The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[WriterDom]

The gun play thread is boiling over into gun rights so I thought this would be a more proper place to discuss it.

It's interesting to me that police in the UK are lobbying for the right to carry a gun when I can pay twenty dollars and carry one hidden under my jacket.

I think it's a shame that there isn't a training program for college professors to give them the opportunity to carry a concealed hand gun after proper background checks. I would make it mandatory for everyone in the cockpit to be packing.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I would make it mandatory for everyone in the cockpit to be packing.

I think that in the current climate, more should be done to protect pilots and to make it much more difficult for a hijacker to enter the cockpit. It should not be as easy as intimidating a steward. Guns and pressurized places are usually a very bad idea. Perhaps a tranquillizer gun or taser would be better.

 

[Corylea]

You've left out part of the ammendment, Writer Dom. The whole thing reads

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


In other words, since the government may need us to be soldiers at any moment, we should have weapons so that we can fight in a war. When war was conducted with flintlocks, this all made sense, but it's been awhile since then, and your average American -- even your average gun-loving American -- doesn't have instruments of war handy. This ammendment has been made obsolete by changes in the way war is conducted.

 

[WriterDom]

I think that in the current climate, more should be done to protect pilots and to make it much more difficult for a hijacker to enter the cockpit. It should not be as easy as intimidating a steward. Guns and pressurized places are usually a very bad idea. Perhaps a tranquillizer gun or taser would be better.

Air Marshals have guns. A bullet hole through the cabin just creates a sucking noise. Cabins are pressurized but are not air tight. There are more airplane friendly rounds, but the potential danger from a highjacking is not worth the risk. It's one situation where you want them dead, not alive.

 

[WriterDom]

You've left out part of the ammendment, Writer Dom. The whole thing reads

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


In other words, since the government may need us to be soldiers at any moment, we should have weapons so that we can fight in a war. When war was conducted with flintlocks, this all made sense, but it's been awhile since then, and your average American -- even your average gun-loving American -- doesn't have instruments of war handy. This ammendment has been made obsolete by changes in the way war is conducted.

If you go back and read the arguments of the day it was that one day we, the people, might have to fight the United States standing army over some tyrannical takeover in Washington. That, for no reason, can the federal government can disarm the people.

 

[Homburg]

You've left out part of the ammendment, Writer Dom. The whole thing reads

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


In other words, since the government may need us to be soldiers at any moment, we should have weapons so that we can fight in a war. When war was conducted with flintlocks, this all made sense, but it's been awhile since then, and your average American -- even your average gun-loving American -- doesn't have instruments of war handy. This ammendment has been made obsolete by changes in the way war is conducted.

Uh, no. The militia phrase was intended to be about a militia called to defend the people from their own government.

Read the history on any insurgency, or just watch the TV on what is going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't need modern weapons to conduct a modern insurgency. You can use truly primitive stuff to gain access to more modern firearms if needed. In WWII, we dropped all sorts of "inferior" firearms into France with the idea being that it only took one bullet for a Resistance member to obtain a german rifle.

In Iraq, insurgents are armed commonly with the AK-47. The AK is a 60 year old piece, and hasn't been updated or upgraded much since then. By modern standards, it is low-tech and inferior, with poor range, poor accuracy, and mediocre stopping power. Yet it still kills some of the finest equipped troops in the world.

Afghanistan is an even better example, where various tribesmen still use rifles built along the same lines as they been built to kill the British over a century ago.

The argument that modern warfare procedures have made personal firearms useless is weak in the face of on-going events in various parts of the world, and history as well.

 

[jockdom]

Uh, no. The militia phrase was intended to be about a militia called to defend the people from their own government.

Read the history on any insurgency, or just watch the TV on what is going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don't need modern weapons to conduct a modern insurgency. You can use truly primitive stuff to gain access to more modern firearms if needed. In WWII, we dropped all sorts of "inferior" firearms into France with the idea being that it only took one bullet for a Resistance member to obtain a german rifle.

In Iraq, insurgents are armed commonly with the AK-47. The AK is a 60 year old piece, and hasn't been updated or upgraded much since then. By modern standards, it is low-tech and inferior, with poor range, poor accuracy, and mediocre stopping power. Yet it still kills some of the finest equipped troops in the world.

Afghanistan is an even better example, where various tribesmen still use rifles built along the same lines as they been built to kill the British over a century ago.

The argument that modern warfare procedures have made personal firearms useless is weak in the face of on-going events in various parts of the world, and history as well.[/QUOTE]

Sorry to disagree with you there Homburg most NATO casualties in Afghanistan are done by home made bombs/boobytraps.

 

[Homburg]

Sorry to disagree with you there Homburg most NATO casualties in Afghanistan are done by home made bombs/boobytraps.

I'm not saying that rifles are the prime cause. Just that they are adding to it. The point is that you don't need the most modern weapons and armour to be an insurgent.

 

[bruisedangel]

We can continually argue about the need for gun regulation, debate that against the right to bear arms, and still it won't solve a thing. If there is sufficient determination to reach a specific conclusion, be it that of hunting deer with a rifle, or perched atop a clock tower at high noon, the outcome will be the same. Are stricter regulation and knowledge of the law going to change anything? Probably not. No matter what is done, you're going to make one side of the issue angry.

 

[jockdom]

I'm not saying that rifles are the prime cause. Just that they are adding to it. The point is that you don't need the most modern weapons and armour to be an insurgent.

I agree these explosive devices in most cases are very primitive.

In war you don't really want to kill your opponent, wounding is much more efficent as it takes another 2 enemy out of action who have to take the wounded soldier back to their own lines.

 

[Homburg]

I agree these explosive devices in most cases are very primitive.

In war you don't really want to kill your opponent, wounding is much more efficent as it takes another 2 enemy out of action who have to take the wounded soldier back to their own lines.

Exactly, and you don't need super death-ray ultamax 200 laser rifle to do that. A squirrel gun will handle that job just fine.

 

[Netzach]

I think looking at Afghanistan is a good model for what the US would look like if some people got their way.

 

[John Doe]

I think that in the current climate, more should be done to protect pilots and to make it much more difficult for a hijacker to enter the cockpit. It should not be as easy as intimidating a steward. Guns and pressurized places are usually a very bad idea. Perhaps a tranquillizer gun or taser would be better.

There is special ammunition available that crumbles when it hits anything softer than flesh, so that puncturing a pressurized cabin need not be an issue.

 

[John Doe]

You've left out part of the ammendment, Writer Dom. The whole thing reads

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


In other words, since the government may need us to be soldiers at any moment, we should have weapons so that we can fight in a war. When war was conducted with flintlocks, this all made sense, but it's been awhile since then, and your average American -- even your average gun-loving American -- doesn't have instruments of war handy. This ammendment has been made obsolete by changes in the way war is conducted.

Yes and no.

Being able to quickly raise an army was a concern since at the time standing armies weren't as common as they are today, but the primary reason was to ensure that the People had a way of defending themselves against a tyrannical government. As Thomas Jefferson said, "when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

 

[Homburg]

I think looking at Afghanistan is a good model for what the US would look like if some people got their way.

This hurts my brain.

And of course it does so because you are very correct.

 

[Corylea]

the primary reason was to ensure that the People had a way of defending themselves against a tyrannical government.

I know. I didn't mention that part because that's even more obsolete. A thousand guys armed with guns and pitchforks could make a difference, back when there were only thirteen sparsely settled colonies and the governement was was small, poor, and disorganized. Now that the country is huge and the government even huger, this makes far less sense. I have a great deal of fear of my own government -- less so now that the most useless chunk of protoplasm ever to infest the Oval Office has retired, but still fairly high -- but I can't exactly stash an aircraft carrier under the bed or park a few fighter jets in the attic.

Plus, both travel and communications were slow at the time. We didn't have to worry that another country would attack us in the first few hours -- or even days or weeks -- after the internal rift began, because it would take them weeks to hear about it and more weeks to get here. Now, if a serious war of American citizens against their government began, the news would be all over the world in half an hour, and the first people who wanted to take advantage of the situation could be here in less than a day.

And, people were more self-sufficient back then. Water came from the well or the river, most people grew their own food, and no one was dependent upon electricity because there wasn't any electrical equipment. Even the "large" American cities of the day were small by today's standards. Nowadays, a civil war could well see half of the population cut off from power, food, and even water, and with no local infrastructure to fall back on, the population of urban areas could be brought to their knees in three days.

Nope. US citizens can't and won't win a war against their government using a gun or two or ten. One sharp lawyer can win you more governement concessions than a case of guns. One TV network can change more minds than a houseful of ammunition.

It's a large, complex, and highly technological society. The methods for achieving change that worked in 1776 don't work here now. They might work in Afganistan, but last I heard, that was a considerably smaller nation with a considerably lower level of technology, one that's a lot more like the US was when the Constitution was drafted than the US is today.

If Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, et al were here today, they'd make different rules for a different age. But then, many of them were brilliant and many of them were hugely practical; they were idealistic enough to try to create something approaching utopia and practical enough to know that they weren't going to achieve it and should try to limit the damage that falling short of the goal could create. *sigh* What I wouldn't give for another Franklin, right about now.

 

[Homburg]

I know. I didn't mention that part because that's even more obsolete. A thousand guys armed with guns and pitchforks could make a difference, back when there were only thirteen sparsely settled colonies and the governement was was small, poor, and disorganized. Now that the country is huge and the government even huger, this makes far less sense. I have a great deal of fear of my own government -- less so now that the most useless chunk of protoplasm ever to infest the Oval Office has retired, but still fairly high -- but I can't exactly stash an aircraft carrier under the bed or park a few fighter jets in the attic.

Again, see Iraq and Afghanistan for proof positive that the concept is not obsolete. While the insurgents won't win militarily, they can, and have, put enough pressure on to win their side all sort of concessions.

And the US govt can't effectively use aircraft carriers or fighter jets here any more than they can in Iraq or Afghanistan. Fighter jets are used to fight other jets (which the citizenry won't have), and the protect strategic aircraft (ie bombers and transports) against other fighter jets (which civilians still don't have). A fighter jet is no more an advantage for the govt than they are in Iraq (where they are not seeing too awful much realistic use). And aircraft carriers exist to project force (whee), which means, in this case, fighter jets and fighter bombers. I've already pointed out that fighters are useless. Bombers may not be, but they are primarily worthy in destroying infrastructure. Why would the govt want to destroy infrastructure? They're just going to have to build it all over again, much like they are in Iraq.

No, insurgency would be combatted with troops on the ground, vehicle patrols, and loads and loads of various types of surveillance. In other words, just what they're doing in Iraq.

And then you get to factor in the soldiers that will refuse to pull the trigger of a rifle aimed at their own countrymen, and the officers that will refuse to give the order to pull those triggers. While there are all sorts of paranoid people that see military personnel as brainwashed baby-killers, that's a load of horse puckey. They are professionals, sure, but still human. And Joe Soldier from Nebraska is going to tell his LT to go to hell if he's ordered to put a bullet into a crowd of civilians in North Carolina.

More than a coupla surveys have been done quietly over the years asking just that. Those surveys showed that the majority of US troops will not pull the trigger on their own countrymen, period.

Plus, both travel and communications were slow at the time. We didn't have to worry that another country would attack us in the first few hours -- or even days or weeks -- after the internal rift began, because it would take them weeks to hear about it and more weeks to get here. Now, if a serious war of American citizens against their government began, the news would be all over the world in half an hour, and the first people who wanted to take advantage of the situation could be here in less than a day.

This is an argument in favour of an armed citizenry. If the govt has to pull out force to quell the populace, everyone and their brother will know about it. This factor supports the armed citizenry, as they eyes of the world will be on us, and this would help to make it possible.

And, people were more self-sufficient back then. Water came from the well or the river, most people grew their own food, and no one was dependent upon electricity because there wasn't any electrical equipment. Even the "large" American cities of the day were small by today's standards. Nowadays, a civil war could well see half of the population cut off from power, food, and even water, and with no local infrastructure to fall back on, the population of urban areas could be brought to their knees in three days.

Urban environments are already poorly armed. The areas of the country where gun ownership is common are much more self-sufficient. And insurgents would likely aim to reduce the population to scrabbling for resources so as to show the weakness of the govt in place.

Nope. US citizens can't and won't win a war against their government using a gun or two or ten. One sharp lawyer can win you more governement concessions than a case of guns. One TV network can change more minds than a houseful of ammunition.

This I agree with. We can't. But the guns can, and do, help to keep the govt from being too uppity.

It's a large, complex, and highly technological society. The methods for achieving change that worked in 1776 don't work here now. They might work in Afganistan, but last I heard, that was a considerably smaller nation with a considerably lower level of technology, one that's a lot more like the US was when the Constitution was drafted than the US is today.

If Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, et al were here today, they'd make different rules for a different age. But then, many of them were brilliant and many of them were hugely practical; they were idealistic enough to try to create something approaching utopia and practical enough to know that they weren't going to achieve it and should try to limit the damage that falling short of the goal could create. *sigh* What I wouldn't give for another Franklin, right about now.

This argument is trotted out constantly. It is a null set. We can't begin to imagine what they would think because the world has moved on. Whatever. If this argument is valid as a strike against gun ownership, it is equally valid against free speech, freedom of religion, etc. Devalue one right based solely on time passed, and you devalue them all.

 

[OldGuy1026]

Personally the right to carry guns was a thin wedge because early Yankee inhabitants who had to deal with British Soldiers who hated being stationed so far from home. We had the same problems in Canada too, then it was snobby Brit Offices and their swords.

Carrying fire-arms, steel weapons, wooden weapons like nun-chuck, and in some cases learing unarmed self defence like Karate or Judo would catch the eye of the Police. I mean let's be honest the mind is the most dangerous weapon in the world.

The Romans got it right, you conquore a land, you dis-arm everybody, and only the Police are allowed to carry weapons. Any Questions?

Want to change the government, vote.

 

[SimonBrooke]

I think it's a shame that there isn't a training program for college professors to give them the opportunity to carry a concealed hand gun after proper background checks. I would make it mandatory for everyone in the cockpit to be packing.

The last thing you need in a pressurised aircraft is people with guns. That is a disastrously bad idea.

I really do not understand the American fetishisation of guns. There is no place for guns in a civilised society.

 

[Corylea]

I really do not understand the American fetishisation of guns.

Er, could you rephrase "the American fetishisation of guns" to "the gun fetish of some segments of American society"? I know you love hating the US, but three hundred million people don't all think the same thing, no matter what you're talking about!

First, all of Europe sent us her religious wackos, criminals, misfits, ne'er-do-wells, and people generally too weird to get along with the folks at home.

Second, those people were further weeded, such that the ones who couldn't get along in the relatively settled parts of the new country, along the eastern coast, moved to the frontier.

Then this frontier moved westward several times, with the people who were too cranky, suspicious, unable to follow rules, or otherwise problematic choosing to move with the frontier while the people who played nicely with others stayed put.

Go through this process several times, and you manage to concentrate a fairly large number of people who are sure that anyone and everyone in authority is out to get them into a fairly small number of western states. Not to say that everybody who lives in the western states is crazy -- there are many lovely people there -- but people who are crazy in a paranoid way tend to gravitate there, to that swath of states that's just east of the western coast of the country. That's the epicenter of the gun fetish.

There is no place for guns in a civilised society.

If any nation, anywhere, ever develops a civilized society, do let me know, won't you?

 

[Etoile]

The last thing you need in a pressurised aircraft is people with guns. That is a disastrously bad idea.

Don't you listen? We've already established that it's not that big a deal.

First, all of Europe sent us her religious wackos, criminals, misfits, ne'er-do-wells, and people generally too weird to get along with the folks at home.

Could you provide a historical citation for this? I realize the statement applies to Australia, but I've never heard of it applying to the United States. The settlement of the US has largely been by people seeking religious freedom, who came of their own accord, and people seeking economic improvement, who also came of their own accord. Nobody was "sent" to the United States and the people who came were not "too weird to get along" in 90% of the cases. Australia fits the bill, but not the United States, to my knowledge.

 

[JMohegan]

The last thing you need in a pressurised aircraft is people with guns. That is a disastrously bad idea.

I really do not understand the American fetishisation of guns. There is no place for guns in a civilised society.

For your edification, I've posted data on American gun ownership below.

As you can see, the majority of Americans don't even own firearms, much less "fetishize" them. This may seem surprising, given the enormous power and visibility of the National Rifle Association (a special interest lobby), but the fact is that most Americans now live in urban/suburban environments, and guns are far less popular in those areas.


http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa78/johnmohegan/GunOwnership.jpg



Source.

 

[Corylea]

Nobody was "sent" to the United States.

Yes, they were. The state of Georgia was a prison colony, just as Australia was, and there were plenty of less formal arrangments, of the leave-for-good-and-we-won't-prosecute variety.

Don't you listen? We've already established that it's not that big a deal.

This link suggests that the plane will not explode from a single gunshot. Er, that's lovely, but that's not the same as "no problem, fire all the guns on airplanes you want; it won't make any difference."

 

[Etoile]

Yes, they were. The state of Georgia was a prison colony, just as Australia was, and there were plenty of less formal arrangments, of the leave-for-good-and-we-won't-prosecute variety.

Interesting characterization; my impression of Oglethorpe's project was that it was two-fold: giving the poor a better life than they had in England (where they might have ended up in debtor's prison if they hadn't come here), while simultaneously relieving England from its dependency on foreign products by having the residents of Georgia make those products using the natural resources. I wouldn't say it was a prison colony; the establishment papers from 1750 indicate that people under indenture are caught if they try to leave, but indenture and prison are not equivalent; I would say indenture is more like limited-term slavery than prison.

I still question that the USA was a dumping-ground for misfits, there were certainly people who came to start a new life where they weren't looked on unfavorably as they had been at home, but a dumping-ground, I'm not sure I agree with that.

This link suggests that the plane will not explode from a single gunshot. Er, that's lovely, but that's not the same as "no problem, fire all the guns on airplanes you want; it won't make any difference."

Well he said it would be disastrous! Anyway, that's just one link, if you search around about gunshots on airplanes, they're really not disastrous. Problematic, but not disastrous.

 

[WriterDom]

The last thing you need in a pressurised aircraft is people with guns. That is a disastrously bad idea.

.

I'm not suggesting a practice range for shits and giggles. I'm talking in a situation where the airliner is fifteen minutes away from crashing in a stadium of 100,000 souls. Jesus H Christ.