How to Answer this Anti Point?

"Americans are generally apathetic, lazy, fat, and too accustomed to technology and creature comforts."

Right now it might seem so. But that has been levied against Americans for more than a hundred years. Yet at D-Day it was proven otherwise. For me, it was proven otherwise after Katrina. New Orleans might have gone Mad Max, but south MS (you know, the area that actually took the brunt of the storm?) folks got to work. That isn't combat, but I saw few "fat and lazy" Americans. Yeah, saw fat Americans, but they were all working hard and getting things done. Americans have always done that.

I think the 2a is perfectly strong today. Yeah, we can't fight an F/A-18, but then the militia couldn't take on artillery in 1787. But all the massive arms and equipment are useful only if the government has the will to utterly level cities. They did that in my neck of the woods 150 years ago, but much has changed since then. Mortars, tanks, and the like only work when the will to employ them in cities exists. Yeah, it happened in China (I knew a guy who was at Tiennamen Square) and it could happen here, too. But a well-armed populace forced into a war-stance is formidable, and I know many people who are not weekend warriors, whose only camo is used for ducks and turkey, who would, and could, step up and do what was needed. It has always been thus here.

Any small arm is fair regarding the 2a. Select fire is technically in the scope of the amendment as it is generally carried by the individual soldier. That won't happen, of course, but that was the intent.

out gunned

We are way out gunned. I am thinking along the lines of crew served, artillery, air support, gunships not number of plinkers. I am not saying that the federal government is going to declare war on its own people. I am an NCO and I realize those orders would not be followed. The domestic terrorists get their best results using weapons such as the left leaning media and teaching our children their views in public schools.


And I am serving in Afghanistan right now. I am the small arms/towed artillery direct suport NCOIC for a PIR battilion. The last four years of my life have been spent maintaining these weapons at a third shop level. We use them here. My second year long tour is almost up. We have lost more guys than we should have but trust me we are totally kicking ass. IED's cause almost all our KIA's. We have only lost a few due to small arms fire.

The rationale of the 2nd was to have the private militia capable of engaging a professional army, as had just recently happened when it was written. That would definitely mean that explosives, armored vehicles, and crew-served weapons like artillery are included in its scope.

Keep in mind that such things are legal today, although taxed by the NFA. Anyone who can pass an NFA check can make a brand new 155mm field gun in their garage, if they want to - destructive devices are not part of the Hughes Amendment like machine guns.

Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Americans aren't Afghans. Afghans are hard people living in a hard country who have been fending off one invader or another for hundreds if not thousands of years. And they were occupied by the Soviet Union only a few decades ago, and have the experience and left over weapons to show for it. They can live for months in the cold mountains on nothing but rice, dirty water, and a Koran. Their men spend their childhoods watching their fathers first hand blowing up Soviet BMP and shooting down Hinds. Our boys blow up BMPs and Hinds too...on X-Box Live.

Americans are generally apathetic, lazy, fat, and too accustomed to technology and creature comforts. A 290 pound guy waddling around the woods every weekend carrying an AR and wearing surplus camo might think he's some freedom fighter waiting for his chance to fight back, but he's really just a heart attack waiting to happen. A heart attack that couldn't run more than 20 yards if his life depended on it, which it will if his desired revolution really comes.

If the next revolution was fought by arguing about bullet weight online, we'd win hands down. But it's not. Americans are nothing like Afghans.

Click to expand...

I see you're in Ann Arbor... Ever been a couple hours south/southeast of where you are to a place called Detroit? Try growing up there the only member of your race within a mile and tell me again that Americans are soft, lazy, etc, etc. For that matter, VISIT for an hour without your carry piece. Tell me again how easy it will be to take us on? I can't speak for everyone, but trust and believe that if the "government" such as it is, ever decided to openly attack OUR country, that WE WILL stand up to defend it. If you think the Afghanis are tough/hard with their milsurps and whatnot, wait till you see what a city boy turned good ol' boy can do with a rem 700 in .308 with decent glass - especially when it comes time to protect his home and his family.

"Thanks... but their argument is quickly going to be: "where is the constitutional "line" drawn between which "arms" we have a right to keep and bear"?"

First, never confuse being a "liberal" with someone seeking liberty; that is NOT their goal.

Second, never expect a liberal to be fully rational, if you do they will keep you off balance when trying to discuss anything.

The right to "keep AND bear" was specific to the militia, not hunters. One thing liberals can't grasp is the militia was considered to be all the available man power capabile of defending their homeland. The militia was a "rapid response" force, quickly rising to do their duty when a need appeared. They were recognized to be in two groups; the organized and formal and the "at large" informal citizenery and both had to be armed to do their duty. The "well regulated" part of the 2nd recognised the obvious need to be armed for military action, not for hunting, per se, thus M-16 types are relivant to the 2nd while grandpa's Win. 94 only serves in a pinch. If there is a line to be drawn, that's it.

Liberal's efforts to outlaw "guns" other than hunting arms are irrelivant to the issue, there is no Constitutional right to hunt. But there is a clearly implied and expected Constitutional duty for able men to defend their homes with any weapon at hand. It was clearly never expected the militia would be in uniform or have tons of paper regulations to cover every move they made, as it is with the National Guard today.

When the original milita was "called up", the men were expected to bring their personal arms, that being handguns, rifles and shotguns. It was NOT expected they would include cannon in their personal arms. Bazookas are in the relm of cannon. In these specifics liberals go too far even for their whacked out mindset!

Simply say, "You can take any argument to its theoretical illogical extreme. What is actually at issue is ......the most ridiculous gun law on the books in your state." If the person concedes the point you have shown them that some gun control is ridiculous. If not, then you are fighting a battle that is much easier to win.

You could also focus the person on the practical difficulties of homemade nukes. i.e. the radiation emitting from their backyard reactor. The $100 million + price tag. As dumb as some politicians are I don't think they would subsidize this.

It's like saying, the first Amendment protects your right to belong to any religion BUT Mormonism.

This seemed to cross the high road line when anti got conflated with liberal a few posts back. I come here to read so that I can avoid that kind of reductive nonsense.

the founders wanted us to be armed as well as an army......... that means ARMS, not just handguns and rifles.

so me not being able to own a FA without dishing out $10,000 and my right to privacy is an infringement.......because the cops (don't know why) and military have FA's...........so should we have easy, cheap access to them, too.

...look to original intent, as the Supreme court does.

Click to expand...

Um... I only wish they did. I think you meant to say, "...as the Supreme Court should".

I actually agree that the police - being a civilian force - should never, ever, be able to carry arms that other civilians cannot carry. That was what made Clinton's AWB so ominous, that police would be given, by law, more ammunition to carry in the same pistol than other civilians. A legal advantage to the government is scary.

I actually agree that the police - being a civilian force - should never, ever, be able to carry arms that other civilians cannot carry. That was what made Clinton's AWB so ominous, that police would be given, by law, more ammunition to carry in the same pistol than other civilians. A legal advantage to the government is scary.

Click to expand...

liberty for security. there is no need for a police force to carry full auto military weapons...there is no justification for it.

there is no need for a police force to carry full auto military weapons...there is no justification for it.

Click to expand...

Sure there is, there are gangs and criminals that are packing f/a etc. There are instances where the police would need them......... BUT they should not be allowed access to arms that the rest of us civilians are not granted access to.

The way I interpret the second amendment and its purpose is to keep a well regulated militia. A militia is kept in regulation to be a fighting force when and if it is needed. In order to be effective against an attack by an assumed military or similar force, a militia must have comparable weaponry. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight, so why would you bring only a rifle to a RPG, tank and machine gun fight?

Unfortunately now days, people are not as responsible as they were when the constitution was written. None the less, the second amendment does not mention any restrictions on the weaponry the people of the militia can possess.

Sure there is, there are gangs and criminals that are packing f/a etc. There are instances where the police would need them......... BUT they should not be allowed access to arms that the rest of us civilians are not granted access to.

Click to expand...

i havent read/heard/seen anything regarding gangs and full auto's since North Hollywood in 1997. That's a pretty pathetic justification.......maybe Mexican border gangs, but they have special federal protection.

It's not more then them "1 upping" us. police departments used to be police departments, now their paramilitary outfits and storm troopers.

most gang crime occurs with handguns.

...there are gangs and criminals that are packing f/a...

Click to expand...

Maybe in movies.

This thread makes me think of the old Bannerman ads... " Dad, can I order a cannon, please, please, I promise not to blow up the barn... PLEEEEEEEAAASE?"

Mom knew the trouble we would get into, so no cannons, no AT guns, not even the little mountain howitzer.

Just remember, it wasn't all that long ago you could get a lot of medium weapons (bigger than a shotgun smaller than a 155mm gun) and there really wasn't a major crime problem with them. I still want that cannon...

Take the high road with your friend and explain that you had planned on restricting ACTIONS instead of tools

Click to expand...

I'm going to give the winning hand to the above statement from BigFatDave. This is all that needs said besides the "shall not be infringed" part.

Americans aren't Afghans.

Click to expand...

No, they're not, thank God. Americans were raised to believe that a system of justice and integrity will work and petty local warlords should be displaced. Don't discount us; someone already pointed out D-Day. It takes a while to rouse the fires of passion across the country but ask the Japanese what happens when you do. Ask Saddam. Or Osama if you can find the latter wherever he's hiding and providing his once-a-year tapes from. We see our freedoms eroded every day from within, but I'm getting the feeling that a huge portion of America has about had enough given the push-back on illegal immigration, gun control, taxation, and general bureaucracy big-brother-ness etc.

If you really believe there will be another civil war (and I don't think so or entertain fantasy's about it, but I don't try to predict the future more than an hour from now) then it will only take the right spark to fully ignite the tinder that's forming. And yes, 20 million good-old-boys would die in the first month from heart attacks. But the rest would harden up quick enough. I'm not worried about who will win in the end, I'm worried about what happens to me and mine while it's happening.

One problem, seems to me, is that those who wrote the Constitution and the BOR took self-defense of one's person as a given--and was thus not mentioned in the 2A.

Read the Preamble to the BOR. It gives the reason for the entire package; a defense against abuse of power by the state.

Some say the 14th Amendment is more applicable to self-defense, at least before Heller. "Equal protection under the law", since courts have held that the state has no obligation for protection of individuals.

Given the nature of weaponry at the time of the writing of the Constitution, it was natural at that time to assume that the citizenry could have whatever weapons--arms--were necessary. Remember, village militia groups occasionally had cannon (a function of their $$$); so did private shipowners.

Given the reason stated in the Preamble, a case could be made for present-day equality of arms with the government. Common sense, of course, says that's not at all practical. "Constitutional but ridiculous."

I would respond to the original question by saying that it's already been decided. Different people have different ideas, but it's pretty accepted across a broad range of the spectrum that individuals are going to be limited to guns that can be carried and used by an individual, and that are not automatic. Yes, private citizens can have automatic weapons, but the restrictions are pretty limiting and there's no great movement to change them.

I would also point out that a lot of push for gun control comes from law enforcement, and they are interested in the use of guns for crime. This mostly means ordinary, fairly low-powered guns.

McDonald and Heller effectively killed the argument of collective right and established that self protection and having the means to do so is a protected right under the 2nd. So any argument about hunting and sporting purposes should be immediately pointed out as invalid.

One can still try and split the hair of reasonable regulation (a big fat knotted hair) but to try and contend the intent of our right any more is a disingenuous and self invalidating position. Straight up, no more "but the founding fathers could not have imagined semi-auto wickedly black and scary looking guns killing da chillun in da stweets, gangs, psychotics, lonely bullied teenagers, lions, and tigers, and bears, oh my!". Sorry, getting carried away here.

Seriously though, I think the "reasonable" argument on our side is/should be drawn on the basis of arms that can only be used in a discriminating manner. That invalidates the nuke hogwash. A nuke is about the most indiscriminate weapon in the stockpile. It is a massive area weapon. Yeah, no one is arguing for it except the most obstinate actor standing on principal. There is nowhere you could employ a nuke that would not have unforeseen consequences. So to back away from that extreme and come back down to earth in addressing drawing that line in earnest it should come down to individual arms where each employed act with such devices is deliberate and intentional.

Explosives, area chemical dispersal devices are reasonable to not be covered as their users cannot effectively be selective in their target. Select and full auto firearms are probably where this argument gets trickiest. It can be argued that they are in common usage (wide point is that they are individually issued to LEO/Mil, fine point is that they are already in circulation with little to no ill affect on soceity).

It can be argued that they are consistent with original intent of militia arms (Miller works for us this time!) and the Switzerland/Israel example can be brought forth for those so fond of bringing up the laws of foreign civilized nations. What can be argued against them though is that they can be used indiscriminately. For sure someone will say "but even a lever action can be indiscriminate if one closes their eyes and just keeps racking and squeezing but those who have experience with full autos know that only the first shot or two in a pull of the trigger can be sighted and designated. After that, shots ~3 to infinity are more generally selective than specifically discriminatory. I think that's where the debate will be honed down to and how it turns out will depend on what cases face and decide the issue and how.

Some over reaching local politician in an NFA state that decides to ban machine guns and confiscate lawfully owned and registered property from a peaceful civilian might make for a case that could ensure some limited availability of such items. Someone who has a home made machine gun found in their meth lab during a bust and claims a 2nd amendment defense will do us no favors. It's right for us to stand on our rights but it's all important how and where we do so.

DANGER! DANGER!

The danger of us sticking our hats on the "in common use" argument is one that won't present itself until the future. What happens when some new type of weapon becomes common place for our soldiers, let's say for example ray guns or plasma cannons. They don't exist yet and thus are not in common use. If they are not in common use, we don't have a right to them. If we don't have a right to them they will never be in common use. It's a catch-22 that prevents the civilian gun owner from ever being able to keep pace with firearm technology.

CONCLUSION: The "in common use" argument means that in the future we will only have access to guns that are popular today. If the "in common use" rule was implemented at the time of the 2A's adoption, the military would still have their M4's, and all we'd have is muskets.

EXAMPLE: Machine Guns under "in common use":

Machine guns can be banned because they are not in common use. BUT, they are not in common use BECAUSE they are banned. See how it's circular? Be wary of "in common use."

wsr80:

Concede NOTHING.

Not even that there might be reasonable limits.

Do not allow your opponent to set the terms of the debate, and do not do his work for him in identifying and justifying acceptable infringements.

Force him to specify the restrictions he wants to justify, and then shred him.

When he goes for "well, are nuclear weapons ok?" nail him for the extreme value fallacy.


Ultimately, the premise of restricting the magnitude of armament that is wieldable by an individual is a false dilemma.

Arms are tools, and calibrating their magnitude appropriately is entirely a matter of the magnitude of the opposition.

If an entire polity has decided to unjustly murder you, it's entirely possible that nuclear armaments might be appropriate.

A battleship may be appropriate if your opposition has battleships.

Magnitude of arms has NOTHING to do with the justness of their use.

Large magnitude arms may be justly used to defend your life from large magnitude forces unjustly attempting to kill you.

The chain of logic that associates large magnitude arms to governmental entities, and further associates governmental entities with a presumption of justness is just plain erroneous.

An attempt to limit the magnitude of arms available to an individual is indistinguishable from the declaration that anything that can muster that level of force + 1 is in the right.

To put it another way: If aliens from the Glorpton system have decided that your existence offends them, and have dispatched their space armada to dispatch you, it would be entirely valid to oppose them with your own privately owned space armada, if you can find one.