If we leave the 2A out of the discussion

[pecksniff]

Then what argument is there to be made for gun rights?

In countries that have strict gun control, it works -- the "only outlaws will have guns" argument does not apply. British police do not carry guns because they don't have to -- nobody they arrest has guns either. (The police have guns, but they keep them in a locker at the station for special emergencies.)

And the idea that the populace needs to be armed to resist the government if necessary is just too silly for discussion.

 

[Rightguide]

Then what argument is there to be made for gun rights?

In countries that have strict gun control, it works -- the "only outlaws will have guns" argument does not apply. British police do not carry guns because they don't have to -- nobody they arrest has guns either. (The police have guns, but they keep them in a locker at the station for special emergencies.)

And the idea that the populace needs to be armed to resist the government if necessary is just too silly for discussion.

Move to Britain. It isn't going to happen here.

 

[pecksniff]

Move to Britain. It isn't going to happen here.

That is not the subject under discussion.

 

[GothTalk]

Bottom line is self defense.

 

[LittleDixie]

...the idea that the populace needs to be armed to resist the government if necessary is just too silly for discussion.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/Bielski_partisans.jpg

The Bielski partisans were a unit of Jewish partisans who rescued Jews from extermination and fought the German occupiers and their collaborators around Nowogródek (Navahrudak) and Lida in German-occupied Poland (now western Belarus). The partisan unit was named after the Bielskis, a family of Polish Jews who organized and led the community.

The Bielski partisans spent more than two years living in the forest. By the end of the war they numbered as many as 1,236 members, most of whom were non-combatants, including children and the elderly. The Bielski partisans are seen by many Jews as heroes for having led as many refugees as they did away from the perils of war and the Holocaust.

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

 

[BidudeinWi]

Then what argument is there to be made for gun rights?

In countries that have strict gun control, it works -- the "only outlaws will have guns" argument does not apply. British police do not carry guns because they don't have to -- nobody they arrest has guns either. (The police have guns, but they keep them in a locker at the station for special emergencies.)

And the idea that the populace needs to be armed to resist the government if necessary is just too silly for discussion.

2A! Period! Amend the Constitution if you don’t like it!

 

[pecksniff]

Bottom line is self defense.

The calculations there are the same in any country. Nobody in the UK needs a firearm for self-defense.

 

[ll74]

Why would you leave the 2nd amendment out of any discussion about gun rights in the US?

 

[GothTalk]

The calculations there are the same in any country. Nobody in the UK needs a firearm for self-defense.

Seems there is plenty of violent crime in the UK.

You're full of shit.

As long as there is a violent threat from other human beings, I have a right to be prepared to defend myself and my loved ones, that includes arming myself.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Then what argument is there to be made for gun rights?

In countries that have strict gun control, it works -- the "only outlaws will have guns" argument does not apply. British police do not carry guns because they don't have to -- nobody they arrest has guns either. (The police have guns, but they keep them in a locker at the station for special emergencies.)

And the idea that the populace needs to be armed to resist the government if necessary is just too silly for discussion.

Democratizing the use of force is good civic hygiene.

 

[pecksniff]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/Bielski_partisans.jpg

But those partisans posed no threat to the Nazi state, nor were they important to the Allied war effort.

Next time you watch Red Dawn, bear in mind that the Wolverines are of no practical use to the United States -- they are only making a gesture.

 

[pecksniff]

Why would you leave the 2nd amendment out of any discussion about gun rights in the US?

It's a hypothetical. Without the constitutional argument for the gun-rights activists to fall back on -- what's left?

 

[Rightguide]

And the idea that the populace needs to be armed to resist the government if necessary is just too silly for discussion.

Tell that to the founders of the country, or anyone with a brain.

 

[pecksniff]

Democratizing the use of force is good civic hygiene.

It's Somalia. If the people can resist the government in any way that matters on a large scale, what you have is a failed state. Effectual government is only possible where the government has an effective monopoly on armed force, and almost never has to use it.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

It's Somalia. If the people can resist the government in any way that matters on a large scale, what you have is a failed state. Effectual government is only possible where the government has an effective monopoly on armed force.

Yeah, we've seen how that works out, too:

https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article13601450.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_War-Kampuchia-Cambodia-Khmer-Rouge-Killing-Fields.jpg

 

[pecksniff]

Tell that to the founders of the country, or anyone with a brain.

What they had in mind with the 2A was a militia-based defense system (in 18th-Century parlance, "well-regulated" meant "well-armed"), because they were frightened of the prospect of a large standing army being used as an instrument of domestic rule, as in the monarchies of Europe. But militias are not very good for war -- "militia" in the 18th-Century sense has played no role in any American conflict since the Spanish-American war. As for the regular military as an instrument of domestic rule, it has only been so used during Reconstruction, and once or twice during the civil rights movement -- neither was a regrettable instance.

 

[BidudeinWi]

The calculations there are the same in any country. Nobody in the UK needs a firearm for self-defense.

The limeys will be banning knives soon. Cars to follow.

 

[pecksniff]

Seems there is plenty of violent crime in the UK.

You're full of shit.

Do you think they would be better off, if both sides in those conflicts had firearms?

You're full of shit.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

What they had in mind with the 2A was a militia-based defense system (in 18th-Century parlance, "well-regulated" meant "well-armed"), because they were frightened of the prospect of a large standing army being used as an instrument of domestic rule, as in the monarchies of Europe. But militias are not very good for war -- "militia" in the 18th-Century sense has played no role in any American conflict since the Spanish-American war. As for the regular military as an instrument of domestic rule, it has only been so used during Reconstruction, and once or twice during the civil rights movement -- neither was a regrettable instance.

But militias are useful for domestic argy-bargy.

 

[pecksniff]

Yeah, we've seen how that works out, too:

See post #11.

 

[Rightguide]

What they had in mind with the 2A was a militia-based defense system (in 18th-Century parlance, "well-regulated" meant "well-armed"),

Don't presume to tell me what the founders meant when they wrote the Second Amendment. The language of the Amendment couldn't be clearer. Heller's succinct digest of the history surrounding the Second Amendment couldn't be clearer. The statements of the founders themselves couldn't be clearer. Here are but a few. I can produce more:

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country 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."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

 

[Chernosoth]

We could start with the same reasons the constitutional writers had for the amendment, defending the nation. We don't really need guns for resistance. Simply walking away and refusing to participate can work well enough, as it did in the Soviet Union. Governments fail when they lose the consent of the governed.

 

[pecksniff]

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country 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."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

That was the point I was making about what the FFs had in mind.

But, they were wrong about that, as history has shown.

 

[Rightguide]

That was the point I was making about what the FFs had in mind.

But, they were wrong about that, as history has shown.

History hasn't shown us shit about the American condition in this regard, but it might soon if your side continues down the path of totalitarianism. Oh, and it wouldn't be wise to assume that in such a situation you'd have the whole of the military on your side either.

 

[Rightguide]

We could start with the same reasons the constitutional writers had for the amendment, defending the nation. We don't really need guns for resistance. Simply walking away and refusing to participate can work well enough, as it did in the Soviet Union. Governments fail when they lose the consent of the governed.

When we can't walk the streets without being accosted, mugged, assaulted, robbed, and killed, we need to be a well armed people.