Political power and arms

[A True Kaniggit]

3 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Ask ISIS how that might go.

Impossible to say. There's been too much outside interference in those wars.

[Einheri]

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Interesting. Basically, loading a firearm with non-lethal ammo could both preserve the fear factor you mention and prevent the loss of life.
Seems like a win-win to me. Especially since firearms are widespread already.

Just to clarify, less than lethal is not the same as non-lethal. It’s considered less lethal than ordinary ammunition, but you can still potentially kill or maim someone with this type of ammo as it tranfers a lot of energy onto its target.

3 hours ago, Swordfish said:

No, it isn't, actually.  it's a question of which weapons the government should be able to ban, and they need to provide the justification.  You have it precisely backwards.

In my world, the state has monopoly on violence thanks to the social contract, and as such the starting point is opposite from yours

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, Einheri said:

Just to clarify, less than lethal is not the same as non-lethal. It’s considered less lethal than ordinary ammunition, but you can still potentially kill or maim someone with this type of ammo as it tranfers a lot of energy onto its target.

 

In my world, the state has monopoly on violence thanks to the social contract, and as such the starting point is opposite from yours

 

 What we are talking about here is what happens in the actual world, specifically in the United States, as defined by the rule of law and the constitution.

Far be it for me to try and comment on how things should operate inside your mind.  You are free to do whatever you please in there, but it's not binding on citizens of the united states.

 

[Einheri]

Just now, Swordfish said:

 What we are talking about here is what happens in the actual world, specifically in the United States, as defined by the rule of law and the constitution.

Far be it for me to try and comment on how things should operate inside your mind.  You are free to do whatever you please in there, but it's not binding on citizens of the united states.

 

Weird reply. Obviously, I'm just a Norwegian guy who is stating his own opinions on a message board (just like everyone else), and not the supreme leader of the universe who can make things happen with a snap of his fingers.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

 What we are talking about here is what happens in the actual world, specifically in the United States, as defined by the rule of law and the constitution.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: for example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. One shouldn't cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

[Swordfish]

38 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: for example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. One shouldn't cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

And?

[Rippounet]

I believe the idea that gun rights are inalienable and that it is up to the government to justify any restriction is an ideological position rather than an accurate description of the principles behind current American gun laws. On the contrary, it has been (and still is) gun rights activists' struggle to find a justification for an inalienable right that would not be linked to the organisation of a State or citizens' militia. And though such a view did recently (2008) gain legal standing in Heller v. District of Columbia, the well-known extract I have quoted above shows not only that such a right is not “unlimited,” but also that the government(s) retain vast powers to restrict private ownership of guns, including banning entire categories of weapons that do not fall under the self-defense justification advanced by justice Scalia since he also reaffirmed the limits of US v. Miller (1939).

More importantly, social contract theory was pretty much the main reasoning behind the very creation of the US, as anyone having read the Declaration of Independence well knows. To say that principles derived from such theory cannot be binding on citizens of the United States...
Is quite telling.

[Altherion]

19 hours ago, Einheri said:

In my world, the state has monopoly on violence thanks to the social contract, and as such the starting point is opposite from yours

To be clear, the state has a monopoly on violence even in countries where restrictions on arms are relatively loose. The Second Amendment is not a license to kill; at most, a weapon can be used in self-defense and even then one still has to go to court and prove that it was used this way. The same is true in Switzerland and other countries where guns are widespread -- one may never use them except for practice and sports (which happen in very controlled circumstances), hunting, self-defense or when called up into a militia by the state.

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

More importantly, social contract theory was pretty much the main reasoning behind the very creation of the US, as anyone having read the Declaration of Independence well knows. To say that principles derived from such theory cannot be binding on citizens of the United States...
Is quite telling.

They are binding, it's just that our social contract is a little bit different than most others. The Founders recognized that no matter how well designed the original contract, if the overwhelming majority of the ruling elite (i.e. all three branches of government plus the plutocracy) chooses to interpret it contrary to any rational expectation, there is precious little anyone can do to stop them. Thus, they include something for the masses which serves as an escape clause, a deterrent and a canary in a coalmine.

[Swordfish]

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I believe the idea that gun rights are inalienable and that it is up to the government to justify any restriction is an ideological position rather than an accurate description of the principles behind current American gun laws. On the contrary, it has been (and still is) gun rights activists' struggle to find a justification for an inalienable right that would not be linked to the organisation of a State or citizens' militia.

This is almost completely and entirely wrong.  There has been very little struggle to justify gun rights.  And it's not a struggle because it's guaranteed in the constitution.  The struggle is primarily on the side of those who endeavor to ban and register.

 

Quote

And though such a view did recently (2008) gain legal standing in Heller v. District of Columbia, the well-known extract I have quoted above shows not only that such a right is not “unlimited,” but also that the government(s) retain vast powers to restrict private ownership of guns, including banning entire categories of weapons that do not fall under the self-defense justification advanced by justice Scalia since he also reaffirmed the limits of US v. Miller (1939).

There's a pretty far leap from 'such a  right is not unlimited' to 'if you can't prove you need this, then it should be banned.'

 

 

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

They are binding, it's just that our social contract is a little bit different than most others. The Founders recognized that no matter how well designed the original contract, if the overwhelming majority of the ruling elite (i.e. all three branches of government plus the plutocracy) chooses to interpret it contrary to any rational expectation, there is precious little anyone can do to stop them. Thus, they include something for the masses which serves as an escape clause, a deterrent and a canary in a coalmine.

The paradox is that although the framers did present the 2nd amendment as a check against abuses by the federal government, they nonetheless built checks against the "excesses" of democracy in the institutions as well. Whatever political power the people got was not meant to be used "for light and transient causes" but only to overthrow a government that would have lost its public legitimacy. Thus, as long as the ruling elite would at least pay lip service to the idea of democracy, the plutocracy would be preserved. It has worked so well that in spite of the numerous checks against abuses within its institutions the US today is struggling with the same issues as most of the other developed nations. Whatever political power the 2nd amendment gave to the people has remained essentially theoretical, since it was never meant to overthrow the hierarchical structure of American society itself. Of course, it's still possible to argue it is an efficient deterrent against some extreme forms of abuse, and that the very existence of an escape clause is better than nothing. I'm still not certain it has done much good to the people so far, and the risk that it may even be detrimental in the future seems greater than ever. But that's just my two cents.

[Einheri]

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

To be clear, the state has a monopoly on violence even in countries where restrictions on arms are relatively loose. The Second Amendment is not a license to kill; at most, a weapon can be used in self-defense and even then one still has to go to court and prove that it was used this way. The same is true in Switzerland and other countries where guns are widespread -- one may never use them except for practice and sports (which happen in very controlled circumstances), hunting, self-defense or when called up into a militia by the state.

Exactly, but to be clear, I wasn’t suggesting that the state doesn’t have monopoly on violence in these countries. I was merely trying to explain why from my PoV the starting position should be that weapons are tools of violence, which is the state’s domain, and as such we’ll have to justify why civilians should be allowed to own certain types of weapons (i.e. the opposite of Swordfish’s position that it’s the state who has to justify why certain types of weapons should be banned).

I guess it might be a bit tomayto- tomahto’ish since we might very well end up at the same place even though our starting positions are kind of opposite from each other (I mean, if there are good arguments in favor of letting people own a certain type of weapon, these would also count as good arguments against banning that type of weapon), but it’s a different perspective nonetheless.

[Kalbear]

Okay, I'll bite.

If the goal of the 2nd amendment and really the goal of allowing the populace to own a firearm is to ensure that the government has less relative power, surely the best possible thing that you can do for that country is ensure everyone is trained in the use and tactical knowledge of using weapons. Right?

Because simply having firearms isn't that helpful if you can't shoot for shit and don't know how to deal with modern warfare. Even in @SerHaHa's case where he dealt with insurgents with small arms, they were dangerous because they had automatic rifles as well as training in the military, often from the Iraqi forces that had been left behind, or were imported from other terrorist camps. 

Otherwise, what you've got is a whole lot of people with guns or availability of guns and almost no real ability to use them. Most US citizens don't know how to clean a gun, much less even reload one. They've never fired one. They certainly don't know how to take cover or work as a team. 

Now, can you train them? Sure. In a revolution setting that would be required, I suppose. But the limiting factor wouldn't likely be firearms - it'd be trained people. 

Whereas simply people without training and with guns is pretty dangerous to everyone. 

So...if you want to really have power in the people, why not require everyone to have mandatory gun training?

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, I'll bite.

If the goal of the 2nd amendment and really the goal of allowing the populace to own a firearm is to ensure that the government has less relative power, surely the best possible thing that you can do for that country is ensure everyone is trained in the use and tactical knowledge of using weapons. Right?

Because simply having firearms isn't that helpful if you can't shoot for shit and don't know how to deal with modern warfare. Even in @SerHaHa's case where he dealt with insurgents with small arms, they were dangerous because they had automatic rifles as well as training in the military, often from the Iraqi forces that had been left behind, or were imported from other terrorist camps. 

Otherwise, what you've got is a whole lot of people with guns or availability of guns and almost no real ability to use them. Most US citizens don't know how to clean a gun, much less even reload one. They've never fired one. They certainly don't know how to take cover or work as a team. 

Now, can you train them? Sure. In a revolution setting that would be required, I suppose. But the limiting factor wouldn't likely be firearms - it'd be trained people. 

Whereas simply people without training and with guns is pretty dangerous to everyone. 

 

There are 22 million military vets in the US, and another million or so in the services.  So even assuming the notion that 'if you haven't been in the military, you don't know how to fire, clean or loada gun' is correct,(which it isn't) suggesting that no one who owns a gun knows how to use it is absurd on it's face.

 

Quote

Most US citizens don't know how to clean a gun, much less even reload one. They've never fired one.

Perhaps true of US citizens, significantly less true of US gun owners.

 

Quote

So...if you want to really have power in the people, why not require everyone to have mandatory gun training?

OK by me, provided you are not tying it to registration.  But good luck getting anyone on either side of the aisle to agree to this.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Swordfish said:

There are 22 million military vets in the US, and another million or so in the services.  So even assuming the notion that 'if you haven't been in the military, you don't know how to fire, clean or loada gun' is correct,(which it isn't) suggesting that no one who owns a gun knows how to use it is absurd on it's face. 

I didn't say that. I said that most people in the US don't know how. We have about 300 million firearms, but only about 24% of the people in the US own a firearm. And another 13% who are in a house with one but don't own it. Let's call it 30% of everyone who has some vague idea of how to handle a firearm (because owning a firearm doesn't mean you know how to use it) - that means more than 2/3rds of the US has no idea. 

And even fewer of them know how to tactically use a firearm. Being trained in self-defense for a holdout or going target practice isn't remotely the same as being able to move, take a position and fire, or even fire when fired upon. 

I don't know about you, but I really don't want the random libertarian assholes at Microsoft who have like a dozen various guns and fetishize them to be the ones I'm relying on in the event of an invasion. They're a good place to get the guns, but they're not the ones I want shooting back at anyone.

Just now, Swordfish said:

Perhaps true of US citizens, significantly less true of US gun owners.

Which was precisely what I said. 

Just now, Swordfish said:

OK by me, provided you are not tying it to registration.  But good luck getting anyone on either side of the aisle to agree to this.

I was absolutely tying it to registration - why on earth would you want anyone to have unregistered guns, much less anyone who was untrained? But I guess that you wouldn't need to register firearms if you simply had anyone who purchased firearms able to demonstrate their skill with them. It's not nearly as important if you can reasonably state almost everyone has some kind of training.

I suspect strongly that the NRA would throw absurd amounts of money at this idea, and thus the GOP would love the fuck out of it. I also suspect liberals would be a lot more in favor of this,  given that they are the only ones who are growing in purchasing guns right now and are actively dreading police action.

[Swordfish]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I didn't say that. I said that most people in the US don't know how. We have about 300 million firearms, but only about 24% of the people in the US own a firearm. And another 13% who are in a house with one but don't own it. Let's call it 30% of everyone who has some vague idea of how to handle a firearm (because owning a firearm doesn't mean you know how to use it) - that means more than 2/3rds of the US has no idea. 

 

So only about a hundred million [people then?  Uh.. OK.  So what is your point again?

 

Quote

And even fewer of them know how to tactically use a firearm. Being trained in self-defense for a holdout or going target practice isn't remotely the same as being able to move, take a position and fire, or even fire when fired upon. 

Except for the 20+ million vets, of course.  

Quote

I don't know about you, but I really don't want the random libertarian assholes at Microsoft who have like a dozen various guns and fetishize them to be the ones I'm relying on in the event of an invasion. They're a good place to get the guns, but they're not the ones I want shooting back at anyone.Which was precisely what I said. 

What about the 20+ million vets?

 

Quote

I was absolutely tying it to registration - why on earth would you want anyone to have unregistered guns, much less anyone who was untrained?

yes, i assumed you were.  Often 'mandatory training' is the dog whistle of the gun registration crowd.    

Registration is a non starter for reasons that should be more obvious now than ever.

 

Quote

I suspect strongly that the NRA would throw absurd amounts of money at this idea, and thus the GOP would love the fuck out of it. I also suspect liberals would be a lot more in favor of this,  given that they are the only ones who are growing in purchasing guns right now and are actively dreading police action.

There is no way politicians on the left would support mandatory training.  That would be demystifying their boogeyman, and slaughtering their golden goose.

 

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

So only about a hundred million [people then?  Uh.. OK.  So what is your point again?

My point was that this isn't a sufficient amount of people who are trained to resist the military. Which it isn't. Simply having even rudimentary training is not that useful. Nor is simply having firearms.

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

Except for the 20+ million vets, of course.  

What about the 20+ million vets?

What about them? Most of the vets in the US are pretty fucking old at this point; about half or more of them are WW2, Korea and Vietnam vets. You think they'll stand up to the marines right now?

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

yes, i assumed you were.  Often 'mandatory training' is the dog whistle of the gun registration crowd.    

Registration is a non starter for reasons that should be more obvious now than ever.

Like I said, it's probably not even that big a deal once you train everyone. 

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

There is no way politicians on the left would support mandatory training.  That would be demystifying their boogeyman, and slaughtering their golden goose.

There's no way that they'll kill Obamacare - isn't that what you said? Sorry, I might be mixing you up with other random libertarians who made pronouncements based on the rationality of politicians. 

I think it'd have to come from the left first and foremost, probably a red state dem, but it's certainly clear that the 2nd amendment is very poorly designed if it's meant to protect the populace from the government and put pressure on the government. It allows for massive restriction of various weapons used commonly by the military, it does not require an actual well-regulated militia (which by the verbiage of the time meant a militia that was trained and skilled in using the weapons), and it certainly doesn't require or even encourage any kind of functional military training. 

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

My point was that this isn't a sufficient amount of people who are trained to resist the military. Which it isn't. Simply having even rudimentary training is not that useful. Nor is simply having firearms.What about them? Most of the vets in the US are pretty fucking old at this point; about half or more of them are WW2, Korea and Vietnam vets. You think they'll stand up to the marines right now?

Fair enough.  Lets cut that in half.  Now you're talking about ten million vets and by your math, which I think is highly flawed by the way, around another hundred million or so citizens with at least a passing familiarity of how to operate a gun.

There are around a million and a half active military.

So...  What is your point again?  Other than taking pot shots at gun owners?

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Fair enough.  Lets cut that in half.  Now you're talking about ten million vets and by your math, which I think is highly flawed by the way, around another hundred million or so citizens with at least a passing familiarity of how to operate a gun.

There are around a million and a half active military.

So...  What is your point again?  Other than taking pot shots at gun owners?

You think that 100 million people with a 'passing familiarity with a gun' can stand against 1 million military?

Okay, let's go with this as a response: how many US troops were lost when fighting against Iraq in 2003 - from, say, the first start of conflict in March to the 'mission accomplished' bit in May? There were about 580 total casualties in the first year of 2003 for all the united forces in Iraq. There were only 212 casualties in those first 3 months. The estimates of Iraqi casualties? Around 15,000. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that the Iraqis didn't bother engaging this time - they just melted away and became insurgents.

For Desert Storm, estimates were that as many as 100,000 Iraqis died and 300k were wounded. There were a total of 148 deaths in the US, and 35 of which were due to friendly fire. And that was with a fairly well battle-tested army that had training, military equipment and combined arms. 

The idea that a bunch of random dudes with guns are going to deal with the military is not particularly realistic. And that's assuming they care a fucking damn about limiting civilian casualties. 

As to taking pot shots at gun owners, I don't know where you get that at all. Most gun owners aren't trained formally - maybe 3-5% are. Most gun accidents happen with poorly trained people as well. Are you denying that most gun owners don't have much in the way of skill with their guns? Do you honestly believe that of the 100 million gun owners, most are particularly proficient with it?

[Swordfish]

19 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You think that 100 million people with a 'passing familiarity with a gun' can stand against 1 million military?

Okay, let's go with this as a response: how many US troops were lost when fighting against Iraq in 2003 - from, say, the first start of conflict in March to the 'mission accomplished' bit in May? There were about 580 total casualties in the first year of 2003 for all the united forces in Iraq. There were only 212 casualties in those first 3 months. The estimates of Iraqi casualties? Around 15,000. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that the Iraqis didn't bother engaging this time - they just melted away and became insurgents.

For Desert Storm, estimates were that as many as 100,000 Iraqis died and 300k were wounded. There were a total of 148 deaths in the US, and 35 of which were due to friendly fire. And that was with a fairly well battle-tested army that had training, military equipment and combined arms. 

The idea that a bunch of random dudes with guns are going to deal with the military is not particularly realistic. And that's assuming they care a fucking damn about limiting civilian casualties. 

 

Wow.  I don't even know where to begin with this mess.  You've reduced me to bullet points.  i'm gonna stick to jsut the obvious problems with this comparison, because frankly, I think this is sort of a waste of time at this point.

• I had no idea you considered the invasion and occupation of Iraq to be such a smashing success.  This is good to know.  because frankly, it seems to me that the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan would seem to counter your argument rather than bolster it.
• The ENTIRE population of Irag is around 33 million.  I think you have the issue that most people have which is the inability (or possibly selective unwillingness in this case) to comprehend the scope and scale of very large numbers.
• I'm not clear on why casualty numbers are the key metric here.  This isn't a video game.  The team with the most kills does not automatically win.
• Surely you understand the difference between a standing army that must meet another army in the field in order to prevent the occupation of their country, and what would amount to an internal guerrilla campaign over a vast geographic area, right?  Because they are not, like, even remotely the same thing.

 

Ultimately we'll have to simply agree to disagree on this.  Objectively, we have many examples of forces much much smaller than 100 million overcoming staggering odds to overthrow governments.  So it's a certainty that there would be a non trivial chance of success in such a situation in the US for a plethora of reasons. Hopefully for us, it's not something we'll ever have to find out about in detail.

 

 

 

[Rippounet]

10 hours ago, Swordfish said:

This is almost completely and entirely wrong.  There has been very little struggle to justify gun rights.  And it's not a struggle because it's guaranteed in the constitution.  The struggle is primarily on the side of those who endeavor to ban and register.

No. But then, the issue was rather uncontroversial until about fifty years ago. Meaning that guns could be bought easily and with little restrictions by most people, but the States' authority to place restrictions or even bans wasn't in question eiher.
In fact, for a long time the 2nd amendment was not considered to apply to State or local laws, which means that African-Americans were denied their 2nd amendment rights for a long time in the wake of the abolition of slavery. That's like... American history 101.
But generally speaking, until 2008, the 2nd amendment was read under a "collective rights theory" meaning that no individual right to bear arms was deemed to exist. The Supreme Court considered that there had to be a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" for an individual to have a firearm. So restrictions or bans were 100% constitutional. In fact, the NRA supported many of them at least up to 1967.
Your entire argumentation is based on an interpretation of the 2nd amendment that only dates back to the 1970s or so, when the NRA started pushing a new perspective on the 2nd amendment. Again, said perspective only gained legal standing in 2008. In the meantime, it was an uphill battle and not a few prominent Americans spoke against it, like Warren Burger in 1991.
With all due respect, you have shown several times now that you are blinded by your ideological beliefs, and I'm growing tired of having to explain the laws and history of your own country to you. I'll leave you some time to do a bit of reading and ignore you for a few months now.