Is a well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

[bilby]

I completely agree; the idea that either civil war or foreign invasion would happen if the 2nd was repealed is not at all sane.

I vehemently disagree that it is well past time to amend the 2nd Amendment, and never will be. The great irony of this debate, and the unlawful legislative infringement and regulation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, is that it is, as always happens, driving the rapid development of technology enabling the cheap production of military firearms in private homes and businesses. Create a demand, and it will be met. Illegal? Yes. Unlawful? No. Prohibitions always fail.

Nobody is talking about prohibitions. I am talking about regulation. Something that works in the 95% of the world that isn't the USA.

You seem to be unaware of its existence; but it's real, and it is not suffering from the absence of your damn fool constitution.

Land of the free my arse. I've never pledged allegiance to shit - that's for slave states (like the USA).

I get it, you're an Aussie. Sigh. Tell you what. Write about how things are doing when hordes of Indonesian technicals descend on Oz.
If you don't believe that will happen, then God help you. If that does happen, and it will if the USA is not able to bail your asses out again,
you are going to be cursing your own stupidity. And you are correct. The USA is no longer the land of the free, due to just the kind of notions
you have been spouting.

You need to look at a map. The Indonesians would run out of supplies before they got anywhere near any part of Australia they might actually want; if they invaded, they would be up to their arses in croc infested mangrove swamp full of NorForce snipers, with no chance of going any further within a day. But if they did manage to go further, all they will find is thousands of kilometres of inhospitable bush. Defended by cockies with lots and lots of (licenced and registered) rifles.

Or they could sail their fleet down the East Coast to attack Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne; through reef shoals, under air and submarine attack, and try to land at the limit of a vast and embattled supply line.

The people of Vaucluse would just call the cops to move them on - the NSW police with interior lines would chuck them back into the ocean.

Your paranoid fantasies might fly with your paranoid mates, but don't try spinning that yarn with me.

Indonesia needs every soldier they've got to maintain order in Indonesia. They haven't the desire, the logistic ability nor the military power to invade Australia. And they know it.

Wrong. You are now treading upon the turf of my life work and expertise.

1. Indonesia is a Muslim nation, and rapidly being radicalized in their government. The numbers of Indo refugees is an indicator of population pressures and the vile forms of
of religious proselytizing that goes with that "religion".

2. Your are correct, Northern Territory and Queensland are empty. Just what they need. The time I spent there in the southern areas of NT, reminded me a lot of the empty zones of Arizona and Nevada.

3. The north of Australia is sitting on a sea of oil, enough to power Indonesia into a major industrial economy for centuries. It is true they too have a lot of oil, but then so does the USA. Notice where a huge chunk of the US and NATO militaries have been parked for the past some decades?

4. You greatly overestimate the capacity of a nation of 23 million people armed with grossly outdated firearms, axes and an abysmally small, albeit extraordinarily capable military, to resist the long term aggressive pressure 250,000,000 mostly Muslims who are outraged at your greedy hold on the continent. I know as I have worked with their military. They regard Australia as a suppurating sore of an insult. They fully expect to take at least the northern half as soon as they are ready. and that they are accomplishing. The Indos currently have nearly 500,000 personnel in the active and ready reserve military. Another 1.5 million retired and discharged veterans who are legally required to report for duty at the will of the government. Another 4 million in various local government militias and private armies. The Indonesian merchant navy has 13.8 million tonnes dead weight capacity. The US merchant fleet has 11.8 million tonnes, plus about 50 million tonnes under Panamanian and Liberian flags. Australia has 45 ships in its merchant navy. Pathetic. The notion that an army composed of 500,000 conscripts motivated by a desire to die for Allah can not deal with the natural obstructions of a barely defensible land is ludicrous.

Australia has 80,000 active and reserve military personnel. I have no doubt Aussies will put up one hell of a fight. Without support from major military powers such as Japan and the US, Australia as a Euro-centric democracy is doomed. What you need is nukes and a serious navy. You have neither.

Meh. It's not the nineteenth century anymore. Huge numbers of barely trained conscripts (no matter how Islamic) are no match for a well trained and equipped modern military.

And the Indonesian armed forces are too busy keeping order at home to go invading anybody.

If they are invading now, where the fuck are they?

 

[corpsman]

I completely agree; the idea that either civil war or foreign invasion would happen if the 2nd was repealed is not at all sane.

I vehemently disagree that it is well past time to amend the 2nd Amendment, and never will be. The great irony of this debate, and the unlawful legislative infringement and regulation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, is that it is, as always happens, driving the rapid development of technology enabling the cheap production of military firearms in private homes and businesses. Create a demand, and it will be met. Illegal? Yes. Unlawful? No. Prohibitions always fail.

Nobody is talking about prohibitions. I am talking about regulation. Something that works in the 95% of the world that isn't the USA.

You seem to be unaware of its existence; but it's real, and it is not suffering from the absence of your damn fool constitution.

Land of the free my arse. I've never pledged allegiance to shit - that's for slave states (like the USA).

I get it, you're an Aussie. Sigh. Tell you what. Write about how things are doing when hordes of Indonesian technicals descend on Oz.
If you don't believe that will happen, then God help you. If that does happen, and it will if the USA is not able to bail your asses out again,
you are going to be cursing your own stupidity. And you are correct. The USA is no longer the land of the free, due to just the kind of notions
you have been spouting.

You need to look at a map. The Indonesians would run out of supplies before they got anywhere near any part of Australia they might actually want; if they invaded, they would be up to their arses in croc infested mangrove swamp full of NorForce snipers, with no chance of going any further within a day. But if they did manage to go further, all they will find is thousands of kilometres of inhospitable bush. Defended by cockies with lots and lots of (licenced and registered) rifles.

Or they could sail their fleet down the East Coast to attack Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne; through reef shoals, under air and submarine attack, and try to land at the limit of a vast and embattled supply line.

The people of Vaucluse would just call the cops to move them on - the NSW police with interior lines would chuck them back into the ocean.

Your paranoid fantasies might fly with your paranoid mates, but don't try spinning that yarn with me.

Indonesia needs every soldier they've got to maintain order in Indonesia. They haven't the desire, the logistic ability nor the military power to invade Australia. And they know it.

Wrong. You are now treading upon the turf of my life work and expertise.

1. Indonesia is a Muslim nation, and rapidly being radicalized in their government. The numbers of Indo refugees is an indicator of population pressures and the vile forms of
of religious proselytizing that goes with that "religion".

2. Your are correct, Northern Territory and Queensland are empty. Just what they need. The time I spent there in the southern areas of NT, reminded me a lot of the empty zones of Arizona and Nevada.

3. The north of Australia is sitting on a sea of oil, enough to power Indonesia into a major industrial economy for centuries. It is true they too have a lot of oil, but then so does the USA. Notice where a huge chunk of the US and NATO militaries have been parked for the past some decades?

4. You greatly overestimate the capacity of a nation of 23 million people armed with grossly outdated firearms, axes and an abysmally small, albeit extraordinarily capable military, to resist the long term aggressive pressure 250,000,000 mostly Muslims who are outraged at your greedy hold on the continent. I know as I have worked with their military. They regard Australia as a suppurating sore of an insult. They fully expect to take at least the northern half as soon as they are ready. and that they are accomplishing. The Indos currently have nearly 500,000 personnel in the active and ready reserve military. Another 1.5 million retired and discharged veterans who are legally required to report for duty at the will of the government. Another 4 million in various local government militias and private armies. The Indonesian merchant navy has 13.8 million tonnes dead weight capacity. The US merchant fleet has 11.8 million tonnes, plus about 50 million tonnes under Panamanian and Liberian flags. Australia has 45 ships in its merchant navy. Pathetic. The notion that an army composed of 500,000 conscripts motivated by a desire to die for Allah can not deal with the natural obstructions of a barely defensible land is ludicrous.

Australia has 80,000 active and reserve military personnel. I have no doubt Aussies will put up one hell of a fight. Without support from major military powers such as Japan and the US, Australia as a Euro-centric democracy is doomed. What you need is nukes and a serious navy. You have neither.

Meh. It's not the nineteenth century anymore. Huge numbers of barely trained conscripts (no matter how Islamic) are no match for a well trained and equipped modern military.

And the Indonesian armed forces are too busy keeping order at home to go invading anybody.

If they are invading now, where the fuck are they?

There are 400,000 Muslim "immigrants" in Oz. How do you spell sabotage and terrorism in Australian? And the Indonesian Armed Forces are not any busier with internal suppression than any other non-communist Asian nation. They have huge constabulary forces. The very fact of an elevated degree of internal dissension, largely rooted in population pressure, is a major impetus to external aggression. If you can't manage the hoi poloi, start a war. The bitter, brooding hate towards Australia related to East Timor interventions has become an insidiously permanent factor in Indonesian strategic planning. Finally, your estimation of the quality and capabilities of the Indonesian military is way off. They have a medium sized, well trained and equipped navy, many times more capable than the RAAN. Their Marine Corps is excellent. They have 110 SU27, SU30 and F16 fighters, with 20 F16's to be delivered in less than a year. They have hundreds of attack and air mobility helicopters and 200 plus dedicated attack and bomber craft. Fortunately the RAAF has 85 FA18 Hornets and 2 F35s, all top notch types Problem is, that is not enough to control the air space of northern half Oz. RAAF has no dedicated bombers. The Indonesian Navy has 16 anti-sub corvettes, 10 surface combat corvettes, 8 frigates, 5 German made diesel attack submarines, 25 missile attack boats, 44 gunboats, 11 minesweepers, and most ominous, 25 landing ship,tank and 4 landing platform dock. Those 29 amphibious warfare ships are capable of transporting 35,000 troops across the Timor Sea every 40 hours. 400,000 troops in 2 weeks. Their navy is fully capable of controlling the seas of Australia if the USN and Japanese Naval Self Defense Force is not available. The RAAN has 6 excellent locally built diesel subs, 1 helicopter dock ship 1 LST, 12 frigates, 13 fast patrol boats and 8 mine warfare ships. Not a match for the Indos.

Numbers do trump quality. Stalin once said, "quantity has a quality of its own". Just ask the Wehrmacht. I have no doubt the Aussie military will inflict vastly disproportionate casualties. There just not enough of them.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

^
See? If only Australia had a 2nd amendment, they might avoid the impending 'Muslim Apocalypse'.

aa

 

[corpsman]

^
See? If only Australia had a 2nd amendment, they might avoid the impending 'Muslim Apocalypse'.

aa

I assume you are being sarcastic. I doubt a 2A would prevent an invasion, however it would go a long way towards deterring, or ending, internal disruptions.

 

[bilby]

^
See? If only Australia had a 2nd amendment, they might avoid the impending 'Muslim Apocalypse'.

aa

I assume you are being sarcastic. I doubt a 2A would prevent an invasion, however it would go a long way towards deterring, or ending, internal disruptions.

What 'internal disruptions'? This is one of the most peaceful nations on the planet.

You are making no sense. You are seeking to argue for a 'right' we don't have, and clearly don't need, by invoking a paranoid fantasy that ignores some very basic facts of geography - 400,000 Indonesian troops landing in Arnhem Land would rapidly become about 3 thousand tonnes of crocodile food, without the ability to build thousands of km of supply chain across a massive inhospitable semi-desert. And even you admit that having the 'right to bear arms' wouldn't influence this fantasy invasion at all.

Even if we accepted your bizarre fantasy, and the Indonesian Army were advancing on Brisbane, do you really think that the citizens of Brisbane would be unarmed by the time they arrived?

And why are you assuming that the US Navy and USAF are not supporting our military (in accordance with the ANZUS treaty)? Are US Presidents in the habit of watching allies being invaded and saying "Well, we would help, but their civilians have to get a licence to keep a gun, so fuck 'em, we will ignore our treaties, and just sit back and watch"?

The USA gains nothing by having the 2nd Amendment, and would be better off without it. The proof is that similar nations, with no such right, suffer none of the problems - such as mass shootings of schoolkids - while also suffering none of the fantasy disasters - such as invasion by foreign powers - that paranoid American gun-nuts declare should be happening.

When your theory predicts certain things, and those things do not occur, then your theory is wrong. We have licences and strict regulations for gun owners. We don't have mass shootings; we don't have high levels of crime; we haven't been invaded since 1788. Nobody who needs a rifle is prevented from having one (unless they are mentally ill or a criminal). Nothing bad happened at all when the rules were changed; a couple of tweaks were needed to reduce the disruption to a handful of harmless hobbyists, because some of the handgun rules were a bit too strict. That's it. Nobody died. Nobody got invaded. Nobody got robbed.

If the US eliminated the 2nd Amendment, nothing particularly bad would happen. We have observational evidence supporting this claim - and observation trumps hypothesis.

 

[Archimedes]

It's rather cute when Americans talk about keeping their freedoms, as though they don't live in the developed nation with by far the largest proportion of their population in jail; where the cops routinely shoot people dead in the streets; and where being suspected of a crime allows the cops to seize your stuff for their own use.

The truly bizarre thing about it to me is it seems to me that there is a definite correlation between how vehemently people defend their right to own firearms to defend themselves against their government turning tyrannical and their tendency to automatically defend any situation in which armed employees of said government shoots dead its own civilians.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

^
See? If only Australia had a 2nd amendment, they might avoid the impending 'Muslim Apocalypse'.

aa

I assume you are being sarcastic. I doubt a 2A would prevent an invasion, however it would go a long way towards deterring, or ending, internal disruptions.

Yes, it was sarcasm. And I don't know that it would go a 'long way', it might slightly reduce the likelihood of an 'internal disruption' (like from a zero percent chance down to a zero percent chance), but at what cost? It is a statistical fact that guns do not make society, as a whole, safer.

aa

 

[J842P]

It's rather cute when Americans talk about keeping their freedoms, as though they don't live in the developed nation with by far the largest proportion of their population in jail; where the cops routinely shoot people dead in the streets; and where being suspected of a crime allows the cops to seize your stuff for their own use.

The truly bizarre thing about it to me is it seems to me that there is a definite correlation between how vehemently people defend their right to own firearms to defend themselves against their government turning tyrannical and their tendency to automatically defend any situation in which armed employees of said government shoots dead its own civilians.

It coheres with Turner's thesis. Just consider the very notion of the American Wild West: A semi-anarchic settler society where there was constant conflict between settlers, various indigenous populations, and the federal government.

 

[corpsman]

double post

 

[corpsman]

The truly bizarre thing about it to me is it seems to me that there is a definite correlation between how vehemently people defend their right to own firearms to defend themselves against their government turning tyrannical and their tendency to automatically defend any situation in which armed employees of said government shoots dead its own civilians.

It coheres with Turner's thesis. Just consider the very notion of the American Wild West: A semi-anarchic settler society where there was constant conflict between settlers, various indigenous populations, and the federal government.

The "wild west" did have its wars and episodes of civilian violence. However, it was much more peaceful than the present. Open carry of revolvers and rifles was very normal.
If a disarmed population is more peaceful, then why is it those urban areas of the US that have the strictest firearms regulations have the highest rates of violent crime? Dramatically higher. It is so bad in Detroit that the city police chief has repeatedly urged citizens to arm themselves. When I see lots of armed citizens, I feel safer. Why? I worked in a prison hospital for a year, and dealt with many inmates in a clinical setting. When the word got out that I kept my word, many came to me for counsel. It became very apparent that career criminals, mostly psychopaths, vehemently support private firearms confiscation, as it would make their work much safer, and provide them a much broader range of options in selecting victims. Your claims regarding a peaceful and safe society in the Oz are , at best specious and at worst an indication of normalcy bias to the point of self deception. Certainly, don't take my word for it. Check your national police crimes stats between 1990 and the present. Since the 1995 confiscation fiasco, violent crimes and property crimes are way up. Gun crime has gone down, but other sorts of crimes, the sort typically prevented by armed citizens, are up. The police can not protect you. A 5 minute police response is grossly inadequate when the perp is in your house or mugging an old woman in her garden. Finally, the very notion of disarming the American people is ludicrous, functionally impossible. There are 300 million plus Americans and alien residents. The total number of firearms are unknown as firearms can last for a long time. One of my favorites is an Aussie SMLE in .303 Brit. 110 years old and in excellent condition. Current estimates are between 300 million and 500 million firearms. This is further complicated by rapidly developing technology that allows for the home or small shop production of unmarked rifles, typically of the M16 type. This has occurred because of the ignorant yammerheads who think that outlawing a desired product will make said products go away. When I talk with law enforcement friends, they all, to a man. state there is no way they are going to violate the Constitution AND risk their lives disarming otherwise law abiding citizens. Similarly, the career military folks understand the full implications of their oaths of service. "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." Note that the last clause is subordinate to the first, which means it is unlawful to obey unconstitutional orders. In my home state, an initiative of the voters was passed by popular vote to require background checks for all firearms transfers. That was over a year ago. To date, no law enforcement agency has shown the slightest interest in making arrests, much less prosecutions, with respect to the initiative. Clear evidence that most law enforcement personnel take their oaths seriously. Check out what is happening in New York state and Connecticut, where the legislatures passed laws that required the surrender of certain types of firearms and magazines. Thus far, compliance has been tiny (less than 4%) and that law was enacted in early 2013. It has also spawned a growth in that traditional Yankee past time, smuggling. Much to the surprise of the legislators, but not the police. The police understand that a vote by a majority to make laws that violates the Constitution are not to be enforced. Claims by progressives to the effect that an armed population does not make society safer are clearly incorrect. The amusing aspect is that every time Obummer makes noise about executive orders infringing upon the 2nd Amendment, firearms and ammunition sales soar. Between 2008 and 2012 sales of new firearms exceeded 47 million. Prior to 2008 the rate was roughly 5 million per year. The largest demographic category of increased rate of firearms ownership is young women. Oddly, this is, to a large extent, an outgrowth of a favorite issue of progressives and conservatives, projects to raise public and personal awareness of rape and assault against women. Rapes and assaults against women have dropped in close correlation to the number of firearms being packed by the superior sex. Which raises the question. Certainly the politicians pushing confiscation are not stupid and full well know these facts. So, what are their motivations and expectations?

 

[dystopian]

It coheres with Turner's thesis. Just consider the very notion of the American Wild West: A semi-anarchic settler society where there was constant conflict between settlers, various indigenous populations, and the federal government.

The "wild west" did have its wars and episodes of civilian violence. However, it was much more peaceful than the present.

I don't know what it is about the above statement that rubs me the wrong way...

...what could it possibly be?

Oh yeah, of course! The fact that it's fucking bullshit.

The homicide rating in the US was much higher in the 19th century than during the 20th and 21st centuries.

source: http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/

If a disarmed population is more peaceful, then why is it those urban areas of the US that have the strictest firearms regulations have the highest rates of violent crime? Dramatically higher.

First of all, any such trend would tend to be because these correlate to the most densely populated areas; and density would have an outsized effect on this sort of thing, theoretically causing rates of violent crime much higher than less dense area...

But they don't, actually... Most of the cities with the highest violent crime rates are not in states with the most restrictive gun laws.

And if an armed population is more peaceful, then why do many of the US states with the fewest gun restrictions top the states ranking for highest murder rates? Why is it that places in the US with more guns have more deaths caused by guns?

Indeed, studies suggest that there is a correlation between state gun laws and gun-related deaths. The states with the most gun laws have the fewest gun homicides and suicides. ( http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390 )

It is so bad in Detroit that the city police chief has repeatedly urged citizens to arm themselves.

That police chief is an idiot.

First of all, Detroit is in a unique position compared to other cities on account of its economic situation, so you can't actually use it as any sort of example. Secondly, however, the homicide rate in Detroit has *actually* been dropping quite substantially the past couple of years.

I'd go on, but frankly I can't be bothered trying to parse the rest of your post.

 

[lpetrich]

If an armed society is a polite society, then Afghanistan would be Miss Manners Land.

Look at how armed they are over there. Also in places like Iraq and Syria and Libya.

 

[bleubird]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
Scotus has and can make rulings on the Second Amendment.
As a gun owner I have no problem with more control on who can buy a gun.

 

[corpsman]

The "wild west" did have its wars and episodes of civilian violence. However, it was much more peaceful than the present.

I don't know what it is about the above statement that rubs me the wrong way...

...what could it possibly be?

Oh yeah, of course! The fact that it's fucking bullshit.

The homicide rating in the US was much higher in the 19th century than during the 20th and 21st centuries.

source: http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2010/06/16/a-crime-puzzle-violent-crime-declines-in-america/

If a disarmed population is more peaceful, then why is it those urban areas of the US that have the strictest firearms regulations have the highest rates of violent crime? Dramatically higher.

First of all, any such trend would tend to be because these correlate to the most densely populated areas; and density would have an outsized effect on this sort of thing, theoretically causing rates of violent crime much higher than less dense area...

But they don't, actually... Most of the cities with the highest violent crime rates are not in states with the most restrictive gun laws.

And if an armed population is more peaceful, then why do many of the US states with the fewest gun restrictions top the states ranking for highest murder rates? Why is it that places in the US with more guns have more deaths caused by guns?

Indeed, studies suggest that there is a correlation between state gun laws and gun-related deaths. The states with the most gun laws have the fewest gun homicides and suicides. ( http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390 )

It is so bad in Detroit that the city police chief has repeatedly urged citizens to arm themselves.

That police chief is an idiot.

First of all, Detroit is in a unique position compared to other cities on account of its economic situation, so you can't actually use it as any sort of example. Secondly, however, the homicide rate in Detroit has *actually* been dropping quite substantially the past couple of years.

I'd go on, but frankly I can't be bothered trying to parse the rest of your post.

Typical flatworm progressive rationalization. How can you expect to be taken seriously in academic matters if you refuse to review the evidence?

The following links are to charted elements of the 2012 FBI annual Uniform Crime Report. Study them, or not.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/violent-crime/violent-crime

It is interest to note that no significant federal gun law was generated during the graphed period. Meanwhile, firearms ownership went way up,
largely due to Obummer winning gun salesman of the year every year he has been in office.

Then there is this.

And yes, the homicide rate in Detroit has been dropping for 2 years, which for some strange reason coincides with the time the police chief began advocating armed citizens. As well, the national homicide rate has been dropping for years, oddly coinciding with massive new gun purchases.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Strict, strict, strict constructionist here, fellahs. I'm all for the militias, so long as they're armed with single shot muskets. That is the correct definition of arms as our Constitution writers knew it, meant it, and intended it.

 

[corpsman]

Strict, strict, strict constructionist here, fellahs. I'm all for the militias, so long as they're armed with single shot muskets. That is the correct definition of arms as our Constitution writers knew it, meant it, and intended it.

Nuts. Your use of the term "strict constructionist" is right out of Alinsky''s Rules for Radicals. If you are out of ammo, stick a label on them in hopes of creating a pink monkey. This is the sort device communists and fascists use to silence opposition. It is not going to work with me.
The Constitution is the nations law. All other law is subordinate to, and must be in compliance with, the Constitution. The authors worked hard for a long time to develop the law, and used a public debate process that is encapsulated in the Federalist Papers. If you actually want to learn what the authors meant, get a copy of a major latter 18th century English dictionary, a copy of the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and, optionally, the Anti-federalist Papers, the various constitutions of the states under the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the proceedings of the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses. This notion of allowing only late 18th century military weapons is ludicrous and implies the authors were unaware of the history and evolution of weapons. Get this, the authors meant contemporary military weapons, in private hands, in order that there might be a militia. Not that the militia only, had the right to bear arms. They intended these weapons be used against tyrants, foreign and domestic. Were they radicals? Hell, yes, so much so that today, federal agents are being taught that "constitutionalists" and the authors of the Constitution are/were terrorists, especially if they are veterans. You may doubt that, so I invite you to investigate, the way I did, by personal interviews of pertinent federal agency personnel. I was shocked. All that tells me is they fear human rights and liberty. Well, molon labe, fascist asswipes, molon labe. Meanwhile, if you are not willing to study the historical basis of all this debate, then you are little more than an ignorant dilettante. The argument that times have changed is specious. If you study the readily available material as suggested, you will find that the Constitution is not about whatever the times are, but the one immutably unchangeable factor, human behavior.

 

[bilby]

Strict, strict, strict constructionist here, fellahs. I'm all for the militias, so long as they're armed with single shot muskets. That is the correct definition of arms as our Constitution writers knew it, meant it, and intended it.

Nuts. Your use of the term "strict constructionist" is right out of Alinsky''s Rules for Radicals. If you are out of ammo, stick a label on them in hopes of creating a pink monkey. This is the sort device communists and fascists use to silence opposition. It is not going to work with me.
The Constitution is the nations law. All other law is subordinate to, and must be in compliance with, the Constitution. The authors worked hard for a long time to develop the law, and used a public debate process that is encapsulated in the Federalist Papers. If you actually want to learn what the authors meant, get a copy of a major latter 18th century English dictionary, a copy of the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and, optionally, the Anti-federalist Papers, the various constitutions of the states under the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the proceedings of the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses. This notion of allowing only late 18th century military weapons is ludicrous and implies the authors were unaware of the history and evolution of weapons. Get this, the authors meant contemporary military weapons, in private hands, in order that there might be a militia. Not that the militia only, had the right to bear arms. They intended these weapons be used against tyrants, foreign and domestic. Were they radicals? Hell, yes, so much so that today, federal agents are being taught that "constitutionalists" and the authors of the Constitution are/were terrorists, especially if they are veterans. You may doubt that, so I invite you to investigate, the way I did, by personal interviews of pertinent federal agency personnel. I was shocked. All that tells me is they fear human rights and liberty. Well, molon labe, fascist asswipes, molon labe. Meanwhile, if you are not willing to study the historical basis of all this debate, then you are little more than an ignorant dilettante. The argument that times have changed is specious. If you study the readily available material as suggested, you will find that the Constitution is not about whatever the times are, but the one immutably unchangeable factor, human behavior.

Times have changed.

Two words: Nuclear Fucking Weapons.

Either you hold that private ownership of nukes is protected by the 2nd amendment to the US constitution; Or you accept that some technological advances, made since the bill of rights was passed, render the right to keep and bear certain types of arms unacceptably dangerous.

If the former, you are a crazy person advocating national suicide by nuclear conflict; If the latter, you are simply trying to defend the indefensible by drawing a totally arbitrary line and claiming against all reason that it could not have been drawn anywhere else.

 

[dystopian]

Typical flatworm progressive rationalization. How can you expect to be taken seriously in academic matters if you refuse to review the evidence?

It's amazing how I can actually provide you with evidence, and then get accused of refusing to review the evidence because my conclusion doesn't align with yours.

The following links are to charted elements of the 2012 FBI annual Uniform Crime Report. Study them, or not.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls

It's also amazing how I get accused of refusing to review the evidence when you clearly haven't done so yourself. We'll see in a moment how it's you who hasn't properly reviewed the evidence you provide.

It is interest to note that no significant federal gun law was generated during the graphed period. Meanwhile, firearms ownership went way up,
largely due to Obummer winning gun salesman of the year every year he has been in office.

It is also interesting to note that the trend you see there didn't actually start in 2008. The decline in the violent crime rate in the US is a trend that started in 1994 (as you can clearly see in the FBI links you so helpfully provided). Now correlation does not necessarily imply causation (something you might want to remember when posting graphs of your own); however... since you seem to be interesting in trying to establish correlations, perhaps we could try doing that with the trend line since 1994? Gee, what happened in or around 1994 that could potentially have had a hand in the decline?

Well, there's the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which instituted mandatory background checks on most firearms purchases and imposed 5-day waiting times.

And then there's also the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban.

How's that for correlation?

Also, the gun ownership rate has NOT gone up. First, there's been a historical trend towards lower rates of gun ownership in the US since the 1970's. You're confusing gun sales with gun ownership. While there may be individuals who buy more guns, the average American today is *less* likely to own a gun, not more. In the early 80's roughly half of Americans owned a gun or lived with someone who did. Today only 32% do. There was a brief uptick following 2010, but the numbers are back down to that low.

This is an example of how you don't understand the evidence: you see a report that there's more guns being sold, and you jump to the wrong conclusion. Yes, more guns are being sold... but fewer people own guns.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/85c1...bb/major-survey-shows-gun-ownership-declining

Then there is this.

Except that graph is a clear political hitjob; and omits vast swaths of gun legislation introductions that don't produce the results the image's authors like (for instance, it omits the fact that comprehensive gun legislation was introduced in 1934, and tries to explain the sudden dip away as being solely due to the end of prohibition) Furthermore, doing a little digging on the image reveals that it doesn't actually track gun-related homicides; but total homicides. Or tries to at least.

Also, note how much it differs from the graph I posted, which tries to account for less comprehensive records the further back we go (for instance, in the 19th century homicides between ethnic minorities generally wasn't even recorded, and even up to the 1940's, many police departments didn't even bother making a record of murders that happened unless the victim was white.

It also contrasts strongly with the following graph for the early 1900 period (I suspect those numbers have been deliberately lowered in the graph you posted in order to force a particular conclusion, certainly the sudden low and flat nature of the numbers at that point seems highly unrealistic, human behavior doesn't do that):

Which yes, actually utilize FBI statistics, and which shows that the homicide rade in 1900 was much higher than the graph you posted shows.

And yes, the homicide rate in Detroit has been dropping for 2 years, which for some strange reason coincides with the time the police chief began advocating armed citizens. As well, the national homicide rate has been dropping for years, oddly coinciding with massive new gun purchases.

It does *not* coincide with the police chief's statements, actually. He made those statements in May of 2014; when the homicide rate was *already* dropping. Incidentally, it hasn't been dropping for 2 years, it's been dropping for 3 years; but you know, facts are hard I guess. Furthermore, it does NOT coincide with "massive" new gun purchases at all. In fact, there was only a brief spike in gun sales in *2012* and early 2013 (and nowhere near enough to count as 'massive'), but then returned to normal. The rates kept dropping regardless, with the current gun legislations (which have previously been blamed by people of your own political pursuasion for the 2012 uptick in violence).

You really need to learn how to interpret evidence, before you start accusing others of not doing so.

 

[corpsman]

Nuts. Your use of the term "strict constructionist" is right out of Alinsky''s Rules for Radicals. If you are out of ammo, stick a label on them in hopes of creating a pink monkey. This is the sort device communists and fascists use to silence opposition. It is not going to work with me.
The Constitution is the nations law. All other law is subordinate to, and must be in compliance with, the Constitution. The authors worked hard for a long time to develop the law, and used a public debate process that is encapsulated in the Federalist Papers. If you actually want to learn what the authors meant, get a copy of a major latter 18th century English dictionary, a copy of the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, and, optionally, the Anti-federalist Papers, the various constitutions of the states under the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the proceedings of the 1st and 2nd Continental Congresses. This notion of allowing only late 18th century military weapons is ludicrous and implies the authors were unaware of the history and evolution of weapons. Get this, the authors meant contemporary military weapons, in private hands, in order that there might be a militia. Not that the militia only, had the right to bear arms. They intended these weapons be used against tyrants, foreign and domestic. Were they radicals? Hell, yes, so much so that today, federal agents are being taught that "constitutionalists" and the authors of the Constitution are/were terrorists, especially if they are veterans. You may doubt that, so I invite you to investigate, the way I did, by personal interviews of pertinent federal agency personnel. I was shocked. All that tells me is they fear human rights and liberty. Well, molon labe, fascist asswipes, molon labe. Meanwhile, if you are not willing to study the historical basis of all this debate, then you are little more than an ignorant dilettante. The argument that times have changed is specious. If you study the readily available material as suggested, you will find that the Constitution is not about whatever the times are, but the one immutably unchangeable factor, human behavior.

Times have changed.

Two words: Nuclear Fucking Weapons.

Either you hold that private ownership of nukes is protected by the 2nd amendment to the US constitution; Or you accept that some technological advances, made since the bill of rights was passed, render the right to keep and bear certain types of arms unacceptably dangerous.

If the former, you are a crazy person advocating national suicide by nuclear conflict; If the latter, you are simply trying to defend the indefensible by drawing a totally arbitrary line and claiming against all reason that it could not have been drawn anywhere else.

Nuts. That is three words. I take it you are the product of the public schools. The nuke thing is a red herring. Have you any idea what it costs to buy a stolen nuke, much less what it costs to develop one? Strictly speaking, it is difficult to to manage a warhead, extensive and expensive security and safety measures are required to protect against toxic effects and detection while being transported and stored. What gain would there be for a sane person to own one or more nukes? As for insane people owning nukes... to late, that happened first in 1949, when Stalin got the bomb.
Let me take this step further. Consider heavy field artillery. Such weapons and the ammunition are quite legal to own and shoot in the US. None the less few people own them as they are very expensive to buy, store, maintain and shoot. Even in the days of the revolution, very few individuals owned artillery, even if they could afford it. Most private artillery in those days was aboard commercial ships, and so written into the costs of maritime trade. The bulk of other artillery belonged to communities and was managed by militia. Same sort of deal with machine guns. Such devices are for the wealthy only due to regulations that ban the sale to private persons of new production and stiff transfer taxes that increase the cost by 100% with each sale. A single standard 105mm HE howitzer round retails in bulk to the government for $300. Private sales run 3 to 5 times that amount.
Now some artillery and other Class 3 weapons are stolen, smuggled in from Mexico, or manufactured in private shops. Obviously that sort of thing is illegal, but if someone can bear the costs, they can be had, laws or no laws. Heard of any crimes committed in the US with artillery of late?

bilby, you are spouting standardized lines that do not bear up under examination.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Right, right, right. I see it now. If we could summon them back to life, our Constitution writers, raised in the American Enlightenment, would be NRA members. They'd accept all the gun lobby rhetoric. Right. Guns in every place where people gather. More guns, 'cause that makes us safer. High capacity chambers, 'cause those aren't just murder weapons, they can also be used to open pinatas real fast. Hell, military machine guns and shoulder-held rocket launchers, let's get them at WalMart, too. It's all good. And that way Bubbah in his husky-size survivalist overalls can shoot down the guv'mint guys when they invade his compound. Yep, nothing antiquated about the Constitution. How did I miss that?