional murders, the U.S. has a higher homicide rate per capita than most other developed nations which have far stricter gun control laws. Similarly the United States also has one of the highest incarceration rates for violent crime in the developed world... again, beating out nations which have much stricter gun laws.

Law abiding citizens who carry guns usually only carry one magazine with that gun. A criminal planning an attack will carry as many as he needs. Limiting magazine capacity only hurts law abiding citizens.

Not really. Typically, your civilians and victims tend to outnumber the assailants by a wide margin. Lets say... to pull a number out of my ass based on the latest few high profile shootings... 10 to 1? An assailant needs multiple high capacity clips to take down as many victims as they can. The victims only need a few bullets to take down the assailants. To quote Revy from Black Lagoon, "If you can hit your target, pretty much any gun will do the trick."

The problem people have with all of the "limitations" on the 2nd Amendment are just that. It's limitations.

Those limitations are necessary. A police or military agency which cannot hold superior force over the people is neutered and ineffective. Remember the 1997 North Hollywood shootout? Two guys with assault rifles and full body armor held off police officers for 40 minutes, injuring (nearly killing) 18 officers in the process.

Also the founding fathers had the idea that every few year the Constitution should be renewed and reviewed something writtend long ago does not fit with the world of today.

I wouldn't speak for all of the founders, but yeah, a good portion of them saw the Constitution as a living document. There are mechanisms for amending and altering the Constitution... but they are rather strict and hard to accomplish. After all, what good does having a document that legitimizes and constrains a government do if it can be easily and readily re-written by that government?

Still, to quote Thomas Paine; "The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of man change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it." They did not throw off the yoke of British tyranny just to turn around and enslave all generations of the nation in perpetuity to the opinions and conditions of the world as it was in the 18th century. Some parts of it have aged well... the right to free speech, a free press, and a separation of church and state are every bit as vital today as they were back then. Perhaps moreso. Others... such as the electoral college are outdated and need to go. And some, like the second amendment, are up for discussion.

[Georgey1]

Those limitations are necessary. A police or military agency which cannot hold superior force over the people is neutered and ineffective. Remember the 1997 North Hollywood shootout? Two guys with assault rifles and full body armor held off police officers for 40 minutes, injuring (nearly killing) 18 officers in the process.

So two guys can ruin it for the rest of the world. OK.

Yeah it's obviously the weapons fault.

Like I said. If bad guys want to get weapons. They can. These laws hinder regular people, not the criminals.

"If a law was passed that required some form of certificate of gun safety in order to buy a gun, and current owners had to pass the same test in order to use their gun legally (it wouldn't be confiscated), would gun-owners have a problem?

The law could also make storing guns without them being locked/unloaded illegal. I see no way this would inconvenience gun users, yet the law would have prevented the sandy hook shooting (he took the guns from his mother) and would prevent random kids buying guns online.

It's obvious to me that gun control won't help gun crimes in the short term (i would argue that eventually it would be harder to get hold of guns illegally and gun crime would lower, but whatever), but this seems a foolproof system, assuming owners of guns aren't completely careless with storing their guns.

But i live in Britain and really have very little idea about this whole thing. Am i missing something?"

"A couple of things to consider:

NOTHING prevents events like Sandy Hook. They are so statistically rare as to be insignificant. Remember, those things almost NEVER happen. At Sandy Hook, 20 kids were killed. By comparison, 38 children die in car accidents in America every week. These events are incredibly rare and will always represent the most extreme cases - trying to prevent them is silly. You'd save more lives by trying to eliminate lightning, since more people die of lightning strikes than mass shootings. So in any gun control policy debate, you should ignore mass shootings entirely. They're horrible - but the reason they make the news is specifically BECAUSE they're so rare. If we talk about health care, we shouldn't talk about Small Pox - we should talk about Cancer.

When you talk about any gun safety requirements (certificates, locked up, unloaded, etc., such as the ones you suggested), you have to remember that you'll never reach the people you want to with these laws. The vast majority of gun owners are very safe, responsible people - the number of accidental shootings per year is about 300-400, in a country with 300 MILLION guns. So, almost literally a one-in-a-million chance. And like any gun control laws, they won't affect criminals. The guy that's getting his gun on the black market in the first place and using it to rob a liquor store doesn't care about a safety certificate or keeping it in a lockbox. So if you DO pass those laws, all you do is prevent the honest citizen from having his gun available if he has a burglary. Which is IF he obeys the law at all, which he probably won't, because such a law would be next to impossible to enforce in a country with 88 million gun owners.

With one exception, every "mass shooting" that's taken place since 1950 (and I know, I'm breaking my own rule by even talking about mass shootings) has happened in a "gun free zone." In other words, a place the shooter knew was guaranteed to not have armed resistance. Like a school. Heck, earlier that year in Aurora, Colorado James Holmes shot up a movie theater because he was obsessed with shooting up Batman viewers, but he didn't pick the largest theater around nor the closest to him - in fact, out of SEVEN theaters near him, he chose the only one that banned handguns. Also, on a weekly basis crimes are stopped by private citizens with guns - this happens so frequently that it doesn't make the news. You can find the stories if you dig, but literally thousands of crimes per year are stopped by private citizens with guns. In fact, in the SAME WEEK as Sandy Hook, a crazed shooter attempted to shoot up a mall, but he only managed to shoot one person before another mall shopper pulled out a handgun, aimed it, and the gunman surrendered - and shot himself. Crazed shooters don't tend to like armed resistance."

"Just to put this stuff in perspective - in New York, they passed a new law, that says that magazines can't have more than seven bullets in them. Even if you own a ten-round magazine, you can't put more than seven bullets in it. This was done ostensibly so that criminals would have fewer rounds of ammunition. Well, an interesting story popped up - in their haste to enact this new law, the NY legislature forgot to exempt cops. So active and retired cops, under this new rule, ALSO can't have more than seven bullets. Now, obviously this is an oversight and will be fixed, but when it was revealed, the head of a police union was interviewed and asked why cops SHOULD be exempt. He said "Well, the criminals aren't going to obey this law anyway, so if police aren't exempt, all it does is give the advantage to the criminals. Sometimes you need more than seven bullets to stop a crime."

So, the police just came right out and said it - the law does nothing. No criminal will obey it. That's the problem with LOTS of gun control laws - by definition, the only people who will obey them are people that wouldn't have committed a crime anyway. Such laws are silly.

Whenever a new law is drafted, realistic enforcement is something vital to consider. That's why all those old sodomy laws are so absurd. How do you enforce them? Put cameras in people's bedrooms? Those are called "feel-good" laws. People pass them because it makes them feel good - makes them feel like they did something relevant. When, of course, they did not."

Anyway I'm done with this topic. I can see you swing to the left anyway.

[Sp-24]

So two guys can ruin it for the rest of the world. OK.

Yeah it's obviously the weapons fault.

Like I said. If bad guys want to get weapons. They can. These laws hinder regular people, not the criminals. Anyway I'm done with this topic. I can see you swing to the left anyway.

And that's why most of the gun-related crimes in USA is committed with assault weaponry by people wearing full body armor.

[Sinue_v2]

http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/...om_an_antigun/

1 post, pushing a left/right wedge, copypasta?

Jesus kid, if you're going to troll, at least do it right.