TKoontz 0 #1 January 12, 2012 A little backstory: My father and I were talking and I realized I had no idea what his position on gun control (if he even had one) was, so I asked. His answer was a bit different than anything I'd heard discussed before so I though I'd share it First: We're talking about the original intent of the second amendment only: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." I hope that it's safe to assume that most agree that the original intent was to allow citizens to arm themselves to keep the government in check because that's all that this argument covers. Anyway: What happens when military technology has rendered your personal weapons squirt guns? You can have the most shit-hot, full auto assault rifle loaded with SAPHEI rounds and an underslung grenade launcher for all I care, and it won't amount to anything if you're fighting the government. They have a JDAM. End of story. 200-300 years ago the playing field was relatively level. Your average citizen was, or could be, just as well armed as the military since everyone was basically using muskets. Fast forward to now and the technological gap has increased dramatically. The military has tanks, jets, missiles, bombs, drones you name it. And if an oppressive government decides to turn them against you or your 'well regulated militia' you'll be reduced to a cloud of red mist. In this context, my dad surmised that gun control mattered little since technology has rendered an uprising against the govt/military virtually impossible. Anyway, thought it was an interesting perspective. How about you?Find your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #2 January 12, 2012 Quote In this context, my dad surmised that gun control mattered little since technology has rendered an uprising against the govt/military virtually impossible. Anyway, thought it was an interesting perspective. How about you?[/reply uh, frequently covered here. Please examine Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and more recently Libya and especially Egypt. The argument doesn't stand up. Using technological superiority against a foreign nation to flatten it isn't the same as trying to use it to police your own people. If you turn your people into red mist, you no longer exist as a nation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bertt 0 #3 January 12, 2012 There are a lot of guys with AK-47 rifles in Afghanistan who would disagree with "JDAM - end of story". It's been said that the best weapon for guerrilla warfare is a knife, second best is a rifle.You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TKoontz 0 #4 January 12, 2012 I absolutely agree with that. He was using JDAMs as an example to highlight the fighting strengths (and versatility) that an oppressive govt (read: willing to kill its own people) would have over a rebelling populous. Getting a little off topic here: Let's assume that there was an uprising. I don't think for a second that it would be a quick, surgical end. I think the military would have a tough time rooting out guerilla fighters. All that was being said was this: 1. There is a massive military technological difference between the citizenry and govt. 2. Because of this (in context of rebellion only) gun control is a waste of timeFind your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TKoontz 0 #5 January 12, 2012 This discussion isn't about combat tactics or how we fight wars overseas. Nor is it about the logic (or lack thereof) of turning your military against your people. This is about the gap between military and civilian firepower, and why, in that context, gun control doesn't matterFind your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites matthewcline 0 #6 January 12, 2012 QuoteThis discussion isn't about combat tactics or how we fight wars overseas. Nor is it about the logic (or lack thereof) of turning your military against your people. This is about the gap between military and civilian firepower, and why, in that context, gun control doesn't matter With his oppressive GOV point of view, IO would agree with him. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #7 January 12, 2012 Quote This is about the gap between military and civilian firepower, and why, in that context, gun control doesn't matter your Dad's quite a pessimist - I'd think the citizens would do pretty well here But your statement is hard to interpret: Gun ownership doesn't matter? Gun control doesn't matter? The 2nd amendment doesn't matter? so is he against gun ownership because he can't determine a 2nd amendment application any more? (ie.the 2nd doesn't have an applicability in today's world so we shouldn't own that type of property) Or is he against gun control, because the government ( with one hand tied behind it's back) could take even a totally unrestricted citizenry. (ie, the 2nd doesn't apply, so the gov shouldn't bother regulating) The third leg of this is that the government purposely will over regulate firearms to purposely defang the citizenry. either way, I'm not interested in 2nd amendment arguments (though I think he's wrong - his premise is the modern army squaring off in a fair battlefield fight against handfuls of citizens armed with rifles and shotguns and handguns - silly premise, the population would be more guerrilla against a foe with stronger technology - and we know that's very effective). I will own what I want (that should include guns too) because I have rights to private property as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others Sometimes, I think the 2nd was actually just a reminder from the founders to the citizenry, that people have a responsibility to keep the government in check - no matter how bad it gets. But the culture at the time had them speak in terms of determined and physical defense. this is applicable even today. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #8 January 12, 2012 QuoteThis discussion isn't about combat tactics or how we fight wars overseas. Nor is it about the logic (or lack thereof) of turning your military against your people. Then your "this is a JDAM. End of story" argument is equally invalid, since it devolves on combat tactics and how we fight wars. Same for planes and tanks. QuoteThis is about the gap between military and civilian firepower, and why, in that context, gun control doesn't matter Ok, let's discuss the gap. Military has burst/auto assault weapons, civilians have semi-auto rifles - that's not the overwhelming superiority you think it is.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #9 January 12, 2012 QuoteFirst: We're talking about the original intent of the second amendment only: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." I hope that it's safe to assume that most agree that the original intent was to allow citizens to arm themselves to keep the government in check because that's all that this argument covers. I agree that that (i.e., keeping govt in check to guard against tyranny) was one of the intents. But I don't agree that that was the only intent. I think the complete intent was to allow citizens to act as militia for any purpose for which a militia might act. Broadly speaking, these would include any threat or potential threat to anyone's security against which citizens might choose to arm themselves to deter or defend against, since anyone's lack of physical security is, logically, in conflict with his freedom. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wolfriverjoe 1,346 #10 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteFirst: We're talking about the original intent of the second amendment only: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." I hope that it's safe to assume that most agree that the original intent was to allow citizens to arm themselves to keep the government in check because that's all that this argument covers. I agree that that (i.e., keeping govt in check to guard against tyranny) was one of the intents. But I don't agree that that was the only intent. I think the complete intent was to allow citizens to as militia for any purpose for which a militia might act. Broadly speaking, these would include any threat or potential threat to anyone's security against which citizens might choose to arm themselves to deter or defend against, since anyone's lack of physical security is, logically, in conflict with his freedom. I agree with Andy on this. The militia in those days wasn't just to protect the citizens from the government. It was to protect the locality from any and all threats. In a lot of places there was maybe a local constable. That was it. No police department, no SWAT teams no nothing. Except the local militia. Which was usually all the able-bodied men."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #11 January 12, 2012 QuoteThis discussion isn't about combat tactics or how we fight wars overseas. Nor is it about the logic (or lack thereof) of turning your military against your people. This is about the gap between military and civilian firepower, and why, in that context, gun control doesn't matter The military is what, less than 1% of the population? And what percent of the US popuation is armed? Also, without the civilians providing arms and ammo for the troops, where would they get them?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #12 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteFirst: We're talking about the original intent of the second amendment only: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." I hope that it's safe to assume that most agree that the original intent was to allow citizens to arm themselves to keep the government in check because that's all that this argument covers. I agree that that (i.e., keeping govt in check to guard against tyranny) was one of the intents. But I don't agree that that was the only intent. I think the complete intent was to allow citizens to as militia for any purpose for which a militia might act. Broadly speaking, these would include any threat or potential threat to anyone's security against which citizens might choose to arm themselves to deter or defend against, since anyone's lack of physical security is, logically, in conflict with his freedom. Linguistic analysis shows that there is no connection between the militia clause and the express right of the people. [Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?" [Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TKoontz 0 #13 January 12, 2012 Rehmwa- Yes, yes he is quite the pessimist..."...that way I'll never be disappointed" lol Although, through misinterpretation, or me being unclear he's quite in favor of the second & ownership. He thinks gun control (in this context) is worthless as the gap is big. He and you (myself included) are all saying the same thing (I think). Allow ownership, and don't restrict the citizenry from defending against an oppressive government. Andy- Agreed, the second covers more than just the one situation, but this was dealing with just the possibility of a militant crackdown on the population. Think V for VendettaFind your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #14 January 12, 2012 Quotemy dad surmised that gun control mattered little since technology has rendered an uprising against the govt/military virtually impossible. Gun control (in America) is not about preventing uprisings against the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TKoontz 0 #15 January 12, 2012 I'm not interested in a numbers game of "we have this, they have that. In a firefight under conditions XYZ who would win?" That is an infinitely variable topic that my current thread isn't about. Though it does sound interesting and I wouldn't be against discussing it elsewhere at another timeFind your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #16 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuotemy dad surmised that gun control mattered little since technology has rendered an uprising against the govt/military virtually impossible. Gun control is not about preventing uprisings against the government. So you're dad is a putz. Way to win friends and influence people, there, pilgrim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #17 January 12, 2012 QuoteI'm not interested in a numbers game of "we have this, they have that. In a firefight under conditions XYZ who would win?" That is an infinitely variable topic that my current thread isn't about. Though it does sound interesting and I wouldn't be against discussing it elsewhere at another time it's getting harder and harder to figure out what is it that you are arguing for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #18 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuotemy dad surmised that gun control mattered little since technology has rendered an uprising against the govt/military virtually impossible. Gun control is not about preventing uprisings against the government. So you're dad is a putz. unfortunate grammatical error/flame aside, it's frequently argued here that gun control is the first step in a government taking all power out of the hands of the people. How are you asserting otherwise? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TKoontz 0 #19 January 12, 2012 That's just it, I'm not arguing for anything. Just look at the title. I heard this line of reasoning, thought it was interesting and possibly warranting discussion, so I posted it. The overall position that I'll try to sum up again was that there is now (as opposed to when the BOR was drafted) a massive gap between military and civilian fighting capabilities. Gun control further limits civilians from rising up against an oppressive government ---> gun control (in this one, very narrow instance) is not only bad, but also unecessary.Find your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #20 January 12, 2012 QuoteThat's just it, I'm not arguing for anything. Just look at the title. I heard this line of reasoning, thought it was interesting and possibly warranting discussion, so I posted it. The overall position that I'll try to sum up again was that there is now (as opposed to when the BOR was drafted) a massive gap between military and civilian fighting capabilities. Gun control further limits civilians from rising up against an oppressive government ---> gun control (in this one, very narrow instance) is not only bad, but also unecessary. and we tell you this "line of reasoning" is wrong (iow, your Dad is wrong) and why, but in reply you keep saying that's not what the argument is. Sorry, it's not a novel stance, it has been frequently covered here. If you're interested in going further, own it and run with it. Right now it's more like you're 'submitting and withdrawling the proposition.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TKoontz 0 #21 January 12, 2012 Ok then, consider it 'owned' I also stand by this line of thinking. I don't understand why you are in favor of gun control in the face of a militant crackdown where you will be called upon to fight and presumably overthrow a stronger forceFind your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wolfriverjoe 1,346 #22 January 12, 2012 QuoteThat's just it, I'm not arguing for anything. Just look at the title. I heard this line of reasoning, thought it was interesting and possibly warranting discussion, so I posted it. The overall position that I'll try to sum up again was that there is now (as opposed to when the BOR was drafted) a massive gap between military and civilian fighting capabilities. Gun control further limits civilians from rising up against an oppressive government ---> gun control (in this one, very narrow instance) is not only bad, but also unecessary. So do you mean that gun control is unneccessay for the government to oppress the citizenry? That even an armed civilian population couldn't prevent a dictator from taking over the government? (I'm not going to name any names, but the extremists on both sides have accused the last 2 occupants of the Oval Office of wanting to do that very thing) I think the resistances in both Iraq and Afghanistan have done a pretty thorough job of rising up against the US military. I don't know if the level of will would be there. I don't know how many people would be willing to see a lot of death and destruction to resist oppression. But if the will was there, the amount of small arms in civilian hands, and the number of military that wouldn't bear arms against their own countrymen would make it difficult for any dictator."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TKoontz 0 #23 January 12, 2012 for a militant crackdown, gun control makes their job easier, though if the military decided to turn its weapons against the citizenry, control or not would make little difference in the face of overwhelming firepower A dictator needs willing troops to be able to come to power, absolutely. I think the will is low for this kind of thing to actually happen.Find your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #24 January 12, 2012 Quotefor a militant crackdown, gun control makes their job easier, though if the military decided to turn its weapons against the citizenry, control or not would make little difference in the face of overwhelming firepower There's approximately 1.5 million combat personnel in total, active and reserve (Army/Marines). Some 50% of American households (40-50 million) have a gun. Corrected data: Some 40-45% of all households (47-53 million) have some sort of firearm available. You do the math.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #25 January 12, 2012 QuoteSome 50% of American households (40-50 million) have a gun. Your percentage seems a bit on the high side. I realize it's more or less the NRA number (which was 45% in 2010), but it's not supported by anyone else's surveys.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 1 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Bertt 0 #3 January 12, 2012 There are a lot of guys with AK-47 rifles in Afghanistan who would disagree with "JDAM - end of story". It's been said that the best weapon for guerrilla warfare is a knife, second best is a rifle.You don't have to outrun the bear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKoontz 0 #4 January 12, 2012 I absolutely agree with that. He was using JDAMs as an example to highlight the fighting strengths (and versatility) that an oppressive govt (read: willing to kill its own people) would have over a rebelling populous. Getting a little off topic here: Let's assume that there was an uprising. I don't think for a second that it would be a quick, surgical end. I think the military would have a tough time rooting out guerilla fighters. All that was being said was this: 1. There is a massive military technological difference between the citizenry and govt. 2. Because of this (in context of rebellion only) gun control is a waste of timeFind your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKoontz 0 #5 January 12, 2012 This discussion isn't about combat tactics or how we fight wars overseas. Nor is it about the logic (or lack thereof) of turning your military against your people. This is about the gap between military and civilian firepower, and why, in that context, gun control doesn't matterFind your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #6 January 12, 2012 QuoteThis discussion isn't about combat tactics or how we fight wars overseas. Nor is it about the logic (or lack thereof) of turning your military against your people. This is about the gap between military and civilian firepower, and why, in that context, gun control doesn't matter With his oppressive GOV point of view, IO would agree with him. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #7 January 12, 2012 Quote This is about the gap between military and civilian firepower, and why, in that context, gun control doesn't matter your Dad's quite a pessimist - I'd think the citizens would do pretty well here But your statement is hard to interpret: Gun ownership doesn't matter? Gun control doesn't matter? The 2nd amendment doesn't matter? so is he against gun ownership because he can't determine a 2nd amendment application any more? (ie.the 2nd doesn't have an applicability in today's world so we shouldn't own that type of property) Or is he against gun control, because the government ( with one hand tied behind it's back) could take even a totally unrestricted citizenry. (ie, the 2nd doesn't apply, so the gov shouldn't bother regulating) The third leg of this is that the government purposely will over regulate firearms to purposely defang the citizenry. either way, I'm not interested in 2nd amendment arguments (though I think he's wrong - his premise is the modern army squaring off in a fair battlefield fight against handfuls of citizens armed with rifles and shotguns and handguns - silly premise, the population would be more guerrilla against a foe with stronger technology - and we know that's very effective). I will own what I want (that should include guns too) because I have rights to private property as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others Sometimes, I think the 2nd was actually just a reminder from the founders to the citizenry, that people have a responsibility to keep the government in check - no matter how bad it gets. But the culture at the time had them speak in terms of determined and physical defense. this is applicable even today. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 January 12, 2012 QuoteThis discussion isn't about combat tactics or how we fight wars overseas. Nor is it about the logic (or lack thereof) of turning your military against your people. Then your "this is a JDAM. End of story" argument is equally invalid, since it devolves on combat tactics and how we fight wars. Same for planes and tanks. QuoteThis is about the gap between military and civilian firepower, and why, in that context, gun control doesn't matter Ok, let's discuss the gap. Military has burst/auto assault weapons, civilians have semi-auto rifles - that's not the overwhelming superiority you think it is.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #9 January 12, 2012 QuoteFirst: We're talking about the original intent of the second amendment only: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." I hope that it's safe to assume that most agree that the original intent was to allow citizens to arm themselves to keep the government in check because that's all that this argument covers. I agree that that (i.e., keeping govt in check to guard against tyranny) was one of the intents. But I don't agree that that was the only intent. I think the complete intent was to allow citizens to act as militia for any purpose for which a militia might act. Broadly speaking, these would include any threat or potential threat to anyone's security against which citizens might choose to arm themselves to deter or defend against, since anyone's lack of physical security is, logically, in conflict with his freedom. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,346 #10 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteFirst: We're talking about the original intent of the second amendment only: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." I hope that it's safe to assume that most agree that the original intent was to allow citizens to arm themselves to keep the government in check because that's all that this argument covers. I agree that that (i.e., keeping govt in check to guard against tyranny) was one of the intents. But I don't agree that that was the only intent. I think the complete intent was to allow citizens to as militia for any purpose for which a militia might act. Broadly speaking, these would include any threat or potential threat to anyone's security against which citizens might choose to arm themselves to deter or defend against, since anyone's lack of physical security is, logically, in conflict with his freedom. I agree with Andy on this. The militia in those days wasn't just to protect the citizens from the government. It was to protect the locality from any and all threats. In a lot of places there was maybe a local constable. That was it. No police department, no SWAT teams no nothing. Except the local militia. Which was usually all the able-bodied men."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #11 January 12, 2012 QuoteThis discussion isn't about combat tactics or how we fight wars overseas. Nor is it about the logic (or lack thereof) of turning your military against your people. This is about the gap between military and civilian firepower, and why, in that context, gun control doesn't matter The military is what, less than 1% of the population? And what percent of the US popuation is armed? Also, without the civilians providing arms and ammo for the troops, where would they get them?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #12 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteFirst: We're talking about the original intent of the second amendment only: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." I hope that it's safe to assume that most agree that the original intent was to allow citizens to arm themselves to keep the government in check because that's all that this argument covers. I agree that that (i.e., keeping govt in check to guard against tyranny) was one of the intents. But I don't agree that that was the only intent. I think the complete intent was to allow citizens to as militia for any purpose for which a militia might act. Broadly speaking, these would include any threat or potential threat to anyone's security against which citizens might choose to arm themselves to deter or defend against, since anyone's lack of physical security is, logically, in conflict with his freedom. Linguistic analysis shows that there is no connection between the militia clause and the express right of the people. [Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?" [Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKoontz 0 #13 January 12, 2012 Rehmwa- Yes, yes he is quite the pessimist..."...that way I'll never be disappointed" lol Although, through misinterpretation, or me being unclear he's quite in favor of the second & ownership. He thinks gun control (in this context) is worthless as the gap is big. He and you (myself included) are all saying the same thing (I think). Allow ownership, and don't restrict the citizenry from defending against an oppressive government. Andy- Agreed, the second covers more than just the one situation, but this was dealing with just the possibility of a militant crackdown on the population. Think V for VendettaFind your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #14 January 12, 2012 Quotemy dad surmised that gun control mattered little since technology has rendered an uprising against the govt/military virtually impossible. Gun control (in America) is not about preventing uprisings against the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKoontz 0 #15 January 12, 2012 I'm not interested in a numbers game of "we have this, they have that. In a firefight under conditions XYZ who would win?" That is an infinitely variable topic that my current thread isn't about. Though it does sound interesting and I wouldn't be against discussing it elsewhere at another timeFind your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #16 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuotemy dad surmised that gun control mattered little since technology has rendered an uprising against the govt/military virtually impossible. Gun control is not about preventing uprisings against the government. So you're dad is a putz. Way to win friends and influence people, there, pilgrim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #17 January 12, 2012 QuoteI'm not interested in a numbers game of "we have this, they have that. In a firefight under conditions XYZ who would win?" That is an infinitely variable topic that my current thread isn't about. Though it does sound interesting and I wouldn't be against discussing it elsewhere at another time it's getting harder and harder to figure out what is it that you are arguing for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 January 12, 2012 QuoteQuotemy dad surmised that gun control mattered little since technology has rendered an uprising against the govt/military virtually impossible. Gun control is not about preventing uprisings against the government. So you're dad is a putz. unfortunate grammatical error/flame aside, it's frequently argued here that gun control is the first step in a government taking all power out of the hands of the people. How are you asserting otherwise? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKoontz 0 #19 January 12, 2012 That's just it, I'm not arguing for anything. Just look at the title. I heard this line of reasoning, thought it was interesting and possibly warranting discussion, so I posted it. The overall position that I'll try to sum up again was that there is now (as opposed to when the BOR was drafted) a massive gap between military and civilian fighting capabilities. Gun control further limits civilians from rising up against an oppressive government ---> gun control (in this one, very narrow instance) is not only bad, but also unecessary.Find your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 January 12, 2012 QuoteThat's just it, I'm not arguing for anything. Just look at the title. I heard this line of reasoning, thought it was interesting and possibly warranting discussion, so I posted it. The overall position that I'll try to sum up again was that there is now (as opposed to when the BOR was drafted) a massive gap between military and civilian fighting capabilities. Gun control further limits civilians from rising up against an oppressive government ---> gun control (in this one, very narrow instance) is not only bad, but also unecessary. and we tell you this "line of reasoning" is wrong (iow, your Dad is wrong) and why, but in reply you keep saying that's not what the argument is. Sorry, it's not a novel stance, it has been frequently covered here. If you're interested in going further, own it and run with it. Right now it's more like you're 'submitting and withdrawling the proposition.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKoontz 0 #21 January 12, 2012 Ok then, consider it 'owned' I also stand by this line of thinking. I don't understand why you are in favor of gun control in the face of a militant crackdown where you will be called upon to fight and presumably overthrow a stronger forceFind your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,346 #22 January 12, 2012 QuoteThat's just it, I'm not arguing for anything. Just look at the title. I heard this line of reasoning, thought it was interesting and possibly warranting discussion, so I posted it. The overall position that I'll try to sum up again was that there is now (as opposed to when the BOR was drafted) a massive gap between military and civilian fighting capabilities. Gun control further limits civilians from rising up against an oppressive government ---> gun control (in this one, very narrow instance) is not only bad, but also unecessary. So do you mean that gun control is unneccessay for the government to oppress the citizenry? That even an armed civilian population couldn't prevent a dictator from taking over the government? (I'm not going to name any names, but the extremists on both sides have accused the last 2 occupants of the Oval Office of wanting to do that very thing) I think the resistances in both Iraq and Afghanistan have done a pretty thorough job of rising up against the US military. I don't know if the level of will would be there. I don't know how many people would be willing to see a lot of death and destruction to resist oppression. But if the will was there, the amount of small arms in civilian hands, and the number of military that wouldn't bear arms against their own countrymen would make it difficult for any dictator."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TKoontz 0 #23 January 12, 2012 for a militant crackdown, gun control makes their job easier, though if the military decided to turn its weapons against the citizenry, control or not would make little difference in the face of overwhelming firepower A dictator needs willing troops to be able to come to power, absolutely. I think the will is low for this kind of thing to actually happen.Find your peace, though the world around you burns Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 January 12, 2012 Quotefor a militant crackdown, gun control makes their job easier, though if the military decided to turn its weapons against the citizenry, control or not would make little difference in the face of overwhelming firepower There's approximately 1.5 million combat personnel in total, active and reserve (Army/Marines). Some 50% of American households (40-50 million) have a gun. Corrected data: Some 40-45% of all households (47-53 million) have some sort of firearm available. You do the math.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #25 January 12, 2012 QuoteSome 50% of American households (40-50 million) have a gun. Your percentage seems a bit on the high side. I realize it's more or less the NRA number (which was 45% in 2010), but it's not supported by anyone else's surveys.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
