You know I think I am really starting to come around on the NRA

[molson]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I just can't take this argument seriously, especially not in an argument for the right to carry guns. I can't imagine anyone except the most paranoid of individuals ever thinking that would happen over here in .au.

The danger of someone using a legally purchased gun for crime is infinitely greater than the chances of needing to form some kind of resistance force.

That makes sense, if you're starting from scratch.

But we have the 2nd Amendment here. The government we setup makes it hard to change the constitution.

So what do you do?. Decide that it's too hard to change the constitution, so we'll just ignore it? And should that line of thinking apply to other rights, and who gets to decide?

[Aylmar]

Without the French, and a general apathy by the British population for fighting a real war in America, I'd say the chances of the Colonial Army actually winning the Revolution line up pretty nicely with the chances of sustained resistance against the government in today's world. Is the argument here that a group of armed and determined men can't be a thorn in the side of a modern military machine? Doesn't Iraq sort of debunk that idea?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by molson

That makes sense, if you're starting from scratch.

But we have the 2nd Amendment here. The government we setup makes it hard to change the constitution.

So what do you do?. Decide that it's too hard to change the constitution, so we'll just ignore it? And should that line of thinking apply to other rights, and who gets to decide?

Why not vote on it? I don't see why it should be difficult to change the constitution.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I just can't take this argument seriously, especially not in an argument for the right to carry guns. I can't imagine anyone except the most paranoid of individuals ever thinking that would happen over here in .au.

The danger of someone using a legally purchased gun for crime is infinitely greater than the chances of needing to form some kind of resistance force.

The argument wasn't in favor of "carrying guns", Groundhog. It was about an argument in favor of the 2nd Amendment. I'm not surprising you didn't find it a convincing argument regarding concealed or open carry. It's also not a convincing argument in favor of Australian Rules Football over rugby.

[Buccaneer]

In my opinion, I take a broader view of the 2nd. The original meaning of "arms" was clear but don't you think that has expanded? I am not talking about physical armaments, esp. those that use explosive compounds, but economic, financial or biological. The federal govt. can absolutely ruin you without sending out any armed forces. It (or any entity, for that matter) can make you persona non-grata. How will you prevent that?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

The argument wasn't in favor of "carrying guns", Groundhog. It was about an argument in favor of the 2nd Amendment. I'm not surprising you didn't find it a convincing argument regarding concealed or open carry. It's also not a convincing argument in favor of Australian Rules Football over rugby.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 2nd Amendment concern the right to "keep and bear arms"? That includes "carrying" in specific situations. I never mentioned concealed weapons.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 2nd Amendment concern the right to "keep and bear arms"? That includes "carrying" in specific situations. I never mentioned concealed weapons.

Okay, but again, I wasn't making an argument in favor of that. If you'd like, I can, or you can just tune into the show.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

In my opinion, I take a broader view of the 2nd. The original meaning of "arms" was clear but don't you think that has expanded? I am not talking about physical armaments, esp. those that use explosive compounds, but economic, financial or biological. The federal govt. can absolutely ruin you without sending out any armed forces. It (or any entity, for that matter) can make you persona non-grata. How will you prevent that?

WITH MORE GUNS

[CU Tiger]

Wow...my post was taken a few ways I must admit I didnt quite expect.

I am tired and dont feel like writing a thesis, so I will just point out a few thoughts not necessarily organized into a coherent argument.

- The Constitution could just as likely be protecting me from a local or state gov't as it could the federal government. Is it just as hard for you to believe the local police chief could have a personal vendetta and storm your house, if so would "common" firearms be useless in this situation as well? Dont mistake what I am saying, I have dozens of guns and none fall into the assault weapon category, mine are hunting arms and a few handguns for fun or PP. But the constitution does not clarify to protect against the US army, it could also be seen as a way to keep individual states in check.

- What if we dont limit it to manually held firearms? What if I said that I dont oppose my neighbor owning an F-16? (Hypothetical I dont take it this far, though I know some that do) Are you then ready to surrender your constitutional rights?

- Any scenario where the US gov't turns on its people is a little laughable to me, latest polls show a 50% approval rating amongst citizens and a 38% approval rating amongst active service personnel...sounds like if anything the popul;ace may turn the guns against the gov't. Though admitedly the chance of either is 1/100,000,000,000.

- In such an abstract scenario are you actually foolish enough to think that 100% oif the mil grade weapons would be on one side. What about the military members who disagree.....if anything you would have he ultimate high stakes warfare with jets engaged in high stakes dog fights over US soil.

- When you reach the point of opposing a corrupt legislation, you are largely unconcerned with that legislation's view of your action. The 2nd amendment should preserve the right to prepare for such an activity.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by -apoc-

I am pretty damn liberal on most things but am a proud gun owner at the same time. However the NRA while making a good point most of the time as Rainmaker said its that extra crazy part that really pisses me off about them much like PETA.

Quick story me and another buddy go to an outdoor shooting range every 2-3 months where they allow pretty much any firearm you want to bring. He works at the local hospital and notices someone down range with an AR-15 that was a patient of his multiple times who is Schizophrenic and likes to stop taking his medication hence his trips to the hospital to be stabilized. Now why the hell is this guy allowed to own a gun let alone a AR-15.

I have no problem with assault rifles being owned by the public but there does need to be some limits imo and this is where the NRA falls short I think. They are so worried about ceding any ground on the issue that they fail to use common sense and think that mentally unstable people should be allowed to own assault rifles.

To play devil's advocate (and this is a position I am not sure I actually support for the record)...would you argue that since said guy has a history of mental illness he has less right to protect himself from physical harm than, say, yourself?

If so what if I ccall your wife a crazy bitch, is she now not allowed to defend herslef? Or is your friends opinion of sanity more important than mine

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It is simply a lesson from history. Not once have the bad guys never had weapons unless they were unslaved.

I am not a gun-owner, nor do I have ever hope to be. One can never underestimate the power of evil and the desire for some to commit violence.

I view a society not having firearms commonly as fairly sensible for two reasons:

* It reduces the risk of accidental injuries from them.
* If criminals know they'll only be shot upon if they're carrying firearms then they're less likely to carry them. If they know the police will shoot they'll turn up tooled up, simple as that.

Obviously this viewpoint is heavily biased by growing up in England, undoubtably if I'd grown up in America my viewpoint would differ somewhat.

PS - I do find it somewhat weird the calibre/type of guns you can buy legally over here; exactly what do people hunt? - Elephants?

[flere-imsaho]

First of all, great post molson - I appreciate the thought you've put into it (below):

Originally Posted by molson

I mean, I'm no constitutional scholar, but obviously the intent of the 2nd ammendment is keeping the government in check, right? I don't think the framers were concerned about hunting rights or even individual protection.

I assume that this is still open to question, to be honest. If I put myself in the framers' shoes, I'd assume that hunting rights and even individual protection were givens, so, like you, I'd conclude that the 2nd is as you put it above.

And why is the default hypothetical here always conservative state militias suddenly going crazy and shooting stuff?

Probably because I don't know of any left-wing militias. Here on the left wing we tend to use lawyers or protest groups.

Let's imagine the scenerio that more than a few left-coast liberals assured me would happen - George W. Bush, citing national security, suspending the 2008 election and remaining in power. Does that idea make the concept of armed resistance more, I don't know - accessible to non-gun types?

OK, first of all, while I considered that a possibility, I considered it a remote possibility. Very remote. The number of people on the left wing who believed it was a good possibility has to be vanishingly small.

Secondly, no, it doesn't change my view. If Bush did that, me taking up arms against Bush wasn't going to get me anywhere. If it looked like the country was going to accept the coup, I'd try to leave the country. If it looked like the country wasn't going to accept the coup, I'd join the protests. I don't see a lot of scenarios in there (for me) where taking up arms would really advance my cause.

The argument seems to be - once the intent of a constitutional requirement becomes "impossible" (by some standard)- then we can disregard the requirement, or at least lessen its impact. I can't say I'm cool with that.

Fair enough, however that's not exactly what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that with all the good and convincing arguments one can make for gun rights (a number of which with even I agree!), it always puzzles me why the NRA and gun rights supporters push this relatively weak argument about the right to take up arms against your government. That particular argument, to me, has lost its relevance in light of a) advances in weapons technology and b) the difficulty with which any President would have in becoming truly tyrannical.

Like I said, I believe in guns for hunting and I believe in guns for self protection (to a point). I'm open to a number of these arguments for gun rights. But I get turned off when this "militia" argument comes up, because it's so nonsensical. I get turned off when someone shows up to a Presidential event with a semi-automatic rifle, because it's needlessly provocative.

Having said that, however, I understand why the NRA and its supporters won't budge on this argument. Like I stated with the abortion debate, the NRA can't afford to admit that the "militia" argument has lost its relevance, because to do so cedes political ground to their opponents, which they can't afford to do.

Since Cam is the de facto voice of the NRA here, I thought it would be interesting to have him address that argument specifically, but perhaps I've been too tactless in asking for it.

Edit: This post made before reading anyone else's posts (including Cam's), which I'll reply to now.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You'd be better off asking someone who actually made the argument, rather than correcting a point, but I'll give it a whirl.

...

I may never need arms to fight against a tyrannical government, but (God forbid) my kids or grandkids might, and it's my job to protect their rights as well. Yep, it's a hypothetical, but history and human nature have given us reason to remain protective of our rights... including the right to keep and bear arms.

I appreciate the thoughtful follow-up, Cam, and I apologize if I was too personal or direct earlier.

I've tried to clarify the question I'm asking in the post I made above responding to molson. Most of what I would have written in response to your post is, therefore, up there.

Having read what you wrote, however, and CU Tiger's follow-up, it seems to me that while the more-accepted generalized defense of gun rights tends to center around gun rights for things like shotguns and handguns for hunting and personal defense, the argument concerning resisting your government is trotted out when we want to talk about more unfettered access to guns, such as talking about semi-automatics and assault weapons. That's just an observation, but is it even remotely correct, in your or anyone else's experience?

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

In my opinion, I take a broader view of the 2nd. The original meaning of "arms" was clear but don't you think that has expanded? I am not talking about physical armaments, esp. those that use explosive compounds, but economic, financial or biological. The federal govt. can absolutely ruin you without sending out any armed forces. It (or any entity, for that matter) can make you persona non-grata. How will you prevent that?

To me this goes beyond the 2nd and is perhaps better addressed as other rights in the Bill of Rights being trampled. I'm not sure, however, that our civil liberties are any more trampled now than they were, say, 50 years ago. The federal government (and even state and local governments) are just as considerably more powerful than the individual now than they were 50 years ago. Maybe they have more tools at their disposal and their ability to "ruin" you is more immediate these days?

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Obviously this viewpoint is heavily biased by growing up in England, undoubtably if I'd grown up in America my viewpoint would differ somewhat.

Having lived in England, my response to this is that the main trouble with greatly restricting guns in the U.S., at least quickly, is that so many are already in circulation (ignoring, for the moment, the 2nd amendment issues). The U.S. simply can't go "cold turkey" the way other countries did.