361–370 of 389 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Uganda under Idi Amin for starters.
I'm no expert, but compared to the Weimar Republic it looks like Nazi Germany relaxed gun control considerably, unless you were Jewish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany
That's kind of a big "unless." Good article here: http://libertarianstandard.com/2013/01/14/was-hitler-really-...
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/police-find-no-evidence-o...
All's well that ends well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think that people are fundamentally different than they were three centuries ago? Do people not still seek power? If the answer to the latter question is yes, then the right to bear arms is as relevant today as it has ever been. You would throw away a peoples' right to defend themselves against an oppressive regime based on what, precisely? Your presumed ability to foretell the future? Your hunch that humanity…
Wow. I love the rhetoric, but it's glaringly flawed. You're suggestion: people are driven by their basic instincts, so...they should all have access to guns. Couldn't make a better case against guns myself. Or is it that government is "special" and only the sort that would misplace their power? You do know the government is made up of citizens, right? Or do you think that once you get a government job you suddenly be…
This isn't some crazy conspiracy theory - it's basic history and common sense. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot: these are but a few of the sociopaths who aspired to power in the last century alone; the list of what happens when too few people gain too much power goes on and on and on. And you think that it can't happen here? That it will never happen here? Then you are a fool. You cannot imagine a world where the right to bear arms for the purpose of defending ourselves against oppression not because such a world is unlikely, but because you lack foresight and the ability to examine history and your fellow man with a critical eye. The world has been this way throughout human history, and it is still this way today. Fifty years of relative peace on a timeline of hundreds of thousands of years of near-constant oppression do not mean we have progressed beyond those baser instincts.
Guns are power; as such, the right to bear arms represents another form of the decentralization of power. If democracy fails, that final check will remain, and those who don't have their heads up their asses understand this relatively simple and basic truth.
I am very well traveled, and I am well aware of what the rest of the world thinks about American notions of freedom. I have given this issue much consideration, and after many hours of careful deliberation and argument parsing, I have come to the conclusion that the right to bear arms is one of the few aspects of American culture that I am vehemently in favor of. I don't care whether the rest of the world understands these concepts or not - I do, we do, and we are clearly not interested in giving this right up easily.
So if you don't like it, that's fine - no one's forcing you to abide by our rules (yet, heh). But if you think that this mindset is based on delusional thinking, paranoia, or anything other than sound reasoning; if you think that we are a bunch of gun-toting ignorant, overly aggressive, uncivilized assholes who're just too dumb to see things YOUR way, then please: allow me to kindly ask you to go fuck yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second amendment protects firearms, not bludgeoning instruments that are shaped like firearms -- so yes.
I don't doubt what you say, but would that mean that once you've used up its ammunition an empty gun is no longer considered a firearm in US law?
If I am printing copies of the Koran, and the government decides to tax ink at the rate of 17,000%, are they just imposing levies, or are they restricting my first amendment? What if the ink tax applies to everybody? What if the ink tax only applies to publishers printing things that the government doesn't like?
It's worth noting that while I've reference DC v Heller a number of times in this topic, it applies here as well. The DC handgun ban used to be a de facto ban on all handguns, but above and beyond that, even for rifles or shotguns that may have been legal to possess, there was a mandate that in the home they could not be used for self defense, and they must have been disassembled as much as possible, and ammo stored separately.
The Supreme Court struck down this requirement, with language in the sentencing stating that any law which would make a weapon impossible to use for self defense would also be unconstitutional. As such, allowing people to possess firearms, but not ammunition would be a violation of one's Constitutional rights to bear arms.
Also, to answer the question more directly, a firearm need not even be capable of firing to be considered a firearm in US law. There are parts one can buy that are 'controlled', and that means that those parts effectively comprise the gun itself. In the case of a Colt 1911 pistol, the 'frame' is considered the gun, even though it does not possess a trigger, or grips, or a barrel, etc. In the case of an AR15, a stripped lower receiver is considered the firearm, despite that it has no moving parts.
Knowing this, there are ways to circumvent FFL required registration as well. I can buy what's called an '80%' lower receiver, which has been machined, basically, to an outline, but has not had the internal machining done. The ATF considers this a paperweight, effectively, and I can buy an unlimited supply of these without notifying anyone. To complete them requires a drill press and some know-how, and legally, I may build these (without anyone else's assistance) and lawfully possess them as completed firearms without registering them federally (local statutes vary) and without requiring them to have serial numbers. I may not however, manufacture them with the intent to sell, and there are limits on how many of these I may build in a year (I think it's 50, but it's been awhile since I last looked).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To everyone who assumes that "tyrannical government" is always read to mean "our" government, here's a primer. 1) Everybody should (and probably already does) know that the United States was essentially formed out of that exact type of rebellion. The arms that won us the war of Independence were all provided by private citizens, just as the cannons were, the ships that formed our navy, etc. If we hadn't had private w…
Everybody should (and probably already does) know that the United States was essentially formed out of that exact type of rebellion. The arms that won us the war of Independence were all provided by private citizens, just as the cannons were, the ships that formed our navy, etc. If we hadn't had private weapons, we wouldn't have had anywhere remotely enough arms to have won the war. Do US Americans really think it wo…
People, by and large, root for the home team.
In America especially, our history books are filled with our victories, and how our revolution framed this great nation, while simultaneously omitting the horrors we committed against Native Americans. We're raised to sing "My Country Tis of Thee" and sing the Star Spangled Banner before sporting events.
We're taught about our Constitution, and our Constitutional rights, and for sure, we're taught that democracy is better than monarchies, dictatorships, patriarchies, and non-representative forms of government. If you ask anybody over the age of, say 35, how they feel about communism or socialism, they would undoubtedly tell you that it's evil. They grew up in the aftermath of the cold war, and all the popular media at the time was about spying on mother Russia, and all that nonsense. We had Rocky IV, Red Dawn, etc. I do not know, but I suspect that all localities do this, whether subconsciously or purposefully I don't know, but I believe that all people are indoctrinated to what's nearby.
For these same reasons, most people, generally speaking, adopt the religions of their parents, etc., etc.
Whether or not we'd be better off is an entirely different conversation, and there's no way that we can really know for sure, but if you ask 100 Americans, I'd be surprised if less than 98 of them told you that would in fact, be the most terrible thing in the history of terribleness, right or wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To everyone who assumes that "tyrannical government" is always read to mean "our" government, here's a primer. 1) Everybody should (and probably already does) know that the United States was essentially formed out of that exact type of rebellion. The arms that won us the war of Independence were all provided by private citizens, just as the cannons were, the ships that formed our navy, etc. If we hadn't had private w…
Everybody should (and probably already does) know that the United States was essentially formed out of that exact type of rebellion. The arms that won us the war of Independence were all provided by private citizens, just as the cannons were, the ships that formed our navy, etc. If we hadn't had private weapons, we wouldn't have had anywhere remotely enough arms to have won the war. Do US Americans really think it wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm interested in hearing your thought on this in more detail. Can you explain how the police in the UK are able to get to your house fast enough in the middle of the night when someone breaks in? It takes hardly even 30 seconds to kick in a door or break a window and enter a home. Are you really capable of calling the police, having them respond, enter and clear your own home before that person does harm to you and…
I'm always really interested in the straw man 'home invasion' fantasy that the pro-gun lobby brings out. Why would someone invade your home with a weapon? For financial gain? Just for jollies[1]? The thing about giving everyone a gun is that it makes every crime that much more likely to be fatal. In Canada, for example, if I break into your house for your TV and you catch me, we're sort of at an impasse. Maybe I have…
FWIW, It happened tn the UK, specifically in Liverpool, in Kensington ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington,_Liverpool ), where a friend lived while doing his PhD.
Forunately he was not in and the door of his room was locked (he shared the house with other guys). The burglar took lots of valuable stuff from the rooms that were unlocked (so it was not someone of the friends).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. I love the rhetoric, but it's glaringly flawed. You're suggestion: people are driven by their basic instincts, so...they should all have access to guns. Couldn't make a better case against guns myself. Or is it that government is "special" and only the sort that would misplace their power? You do know the government is made up of citizens, right? Or do you think that once you get a government job you suddenly be…
Personally, I can't understand why you care about how 'we' handle guns in our country. I don't own a gun, but I appreciate the right for my fellow citizens. I don't care if you ban it in your country; why are you so interested in restricting freedoms of people on the other side of the world? > The rest of the world just sits back and watches your government attack its people? What are they going to do? Do you know ho…
I don't, really. But it is frustrating watching, oh, I don't know, 95% of the developed world somehow getting by without guns while the US can't see past them.
> What are they going to do? Do you know how much we (the US) spends on military compared to the rest of the world? It's really no wonder that the citizens of such a country (not to mention drones, elective wars, and the "right" of the President to kill without trial) prefer to be able to own guns (as many as we can).
You're hope of defending yourself against government (i.e. drones - which can attack from the sky, no less), is infantile, to say the least. Explain how you, a member of HN, plan to de-weaponize your government with your pistol.
> In other words, "What's wrong with having monarchies?"
That's great rhetoric, except I'm not advocating for monarchies. That's a straw man argument, because I've not once advocated for such a thing. And it's not a black and white subject. Not having guns doesn't automatically make you a monarchy. Suggesting such is ridiculous and provides a fruitless argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't prove guns solve problems. It just makes it clear that police can be incompetent. This is the most bizarre argument. You're argument is that police do a poor job, so average people should do the job? Here's an idea: spend some more money on creating a more competent police force. So silly! Let's see, my employee isn't doing his job well, so I'll just call in another developer to bring competency. Talk ab…
That ignores the geographic disparity of our nation. It would be relatively easy to create a rapidly mobile police force in somewhere like New York City, but nearly impossible to create an efficient police force in Glendo, Wyoming. Houses are, at the closest, acres apart from each other. Going grocery shopping can be a half hour trip each way from a nearby farm. Police cannot be readily available in places like this…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That ignores the geographic disparity of our nation. It would be relatively easy to create a rapidly mobile police force in somewhere like New York City, but nearly impossible to create an efficient police force in Glendo, Wyoming. Houses are, at the closest, acres apart from each other. Going grocery shopping can be a half hour trip each way from a nearby farm. Police cannot be readily available in places like this…
Yes, the US is so special. Again, other countries have sub-urbs, country residents. Come on, really? This is your defence? That America has vast countryside? Jesus fucking Christ. Can't think of any other country that has this geography? REALLY?