Gun Control

[Delibirb]

Florida Governor Rick Scott has signed a "Gun Control" bill, as of March 9, 2018.  Inside the bill:

 

• Minimum purchase age for guns would be raised to 21.
• There will be a three day waiting period for firearm purchases, with some exceptions.
• Bump stocks will be banned.
• People who have been committed to a mental institution or who have been deemed "mentally defective" will be barred from owning a firearm until otherwise authorized by a court.
• Law enforcement officers will be able to request a court to temporarily prohibit someone from possessing or buying firearms or ammunition if there's evidence the person poses a threat to themselves or others.
• Additional funding for armed school resource officers and mental health programs will be provided.
• The Coach Aaron Feis Guardian Program, which would allow some teachers to be armed if both the local school district and local sheriff's department agree, will be put into place.

 

You can read more at your leisure.  

 

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/fl-florida-school-shooting-rick-scott-gun-bill-20180308-story.html

The least I can say is: I respect that he's trying to cover everyone's thoughts and insecurities on the matter. It's a good show of compromise. Instead of "No, that isn't the problem, this is!" It's more of "Let's put some options in place so any number of these potential problems have solutions available."

 

The stipulations on the armed school staff is nice, rather than shoving a gun in every teacher's hands.

 

The mentally defective clause doesn't appeal to me very much, but I recognize and respect that it may only be in there to provide some negotiation room or, again, to simply show compromise.

 

Minimum purchase age may not be relevant to gun violence, but raising it ever so slightly won't make it any worse, even if it doesn't make it better, so again, if only as a show of compromise, I think it's a reasonable inclusion.

 

I like the requests to prohibit gun ownership, it's a nice inclusion so not necessarily everyone needs to be limited by the mistakes of the few.

 

All in all, I don't think all of it necessary or impactful, but the fact that it's all here anyway is, for lack of a better word, inspiring.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Fund mental health more.

 

Absolutely not. The mental health industry has received more than its share of funding and the results are in.

 

http://www.cchrflorida.org/antidepressants-are-a-prescription-for-mass-shootings/

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You need to post more than this.  Explain your statement with detail.  

Ignoring the fact there are multiple lawsuits in multiple courts to challenge the 21 limit

 

How would feel about age limits on any other amendment? What about vets? 18 year old vet in FL would be able to operate but not own a gun?

[Proto]

i dont like having tools that are designed to do nothing besides efficiently kill other humans for the most part available to the public.

i think putting more of them in circulation is not an apt way of solving the issue

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

 

Funny, when the 2nd amendment was written muskets were efficient killing weapons

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Funny, when the 2nd amendment was written muskets were efficient killing weapons

Doesn't this just go to show how outdated it is?

 

Ignoring the fact there are multiple lawsuits in multiple courts to challenge the 21 limit

 

How would feel about age limits on any other amendment? What about vets? 18 year old vet in FL would be able to operate but not own a gun?

Personally I don't think such young people should be in the military but that's something else.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Doesn't this just go to show how outdated it is?

 

Personally I don't think such young people should be in the military but that's something else.

No? It just erases the liberal argument that 2A doesn't protect "military grade weapons"

 

Clearly it does, cuz it was made to literally legalize military grade weapons of the time

 

I disagree, but that too is something else

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

No? It just erases the liberal argument that 2A doesn't protect "military grade weapons"

 

Clearly it does, cuz it was made to literally legalize military grade weapons of the time

 

I disagree, but that too is something else

But the "military grade weapons" of the time are vastly different than today. The reason I say its outdated IS that it was made with protecting those in mind. However since weapons have evolved going off laws decided so long ago just doesn't work. Adjustments need to be made with time.

[Dad]

But the "military grade weapons" of the time are vastly different than today. The reason I say its outdated IS that it was made with protecting those in mind. However since weapons have evolved going off laws decided so long ago just doesn't work. Adjustments need to be made with time.

Would you apply this to all amendments? What would you change?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Would you apply this to all amendments? What would you change?

Come to think of it we probably could actually have a topic about theoretical constitution changes...But right now that's a high level post that I'm not prepared for right now but to keep it simple I think, personally, that amendments should be reviewed more often. They were made by a group of people in a world vastly different from our own for that world specifically. There are some that are more general and "universal" but I think it's always a good idea to make sure things fit well with the current world.

Just realized this could apply to YCM rules

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

No, you have to look it at it relative to the times. In the 1700s Muskets were "ruthless killing machines"

 

They were still deemed necessary 

[VCR_CAT]

The argument that muskets were the weapons back there still stands very clearly though, especially in showing how archaic and obsolete 2A is. Muskets were the weapon back then, and if you were a well-trained soldier then you could "quickly" and "efficiently" fire a whole 3 rounds per minute reloading between shots. Comparing that to, say, even just a semi-automatic rifle that a civilian can purchase these days, which can fire 800 rounds per minute without needing to reload between shots. Take in consideration the stopping power of a civil-war musket along with its accuracy and range to a modern weapon and it's just absolutely no contest.

 

I point this out because this was the weapon back then. Flintlocks and muskets weren't their equivalent of a 9 mm pistol, even though a 9 mm pistol is still a better weapon than just a musket. That was their military weapon, that was the top-of-the-line for infantry arms. Back then, one guy with a musket can't do much damage, not without a lot of luck and a lot of training and some really stupid victims. Not only that, but considering what it meant to make and acquire a musket and its ammunition back then and it's just a whole different story.

 

Oh, and the other part about it being the military weapon is that, it meant a civilian population could feasibly arm itself to an equivalent strength to a federal army, the main question just being numbers and how long they have to train. It's a completely different story today. The weapons the civilian population has access to don't stand a chance against what the military has to offer, and I'm not just talking infantry weapons. There are still tanks, bombers and jets that can break the sound barrier, cruise missiles, drones, and frickin' railgun artillery in development that should be seeing field testing in the near future. The main deterrent for the government attempting a military take-over isn't that they would lose the fight; they could level a city before the population even had a chance to get their sheet together. The main deterrent is that they would essentially just be killing the country they're trying to control, so why bother trying to do that through the military when you can already game the systems in place.

 

Just because muskets were "the" weapon and "seen" as "ruthless killing machines" doesn't mean they were, and just because civil war people could see that it was okay for the general population to have those weapons has absolutely no bearing on weapons and culture today, so you can stop trying to shill non-equivalences down our throats as if they're arguments, Winter. If anything, pointing out this vast difference in technology and circumstances just goes to show that 2A is an old ideal that just doesn't work anymore. Technology and the world have long since moved past the point where it means something for general peace and protection.

 

Another thing is, you need to stop acting as if the constitution is some sort of bible. It's far from being an infallible document, and no part of it is above being questioned for if it's truly effective for doing what it's meant to do.

[vla1ne]

1. While a school where every (Or at least the majority) member of faculty has a gun could certainly act as a deterrent, it feeds into a suggestion I've seen before, which is that if more good people had guns, maybe they could stop the bad people who have guns, and that thought process has rarely been backed up. That is the "hero fantasy" that I've seen mocked, and looking into it, the idea that gun-free zones are the most frequently targeted places for mass shootings is a myth, and I do suggest reading that article, because it suggests that - at least prior to 2014 - none of the shooters chose their targets for being "gun-free zones". Similar to what I mentioned to Winter on the first page about "assault rifles" supposedly just being a talking point invented by Democrats, what you're doing is repeating a false claim by the NRA. It's not "simply true", it's just said that it is as a means to silence people who argue for gun control.

 

2. I'm afraid to clarify the criteria here, mostly in that I imagine that what I have in mind is not at all how something works. I'll ask this mostly so I could learn, but without a history of commitment to a mental institution, how exactly could a firearms distributor learn that someone is mentally handicapped? I would also suggest that since some states seem fairly lax on even having a license to carry a gun, there should be more programs similar to DMV available to obtain a permit. t would also help if there was more serious action taken against radical white supremacy advocates, since that's also been a factor in mass shootings, such as Dylann Roof shooting up an African-American church because he wanted to provoke a race war. While mental health is a factor, I don't believe it's all that should be focused on, otherwise you run the risk of tunnel vision.

 

first, if anybody can have a gun, yeah, i'm gonna have to say that's a hell of a better deterrent to starting random shootings (or even focused ones) than if nobody had one. that is not, by any means a hero fantasy. it's as you are missing something that is vitally important. this isn't about heroes, it's about people. this isn't 'that guy with a gun is going to stop that shooter' it's 'all those guys with guns are more liable to stop the shooter' it's about giving people the option to protect themselves and others. can you honestly tell me 20 people without guns are going to be more likely to survive a school shooting than 10 people who do have guns? it's not about heroes, it's simple facts; people with guns, will be able to do everything that people without guns can in the face of a school shooter, and then some. in addition,  the more people with guns, the lower the odds of a one sided massacre, and in the case of a shootout, the more time the police have to arrive. can you tell me any of these things are wrong.

 

 

 

[spoiler=as for the article]

seeing as they're only focused on mass shootings, i'll be giving some of their citations a bye, simply because it's too annoying to deal with everything at once. i assume you already know why assault weapons is a pointless term, so i'll be ignoring that as well.

 

first up, the claim that not a single shooter targeted a gun free place because it was gun free, that's not the claim that most advocates make. most people who are against gun free zones are not saying that gun go zones are free of shootings, they are saying that they are less likely to have as high of a body count. it's a difficult argument because it's not exactly possible to count deterrents, since by nature, avoided shootings don't add up visibly. 

 

second, the shootings themselves:

• the workplace shooting that they list, i doubt they even read through. the shooter attempted to pull his gun out, struggled with the two other men in the room he was targeting, and won out in the end, shooting both men and multiple others. the entirety of said crime involving no other people who possessed any guns. i'd see what they were getting at if the shooter had any armed opponents, but he didn't. nobody else had a gun in the cited case, meaning for all intents and purposes, the place was, at the moment, a gun free zone, further evidenced by the fact that said shooter had to go to his car to get his own gun.
• the school shooters targeted schools, places that are well known for being gun free, saying that they have ties to the place, as this article does, does not add much to their claims. sure, they have grudges, but that does nothing for the arguments about guns not being able to help as much as they harmed.
• the Milwaukee shooting has a similar applicable statement. sure, he targeted them for who they were, but he attacked them when he did, because they were at their most defenseless. it's that simple. gun, bomb, truck, ect, all would be applicable, the target was obviously set in stone, but the timing? why attack at any point other than when they clearly cannot defend themselves in this case?
• yes, they did kill themselves once they met armed resistance (or allowed themselves to be killed by cop) and what exact harm does this do to the argument that earlier armed resistance would lower the body count?

trumps statement may be false, but this does nothing but tell us that he was wrong, something everybody and their mother has been hearing since day one. it give us nothing new, and worse, it uses weak evidence as it's defense. it counts among its shootings, domestic shootings, in which people shoot inside homes, these are terrible because the motives vary wildly, and are, in most cases, the exact same as mass stabbings, in that they are something that wouldn't be stopped simply because there were no guns in the house. many of said murders being somebody killing their families and/or friends one by one, which a knife would be of equal effect.

 

in fact, they themselves have a chart compiling every mass shooting, and if you look here (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/) you can see that the absolute highest body counts, are all in the most defenseless areas. are there shootings in places where guns are allowed? yes, but for maximum effect, the areas with no guns at all, are always where you look on the chart. the claim that most shootings occur in places that are not gun free, may well be right, but what they skim over, is the body difference between gun free, and gun go zones.

 

 

 

 

there's quite a bit i disagree with in that 2nd paragraph, but there is currently no way of quantifying my thoughts on that, that i can think of right now.

 

also:

The argument that muskets were the weapons back there still stands very clearly though, especially in showing how archaic and obsolete 2A is. Muskets were the weapon back then, and if you were a well-trained soldier then you could "quickly" and "efficiently" fire a whole 3 rounds per minute reloading between shots. Comparing that to, say, even just a semi-automatic rifle that a civilian can purchase these days, which can fire 800 rounds per minute without needing to reload between shots. Take in consideration the stopping power of a civil-war musket along with its accuracy and range to a modern weapon and it's just absolutely no contest.

 

I point this out because this was the weapon back then. Flintlocks and muskets weren't their equivalent of a 9 mm pistol, even though a 9 mm pistol is still a better weapon than just a musket. That was their military weapon, that was the top-of-the-line for infantry arms. Back then, one guy with a musket can't do much damage, not without a lot of luck and a lot of training and some really stupid victims. Not only that, but considering what it meant to make and acquire a musket and its ammunition back then and it's just a whole different story.

 

Oh, and the other part about it being the military weapon is that, it meant a civilian population could feasibly arm itself to an equivalent strength to a federal army, the main question just being numbers and how long they have to train. It's a completely different story today. The weapons the civilian population has access to don't stand a chance against what the military has to offer, and I'm not just talking infantry weapons. There are still tanks, bombers and jets that can break the sound barrier, cruise missiles, drones, and frickin' railgun artillery in development that should be seeing field testing in the near future. The main deterrent for the government attempting a military take-over isn't that they would lose the fight; they could level a city before the population even had a chance to get their sheet together. The main deterrent is that they would essentially just be killing the country they're trying to control, so why bother trying to do that through the military when you can already game the systems in place.

 

Just because muskets were "the" weapon and "seen" as "ruthless killing machines" doesn't mean they were, and just because civil war people could see that it was okay for the general population to have those weapons has absolutely no bearing on weapons and culture today, so you can stop trying to shill non-equivalences down our throats as if they're arguments, Winter. If anything, pointing out this vast difference in technology and circumstances just goes to show that 2A is an old ideal that just doesn't work anymore. Technology and the world have long since moved past the point where it means something for general peace and protection.

 

Another thing is, you need to stop acting as if the constitution is some sort of bible. It's far from being an infallible document, and no part of it is above being questioned for if it's truly effective for doing what it's meant to do.

cannons were allowed as well, considering how much damage a cannon is capable of putting out back then, weapon damage was not likely a factor. also, keep in mind a healthy respect for weapons, and millitary service, were instilled in children back then, since everybody was a fighter, whether they wanted to be or not. giving people knowledge on weapons that they may one day have to use to defend themselves, and allowing them access to said weapons any time they should need them, was the goal, and i'd argue that the principle has not changed one bit since then. 

 

 

cost of acquisition does not change anything. guns were not so expensive that nobody would be able to get one, in fact, coming off of a war, it was likely harder to find a proper household without one than to find a house with one.

 

you are correct that the millitary has far more power than the average citizen, but this holds no water when factoring civillians vs leaders of state. like you yourself have admitted, you cannot nuke randomly, especially within your own country. you can only game the system, and what bigger obstacle is there to gaming the system, than an armed populace? if 1 in 5 citizens in venezuela or north korea had access to a handgun, how much more difficulty would they have controlling their regimes? you've said it yourself, the government has access to far more firepower, but in order to use it, they would have to raze near everything they wanted, to the ground. if fighting for a revolution, even if every soldier were to fight against civilians, every citizen with even a pistol, is liable to drop a dictator. there's a reason most dictator/communist countries have complete bans on firearms. one or two citizens is all it would take to break down a regime. and i'm not talking about the "hero" definition, i'm is talking about how 1 anonymous bullet from 1 out of a million opponents, is all it would take to end the life of a dictator. the more people who have guns, (assuming they have the will to use them) the harder it will be for any military to subjugate the population. 1000 soldiers for 50,000 firearmed (even lightly) civillians is not a number that you want to bet on, even if said soldiers have the greatest training in the world. and the only other option, would be too self damaging to sustain.

 

"Technology and the world have long since moved past the point where it means something for general peace and protection."

that is an unquantifiable statement. i hear countless testimony of how CC has saved many people from would be robbers, rapists, and all manner of other problems. not to mention there are many stories of CC preventing what could otherwise be mass shootings. prevention is not a quantifiable substance, and unless you've found a way to do so, i'd suggest you retract that statement. it's easy to see bullet holes, it's much harder to see prevented robberies, rapes, and murders.

 

it's not infallible, nor is it above question, but you are simply mistaken if you believe that the 2nd amendment needs to be weakened further.

[VCR_CAT]

cannons were allowed as well, considering how much damage a cannon is capable of putting out back then, weapon damage was not likely a factor. also, keep in mind a healthy respect for weapons, and millitary service, were instilled in children back then, since everybody was a fighter, whether they wanted to be or not. giving people knowledge on weapons that they may one day have to use to defend themselves, and allowing them access to said weapons any time they should need them, was the goal, and i'd argue that the principle has not changed one bit since then. 

 

Absolutely the culture was very different back then, as cultures are to change over even the course of just 10 years. Also, while a cannon does more property damage, this is still like, a big hundred+ pound tube of iron that has to be lugged around with gunpowder and cannon balls. While it can deal a lot of physical property damage, it's... far from being the most practical thing to use for just a rogue person who decides they want to kill a lot of people. They'd be better of just taking all that gunpowder and rigging it to blow something up, but anyways. As I was saying about culture; it was very different. There's a lot going on in that time, with a lot towns being smaller communities and more tight-nit, and the spread of news and the place of politics within topics of conversation being very different. It's a vastly different climate than the one we have to do, and one I would argue that we would be foolish to try and see equates to what's going on around us.

 

 

cost of acquisition does not change anything. guns were not so expensive that nobody would be able to get one, in fact, coming off of a war, it was likely harder to find a proper household without one than to find a house with one.

 

Would I be inaccurate in rephrasing that to "Ease of acquisition"? Because cost equates to how difficult it would be acquire. The easier it is to get, the more people are going to have them. But what I was getting at was that the infrastructure for making, buying, and trading weapons, even just goods, isn't what it is today. I would imagine a lot of homes would have them, but I would also imagine a lot of homes wouldn't. That said, I would be curious to speak with historian and compare percentages of gun ownership then to today, among a few other things.

 

 

you are correct that the millitary has far more power than the average citizen, but this holds no water when factoring civillians vs leaders of state. like you yourself have admitted, you cannot nuke randomly, especially within your own country. you can only game the system, and what bigger obstacle is there to gaming the system, than an armed populace? if 1 in 5 citizens in venezuela or north korea had access to a handgun, how much more difficulty would they have controlling their regimes? you've said it yourself, the government has access to far more firepower, but in order to use it, they would have to raze near everything they wanted, to the ground. if fighting for a revolution, even if every soldier were to fight against civilians, every citizen with even a pistol, is liable to drop a dictator. there's a reason most dictator/communist countries have complete bans on firearms. one or two citizens is all it would take to break down a regime. and i'm not talking about the "hero" definition, i'm is talking about how 1 anonymous bullet from 1 out of a million opponents, is all it would take to end the life of a dictator. the more people who have guns, (assuming they have the will to use them) the harder it will be for any military to subjugate the population. 1000 soldiers for 50,000 firearmed (even lightly) civillians is not a number that you want to bet on, even if said soldiers have the greatest training in the world. and the only other option, would be too self damaging to sustain.

 

It's not quite that simple. You're presenting situations in third-world countries, or rather, countries that cannot accomplish the sort of military the United States is able to. Even North Korea has been struggling to get their nuclear program off the ground, something the US has had for over 50 years. If their civilian population was armed, then yes there is a good chance we would see a revolution, but the outcome... I dunno, the situation you present sounds incredibly silly.

 

Right now you're describing a revolution as if it were all the soldiers, and then for some reason the leader of that army, standing in an open area just blindly shooting at each other with nothing going. I get that "One stray bullet COULD end the leader's life", but what situation is that? What are you describing here? Do you believe the White House has a protocol in place for if a bunch of angry, armed civilians suddenly decided they wanted to storm the premises to kill the president or not? Yes, an armed population means that they have a better chance of starting a revolution if they wanted, but the circumstances you describe are highly simplified to the point of un-realism. If the United States population decided to stand up against the government to take it down, I'm highly skeptical they would be anywhere near victorious, and if they were, it would be a miracle.

 

If the civilian population of the US decided to start a revolution, it wouldn't be anything short of either flat-out defeat, or just an incredibly drawn out destruction of the country as the entire US is turned into a war zone. And really, the civilian population doesn't even need to be armed for them to pull that off. If the people wanted to start a revolution, a second amendment isn't what's standing between them and accomplishing it. If you want, feel free to take a look at the long list of historical revolutions and how people were able to do them, because I'm pretty sure they weren't going "Thank goodness we have 2A or else none of this would be possible!" So, with that said, the presence of 2A doesn't make a difference really if a revolution could happen, but the main factor that prevents it from happening is basically mutually assured destruction. The civilian population doesn't want to get bombed to hell and back, and the government doesn't want to destroy their country.

 

I get what you're saying about "A regulated militia keeping the government in check", but those days are gone. It's really just a lofty ideal held with warm, patriotic feelings and nothing else really to back it up.

 

 

 it's not infallible, nor is it above question, but you are simply mistaken if you believe that the 2nd amendment needs to be weakened further.

 

If it's not infallible or above question, then you need to start questioning it. Because what I'm hearing from you right now is "I agree it's not infallible or above question, so stop questioning it." There are dozens upon dozens of other nations out there with far more strict gun laws and the homicide rate data to back it up. Look into their circumstances, how things are done, and ask the question of "Is a culture of people that are all holding guns ready to kill another person at any second really the answer to having a 'safer' nation?"

[vla1ne]

yeah... i got a bit carried away...

Absolutely the culture was very different back then, as cultures are to change over even the course of just 10 years. Also, while a cannon does more property damage, this is still like, a big hundred+ pound tube of iron that has to be lugged around with gunpowder and cannon balls. While it can deal a lot of physical property damage, it's... far from being the most practical thing to use for just a rogue person who decides they want to kill a lot of people. They'd be better of just taking all that gunpowder and rigging it to blow something up, but anyways. As I was saying about culture; it was very different. There's a lot going on in that time, with a lot towns being smaller communities and more tight-nit, and the spread of news and the place of politics within topics of conversation being very different. It's a vastly different climate than the one we have to do, and one I would argue that we would be foolish to try and see equates to what's going on around us.

but you can, not so much the war aspect, but you can draw differences from both and see where the issues lie.

 

Would I be inaccurate in rephrasing that to "Ease of acquisition"? Because cost equates to how difficult it would be acquire. The easier it is to get, the more people are going to have them. But what I was getting at was that the infrastructure for making, buying, and trading weapons, even just goods, isn't what it is today. I would imagine a lot of homes would have them, but I would also imagine a lot of homes wouldn't. That said, I would be curious to speak with historian and compare percentages of gun ownership then to today, among a few other things.

the ease of aquisition was about the same as today, for two reasons, 1) coming off a war, most families had at least a few people who were fighting in said war, and as soldiers of that time (alongside the establishment of the 2nd), it's reasonable to say that a majority of households were more likely to own a gun, than to not. this did change over time though:

• http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1489&context=wmlr according to this article, during the late 1600's, through the early1700's, gun ownership, according to property census, was incredibly high, surpassing most other forms of inventory. that is to say, guns were in high supply, majority of families owned then, and the decline only occurred in the later stages of th 1700's, heading into the 1800's as service costs came around, and maintenance/new gun acquisition costs rose.
• this did not remain the case though, arguably less accurate, but i'm giving it benefit of the doubt, the quora (https://www.quora.com/In-the-1800s-did-most-Americans-carry-guns) claims that around the later date of the early through late 1800's, has most respondents state that while in the early 1800's gun ownership was generally in decline in the city, country lands were more prominently holding them. this began to change in the later 1800's, as guns slowly became more portable, and easier to access. though as a side note, in addition to guns, the 2nd amendment truly had no limits to the weapon tier list back then. if you could buy it, you could get it, all the way from pistols to literal warships. were that still the case, bill gates would be able to legally fund his own military force, an interesting line of thought, but moving on.

It's not quite that simple. You're presenting situations in third-world countries, or rather, countries that cannot accomplish the sort of military the United States is able to. Even North Korea has been struggling to get their nuclear program off the ground, something the US has had for over 50 years. If their civilian population was armed, then yes there is a good chance we would see a revolution, but the outcome... I dunno, the situation you present sounds incredibly silly.
 
Right now you're describing a revolution as if it were all the soldiers, and then for some reason the leader of that army, standing in an open area just blindly shooting at each other with nothing going. I get that "One stray bullet COULD end the leader's life", but what situation is that? What are you describing here? Do you believe the White House has a protocol in place for if a bunch of angry, armed civilians suddenly decided they wanted to storm the premises to kill the president or not? Yes, an armed population means that they have a better chance of starting a revolution if they wanted, but the circumstances you describe are highly simplified to the point of un-realism. If the United States population decided to stand up against the government to take it down, I'm highly skeptical they would be anywhere near victorious, and if they were, it would be a miracle.

what i was saying there, is that guns, (assuming at least standard handgun quality) are game changers, both in establishing tyranny, and in holding that power. 20 soldiers fighting an unarmed (or only melee armed) crowd of hundreds would be able to wipe them out with ease. this changes when guns, even standard handguns, come into the equation. yes, weapons like tanks and jets can change the game as well, but guns, are the base level needed for any form of resistance. numbers always favor the populace, but only guns can balance the difference in power. (not saying they give you superpowers either, it's math at it's most basic. 1000 civilians unarmed, will do nothing to soldiers wielding tanks and semi-auto rifles. 1000 civilians with 1000 guns, however, assuming each gun having minimum 6 shots per clip, is by far, more potent.)
 
 
i'm just stating numbers, scenario comes second to numbers in this case, because the sheer difference in numbers is what i'm talking here. follow the numbers for a bit and you'll get why i'm saying that plans mean nothing in the face of the sheer numbers.

• starting with guns (https://www.bustle.com/p/how-many-guns-are-there-in-america-the-statistics-are-staggering-2746615) 2015 saw 357 million guns in america. not counting illegal ones. now let's be generous and chop that number down to 200 million. let's be more generous and downgrade the guns to only handguns, 6 rounds standard capacity. that's a wall of 1200 million bullets. before reloading of course.
•  
• next is people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Sex_ratios) it's wiki, so likely a bit wonky here or there, but for general purpose, it's more than enough, so let's do the math here, according to this, the total population for adults age 20-49 is about 107,429,144, splitting that, you get 53,714,572. so let's use 53,714,572 as our number. that's about the number of people i can throw into the revolution. cut as you like otherwise, but generally around this number if we're talking actual revolution.

this is what i mean when i say that before the numbers, plans are irrelevant. yes, i'm sure the WH has plans for if the citizens decide to overthrow said WH. but outside of mass destruction, what plan in existence is going to stop 200 million guns aimed by 53,714,572 people, at the WH AND keep the current order in power? (keep in mind that i not only cut the numbers, but downgraded the gun type, and the ammo capacity.) revolution doesn't have to kill the dictator, it just has to dethrone them. and no seat in the world is worth facing 53 million+ armed people aiming to tear you off your seat. it doesn't matter the plan, the only two ends, when facing an armed populace of that size, are mutual destruction, or relinquishing the seat. yes, it's oversimplification, but the end game is the same no matter the scenario, so long as the populace has at least pistols. [spoiler=to steal some words from the founding fathers, which i think still apply]
The Founding Fathers were kind enough to make their intent crystal clear in many of their writings:
Alexander Hamilton: f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[,] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
Noah Webster: Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
George Mason: "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them . . . by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.
Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
Samuel Adams: "Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures."
Thomas Jefferson: "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."- George Washington

taking some things from those, the overall sentiment was rather clear wasn't it? citizens are the first people who deserve the right to arms, and the need to keep said skills sharp, should not be underestimated. you can argue that, using my own argument, handguns would be sufficient, but as you yourself have said, the army does have better tools, at far higher levels of efficacy. higher caliber weapons, along that same line, can be argued using the same logic i presented through the above numbers exercise. the government, and by extension, the millitary, surpass americans in raw power, and as such, should anything ever come to revolution, while handguns would be enough to deter, higher caliber weapons (parallell to cannos of the past) would be the better option should revolution, or protection be required (within reason, so nothing like satellite weapons). and with such an argument i believe i've covered all that i need to on the revolution front of this discussion.and then some,
 
 

If the civilian population of the US decided to start a revolution, it wouldn't be anything short of either flat-out defeat, or just an incredibly drawn out destruction of the country as the entire US is turned into a war zone. And really, the civilian population doesn't even need to be armed for them to pull that off. If the people wanted to start a revolution, a second amendment isn't what's standing between them and accomplishing it. If you want, feel free to take a look at the long list of historical revolutions and how people were able to do them, because I'm pretty sure they weren't going "Thank goodness we have 2A or else none of this would be possible!" So, with that said, the presence of 2A doesn't make a difference really if a revolution could happen, but the main factor that prevents it from happening is basically mutually assured destruction. The civilian population doesn't want to get bombed to hell and back, and the government doesn't want to destroy their country.
 
I get what you're saying about "A regulated militia keeping the government in check", but those days are gone. It's really just a lofty ideal held with warm, patriotic feelings and nothing else really to back it up.

 
i believe i've covered this in the above statement. sheer numbers may well be a close deterrent, but the 2nd amendment is the pound of prevention preventing the need for tons of cure. no civilians don't need to be armed, but their odds of actually succeeding (alongside morale) will skyrocket for it, (not to mention the civilian body count [armed vs unarmed] will plummet) the 2nd amendment doesn't stand between them and revolution, correct, it stands behind them. it's not mutually assured destruction when the civilians are unarmed, it is one sided slaughter. in many countries where revolutions occurred, the body count prior and during said revolution, was stupidly high. and that is what the 2nd amendment grants. not the ability to revolt, but the ability to revolt on equal footing. without weapons, the only outcome is mutually assured destruction. population only wins out because sheer population size in that scenario, while the corpses pile on like a sponge in water, only with guns, does the scenario see a sharp decline in body count. look through history at any revolution you want during the history of guns, and then point out one where the people revolting didn't either gain access to guns down the line, or where there was no desire for access to guns. governments don't want to destroy their country, but tyrants do. slowly. tell me how well kim jong un or nicolas maduro are doing in their countries. sure, your country won't die, but your people will in droves. hell look to mexico, where the government's so corrupt that the drug rings run everything in all but name. tell me which revolution would do better for them: one where they have guns, or one where they have only their hands, or whatever else they can grab? you know how efficiency works, but you're overlooking how much more efficient guns make both revolution and self defense.
 
 
 
you are missing something still though. my point isn't just regulated militia, it's general usage as well. to make the point, i'll use some things that are easier to pick out, but just as hard to grasp:

• how many car accidents were prevented last year? to be more specific, i mean how many close calls were there, that were avoided because the potential victim was paying attention to the road, and hit the breaks/swerved just in time?

• how many people avoided catching a cold (of some sort) last year? to be more specific, how many people payed attention to their health, and ensured that any irregularities in their bodies were handled promptly?

the two above statements are, in their own ways, parallels to the statement i made in my last comment. while you cannot quantify prevention, you can easily tell that it exists, and identify it when it occurs (even if you cannot track it, you can see individual cases quite easily). avoided issues are noticeable, but they are impossible to keep track of.the way actual shootings are. it is not lofty ideal full of hot air, it is like a car crash due to negligence (seat-belt optional); the kind of prevention that you cannot quantify until you are actually lacking it.
 
 
 

If it's not infallible or above question, then you need to start questioning it. Because what I'm hearing from you right now is "I agree it's not infallible or above question, so stop questioning it." There are dozens upon dozens of other nations out there with far more strict gun laws and the homicide rate data to back it up. Look into their circumstances, how things are done, and ask the question of "Is a culture of people that are all holding guns ready to kill another person at any second really the answer to having a 'safer' nation?"

no. that is not what i'm saying, what i'm saying is that your points relating to your questions can be (and many have been) answered. and the (my) end conclusion, is that you questions are unfounded. yes, other countries have strict gun laws as well, but what you are not accounting for, is the numbers in most other countries parallel those of america. there are 2 or 3 states (not even states, just cities) that throw off the numbers signifigantly. and when i look at it from that angle, my question isn't "what can i do to restrict guns?" my question becomes "what factors are acting as the hotbed for crime in those places?" guns are the tools used because they are simply the most convenient, you can look around englandand see that throwing acid in peoples faces was the most popular criminal trend a while back. the weapon used is not the issue in this country, it's the symptom. same as my response to dad last page:
[spoiler=because i'm not retyping all that from last page]
 

I meant that specifically in relation to Chicago's gun laws and gun related crimes.  If their gun laws are so strong, then why is it their gun violence hasn't been reduced?  Is it due to neighboring states, as most often reported?  What could you change specifically in relation to Illinois and neighboring states gun laws to reduce gun related crimes?
 
You're not going to just sweep drugs off the streets in a day's time.  And even if you did, you would be picking up every footsoldier slinging a gram of weed and throwing them in jail for something trivial.  Poor housing is a result of economical imbalance.  But none of these things are what I want to know about.
 
The war on drugs has been going on since before the eighties.  I'd love to hear more about your opinion on Chicago in general in a separate thread, but not here.  
 
Is there anyone else who would change any laws in Illinois and surrounding states?  What about border checks?  License/ID checks?  Tracking sales of weapons?

that's what i meant though. the gu  problem is not going to be solvable, until you solve the rest of the factors. it doesn't matter how strict or how lax their gun laws are, criminals will manage to find guns one way of another, sure, the bordering states have more lax laws, making it easier to obtain guns in said states, but that in and of itself is not the problem, it's merely a side issue. to understand this, just look at it from the reverse perspective. if the bordering states have such lax laws, why then, is their gun crime rate so much lower than chicago's own? this is what i mean. lax or tight laws are only one aspect. the strong gun laws are merely a bottlecap on the issue. when i say the laws in chicago are fine, i mean they are more than passing, both on paper and in practice. they say, exactly what they need to. the punishment and restrictions in place are enough. but no matter the laws on guns, if they do not improve the actual living conditions, the problem will not be solved.
 
i agree. and that is why i say the solution to chicago's gun problem, lies elsewhere. the gun problem is a symptom, not the cause, and as such, the gun laws, should not be the target. the laws on the books are tight, and more than qualify for the 'tough' label, but the problems, i.e. drugs, low education, poor living standard, economic collapse, ect, snowball into a far larger issue. guns are among the more dangerous heads in this mix, but they are not the head you need to focus on chopping off.
 
i agree.
 
border checks are something that would be up to the people living there to decide on implementing. i can't exactly say with confidence that it would be a welcome feature. there's arguments for it (finding dangerous weapons before they enter the state illegally, same with drugs and the like) and against it (violating privacy of innocent citizens, dissolving trust between citizen and law, ect), but it's something that while i'm against the principle of it, understand the desire for such.

 

 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

This video is practically spam. It might be relevant but the relevancy is hiding behind jokes. Use your words :P

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Since we are talking about gun control here, allow me to feast your eyes on this ballot initiative that has come to me attention: Oregon Ballot Initiative 43 .

 

Even though I'm a left-leaning member of the Oregon Independent Party, funk this sheet. I'm all for sensible measures (e.g. mandatory training for those interested in purchasing a gun and background checks), but this is going over the deep end.

 

@@Darkrai

[vla1ne]

Since we are talking about gun control here, allow me to feast your eyes on this ballot initiative that has come to me attention: Oregon Ballot Initiative 43 .

 

Even though I'm a left-leaning member of the Oregon Independent Party, funk this sheet. I'm all for sensible measures (e.g. mandatory training for those interested in purchasing a gun and background checks), but this is going over the deep end.

 

@@Darkrai

why do people always use children to justify pushing their views into law? i get it, people want to keep their kids safe, but i can't count the amount of stupid things i've seen that have the excuse of "the children" plastered over them just to slide it through.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Since we are talking about gun control here, allow me to feast your eyes on this ballot initiative that has come to me attention: Oregon Ballot Initiative 43 .

 

Even though I'm a left-leaning member of the Oregon Independent Party, funk this sheet. I'm all for sensible measures (e.g. mandatory training for those interested in purchasing a gun and background checks), but this is going over the deep end.

 

@@Darkrai

There would be riots if they tried something like that in Virginia or Iowa

 

Like Ten rounds is basically nothing

This video is practically spam. It might be relevant but the relevancy is hiding behind jokes. Use your words :P

VP Joe Biden suggested that AR-15 aren't needed because a double barrel (sawed off in one of those images) shotgun does the same thing. That video shows the significant recoil with a shotgun that Joe seems to think is find. I've actually dislocated my shoulder when I rushed firing one before. It's not the sorta weapon any old person can just pick up and quick fire warning shots into the air with 

[Dad]

 

Like Ten rounds is basically nothing

 

Explain.  Is this because more magazines need to be purchased or because gun owners need to learn to aim?  (I'm only kidding about the last part but some of y'all can't hit the broad side of a back-alley dumpster so you need all the bullets you can get.)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Explain.  Is this because more magazines need to be purchased or because gun owners need to learn to aim?  (I'm only kidding about the last part but some of y'all can't hit the broad side of a back-alley dumpster so you need all the bullets you can get.)

10 rounds is like a game of shooting the Pepsi can. It doesn't last as long as one may think. The bigger problem was his awful gun comparison 

[Dad]

10 rounds is like a game of shooting the Pepsi can. It doesn't last as long as one may think. The bigger problem was his awful gun comparison 

 

I both do and don't understand your argument.  Ten rounds is bad because it doesn't provide time to accomplish... what?

[vla1ne]

I both do and don't understand your argument.  Ten rounds is bad because it doesn't provide time to accomplish... what?

there's actually more to it than just ten rounds being nothing, but to start from there:

 

10 rounds being nothing, is to say that most guns in this age, and many guns that gun owners have (of practically every type) are already capable of holding more than 10 rounds, taking this into account, if anybody breaks into your home, and for whatever reason, you end up in a firefight, a substandard handgun with less than 10 rounds (which is just about all that would be left after this law were finished) would not be enough to hold more than one person off effectively. this may be a rare case, but the very existence of this law, would make it the norm for wherever this law were implemented. removing any option of variety in the arsenal of the average americans home. but to go deeper into this law:

 

to start with the most worrying part, and make my way up:

It would also allow people to keep otherwise banned firearms if they are made permanently inoperable

 

like the senator in the article says, that whole "nobody's coming for your guns" thing is blatantly thrown out of the window by this single line. the line itself seems almost harmless without context, but context is what makes it so frightening. [spoiler=this law covers]

• any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and any of the following features:
  • a grip, such as a pistol grip or thumbhole stock, designed to allow the operators trigger hand to be directly below the action of the rifle while firing rather than behind the firing action of the rifle as with most traditional hunting rifles;
  • any grip or shroud that can be held by the non-trigger hand while firing;
  • a flash suppressor or muzzle break/compensator or reduce recoil;
  • a bayonet mount or grenade/flare launcher;
• any semiautomatic pistol or rifle with a fixed ammunition magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds;
• any semiautomatic rifle shorter than 30 inches;
• a semiautomatic pistol with one of the following:
  • any secondary grip or barrel cover that can be held by the non-trigger hand while firing;
  • a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock;
  • the ability to accept an ammunition magazine in any other location than into the grip;
  • a threaded barrel that can accept a silencer;
• any semiautomatic shotgun with any of the following features:
  • a pistol or thumbhole grip combined with a folding or telescoping stock;
  • a fixed ammunition magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds;
  • an ability to receive a detachable ammunition magazine;
  • a revolving cylinder magazine
• any kit or combination of parts able to convert a firearm in any of the ways prohibited above.

 

 

 

it essentially throws every weapon back to pre WW1 status, while describing literally the most vague form of the weapons imaginable. this is the type of legislation that gives the NRA as much power as it has. it's legislation written by people who know nothing of guns, don't care about gun owners, and can't understand (or aren't willing to understand) what effects such a law would have upon the populace they're enforcing it upon. this kind of law, is the reason people feel mistrust when they hear statments like "common sense gun reform". there is nothing sensible about this, the reform is a barely masked removal, and it's filled with the most common fears of left wing nutjobs. hate to say it that way, but a spade's a spade.

 

there's so much in this law that's wrong that i could literally spend days going line by line over it and breaking it down piece by piece for how it improperly violates not just the constitution, but the people as a whole, alongside the entire gun industry. I don't even own a gun and i can see how many holes this legislation has at a mere glance. it's that ass backwards,

[Nathanael D. Striker]

there's actually more to it than just ten rounds being nothing, but to start from there:

 

10 rounds being nothing, is to say that most guns in this age, and many guns that gun owners have (of practically every type) are already capable of holding more than 10 rounds, taking this into account, if anybody breaks into your home, and for whatever reason, you end up in a firefight, a substandard handgun with less than 10 rounds (which is just about all that would be left after this law were finished) would not be enough to hold more than one person off effectively. this may be a rare case, but the very existence of this law, would make it the norm for wherever this law were implemented. removing any option of variety in the arsenal of the average americans home. but to go deeper into this law:

 

to start with the most worrying part, and make my way up:

It would also allow people to keep otherwise banned firearms if they are made permanently inoperable[/size]

 

like the senator in the article says, that whole "nobody's coming for your guns" thing is blatantly thrown out of the window by this single line. the line itself seems almost harmless without context, but context is what makes it so frightening. [spoiler=this law covers]

 

• any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and any of the following features:
  • a grip, such as a pistol grip or thumbhole stock, designed to allow the operators trigger hand to be directly below the action of the rifle while firing rather than behind the firing action of the rifle as with most traditional hunting rifles;
  • any grip or shroud that can be held by the non-trigger hand while firing;
  • a flash suppressor or muzzle break/compensator or reduce recoil;
  • a bayonet mount or grenade/flare launcher;
• any semiautomatic pistol or rifle with a fixed ammunition magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds;
• any semiautomatic rifle shorter than 30 inches;
• a semiautomatic pistol with one of the following:
  • any secondary grip or barrel cover that can be held by the non-trigger hand while firing;
  • a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock;
  • the ability to accept an ammunition magazine in any other location than into the grip;
  • a threaded barrel that can accept a silencer;
• any semiautomatic shotgun with any of the following features:
  • a pistol or thumbhole grip combined with a folding or telescoping stock;
  • a fixed ammunition magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds;
  • an ability to receive a detachable ammunition magazine;
  • a revolving cylinder magazine
• any kit or combination of parts able to convert a firearm in any of the ways prohibited above.

 

 

 

it essentially throws every weapon back to pre WW1 status, while describing literally the most vague form of the weapons imaginable. this is the type of legislation that gives the NRA as much power as it has. it's legislation written by people who know nothing of guns, don't care about gun owners, and can't understand (or aren't willing to understand) what effects such a law would have upon the populace they're enforcing it upon. this kind of law, is the reason people feel mistrust when they hear statments like "common sense gun reform". there is nothing sensible about this, the reform is a barely masked removal, and it's filled with the most common fears of left wing nutjobs. hate to say it that way, but a spade's a spade.

 

there's so much in this law that's wrong that i could literally spend days going line by line over it and breaking it down piece by piece for how it improperly violates not just the constitution, but the people as a whole, alongside the entire gun industry. I don't even own a gun and i can see how many holes this legislation has at a mere glance. it's that ass backwards,

Well, it's a good thing that it's a ballot initiative that isn't currently on the November ballot. Even if it gets on it, rural Oregon is going to make passing it a hell of a time. Oregon is mainly blue because of Portland, Salem, Eugene, etc. after all. And let's just say rural Oregon doesn't have much love for Portland.