Will the Second Amendment survive?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

The only thing I can ask is: have you tried, a 5.56mm round at 600 yards with a 7.5 mph to 10 mph full value cross wind?

I'm still amazed at how such a simple question as the first post asks, can generate so much talk. I"m amazed I've participated as much as I have. I'm amazed at how much more has been talked about in the few days of my absence.

Reminds me of a movie line: "98% of the people in the world are asleep..the other 2% are amazed."

Welcome to my world...

[icileparadise]

Am just wishing to say, not to be rude like, if the 2nd Amndmt. gives the right to bear arms ... trained Militia ... you don't really need it since your Government provides all your protection for you. If you have to have a revolution I fear your Miltia is going to look like those guys in M.Moores film Bowling for Columbine. Ownership of guns is fine as long as you don't look for demons.

[BrianR]

Powerful US gun lobby searches for owners of guns seized by police after Hurricane Katrina
The Associated Press
Published: December 26, 2007

NEW ORLEANS: A powerful gun lobby organization has hired private investigators to track down hundreds of gun owners whose firearms were seized by New Orleans police after Hurricane Katrina, according to court papers filed this week.

The National Rifle Association is trying to locate gun owners for a federal lawsuit that the lobbying group filed against Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent Warren Riley over the city's seizure of firearms after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane.

As the flooded city descended into chaos and looting, authorities said they took guns from abandoned homes and from people trying to take the guns into shelters or onto evacuation buses in an effort to keep them out of criminals' hands. As the local police were overwhelmed, the National Guard was called in to assist in patrols.

The NRA's lawsuit marks a continuation of the group's efforts to protect Americans' constitutional right to bear arms. The group's influence in the U.S. Congress has been cited by critics as being behind most efforts to block gun law reforms.

In the lawsuit, which is set for trial in February, the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation claim the city violated gun owners' right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit says the gun owners were left "at the mercy of roving gangs, home invaders, and other criminals" after Katrina.
Today in Americas
Giving disorganized boys the tools for success
Huckabee and Romney battle to the wire in Iowa caucuses
Reconciling the realist with the rhetorician

The NRA says the city seized more than 1,000 guns that were not part of any criminal investigation after the hurricane. Police have said they took only guns that had been stolen or found in abandoned homes.

In April 2006, police made about 700 firearms available for owners to claim if they could present a bill of sale or an affidavit with the weapon's serial number.

In court papers filed Monday, NRA attorneys say investigators have found few of the guns' owners because the storm has scattered so many residents.

NRA lawyer Daniel Holliday said investigators have identified about 300 of the gun owners and located about 75 of them. Some could be called to testify during a trial, he added.

"Finding these folks has been a nightmare," Holliday said. "That is really the guts of our case — to establish that there was indeed a pattern of the police going out and taking people's guns without any legal reason to do so."

The NRA is asking that the February trial be postponed.

"Since a primary objective of this litigation is to cause the return of seized firearms to their lawful owners, more time is necessary to locate them," NRA lawyers wrote.

A U.S. District judge had not yet ruled on the request Wednesday.

Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said the group will not be satisfied until the police department has returned all the guns or reimbursed their owners.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said the police department has returned only about 100 of the 1,000 seized guns.

"Obviously, we don't expect the city to find everybody. We only wanted to see a good-faith effort, and that's what the city didn't do," Gottlieb said. "It's a bad example to let them get away with it."

An attorney for the city and a police department spokesman did not return telephone calls for comment Wednesday.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

Everyone who likes Coke should switch to Pepsi, now!

I've been munching so much reading this thread, I need that Pepsi. Diet, if you please.

. . .you don't really need it since your Government provides all your protection for you.

Icileparadise, this is exceedingly unfortunate thinking. The people who place the whole of their trust for this in their government suffer from elevated crime levels and occasional genocides -- crime built to government specifications, and committed either directly by government or with government as an accessory before, during, and after the fact.

The self-reliant do not place their trust so exclusively, regarding it at best as too passive, and more usually they start throwing around applicable wisecracks about "sheeple."

There is only one known cure or prophylaxis for genocides, and that is to keep an armed populace. Any jerks who think their might makes their right have to weigh their might against that of their targets. Genocide becomes an impracticality at that point -- Einsatzkommandos succeed because nobody can shoot them. Contrariwise, imagine their chances of success if they are wiped out. A happier outcome for the general good, right?

Ownership of guns is fine as long as you don't look for demons.

Am I to understand you see some need to explicitly remind us of this? Most of the guns and freedom people are very far beyond having to address this question. I suggest you consider that we gun people know far more about what guns are, and what they are not, than you presently do; was it not you worrying publicly about worrying who might be carrying concealed as you go about your daily occasions? Funny how such views never stretch to imagining oneself, the worrier, carrying concealed. How much "worrying" is called for then, regardless of who else might be carrying?

[icileparadise]

Icileparadise, this is exceedingly unfortunate thinking. The people who place the whole of their trust for this in their government suffer from elevated crime levels and occasional genocides --

I'm a Brit and we don't do revolutions hav'nt done since Cromwell but that was against a Monarchy oh and a feeble uprising that went away. We prefer to go on strike but only as a last resort. Anyway UG this is a very complex thread which leads to many Hydras. I am amazed that you hold your Government under a wary eye and are ready to act if necesseray - I never imagined that kind of commitment. I own and have owned a liscensed German 7.65mm auto. for years because of this comfort feeling I think you allude to. Americans have a short history but you had it hard for so long, I guess firearms are in you nature & culture similar to the importance of horses/transport to you which in todays terms means grand theft auto is a really serious crime: taking away someones ride (hanging offence!) - in Europe we call it car theft - not so historically important to us in little Europe but to you in the vast USA your horse and your right to defend yourselves/family was the meaning of life.

I'm sorry I did not understand your last paragraph but then I was talking about the European way of life - I often meet hunters in the mountains here with single shot rifles but down in the valley the only people carrying firearms are the Gendarmerie. I mean, from my point of view, I don't need to worry in town if a guy I cut up on the road is carrying coz he's not and the most I'm gonna get is loud klaxons or the finger. In the USA on a hot day I would worry about pissing a guy off. I don't think we can compare each others point of view due to the cultural differences but I an in awe of you UG if you think you could take on the USA Government if necessary though after all you, did a bitching job against the Brits all those years ago. That was awesome.

[Ibby]

oh, this is going to be good.

[richlevy]

Whether discussing abortion or the second amendment, I am not fond of 'slippery slope' arguments. While everyone can point to something like Nazi Germany as an example of progressively restrictive laws reaching a terrible conclusion, the idea that any restriction can be rejected because it might lead to more and more restrictions is simply an excuse for no restrictions.

One argument holds that individuals need significant firepower to keep a possible rogue US government in check. If I remember correctly, aren't National Guard units under the authority of state governors? As for civilian ownership, if you look at Iraq, you will notice that every time the insurgency is limited to guns they lose. The only significant US losses are from IEDs VBIEDs. So using the 'government in check' theory would assume that the second amendment extends to rocket launchers, or at least a few hundred pounds of explosives.

The reality is that existing US law already denies citizens the right to sufficiently arm themselves for a revolution (or counter-revolution) against the US military. Get over it. If you want to prevent a rogue US government, then fucking vote.

The second argument is sports. Noone uses handguns to hunt deer (except for a funny scene in Hoffa), so the handgun argument is for target shooting. If 1 gun a month is insufficient for a target shooter, they should apply for an exemption.

The last argument is for personal defense. This is already in practice. In many cities, individuals selling drugs frequently end up shooting at each other. The second person to fire is practicing self defense. This usually reaches the headlines when a bullet ends up killing a 9-year-old girl (it appears that adult victims don't rate headlines) because she was outdoors or the bullet passed through the walls of a house. The argument becomes does the individual right to be safe from stray bullets outweigh the right of every citizen to be armed. Guns are not swords or knives, they are capable of killing indiscriminately.

[Cicero]

That was incredibly smart.

"get over it"....

I just stepped in here again for a minute and got doo-doo on my shoes.

Mmmm......I'm imagining Lincoln and founding fathers, and someone telling them to get over it. Let's do it! I like that for how crass and thoughtless it is...

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Cicero

That was incredibly smart.
Mmmm......I'm imagining Lincoln and founding fathers, and someone telling them to get over it. Let's do it! I like that for how crass and thoughtless it is...

Thank you. I try. Still, the original American revolution succeeded because the British were overextended and did not devote their full resources to the war. They also had a 2+ month voyage between England and the colonies.

Even then, the insurgents needed the support of French ships to win a decisive victory.

Our forefathers envisioned a technological edge where one side would have ships, cannon, and muskets, and the other side muskets. They did not consider armor, planes, etc.

The US military is supposed to 'support and defend' the Constitution. If they do not, then possibly a combination of states could secede, but it didn't work out so well the last time.

[Radar]

Also, a well-armed citizenry could overcome the weapons of the military. This is especially true when you consider that very few in the military would actually fire on American civilians. And for the person who suggested that the national guard was supposed to defend us from federal oppression, that is laughable. The national guard is considered part of the military. While the governor can call on them to do certain things, they are considered to be a smaller part of the whole army and they would refuse to fight against the regular army if ordered to do so by the governor.

The only thing that can stop the U.S. military from being misused against our own people is a well-armed citizenry. To those who say it can't be done, ask yourself how many people are in the military and how many millions of Americans own guns. Even assuming the U.S. Military has 2-3 million people which is ridiculous, we've got more than 50 million gun owners in America.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Radar

The only thing that can stop the U.S. military from being misused against our own people is a well-armed citizenry. To those who say it can't be done, ask yourself how many people are in the military and how many millions of Americans own guns. Even assuming the U.S. Military has 2-3 million people which is ridiculous, we've got more than 50 million gun owners in America.

But how does a well armed citizenry have anything to do with banning certain types of guns? If there was a revolution, we have to ask what types of guns will be used by the people and how we will get these guns. From what I am thinking right now, and as Richlevey pointed out already, the guns that will mostly be used are guns that are illegal as of now and guns that will never be banned (rifles, shotguns, etc).

I won't get into the rifles and such because there is no point but when we focus on the heavier assault rifles, where would we get these guns? I am assuming there isn't a big stock in the United States right now because of laws and even if they were overturned, I cannot see 50 million rocket launcher owners. So that means most of the heavier guns used in the revolution will be imported from other countries regardless if they are legal or not.

So for the legality issue the question comes, how worth it is it to have assault rifles and rocket launchers legalized? Those guns are not much more useful for personal protection unless you expect twenty guys to attack your home, which brings up questions about your lifestyle, they will be imported anyways in case of revolution, and will probably not be in high demand with those actually wanting to use it in ways that are beneficial to society so I personally don't really see what is so bad about banning those weapons as long as the people call for it.


Though as you pointed out Radar, the US is not in big trouble if the military does decide to take us over. Rifles and shotguns will never be banned (I would be against the ban as well) and those will make up most of the guns used in the revolution, in the beginning at least, and the rest will be imported anyways.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I won't get into the rifles and such because there is no point but when we focus on the heavier assault rifles, where would we get these guns? I am assuming there isn't a big stock in the United States right now because of laws and even if they were overturned, I cannot see 50 million rocket launcher owners. So that means most of the heavier guns used in the revolution will be imported from other countries regardless if they are legal or not.

Not so, there are plenty of fully automatic and heavy "assault" rifles in the US. I've seen them.

[slang]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Not so, there are plenty of fully automatic and heavy "assault" rifles in the US. I've seen them.

Pre 1986 they were much easier for citizens to own. Yes, there are still a good number out there in private hands still, though the paperwork now is costly.

An M16 with a pre 86 serial number may cost you $10k. An M60 around $30k, but you'd be very surprised how many are still in private hands.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Not so, there are plenty of fully automatic and heavy "assault" rifles in the US. I've seen them.

How much is plenty? I know there are a good amount but enough to stop the need of importing those types of guns? I honestly don't know this so I am just making assumptions on the number.

[Radar]

If someone has gone to jail and been released, they should have 100% of their rights restored. This includes the right to vote, the right to own guns, and all other rights. If they pose an danger to others, they should not be released from jail.