10 ms·

The question to ask from here (for you US readers) -- why ban american civilians from owning the same types of weapons as the government allows the military to?

by compee 14y ago

The question to ask from here (for you US readers) -- why ban american civilians from owning the same types of weapons as the government allows the military to? In the spirit of the constitution it seems as though our founding fathers would have wanted us, the american people, the same rights to own any type of weapon the government has access to^ for reasons of protecting the people against (potential) attacks from our government; if there is an inequality in weaponry available there is an induced inequality of power. ^Fixed typo

stcredzero 14y ago
Also, given that the 2nd amendment puts this in the context of a "well regulated militia," why not put wait list and verification requirements on buyers who come off the street, but also enable gun ownership through state-sponsored (as opposed to federal) militia groups? This way, gun ownership comes in a social/civic context.
- angersock 14y ago
  If I recall correctly, Switzerland require their citizens to retain a service rifle at home. Something like your proposal would help alleviate many of the civic and political concerns with government regulation and bans on firearms.
  - nikatwork 14y ago
    It's only Swiss males aged 20-34 serving in the militia who are issued with a firearm to keep at home. The kicker is that the gun has no bullets. The bullets are issued if you are mustered [1]. As someone else pointed out in this thread, we don't allow citizens to carry bazookas or nukes. The line must be drawn somewhere. You can ban and buyback assault weapons without banning all firearms. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland e: removed snark
- carsongross 14y ago
  Why not kick the whole problem down to where it constitutionally belongs: the states. The constitution is gob-smackingly clear on the issue: the federal government is not to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. It's also clear (but denied, depending on the issue in question, by both the right and the left) that the states can do whatever they damned well please in order to maintain what their people feel is a well trained (that is, "well regulated") militia, from tight restrictions on gun ownership, to allowing automatic weapons. I dunno, maybe Texas should be free to be Texas, and New York can go ahead and be New York. If the states just left each other alone, The Big Sort would take care of 99% of these issues. Of course, there isn't much money in that...
OGinparadise 14y ago
why ban american civilians from owning the same types of weapons as the government allows the military to? Tanks and F16s are a bit too dangerous though :). Even a shotgun will beat an extremely well trained army, provided millions of guerrilla fighters own them. IIRC, the fear was (is) that X Party will pass a law or simply arm their supporters, who would then take over given that Y Party supporters are disarmed. And that the Feds would seek to take away state's rights by force. Personally I'm not a big fan of disarming the populace. Strange things have happened.
- rdtsc 14y ago
  > Tanks and F16s are a bit too dangerous though :) But doesn't not having them mock and basically nullify the whole idea behind 2nd Amendment? It is doubtful that the writers wanted people be able to protect themselves against thieves, wild bears or to be able to hunt. I think few can argue against that the reason was exactly what the grandparent mentioned. "Arms" in that time's words meant pretty much the same qualitative level of force as what the government possessed. So a 100 militia men vs 100 government soldiers would make for an even match. Unless that parity is preserved the Amendment is pointless pretty much. Arguing that tanks, F16s, satellites, and nukes are too dangerous kind of mocks the original intent of the law. That is why I don't really see a point in that amendment. It is left there for for who like to worship a piece of paper and follow on with the ritual instead of understanding the meaning of it. Now all these "constitutionally protected" guns are probably used most often for drunk family members to shoot each other, or for kids to sneak in their parents gun cabinet and play with them. That is why I say 2nd Amendment should be either allowed to be fully used according to its spirit (don't see people allowed to own nukes though) or it should be repealed as it is pretty much pointless at the moment.
  - OGinparadise 14y ago
    So a 100 militia men vs 100 government soldiers would make for an even match. Unless that parity is preserved the Amendment is pointless pretty much. Nope, 100 soldiers entering a town can be decimated by 10-15 people using guerrilla tactics and run of the mill rifles. Short of a genocide (would US soldiers do that?) there is nothing the US Armed Forces can do. Look what happened in Iraq and not that many Iraqis took arms against US /Iraqi government.
jmillikin 14y ago
The second amendment may have originally been intended to protect the population from the federal government, but subsequent advances in weapons technology and military tactics have rendered that protection completely ineffective. At the same time, these advances make it possible for even a single person to inflict incredible harm on a population, harm far beyond what the writers of the constitution could have imagined. The argument therefore is that widespread possession of particularly dangerous weapons by the general population has no benefit and substantial drawbacks. Nobody is seriously considering banning ownership of rifles, but it's worth discussing how more stringent requirements on training, registration, and storage could reduce the number of deaths by firearm.
- compee 14y ago
  I honestly don't see any direct correlation with regards to what you are trying to say. Could you elaborate? The only reason to have weapons (in a primitive sense) is for killing animals for food and for certain games related to specific types of weaponry (and wars, but why do we want those?). If some individuals feel the need to own a firearm of any kind to protect themselves (or to protect others from the dangerous people out there), then they should be able to buy the weaponry they feel they need/want to protect themselves and the people most important to them. If it is understood in American culture that anyone around you may be carrying a gun at all times (or perhaps maybe not); it creates good behavior within society through induced paranoia toward people who have a mindset toward committing crimes.
  - GiraffeNecktie 14y ago
    Except that that's not at all true. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fa...
    - compee 14y ago
      Would you mind explicitly stating the flaw in my argument instead of directing me to some website? I can (and often do) read articles of this nature but with a title of "Pro Gun Myths" I'd rather cut out any potential bias and hear your direct argument.
hawkharris 14y ago
This recurring suggestion always offends my friends and family members who are serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. To say that private gun ownership is the only thing preventing a gov't takeover is to imply that the military lacks discipline, judgement and sophistication. Fortunately, Americans don't need to rely on guns to restrain and exert pressure on their military or their government. As a nation we have chosen a different course, a democratic system of checks and balances that (while certainly flawed) is among the world's most effective.
- chii 14y ago
  how is the millitary going to protect civilians when its their superiors who ask them to slaughter? The armed forces are bound by millitary rules, and i m certain that doesn't include defending one's personal belief.

compee 14y ago

It would be worth mentioning that to develop nuclear weapons there would be a need to develop them, for something. If we could just step back for a moment and ask the simple question of "Why do we need nuclear weapons?" there is no good reason for anyone to have them.

rdtsc 14y ago
Nuclear weapons are the key (if not _the_ key) bargaining chip when dealing between governments. There is a distinct and clear difference between the approach taken when dealing with nuclear countries and non-nuclear ones. So one cannot deny that nuclear weapons are part of the "arms" definition of today. If you wield them and can convince others that you can and will use them (without privately actually intending to use them) you can get all kinds of concessions and a great leverage politically. For anyone to be able to bully or threaten the US govt. they need to be a credible threat. That's why "arms" were allowed, militia with muskets where pretty darn dangerous back in the day because the government also didn't have anything else except muskets. 1000 displeased citizens were a really huge problem in that day. They wanted the government to never get comfortable, they wanted it to be easily overthrow-able and replaceable if needed. That's the idea. Without satellites, drones, serious weapons semi automatic assault rifles and pistols are just kids toys and do nothing but let drunk family members shoot each other.
- compee 14y ago
  You are stating all of this within the context that the governments should have nuclear weapons. The people (around the world) should have free and open nuclear power. Just because we have nuclear weapons does not mean we should have to use them in negotiations. Sure it helps to have power in any negotiating situation but why do we even get to a point? Isn't that akin to saying "We have power. You don't. Do what we want." This is not how government should be run. Feel free to message me to continue discussion.
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > Just because we have nuclear weapons does not mean we should have to use them in negotiations. This contradicts a bedrock diplomatic principle: one must pay attention, not to your opponent's stated intentions, but to his capabilities. Therefore if your opponent has nuclear weapons, it doesn't matter what he says he's going to do, it only matters what he is capable of with everything at his disposal. Therefore, in negotiations, the existence of nuclear weapons becomes the elephant in the room, regardless of what's actually being discussed. > Isn't that akin to saying "We have power. You don't. Do what we want." This is not how government should be run. But that is how governments are run. One must pay attention to reality as well as ideals. Remember that politics is the art of the possible.