Educate the Canadian on 'Bearing arms'!

[JDenver]

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]

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.
• 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.

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?

"Convicted burglar"= definition of "dumbass". :lol:

Aaron said more colorfully what I was struggling for.

 

[lklawson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

• 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]

- 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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.
If the war continues long enough—this is the
theory—the dog succumbs to exhaustion and
anemia without ever having found anything on
which to close its jaws or to rake with its claws.
—Robert Taber

 

[Gordon Nore]

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.