The Gun Control Debate Thread

[tshile]

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

If handguns are good enough for police officers in the line of duty, why do private citizens need semi-autos and rifles?

Um. The “handguns” the police carry are semi automatic 

 

so are their shotguns and rifles. I’m sure some shotguns are pumps too. 
 

and you want to take away all rifles? Have you seen what’s happened to gun legislation over the last 20 years? You’re gonna get rid of riffles in general? 😂 

 

I feel like we live in two very different realities. 

[PeterMP]

31 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I don't know, man, I'd argue Assad was getting his ass kicked until Russia got involved and that's what really turned the tide in his favor.

 

Afghanistan was also barely paying or feeding their troops, President was probably planning to dip all along and jus did at the last minute once Taliban was jus outside Kabul.

 

I agree with your premise in principle concerning who was more motivated or willing to go all in being more of a factor then access to guns.  Same time Tablian didn't simply want it more, Afghan military got hungry, wasn't getting paid so didn't want to fight at all. Any level of motivation is higher then no motivation at all.

 

Syrian resistance didn't want it any less then Assad, there are documentaries to show that, they got outgunned in the long run as support for them dried up in attempt to not escalate the situation once Russia got involved.

 

Sorry if it comes across as nitpicking, I jus don't like the Taliban or Assad getting any more credit then those assholes deserve. Saying either of them simply wanted it more bothers the hell out of me.

 

But Russia represents a modern army (and not even an army comparable to the US).  The question in terms of the 2nd amendment and "protecting our liberty from tyranny" nonsense is how would such a population due against a "modern" tyrannical military.  Syria tells up pretty badly unless they got long term broad support to the point that it is hard to argue that being armed initially does any good.

 

The end result (because they weren't getting paid and not eating) is that the Taliban wanted it more.  And even more broadly, the Taliban wanted more and so made sure their fighters were prepared to fight (i.e. fed).  The Afghani government didn't really want it (were only interested in getting theirs and getting rich) and so the Afghani military didn't want it.

 

The Ukraine is an exception.  It isn't even really an exception because it wasn't what people talking about the 2nd amendment normally talk about in terms of "defending the country from tyranny."  The Ukraine is where it is because of Russian concerns about broadening the conflict with NATO and NATO/western support and access to weapons and training that started BEFORE the Russian invasion.

 

The Russians have had no problem in depressing civilian populations that had guns in Cheneya and other places where there wasn't other concerns.

 

@tshile  And you are absolutely right about the 1/6.  The fact of the matter is that it is more likely that the liberal republican (using the words in their classical sense not the modern US political sense) is going to be over thrown by tyrannical gun owning minority then those people with their guns are going to protect our liberties in the face of a tyrannical US government with the active support of the US military.

 

But that's an argument against the 2nd amendment and not for.

[tshile]

17 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Defend ourselves against the government?  How do you justify any restriction on type of weapon?  Even assuming that the current cadre of legal guns would be sufficient to fight back tyranny under the right circumstances, is there any doubt that citizens would be more capable of keeping the tyranny in check with access to the currently illegal weapons?  How do you draw the line here and support illegalizing weapons even more likely to keep the government in check?

well, I think you’ve hit on why not much happens ever with regards to gun control

 

this is sort of where everyone divides. Most people recognize we shouldn’t be allowed to have nukes. Ok. Every step you lower the line you lose a little more support. 
 

i do not think you have, nor do I think you will ever have, support to ban semiautomatic weapons. Or confiscate them. So that’s where a line becomes drawn. When it can’t really move on either direction anymore. 
 

i didn’t draw that line. Society did. And I accept it. Whether I like it or not. 
 

I wish you luck in moving the line to where you want. I wouldn’t bet on you at all. But good luck. 

17 minutes ago, bearrock said:

f the rest of the world didn't have nukes, do you think Putin is gonna take a L and go home or would he push the button?

 

If Ukraine still had their nukes, would Putin have crossed the border in the first place?

 
 

i consider this nonsensical. On the one had your point is that we shouldn’t bother caring about having weapons to protect our freedom, because our government has nukes, but on the other hand Russia having nukes is irrelevant because they aren’t using them on the people they’re trying to subjugate? Lol ok. 
 

And then in a conversation about the populace being armed being a tool against subjugation, you reference that if ukraine had nukes Russia may have never even tried ?

 

Nonsensical in the scheme of the actual conversation. 

Edited June 6, 2022 by tshile

[tshile]

15 minutes ago, bearrock said:

You're conflating societal chaos with dictatorial crackdown. 

If you think our government turning into a dictatorship won’t turn into social chaos idk what to tell you. 
 

we live in two different realities. And that’s ok. At least as far as I care. And I mean no disrespect. I actually have lots of respect for you. Read lots of your posts. Just think you’re waaaaaaaay off the mark on this specific thing. 

12 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Even my wife believes there should be an exception for members of the military under 21, and i agree with her, jus cannot confirm if New York made that exception. 

May I ask why? Many guns on the streets used in crimes are stolen and military people (age 18-21) are hardly immune to things that plague the rest of us. Hell most of them won’t be much more than barely trained for most of that timeframe. They can’t even join until 18. 
 

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by tshile

[tshile]

19 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

The fact of the matter is that it is more likely that the liberal republican (using the words in their classical sense not the modern US political sense) is going to be over thrown by tyrannical gun owning minority then those people with their guns are going to protect our liberties in the face of a tyrannical US government with the active support of the US military.

hey. The constitution says this to be free of tyranny. If your response is the tyrants are the ones with the guns, then my suggestion is the non tyrants buy guns and learn how to use them. 
 

while it’s still your right to do so

 

i kid

 

well maybe not it’s hard to tell at this point. 
 

Either way.
 

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by tshile

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

The problem with the tyrannical government enslaving you if they get your guns isn’t that the most powerful military in the world would quickly squash a bunch of untrained, unorganized yokels (even though they would). The problem is that it’s make believe, fear mongering nonsense.

[tshile]

Well. Don’t rephrase the topic. It’s not that if they ban guns, is that what happens next?
 

the topic was if that happens, would the populace having guns matter?

 

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by tshile

[Renegade7]

16 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

May I ask why? Many guns on the streets used in crimes are stolen and military people (age 18-21) are hardly immune to things that plague the rest of us. Hell most of them won’t be much more than barely trained for most of that timeframe. They can’t even join until 18. 
 

 

If someone is in the military they at least go through basic training, I wouldn't go so far as to say barely, but get where going with that. 

 

Considering how many between 18-21 are infantry, I don't support a blanket statement this age group is mature enough for automatic weapons while defending our country, but not enough for semi-automatic rifiles to defend themselves.

 

There should be room for exceptions, it's kinda inconsistent, but there are exceptions that even allow this age group to drink alcohol on certain bases.

[Renegade7]

32 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

But Russia represents a modern army (and not even an army comparable to the US).  The question in terms of the 2nd amendment and "protecting our liberty from tyranny" nonsense is how would such a population due against a "modern" tyrannical military.  Syria tells up pretty badly unless they got long term broad support to the point that it is hard to argue that being armed initially does any good.

 

It's one of those hypotheticals then even concerned the Founders, so regardless of the odds of winning or losing, I'd still rather be given the chance then to assume it's pointless and nonsense.  

 

The odds against them concerning the British were also deemed borderline impossible, and we were absolutely getting our ass handed to us to start the revolutionary war.

 

There's gotta be a way to honor that concern they had while not having it simultaneously meaning folks have the right to walk into Chick-fil-A with an AR-15 strapped to their back, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

Another thing is who helps a tyrannical US in this hypothetical?  China may be pleased we aren't in their way nagging about democracy or human rights anymore, but as a rival, they may prefer to jus watch us burn.

[bearrock]

@tshile   My main point was that individual gun rights should be discussed within the context of self defense, not as a safeguard against tyranny (that would be the whole well regulated militia thing, which would be states' rights).  One could argue for the need for semi-autos and all that even within that context.  But at least the discussion would pertain to scenarios within the realm of realistic possibilities with reasoned tradeoffs.

 

Russia point was that dictators are not always deterred by conventional weapons (which Ukraine had and US citizens have to a lesser extent in a theoretical fight against the government).  Insanity of Putin and his nuclear arsenal would require a weapon of matching fire power to deter.  The reason that example doesn't support guns as effective deterrent to tyranny is because guns are not matching firepower to what a US dictator would have at their disposal obviously.  At that point, the deterrence is the extent to the dictator's madness and the willingness of the US military to go along with it.

 

29 minutes ago, tshile said:

the topic was if that happens, would the populace having guns matter?

 

At what point would it matter?  You're telling me handguns wouldn't be enough right?  Is handguns and rifles good enough?  Handgun, rifles, and shotguns?  I suppose in a theoretical venn diagram there's going to be slice where handguns couldn't get the job done but a nice supply of semi-autos would.  Not exactly sure what conditions exist for that scenario, but I'll assume such a scenario exists.  But then how do you draw the line there?  Wouldn't there be a slice where machine guns would be real handy for the resistance?  Set aside the obvious non-starters like nukes (though as I said, logically you really couldn't when the goal is set as giving individuals the power to resist tyranny), how does one logically permit one weapon but ban another which would provide individuals with even superior fire power?  

 

Once the discussion goes down the rabbithole of fighting tyranny, there is simply no rational point to draw the line.  Any weapon that provides superior destructive power to an individual would necessarily further the supposed goal of the second amendment.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

5 hours ago, Forever A Redskin said:

To those who want to ban guns, would you proudly display a yard sign that says "this house is proudly gun-free"?

Yea, I have a dog. I don’t know if you ever watched LivePD but cops used to say all the time that criminals were more afraid of getting bit than getting shot and I have no reason to doubt that.

 

5 hours ago, Forever A Redskin said:

Banning guns won't stop criminals from buying them. It will only result in the bad guys having all the guns with us having nothing to defend ourselves from them with.

 

Where are the bad guys going to steal the guns from? And buy ammo for the stolen guns?  And won’t banning guns increase the costs for criminals, eg create barriers? Do you think Adam Lanza or Salvador Ramos would of had the skills necessary to obtain a weapon off the street?
 

5 hours ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

Having law enforcement be the only ones allowed to have guns is a recipe for tyranny.

 

most of the western world is Democratic, more Democratic that we are, and they have very restrictive gun laws. Empirical evidence disagrees with you.

 

5 hours ago, Forever A Redskin said:

School shootings will happen regardless if AR-15s are banned or not. They'll just use something else.

 

Then make them use something else. Let’s not pretend a AK47 and a  9mm do the same amount of damage in the same amount of time.

Edited June 7, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[PeterMP]

52 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

It's one of those hypotheticals then even concerned the Founders, so regardless of the odds of winning or losing, I'd still rather be given the chance then to assume it's pointless and nonsense.  

 

The odds against them concerning the British were also deemed borderline impossible, and we were absolutely getting our ass handed to us to start the revolutionary war.

 

There's gotta be a way to honor that concern they had while not having it simultaneously meaning folks have the right to walk into Chick-fil-A with an AR-15 strapped to their back, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

Another thing is who helps a tyrannical US in this hypothetical?  China may be pleased we aren't in their way nagging about democracy or human rights anymore, but as a rival, they may prefer to jus watch us burn.

 

1.  If the US government is able to hold to most of its natural resources (e.g. oil rich lands), then I don't see why they'd need help.

 

2.  They absolutely have something to do with one another.

 

(3.  I'll point out what changed was partly assistance from the French and the British populace getting tired of the war.  The British government wasn't really a tyranny at that point.  The Stamp Act was an act passed by Parliament and not a declaration of from King George.  At the battle of Trenton, we mostly fought and beat Hessian mercenaries not committed British regulars because the British government wasn't really a tyranny and the British populace had gotten tired of spending lives and money on keeping us part of their Empire.  We won because we got support and were committed to winning.  Not so much because we started with some guns.)

[tshile]

27 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Once the discussion goes down the rabbithole of fighting tyranny, there is simply no rational point to draw the line.

Well that’s not true unless you make it so by determining there is only one way to analyze all of this - that both sides need some version of equal firepower for the possibility of doing anything about it. 
 

you don’t have to frame it that way. 
 

you can frame it the way I did:

there is almost universal agreement individuals should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons, regardless of the 2nd amendment. So clearly a line can be drawn somewhere. I am happy with wherever society, as a whole, draws it. And I’ll work from there. 
 

There is no requirement that the firepower be equal in order for the amendment to mean what it means. That’s something you’re imposing on the conversation. 
 

(I read the rest of your post. I’m fine with what you said, not ignoring it, just don’t want to argue any of  it further)

Edited June 7, 2022 by tshile

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

We won because we got support and were committed to winning.  Not so much because we started with some guns

If we didn’t start with guns, do we get that support?

 

Ukraine has received a lot of help. Including indirect (sanctions on Russia), but let’s not forget that it took Ukrainians standing up and fighting g for themselves with what we prepped them with and that’s basically it. For a while it was assumed they’d fall like Afghanistan, just 6 months old in peoples minds. There wasn’t much support for being involved in ukraine at all. It took the Ukrainians earning that support with their will to fight, their social media presence, and the stories being shared of their heroism and their civility and desire for democracy. Support picked up and has continued to pick up since.

 

and on a separate point wrt something you’ve said, simply trying to be brief, this idea that the US military as it current stands would be the entity of tyranny is one but many possibilities. I believe most things that would divide us to that point, would create a divide in the military. And I think guessing exactly what that looks like is a bit impossible and it probably relies on a bunch of stuff we also can’t predict. 

[bearrock]

31 minutes ago, tshile said:

Well that’s not true unless you make it so by determining there is only one way to analyze all of this - that both sides need some version of equal firepower for the possibility of doing anything about it. 
 

you don’t have to frame it that way. 
 

you can frame it the way I did:

there is almost universal agreement individuals should not be allowed to own nuclear weapons, regardless of the 2nd amendment. So clearly a line can be drawn somewhere. I am happy with wherever society, as a whole, draws it. And I’ll work from there. 
 

There is no requirement that the firepower be equal in order for the amendment to mean what it means. That’s something you’re imposing on the conversation. 

 

The standard I'm using is not whether firepower will be equal but whether the banned weapon will make fighting tyranny easier.  You're happy to work with whatever line society draws because you're a reasonable guy who'll happily take me to Vegas (right? right????).  But courts can't decide cases based on well this ban is okay because tshile and bearrock won't make stink over it.  Once you acknowledge resisting tyranny as the goal, how do you uphold a ban when someone says my bump stock is needed if I have to overthrow the government?  Or my machine gun is the perfect tool to show my displeasure over the election of a tyrant?  Only way would be to say that there are legal weapons that can do the job just as well or better.  If you can show that a weapon has more fire power than what is currently legally available, the courts would have no basis to ban a weapon that could act in furtherance of a resistance to tyranny.

 

Edit:  saw your edit, fair enough.  

Edited June 7, 2022 by bearrock

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

It's also a very real deterent from invasion on top of having oceans on either side of us.

Skipped over this earlier but I’ve definitely had conversations about this. Especially with military people. 
 

im not going to say it would definitely prevent an invasion. 
 

buy yeah it’s a factor. The only thing that would matter even more (in terms of the population, not the government/military) would be if everyone was required to serve enough to at least receive basic training and get some basic practice at combat even if just training. And if we had that, I think it’s fair to say we’d have even more civilians owning weapons than we already do. 

[PeterMP]

36 minutes ago, tshile said:

If we didn’t start with guns, do we get that support?

 

Ukraine has received a lot of help. Including indirect (sanctions on Russia), but let’s not forget that it took Ukrainians standing up and fighting g for themselves with what we prepped them with and that’s basically it. For a while it was assumed they’d fall like Afghanistan, just 6 months old in peoples minds. There wasn’t much support for being involved in ukraine at all. It took the Ukrainians earning that support with their will to fight, their social media presence, and the stories being shared of their heroism and their civility and desire for democracy. Support picked up and has continued to pick up since.

 

and on a separate point wrt something you’ve said, simply trying to be brief, this idea that the US military as it current stands would be the entity of tyranny is one but many possibilities. I believe most things that would divide us to that point, would create a divide in the military. And I think guessing exactly what that looks like is a bit impossible and it probably relies on a bunch of stuff we also can’t predict. 

 

The Ukrainians were getting support BEFORE the Russian invasion.  They had access to western equipment and training before hand (Remember the Trump phone call).  We've ramped it up since.  But the Ukrainian army was NOT a bunch of guys with AR-15s purchased on their own before the Russian invasion.  The Russian Special Forces that were defeated in Kyiv the first night of the war were not defeated because a bunch of people in Kyiv personally own AR-15 like weapons.  They were defeated by western supported Ukrainian military forces.

 

An implication that the two things are comparable is a false implication.

 

Related to that, the idea that most Americans owned guns before the Revolution is false, and then personally owned guns being important for defeating the British and allowing us to get the help is also false.

 

https://www.revolutionarywarjournal.com/contrary-to-myth-most-americans-did-not-own-guns-at-the-start-of-the-american-revolution/

 

Guns were expensive, mostly came from Europe, and only a small percent of Americans owned a gun.  The guns that were being protected at the battle of Lexington and Concord were owned by the state as part of an "organized militia", brought over from Europe, and not privately owned guns.

 

Okay and if the US military splits then individuals having individual weapons matters a lot less because you are going to get weapons from the US military.

 

Until very recently, the 2nd amendment has never been interpreted as a right for an individual to own a weapon.

Edited June 7, 2022 by PeterMP

[tshile]

7 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Once you acknowledge resisting tyranny as the goal, how do you uphold a ban when someone says my bump stock is needed if I have to overthrow the government?  Or my machine gun is the perfect tool to show my displeasure over the election of a tyrant?  Only way would be to say that there are legal weapons that can do the job just as well or better.  If you can show that a weapon has more fire power than what is currently legally available, the courts would have no basis to ban a weapon that could act in furtherance of a resistance to tyranny.

it just feels like a super rigid box you’ve created. Like we either believe tyranny is a treat and therefor there can be no rules, or there can be any rules because the threat of tyranny is bull****. 
 

i think it’s ok to be reasonable and demand other people be reasonable. 
 

i think there have been ample times over the existence of our legs system where judges have ruled where being reasonable was a consideration. I don’t feel like our legal system is like mathematics where there is a rigid formal to follow constantly and always. 
 

And we didn’t ban machine guns. Or rpgs. We put a strict system in place. And I believe FFL’s, at some level I think, require you to sign over some rights about being searched. 
 

I reject a purely tax way of doing this because I find it laughable anyone pushing for gun control would advocate for a law that says this part of your rights is determined by your disposable income. I completely understand the desire to do something, anything, that could possibly maneuver around all the barriers. But logically it makes me laugh to see the people usually railing against the 1%’s to come down on the idea that we should limit ar 15’s to the people that can afford to

drop 12k on one. 
 

But if you wanted to say you need an FFL to own a semiautomatic, then all I gave to say is go get it up for a vote and let’s see what happens. 
 

Honestly, thinking back on something I mean turned earlier… the Dems should try pushing ideas that have expirations. I honestly think you’ll get more support. If people knew the law would go away in 5-10 years if it didn’t work out the way they like, they might be more willing to try it. 

[Renegade7]

38 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

1.  If the US government is able to hold to most of its natural resources (e.g. oil rich lands), then I don't see why they'd need help.

 

Fair, but we currently running huge deficit, have most of our history, and our ability to cover those deficits are directly tired to our supposed stability and likely hood to pay them back. Wars expensive, Civil War wouldn't be cheap (back to China possibly not helping and preferring chaos in the West).

 

38 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

2.  They absolutely have something to do with one another.

 

Never said they didn't have anything to do with one another, but that they are nowhere near each other considering why Founders made the 2nd Amendment. One is more so about showing off in the name of freedom, the other is actually fighting for it.

 

38 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

(3.  I'll point out what changed was partly assistance from the French and the British populace getting tired of the war.  The British government wasn't really a tyranny at that point.  The Stamp Act was an act passed by Parliament and not a declaration of from King George.  At the battle of Trenton, we mostly fought and beat Hessian mercenaries not committed British regulars because the British government wasn't really a tyranny and the British populace had gotten tired of spending lives and money on keeping us part of their Empire.  We won because we got support and were committed to winning.  Not so much because we started with some guns.)

 

British forces absolutely were responsibly for kicking George Washington out of NYC and occupying Manhattan.  It was British troops and officers folks with the Kentucky long rifle were picking off in their attempt to cut the colonies in half. Us not only having guns but making modifications to make them more accurate while killing their leadership was a huge factor in the war.

 

It took one or two major victories before France even took us seriously, and I'd argue it was surrounding that many British troops into surrender at Yorktown that killed the idea of sending any more more so then public opinion in Britain. 

 

I'll be honest, not sure what your definition of tyrannical is, we had to make a rule to not let soldiers take over people's homes because the British were doing it so much to us.

Edited June 7, 2022 by Renegade7

[PeterMP]

9 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Never said they didn't have anything to do with one another, but that they are nowhere near each other considering why Founders made the 2nd Amendment. One is more so about showing off in the name of freedom, the other is actually fighting for it.

 

"There's gotta be a way to honor that concern they had while not having it simultaneously meaning folks have the right to walk into Chick-fil-A with an AR-15 strapped to their back, they have nothing to do with each other."

 

🤔

[tshile]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

The Ukrainians were getting support BEFORE the Russian invasion

I mentioned that. Not in what you quoted but somewhere in the last several posts I mentioned we were helping them beforehand. I believe it was several years beforehand. Since they went into crimea if I remember correctly. I just wanted to make sure you are aware I know that. 
 

my point was and is that I think you are seriously downplaying the meaning of a heavily armed populace, in the even the people need to take up arms against someone - whether it’s a domestic threat or a foreign threat. I think you, and others, who downplay what that means are so far out of bounds it’s amazing. To the point where it feels like we live in two different realities if you don’t think that matters. Because ultimately that’s what you all are saying - the degree to which it would matter is so negligible that it’s not event a worthy topic to consider. 
 

Which is a lot to say absolutely nothing about what the laws should be that determine who can own what and through what exact process that person must go through to be in good legal standing in it’s their weapons. 
 

And also In some part I’m arguing the reality of doing such a thing, and I’m not even the person you need to worry about. Im pretty amiable on the gun laws. Years ago I posted that I was ok with us being limited to non-semiautomatic guns ( @bearrockif your head just exploded let me explain) of that was the rule for everyone and there was no grandfathering in - turn in or confiscate. If that’s what most of society wants and can get a law like that, I will be ok with it. It makes sense to me that people would want to try that. 
 

so I’m not the person in your way. 
 

but I don’t think you have a shred of a chance at banning semiautomatic weapons. Not even close. 

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

"There's gotta be a way to honor that concern they had while not having it simultaneously meaning folks have the right to walk into Chick-fil-A with an AR-15 strapped to their back, they have nothing to do with each other."

 

🤔

 

Ok, you caught me, I'm tired.  They really shouldn't, hope you don't ignore rest of what I said because of that.

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

"There's gotta be a way to honor that concern they had while not having it simultaneously meaning folks have the right to walk into Chick-fil-A with an AR-15 strapped to their back, they have nothing to do with each other."

 

🤔

i read what he said as to mean your right to own that weapon is not linked directly to your ability to walk into a chik-fil-a carrying one just like: what’s up? 
 

Like just being as direct as possible: there’s lots of room on it to believe you could pass a law that says:

You are allowed to own an ar15, but you are definitely not allowed to carry it into any chik-fil-a during or outside of business hours. 
 

And that isn’t necessarily a conflicting stance to take with regards to the 2nd amendment 

[bearrock]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

it just feels like a super rigid box you’ve created. Like we either believe tyranny is a treat and therefor there can be no rules, or there can be any rules because the threat of tyranny is bull****.

 

I just think citizens' resistance to tyranny will have to look different than what it looked like in the 1700s.  Government has changed.  Military has changed.  Even in the 1700s, citizens' uprising against the tyranny of the king required a lot of foreign aid and supply.  I think we're at a point where a secession attemot by a group of states would be a lot harder than it was in the 1800s just due to the sheer power imbalance of the Federal vs state government.

 

With respect to the reasonableness of the courts, that's why even the conservative justices in Heller found a constitutional right to bear arms for self defense and left it at that.  Tyranny becomes a very difficult logical hole to climb out of.  That's all I'm saying.  

 

11 minutes ago, tshile said:

Honestly, thinking back on something I mean turned earlier… the Dems should try pushing ideas that have expirations. I honestly think you’ll get more support. If people knew the law would go away in 5-10 years if it didn’t work out the way they like, they might be more willing to try it. 

 

I actually like this idea.  It's almost impossible to come up with laws that can't be improved upon or adjusted.  If we start with the assumption that modifications will be necessary, maybe we can get more done.

 

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

( @bearrockif your head just exploded let me explain)

 

🤣  Honest question, how much difference would banning all semi-auto make in mass shooting events?  I agree it's not happening, just curious.

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

And also In some part I’m arguing the reality of doing such a thing, and I’m not even the person you need to worry about. Im pretty amiable on the gun laws. Years ago I posted that I was ok with us being limited to non-semiautomatic guns ( @bearrockif your head just exploded let me explain) of that was the rule for everyone and there was no grandfathering in - turn in or confiscate. If that’s what most of society wants and can get a law like that, I will be ok with it. It makes sense to me that people would want to try that. 
 

so I’m not the person in your way. 
 

but I don’t think you have a shred of a chance at banning semiautomatic weapons. Not even close. 

 

I don't disagree about the reality of what can be done.

But partly that's because what has been done in the past is badly warped as compared to what actually happened in the past, even the recent past with armed resistance of civilians defeating actual armies.  And our own revolution.

 

(I suspect against a foreign threat our heavily armed populace would be a negative as much as a good thing and there would be a lot of friendly fire deaths and just general disorder because of it.  You'd have the American military potentially going into areas with armed US citizens and being hesitant to shoot while the foreign forces would be free to shoot at anybody that wasn't on their side.  But I don't know of any actual historical comparable cases.)