Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 346427 times)

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #500 on: March 14, 2016, 02:30:12 PM »
I was reading the contingency planning thread, and I realized that some of the posters feel the need to keep firearms in their house for protection.   I'm really not trolling, I'd like to understand your point of view better, because this seems foreign to me.

1.   Why don't you move to a less dangerous area?    It can't be much fun, being constantly on edge that someone is going to invade your house or assault you on the street.

I'm not constantly on edge, but I am aware that even in good neighborhoods crazy things happen.  That being said, I've got guns more for fun than protection.  The protection is a bonus.  There are certainly more efficient/effective ways to improve my security, but I just like having them.

Quote
2.  Do you regularly practice with your firearm?   (I used to shoot cans with a .22 when I was a kid, but that's about the limit of my experience.   When I eventually FIRE, I'd like to try some practical shooting if I can find a good range.   But I don't have time for another hobby right now.)

Probably around once every couple of months.  Not as often as I'd like, but regular working (9-5) hours means I'm going to ranges at peak times.

Quote
3.  If you have children or a spouse, how have you trained them to stay out of the way if there's an incident?  i.e. so they don't get shot?

My girlfriend uses and enjoys the guns too.  I can't imagine a situation where she'd ever be in the way, as we live in a 1 bedroom apartment.

Quote
4.  How to you plan to deal with the first responders after an incident?    Will the police arrest you?   Do you have a lawyer ready to call on your phone?  Or does your jurisdiction take the view that you're allowed to shoot in your home, so you don't expect to have issues with the authorities?

By cooperating with them, and not saying much/anything until I talk to a lawyer.  I don't have one on call, because I don't suspect it'll ever happen.

Quote
For the record, we don't have any firearms in the house.   In fact, DW can't stand them, so we're not likely to anytime soon.

Fair enough.  You'll most likely be fine.


I think there are plenty of times in history where things would have gone very differently with an armed populace.  Some people alluded to the government turning on us, and while unlikely, it's not unprecedented historically.  Invasion is similar.  Sure, the US (or whatever invading country) could destroy us all with missiles, but if war was that easy we would've been in and out of the Middle East in a few weeks.  Is it much of a deterrent?  Probably not, but I sure wouldn't want to be the one trying to take over the United States.

Guns being the equalizer they are, I do appreciate them for leveling the playing field for smaller/older/frailer citizens.  In a world without firearms, large young people have a very significant advantage in any violent encounter. 

Are there accidents with firearms?  Of course.  I think that self protection is important enough that accidents are something that is worth it.  We should work on reducing them where possible while retaining the right to bear arms.  I often compare it to breathalizers or cameras.  Would we live in a safer place if everyone had breathalizers in their cars, cameras on their chests, and cameras in their homes that the police could watch? Of course, we'd prevent and catch all sorts of abuse, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, etc etc.  We're reaching a point where the technology wouldn't be THAT expensive. Yet how many of you would want to live in that world?  I can hear the political ads now:  "Won't you think of the children?!  This is Timmy, he was beat viciously by his father for 3 years before he was killed.  If we'd simply had mandatory cameras in homes, Timmy could've been saved.  Why don't you want to save Timmy?  If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about!"

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #501 on: March 14, 2016, 05:41:10 PM »
We have guns in the US. Our right to have them in the US is protected by the Second Amendment. One thing that I think a lot of people miss (including the conversation earlier in this thread breaking down the evolution of the amendment text) is why we actually have the Second Amendment.

The real reason we have the Second Amendment is that the slave owning states would not have ratified the Constitution without explicit protection of the militia, which was exclusively a Southern slave-owning state concept. Every white male in those states was required to own a gun and was required to belong to the state militia. The state militia was explicitly assigned the task of patrolling for runaway slaves, searching slave households, and confiscating any arms or ammunition they found. "Protection from tyranny" is a concept that exited at the time, but it was the tyranny of the non-slave-holding Northern states that the proponents were afraid of. They read the Constitution as giving the Federal Government the right to take away their guns, and without their guns they would not be able to keep the slaves in line. Critically, this is why the amendment says "State" instead of "United States."

This piece in The Atlantic goes into more depth and explains more about the gun culture that existed in 1787 in the South.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #502 on: March 14, 2016, 05:58:10 PM »
We have guns in the US. Our right to have them in the US is protected by the Second Amendment. One thing that I think a lot of people miss (including the conversation earlier in this thread breaking down the evolution of the amendment text) is why we actually have the Second Amendment.

The real reason we have the Second Amendment is that the slave owning states would not have ratified the Constitution without explicit protection of the militia, which was exclusively a Southern slave-owning state concept. Every white male in those states was required to own a gun and was required to belong to the state militia.

This is bullshit.  Northern states such a Massachusetts required able bodied male citizens to carry a firearm while traveling, including to church services, well before slavery was an issue divided north-south geographically.

the government levied fines for not owning a firearm. This was the case in Massachusetts in 1644. The state required that “every freeman or other inhabitant of this colony provide for himself and each under him able bear arms a sufficient musket and other serviceable piece” as well as “two pounds of powder and ten pounds of bullets.”(3) Those who neglected this duty could receive fines up to ten shillings (for laborers, roughly a day’s wages).

My 1644 reference trumps your 1787 reference.  If you bother to actually read that article, you will discover that it refers back to William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2016, 06:01:13 PM by MoonShadow »

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #503 on: March 14, 2016, 06:38:26 PM »
My 1644 reference trumps your 1787 reference.  If you bother to actually read that article, you will discover that it refers back to William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.

That's all well and good, but Blackstone's Commentaries doesn't actually advocate bearing those arms in public. Just ownership. Which is fine! Owning a gun and knowing how to use it is specifically allowed by the Statute of Northampton that Blackstone was commenting on. The Statute has this to say on the subject:

I]f any person whatsoever (except the Queenes servants and ministers in her presence, or in executing her precepts, or other offices, or such as shall assist them: and except it be upon Hue and Crie made to keep the peace, and that in places where acts against the Peace do happen) shall be so bold, as to go, or ride armed, by night, or by day, in Faires, Markets, or any other places: then any Constable, or any other of the saide Officers, may take such Armour from him, for the Queenes use, & may also commit him to the Gaole.  And therefore, it shall be good in this behalf, for the Officers to stay and arrest all such persons as they shall find to carry Dags or Pistols, or to be appareled with privie coates, or doublets: as by the proclamation [of Queen Elizabeth I]

The Atlantic piece goes on to describe how the Northern states had open carry prohibitions by the time the Constitution was being ratified and the South didn't, specifically to maintain the state militias. You're right that I overgeneralized there, but the Militia that the amendment refers to are those in the South which were tasked with slave patrol.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #504 on: March 14, 2016, 06:45:05 PM »

The Atlantic piece goes on to describe how the Northern states had open carry prohibitions by the time the Constitution was being ratified and the South didn't, specifically to maintain the state militias.
The northern states had state militias by this time as well, Protostache.  And every reference that I can find in that article was a local ordinance, limiting the scope of the carry restrictions to a town center.  While this certainly wasn't unheard of at the time, those laws were still based upon English law; the 2nd was written specifically to trump that.

Quote
You're right that I overgeneralized there, but the Militia that the amendment refers to are those in the South which were tasked with slave patrol.

I think that you, and this article's author, are seriously reaching trying to make a link that the 2nd was only ratified by the states so that slave owning states would ratify the Constitution. 

Curbside Prophet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #505 on: March 14, 2016, 06:49:11 PM »
We have guns in the US. Our right to have them in the US is protected by the Second Amendment. One thing that I think a lot of people miss (including the conversation earlier in this thread breaking down the evolution of the amendment text) is why we actually have the Second Amendment.

The real reason we have the Second Amendment is that the slave owning states would not have ratified the Constitution without explicit protection of the militia, which was exclusively a Southern slave-owning state concept. Every white male in those states was required to own a gun and was required to belong to the state militia. The state militia was explicitly assigned the task of patrolling for runaway slaves, searching slave households, and confiscating any arms or ammunition they found. "Protection from tyranny" is a concept that exited at the time, but it was the tyranny of the non-slave-holding Northern states that the proponents were afraid of. They read the Constitution as giving the Federal Government the right to take away their guns, and without their guns they would not be able to keep the slaves in line. Critically, this is why the amendment says "State" instead of "United States."

This piece in The Atlantic goes into more depth and explains more about the gun culture that existed in 1787 in the South.

The right to bear arms was part of English common law.

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #506 on: March 14, 2016, 07:17:28 PM »
I think that you, and this article's author, are seriously reaching trying to make a link that the 2nd was only ratified by the states so that slave owning states would ratify the Constitution.

Patrick Henry, Governor of Virginia, at the time thought to be the deciding vote on ratification, was extremely concerned that the Northern states would neglect to call up the militias in the case of a slave revolt:

The 10th section of the 1st article, to which reference was made by the worthy member, militates against himself. It says, that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded." If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the true meaning of it? What does this relate to? Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress. The 4th section of the 4th article expressly directs that, in case of domestic violence, Congress shall protect the states on application of the legislature or executive; and the 8th section of the 1st article gives Congress power to call forth the militia to quell insurrections: there cannot, therefore, be a concurrent power. The state legislatures ought to have power to call forth the efforts of the militia, when necessary. Occasions for calling them out may be urgent, pressing, and instantaneous. The states cannot now call them, let an insurrection be ever so perilous, without an application to Congress. So long a delay may be fatal.

The right to bear arms was part of English common law.

See my reply to MoonShadow two posts above yours. English common law forbade bearing arms in public, wherever the constables and kings' guard patrolled. Carrying them on dangerous roads and in the wilderness was fine, as was keeping them in your home because of the castle doctrine. This doctrine carried through to the 1780s and today with minor modifications. The 1631 Virginia law was no exception because the colonists were under threat of Indian attack night and day. It was the very definition of wilderness.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4751
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #507 on: March 15, 2016, 08:45:39 AM »
I think that you, and this article's author, are seriously reaching trying to make a link that the 2nd was only ratified by the states so that slave owning states would ratify the Constitution.

Not to mention that such an accusation is borderline-libelous, almost equivalent to the claim that "only racists want to bear arms." It's exactly as offensive as if I were to claim that gun control advocates were all racists who wanted to disarm black people.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #508 on: March 15, 2016, 03:23:49 PM »
I literally just stumbled across this 4 part argument in favor of personally owned nuclear weapons by Davi Barker.  As I stated before, I don't agree with this position, but then (I have not read all 4 parts yet) I think that he is making a logical argument that governments shouldn't have them either.  We shall see.  Anyway, I thought it loosely relevant to where this thread has drifted as of late.

http://dailyanarchist.com/2014/05/04/nuclear-anarchism-part-1-the-specter-of-private-nuclear-weapons/

Sorry, it was Foo Quuxman, not Davi Barker
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 04:28:39 PM by MoonShadow »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #509 on: March 16, 2016, 12:39:09 AM »
That's all well and good, but Blackstone's Commentaries doesn't actually advocate bearing those arms in public. Just ownership. Which is fine! Owning a gun and knowing how to use it is specifically allowed by the Statute of Northampton that Blackstone was commenting on.

(Emphasis mine)

Good!  The topic of this thread is (mostly) firearm ownership. If you agree that people can own firearms if they so choose to, you're in agreement with the majority of people in the United States.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3596
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #510 on: March 16, 2016, 02:59:25 PM »
Just being curious but wonder who would keep firearms in the home or concealed carry if complete ownership became illegal? Assuming ant you already owned weren't confiscated. I probably would.
Retired at 42 to play!

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #511 on: March 16, 2016, 03:05:21 PM »
Just being curious but wonder who would keep firearms in the home or concealed carry if complete ownership became illegal? Assuming ant you already owned weren't confiscated. I probably would.

I refuse to answer this question, on the basis that I might incriminate myself.

big_owl

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 416
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #512 on: March 16, 2016, 04:19:32 PM »
Just being curious but wonder who would keep firearms in the home or concealed carry if complete ownership became illegal? Assuming ant you already owned weren't confiscated. I probably would.

Hard to say.  I already lost all mine in a bad canoeing accident.  A damn shame.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #513 on: March 16, 2016, 06:43:46 PM »
Just being curious but wonder who would keep firearms in the home or concealed carry if complete ownership became illegal? Assuming ant you already owned weren't confiscated. I probably would.

Hard to say.  I already lost all mine in a bad canoeing accident.  A damn shame.
Man. That's a real shame! Were they insured?
;-)

MrMonkeyMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #514 on: March 16, 2016, 11:46:36 PM »
I understand why the 2nd amendment was originally put in place. But how many here, really, believe that the handguns that people are buying for protection would do anything to stop the US government to oppress the people, assuming* they would have the support of the armed forces? And furthermore, the battle for control today is, in my view, concerning the restrictions of privacy e.g. online. Can't fight the government on that point with a revolver. Freedom of speech/press is lightyears more important.

As an outsider the 2nd amendment seems totally outdated in its current form, even though it might have filled a function back in the days. A modern second amendment would perhaps ensure the freedom of speech by shielding private citizens from crippling lawsuits or something like that? I don't know. But people claiming that they need the right to buy handguns to ensure that they are able to fight the goverment in a tight spot just sounds super silly.

*If they don't have the support of the armed forces, then you wouldn't need to defend yourself from the government by using guns in the first place.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #515 on: March 17, 2016, 12:03:48 AM »
I understand why the 2nd amendment was originally put in place. But how many here, really, believe that the handguns that people are buying for protection would do anything to stop the US government to oppress the people, assuming* they would have the support of the armed forces? And furthermore, the battle for control today is, in my view, concerning the restrictions of privacy e.g. online. Can't fight the government on that point with a revolver. Freedom of speech/press is lightyears more important.

Handguns are more about personal protection from the criminal element, but they are protected under the 2nd because they do have a military use, even today.  As for freedom of speech online, it's kind of ironic that you would mention that in a firearms thread, since the US federal government literally considers military grade encryption to be a military armament.  So long as they continue to do so, they can prevent American companies from exporting the best kinds of encryption software as if it were a domestic weapon, but at the same time cannot prevent it from use by Americans themselves.  I know that it sounds crazy that mathematics could be in the same legal class as a machine gun, but yet it is.
Quote
As an outsider the 2nd amendment seems totally outdated in its current form, even though it might have filled a function back in the days. A modern second amendment would perhaps ensure the freedom of speech by shielding private citizens from crippling lawsuits or something like that? I don't know. But people claiming that they need the right to buy handguns to ensure that they are able to fight the government in a tight spot just sounds super silly.

The bill of rights are listed in order of importance; freedom of speech, expression & religious convictions first, followed by the right to defend oneself.  It's cliche, but the right to free expression cannot be maintained without a credible means of self-defense, because freedom of expression includes the right to be offensive, so long as one is not also threatening.  Yet, if you don't have the right, or the practical ability to defend yourself, the potential that your expressions will be found offensive to someone else willing to do you harm will cause just about anyone with sense to alter their expression.  If that is the case, do you really have a freedom of speech?

MrMonkeyMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #516 on: March 17, 2016, 12:28:41 AM »
I know handguns have military applications, but that didn't really answer the question. I know they are protected by the 2nd amendment. The question is does the 2nd amendment even make any sense in a modern society? Does anyone here think that normal US gun owners would actually be able to fight the US armed forces if they turned all oppressive on you? And I agree about the military grade encryption software. However, that is just another modern tool of opression you can't fight with handgunds.

So does the 2nd amendment actually do anything to protect the people (in a modern society) if the government starts turning oppressive? I feel the US government/society is actually in many ways more oppressive than the European counterparts. I hear people criticizing the restrictions of e.g. free speech, corruption (i.e., Big <insert here> paying for politcal campaigns) and lobbyists, but I don't see anyone fighting the fight with guns.

If the premises for the 2nd amendment are no longer valid, I think it's quite incorrect to still use it as an argument for reduced gun control.

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #517 on: March 17, 2016, 05:26:53 AM »
I know handguns have military applications, but that didn't really answer the question. I know they are protected by the 2nd amendment. The question is does the 2nd amendment even make any sense in a modern society? Does anyone here think that normal US gun owners would actually be able to fight the US armed forces if they turned all oppressive on you? And I agree about the military grade encryption software. However, that is just another modern tool of opression you can't fight with handgunds.

So does the 2nd amendment actually do anything to protect the people (in a modern society) if the government starts turning oppressive? I feel the US government/society is actually in many ways more oppressive than the European counterparts. I hear people criticizing the restrictions of e.g. free speech, corruption (i.e., Big <insert here> paying for politcal campaigns) and lobbyists, but I don't see anyone fighting the fight with guns.

If the premises for the 2nd amendment are no longer valid, I think it's quite incorrect to still use it as an argument for reduced gun control.

Of course you can fight the U.S. military. Whether you will be successful in that fight is an entirely different argument. The Constitution does not grant us the power to overthrow the government should it turn oppressive, only the means to try. It is absolutely valid.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #518 on: March 17, 2016, 06:35:32 AM »
I know handguns have military applications, but that didn't really answer the question. I know they are protected by the 2nd amendment. The question is does the 2nd amendment even make any sense in a modern society? Does anyone here think that normal US gun owners would actually be able to fight the US armed forces if they turned all oppressive on you? And I agree about the military grade encryption software. However, that is just another modern tool of opression you can't fight with handgunds.

So does the 2nd amendment actually do anything to protect the people (in a modern society) if the government starts turning oppressive? I feel the US government/society is actually in many ways more oppressive than the European counterparts. I hear people criticizing the restrictions of e.g. free speech, corruption (i.e., Big <insert here> paying for politcal campaigns) and lobbyists, but I don't see anyone fighting the fight with guns.

If the premises for the 2nd amendment are no longer valid, I think it's quite incorrect to still use it as an argument for reduced gun control.

Of course you can fight the U.S. military. Whether you will be successful in that fight is an entirely different argument. The Constitution does not grant us the power to overthrow the government should it turn oppressive, only the means to try. It is absolutely valid.

So the whole point of the 2nd amendment is that the constitution guarantees the right to TRY to overthrow the government created by the constitution?

mak1277

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 571
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #519 on: March 17, 2016, 06:47:04 AM »
I know handguns have military applications, but that didn't really answer the question. I know they are protected by the 2nd amendment. The question is does the 2nd amendment even make any sense in a modern society? Does anyone here think that normal US gun owners would actually be able to fight the US armed forces if they turned all oppressive on you? And I agree about the military grade encryption software. However, that is just another modern tool of opression you can't fight with handgunds.

So does the 2nd amendment actually do anything to protect the people (in a modern society) if the government starts turning oppressive? I feel the US government/society is actually in many ways more oppressive than the European counterparts. I hear people criticizing the restrictions of e.g. free speech, corruption (i.e., Big <insert here> paying for politcal campaigns) and lobbyists, but I don't see anyone fighting the fight with guns.

If the premises for the 2nd amendment are no longer valid, I think it's quite incorrect to still use it as an argument for reduced gun control.

Do you consider our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq to have been wildly successful?  Why would a theoretical military action against armed US citizens be significantly different, especially considering the vastly larger scale on which such an action would take place (across the whole US).

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #520 on: March 17, 2016, 07:48:37 AM »
I know handguns have military applications, but that didn't really answer the question. I know they are protected by the 2nd amendment. The question is does the 2nd amendment even make any sense in a modern society? Does anyone here think that normal US gun owners would actually be able to fight the US armed forces if they turned all oppressive on you? And I agree about the military grade encryption software. However, that is just another modern tool of opression you can't fight with handgunds.

So does the 2nd amendment actually do anything to protect the people (in a modern society) if the government starts turning oppressive? I feel the US government/society is actually in many ways more oppressive than the European counterparts. I hear people criticizing the restrictions of e.g. free speech, corruption (i.e., Big <insert here> paying for politcal campaigns) and lobbyists, but I don't see anyone fighting the fight with guns.

If the premises for the 2nd amendment are no longer valid, I think it's quite incorrect to still use it as an argument for reduced gun control.

Do you consider our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq to have been wildly successful?  Why would a theoretical military action against armed US citizens be significantly different, especially considering the vastly larger scale on which such an action would take place (across the whole US).

Rocket launchers, IEDs, and suicide bombers.  Those are the reasons that the Afghanis have done so well.  Small arms alone aren't remotely damaging to the military.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #521 on: March 17, 2016, 08:17:20 AM »
My roommate and best friend in college and I used to get drunk and mess with each other, and he'd always say "maybe I can kick your ass, and maybe you can kick mine, but neither one of us is going to have any fun."  In other words, neither had a decisive advantage over the other, and even the winner would end up in pain.  Same with the military versus the US population.  The citizens don't have to be able to BEAT the military, they just have to be well-armed enough to not be pushovers, which we are.  Short of the military doing something ridiculous like bombing our own cities, civilians with small arms are plenty capable of disrupting a potential military occupation, which would only be using slightly larger arms in any reasonable scenario (their M-16s would be full-auto vs. our AR-15s, for instance, but that's not necessarily an advantage). 

Honestly, I think anyone worried about a full-scale US military campaign against the US population is a bit silly.  What is a lot more realistic, as we've seen on occasion, is small municipalities run as fiefdoms with the police serving as an occupying force.  There are enough examples of corruption (and incompetence) that I like that if a cop is going to pound on my door in the middle of the night, he has to think about whether or not I'm armed inside.  Am I truly worried and think this is going to happen?  Not really, but the fact that the citizenship is armed helps prevent it.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #522 on: March 17, 2016, 08:31:25 AM »
Honestly, I think anyone worried about a full-scale US military campaign against the US population is a bit silly.  What is a lot more realistic, as we've seen on occasion, is small municipalities run as fiefdoms with the police serving as an occupying force.  There are enough examples of corruption (and incompetence) that I like that if a cop is going to pound on my door in the middle of the night, he has to think about whether or not I'm armed inside.  Am I truly worried and think this is going to happen?  Not really, but the fact that the citizenship is armed helps prevent it.

I'm not sure being armed is going to make you any safer if a cop pounds on your door in the middle of the night.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #523 on: March 17, 2016, 08:41:30 AM »
Honestly, I think anyone worried about a full-scale US military campaign against the US population is a bit silly.  What is a lot more realistic, as we've seen on occasion, is small municipalities run as fiefdoms with the police serving as an occupying force.  There are enough examples of corruption (and incompetence) that I like that if a cop is going to pound on my door in the middle of the night, he has to think about whether or not I'm armed inside.  Am I truly worried and think this is going to happen?  Not really, but the fact that the citizenship is armed helps prevent it.

I'm not sure being armed is going to make you any safer if a cop pounds on your door in the middle of the night.

Quite the opposite actually . . .

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #524 on: March 17, 2016, 08:47:27 AM »
Honestly, I think anyone worried about a full-scale US military campaign against the US population is a bit silly.  What is a lot more realistic, as we've seen on occasion, is small municipalities run as fiefdoms with the police serving as an occupying force.  There are enough examples of corruption (and incompetence) that I like that if a cop is going to pound on my door in the middle of the night, he has to think about whether or not I'm armed inside.  Am I truly worried and think this is going to happen?  Not really, but the fact that the citizenship is armed helps prevent it.

I'm not sure being armed is going to make you any safer if a cop pounds on your door in the middle of the night.

There have been plenty of cops shot by law-abiding homeowners who were the victims of incompetence when the cops crashed the wrong house. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #525 on: March 17, 2016, 08:54:12 AM »
Honestly, I think anyone worried about a full-scale US military campaign against the US population is a bit silly.  What is a lot more realistic, as we've seen on occasion, is small municipalities run as fiefdoms with the police serving as an occupying force.  There are enough examples of corruption (and incompetence) that I like that if a cop is going to pound on my door in the middle of the night, he has to think about whether or not I'm armed inside.  Am I truly worried and think this is going to happen?  Not really, but the fact that the citizenship is armed helps prevent it.

I'm not sure being armed is going to make you any safer if a cop pounds on your door in the middle of the night.

There have been plenty of cops shot by law-abiding homeowners who were the victims of incompetence when the cops crashed the wrong house.

It would be interesting to compare that with the number of armed persons who were shot by cops when the cops carried out a raid, regardless of whether it was the right or wrong house.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #526 on: March 17, 2016, 09:01:39 AM »
Honestly, I think anyone worried about a full-scale US military campaign against the US population is a bit silly.  What is a lot more realistic, as we've seen on occasion, is small municipalities run as fiefdoms with the police serving as an occupying force.  There are enough examples of corruption (and incompetence) that I like that if a cop is going to pound on my door in the middle of the night, he has to think about whether or not I'm armed inside.  Am I truly worried and think this is going to happen?  Not really, but the fact that the citizenship is armed helps prevent it.

I'm not sure being armed is going to make you any safer if a cop pounds on your door in the middle of the night.

There have been plenty of cops shot by law-abiding homeowners who were the victims of incompetence when the cops crashed the wrong house.

It would be interesting to compare that with the number of armed persons who were shot by cops when the cops carried out a raid, regardless of whether it was the right or wrong house.

Either way, if the cop is there for other than honorable purposes, I want him second guessing whether or not he should knock on that door.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #527 on: March 17, 2016, 10:26:00 AM »
Honestly, I think anyone worried about a full-scale US military campaign against the US population is a bit silly.  What is a lot more realistic, as we've seen on occasion, is small municipalities run as fiefdoms with the police serving as an occupying force.  There are enough examples of corruption (and incompetence) that I like that if a cop is going to pound on my door in the middle of the night, he has to think about whether or not I'm armed inside.  Am I truly worried and think this is going to happen?  Not really, but the fact that the citizenship is armed helps prevent it.

I'm not sure being armed is going to make you any safer if a cop pounds on your door in the middle of the night.

There have been plenty of cops shot by law-abiding homeowners who were the victims of incompetence when the cops crashed the wrong house.

It would be interesting to compare that with the number of armed persons who were shot by cops when the cops carried out a raid, regardless of whether it was the right or wrong house.

Either way, if the cop is there for other than honorable purposes, I want him second guessing whether or not he should knock on that door.

You logic just doesn't hold up. Cops are trained to go into unknown situations assuming that their lives may be at risk. They assume someone may be armed and are trained to act accordingly. Doubt regarding whether or not you are armed should have little influence one way or the other.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 568
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #528 on: March 17, 2016, 11:08:10 AM »
Dramaman, it's your logic that does not hold up.

In a scenario where someone is running an oppressive police state, and the populous has decided enough is enough, the police can be effectively resisted by the larger, armed population.

Unless you have some credible threat of force, any freedoms you enjoy are entirely at the will of whoever is in power.

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #529 on: March 17, 2016, 11:43:29 AM »
Dramaman, it's your logic that does not hold up.

In a scenario where someone is running an oppressive police state, and the populous has decided enough is enough, the police can be effectively resisted by the larger, armed population.

Unless you have some credible threat of force, any freedoms you enjoy are entirely at the will of whoever is in power.

That isn't the scenario that I was addressing, but I will bite.

The 'we need to be armed to overthrow our oppressors' argument is based on a force vs. force paradigm that is rarely successful and when it does succeed often replaces one armed ruler with another. In the past century, non-violent resistance has proven to be a more effective tool for successfully throwing off the yoke of oppression. In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #530 on: March 17, 2016, 11:54:21 AM »
I know handguns have military applications, but that didn't really answer the question. I know they are protected by the 2nd amendment. The question is does the 2nd amendment even make any sense in a modern society? Does anyone here think that normal US gun owners would actually be able to fight the US armed forces if they turned all oppressive on you? And I agree about the military grade encryption software. However, that is just another modern tool of opression you can't fight with handgunds.

So does the 2nd amendment actually do anything to protect the people (in a modern society) if the government starts turning oppressive? I feel the US government/society is actually in many ways more oppressive than the European counterparts. I hear people criticizing the restrictions of e.g. free speech, corruption (i.e., Big <insert here> paying for politcal campaigns) and lobbyists, but I don't see anyone fighting the fight with guns.

If the premises for the 2nd amendment are no longer valid, I think it's quite incorrect to still use it as an argument for reduced gun control.

Do you consider our military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq to have been wildly successful?  Why would a theoretical military action against armed US citizens be significantly different, especially considering the vastly larger scale on which such an action would take place (across the whole US).

Rocket launchers, IEDs, and suicide bombers.  Those are the reasons that the Afghanis have done so well.  Small arms alone aren't remotely damaging to the military.

This is a simple falsehood.  You speak from a position of ignorance.  There is nothing about the military that is more fundamental than the rifleman, expecially in the era of 4th generation warfare.  Granted, the US miltary are the world champions at 4th generation warfare, but there are more veterans trained in those tactics living as citizens than are active members of the US military.  As others have said, a domestic insurrection isn't about "winning" in any traditional sense, and it's not the same game as a foreign occupation.  The term "war is economics by other means" is very true, the US military is expensive, and it doesn't need to be defeated if our leadership should ever turn full tyrant, it only needs to be starved.  The US military cannot outright attack US populations, because that is where they extract their salaries & resources from.  To do so would not subjugate the insurrection, as give it fuel by destroying the infrastructure, capital & human resources that had previously been part & parcel of it's support structure.  If one city, or even one state, were to revolt; it wouldn't matter.  But if 5 states, or 10 (depending on which ones) were to tax revolt, that very action would cripple the government as well as the standing US military.  As for the availability of military grade hardware such as missiles, states actually do have them, both as 'guard' gear & as privately owned weaponry.  Certainly not anywhere near to the degree that the US military presently does, but the US military already knows that they can be resisted by a non-trivial portion of the US population, and they certainly know that wouldn't work out well for either side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #531 on: March 17, 2016, 12:32:57 PM »
Dramaman, it's your logic that does not hold up.

In a scenario where someone is running an oppressive police state, and the populous has decided enough is enough, the police can be effectively resisted by the larger, armed population.

Unless you have some credible threat of force, any freedoms you enjoy are entirely at the will of whoever is in power.

That isn't the scenario that I was addressing, but I will bite.

The 'we need to be armed to overthrow our oppressors' argument is based on a force vs. force paradigm that is rarely successful and when it does succeed often replaces one armed ruler with another. In the past century, non-violent resistance has proven to be a more effective tool for successfully throwing off the yoke of oppression. In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

I can certainly agree with this statement.  Still, even Gandhi did not refuse the possibility of resorting to force of arms if peaceful means failed. 
Quote
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest...

Although I will admit that this quote is out of context, and is often misused to imply that Gandhi supported individual firearms ownership as a political tool (which he did not, it was much more complex than that).  Still, that quote is authentic and does show that Gandhi fully understood that all political power ultimately flows from the barrel of a gun.  In this particular case, he was referring to the Arms act of 1878, and that it left the civilian population without the means to defend their own cities during World War 1, nor without the opportunity to train the young men who might otherwise be able to contribute to the collective defense of the British Empire.  (i.e. What the British called the Coastal Scouts, and what Americans still call the Boy Scouts, it was only later that he hardened against the idea that British rule could ever be softened, and that independence was necessary).

The usefulness of cameras to capture misbehavior & apply political pressure notwithstanding, cameras cannot actually be used as an effective form of self-defense.  Even if the 2nd was repealed outright tomorrow; the basic human right to an effective form of self-defense will not simply vanish, regardless of how well governments or society at large honor that basic human right.

MrMonkeyMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #532 on: March 17, 2016, 12:36:29 PM »
Wow, some really eye opening stuff here :P

I don't think the talk about local law enforcment is that relevant. I mean, don't you guys have some federal level dudes you can call i your local sheriffs office is not under control? And if you argue that calling for the feds are too slow, I would argue that you can't stop a sherrifs office from doing what they want by owning a couple of guns. Or if you can, you have a much larger scale problem of not having an efficient law enforcment in the first place.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #533 on: March 17, 2016, 12:39:50 PM »
Moonshadow, I suggest you to look at the fatality rates in Afghanistan for yourself.

http://icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx

By my count, less than 15% of the fatalities from Afghanistan are the result of hostile small arms fire (that wasn't preceded by an IED, suicide bombing, rocket attack).  I also filtered out the suicides and friendly fire small arms accidents, which made up a large portion of the dead.


Alone, small arms are not really a problem for a modern military.

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #534 on: March 17, 2016, 12:50:58 PM »
I know handguns have military applications, but that didn't really answer the question. I know they are protected by the 2nd amendment. The question is does the 2nd amendment even make any sense in a modern society? Does anyone here think that normal US gun owners would actually be able to fight the US armed forces if they turned all oppressive on you? And I agree about the military grade encryption software. However, that is just another modern tool of opression you can't fight with handgunds.

So does the 2nd amendment actually do anything to protect the people (in a modern society) if the government starts turning oppressive? I feel the US government/society is actually in many ways more oppressive than the European counterparts. I hear people criticizing the restrictions of e.g. free speech, corruption (i.e., Big <insert here> paying for politcal campaigns) and lobbyists, but I don't see anyone fighting the fight with guns.

If the premises for the 2nd amendment are no longer valid, I think it's quite incorrect to still use it as an argument for reduced gun control.
Easily, and this is coming from someone in the military that also analyzes military forces for a living. Even assuming the vast majority military members would turn against their own family friends(which they wouldn't) the military would lose. People bring up how the military has fighter jets, UAV's, tanks etc., which are valid points fighting a conventional force on a foreign battle field. People seem to forget those pieces of equipment are located at military bases located in their own backyards. Bases are not very secure, they were built to stop a rogue individual or small group from running the gate and gaining access to the base, not hundreds or even thousands of well armed people from taking over the base. A F-15 that doesn't have a safe place to land after it drops it's ordinance is useless.

The Soviet Union spent 10 years in Afghanistan fighting the Mujahideen and failed to eradicate them. The US spent nearly 15 years in Afghanistan and couldn't get rid of al-qaeda. Both the Mujahideen and al-qaeda never exceeded 250k people in strength. Even if just 10% of the US population took up arms against the government that's over 30 million people.   

GuitarStv, people that lived in caves can make IEDs, you don't think Americans can?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 12:53:54 PM by jamesvt »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #535 on: March 17, 2016, 12:57:07 PM »
No, I totally think that Americans can make IEDs.  They're way more effective at stopping a military force than guns.  That's why the 'we need to own guns because otherwise our government will turn on us' argument makes little sense.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #536 on: March 17, 2016, 12:58:51 PM »
Moonshadow, I suggest you to look at the fatality rates in Afghanistan for yourself.

http://icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx

By my count, less than 15% of the fatalities from Afghanistan are the result of hostile small arms fire (that wasn't preceded by an IED, suicide bombing, rocket attack).  I also filtered out the suicides and friendly fire small arms accidents, which made up a large portion of the dead.


Alone, small arms are not really a problem for a modern military.

You didn't bother to read the link about 4th gen warfare did you?  Let me help you out...

Quote
Fourth-generation warfare has often involved an insurgent group or other violent non-state actor trying to implement their own government or reestablish an old government over the current ruling power. However, a non-state entity tends to be more successful when it does not attempt, at least in the short term, to impose its own rule, but tries simply to disorganize and delegitimize the state in which the warfare takes place. The aim is to force the state adversary to expend manpower and money in an attempt to establish order, ideally in such a highhanded way that it merely increases disorder, until the state surrenders or withdraws.

...

Resistance can also be below the physical level of violence. This is via non-violent means, such as Gandhi's opposition to the British Empire[citation needed] or Martin Luther King's marches.[citation needed] Both desired their factions to deescalate the conflict while the state escalates against them, the objective being to target the opponent on the moral and mental levels rather than the physical level.[citation needed] The state is then seen as a bully and loses support.

...

Fourth-generation warfare goals:[6]

   1) Survival.
    2)To convince the enemy's political decision makers that their goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit.

No where in there does it even mention that the insurgent force actually needs to be a strategic threat to the military force, because it's not true.  It's a asymmetrical conflict, where one side has an obvious military advantage.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #537 on: March 17, 2016, 01:03:57 PM »
I did read your 4th generation link.  It doesn't indicate that small arms are necessary to defend yourself from the government, so I ignored it.

Abe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #538 on: March 17, 2016, 01:08:31 PM »
This is somewhat off-topic (as of right now), but people who have firearms in the house, which ones do you recommend for self defense? More importantly, what bullet-resistant armor do you recommend? I am potentially moving to a state in a year or two that has both a lot of privately owned weapons, high incidence of corrupt local law enforcement who may not necessarily prosecute assaults conducted by their friends, and a lot of people who may not necessarily take kindly to my type, thus would like to be well protected. Thanks!

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3357
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #539 on: March 17, 2016, 01:27:37 PM »
This is somewhat off-topic (as of right now), but people who have firearms in the house, which ones do you recommend for self defense? More importantly, what bullet-resistant armor do you recommend? I am potentially moving to a state in a year or two that has both a lot of privately owned weapons, high incidence of corrupt local law enforcement who may not necessarily prosecute assaults conducted by their friends, and a lot of people who may not necessarily take kindly to my type, thus would like to be well protected. Thanks!
Not sure if serious.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #540 on: March 17, 2016, 01:28:51 PM »
This is somewhat off-topic (as of right now), but people who have firearms in the house, which ones do you recommend for self defense? More importantly, what bullet-resistant armor do you recommend? I am potentially moving to a state in a year or two that has both a lot of privately owned weapons, high incidence of corrupt local law enforcement who may not necessarily prosecute assaults conducted by their friends, and a lot of people who may not necessarily take kindly to my type, thus would like to be well protected. Thanks!

I'd want an AR-15, a basic shotgun, and the training on how to use both effectively.

Note that possessing body armor and a firearm at the same time may be illegal where you live.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #541 on: March 17, 2016, 01:30:19 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

MrMonkeyMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #542 on: March 17, 2016, 01:36:15 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #543 on: March 17, 2016, 01:56:06 PM »
This is somewhat off-topic (as of right now), but people who have firearms in the house, which ones do you recommend for self defense? More importantly, what bullet-resistant armor do you recommend? I am potentially moving to a state in a year or two that has both a lot of privately owned weapons, high incidence of corrupt local law enforcement who may not necessarily prosecute assaults conducted by their friends, and a lot of people who may not necessarily take kindly to my type, thus would like to be well protected. Thanks!

Where the hell are you going, and what 'type' are you?  As far as the best firearm to have for home defense, that is typically a shotgun, because you can choose the type of projectile to suit your home as well as the frame of the shooter.  Shells can also be chosen to be 'less lethal', such as a pepper pod or rock salt shell, or use smaller loads or charges with lighter materials to reduce penetration through drywall.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #544 on: March 17, 2016, 01:57:38 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

Please read the earlier posts in this thread.  That myth was thoroughly debunked quite some time ago.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2582
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #545 on: March 17, 2016, 02:21:14 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

It boggles my mind that Americans really believe that. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #546 on: March 17, 2016, 02:25:22 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

It boggles my mind that Americans really believe that.

Really?  Why?  12 million of our countrymen seem to believe that They Live was a documentary.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2013/04/12-million-americans-believe-lizard-people-run-our-country/63799/

MrMonkeyMustache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #547 on: March 17, 2016, 02:30:27 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

It boggles my mind that Americans really believe that.
I'm not American, but that is how the 2nd amendment is written, right? Talking about "a militia" and "security of a free State" kind of tips it of. My point has been, that that motivation is totally outdated. If someone wants to keep a gun for personal protection, you should motivate it with personal protection, not the need of the gun to secure a free State. "Think about the freedom of the State" is just another version of "think about the children".

jamesvt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #548 on: March 17, 2016, 02:43:20 PM »
No, I totally think that Americans can make IEDs.  They're way more effective at stopping a military force than guns.  That's why the 'we need to own guns because otherwise our government will turn on us' argument makes little sense.
They are more effective at stopping the movement of forces, not eliminating them.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2544
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #549 on: March 17, 2016, 02:51:12 PM »
In our modern age, I would argue that the modern smartphone is a much more potent instrument than the gun for addressing injustice and oppression.

That may be true on a large scale, but on a personal scale if I'm depending on a camera phone to address injustice and oppression it probably means I'm already dead.

And, on a personal scale, that's what I'm trying to avoid.
But the 2nd amendment is about large scale, not personal protection.

It boggles my mind that Americans really believe that.
I'm not American, but that is how the 2nd amendment is written, right? Talking about "a militia" and "security of a free State" kind of tips it of. .

Once again, this myth has been thoroughly debunked earlier in this thread.  Please read those posts.