But, what if the community doesn't want a weapon - purchased under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment - or its wielder, amidst ?
Is the weapon to defend "My Country/State" ? Right then : store your M60's and grenade launchers, etc. at a local National Guard Armoury. (There may be need to build and staff neighbourhood armouries, and those capable of paying for such amenities should be enjoindered to do so). Registry is mandatory, but not made available to other parties, apart from gunshops.
"My City" ? Okay, store your assault and sniper rifles, and sub-machine guns, etc. at the precinct, or other city-operated location. Registration particulars are not made available outside of the department of local government.
At which point things move out of the need to notify government at all...
"My Neighbourhood" ? Simple : take a poll of all your adult neighbours - bearing in mind that the larger the areal "neighbourhood", the wider the range of available weaponry - and, after a notary public has determined the validity of all polled, and signed off on it, present it to the gunshop, along with a signed statement from a third-party as to the existence and efficacy of storage arrangements for weapon and ammunition. At this point we're probably "down to" pistol-calibered sub-machineguns and semi-automatic riflery.
And, of course, "My Family". Weaponswise, unless you own a large tract of land, your 2nd amendment rights will probably entitle you to a pistol andor small-bore "tactical shotgun". Less, if you're in a hi-rise or basement apartment.
Oh wait, we almost forgot the clickbait-du-jour, "Elementary Schools". What do you think ? Like other small-building based communities such as churches or supermarkets, the attendees of such would comprise most of the vote. Bear in mind that there has to exist reasonable options for dissenters (from either side). Nobody coerced to carry; storage onsite.
All in total disregard for any hunting, competitive target-shooting, or "personal defense" wants, which have sweetfuckall to do with the Second Amendment in the first place.-- FlyingToaster, Mar 07 2018 Freedom. https://i.pinimg.co...unny-meme-funny.jpgLookin' good. [doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018] Another day, another amazing amount of problems solved. https://www.youtube...watch?v=6frs86Szk_0 [doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018] 2nd amendment https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=diz-8FzHOLM... meaning and intended purpose [spidermother, Oct 06 2020] Snopes "debunks" the idea that signers of the Declaration Of Independence suffered any hardships for their actions. https://www.snopes....he-price-they-paid/My favorite line is "While It is true that a number of signers saw their homes and property occupied, ransacked, looted, and vandalized by the British (and even in some cases by the Americans). However, this activity was a common part of warfare." [doctorremulac3, Oct 07 2020, last modified Oct 08 2020] The primary purpose of the second amendment is protection against the government itself. The requirement for registration and government-run storage makes this impossible. Your restrictions are arbitrary and your categories are uninformed. And I have no clue what you're trying to say in the paragraphs starting with "My x". If this is satire it meets Poe's law. If it's a real rant I believe you're severely under-educated as to the actual effects of gun control laws. In either case this is not an idea.-- Voice, Mar 07 2018 It is an Idea : I'm not claiming it's a magic idea.
//The requirement for registration and government-run storage // specifically applies to those whose 2A ambitions are to be minutemen for said government(s), or who simply do not include that level of government in their list of potential enemies to be organized against requiring armed action. Usefully, it removes such weapons from people's homes, where they're otherwise pointlessly stored.
In the case of defending a school, there's no mention of registration : even the school board need not be notified - why would a teacher who specifically wanted to exercise 2A rights in defense of their charges have to be responsible for care and feeding of a weapon outside of office hours ?
The question is : what are you trying to protect ? The shopkeeper with a 12-gauge under the counter is not "militia", nor "organized". His/her defensive armaments should not be considered supported by 2A.
The guy wanting to defend the suburban cul-de-sac against biker gangs and swarms of karaoke singers should really not have a .50cal, and should have the support of his neighbours for what he does have - more in line with the "militia" and "organized" bit, given as reasoning for the "right to bear arms".
If you're talking purely about defence against government then well dang and how come you're not in California taking potshots at politicians, if what your mandate is is protecting the "American way of life".-- FlyingToaster, Mar 07 2018 I just bet that this idea is going to lead to a short, snappy, non-rambling discussion in which a consensus will quickly be reached. I'm prepared to help.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 07 2018 // I just bet //
What odds are you offering ?
Oh, and what [Voice] said.-- 8th of 7, Mar 07 2018 //protection against the government itself// I've always wondered about that. A century ago, it makes sense. But I have two questions:
(1) Have there been any instances in the last 50 years where citizens have legitimately defended themselves against the government with arms?
(2) If not, can anyone provide a plausible scenario whereby this might happen and stand a chance of being successful?-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 07 2018 //I'm prepared to help.// As usual.
The initial intent of the post was to point out that those in whose defence a munition is nominally purchased might prefer not to be thusly protected, and that a neighbourhood for instance might vote not to allow military firearms to be kept within its borders. (No percentage, eg: >50% is specified in the post)
I may at some time rearrange the post to make that point, rather than bass-ackwardly putting the footnotes up top.
[Voice] incorrectly states that 2A intent is solely to provide reasonable push against the shove of a duly authorized government.
Which is at odds with the other point of the post : people don't purchase armaments solely to defend against the vagaries of their elected officials and civil henchservants. The proposals to arm teachers for instance are not just in case the cops come busting the door down during first period Geography, or the Air Force decides the school gym would be a good place to plant a 500lb bomb.
//Have there been any instances in the last 50 years where citizens have legitimately defended themselves against the government with arms?//
Recentish : something about cattle grazing and national parks' usage in Montana or East Dakota or somewhere. Armed standoff, not armed conflict.
//can anyone provide a plausible scenario whereby this might happen and stand a chance of being successful?//
Well, there was the Texas "<mumble> Branch Davidian" thing... unsuccessful in their case.-- FlyingToaster, Mar 07 2018 //Have there been any instances in the last 50 years where citizens have legitimately defended themselves against the government with arms?//
A very pivotal one comes to mind. There was an incident where the Obama administration wanted to tell Americans this particular area they worked on wasn't their land, the Americans took up arms, stood up to the armed government forces who backed down and the American people eventually won in court.
This wouldn't have happened if they weren't armed. That's the second amendment in action.
My counter question for the Brits out there: Under what circumstances would you stand up to your government with force of arms, stepping onto the battlefield knowing full well you might never see your family again? At what point, if any, do you say "Enough is enough, I'd rather die in battle than live under such tyranny."?-- doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018 //There was an incident // Well, that answers my question. Fair point well made.
// Under what circumstances would you stand up to your government with force of arms// I think the prevailing attitude in the UK is that we are _are_ the government. Or at least we're not as alienated from ours as you are from yours.
The last lot of people we had to stand up to, rather than living under tyranny, came from Germany. We all sort of chipped in and beat them. Twice, come to think of it - it was two nil.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 07 2018 I'm asking about you, not them. And against your government, not a foreign country.
Keep in mind, this is a theoretical question, if your response is "Our government could never do anything evil." well, guess I have my answer.
That being said, knowing you don't have a first amendment over there, maybe I shouldn't push this too hard on this question. I don't want to get anybody in trouble.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018 Oh, OK, me personally? At a push I'd emigrate. Not the ideal solution, but I have a sneaking suspicion that, if I have a gun, the government will have a bigger one. Plus, my understanding is that our airforce still has at least two planes capable of dropping bombs, and I can't really afford to match that on my income at present.
Over here, we've set things up so that it's very difficult for the government to go too far against the wishes of the majority for too long. We've been trying this system out for a few hundred years, and if it continues to work for another two or three centuries we'll probably stick with it. It's not perfect, and there've been ups and downs, but on balance it seems to cause the fewest deaths overall. That might change tomorrow, of course, and then my word won't we all feel silly?
Obviously, in the US you have the counterexample of the native Americans, who wouldn't have been beaten by the immigrants (us, actually, at the time, I guess) had they been better armed - so I guess your system works too.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 07 2018 //Knowing you don't have a first amendment over there, maybe I shouldn't push this too hard on this question. I don't want to get anybody in trouble.//
You do realize that California is on the US - not UK - west coast, yes ?
//Obviously, in the US you have the counterexample of the native Americans, who wouldn't have been beaten by the immigrants (us, actually, at the time, I guess) had they been better armed //
Oddly enough, in Canada occasionally the indigenes show up with AK-47's when a sacred putting green is in danger of being turned into condos.-- FlyingToaster, Mar 07 2018 I believe my annotation was deleted. Here it is again: American guns again!!!!! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz borrrrrinnnnnng-- xenzag, Mar 07 2018 //At a push I'd emigrate.//
We're Americans, we all already ran once, we're not running any more.
We've declared that this is where we make our final stand, live free or die.
//I believe my annotation was deleted. Here it is again: American guns again!!!!! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz borrrrrinnnnnng//
You're the single most boring poster on this site. "I HATE TRUMP! I HATE TRUMP! I HATE TRUMP! I HATE TRUMP! I HATE TRUMP! I HATE TRUMP! I HATE TRUMP! I HATE TRUMP! I HATE TRUMP! I HATE TRUMP! I HATE TRUMP! I HATE TRUMP!"
Soooo interesting.
The adults are talking here, go poke pins in your Trump doll.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018 //I believe my annotation was deleted//
If it was deleted , wasn't by my hand. Maybe check your keyboard, see if any blame-deflecting idiots are at the controls.-- FlyingToaster, Mar 07 2018 okay, now *that* one was me. Perhaps the occasional bit of editing to curb unrelated enthusiasms, yes ?-- FlyingToaster, Mar 07 2018 LOL, we do have some fun here don't we?-- doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018 //okay, that one was me. // Just a reminder that deletion of annotations can bring out the soup dragon, and when it was done to me before, the person was kicked out of the HB. See the help file: de rules are de rules. Reasons for termination: "...... to persistently delete other users' criticism of one's inventions"-- xenzag, Mar 07 2018 // LOL, we do have some fun here don't we?//
We do indeed... too bad the toolset doesn't include half-editing.... hint, hint.-- FlyingToaster, Mar 07 2018 //Just a reminder that deletion of annotations can bring out the soup dragon//
"You call me immature again I'm gonna tell!" Cheese it, we got a snitch!
Seriously Xen, people come here to debate sometimes, there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it nobody's forcing you to participate.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018 // //okay, that one was me. // Just a reminder that deletion of annotations can bring out the soup dragon [etc]//
Probably an unnecessary reminder [x] : the regulars here are familiar with - and adhere to - the rules and guidelines, and most newbies tend to settle down after realizing there's little joy in trolling through deletion.
Meanwhile, while your original "deleted" anno (quoties in the sense that I never saw the anno in the first place, so can't verify that it actually existed) may have been relevant to the thread, granted solely in a meta sense, the one that I actually did delete consisted of nothing more than an off-topic, unamusing, personal attack.
Something like the latter half of [doc-emacs] one, upstream a bit.-- FlyingToaster, Mar 07 2018 Meanwhile, it seems Americans think their 2nd Amendment is _solely_ for the purpose of defying duly-elected governments and civil-henchservants ?
Seriously ? (seriously?) No room for temporary deputization by local law enforcement against say heavily armed karaokers holed up in a formerly reputable drinking establishment ? (and more likely scenarios as portrayed in any movie where "a small town is terrorized...").
No room for those who don't want the ongoing burden of being a National Guardsman, but want to practice in case their country actually does need them ?-- FlyingToaster, Mar 07 2018 Actually the word I used was "primary", which very strongly implies there are secondary purposes. You couldn't be more wrong about this than if you said the earth is made of chocolate pudding, but the rules imply Jutta doesn't want the half bakery to become a forum for political debate. Once more, this is a political rant, or at best a let's all, not an idea. That's my final word ITT.-- Voice, Mar 07 2018 /Something like the latter half of [doc-emacs] one//
Like he said, he deleted my response to you as well. I believe I had said "I BID YOU GOOD DAY!!" or something like that.
Who cares? Let it go.
And Doc eMac is my new rapper handle.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018 //We've declared that this is where we make our final stand, live free or die. // Well, that's a bold and worthy statement. We came up with an alternative that works better for us and achieves the "live" bit whilst avoiding most of the "die" part. But clearly there are costs and benefits to either option, so please feel free to carry on.
Here's a genuine question. I know that laws vary from state to state; but are there states in which you're allowed to own sufficient weapons to make a serious stand against the US armed forces? What I mean is, are you allowed to own a cruise missile if you were so inclined and could afford one? And (another question springs to mind), why _is_ there variation from state to state, given that the constitution presumably applies equally to all states?-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 07 2018 [Voice ] Thanks for re-weighing in : you're right - I missed that bit, though I disagree, in that historically the primary purpose would probably have been an economical alternative to a standing army, or at least weighted much more in that direction.
Meanwhile, the Idea was not written to be a disguised rant, nor political lobbying in a country that I don't reside in, and there actually is a category called "gun control".
The actual idea - however poorly I phrased it - is to
a) give people who believe that their rights are - however ephemerally - not in danger from an extant governmental level, a place to park their cannons, and
b) give discrete groups of people the choice to opt out - if they so desire - from protection by other citizens, or be able to dictate a reasonable level of weapons capability for their personal and group-shared ground.
The "a" option simply moves a number of potential weapons out of reach of opportunistic nuts, thieves, dumbass friends and children, while "b" serves those who do not believe in themselves, nor their neighbours vis-a-vis weapons ownership.
Concerning schools, as an example, "a" would allow a teacher/staff member to store a scenario-specific weapon in a school without having to commute with it, nor store it at home, while "b" could have a majority (of whatever numerical definition) vote by parents/legal-age students to allow/disallow weapons on school grounds.-- FlyingToaster, Mar 07 2018 //are there states in which you're allowed to own sufficient weapons to make a serious stand against the US armed forces? What I mean is, are you allowed to own a cruise missile if you were so inclined and could afford one? //
Got it, the idea that the U.S. military could never be defeated by a bunch of guys without high tech weapons. Might want to do a little research on that one.
Aside from that, in your scenario, the progressive's fantasy of the U.S. military being turned against the people to slaughter all those Trump supporters has a couple of problems.
1- Posse Comitatus Act. You can't use the U.S. military against the American people and even if you could...
2- Even in China, during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the local military forces refused to murder their own people so forces from other provinces needed to be called in to do the job.
Doubtful this is going to happen in America. The vast majority of members of the U.S. military are very pro Constitution and joined to protect the people of this country. They're also for the most part, very conservative, just like most police.
So the fevered dreams of progressives such as nuking "those damned rednecks" is probably never going to happen.
Counter question: what, if anything do they teach in English schools about freedom of self determination, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to petition the government to address grievances and the like?-- doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018 Ah, got it. So the aim is to be able to resist government forces other than the US military; and those other government forces (police?) are not prohibited from being used against the people, whereas the military are?-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 07 2018 The aim is to defend yourself against anybody who would harm you.
Pretty simple stuff here.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018 Yep. Go for it.
Maybe it's a question of time. In England, you don't have to go back more than a few centuries to find a time where private armies were the norm, and any citizen with anything worth taking would own the most advanced weapon they could afford, to defend themselves against anyone including the state. So, in that context, Americans are not a different species from the English.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 07 2018 We are cousins, both genetically linked and culturally linked. Remember, we were British too once upon a time.
Unfortunately we got a taste of freedom. (see link)
I just want to add, loving one's country doesn't necessarily mean somebody thinks his is the only country on Earth that has any good properties and that other countries are inferior. It's not a contest where there's only one winner. On the contrary, I have great respect for people who love their countries, it's what you're supposed to do. If it's got problems, fix them.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018 //Seriously Xen, people come here to debate sometimes, there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't like it nobody's forcing you to participate.// You are quite correct, but I long for a return of the "old HB" and not these endless dismal debates over Americans exterminating each other. Give them every gun on the planet (they have most of them already anyway) and let them get on with it, but keep it out of the HB. Surely this is not a debating platform for the immature politics of a retarded society?-- xenzag, Mar 07 2018 //Unfortunately we got a taste of freedom. // Well, I'm glad it worked out so well. We chose children's lives. Enjoy.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 07 2018 You don't get to tell people what they can talk about. (Xen)
//Well, I'm glad it worked out so well. Enjoy.//
America is so happy that you approve. We can sleep at night now.
Hey, hold on a second, Max, have you ever been here?-- doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018 [doc], I am half American and have spent plenty of time there. I've even got the passport somewhere.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 07 2018 Ok, good, I had always made that assumption. Just wanted to check.
//I am half American//
You and Churchill, you're in good company.
//We chose children's lives. Enjoy.//
Too bad you're not making enough to replenish your dying country.-- doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018 Nice one, [doc]. Our turnover's lower.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 07 2018 Can I just hit the Hitler button now? I don't think anybody's brought him up in a while, we're due.
OK, I gotta get some work done. Whatever it was we were arguing about, we'll declare it a draw. (see link)-- doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018 It's pretty clear that both systems work, yours for the US, ours for our dying country. Each alternative has its costs, and each country, on balance, accepts those costs in return for the respective benefits.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 07 2018 (link)-- doctorremulac3, Mar 07 2018 You can't beat the state. You end up sitting under a tree, or lying next to a park bench. No explosives used.-- wjt, Mar 09 2018 // No explosives used. //
That's just so depressing ...-- 8th of 7, Mar 09 2018 Fortunately, there's no need to guess what the framers SAID the second amendment was for (link).-- spidermother, Oct 06 2020 Can we all agree on one thing?...
The amendment was written during a time when self preservation was paramount?
Can we agree on that?
Well, some places are still frontier. Folks expect to be able to fend for themselves the way they've always done. Nobody is coming to save you while the wolves are chasing you back home and damn the man who says you've not the right. <spits>
That mentality takes some time to adjust from.
I know for sure because the man who tells me I'm not allowed to take a firearm into the bush when I'm alone can go fuck himself.I don't need a scrap of paper telling me that nobody but me will protect me in the back country... and there's no way you'll con me to pay for one.
Cities though?... Yep. There should be totally separate urban and rural rules when it comes to firearms.
Problem is; cities sprawl...-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Oct 06 2020 There are times and places where being armed is more likely to save ones' life than others, and I won't dispute that much of North America a couple of hundred years ago was in the "more likely" category.
My beef is more with "... should be..." and "... allowed ...". Allowed by whom?-- spidermother, Oct 06 2020 Exactly. These "allowances" would be reviewed and controlled by the ruling class who've decided THEIR need for guns is un-questionable because they're needed to keep the prols in line.
And still, there's debate about who the founders were talking about when they referred to "the people". Pretty sure they're referring to the people.-- doctorremulac3, Oct 06 2020 get thee behind me...
The Bill of Rights codifies the Bill of Rights. There is no need to demonstrate need of inalienable rights.-- theircompetitor, Oct 06 2020 As long as I suffered under the delusion that some people had the moral right to make rules, and others had the moral duty to obey those rules, I wasn't even asking the right questions.
When a discussion tends to turn into a headbanging session, it's often because the underlying principles are not being addressed. The question is not so much "which guns should people be allowed to have?" as "am I your bitch?".-- spidermother, Oct 06 2020 LOL, I'm picturing that being said in the style of Samuel Jackson in the Pulp Fiction scene.
No link necessary since I assume most people can recite that classic scene line by line from memory.-- doctorremulac3, Oct 06 2020 :)-- spidermother, Oct 06 2020 What dire change of status or need arose this tired thread?-- RayfordSteele, Oct 06 2020 Bitch status of course.Keep up.
tsh-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Oct 07 2020 <kidding>
Like I actually have a clue...-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Oct 07 2020 Many years ago I was at a lecture at a college (not a college lecture) and the old instructor said something like this:
"Now in the next 4 years you kids are going to learn a lot of crazy things. You don't know what I'm talking about now, but some time after you graduate you'll start thinking back on all the other stuff you learned here, and when you do I hope you will remember this and remember the founding principles of America. Now to help you remember I'll give $100 to the first person who can correctly recite the first two sentences of the Declaration of Independence."
// When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
// We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.-- sninctown, Oct 07 2020 You remembered.He would be pleased.
I will give these words thought.-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Oct 07 2020 Thank you snictown. The last line is pretty amazing, the idea that the elites, the people with the money and power, would consider it important to give that power to the people like that, then to put high on the list of priorities the humanitarian concept of "...most likely to effect their safety and happiness." is incredible.
And these weren't just fancy lads pontificating to impress the upper classes with their ability to put feather to parchment. (See link. Snopes, a leftist spin site tries valiantly to play down their sacrifices.) They put their lives and everything they had on the line to do so and some lost that gamble. Keep in mind, had they just done what the king told them to, they would have done quite well.-- doctorremulac3, Oct 07 2020 random, halfbakery