A question of guns

frost

A couple common arguments:
1. When the right to bear arms was established, arms were rifles where you had to load black powder carried in bags and stuff it. There were also no cars.
2. The problem with taking away guns is that law abiding citizens will get their guns taken away, while criminals will retain guns.

Thoughts?

m4a1mustang

Both true.

The threat of having to defend oneself against ones government was a much more real possibility back then, as well.

__________________
- Steve

Zs & Coffee - Saturdays at 10AM in Fairfax, VA and Columbia, MD (Click the banner!)
LIKE us on Facebook!

dad

This is cool! The bad guys lose!

__________________

We can do without any article of luxury we have never had; but once obtained, it is not in human nature to surrender it voluntary.

wstar

Nothing has really changed in this regard, imho. First off, semi-automatic arms were known to the authors of the bill of rights, even though they weren't in use at the time. There are letters where they discuss advancements in arms, including the first "gatling-gun" type devices.

Secondarily, from a "defend yourself from tyranny/invasion" standpoint, one can make the argument that if you're going to defend yourself from government tyranny and/or foreign invasion, then the moving standard should be "whatever small arms the military uses at any given time". This brings us around to:

It's still a real possibility even now. Look at the kind of resistance fighters in the urban areas of Afghanistan and Iraq (or for that matter, Vietnam) put up against our invasion/occupation. These are, for the most part, dirt poor people using decades-old AK-47's that are barely even functional anymore, and home-made bombs. A citizenry in the US, armed with what's commonly available at US gunshows, and easily repel even our own military in an urban tyranny/invasion scenario for quite a while. Long enough and hard enough to make them rethink things, in any case.

__________________
7AT Track Car!
Journal thread / Car setup details

m4a1mustang

I highly doubt we will have to fight off our own military any time in the near or distant future.

Plus, the only reason the resistance is working over there is because we screwed up in the first place and are trying to fight an unconventional war in a conventional manner. But that's an entirely different discussion.

__________________
- Steve

Zs & Coffee - Saturdays at 10AM in Fairfax, VA and Columbia, MD (Click the banner!)
LIKE us on Facebook!

wstar

Well, the reason we don't decisively win like you'd expect when we try to occupy foreign cities basically comes down to not wanting to slaughter the masses.

Obviously, if it were considered morally ok by everyone involved (the media, our own government, our soldiers, etc), we could easily just annihilate an Iraqi city and kill virtually everyone in it and declare victory. We certainly have the weaponry for it. But when every little civilian casualty causes an uproar, you have to tip-toe around and try to coerce the population into submission without killing them all. *That's* a hard battle to win. If the military were ever deployed against Americans domestically, they'd be in the same scenario.

As for the likelihood, that's really not even important to me. I don't expect the military to ever seize control of the public in the US. But I also think that the fact that the populace here is armed, which would make such an endeavor much more costly and difficult for the military, is an important part of the checks and balances that keep this country free from tyranny. It makes sure that the thought doesn't cross someone's mind down the road, under different circumstances.

__________________
7AT Track Car!
Journal thread / Car setup details