Police and Military Should Be The Only People With Guns

[pipoman]

and should certainly be the only people with modern guns. The rest of the public, if they must, can help themselves to arms of old so as not to interfere with or threaten in any meaningful way with the military or law enforcement.

Of coarse sarcasm goes without saying, yet it is amazing to me how many recent threads essentially advocate this very line of thinking. Some of the same posters who, while discussing civilian gun ownership, wish to tax ammunition beyond the ability of citizens to afford, or advocate strict bans on various types of guns also inject themselves into cop bashing threads showing absolute contempt for the power of law enforcement. Not to mention those who believe our industrial military complex is completely out of control.

Am I the only one who finds these posts and posters duplicitous?

[midnight]

1. Actually I don't think our police need guns.

They can serve and protect just fine without guns.

[RC]

2. Correct. If the population don't have guns, what would the need of the police and

military have for guns?

[virginia mountainman]

4. You can wish in one hand and crap in the other.....

....And see which gets filled first...


You cannot "un-invent" something, and I know that I would NEVER hand them in (other than a couple of "tokens" to get the man off my back) Not to mention, that reloading gear I got would be making me some serious money!

[slackmaster]

10. Guns cannot be un-invented

The Genie is out of the bottle. The horses has left the barn. Elvis has left the building.

There are hundreds of millions of them in circulation all over the world. To eliminate them would require getting everyone in every country to agree, including rogue nations, terrorist groups, and criminal gangs.

[hlthe2b]

3. They seem to be able to kll just fine wth tasers...

:sarcasm:

[ejpoeta]

5. i don't know about that. the reason for the 2nd amendment is....

so that we can rise up against our government if they get to be corrupt. there is a reason we have the right to bear arms, and it's not to go kill animals or to protect our homes from burglars. it's to protect ourselves from the government.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Then We Need Nukes, Cluster Bombs, and Other Goodies

No?

[SteveM]

12. Old stuff there, buddy. Do you have a reason for needing nukes etc.?

[tekisui]

14. How else are you going to compete with the US military?

A few hundred thousand guns won't do it.

[rl6214]

24. Do the combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan

have nukes, cluster bombs and other goodies?

[tekisui]

8. That's not how I read the 2nd.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says nothing of protection from our own governments. It was written to protect the Country from outside invasions. The Militias were to provide that protection, and the Militias needed to be armed. It wasn't written for Militias or individuals to fight the Country.

Regardless, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' is all that really matters. That line will keep guns in citizens' hands. The reason really doesn't matter.

[gorfle]

11. You need to read some contemporary literature.

It says nothing of protection from our own governments. It was written to protect the Country from outside invasions. The Militias were to provide that protection, and the Militias needed to be armed. It wasn't written for Militias or individuals to fight the Country.

You need to read contemporary documentation that provides more insight into the founders' intents. Try reading Federalist 29. There is a very specific reason why they wanted State and not Federally controlled military forces. Fear of tyranny by a powerful centralized government.

[tekisui]

15. Actually, I don't need to read any of that.

The only words that carry any weight, in a legal argument, are the ones that appear in the 2nd amendment.

[gorfle]

23. But you were advocating how to read it.

And in order to understand how to read it you need to understand the context in which it was written.

The Supreme Court Justices do this when rendering decisions about the Constitution; so should you. Read Heller. The decision was not read by reading the 2nd in a vacuum. It was done by interpreting the amendment in consideration of its historical context.

[spin]

16. Some quotes from two early American Presidents...

George Washington:

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_washington.html


Thomas Jefferson:

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.

Every generation needs a new revolution.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
http://www.brainyquote.com/search_brainyquote.html?cx=partner-pub-9038795104372754%3Ah6j3hj6vwcc&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=thomas+jefferson&sa=Search#929

[tekisui]

17. I have no problem with people owning guns.

The 2nd amendment guarantees it. However, it is absurd to think that those guns would protect you or a people from the fire power of the US government, if that was the conflict.

Washington and Jefferson lived before planes, bombers, tanks and all the other modern weaponry. Their imaginings of people's armed protection against one's own government is quaint and outdated.

[Statistical]

18. Who will fire those magical "washington" tanks, bombers, planes?

How many soldiers will desert or shoot their officer in the head?

How many people sitting on the sideline will join the American Insurgency when "Washington" stupidly tries to us a B-2 to kill some insurgents and wipes out a city block?

How many National Guardsmen will simply go home to protect their families and take their nice military hardware with them?

How many General having taken an oath to defend THE CONSTITUTION not the Congress will do just that and splinter the command structure of US military?

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson

[tekisui]

19. By that reasoning, civilians need no guns.

You suggest that if the order was given to take US cities, that the military officers and soldiers would stay loyal to the Constitution, and would use their weapons to defend their families. That leaves the issue of civilian gun ownership moot.

Thomas Jefferson was on point for his time. But, his point is out-dated. Unless the citizenry had matched fire power of the military, it doesn't hold up. In Jefferson's day, weapons were quite different than today.

Guns didn't do the militia men of Montana much good. The compound in Waco fell, just the same.

I am just making the point that the argument of right to bear arms to protect against the government is meaningless. The stronger argument is that it is a constitutionally protected right to bear arms, period.

[Statistical]

20. Well that is your opinion.

If the civilians had no weapons. i.e. 0 it is unlikely there would be any resistance thus no civilian deaths thus no morality check for soldiers.

The belief that big guns wins is a mistake that has been proven over and over and over.

Just look at how difficult the war in Iraq is.
Now imagine moral problems of soldiers having to occupy Los Angelos instead of Baghdad.

Most insurgents have very little training even on simple things like how to shoot accurately.

There are 20 million hunters in the United States. A hunter is essentially a sniper. Sure not as good as special forces but will do in a pinch. Say 1 million hunters each manage to revolt and manage to only kill 1 soldier for every 5 hunter/insurgent killed. Thats 200k troops or a substantial reduction in the military force. Likely leading to a draft in an unpopular civil war/occupation scenario.

Maybe ultimately it fails. Jefferson wasn't claiming it was a fool proof guaranteed get out of totalitarianism card. It is a last ditch chance to save freedom from a failed democracy.

Regarding Waco. The belief wasn't share by even a small fraction of the American public. Jefferson wasn't saying we should accept anarchy and destroy govts just because somebody believes they can stand up to it.

Still I respect your opinion. At least you aren't making the logical fallacy of (purpose for 2nd doesn't exist therefore the right doesn't exist).

[tekisui]

21. Point taken on the hunters.

I don't think that bridge will be crossed anytime soon. Like you said, the military is made up on members of our country. Their loyalty is to the Constitution. Further, I don't see a scenario where a President or a Congress would see those actions as viable or necessary. Gawd help us if that ever is the case.

[jeepnstein]

27. Think back, really hard...

to the good old days under Pres. Dubya. There were a few times I had concerns. During the media campaign for the invasion of Iraq, well, I can't explain it. I had a serious concern that our Military and our County no longer belonged to the voters and taxpayers. Their capricious disregard for the rule of law and the blissful ignorance of our Press had me thinking the worst. During that period of hysteria Bush had a virtual blank check on our Constitutional Rights.

I think back to my kinfolk and the Battle of Blair Mountain. Normal folks fighting for their rights were demonized and killed by companies who faced no legal consequence for their actions. You can still go up there and find spent brass from the 1919's that were used on the workers. Did you ever hear about Billy Mitchell ordering bombing runs on the workers? Were any of the company men who assassinated Sid Hatfield ever convicted?

Don't say it can't happen here. It already has.

[gorfle]

25. We've heard this one before.

The 2nd amendment guarantees it. However, it is absurd to think that those guns would protect you or a people from the fire power of the US government, if that was the conflict.

Washington and Jefferson lived before planes, bombers, tanks and all the other modern weaponry. Their imaginings of people's armed protection against one's own government is quaint and outdated.

There have been many examples in recent history of technologically inferior forces winning out over technologically superior forces. The Vietnamese against the United States. The Afghans against the Soviet Union. The Iraqis against the United States.

And none of these had the added bonus of wreaking havoc on the attacker's homeland as a civil insurrection would. Civil wars are economically devastating and would drastically harm the tax base.

http://www.nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/FBI_SniperTactsEffectsonHomeland.pdf

"(U) The Washington, DC, attacks caused widespread fear among people for their own
safety and for the safety of their families. Forty-five percent of residents reported going
to public spaces such as parks and shopping centers less than usual and 5.5 percent
reported missing at least one day of work due to the sniper attacks.24"

If 2 lunatics can cause nearly half the population in the affected area to stop shopping and 5 percent to stop going to work, imagine what a full-blown civil war would do.

[jmg257]

22. Why didn't they just opt for a strong professional military then?

[jeepnstein]

28. The same reason...

that Dwight Eisenhower warned of the growing dominance of the Military Industrial Complex. Did you ever wonder why the GOP idolizes Reagan and not Ike?

[ejpoeta]

26. part of the concern it seemed the forefathers had was that the government

would become a government not of the people. that it would become co-opted (which it sure seems it has).... they wanted the citizens to be able to take their country from a corrupt government. it's not like they hadn't seen it in other countries. they went out of their way to keep the government beholden to its citizens. though, it is kinda funny watching the difference between how we react to things and other countries citizens do. we send out nasty emails while we can watch the french and londoners marching in the streets.

[Uben]

7. Unfortunately, there are bad cops........

.....and bad members of the military who will abuse their power. I am not about to hand in my guns and empower them even more. I come from a family full of law enforcement officers, from local cops to federal deputy marshals. I assure you that none of them would advocate taking the publics guns away. They know all too well how that would empower criminals. People with conceal/carry licenses are required to present their CCW permits when asked for identification and they know how responsible these people are. They see it every day.

Those who advocate taking the publics guns away live in a pipe dream. They are the ones you see on TV having been killed by home invasions or car jackings. The ones who thwart these attempts are those with personal protection firearms. In these hard economic times, crimes always increase. I hope I never have to shoot anyone, but I would not hesitate if my family was endangered.

Do you think that these criminals who go to schools or businesses and kill at random would be restricted by gun control? Hell no!
You can find out how to make a pipe bomb on the internet and all the ingredients are easily obtained. And, if you think that black market guns are not easily available, just turn on the news. Thousands are going to Mexico everyday.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

9. Yes, and we should all be good Germans and just shut up

and obey.

I don't do obey very well.

[rrneck]

13. I'm still waiting

for someone to produce a solution to the problem of protecting people when they are assaulted. But it's okay, I enjoy the sound of crickets.