US Gun Laws

[DaShi]

What about Fox News?

[Al B. Sure!]

But could you do it without getting caught by the FBI first? Doubt it.

The ATF is usually the bureau which raids weapons stockpiles.

The thing that gets me is how/why is it illegal to stockpile munitions assuming that all the individual weapons are legal? Is there a certain point where it's like 'Ok. That's the 23rd rifle. Time to close in on these guys"?

[Felch]

Nope. There are state limitations in some cases, but that's not an ATF issue.

Around here you can get a pretty good semi-auto rifle for about $500 after fees and taxes.

[notyoueither]

The "Battle of Athens" seems to have been little more than an armed riot, which ended quickly. Whether the Guard sympathized with the local GIs would depend on their familiarity with the situation, among other things. Their awareness of circumstances will depend a good deal on the flow of information--which is controlled to some extent by the government. It's hard to say what would happen if it had turned into a real insurrection, but I submit to you that a prolonged battle of "aggressive action" such as Felch suggests would have the armed forces quite eager to waste them, if it didn't simply turn the citizenry against the rebels for inviting reprisals. The best you could hope for in such a situation is the government deciding to defuse the situation with some concessions. At worst, the revolt splinters, faction fights faction and it all degenerates into a hopeless bloody mess. Which justifies almost any action that will restore order, including carpet-bombing opposition strongholds with napalm.

In any case, smuggled firearms would be readily available from one source or another, and the weapons commonly possessed by civilians would be of extremely limited use. They would need to up the ante with greater firepower to stand a chance--which makes the Second Amendment kinda moot. Oh boy, you legally owned a hunting rifle, and two of your neighbors had pistols, and that one John Birch nut down the street had an Uzi. I'm sure the gummint's shaking in its jackboots.

If I were to rank the first eight amendments by their importance in defense of liberty, I would put #1 squarely at the top where it belongs; information is the real weapon. Then the ones about bills of attainder and habeas corpus, etc. #2 would go at the bottom, right above involuntary quartering of troops.

You're missing the point.

Yes, the conventional militaries of the US, Russia, China, the UK, France, etc could lay waste to entire areas of their own respective countries, however they do not want to (by and large).

Conventional militaries are trained to kill; killing when the state needs him or her to is the primary purpose of a soldier. Part of how militaries are able to recruit and train human beings to become homosapiens exterminator units is by inculcating an us and them mentality. The problem with ordering the military to take harsh actions against the people they grew up around and still have loved ones living among is that the units that make up the military begin to question who is the us and who is the them. This contradiction of purpose and task affects the rank and file right up through the ranks to the top. A regime can order the military into the streets only to see the units of that military beseiging the regime itself.

Have a read on the Second October Revolution and Yeltsin's takeover of the Russian state. The way the army was going to go was unclear until very late in the game, and I would assure you that the generals most likely went the way they knew they could keep control of their forces. BTW, that incident also illustrates that not all cases of revolution and armed resistence to established authority need be just a bunch of yokels with a few shotguns and some dogs. You could have a conflict among accepted authorities. Can't see how that could happen in the highly partisan environment in the USofA, nope, not a bit.

Another good example is the PRC and Tiananmen. The ruling authorities took great pains to find units that would likely be reliable and knew they had to finish the job quickly and with whatever ferocity that required. Having the military in the streets, crushing the 'people' who form the P in the PLA would not have held up for an unlimited amount of time.



Further useful reading can be found in the cases of resistence movements to Nazi occupation. Small groups of civilians apparently found small arms useful. Following your thinking I can't figure out how.

As for the culture of the US and gun ownership, I don't really care. I started out by saying that you over estimate the effectiveness of professional militaries when it comes to civil wars, insurrection, and insurgency. That's all.

[The Mad Monk]

My Cabela's is having a sale!

[Arrian]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know off hand what the principled libertarian argument against private ownership of more powerful weapons (surface to air missles, artillery... nukes) is, if any? I don't really see it, at least based on a strict reading of the 2nd amendment.

-Arrian

[Asher]

I don't think there is any

[The Mad Monk]

Tanks and Jets are vehicles, so they don't count.

[Elok]

Have a read on the Second October Revolution and Yeltsin's takeover of the Russian state. The way the army was going to go was unclear until very late in the game, and I would assure you that the generals most likely went the way they knew they could keep control of their forces. BTW, that incident also illustrates that not all cases of revolution and armed resistence to established authority need be just a bunch of yokels with a few shotguns and some dogs. You could have a conflict among accepted authorities. Can't see how that could happen in the highly partisan environment in the USofA, nope, not a bit.

If there's a conflict among established authorities, there are modern armaments and trained soldiers on either side. Not a pertinent example.

Another good example is the PRC and Tiananmen. The ruling authorities took great pains to find units that would likely be reliable and knew they had to finish the job quickly and with whatever ferocity that required. Having the military in the streets, crushing the 'people' who form the P in the PLA would not have held up for an unlimited amount of time.

Running over unarmed, peaceful protesters with tanks? No, that's not comparable to putting down a revolt either. Satyagraha is a real *****, and I recommend rebels try it before hijacking tankers and looting hardware stores. It's harder to paint yourself as a victim when you're torching the houses of "collaborators" and doing other revolutionary-type stuff.

Further useful reading can be found in the cases of resistence movements to Nazi occupation. Small groups of civilians apparently found small arms useful. Following your thinking I can't figure out how.

While I don't know a lot of WWII history, I've been given to understand that

1. The Nazis were a foreign occupation.
2. The Nazis were busy fighting a bajillion-front war at the time.
3. Le Resistence did not actually, itself, liberate France or any portion thereof. That would be the massive invasion by U.S. forces. Using lots and lots of heavy equipment. The resistance were just an ongoing pain in Hitler's ass. No?

[Elok]

To be fair, I think there would be considerable reluctance among soldiers fighting their countrymen. How much exactly, I don't know. But if a bunch of guerrillas stand up to a dictator with rifles, get slaughtered for a while, and then see the dictator overthrown by the army when the troops get sick of killing their own, that's not really a ringing endorsement of the Second Amendment, is it? They can get their asses kicked equally well, if not better, without guns.

Just trying to tie it back in to the original...tangent.

[Arrian]

Tanks and Jets are vehicles, so they don't count.

That's nice. I didn't list either of those.

-Arrian

[Cort Haus]

That would be the massive invasion by U.S. forces.

*cough*

(on behalf of the Canadians as well)

[Asher]

*cough*

(on behalf of the Canadians as well)

[Asher]

FWIW, for the Americans that didn't know...

Normandy casualties:

United States–6,603, of which 2,499 fatal.
United Kingdom–2,700.
Canada–1,074, of which 359 fatal.

As you can see, Canada more than pulled its weight.

Specifically, Juno Beach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_Beach#Battle

By the end of D-Day the 3rd Canadian Division had penetrated farther into France than any other Allied force, advancing roughly 10 km at the cost of almost 1,000 casualties, including 335 killed. The 7th Infantry Brigade dug in at Banville and Reviers, while the 8th Brigade with the 10th Armoured Regiment reached Colomby-sur-Thaon. Part of the 9th Brigade, the North Nova Scotia Highlanders, together with the 27th Armoured Regiment, was at Villons-les-Buissons.

By the end of the next day, the Canadian forces had linked up with the British forces that had landed at Sword Beach. Although there was a gap where the British 3rd Infantry Division should have been, they were redirected to Lion-sur-Mer.

[Hauldren Collider]

FWIW, for the Americans that didn't know...

Normandy casualties:

United States–6,603, of which 2,499 fatal.
United Kingdom–2,700.
Canada–1,074, of which 359 fatal.

As you can see, Canada more than pulled its weight.

Only because it's incredibly lightweight.