[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities

GasBandit · Jul 8, 2016

Calleja said:
So a suitcase nuclear device would be ok? How is that strawman when we know there's "carryable" nukes?
View attachment 21479

I guarantee you an infantryman isn't carrying that.

What about grenades? Rocket Launchers? All carryable, all arms?

I'm in the minority on this, I know, but yes to grenades and all other "standard kit" that a soldier would carry. My view on the 2nd amendment isn't the prevailing one however, and there's some compromising in effect that I (and sometimes even many others) consider to be unconstitutional - for example, the ban on handguns in place in places like Chicago (which, ironically, or perhaps as a result, has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the country).

strawman · Jul 8, 2016

Calleja said:
Define arms as "non-automatic fire weapons" or whatever legal definition would make it illegal to carry anything that is not for hunting/self-defense. How is that even hard? Yes, it'd be a long, tedious process... but what lawmaking isn't?

1986, the manufacture of automatic weapons for civilian or individual ownership is banned within the US.
1930's the sale or possession of automatic weapons is strictly regulated and licensed.

So we are already doing this.

GasBandit · Jul 8, 2016

Calleja said:
Define arms as "non-automatic fire weapons" or whatever legal definition would make it illegal to carry anything that is not for hunting/self-defense. How is that even hard?

If there's one thing that the 2nd amendment DEFINITELY isn't about, it's hunting.

strawman · Jul 8, 2016

And to head off the inevitable discussion, semi-automatic weapons are very useful for hunting and self defense.

GasBandit · Jul 8, 2016

Frank said:
I think that had more to do with England having another war to deal with closer to home.

I should have said "part of." It's definitely a fact that the Americans' adoption of what would later come to be called "guerilla warfare" was part of why they won. The british expected them to stand in neat rows and ready-aim-fire like regular soldiers... instead they shot from behind rocks, trees, and fucking sneaked up on them across a frozen river in the dead of the night on christmas morning.

IronBrig4 · Jul 8, 2016

GasBandit said:
In the same way that "freedom of the press" was about movable type ink printing presses and not about radio, TV, or the internet, right?

But radio, TV, and the Internet all have some regulations surrounding them. You need to be properly authorized in order to use a ham radio. The freakin' FCC regulates content that can be shown on TV. There are also obscenity laws that apply to various mediums. Even Internet content, which is a little tricky to nail down, is subject to various laws depending on the country you're viewing from. The press has changed and is thus subject to laws that reflect the changing world. Similarly, guns have changed markedly since the 1790s and thus should be subject to rules that address the exponentially higher killing power of modern firearms.

Yes, that's why we won.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion

*pushes up glasses*

The image of the farmer fighting off redcoats with his hunting rifle is one of the most exaggerated and unfortunately enduring myths of early US history. Most American militia were woefully incompetent, poorly led, and prone to committing atrocities. They didn't begin turning the tide until they were drilled into a proper army. Credit is due more to French, Spanish, and Dutch support that turned the American War into a global war where the British got pulled in many different directions.

Edit: And the British had light infantry of their own, not to mention loyalist militia, that countered guerilla warfare.

Cajungal · Jul 8, 2016

stienman said:
1930's the sale or possession of automatic weapons is strictly regulated and licensed.

How strict is it when someone on the no-fly list was able to purchase a gun? Or when we have gun show loopholes?

GasBandit · Jul 8, 2016

Cajungal said:
How strict is it when someone on the no-fly list was able to purchase a gun? Or when we have gun show loopholes?

Automatic weapons, he said. You still can't purchase an automatic weapon, regardless of whether you are on a list or not.

Automatic means "you hold down the trigger and it keeps shooting until it runs out of bullets."

Often confused with semi-automatic, which is "it shoots once every time you pull the trigger."

Cajungal · Jul 8, 2016

GasBandit said:
Automatic weapons, he said. You still can't purchase an automatic weapon, regardless of whether you are on a list or not.

Whups

Denbrought · Jul 8, 2016

stienman said:
you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater

I would encourage you to give this essay a read when you have the time, and reevaluating ever using that quote: Three Generations of a Hackneyed Apologia for Censorship Are Enough, by Popehat

Dei · Jul 8, 2016

And don't even get started on the no fly list thing.

strawman · Jul 8, 2016

IronBrig4 said:
But radio, TV, and the Internet all have some regulations surrounding them. You need to be properly authorized in order to use a ham radio.

This is like roads and carsm, though, the airwaves are a shared scarce medium and so rather than restrictions, these are regulations to provide equal and even access to everyone who wants to use them. Not having them would be like having roads with no lines or traffic signals, no speed limits, and no licensed and trained drivers.

There is no analogy to weapons - they aren't a scarce, shared resource.

IronBrig4 said:
The freakin' FCC regulates content that can be shown on TV. There are also obscenity laws that apply to various mediums.

This is due to the public nature of the airwaves, again, just like sidewalks and roads. If you broadcast something, whether from the street corner or from a microphone, which many people can receive, then you are expected to uphold laws regarding public decency. The FCC shouldn't have been placed in charge of that, IMO, they should have simply applied rules from congress, but there's significant complications that arise which are solved if the FCC both regulates the licensing of shared spectrum as well as uniformly applied standards of decency to those licenses. So congress gave them that power, and here we are.

GasBandit · Jul 8, 2016

IronBrig4 said:
But radio, TV, and the Internet all have some regulations surrounding them. You need to be properly authorized in order to use a ham radio. The freakin' FCC regulates content that can be shown on TV. There are also obscenity laws that apply to various mediums. Even Internet content, which is a little tricky to nail down, is subject to various laws depending on the country you're viewing from. The press has changed and is thus subject to laws that reflect the changing world. Similarly, guns have changed markedly since the 1790s and thus should be subject to rules that address the exponentially higher killing power of modern firearms.

The FCC regulation of broadcast media is only justified under the pretense that broadcast frequencies are a limited resource and thus must be "demonstrated to be in the public interest." Trust me, I am having to fill out paperwork that demonstrates my station's operation in the public interest for the previous quarter as we speak. There is not, however, a limited number of guns in the world. As for the internet, regulation there is more about things that are already illegal (like piracy or child pornography) simply using the internet as the transmission medium. The vast proliferation of information on the internet that is true, false, incendiary, pacifist, racist, inclusive, and otherwise all demonstrate that there's actually very little internet-specific regulation when it comes to content.

*pushes up glasses*

The image of the farmer fighting off redcoats with his hunting rifle is one of the most exaggerated and unfortunately enduring myths of early US history. Most American militia were woefully incompetent, poorly led, and prone to committing atrocities. They didn't begin turning the tide until they were drilled into a proper army. Credit is due more to French, Spanish, and Dutch support that turned the American War into a global war where the British got pulled in many different directions.

Edit: And the British had light infantry of their own, not to mention loyalist militia, that countered guerilla warfare.

I'll cede to your scholarship on the matter. It's a tertiary point in any case... the real point is that yes, the 2nd amendment is there to try to make the average citizen as dangerous to oppress as possible.

Calleja · Jul 8, 2016

My main point is that there's surreal "respect" and even worship and devotion to texts written 250+ years ago that is entirely illogical and weird to me. It's not just an American thing, but it's definitely strongest there, in my experience. You fight contracts you signed 2 years ago if you feel something's changed, don't you? Why can't the same be done with 250+ year old legal pieces written on hemp or whatever?

WHY!?

strawman · Jul 8, 2016

Calleja said:
My main point is that there's surreal "respect" and even worship and devotion to texts written 250+ years ago that is entirely illogical and weird to me. It's not just an American thing, but it's definitely strongest there, in my experience. You fight contracts you signed 2 years ago if you feel something's changed, don't you? Why can't the same be done with 250+ year old legal pieces written on hemp or whatever?

WHY!?

If the constitution of the US doesn't matter, then we have no shared, agreed upon foundation for our society and how things work.

I guess if you're anarchist that's fine, but most in the US actually generally agree to the founding principles, and agree with the process that would change them.

Covar · Jul 8, 2016

Denbrought said:
You're wrong there. He made an argument from analogy (aka inductive reasoning). You could argue it's a false analogy, but it's on you to show that, not to yell 'strawman' and move on.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I like the analogy because our ability to communicate has grown in leaps and bounds in the past 228 years, in ways our forefathers wouldn't even have conceived of. And much like the second amendment the first protects our rights to that which the government and the political class would consider dangerous to their well being. The real difference between the two, is that we (thankfully I think) haven't seen the second amendment in action this way. Where as our history is filled with the first keeping us safe.

IronBrig4 said:
But radio, TV, and the Internet all have some regulations surrounding them. You need to be properly authorized in order to use a ham radio. The freakin' FCC regulates content that can be shown on TV. There are also obscenity laws that apply to various mediums. Even Internet content, which is a little tricky to nail down, is subject to various laws depending on the country you're viewing from.

Country you're viewing from is a keyword there. A countries laws are their own and people within their borders are subject to them, regardless their country of origin. The FCC is a tricky issue caused by the broadcast nature of radio and television, and the determining that the air is federal property. Without government regulation commercial applications of airwaves wouldn't be possible due to its semi-finite nature. Anyone attempting to start a radio or tv station would just be usurped by a competitor interfering with their signal, either blocking or replacing it with their own. If you look at movies, Cable/satellite tv, and radio, they are not regulated by the FCC and can exercise their 1st amendment rights (at the risk of advertisers and their stake holders). The Internet itself is unbound in the US.

PatrThom · Jul 8, 2016

Calleja said:
Why can't the same be done with 250+ year old legal pieces written on hemp or whatever?

We can, and we do. That's how amendments happen.
But amendments were designed to require a non-trivial amount of effort and support in the hopes that this would make them better reflect The Will Of The People, and for the most part that has been the case.

--Patrick

GasBandit · Jul 8, 2016

Stienman and Pat beat me to what I wanted to respond.

Calleja · Jul 8, 2016

But these days "The Will of the People" is more "The Will of the Lobbyists", or we'd have American Idol winners as heads of government. Representatives have stopped representing people for a while, and that's true in most countries, sadly.

Null · Jul 8, 2016

I'm kind of torn on that interpretation. The Militia Act of 1792 indicates that "the militia" was not to be "every citizen", but a uniformed service made up of enlisted citizens, who would meet for drill practice at known intervals, and for exercises, and when called up. Basically, the Army National Guard. However, they were responsible for providing their own weaponry (up to a specified standard), so logically they had to have the legal right to acquire, keep, and maintain said weapons.

So while I believe that there need to be common sense gun control measures, the more I look into it, the more I have to admit that the founders' intention was for citizens to be able to own military grade small arms. I personally do not think that citizens should be able to own assault weapons, at least not without acquiring a special license, but the Constitutional justification is there.

IronBrig4 · Jul 8, 2016

GasBandit said:
I'll cede to your scholarship on the matter. It's a tertiary point in any case... the real point is that yes, the 2nd amendment is there to try to make the average citizen as dangerous to oppress as possible.

You could argue that, and you could also argue that it was put in place so state militias could defend the government against an armed rabble. Consider that the US Army was practically non-existent during that time. The US relied on state levies to suppress slave revolts, guard against foreign invasion, defend the frontier against Indian attack, and quell internal rebellion. In such a situation, it was logical for states to arm trained, disciplined, able-bodied, and regulated bodies of men for temporary emergencies.

The last thing the US wanted was a repeat of Shays' Rebellion, in which 4000 armed rebels attempted to storm a government arsenal and possibly overthrow the Massachusetts government.

GasBandit · Jul 8, 2016

Calleja said:
But these days "The Will of the People" is more "The Will of the Lobbyists", or we'd have American Idol winners as heads of government. Representatives have stopped representing people for a while, and that's true in most countries, sadly.

While true in many respects, I think that gun control is one area where the will of the people is more or less directly getting to the legislature. Most who support gun rights do so either out of personal belief or because their constituency supports gun rights, and most who support gun control do so for the same reason.

The "gun lobby" is really more of a liberal boogieman.

Calleja · Jul 8, 2016

What about the sniper rifles they apparently used in Dallas? Do you guys think sniper rifles have legitimate self-defense uses? Actually curious here.

Frank · Jul 8, 2016

Calleja said:
What about the sniper rifles they apparently used in Dallas? Do you guys think sniper rifles have legitimate self-defense uses? Actually curious here.

I've hunted with what someone would consider a sniper rifle.

Calleja · Jul 8, 2016

GasBandit said:
The "gun lobby" is really more of a liberal boogieman.

Hahaha, yeah right. Because making weapons is not one of the most lucrative businesses on planet Earth.

PatrThom · Jul 8, 2016

Calleja said:
But these days "The Will of the People" is more "The Will of the Lobbyists", or we'd have American Idol winners as heads of government. Representatives have stopped representing people for a while, and that's true in most countries, sadly.

One could argue that the real coup was effected when the populace was convinced to put more thought into their votes for winsome performers than into their choice of representation.

--Patrick

Calleja · Jul 8, 2016

Frank said:
I've hunted with what someone would consider a sniper rifle.

That's... kinda fucked up. But I get it for hunting. But, as GB himself established, there's no constitutional right to hunt, right? Self defense is the issue here, methinks. Any hunter has all his weapons registered and checked and has a permit and is himself registered to hunt and has a license and whatnot.

PatrThom · Jul 8, 2016

Calleja said:
Hahaha, yeah right. Because making weapons is not one of the most lucrative businesses on planet Earth.

Funny you should mention that:

source

And while I recognize that this makes 100% perfect business sense, this is exactly the reason I will never get wealthy in the stock market, because I would actually feel kinda dirty about making these sorts of moves.

--Patrick

Frank · Jul 8, 2016

Calleja said:
That's... kinda fucked up. But I get it for hunting. But, as GB himself established, there's no constitutional right to hunt, right? Self defense is the issue here, methinks.

It's a rifle with a scope. I could just as easily climb a clock tower and turn it on people as I could shoot a deer with it. It's not fucked up.

That deer was delicious.

Calleja · Jul 8, 2016

PatrThom said:
One could argue that the real coup was effected when the populace was convinced to put more thought into their votes for winsome performers than into their choice of representation.

--Patrick

Definitely. When elections became popularity contests shit started going bad.

Frank · Jul 8, 2016

Elections have always been popularity contests. Always.

GasBandit · Jul 8, 2016

Null said:
I'm kind of torn on that interpretation. The Militia Act of 1792 indicates that "the militia" was not to be "every citizen", but a uniformed service made up of enlisted citizens, who would meet for drill practice at known intervals, and for exercises, and when called up. Basically, the Army National Guard. However, they were responsible for providing their own weaponry (up to a specified standard), so logically they had to have the legal right to acquire, keep, and maintain said weapons.

So while I believe that there need to be common sense gun control measures, the more I look into it, the more I have to admit that the founders' intention was for citizens to be able to own military grade small arms. I personally do not think that citizens should be able to own assault weapons, at least not without acquiring a special license, but the Constitutional justification is there.

Actually, the Militia Act of 1792 required every able-bodied white male from age 18-45 to be "enrolled in the militia." That still didn't codify "the militia" as an organized, limited, standing military force, but rather was more of a bookkeeping measure to make sure that when the call went out, everybody showed up.

Also, remember that the Constitution was adopted in 1787, so it's more than a little unlikely that the wording of the second amendment was taking its cue from the Militia Act... probably the reverse is more likely.

IronBrig4 said:
You could argue that, and you could also argue that it was put in place so state militias could defend the government against an armed rabble. Consider that the US Army was practically non-existent during that time. The US relied on state levies to suppress slave revolts, guard against foreign invasion, defend the frontier against Indian attack, and quell internal rebellion. In such a situation, it was logical for states to arm trained, disciplined, able-bodied, and regulated bodies of men for temporary emergencies.

And see above how "the militia" was every single able bodied white male.

Calleja · Jul 8, 2016

Frank said:
It's a rifle with a scope. I could just as easily climb a clock tower and turn it on people as I could shoot a deer with it. It's not fucked up.

That deer was delicious.

I consdier any hunting that's not done with a bow and arrow or maybe a shotgun kinda fucked up, but that's just me. I get your point, I argued against the hunting bit above. A hunting rifle is already regulated up the wazoo if you're doing shit by the book.[DOUBLEPOST=1468002714,1468002653][/DOUBLEPOST]

Frank said:
Elections have always been popularity contests. Always.

Yes and no. What I meant is the literal "the best looking has the better chance". Remember most voters didn't even know Roosevelt was in a wheelchair. Imagine the effect that would have today.

Frank · Jul 8, 2016

Calleja said:
I consdier any hunting that's not done with a bow and arrow or maybe a shotgun kinda fucked up, but that's just me. I get your point, I argued against the hunting bit above. A hunting rifle is already regulated up the wazoo if you're doing shit by the book.

I wasn't out there to challenge nature like a primal man, I was out there to shoot a deer so we could eat it.

GasBandit · Jul 8, 2016

Calleja said:
What about the sniper rifles they apparently used in Dallas? Do you guys think sniper rifles have legitimate self-defense uses? Actually curious here.

Self-defense (IE, home defense/personal defense) is also not the point of the second amendment. And yes, "sniper rifles" definitely are covered. Including the ones used to murder Dallas police officers. The second amendment is about making the government worry/hesitant to oppress.

And no, there is no constitutional right to hunt. Most places you need a license, and the number of animals you can kill is restricted even with a license.