Gun Laws

[oucub23]

Link me to it. I'd love to see how the citizenry of the US could possibly overthrow violently our current federal government.

If anything, the argument is about whether we can effectively resist our state and local authorities. But with the militarization of local police force over the past couple of decades, that would be pretty tough too.

The Second Amendment was written hundreds of years ago. The Founding Fathers couldn't imagine what would come to p**** with technology. We need to have a realistic conversation about how we need to move forward.

I submit that were a small town in the US to militarize, secede from the union, and set up barriers, they could effectively overthrow the government. Could they hold out against US military might? Most certainly not--but what are the implications to our government if they go in and wipe them out? Syrian rebels aren't able to defeat ****ad militarily, but they're definitely changing the course of that country. If a US president ordered bombers to decimate a US town, his government would be overthrown in the next election.

[OUMallen]

How? The government has the bombs that can pretty much do things no citizens can really come up with to mount a defense. The constitution specifically had the 2nd amendment for 2 reasons to defend against others that may harm you and to defend against government.

Think about how overmatched person-to-person we are against even the OKC PD.

I have trouble seeing how even very large numbers of civilians would mount an effective resistance to the federal government, ****uming the federal government is fighting for its own survival. We're not going to hop on four-wheelers and in H2s and storm DC.

[OUMallen]

I submit that were a small town in the US to militarize, secede from the union, and set up barriers, they could effectively overthrow the government. Could they hold out against US military might? Most certainly not--but what are the implications to our government if they go in and wipe them out? Syrian rebels aren't able to defeat ****ad militarily, but they're definitely changing the course of that country. If a US president ordered bombers to decimate a US town, his government would be overthrown in the next election.

Buddy. You're reaching. That's not "overthrowing" the government and that's not effective resistance to the federal government's power.

And if you're talking about how all we need to do is vote the bums out to "overthrow" then, then we aren't talking about needing guns.

Just saying- things are massively different now than when the Second Amendment was adopted. We can't and shouldn't try to maintain the mindset that we need guns to oppose a tyrannical US federal government. It's just not realistic. I prefer to deal in practical terms.

[kssooner]

Here's a another thought to consider for the gun banners. The Clinton ****ault Weapon ban started in 1994 and sunset in 2004. It banned:

In the former U.S. law, the legal term ****ault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

A semi-automatic Yugoslavian M70AB2 rifle.



An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an ****ault Weapon under Federal Law.


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
• Detachable magazine.

The Act also defined and banned 'large capacity ammunition feeding devices' in the ban, which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than a certain number of rounds, and that up to the time of the Act were considered normal or factory magazines. Media and popular culture referred to these as 'high capacity magazines or feeding devices'. Depending on the locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a 'normal' capacity and 'high' capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds.

Remember what happened in 1999? Columbine. The weapons used:

In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. A rifle and the two shotguns were bought by a friend named Robyn Anderson at the Tanner Gun Show in December 1998.[18] Through a friend, Robert Duran, Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from an individual named Mark Manes for $500.
Using instructions acquired upon the Internet, Harris and Klebold constructed a total of 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. They sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns to make them easier to conceal.[4] The perpetrators committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even before the massacre began.
On April 20, Harris was equipped with a 12-gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun, (which he discharged a total of 25 times) and a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines, which he fired a total of 96 times.
Klebold was equipped with a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. Klebold was to fire primarily the TEC-9 handgun: this weapon was to be fired 55 times in total.

The ****ault weapon ban did jack ****ing **** to stop Columbine. It will do jack ****ing **** to stop another m**** killing.

[oucub23]

Buddy. You're reaching. That's not "overthrowing" the government and that's not effective resistance to the federal government's power.

And if you're talking about how all we need to do is vote the bums out to "overthrow" then, then we aren't talking about needing guns.

Just saying- things are massively different now than when the Second Amendment was adopted. We can't and shouldn't try to maintain the mindset that we need guns to oppose a tyrannical US federal government. It's just not realistic. I prefer to deal in practical terms.

Had Obama lost to Romney, or when Bush lost to Clinton, it was a toppling of the government of the time. Yes, it was bloodless, but it still marked a fundamental change in government. Reagan did it to Carter as well.

[OUMallen]

Had Obama lost to Romney, or when Bush lost to Clinton, it was a toppling of the government of the time. Yes, it was bloodless, but it still marked a fundamental change in government. Reagan did it to Carter as well.

I agree. And we don't need guns to do that, ****uming the voting system is working at least decently. Guns do nothing to protect us from the federal government anymore, is my point.

[SoonerLibertarian]

The differences between the two parties for a long time haven't really been fundamental. More like subtle-to-very-little

[OUMallen]

Here's a another thought to consider for the gun banners. The Clinton ****ault Weapon ban started in 1994 and sunset in 2004. It banned:

Remember what happened in 1999? Columbine. The weapons used:

The ****ault weapon ban did jack ****ing **** to stop Columbine. It will do jack ****ing **** to stop another m**** killing.

I'm not sure I'm a banner, really. And this point is well-received.

[oucub23]

I agree. And we don't need guns to do that, ****uming the voting system is working at least decently. Guns do nothing to protect us from the federal government anymore, is my point.

I think they do. The government only pushes so far, b/c they know how messy a real armed revolt would be to put down. And if they put it down, they would be ousted immediately. It's not that the armed revolt would directly succeed--but the elimination of that revolt would have the result.

[pphilfran]

My guess is they will ban future sale of high capacity magazines and possibly "****ault looking" weapons...which will do nothing to actually resolve the problem but will make some of their constituents feel safer...

[OUMallen]

I think they do. The government only pushes so far, b/c they know how messy a real armed revolt would be to put down. And if they put it down, they would be ousted immediately. It's not that the armed revolt would directly succeed--but the elimination of that revolt would have the result.

I see your point, but there's a gaping hole in your logic: if the federal government is killing citizens to put down a revolt, what makes you think we're going to be having normal elections where officials voluntarily cede power?

[Sancho]

Guys, the US military ARE US citizens. There is no reason to think as many of them wouldnt be for the revolution as are against it. The idea that even the government lackeys would just start obliterating US cities because they are "following orders" in the middle of a population uprising is crazy. Maybe I am being naive, but I just find that incredibly hard to believe. And as far as the great might of the US military wiping the floor with poor ragtag rifle wielding dissidents... I give you Exhibit A - Iraq and exhibit B - Afghanistan. Its been over a decade folks, would you say the Iraqis and Afghanies have had the resistance beaten out of them yet? If our military didnt obliterate them (at a time when the bulk of the will of the US people was behind them) what makes you think they would do it to their own people?

[The]

Not reading this cluster****, but want to add this:

[OUMallen]

Guys, the US military ARE US citizens. There is no reason to think as many of them wouldnt be for the revolution as are against it. The idea that even the government lackeys would just start obliterating US cities because they are "following orders" in the middle of a population uprising is crazy. Maybe I am being naive, but I just find that incredibly hard to believe. And as far as the great might of the US military wiping the floor with poor ragtag rifle wielding dissidents... I give you Exhibit A - Iraq and exhibit B - Afghanistan. Its been over a decade folks, would you say the Iraqis and Afghanies have had the resistance beaten out of them yet? If our military didnt obliterate them (at a time when the bulk of the will of the US people was behind them) what makes you think they would do it to their own people?

The Civil War.

[kssooner]

My guess is they will ban future sale of high capacity magazines and possibly "****ault looking" weapons...which will do nothing to actually resolve the problem but will make some of their constituents feel safer...

They'll try "fix" the problem by trying to ban the tool and pat themselves on the back and think they're saving the world and yet do nothing to solve the true issues that cause these type of events. And as a result, we will have another Sandy Hook, another Columbine, another Aurora, etc., and they'll try to more bans and more restrictions. And we'll have more Sandy Hooks, more Columbines, more Auroras.

[Aurora]

All I can say is I hope I never need my gun for more than my annual deer hunting trip and my monthly trip to the range to shoot targets. I have family guns passed down from 3 generations and me being the 4th, I have guns that were my father's, I have 2 guns I have purchased. I have a gun safe and keep my ammo in a different wall safe. I teach my son to shoot, to be safe and I would never tell him the combo for the gun safe. I think the number of folks like myself far out reach the number of folks stealing guns and shooting people. However like drugs you can outlaw anything you want and people who want to buy it will get it. The people seeking guns illegally scare me way more than the people who buy them the correct way.

[pphilfran]

I also wouldn't be surprised to see them tax the snot out of ammo much like they did cigarettes...

Instead of 50 cents a round I could see 2 or 3 bucks down the road...

[Shooterms]

15 of the 25 worst m**** shootings in the last 50 years took place in the United States.

Link http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/...past-50-years/



Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.
That doesn’t include Friday’s shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut. The AP put the early reported death toll at 27, which would make it the second-deadliest m**** shooting in US history.



more at the link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/

Just so everyone understands...those charts showing "****ault deaths" are NOT referring to deaths by guns or ****ault rifles, but rather deaths resulting from any kind of ****ault.

[bushmaster06]

How? The government has the bombs that can pretty much do things no citizens can really come up with to mount a defense. The constitution specifically had the 2nd amendment for 2 reasons to defend against others that may harm you and to defend against government.

you're ****uming the citizens that would drop the bombs on other citizens would actually do it.

[pphilfran]

Just so everyone understands...those charts showing "****ault deaths" are NOT referring to deaths by guns or ****ault rifles, but rather deaths resulting from any kind of ****ault.

And why was this little tidbit , from the link provided, not posted....

3. Lots of guns don’t necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland.*
As David Lamp writes at Cato, “In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel ‘have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.’”

[SoonerArtillery]

you're ****uming the citizens that would drop the bombs on other citizens would actually do it.

Agreed....the % of the Military that is like bruthaman and foaming at the mouth to kill whitey while following unlawful orders is likely very....very small.

[Shooterms]

Here are some more interesting numbers...straight from the FBI, rather than a news media source. Violent crime rates have been cut nearly in half since 1992.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-1

[Sancho]

Agreed....the % of the Military that is like bruthaman and foaming at the mouth to kill whitey while following unlawful orders is likely very....very small.

This. I would speculate that the bulk of the military understands that their primary role is protect the people of the US, NOT the government that is committing treason against them.

[OUMallen]

1. Have y'all heard of the Civil War?
2. If we don't have to fear the government's tyranny, then why do we need guns? After all, you guys keep saying the military would never harm an American citizen on purpose...guess we don't need guns!

[Sancho]

Here are some more interesting numbers...straight from the FBI, rather than a news media source. Violent crime rates have been cut nearly in half since 1992.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-1

Thank you Roe vs Wade.

[pphilfran]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-4

From Shooter's link...

1800 (of 10000 known age) of the murder offenders were under the age of 20..
Another 2417 of the murder offenders were between 20-24

So 42% of all homicide (known age) were by those under age 24

I won't get into the race statistics...

[pphilfran]

Let's get radical...

The limited data (not just gun related murders) suggests that we should raise the age limit to purchase or own a gun to 24...though that thought goes out the window since so many murderers are under the age of 18

[Sancho]

1. Have y'all heard of the Civil War?

So we do need to be armed in case the government declares war on its own people again?

2. If we don't have to fear the government's tyranny, then why do we need guns? After all, you guys keep saying the military would never harm an American citizen on purpose...guess we don't need guns!

The government is supposed to fear us, not the other way around. What do you think the government is for Mallen?

[pphilfran]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-6

Whites murder whites
Blacks murder blacks

[OUMallen]

So we do need to be armed in case the government declares war on its own people again?


The government is supposed to fear us, not the other way around. What do you think the government is for Mallen?

1. You guys keep saying the Armed Forces wouldn't attack US citizens. The Civil War shatters that point. Our government and its armed forces has no problem attacking US citizens when properly motivated. Hell, the government right now will kill US citizens abroad extrajudicially.

2. Notwithstanding #1, if you guys are right and we don't need to worry about the government using its military power against us, why do we need guns to protect ourselves from governmental tyranny?

Some of y'all are being inconsistent, that's all.


My main point is that the idea and use of the Second Amendment in modern society isn't really applicable anymore. There's no way in hell our citizenry could protect itself from the government.

[pphilfran]

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-20

Put this in your pipe and smoke it...

Firearms account for the vast majority of murder 68%
Handguns account for the vast majority of murder by firearm 72%
You are more likely to be murdered by a knife (1694), fist (728), shotgun (356), other (1659) than by rifle (323)

[pphilfran]

Gawd damn I like accurate data....lots and lots of accurate data...

[pphilfran]

So if we banned every ****ing rifle...****ault rifles, hunting rifles, target rifles, 22's and BB guns we would save 323 murders out of 12.664...

Sounds reasonable...

[pphilfran]

But we gotta limit that magazine size...got get rid of that handle and adjustable stock...

[ImTheDude]

1. You guys keep saying the Armed Forces wouldn't attack US citizens. The Civil War shatters that point. Our government and its armed forces has no problem attacking US citizens when properly motivated. Hell, the government right now will kill US citizens abroad extrajudicially.

2. Notwithstanding #1, if you guys are right and we don't need to worry about the government using its military power against us, why do we need guns to protect ourselves from governmental tyranny?

Some of y'all are being inconsistent, that's all.


My main point is that the idea and use of the Second Amendment in modern society isn't really applicable anymore. There's no way in hell our citizenry could protect itself from the government.

Did any of the military fight for the South?

[Sancho]

So if we banned every ****ing rifle...****ault rifles, hunting rifles, target rifles, 22's and BB guns we would save 323 murders out of 12.664...

Sounds reasonable...

Well no. The vast majority of those 323 murders would still happen... with some other tool.

[OUMallen]

Did any of the military fight for the South?

wut.

[OUMallen]

Well no. The vast majority of those 323 murders would still happen... with some other tool.

That's a bold statement. You need a link to back this up.

[Sancho]

wut.

Not a confusing question.

[ImTheDude]

Not a confusing question.

I didn't think so either. Maybe he doesn't understand the point you've been trying to make.

[OUMallen]

I didn't think so either. Maybe he doesn't understand the point you've been trying to make.

"did any of the military fight for the south?"

Did any Union soldiers fight for the south? Did any military that was in the south stay in the south? Were there federal soldiers in the south at any point in the lad-up to the Civil War that ended up fighting for the Confederacy? Make your question make sense.

Also, WTF does it have to do with anything? I think we can all agree that the federal government is more than willing to use military and paramilitary force on our own citizens. The Civil War shows that. The raid on the Branch Davidians shows that. When properly motivated, our own Armed Forces will kill US civilians. That's my point, and I think it's pretty self-evident.

[pphilfran]

Well no. The vast majority of those 323 murders would still happen... with some other tool.

Possibly...

And four states account for 137 of those 323 murders by rifle...texas (37), NC (26), Michigan (29), and Cali (45)

[kssooner]

But we gotta limit that magazine size...got get rid of that handle and adjustable stock...

Columbine proved that bans on scary looking guns, flash hiders, pistol grips, magazine limits, etc., are completely ****ing worthless.

[pphilfran]

Columbine proved that bans on scary looking guns, flash hiders, pistol grips, magazine limits, etc., are completely ****ing worthless.

It boggles my mind that we are raising hell about ****ault rifles when only 4% of total murders are performed using any type rifle...

four ****ing percent

[Sancho]

It boggles my mind that we are raising hell about ****ault rifles when only 4% of total murders are performed using any type rifle...

four ****ing percent

We should just ban murder. Problem solved. Shocked no one has thought of that yet.

[OUMallen]

We should just ban murder. Problem solved. Shocked no one has thought of that yet.

MURDER IS LEGAL?!?!?!?!!?!?!? IT'S NOT BANNED?!?!!??!

[pphilfran]

We should just ban murder. Problem solved. Shocked no one has thought of that yet.

BRILLIANT!

[pphilfran]

MURDER IS LEGAL?!?!?!?!!?!?!? IT'S NOT BANNED?!?!!??!

Don't those FBI numbers surprise ya?

We want to limit capacity on ****ault weapons that account for far less than four percent of total murders...

I wonder how many of those 323 murders by rifle took more than a half dozen shots...

[Fahooglegods]

Agreed....the % of the Military that is like bruthaman and foaming at the mouth to kill whitey while following unlawful orders is likely very....very small.

Yep I don't know a single individual that I served with who would follow such an order.

[dainbramage]

It's time to start sliding this Nation down the slippery slope of gun control! It will be a long process, but in time public opinion will turn against the common use and ownership of guns. Eventually evolution and reason will dissolve the angry insistence of today's patriotic, gun-toting, neanderthals into a marginalized, minority fringe---like the Westboro Baptists, for instance.