# Educate the Canadian on 'Bearing arms'!



## JDenver (May 2, 2009)

hi everyone - 

I'm asking this with sincerity and in the hopes that I can learn something about gun culture and maybe even something of a particular American perspective.

The whole 'Right to bear arms' thing, what, the 2nd Amendment, most Canadians don't really 'get it'.  Some have more of an affinity to it, mainly in the West, but most from the large cities don't get it at all.  We think things like;
- well, that was written back when it took 4 minutes to load a one shot rifle
- it was revolution times and the power of the individual was imperative to protecting the fledgling nation
- 'bearing arms' has limits, or should, just as 'free speech' has limits

I wanna hear the counter arguments though, and not from Fox News or CNN or Michael Moore.  

Remember, I'm really seriously asking and wanna read whatever you write!

thanks!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 2, 2009)

JDenver said:


> hi everyone -
> 
> I'm asking this with sincerity and in the hopes that I can learn something about gun culture and maybe even something of a particular American perspective.
> 
> ...



Let me see if I can help.

The first, and most important thing to understand about the US Bill of Rights is that it is not a list of what a US citizen's rights are.  In fact, the rights of citizens are never enumerated - we are assumed to have all possible rights, and furthermore, to have received them from 'our Creator', without having had them conferred on us by the government - any government.  That may seem like a small thing, but in reality, it is huge.  And a whole lot of Americans don't understand it either, or they would not say such stupid things as _"Oh yeah?  Show me where in the Constitution it says you have the right to XYZ (replace XYZ with whatever)."_

What the Bill of Rights does instead is list the rights that the US federal government (and by extension for some of them, the various states) are PROHIBITED from infringing.  And you can see that if you read them carefully.  They usually end in some language like "shall not be infringed."  So the Bill of Rights does not tell us what rights we have, it tells the federal government what rights they may not infringe upon.

OK, having said that - yes, there are limits to every right.  As you mentioned, the right to free speech.  But - and this is important - a right can generally only be abridged or curtailed when it infringes on ANOTHER right of citizens.  One example is the old saw _"Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins."_  One may have the right to free speech, which the federal government may not infringe upon, but if that speech negatively impacts the rights of another, then it CAN be infringed upon - the classic example is yelling _"Fire!"_ in a crowded theater.  Doing so can be restricted, because a direct line cause-and-effect can be shown between uttering those words and inciting a panic that leads to dead citizens, trampled on their way to the exits.

As to the 2nd Amendment, it can be infringed, and has - based on a variety of issues, some of which may be re-examined some day by the Supreme Court, some of which may not be.  For example, a convicted felon may not own a firearm - that right is permanently stripped from them.  The courts have held that felons, even ex-felons, represent a threat to the lives of their fellow citizens in perpetuity.  In some states, such rights can be restored by government, in some, the right is never restored.  The same, by the way, is true of voting for some felons.

However, in general, if one is going to restrict the 2nd Amendment to a class of people (felons, drug addicts, registered sex offenders, domestic abuse convicts, fugitives from justice, mental defectives, etc), then the reason given must reflect a direct threat to the rights of other citizens.  How clear that 'direct threat' must be varies from year to year as different political parties hold sway in the USA.

Now, as to your second point - about how some laws are simply considered outmoded and hence not worth following anymore - US law doesn't work like that.  Every law - all of them - are required to pass constitutional muster.  If challenged, they must not only reflect the Will of the People as expressed by the legislative system, but they must also not infringe upon rights protected by the Constitution (Bill of Rights).  This is the actual purpose of the Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS).  They have two jobs.  The first is to determine the Will of Congress in cases where laws appear unclear or vague.  The second is to determine if challenged laws violate the restrictions placed on the government by the Bill of Rights.

Now, there are some who view the Constitution as a living, breathing, document, one which must change with the times, and one which should be interpreted by comparison to the _zeitgiest_ (Spirit of the Times).  There are also those who believe that the job of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution based upon what the Founders meant - and nothing to do with what the ziegiest might happen to be.

The former is considered a liberal viewpoint in the USA, the latter a conservative viewpoint - although there is some bleed-over.  For examples, liberals in the US tend to want the 1st Amendment interpreted strictly, whilst conservatives in the US tend to want the 2nd Amendment interpreted strictly - both are less concerned with the other amendments in general, IMHO.

As a conservative, I take the viewpoint that the Constitution and the included amendments known as the Bill of Rights and the later amendments to be sacrosanct, and that they should be interpreted based upon the perceived Will of the Framers of those amendments. I don't much care about the zeitgeist, because I see it as a Will O' The Wisp, here today and gone tomorrow.  The USA is not a leaf to be blown about upon the winds of the common whim, with our laws interpreted this way today and that way tomorrow, based upon how most of us 'feel' about things.  In fact, I view this as absolute folly - and I wish liberals could see that as well.  What if things go your way today, and twenty years from now, racists rule the popular perception?  Shall we then reinstitute slavery, because that's what's hip and cool twenty years from now, or 100 years from now?  No.

I believe that our US Constitution was carved in stone, and is not to be interpreted any way but the way our Framers intended, and their intent is clearly known through historic scholarship.  We have a method whereby we can override the Will of the Founders, and that is by a new amendment.  It is hard to do - on purpose.  But it exists and it can be used anytime, if enough of us feel strongly enough about it.  That is the ONLY way in which the Constitution should be modified, and the only method by which new interpretations should be reached, in my humble opinion.

Of course, others may disagree with my assessment.

I hope you found this helpful.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 2, 2009)

JDenver said:


> hi everyone -
> 
> I'm asking this with sincerity and in the hopes that I can learn something about gun culture and maybe even something of a particular American perspective.



Hi



JDenver said:


> The whole 'Right to bear arms' thing, what, the 2nd Amendment, most Canadians don't really 'get it'.  Some have more of an affinity to it, mainly in the West, but most from the large cities don't get it at all.  We think things like;






JDenver said:


> - well, that was written back when it took 4 minutes to load a one shot rifle



What does timing of loading have to do with self defense and protecting oneself?




JDenver said:


> - it was revolution times and the power of the individual was imperative to protecting the fledgling nation



Yes the gun is obsolete as we have nuclear bombs now. You might want to tell that to those who lost their lives and or were injured or served or are serving since the invent the H Bomb. 

But that is military, and one should trust your government, so why do civilians need to be armed. 

They need to be armed for self defense be it from others or from the government. 




JDenver said:


> - 'bearing arms' has limits, or should, just as 'free speech' has limits



Having and owning a firearm has limits today. 

If you are a felon you cannot own one. 

In many cases the gun has to be inspected by the local sheriff's office and they also record the serial number. 

To carry in public concealed you have to get a special permit. 

It is illegal to shoot people.

It is illegal to kill people. 

It is illegal to rob or steal from people. 

So there are limits similar to Free speech. 





JDenver said:


> I wanna hear the counter arguments though, and not from Fox News or CNN or Michael Moore.
> 
> Remember, I'm really seriously asking and wanna read whatever you write!
> 
> thanks!



In Ontario where guns are not allowed and for hunting have to be stored at a storage and licensed facility, has all crime be removed? Has all gun crimes gone away? 

My guess, based upon news reports is that now that the government has taken away the firearms from the subjects/citizens of Ontario, Canada, only the criminals have firearms. 

Similar to England. They went from no guns even for the bad guys but no blades are illegal and Chiefs have to have special care with their blades and have them locked up when not in direct use (* read from article so this could be wrong, with recent changes *), as blade assaults have gone up. To the point they even call it an epidemic.


----------



## Gordon Nore (May 2, 2009)

Rich Parsons said:


> My guess, based upon news reports is that now that the government has taken away the firearms from the subjects/citizens of Ontario, Canada, only the criminals have firearms.



First, there are no 'subjects' of Ontario or Canada. You might be thinking of a British Subject, which is different from being a Canadian citizen, or a resident of Ontario.

The government has not taken away guns from Canadians per se -- however, yes there are more restrictions and limitations on what one can own. What is unique here...



a national firearms registry, which no longer includes long guns
personal carry permits are virtually impossible to obtain -- a civilian must have very unique needs in order to get one
 
So it is possible for me to own a rifle for collecting, hunting, or sports shooting. It is possible for me to have a handgun; however, I would be restricted from carrying it on my person. There is an awful lot of paperwork and compliance associated with gun ownership, more so than in many US jurisdictions; however, a Canadian can own gun or many guns.

Yes, we do have gun crime.


----------



## chinto (May 2, 2009)

it is simple really people.  the Canadians have always had the English culture and government system.  there the Government and the law are their own justification and NOT limited by anything! 

the United States Constitution is a LIMIT on the governments actions and power!  We the people are the Sovereigns!  Not the President or Congress or any other government entity.  

the Second Amendment to the Constitution is designed to make sure that the Sovereigns of the United States Of America have the weapons to enforce that right and power and if necessary stop the government from over stepping their bounds.

Yes boys and girls,  the second amendment is not about hunting, its about the right to stop the US Government from doing things if we decide we must, and do so by force of arms if it comes to it!    ( if you doubt this, please go read the federalist papers, and other documents written by the founding fathers of the United States. )


----------



## tellner (May 3, 2009)

Or you could choose to be more polite and less condescending. My opinions on firearms are different than those of the average Canadian. It doesn't mean they're ignorant or stupid and in need of education. It means we have a difference of opinion which might be resolved by discussion. Or it might be best if I kept my pie-hole shut and didn't tell other people how to run their country without an invitation.


----------



## JDenver (May 3, 2009)

tellner said:


> Or you could choose to be more polite and less condescending. My opinions on firearms are different than those of the average Canadian. It doesn't mean they're ignorant or stupid and in need of education. It means we have a difference of opinion which might be resolved by discussion. Or it might be best if I kept my pie-hole shut and didn't tell other people how to run their country without an invitation.



Yet I'm the one who is wanting the education.  I want to learn, which SHOULD signal to you that I consider your opinion and knowledge important and more informed than mine.  I posted many times about my sincerity.  What a shame that you had to jump all over me.

On the upside, I'm loving what folks have posted about the American constitution and its interpretation.  Very interesting.


----------



## Ken Morgan (May 3, 2009)

As a Canadian political junkie, Ive been involved at a serious level for some years.

Canada was founded on three principles, Peace, order and good government. Thats it; it says nothing about individual rights. 

Not judging our cousins to the south, were just based on different philosophies. Ive never had any problems in the States or the UK, if you close your eyes, except for some small differences, when you open them again, you could be in any of the three countries. All the English speaking countries are founded on the same basic principles. 

I have guns, and I follow the rules laid out by the law. Im allowed to buy a handgun, and use it, but there are tonnes of paperwork to go through.

The biggest firearms problem up here is the illegal guns coming up from the states. I even knew a guy years ago who would brag about the money he made reselling guns up here, he didnt care where they ended up. We ship marijuana south, they ship guns north.


----------



## Gordon Nore (May 3, 2009)

Ken Morgan said:


> The biggest firearms problem up here is the illegal guns coming up from the states. I even knew a guy years ago who would brag about the money he made reselling guns up here, he didnt care where they ended up. We ship marijuana south, they ship guns north.



Yes and no. I know where you're coming from. The federal CSIS report, released to the CBC a couple of years ago under FOI, shows that approximately half of crime weapons seized by police were illegal imports; thus approximately half of weapons came from legal sources, were stolen, misused, etc. In larger cities, like Toronto, we find that more than half of weapons used in street crime are illegal imports.

The gun problem that we do have is people shooting at eachother, regardless of where the guns came from.

I would argue that we can do no more in the name of controlling legal guns until we address an obvious problem with our own border security.

I've posted about this a number of times, but I'm going to bore people with it again. The Mayor of Toronto, David Miller, has mused repeatedly about making the city a gun-free zone, or hand-gun free zone. Given the presence of illegal weapons, it's a peculiar stance. He's attempted to close down gun clubs operating on city property -- this back-fired (pun intended) when a Canadian Olympic shooter revealed that she depended upon one of the clubs to continue her training.

As to the Constitutional/legal issues, as a number of people have pointed out, there is a cultural divide between Canada and the USA. The Constitution and Bill of Rights protects individual rights. The notion of inalienable individual rights doesn't work the same way in Canada.

Our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms was only written and enacted into law in the 1980s under PM Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Previously the constitution had been known as the British North America Act and resided in Britain. Trudeau repatriated the act and created the new constitution. When it was created, Britain was an ally -- so it's a very different circumstance from the US constitution.

As I see it, there is not a *constitutional* debate about guns in Canada -- although there surely is an important debate. The US Constitution, on the other hand, does, in the form of the second ammendment, have language that addresses the rights of citizens to "arm" themselves -- against an oppressive government or, as I understand, an invader.

Never fear, my American cousins. We shan't be invading anytime soon.


----------



## jarrod (May 3, 2009)

the short answer is that if you own modern firearms, it's much more difficult for others to impose their will on you unjustly.  this includes criminals as well as the government. 

jf


----------



## chinto (May 3, 2009)

jarrod said:


> the short answer is that if you own modern firearms, it's much more difficult for others to impose their will on you unjustly.  this includes criminals as well as the government.
> 
> jf





yep that is true!  and if you doubt it go ask a convicted bugler if he worries more about cops or a home owner who has a gun and will use it?

I have asked this question of such people.. guess what .. they are terrified of the armed citizen, and the cops are just  kinda dismissed with a sniff.


----------



## Gordon Nore (May 3, 2009)

chinto said:


> yep that is true!  and if you doubt it go ask a convicted bugler if he worries more about cops or a home owner who has a gun and will use it?
> 
> I have asked this question of such people.. guess what .. they are terrified of the armed citizen, and the cops are just  kinda dismissed with a sniff.



Not exactly the most reliable data source. I think the average burglar doesn't possess that much forethought, or he wouldn't be a "convicted burglar."


----------



## elder999 (May 3, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Not exactly the most reliable data source. I think the average burglar doesn't possess that much forethought, or he wouldn't be a "convicted burglar."


 

True dat, since nearly *96%* of all burglaries go unsolved.

"Convicted burglar"= _definition of _*"dumbass"*. :lol:




JDenver said:


> hi everyone -
> 
> I'm asking this with sincerity and in the hopes that I can learn something about gun culture and maybe even something of a particular American perspective.
> 
> ...


 

The funny thing about guns is that in many countries outside the U.S. they're a symbol of oppression and strife, and here, they're a symbol of freedom. Others have said, as well as or better than I have in the past, that the key reason behind the 2nd Amendment is to enable us to overthrow the government-and that's true, though somewhat outdated, like the things you originally posted about. The bottom line, though, is that the concept isn't at all outdated: people shouldn't fear their government-government should exist in constant fear of *the people*.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 4, 2009)

JDenver said:


> hi everyone -
> 
> I'm asking this with sincerity and in the hopes that I can learn something about gun culture and maybe even something of a particular American perspective.
> 
> ...


 To understand the 2nd Amendment, and what we believe about it, you have to understand the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights, and what the founders intended.  A good start is James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights.



> "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." -James Madison





> "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison



Okay, but why is that important....



> "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." -James Madison



Okay, but wouldn't a powerful standing army be a better defender of the 'state'?



> "It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." -James Madison



Interesting.....so the very tools of foreign defense, i.e. the military, has historically been the tool of domestic despotism....

Surely government's can be trusted....



> "The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." -James Madison



Hope that helps as a primer.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 4, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Not exactly the most reliable data source. I think the average burglar doesn't possess that much forethought, or he wouldn't be a "convicted burglar."


You're misjudging the issue......they do have immediate forethought, i.e. immediate consequences.......they just believe in (wrongly) their ability to escape undetected from future consequences.....future potential consequences are more abstract than immediate consequences to the human mind......that's why the risk of smoking is not perceived the same as a poisonous snake in close proximity. 

In that sense, the risk of immediate death is a much greater deterrent than the risk of potential future incarceration as a deterrent to burglary.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 4, 2009)

elder999 said:


> The funny thing about guns is that in many countries outside the U.S. they're a symbol of oppression and strife, and here, they're a symbol of freedom. Others have said, as well as or better than I have in the past, that the key reason behind the 2nd Amendment is to enable us to overthrow the government-and that's true, though somewhat outdated, like the things you originally posted about. The bottom line, though, is that the concept isn't at all outdated: people shouldn't fear their government-government should exist in constant fear of *the people*.


+1

As you rightly point out the reason that guns in particular, and private arms in general, have long been the proprietary tools of the state is, because to allow those tools to be held by individuals is to take away the states monopoly on power.

The two inventions that had the most impact on creating a modern society built on concern from individual liberty and freedom were the printing press......and the individual rifle.


----------



## lklawson (May 4, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Not exactly the most reliable data source. I think the average burglar doesn't possess that much forethought, or he wouldn't be a "convicted burglar."


I recall a study which questioned violent offenders in prison as to firearms.  They were generally less concerned with LEO, but *were* concerned about armed citizens and, in particular, other armed criminals and, when actively seeking to acquire firearms, did so in order to protect themselves against those.

56% said that they worry more about armed victims than about police.
58% said that a store owner with a gun will get robbed less.
58% said that a gun is most important to me to use for self-protection.
*ONLY* 28% said that a gun is most important to me to use in a crime.
Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous; and D.E.S. Burr, Handgun Regulation (Tallahassee: Florida Bureau of Criminal Justice and Planning)

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JDenver (May 4, 2009)

lklawson said:


> I recall a study which questioned violent offenders in prison as to firearms.  They were generally less concerned with LEO, but *were* concerned about armed citizens and, in particular, other armed criminals and, when actively seeking to acquire firearms, did so in order to protect themselves against those.
> 
> 56% said that they worry more about armed victims than about police.
> 58% said that a store owner with a gun will get robbed less.
> ...



But wouldn't this be the natural set of answers from violent criminals?


----------



## lklawson (May 4, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> As you rightly point out the reason that guns in particular, and private arms in general, have long been the proprietary tools of the state is, because to allow those tools to be held by individuals is to take away the states monopoly on power.


Is that still true in modern U.S.?

The State has access to fully automatic rifles and shotguns, highly trained street and entry teams, advanced supply lines, specialized training and equipment specifically designed to be effective against civilian insurgency, and, importantly, a decade of experience in the middle east against just such a scenario.

I've got several WWII pieces, including a semi-auto M1 Carbine, shotguns, pistols, etc. But I don't have a SAR, M203, or a full auto, drum fed shotgun loaded with HE and Frag rounds. I'd wonder whether a freaking Company of civvies armed as I would have a chance against a modern Entry Team or two.

I mean, let's be honest here. Even if the average civvie collector had a M16 or a AK47/74 would he be a match in either equipment or training? Especially considering that in most cases *DUE TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION* those would not be at a parity in rate of fire with what the State Actors would have. And that's without considering that the average civvie here in the U.S. frequently is restricted from LEO grade body armour, has no chance at an up-armored Hummer, or anything approaching modern HE or Frag. Heck, we'd have no chance at access to technology *DECADES *out of date such as an RPG-7. Heck, we can't even (legally) have a functioning Bazooka and that's WWII technology.

Think about what this means to the theory that an armed civilian populace in the U.S. has the capacity to prevent government tyranny. I contend that the reality is that said capacity has been effectively legislated away in slow increments. We can debate whether or not it's necessary in modern society, whether or not civilian access to such "advanced" weapons would represent a greater danger to the public weal, and any/all of the other arguments that crop up with allowing civilian parity with modern military infantry men, but the fact remains, that the parity is a myth.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 4, 2009)

JDenver said:


> But wouldn't this be the natural set of answers from violent criminals?


Doen't mean it's not true.  Why on earth would they lie about it?  In fact, it'd probably make more sense for them to lie the other way.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JDenver (May 4, 2009)

lklawson said:


> Doen't mean it's not true.  Why on earth would they lie about it?  In fact, it'd probably make more sense for them to lie the other way.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



You're right, you're right.  I just wonder if a government should set its policies on gun control around criminal fears of vigilantiism.  

It's really interesting stats though - thanks for them!


----------



## Gordon Nore (May 4, 2009)

lklawson said:


> I recall a study which questioned violent offenders in prison as to firearms...
> 
> 56% said that they worry more about armed victims than about police.
> 58% said that a store owner with a gun will get robbed less.
> ...



I'll take that study at face value. The ability of law abiding American gun owners to defend their homes and businesses is, as I understand it, a bi-product of the Second Amendment. The amendment itself guarantees the right of citizens to defend themselves from an oppressive _government_, do I have that right?



elder999 said:


> "Convicted burglar"= _definition of _*"dumbass"*. :lol:



Aaron said more colorfully what I was struggling for.


----------



## lklawson (May 4, 2009)

JDenver said:


> You're right, you're right. I just wonder if a government should set its policies on gun control around criminal fears of vigilantiism.


In theory, at least, the purpose of a government is for the betterment of the public.  (Parenthetically, this is particularly true of the U.S. which has founding documents which state that the purpose is to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...") Though not actually the definition of vigilantiism, the fact that criminals appear to fear self defense by armed civilians more than action of the State would seem to indicate that a logically reasoning State would consider this as a more heavily weighted factor in policies and regulations for gun control.  Because this does not seem to be the case, the most reasonable conclusions are either that the government is not truly interested in the betterment of the public, that the government does not function logically, or both at once.



> It's really interesting stats though - thanks for them!


Welcome.  

There are quite a large number more related to this debate.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 4, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> I'll take that study at face value. The ability of law abiding American gun owners to defend their homes and businesses is, as I understand it, a bi-product of the Second Amendment. The amendment itself guarantees the right of citizens to defend themselves from an oppressive _government_, do I have that right?


The Federalist Papers and related documents indicate, at the minimum, a tripartate reasoning.  First, to prevent government tyranny.  Second, to oppose foreign invaders.  Third, to provide self defense against criminals.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 4, 2009)

lklawson said:


> Is that still true in modern U.S.?



Yes, I contend it is.



> The State has access to fully automatic rifles and shotguns, highly trained street and entry teams, advanced supply lines, specialized training and equipment specifically designed to be effective against civilian insurgency, and, importantly, a decade of experience in the middle east against just such a scenario.



And the state has access to citizen-soldiers.  They are not automatons, nor do they cease being citizens upon enlistment or commissioning.

Weapons generally do not operate by themselves.



> I've got several WWII pieces, including a semi-auto M1 Carbine, shotguns, pistols, etc. But I don't have a SAR, M203, or a full auto, drum fed shotgun loaded with HE and Frag rounds. I'd wonder whether a freaking Company of civvies armed as I would have a chance against a modern Entry Team or two.



In Afghanistan, when Russia was occupying it, opposition irregular forces would draw heavily armored Hind helicopters into mountain draws and toss steel cables from mountainous craggy peaks into their rotor blades.



> I mean, let's be honest here. Even if the average civvie collector had a M16 or a AK47/74 would he be a match in either equipment or training? Especially considering that in most cases *DUE TO FEDERAL LEGISLATION* those would not be at a parity in rate of fire with what the State Actors would have. And that's without considering that the average civvie here in the U.S. frequently is restricted from LEO grade body armour, has no chance at an up-armored Hummer, or anything approaching modern HE or Frag. Heck, we'd have no chance at access to technology *DECADES *out of date such as an RPG-7. Heck, we can't even (legally) have a functioning Bazooka and that's WWII technology.



I suggest the book "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross.

http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Consequences-John-Ross/dp/1888118040

Also consider the number of civilians versus the number of active-duty military, the number of active-duty military who would actually obey orders to turn on the civilian populace, and the various uses of asymmetrical warfare.



> Think about what this means to the theory that an armed civilian populace in the U.S. has the capacity to prevent government tyranny. I contend that the reality is that said capacity has been effectively legislated away in slow increments. We can debate whether or not it's necessary in modern society, whether or not civilian access to such "advanced" weapons would represent a greater danger to the public weal, and any/all of the other arguments that crop up with allowing civilian parity with modern military infantry men, but the fact remains, that the parity is a myth.



Parity is a myth.  The armed citizen populace is more than a match for the current US military.  Given the size of the country, the current-strength military could not do more than hold a few strategic cities and/or military bases in the USA.

There are simply too many of us, dispersed too well, and too many guns, for the US military to have any significant advantages.  It would be over rather quickly.


----------



## Grenadier (May 4, 2009)

JDenver said:


> The whole 'Right to bear arms' thing, what, the 2nd Amendment, most Canadians don't really 'get it'. Some have more of an affinity to it, mainly in the West, but most from the large cities don't get it at all. We think things like;
> - well, that was written back when it took 4 minutes to load a one shot rifle


 
If that were the case, then does "freedom of the press" (part of the First Amendment) only apply to newspapers made on printing presses?  Does "freedom of religion" only apply to religions that were already in existence prior to the end of the 18th century?  

Even in the often misquoted case of _USA v Miller_, the case where the gun grabbers assert that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals (the court ruling actually DID state that it was an individual right), the SCOTUS ruled that the Second Amendment applied to contemporary military weapons.  

Besides, _DC v Heller_ has finally put this issue to rest, that the Second Amendment DOES apply to the individual, and that the dependent clause (a well-regulated militia being necessary) has no bearing on the impact of the independent clause (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed).  Simple, fundamental interpretation of the English Language.  




> - 'bearing arms' has limits, or should, just as 'free speech' has limits


 
There are plenty of restrictions in place already.  Just by reading the ATF 4473 form that every FFL holder (including all gun stores) must fill out for each transaction, one can see that there are arleady many individuals disqualified from owning firearms.  There are no further needs for restrictions regarding ownership.  

If anything, it can be assumed that those who lawfully own firearms, are some of the most law-abiding people you'll ever find.  After all, one who lawfully owns firearms does not have any felonies on his record, does not have a record of being a habitual drunkard, is not a user of illegal drugs, is not a member of a subversive organization, etc.  If someone has already passed the ATF 4473 / NICS check, then that already answers enough.  

Full auto weapons?  No problem.  Looking at the list of those who hold Class III permits for NFA automatic weapons, there has only been a single incident of such weapons being used in crimes, and that was done by a rogue police officer, who could have easily used his duty weapons instead.  




> I wanna hear the counter arguments though, and not from Fox News or CNN or Michael Moore.


 

Fox News is probably going to give you the best insight, regarding the major news sources.  They were the only major organization that pointed out the blatant lies that the New York Times had posted, regarding the so-called "90% of all guns used in Mexican crimes" figure.

To this date, news agencies the likes of the NY Times still adhere to such garbage statistics, and seem to hold disgraced researchers the likes of Arthur Kellerman and Michael Bellesiles in high regards...


----------



## lklawson (May 4, 2009)

First, I should specify that I'm not trying to be argumentative or to troll, but rather to propose some items for thought.



Bill Mattocks said:


> There are simply too many of us, dispersed too well, and too many guns, for the US military to have any significant advantages. It would be over rather quickly.


So you are essentially saying that, it doesn't matter what sort of technology or how "deadly" it may be that the U.S. Military has access to, there are a whole lot more potential insurgents and that evens out out odds?

Personally, I'm not sure I agree but I understand what you're saying.

Sure I understand that there are up to 80 million firearms owners in the U.S. (as an upper bounds) but how many of those represent "gradpa's .22" or a single .38 revolver bought for self defense?  How many of those owners would actually engage in insurgency?  Would it *REALLY* be possible for an insurgency to cut supply lines?

Well, anyway, like I said, just something to think about as we (as a nation) rubber stamp the Military having the AA-12 with HE/Fragmentation shells while the citizens are limited to (at best) 6 rounds of slug in a semi-auto.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Lisa (May 4, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> a national firearms registry, *which no longer includes long guns*



I know there was a bill in the senate but I had not heard that it passed.  When did it pass?  Considering the senate is full of liberals I doubted it would....:idunno:


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 4, 2009)

JDenver said:


> - well, that was written back when it took 4 minutes to load a one shot rifle
> - it was revolution times and the power of the individual was imperative to protecting the fledgling nation
> - 'bearing arms' has limits, or should, just as 'free speech' has limits


 
I got a little irritated when I read this, my first thought was does this guy seriously think the founders put so little foresight into what they did that they overlooked technological advancements completely? 
Do you really think the founders were so ignorant, that they believed firearms would forever be a 4 minute to load one shot type of thing?
I find it irritating that someone would think that the founders of a great nation would be so ignorant.
I also think that even though we are not in the Revolution anymore, that we are still in revolutionary times, and the power of the individual is still, if not even more so, necessary and imperative to protect our nations.
Bearing Arms in our country has too many limits already, unconstitutional ones at that, and our rights are being squeezed from us as we speak.


----------



## elder999 (May 4, 2009)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I got a little irritated when I read this, my first thought was does this guy seriously think the founders put so little foresight into what they did that they overlooked technological advancements completely?
> Do you really think the founders were so ignorant, that they believed firearms would forever be a 4 minute to load one shot type of thing?
> I find it irritating that someone would think that the founders of a great nation would be so ignorant.


 
Can't really say what they believed about the possible evolution of firearms, but considering that the repeating rifle wasn't invented until about 1854, didn't require any great advances in material sciences,  and didn't even have widespread use in the Civil War-muzzle loading muskets were still the order of the day, for the most part-I'd say that odds are good they weren't considering it.




LuckyKBoxer said:


> I also think that even though we are not in the Revolution anymore, that we are still in revolutionary times, and the power of the individual is still, if not even more so, necessary and imperative to protect our nations.
> Bearing Arms in our country has too many limits already, unconstitutional ones at that, and our rights are being squeezed from us as we speak.


 
On this, though, we're in agreement.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 4, 2009)

JDenver said:


> But wouldn't this be the natural set of answers from violent criminals?


 It would also be the logical concern of criminals......funny how that works.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 4, 2009)

lklawson said:


> Is that still true in modern U.S.?
> 
> The State has access to fully automatic rifles and shotguns, highly trained street and entry teams, advanced supply lines, specialized training and equipment specifically designed to be effective against civilian insurgency, and, importantly, a decade of experience in the middle east against just such a scenario.
> 
> ...


 Let me ask you this........are we still fighting a few thousand 4th world insurgents hiding in caves, armed mainly with 30 year old Russian rifles?  Have we defeated all of them yet?  Did the Russians?

So why would an armed populace of a few thousand OUTSIDE of America be able to fight the world's greatest super power.......but a few million Armed Americans couldn't fight it from within?  

Furthermore, those who expound on that notion that you can't fight those odd's envision tanks and bombers obliterating the rebellion.........but the very heavy handed act of using heavy weapons against the populace would ensure the DEFEAT of the government, not the rebellion.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (May 4, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Can't really say what they believed about the possible evolution of firearms, but considering that the repeating rifle wasn't invented until about 1854, didn't require any great advances in material sciences, and didn't even have widespread use in the Civil War-muzzle loading muskets were still the order of the day, for the most part-I'd say that odds are good they weren't considering it.
> 
> 
> > Well there were multibarrel guns as early as the late 1500s, and repeating crossbows before that, and less then a year after the Declaration of Indepence was signed there was a  gun that was firing as many as 25 rounds in as little as five seconds that was offered to the continental congress for sell, that was in 1777.. a bit before the Bill of Rights took effect, so I think its safe to say that the knowledge was most definitely there........./shrug obviously we can't go back and find out for sure, so its a guess either way, but I like to think they were on the smarter side of things, I would hate to think we are just one giant mistake that turned out ok LOL


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 4, 2009)

lklawson said:


> First, I should specify that I'm not trying to be argumentative or to troll, but rather to propose some items for thought.



Understood.



> So you are essentially saying that, it doesn't matter what sort of technology or how "deadly" it may be that the U.S. Military has access to, there are a whole lot more potential insurgents and that evens out out odds?



Yes and no.  Yes, the US has more potential insurgents - but no, it's not exactly like that, because you can't occupy yourself in the same sense that we occupy Iraq.  US military personnel are not part and parcel of Iraq - they remain 'other'.  Put them in a similar situation inside the US, and they're not 'other' anymore - they're 'us'.  You'd be assuming that 1 million US servicemen would remain a cohesive useful force when asked to attack their own homes and families - not going to happen.  Some would remain - some would go home.



> Personally, I'm not sure I agree but I understand what you're saying.



I'm just saying that playing the USA as adversary of the USA changes a lot of assumptions.  Even more than the Civil War did.



> Sure I understand that there are up to 80 million firearms owners in the U.S. (as an upper bounds) but how many of those represent "gradpa's .22" or a single .38 revolver bought for self defense?  How many of those owners would actually engage in insurgency?  Would it *REALLY* be possible for an insurgency to cut supply lines?



Yes, and here's why.  The US military runs on civilian access.  Civilians bring the bread and gasoline and do the dry cleaning and even provide the weapons and ammunition.  A typical military base, apart from perhaps a few like NORAD or Area 51 (hehehe) or whatever are not typically self-sustaining beyond a week or so.  No food, no gasoline, no services - they're not fortresses, they can't survive.  They don't have the manpower to impress and force civilians to provide those services - forget their own supply lines, they'd have to reach out and protect nationwide supply lines.

In a foreign invasion, if the invading army can't get supplies from the locals, they build their own supply lines and bring in stuff from home.  When at home...where they gonna get their stuff?

And the weapon mis-match?  Doesn't matter.  The US is not going to nuke the US, or employ bombs or high energy devices against our own infrastructure.  It's like this - would you go after a burglar in your home with a flame-thrower?  No, you would use a plain old fashioned shotgun.  Same theory here.

And there would be no set-piece battles, it would all be asymmetric warfare, and some of the opponents of the military would be military veterans and military deserters, equally matched.  Don't forget the Nat Guard armories located in civilian hands.



> Well, anyway, like I said, just something to think about as we (as a nation) rubber stamp the Military having the AA-12 with HE/Fragmentation shells while the citizens are limited to (at best) 6 rounds of slug in a semi-auto.



They won't be knocking down bridges or blowing up infrastructure, so most of their best weapons are neutralized before they can be used.

Imagine you as an invading army, and your neighbor's house as the land you're invading.  You don't really care too much if you severely damage their house, nor if you kill all the people inside, and your food and supplies come from YOUR house.

Now imagine you are invading your own house, fighting your own family.  Blow up your fridge, you got no cold beer.  Blow up your spouse, you got no...well, you get the idea.  It's very different when you're stomping around in your own house.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 4, 2009)

JDenver said:


> You're right, you're right.  I just wonder if a government should set its policies on gun control around criminal fears of vigilantiism.
> 
> It's really interesting stats though - thanks for them!


 Our government should set it's policies around the US Constitution, as it is ORDERED to DO!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 4, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Parity is a myth.  The armed citizen populace is more than a match for the current US military.  Given the size of the country, the current-strength military could not do more than hold a few strategic cities and/or military bases in the USA.
> 
> There are simply too many of us, dispersed too well, and too many guns, for the US military to have any significant advantages.  It would be over rather quickly.



Exactly, and moreover.......it is assumed by the poster that former (and current) military personnel wouldn't be at the spear point of any resistance to a tyrannical government.

There's a reason the military oath is to 'Defend the CONSTITUTION against all enemies, foreign and domestic' not just to serve the government.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 4, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Can't really say what they believed about the possible evolution of firearms, but considering that the repeating rifle wasn't invented until about 1854, didn't require any great advances in material sciences,  and didn't even have widespread use in the Civil War-muzzle loading muskets were still the order of the day, for the most part-I'd say that odds are good they weren't considering it.


 Regardless of what they believed about the evolution of arms, a very clear and logical parallel can be made between infantry small arms of the Colonial era and infantry small arms of today......the rifle and musket of 1776 IS the M4 rifle of 2009 as per it's role as an infantry arm.......and it is, therefore, THE arm MOST protected by the 2nd Amendment......Ironic that the arm most protected by the 2nd Amendment, is the one FIRST targeted by the anti-gun crowd.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 4, 2009)

lklawson said:


> So you are essentially saying that, it doesn't matter what sort of technology or how "deadly" it may be that the U.S. Military has access to, there are a whole lot more potential insurgents and that evens out out odds?


 War of the Flea........big, heavy weaponry is WORSE than useless in a 4GW conflict......it's actually a liability.  As it's use against a civilian populace GROWS the insurgency.



lklawson said:


> Sure I understand that there are up to 80 million firearms owners in the U.S. (as an upper bounds) but how many of those represent "gradpa's .22" or a single .38 revolver bought for self defense?  How many of those owners would actually engage in insurgency?  Would it *REALLY* be possible for an insurgency to cut supply lines?


 How many civilians do you think are floating around the US right now who are veterans with SERIOUS skill sets?  Hundreds of thousands?  How many current military do you think will take up arms against US citizens in violation of their oath to defend the Constitution?



lklawson said:


> Well, anyway, like I said, just something to think about as we (as a nation) rubber stamp the Military having the AA-12 with HE/Fragmentation shells while the citizens are limited to (at best) 6 rounds of slug in a semi-auto.


 I'd take an M1 Garand to an AA-12 or even an M4 carbine in a general conflict.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 4, 2009)

Those who believe that a modern sophisticated army is too powerful for an armed populace to oppose fails to understand the situation.



> Analogically, the guerrilla fights the war of the
> flea, and his military enemy suffers the dogs disadvantages:
> too much to defend; too small, ubiquitous,
> and agile an enemy to come to grips with.
> ...


----------



## Gordon Nore (May 4, 2009)

Lisa said:


> I know there was a bill in the senate but I had not heard that it passed.  When did it pass?  Considering the senate is full of liberals I doubted it would....:idunno:



I believe the long guns came off the registry quite a while back, but I'll look it up.


----------



## elder999 (May 4, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Those who believe that a modern sophisticated army is too powerful for an armed populace to oppose fails to understand the situation.


 

And should maybe ask the Russians about the Afghan _Mujahadeen_.


----------



## lklawson (May 5, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Exactly, and moreover.......it is assumed by the poster that former (and current) military personnel wouldn't be at the spear point of any resistance to a tyrannical government.


Don't assume too much about the assumptions and thought processes of a poster who's already specified he's simply presenting food for thought.  Said poster might be working for the DOD on a military base and doing nothing more than presenting a thought experiment, as he's already indicated.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 5, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> War of the Flea........big, heavy weaponry is WORSE than useless in a 4GW conflict......it's actually a liability. As it's use against a civilian populace GROWS the insurgency.


I find it interesting that, more than once now, replies about disparity of weapon technology has focused on non-infantry such as nukes, air-bombing, and heavy bombardment.  This is interesting because I have specified nothing but combat infantry, man-portable weapons such as M16, SAR, and AA-12.  In other words, I agree that "big, heavy weaponry" isn't part of the parity equation.



> How many civilians do you think are floating around the US right now who are veterans with SERIOUS skill sets? Hundreds of thousands?


Who knows.  When I first read KOGK I immediately noted that Applegate had an early precursor to room-entry/clearing technique.  It would have worked and was superior to anything going at the time he wrote it.  But, only a few short years later now, modern room-clearing technique is far superior to what Applegate was teaching.  My point is that modern skills are continually improved, continually best-match-mated to modern weaponry and conditions, and that skill sets of veterans (indeed ANY person) degrades with disuse.  No offense to those worthies, just saying that if you haven't done room-clearing drills in 10 years, those skills are going to be "rusty" at best and most likely won't incorporate the latest innovations.

Note that I'm not saying they're useless, worthless, or wouldn't be applied to the hypothetical insurgency.  I'm simply saying that they wouldn't represent a parity.




> How many current military do you think will take up arms against US citizens in violation of their oath to defend the Constitution?


Who knows?  All of them one would hope.  But that's not particularly relevant to my assertion that the equipment available to the modern Warfighter is vastly superior to what is legally available to the modern potential insurgent to a tyranicial government.



> I'd take an M1 Garand to an AA-12 or even an M4 carbine in a general conflict.


Shotguns are more appropriate to urban warfare than an autoloading 30/30.  Unless you're a sniper, you're less likely to need to reachout an touch someone from two football fields.  Room-to-room, on the other hand...

But, again, as I've said before, consider it as food for thought, a "what if" discussion, not a personal challenge.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 5, 2009)

elder999 said:


> And should maybe ask the Russians about the Afghan _Mujahadeen_.


I remember hearing about them.  Didn't an opposing Superpower send them weapons, anti-aircraft, training, and "advisors"?  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## elder999 (May 5, 2009)

lklawson said:


> I remember hearing about them. Didn't an opposing Superpower send them weapons, anti-aircraft, training, and "advisors"?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


 

Only _after_ they'd kicked some substantial amounts of ***, often with 19th century weapons. The U.S. aid, especially in the form of weapons and anti-aircraft, came in response to the Russians deploying the Hind-24. As it was, before it was over, the Russians were resorting to the kind of tactics that only deepened the Afghan's resolve, like booby-trapped toys for children.


----------



## Langenschwert (May 5, 2009)

Just as an addendum, with regards to firearms and the 2nd amendment, this Canadian "gets it". Would that we had similar rights here. As it is, the government is bent on disarming us, and no one here sees the danger in that. Sad, really.

Best regards,

-Mark


----------



## lklawson (May 5, 2009)

Langenschwert said:


> Just as an addendum, with regards to firearms and the 2nd amendment, this Canadian "gets it". Would that we had similar rights here. As it is, the government is bent on disarming us, and no one here sees the danger in that. Sad, really.


I have several Canadian friends who are like minded.  The common thread seems to be martial arts and serious thought about self defense.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## thardey (May 6, 2009)

A couple of thoughts to throw in here, as well.

- As I understand it, the original idea of the "United States" was less focused on the "United" part, and more on the "States" part. Part of the "defense" was not against a strong, central Federal Government, which was not popular at the time, (let alone a national army) but against other states, should they have to fight each other. (Not that that problem ever came up! /end sarcasm). The Civil War changed a lot about the nature of the 2nd Amendment. It shifted the focus of the "United States" to them being "United" whether they liked it or not. We still have things like the "Oregon National Guard" but now the focus is on the "National Guard" part.

During and before the Civil War, the armies were divided by States, and each individual army was first devoted to the best interest of their state, and then to the best interest of either the Confederacy or the Union.

Even today this debate still rages on, as far as whether certain rules should be up to each state to decide, or whether the Federal Government has a right to enforce a national law on all states about certain subjects.

Now we have one large Government, of which the individual states are just branches, so instead of having a group of individuals who can access the state's armories to defend against other, possibly oppressive, state's governments, now we have the idea of defending civilians against a single, national force. This makes the practical application of the 2nd amendment less clear.

-Part of my understanding of the Framer's frame of mind was that the U.S. was a "great experiment" involving the proper balance of rights vs. law. "Law vs. Liberty" I think was the phrase. That's why "Liberty" is such a catchphrase of the U.S. psyche. The Government represented "Law" which was in itself divided against itself into three branches, and the "Liberty" represented the people, who had their rights recognized, and provided for, that they had measures to protect their liberty. The whole thing was designed to be a check-and-balance system against any one person, or group of people having too much power. Nobody had complete liberty, nor was the law the final authority.

-To the OP: you got your numbers mixed up: instead of 1 round in 4 minutes, it was 4 rounds in 1 minute for a well-trained soldier. Even cannons could be loaded in 2 minutes. Not a big deal, but overstating your case could be seen as a lack of sincerity.

-As far as the "War of the Flea" we're forgetting the pivotal issue: Smaller guns are used to obtain larger ones. We have a couple of armories in our county, (not close to any bases) they are barely guarded. Most of the time it's no big deal, but like somebody said, weapons need people. So there's a ton of firepower in the building -- what are 4 guys gonna do with all of it? So there's a huge national army? How much of it is overseas? If the civvies control the docks and airfields, what good is it going to do the army to destoy them? Where would they land? How would they re-fuel? How would they reload? 
(Granted, the navy's pretty self-sufficient, but the air force isn't.)

And what about the private companies that provide the stuff -- who's gonna protect the Remington Factory, or McDonnel-Douglas, or Colt? The national army is going to fight from their bases outward, while the civvies already control all of that stuff -- we just keep our hands off of it because it's illegal to. But we have to means to control it. Part of what the South underestimated in the Civil War was the time it would take to gain independence. The North was able to fight longer because it had access to the factories.

Once this theoretical war starts, what's really there to prevent the larger number of civilians from upgrading to "illegal" weapons? Other than social programming, that is? If there is a demand for them, people will find ways to smuggle and sell them. The smaller the disparity between what the civvies have, and the military, the faster equilibrium will come.

-But my best argument on how keeping guns, (even small ones) helps keeps the government from over-reaching it's ends was in a post I did not long ago. The basic thrust is that as long as we are able to protect ourselves and our loved ones from criminals, the less we are going to ask the government to protect us, and the less the government will be requested (by it's own citizens) to curtail citizens' rights for the sake of public safety.

If we take care of ourselves in the little things, this theoretical war will never need to happen.


----------



## chinto (May 7, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> You're misjudging the issue......they do have immediate forethought, i.e. immediate consequences.......they just believe in (wrongly) their ability to escape undetected from future consequences.....future potential consequences are more abstract than immediate consequences to the human mind......that's why the risk of smoking is not perceived the same as a poisonous snake in close proximity.
> 
> In that sense, the risk of immediate death is a much greater deterrent than the risk of potential future incarceration as a deterrent to burglary.




yep, that is the truth all right.  and the Idea that the guy who lives on that corner will blow your head off with out a thought keeps them going to the houses around them.

I know a man who is a historical reenactment group member.  the period the group he is a member of is the middle ages.. and he has a halberd.  he saw some punks teasing his dog on its change right after he moved into his house.  he came out with a life steel ( read sharp real battle weapon and not a wall hanging decoration. ) Halberd.  This is the same weapon the Swiss Guards at the Vatican still carry as a duty weapon .  He told them the dog was not their worry, but the owner was! and started to move their way swinging the weapon in a pattern that was designed to show how it could be used. they ran away screaming that he was  " an axe wielding homicidal maniac! "  over the next 6 months every house around him and a school near by was burgled by these same punks, but they left his house alone.


----------



## Blindside (May 7, 2009)

lklawson said:


> I remember hearing about them.  Didn't an opposing Superpower send them weapons, anti-aircraft, training, and "advisors"?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



With the exception of military coups, most rebellions/revolutions fail without significant support from outside the country in question.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 7, 2009)

Blindside said:


> With the exception of military coups, most rebellions/revolutions fail without significant support from outside the country in question.


 Because they require weapons and ammunition in those countries that were not previously allowed. 

Remind me what support is needed in a nation that already possess over 100 Million small arms and billions of billions of rounds of ammunition?  Food?

Guerrilla warfare favors the guerrilla.......governments generally fail to realize what the strategic resource is in an insurgency.

Moreover, unlike an insurgency in a foreign land, a domestic insurgency makes the political apparatus of the ruling apparatchik vulnerable.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 7, 2009)

lklawson said:


> I find it interesting that, more than once now, replies about disparity of weapon technology has focused on non-infantry such as nukes, air-bombing, and heavy bombardment.  This is interesting because I have specified nothing but combat infantry, man-portable weapons such as M16, SAR, and AA-12.  In other words, I agree that "big, heavy weaponry" isn't part of the parity equation.


 I have better weaponry in my closet than the average infantry soldier carries.




lklawson said:


> Note that I'm not saying they're useless, worthless, or wouldn't be applied to the hypothetical insurgency.  I'm simply saying that they wouldn't represent a parity.


 An i'm saying you're very mistaken.




lklawson said:


> Who knows?  All of them one would hope.  But that's not particularly relevant to my assertion that the equipment available to the modern Warfighter is vastly superior to what is legally available to the modern potential insurgent to a tyranicial government.


 If it were vastly superior, we'd have mopped up Afghanistan and Iraq years ago. 



lklawson said:


> Shotguns are more appropriate to urban warfare than an autoloading 30/30.  Unless you're a sniper, you're less likely to need to reachout an touch someone from two football fields.  Room-to-room, on the other hand...


 The average soldier carries an M-4 carbine.......which the M1 Garand is superior to in many ways......but there are plenty of shoguns floating around in civilian hands. 



lklawson said:


> But, again, as I've said before, consider it as food for thought, a "what if" discussion, not a personal challenge.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


 I'm giving you food for thought.....i've heard your position before......it's the same position that envisions a bunch of rednecks lined up, Civil War style, against tanks........it's mistaken.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 7, 2009)

lklawson said:


> I remember hearing about them.  Didn't an opposing Superpower send them weapons, anti-aircraft, training, and "advisors"?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


 Long after they started fighting.....and those weapons mainly consisted of anti-helicopter rockets.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 7, 2009)

elder999 said:


> Only _after_ they'd kicked some substantial amounts of ***, often with 19th century weapons. The U.S. aid, especially in the form of weapons and anti-aircraft, came in response to the Russians deploying the Hind-24. As it was, before it was over, the Russians were resorting to the kind of tactics that only deepened the Afghan's resolve, like booby-trapped toys for children.



Exactly.......I find it quite humorous this notion that an armed populace is useless against a super-power........and yet we still haven't policed up a few thousand Taliban and al-Qaeda floating around Afghanistan on mules and horses and armed mainly with AK-47's, SKS's and in many cases old bolt action rifles.


----------



## lklawson (May 7, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I find it quite humorous this notion that an armed populace is useless against a super-power


I must have missed that post.  Who said it?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (May 7, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> i've heard your position before......it's the same position that envisions a bunch of rednecks lined up, Civil War style, against tanks.


To be blunt, if that's what you heard then you heard what you wanted to hear, not what I was saying.

And, yeah, I'm pretty much the go-to-guy expert about what I was saying and what I meant because, well... I'm the guy who was saying it.

Look, I'm not trying to be a wang, but you've just told me that you're arguing against a position I have definitively not taken and I've said so a couple of times now.  

It's a little frustrating.

I can understand you wanting to argue against the position that you're arguing against.  I'm just not the guy to argue it with you.  'Kay?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Deaf Smith (May 7, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Exactly.......I find it quite humorous this notion that an armed populace is useless against a super-power........and yet we still haven't policed up a few thousand Taliban and al-Qaeda floating around Afghanistan on mules and horses and armed mainly with AK-47's, SKS's and in many cases old bolt action rifles.


 
And just recently, due to the Obama scare, well over one MILLION firearms were purchased (and not including those with CCWs that don't have to do the Brady Bill checks.) And that don't include private sales to other individuals. That's enough guns to arm Russia's WHOLE STANDING ARMY. I have no doubt there is one gun for every person (legal or illegal) in the U.S. That's an awful lot of guns.

And notice the ammo shortage. That means most people with guns are buying up the stocks (another part of the Obama scare.) Right now this country is awash with guns and ammo. THANK GOD! Free men have guns (and ammo), slaves don't.

I have no doubt the populace of the U.S., if aroused, would today literally have a rifle behind every blade of grass. The casualties for any invaider (or the U.S. military), would be horrendous. And that alone keeps our government from becoming a dictatorship. Our government can't afford to destroy their miliary. Way to many other nations would immediatly jump on us in such a weaken state.

The Bill of Rights is not about 'duck hunting' and any such liberal ideas as to what the rights are about. The Second Amendment protects all the other parts of the Bill of Rights. Disarming the citizens is the only way to abolish their rights.

Deaf


----------



## lklawson (May 8, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> The Second Amendment protects all the other parts of the Bill of Rights.


I agree.  The Second Amendment is the 1st of Freedom.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 11, 2009)

lklawson said:


> I must have missed that post.  Who said it?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk






lklawson said:


> To be blunt, if that's what you heard then you heard what you wanted to hear, not what I was saying.
> 
> And, yeah, I'm pretty much the go-to-guy expert about what I was saying and what I meant because, well... I'm the guy who was saying it.
> 
> ...


 Instead of telling us what your position WAS NOT.........tell us what your position WAS.  

Often when someone spends a great deal of time telling me what they weren't saying, they're attempting to back track from what they were saying......perhaps you aren't.....I could be reading your posts wrong.....the easiest way to clarify that is NOT to tell us what you weren't saying......but simply explain what you were......because telling us what you were not saying isn't really being blunt, it's being obtuse.


----------



## jarrod (May 11, 2009)

that's kind of weird reasoning man.  i think you just read his posts wrong.  mis-reads happen  :idunno:

jf


----------



## lklawson (May 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Instead of telling us what your position WAS NOT.........tell us what your position WAS.


That the average U.S. citizen exercising 2nd Amendment Freedoms is *NOT* on a 1:1 parity with the average modern Warfighter. That the modern equipment used by the modern Warfighter elevates his kill capacity by some amount (between 2 to 4 times depending on who you believe) over what Joe Sixpack can typically arm himself with and that is without taking personal armour and advanced training into consideration.

I thought that I had been perfectly clear about this.



> Often when someone spends a great deal of time telling me what they weren't saying, they're attempting to back track from what they were saying......perhaps you aren't.....I could be reading your posts wrong.....the easiest way to clarify that is NOT to tell us what you weren't saying......but simply explain what you were......because telling us what you were not saying isn't really being blunt, it's being obtuse.


The trouble seems to be that an assumption was made about a conclusion that I have not drawn. I made a statement that the modern Warfighter is much (MUCH) better armed, armoured, and trained than the modern civilian potential insurgent. There is no parity. You (apparently) assumed that I had therefore concluded that civilian armament was useles, worthless, and an anacronism, easily crushed by governmental actors.

I will stipulate that some people do conclude this. I have not.

To be perfectly blunt, my thought processes, though nebulous, was more along the lines of "I think it'd be a much better idea to let civilians (potential insurgents against a repressive, tyranical government) have access to the same infantry tools and so maintain parity." I believe this is what the Founders intended when they wrote the Second. If it were not otherwise, you'd have seen stipulations against civilian cannonry and the like.

To extend it a bit past where I had intended, the Founders intended civilians to be at a parity with infantry. Because of the evolution of our laws this is no longer so. I am not saying that a potential, theoretical revolution would be ineffective or would fail, I'm saying that the intent of the Founders has been slowly, if not completely, subverted.

Does that clear it up?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## chinto (May 11, 2009)

lklawson said:


> Is that still true in modern U.S.?
> 
> The State has access to fully automatic rifles and shotguns, highly trained street and entry teams, advanced supply lines, specialized training and equipment specifically designed to be effective against civilian insurgency, and, importantly, a decade of experience in the middle east against just such a scenario.
> 
> ...




no it is still true.  the pentagon even said as much a few years ago in a report ... a lot of the people who own guns have served in the armed forces. others have training from such people or other sources.  I can garantee you that we are a lot more able then say the people in canada or other nations that are not allowed arms.

but yes the founding fathers did want the people to have the same or even better weapons then the infantry.  and I hope and pray that some day soon many of the laws forbidding such in some jurisdictions will be nullified or repealed.


----------



## lklawson (May 12, 2009)

chinto said:


> but yes the founding fathers did want the people to have the same or even better weapons then the infantry. and I hope and pray that some day soon many of the laws forbidding such in some jurisdictions will be nullified or repealed.


Me too.  I wonder if it is a real possibility.  The recent SCOTUS decision accompanied by the Majority Opinion would seem like a slam dunk here but the gyrations that D.C. has taken to end-run the decision seems to belie the hope.  D.C. is, in effect, paraphrasing Jackson: John Marshall (The Supreme Court) has made his decision, now let him enforce it.  

This seems to be echoed among a significant fraction of the American people; "I don't care what the Law says, what SCOTUS says, or what the Founders actually wrote, I know what I *WANT* and to the devil with the rest."  With such a large fraction of the electorate believing this way, how much hope have we of reversing infringing legislation?

I dunno, maybe a bunch, but maybe not.  I'm feeling a little pessimistic right now.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 12, 2009)

jarrod said:


> that's kind of weird reasoning man. i think you just read his posts wrong. mis-reads happen :idunno:
> 
> jf


 It's not weird reasoning....I acknowledge that I could have read his post wrong.....however, the way to clarify that is not to tell us what you're NOT saying......but explain what you are.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 12, 2009)

lklawson said:


> I will stipulate that some people do conclude this. I have not.


 Fair enough.



lklawson said:


> To be perfectly blunt, my thought processes, though nebulous, was more along the lines of "I think it'd be a much better idea to let civilians (potential insurgents against a repressive, tyranical government) have access to the same infantry tools and so maintain parity." I believe this is what the Founders intended when they wrote the Second. If it were not otherwise, you'd have seen stipulations against civilian cannonry and the like.


 I believe that the founders intended that very thing......many of the founders argued as much.  Cannonry, however, isn't as useful as it used to be.  The infantry rifle is. 

As you note, it is the military small arm that the 2nd Amendment specifically deals with......which draws irony to the argument that the 2nd Amendment doesn't defend so-called 'Assault Weapons' when any rational reading concludes those are SPECIFICALLY the arms defended by the 2nd Amendment.......not the .22 competition rifle or grandpa's bird gun.



lklawson said:


> To extend it a bit past where I had intended, the Founders intended civilians to be at a parity with infantry. Because of the evolution of our laws this is no longer so. I am not saying that a potential, theoretical revolution would be ineffective or would fail, I'm saying that the intent of the Founders has been slowly, if not completely, subverted.


 To be completely accurate the Founders wanted civilians to BE the infantry.......i.e. no standing army.  But that's an issue for a different thread.



lklawson said:


> Does that clear it up?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


   Quite a bit.....:asian:


----------



## lklawson (May 12, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> As you note, it is the military small arm that the 2nd Amendment specifically deals with......which draws irony to the argument that the 2nd Amendment doesn't defend so-called 'Assault Weapons' when any rational reading concludes those are SPECIFICALLY the arms defended by the 2nd Amendment.......not the .22 competition rifle or grandpa's bird gun.


Absolutely, 100%. *RIGHT ON*.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

