The Battle of Athens (2 AUGUST 1946)

[Targan]

That's a fascinating slice of American history there Nate and I really enjoyed reading it. However your inclusion of "IX. The Lessons of Athens" was, in my opinion, unfortunate. It reads as anti-gun control propaganda. IMHO of course.

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Targan

That's a fascinating slice of American history there Nate and I really enjoyed reading it. However your inclusion of "IX. The Lessons of Athens" was, in my opinion, unfortunate. It reads as anti-gun control propaganda. IMHO of course.

yeah.. i know. i included that in so the entire essay could be read, and everyone could take the time to make up their own mind about the situtation.

Heck, I beleive that any American Citizen should be able to own any weapon, vehicle or peice of equipment that the US Armed Forces is able to get (except for WMD of course)...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Heck, I beleive that any American Citizen should be able to own any weapon, vehicle or peice of equipment that the US Armed Forces is able to get (except for WMD of course)...

Indeed. I wonder, is that a widely-held opinion in the US do you think? You don't think that might result in whole orders of magnitude worse violence and slaughter than already occurs? I must say, it seems quite a novel idea from where I'm sitting.

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by Targan

Indeed. I wonder, is that a widely-held opinion in the US do you think? You don't think that might result in whole orders of magnitude worse violence and slaughter than already occurs? I must say, it seems quite a novel idea from where I'm sitting.

Well, the founders intended that the Second Admendment would allow the citizens to be just as well armed as the government, since they would be the last line in defense against tryanny. And in all honesty, you don't write the laws for the anomalies that pop up. 90% of the privately owned guns in the united states have never been used in the commission of a crime.

ditto when it comes to drinking and driving.. do we blame the car for what happens? or blame the pencil for misspelled words or sppons for obesity?

if we had real laws to counter the use of firearms during the commission of criminal acts, the law would be to classify such activities as being more horrendous and punish the offenders thus. Not take the guns away from those whom would use them lawfully and responsibly.

[Targan]

Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my last post. I'm not suggesting taking handguns and rifles out of the hands of the American people, that's clearly not practical at this point. I was focussing on your suggestion that civilians be allowed to own any weapons and vehicles that the US military has. It was the thought of fully operational AFVs, grenades, RPGs and man-portable missiles in the hands of the general populace that I referred to as novel.

As for the second amendment, wasn't there a part about the right to bear arms for those involved with a "well regulated militia"? Private ownership of assault rifles by people who are not currently, and never have been, part of the military or police forces falls outside that wording doesn't it? That seems to be ignored or forgotten by the majority of those promoting private firearm ownership. Of course I'm not an American. Maybe there have been further amendments to that wording that I'm not aware of.

To be clear, I'd personally like to legally own handguns and military-style rifles. But I've been part of the military and have been trained to handle firearms, as have you. The thought of a bunch of handguns, assault rifles and ammo being kept in a house where a highly disturbed, introverted young man (whose own family had serious concerns about him) can easily get his hands on them just blows my mind.

[natehale1971]

Any able bodied citizen between the ages of 16 to 65 is considered a member of the militia (and thus why civilians can be 'deputized' to form up a posse during manhunts). All the way up to WW1 well-to-do citizens would foot the bill for the purchase of cannons, horses and firearms to be kept for their local armory. There as a story of three well-to-do Americans traveling trhough France during the Revolution, that were looking for a high-quality cannon for their artillery componet of their militia unit.

If you are qualified to fly a helicopter, you should then be able to acquire a helicopter gunship or transport. Being armed only with handguns and hunting rifles wouldn't stand a chance against an opressive state/federal government whose troops are armed with heavy weapons and armored vehicles.

The founders were very set on this... they wanted the progression of greiences to go... Soap box, Ballot Box, Jury Box and finally the Munition Box if nothing else has worked to get the government back into their limits and out of the lives of the citizens they are intruding upon.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Any able bodied citizen between the ages of 16 to 65 is considered a member of the militia (and thus why civilians can be 'deputized' to form up a posse during manhunts). All the way up to WW1 well-to-do citizens would foot the bill for the purchase of cannons, horses and firearms to be kept for their local armory. There as a story of three well-to-do Americans traveling trhough France during the Revolution, that were looking for a high-quality cannon for their artillery componet of their militia unit.

So you would argue that at this time every citizen of the United States of America aged between 16 and 65 could be accurately described as being part of a "well regulated militia"? Not just on paper or as a concept mind you. The modern equivalent of a "well regulated militia" would seem to me to involve perhaps compulsory military service, or some sort of State Guard-type arrangement, or at the very least some sort of regional police-citizenry training program for all young people in the year they turn 16 (which, by the way, I think sounds like an excellent idea).

Seriously, the real-life situation today is very, very different from that even 100 years ago, let alone during the time of the Revolutionary War. Back then a majority of Americans would need to know how to handle, maintain and use firearms and many communities would oftentimes have to police and protect themselves. I'm sorry but saying that all adult Americans are part of a well regulated militia in this day and age is, at best, paying lip service to the original ideals behind the second amendment, at worst a total fantasy. However I'd be happy to consider anyone with official military, paramilitary or police training to be, by default, part of a well regulated militia. That seems quite sensible to me.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Targan

Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my last post. I'm not suggesting taking handguns and rifles out of the hands of the American people, that's clearly not practical at this point. I was focussing on your suggestion that civilians be allowed to own any weapons and vehicles that the US military has. It was the thought of fully operational AFVs, grenades, RPGs and man-portable missiles in the hands of the general populace that I referred to as novel.

As for the second amendment, wasn't there a part about the right to bear arms for those involved with a "well regulated militia"? Private ownership of assault rifles by people who are not currently, and never have been, part of the military or police forces falls outside that wording doesn't it? That seems to be ignored or forgotten by the majority of those promoting private firearm ownership. Of course I'm not an American. Maybe there have been further amendments to that wording that I'm not aware of.

To be clear, I'd personally like to legally own handguns and military-style rifles. But I've been part of the military and have been trained to handle firearms, as have you. The thought of a bunch of handguns, assault rifles and ammo being kept in a house where a highly disturbed, introverted young man (whose own family had serious concerns about him) can easily get his hands on them just blows my mind.

Oddly enough Targan, with the right permit, and they are not that hard to get in the right places, you can get those items: AFV's, Grenades, and RPG's. Expensive as hell, but I do know a guy that does own a Mk19. Of course, you need a separate license for each live HE round - which isn't transferrable when you set said round off - making each round 200 bucks more than they cost - but you can do it.


As much as I want to scream at it - you got to love this country.

[bobcat]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

Well, the founders intended that the Second Admendment would allow the citizens to be just as well armed as the government, since they would be the last line in defense against tryanny. And in all honesty, you don't write the laws for the anomalies that pop up. 90% of the privately owned guns in the united states have never been used in the commission of a crime.

ditto when it comes to drinking and driving.. do we blame the car for what happens? or blame the pencil for misspelled words or sppons for obesity?

if we had real laws to counter the use of firearms during the commission of criminal acts, the law would be to classify such activities as being more horrendous and punish the offenders thus. Not take the guns away from those whom would use them lawfully and responsibly.

also at the time the constitution was ratified we had already fought the revolution and the war of 1812 literally on our own front lawns. militia were seen as our first line of defense against hostile nations and thus needed to be as well equipped as the regular army. and though some would argue that this is an obsolete way of thinking remember the enemies of the united states have proven they he the mean to attack us on our own soil an the capability to conduct significant damage in an urban environment.(ie 9/11, fort hood, Mumbai) thus we need the militia just as much now as we did then.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by bobcat

... have proven they he the mean to attack us on our own soil an the capability to conduct significant damage in an urban environment.(ie 9/11, fort hood, Mumbai) thus we need the militia just as much now as we did then.

Yeah.....

Militia. THE answer to a hijacked airliner, or attack on a base outside US borders.
Yup, I can see how the average man on the street with his automatic weapon is going to help out there.....

[/sarcasm]

Seriously!? How is allowing military grade weapons in the hands of civilians going to stop terrorist actions?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Seriously!? How is allowing military grade weapons in the hands of civilians going to stop terrorist actions?

It is hard for some non-Americans to understand the cost-benefit equations there. Still, none of us deny that it's the choice of Americans to make.If that's what you guys deem works best for you, best of luck to you.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Targan

Indeed. I wonder, is that a widely-held opinion in the US do you think? You don't think that might result in whole orders of magnitude worse violence and slaughter than already occurs? I must say, it seems quite a novel idea from where I'm sitting.

There are people in my country who legally own tanks with working guns, Bofors 40mm autocannons, and 7.62mm mini guns (just to name a few). The numbers of massacres that have happened with these weapons is exactly zero. The lone "tank rampage" that has happened was because the federal government's armor storage facility security consisted of a collapsed chain-link fence around a park of fully operational M60A3s. Make of that what you will.

[mikeo80]

Several years ago, I had an interesting conversation with my sister. She is your sterotypical Northeastern US Liberal. Bill CLinton should be nominated for saint hood type of thing.

She knows that I own guns. ALL purchased legally. Her opinion was "You have a police department. You do not need a gun."

My position was "Yes, Fayetteville, NC has a police department. A very good one most of the time. But what if they can not get to me during a crisis. (Read bad guy in house). What am I supposed to do? I am going to defend my self and my wife."

At least she said she would think about that. She never did come back with her answer.

So, thank you, founders of the USA. THank you for the Second Amendment. I would like to think that IF the Redcoats were marching down the road to take away a stockpile of weapons for the local militia, I would have been at Lexington Bridge.

My $0.02

Mike

[Targan]

I understand that with the proper vetting and payment of fairly stiff licence fees that in some US states civilians can own heavy weapons. It's been spoken about on this forum over the years. I also don't have a problem with people have small arms in their homes for defence, provided they are properly trained and licenced. Matter of fact I think my own country has gone waaay too far with its laws. The hoops I would have to jump through to have any kind of firearm in my house make it all but unviable. Having said that, I've strongly considered getting into IPSC shooting and having a .357 wheelgun in the house. It's monstrously expensive here though.

What I've been trying to convey is that gun crimes involving legal weapons (as opposed to gun crime involving illegal weapons which, let's face it, is bloody hard to prevent) basically comes down to availability. It's a simple probabilities equation. The more (even legal) firearms you have in a community, the higher the likelihood is that when people flip out, as they do in every community from time to time, they will have a firearm handy instead of a knife or a heavy blunt object or the makings of a home made bomb in their garden shed.

I hate the double-edged sword in this scenario. Personally I support the right of people to defend themselves in their homes. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is criminally trespassing in someone else's home and the resident shoots them to protect themselves and their loved ones, that's just too bad. Don't enter other peoples' properties uninvited. The problem is, if lots of people have assault rifles and lots of ammo easily available to them, from time to time someone is going to lose their sh*t and shoot a bunch of innocent people.

I don't see any easy answers for the people of America. I just hope the US finds some kind of middle ground that everyone can live with because if I lived in a country that suffered regular massacres involving firearms I'd definitely want something to change. And suggestions such as arming all the teachers with firearms both horrifies me and also seems like a classic case of treating the symptom rather than the disease. Not to mention that expecting teachers to occasionally have to go into close combat shootings situations seems, well, completely insane.