Senate Gun Control

Well then how do you explain the fall of the Soviet Union and the more recent toppling of Mubarak in Egypt? Neither of those were achieved by force of arms. If America somehow does become a dictatorship (which as you said is already extremely unlikely), we'll find a way to get weapons...just look at Syria. Even then weapons are no guarantee of a successful insurgency so much as the larger political picture that it takes place in, as evidenced by how the Sri Lankan government crushed the Tamil Tigers.

 

Please note that this thread is tagged 'JCC' and not 'Senate'. Adjust the length of your posts accordingly or bans will be handed out.

 

I took the term from a Canadian friend of mine (he would claim to be from the Republic of Canuckistan, specifically from Edmonton, Alberta). It's how he often referred to himself, especially when he ran into cultural differences here in the states*.

Besides, if she isn't obsessed with hockey or part of the invasion, you have nothing to worry about.

* For example, he always claimed that Canadian "Smarties" were superior to American "Smarties", until I showed him a roll of American "Smarties" that clearly said "Made in Canada".

 

Cost benefit ratio, does the Pacific and Atlantic protect the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Central and South american States from invasion?

Depends?

amphibious landings are one of the most difficult things to pull off. Your supply lines are stretched by the vary nature of the ocean. So every potential inavder must ask is the beneif of invasion or attack worth the cost? So far barring European colonization and settlement it has not been. Time and distance made it not worth the bother.

 

And the civilian ownership of firearms only increases the cost of such an invasion. Like I said before, I never claimed it was the only thing standing between the US and invasion, but it is one factor.

 

tl;dr

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but most of these posts get so far off the beaten track and out there that its like listening to Charlie Brown's parents. You have no idea what is being said. You just nod your head and post the opposite far out idea that comes to your head.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

I am sorry, but while I have zero problem with the concept of protecting one's property, I have a huge problem with the idea that one can morally "go after" burglars with the intent to kill said burglars when it is not self-defense. That was the scenario being discussed - a person ignoring the 911 dispatcher's advice to stay put & inside, going outside with the very idea of confrontation and provoking the burglars into an action that would justify his shooting them.

To that I OBJECT.

BTW, I work in insurance. If one looks at payouts for home damage vs burglary, you would undoubtedly see that burglary is a small percentage of claims (at least dollar-wise) and hardly the driving factor behind premiums as you seem to imply.

 

It is bearly a factor, especially against tanks, assault helecopters, Warplanes, ships.

Civilian except for hunting in the case of foreign invasion is a security blanket.

Unless armed citizenry are fighting on or near something so valuable and invading military will not risk collateral damage, Airsupport will end armed civilians.

The very argument that an armed citizenry will defend the nation in any significant way against any foregin power the the resources, organization, technology, and support to, to even tacticly plan for an invasion on ANY american country outside small Caribean islands is a dangerious, self deciving, fantasy.

And that fantasy if it lasts to a time and place where the United States if facing an organized and capable invasion will get more americans killed by that enemy force, that any other course of action they could possibly choose from.

 

Gun control is.

/short enough for ya?

 

It was until you added the '/short enough for ya?'.

 

Damnit.

 

KK are you channelling TripleB, who thought Red Dawn was a documentary?

 

Wait, what? I can see Japanese or German war planners going, "Ehhh, there are crazy rednecks with guns so we might want to consider that." But a serious deterrent to an invasion? lol, no. That would be our oceans; the vast landmass with major cities almost everywhere that would be nearly impossible to occupy; our massive blue-water navy which would be able to intercept an invasion fleet (from many bases in the Pacific and Iceland and Britain and the Azores in the Atlantic, not to mention the many port cities on the continent); the fact that the Germans and Japanese simply didn't have the capacity to transport an invasion force across the two largest bodies of water on Earth; the fact that they were occupied with un-pacified countries and territories closer to them like the USSR, UK, and China; that especially post-Midway they didn't have a way to get enough air support. Invading the United States would be an even bigger disaster than invading the USSR. The Allies were expecting casualties in the millions (partly caused by civilian resistance) for their invasions of Kyushu and Honshu but were going ahead anyway and there's no reason to think the Axis wouldn't have done the same if the positions had been reversed. But no, let's thank the Second Amendment for protecting us. There's no codified right to convenient geography so I guess we can't worship that as an idol.

 

To a point, you are correct, but as a common law country you also need to consider what future British government statutes have been passed that impact on the 1689 Bill of Rights. So, whilst nobody is suggesting you base your entire legal system on inherited principles of British constitutional law, it's hard for me to agree that citing the provision allowing arms to be born by citizens for self defence is relevant but subsequent laws which frame and in a strictly literal sense, curtail that right exist aren't counted. (I don't want it to sound like "curtail" is a value judgement; it's not). Clearly, if the system than envisioned a right to bear arms was comfortable with constraints on that right, so that the right was defined more clearly and with the times. After all, you can have a right to bear arms for self-defence that doesn't include a hefty gun collection.

So, if it's possible under common law then legislation can enact bans without infringing on the 2nd amendment's spirit?

I'm not suggesting your inner discourse actually framed it in that context but I am saying that whether you mean it or not, you are weighing your rights above another's right to life. Again, it's not a conscious decision but the fact you have already determined scenarios in which you would 'comfortably' exercise lethal force is proof enough of that.

Going further, I'm not sure in countries outside the US people spend time weighing up these scenarios too deeply...

 

Gun control is an impossible task. Gun eradication should be the goal. If we're not gonna use these evolved brains then we should just start eating our young like other animals. There is no good reason to make or use guns. The same goes for bombs. If you need violence in your life then I suggest you build a thunderdome.

 

Gabby Giffords visited Newtown, Connecticut today

 

kinda just asking for it, innit?

 

"Gabby Giffords visited Newtown, Connecticut today, karate chops the air. HIII-YAH!"

 

There are a few simple initiatives which could be implemented which I think would have general support:

1. A clearer distinction between guns owned for sport and self defence. If owned for sport then they must be locked in safe and disassembled when not in use. If used for self defence then they must be safely stored away in a safe and there should be much tougher laws/penalties for gun owners who leave their guns lying around. If you are really worried about break ins then invest in a better home security system.

2.Handguns only for guns purchased for self defence. More elaborate guns can be purchased for sport but see point 1 above regarding safe storage.

3. Better insurance rebates and other financial incentives/rebates for home security systems. If self defence is really an issue then money can be spent on making homes harder to break into.

4. Funding for better voluntary buy back schemes to get more existing guns out of circulation.

5. More funding for police forces to expand police numbers for domestic crime to improve reaction times. If people feel the cops are too slow to respond then more attention needs to be placed on law enforcement resources.

6. Better regulations on gun acquisition, including better background checks, age limits on gun ownership and better ongoing compliance.

There is more but I'm posting from phone in remote bush area with tentative Internet connection.

 

Uh oh, you didn't go to Tasmania to look for the thylacine, did you?

 

As far as civilian firearm ownership as a deterrent to invasion, I've said my piece and we're just going to go around in circles, so I'm just dropping it from here. I'm not conceding anything except that neither of us will change the other side's position on it.

The US is a common law country, but we aren't an English Common Law country. We have our own Common Law, and while we accept English Common Law from before 1776, the changes after it are irrelevant except as they came through US Common Law.

That's why Virginia's Castle Doctrine isn't the same as the English Castle Doctrine any more. They were the same, but the English changed theirs while Virginia didn't. Similarly, the English might have later modified the 1689 Bill of Rights, but the US didn't make those same changes. We made our own, different changes (through the Constitution), so they are now two separate bodies of law.

Yes, I do weight my right to life (or that of my family*) above someone else's. Why? Because it's my life. That's one of the fundamental things about the right to life. If I'm required to value someone else's life above my own, then do I really have a right to life? By your argument, I should allow someone else to take my life rather than stop them even at the cost of their life.

I'm sorry, but no. If someone else presents an imminent danger to my life, then because of my right to life I have the right to defend myself against that imminent danger, even if it costs the other person their life. The right to bear arms is simply an appendage to that basic principle.

The problem is that it's almost impossible to draw a clear line between the two. My first gun (a government-model 1911) is popular for both defense and target shooting (a modified version is commonly used in pistol competitions). The same shotgun that can be used to hunt geese (or even deer) can also be used for home defense.

Handguns are also popular for hunting and competition shooting. Many years ago, my brother-in-law was able to (legally) take a deer with a 9mm handgun.

Most insurance companies already offer such discounts.

I have no problem with voluntary buy backs, but I do have serious issues with trying to make them mandatory (or even coercive, but still technically voluntary).

In large parts of the US this simply isn't feasible. Sure, you could do it in urban areas, and even suburban areas, but even then there are serious limits.

For example, where I live (inside the Beltway in Northern Virginia, Mason District of Fairfax County), the average police response time (measured from when dispatch requests the response, not from when someone dials 911) for a priority I call is 5.3 minutes. Anything under 5 minutes is usually considered an excellent response time. (The response time is faster at night because of less traffic and more cops on patrol, but goes to about 6-7 minutes during rush hour.) Even then, it still provides a virtual eternity of time for the victims in a crime. For Sandy Hook, the police took almost 20 minutes to get on site, but even if they had been there in 5 minutes, how many people would still have died?

Much of this is already in place in the US. Yes, background checks could be better (and I support efforts to improve the mental health reporting for them), but it's already illegal to buy a gun until you are legally an adult (age 18). Federally-licensed dealers are restricted from selling handguns to anyone under the age of 21. Overall compliance with existing laws is actually very good, with harsh penalties for dealers who are found non-compliant.

What more limits do you think there should be (and that would not restrict the rights of the law abiding)?

* For brevity (too late), when I talk about my right to life, I am also including the lives of my family.

 

"Remote bush area" could mean Texas.