Biden vs Gun Owners

[Sytes]

I encourage you all to read the full text (and footnotes) of Heller and the dissent. It gives you a fairly good understanding of the mainstream views of both sides. If I get a chance later I will post a link to them, but Google will get you there too.

This. The link goes directly to Scalia's opinion.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[ImBillT]

A few murders, a successful rebellion does not make.

Obviously, not. On the other extreme, all out war is not required to give the constitution more power than ink on leather.

 

[VikingsGuy]

You are 99.9% right, but I would still try.

As long as I get my vegas payout, try as hard as you wish. But before you do, I suggest you read about Sherman's march through Georgia and think about whether your friends, family, wife, children, parents are as excited about the prospect as you. (or even Waco or Ruby Ridge for that matter)

 

[VikingsGuy]

Obviously, not. On the other extreme, all out war is not required to give the constitution more power than ink on leather.

Be careful what you wish for - the only time it has been tried it did not strengthen the south's hand with the north, or force a more "moderate" outcome on slavery.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Be careful what you wish for - the only time it has been tried it did not strengthen the south's hand with the north, or force a more "moderate" outcome on slavery.

Drone strikes, satellite imagery, special ops teams, infrantry, Marines, Helos & Tank batteries don't have shit on Y'all Queda with their sks's and pipe bombs.

 

[ImBillT]

Be careful what you wish for - the only time it has been tried it did not strengthen the south's hand with the north, or force a more "moderate" outcome on slavery.

I don’t think I mentioned wishing for anything in that statement. My wish is for peace and freedom in the USA until God calls me home to the ultimate place of peace and freedom, and preferably at a very old age. My hope for the outcome of the 2A’s existence is similar to what our supposed reasoning behind nuclear weapons is. Simply having them is a deterrent against other governments using them against us. In the same way, I believe that legal ownership of non-hunting small arms by citizens is a positive thing.

As someone who does not wish for such conflict, I actually do not own any weapons that would be considered ideal if one were to intentionally engage in a conflict with an armed human. The only firearm I own that isn’t for hunting or target shooting is a small handgun that adds a little peace of mind on long trips, in shady motels and when camping near roads.

As far as your Vegas odds, there have been failed governments and successful revolutions since the dawn of man, and there will be in the future.

The US revolution was the not first, and was not the last. Our constitution gave us a form of government by which we are not subjects, and our elected public servants are supposed to serve at our pleasure. Unfortunately, throughout human history mankind has willingly chosen subjugation over freedom and our citizens likely will as well. We have willingly given up freedom, after freedom, after freedom. It is our firearms that requires substantial approval each time we give up freedom, and we will likely give up our firearms willingly as well. However, once the citizenry is disarmed, human history suggests that our government will then take freedoms that we will not willingly give up, but we will no longer have any say in the matter.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Lots of decent thoughts there - but the incorporation doctrine makes it tricky, as the bill of rights now applies to the states. So in theory the states can't abridge your right to use force to defend the state - gets messy in a hurry.

Agreed. Here I'm more outlining what underpins my answers on your other thread.

Automatic weapons don't fall under the 2A, IMHO

The rest are questions for the states.

Things like safe storage aren't infringements unless, they de-facto prohibit ownership.

I think affordability is 100% part of the 2A, you can't tax or otherwise price people out.

In 2021 banning online sales is absolutely infringement.

 

[noharleyyet]

What’s all this Wolverine talk. Isn’t Biden’s ringkisser troop reprogrammer stood down.

 

[longbow51]

Thanks for the mention of Scalia and the link. Obv a brilliant guy.

 

[ImBillT]

Agreed. Here I'm more outlining what underpins my answers on your other thread.

Automatic weapons don't fall under the 2A, IMHO

The rest are questions for the states.

Things like safe storage aren't infringements unless, they de-facto prohibit ownership.

I think affordability is 100% part of the 2A, you can't tax or otherwise price people out.

In 2021 banning online sales is absolutely infringement.

I don’t agree on every point, but I like your post.

 

[Glockster]

As long as I get my vegas payout, try as hard as you wish. But before you do, I suggest you read about Sherman's march through Georgia and think about whether your friends, family, wife, children, parents are as excited about the prospect as you. (or even Waco or Ruby Ridge for that matter)

I hope cool heads prevail, nobody has time for a full blown civil war, but maybe you should read up on what 2 guys and uhaul pulled of in OKC, how Chris Donner locked down LA, or two brothers in Boston shut down a city. It is fairly easy to overwhelm the system. No one is untouchable.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Drone strikes, satellite imagery, special ops teams, infrantry, Marines, Helos & Tank batteries don't have shit on Y'all Queda with their sks's and pipe bombs.

The rest are questions for the states.

My survey was meant to be a mix of fed and state issues, but obviously a complete web of overlap.

While I like the "incubator of democracy" part of giving states latitude, I don't think it works for things under the 2A and for things that move across state lines. If MN and WY decide I can have a "modern hunting rifle", but SD, ND and NE say I can't, it is not OK that I can't drive my rifle from home to WY to hunt while spending a night in a hotel in Rapid City along the way. Or if I am flying between Florida and MN via Chicago that Illinois can make me a felon because my flight is canceled due to weather and I had to take my gun to a local hotel. In 2021, frankly, I think the Fed Govt needs to layout a basic framework and then guarantee some basic minimum reciprocity as it relates to interstate commerce. The states can further regulate their citizens if they want (within the bounds of the 2A), but they should not be able to indirectly regulate the citizens of other states engaged in interstate commerce. State by state doesn't work in a modern economy for many civil rights. Look at states that wouldn't let Black employees of IBM in NY stay in hotels as they drove to Texas on business. When I was 18 I was all in on states' rights. But after decades of watching it play out, I am less than impressed on many topics - sanctuary states, etc. I am not willing to abandon it yet, but I do think it needs to be curbed when we are talking about constitutional rights.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I hope cool heads prevail, nobody has time for a full blown civil war, but maybe you should read up on what 2 guys and uhaul pulled of in OKC, how Chris Donner locked down LA, or two brothers in Boston shut down a city. It is fairly easy to overwhelm the system. No one is untouchable.

No individual or building is untouchable, but that is not the makings of a successful insurrection that some feel the 2A guarentees.

 

[Ben Lamb]

My survey was meant to be a mix of fed and state issues, but obviously a complete web of overlap.

While I like the "incubator of democracy" part of giving states latitude, I don't think it works for things under the 2A and for things that move across state lines. If MN and WY decide I can have a "modern hunting rifle", but SD, ND and NE say I can't, it is not OK that I can't drive my rifle from home to WY to hunt while spending a night in a hotel in Rapid City along the way. Or if I am flying between Florida and MN via Chicago that Illinois can make me a felon because my flight is canceled due to weather and I had to take my gun to a local hotel. In 2021, frankly, I think the Fed Govt needs to layout a basic framework and then guarantee some basic minimum reciprocity as it relates to interstate commerce. The states can further regulate their citizens if they want (within the bounds of the 2A), but they should not be able to indirectly regulate the citizens of other states engaged in interstate commerce. State by state doesn't work in a modern economy for many civil rights. Look at states that wouldn't let Black employees of IBM in NY stay in hotels as they drove to Texas on business. When I was 18 I was all in on states' rights. But after decades of watching it play out, I am less than impressed on many topics - sanctuary states, etc. I am not willing to abandon it yet, but I do think it needs to be curbed when we are talking about constitutional rights.

Well wildlife doesn't respect state boundaries, yet I have a right to harvest in MT, WY & ID. Therefore, the Fed should manage hunting.

 

[MTGomer]

nobody has time for a full blown civil war,

That’s for damn sure. If I’m ever forced into something like this, I’d sure like to be able to schedule my participation around my other hobbies and obligations. Paid time off is limited.

 

[VikingsGuy]

TLDR, “It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.” - General Sherman.

Regarding the allusions to a violent event to "beat back tyranny", I grow weary, as I am not sure folks really appreciate what they are implying.

When it comes to armed resistance and war I generally place people in 5 broad baskets. Like any categorization, it is inherently limited and flawed at its inception, but I still find it useful to consider generally when these topics come up.

The Blissful: Those who have not experienced war or violence in any real sense, but somehow believe that there is a violence-free and war-free utopia this is out there just waiting for us to embrace it. To these folks, while I can see the appeal, nothing about human history or the nature of man suggests this is any more than a fantasy.

The Exuberant: Those who have not personally experienced war but idealize it and find it somehow noble and exciting - it's kinda the Disneyfication of war. On the eve of every conflict in the last 200 years, the population of young men who fall in this camp swells. And in every circumstance, those that actually make it to the battlefield learn a very sobering lesson.

The Pragmatist: Those who have also not experienced war or violence in any real sense but see history and our nature and realize it is a neverending part of the human story. One that is part of the human reality, but that that it results in few winners, comes at a horrific price and is something that should be avoided at almost all costs.

The Soldier: To start out - I thank all the men and women in this basket for their service. They stand the wall so that others may sleep and nothing in this post (or any other by me) should ever be viewed as dismissing their amazing service and sacrifice - I have not served but have the two bronze stars of my favorite uncle in my office. They have actually seen war. But for Americans that are in this basket, they have seen war through an experience where their family was safe at home, while they served afar. I respect their service and perspective, but I would guess their views might change if their kids/spouses/parents were the ones who ended up collateral damage on a regular basis.

The Survivor: People who have actually had their homes destroyed by war, their children pressed into service, their entire economies collapse, the elderly abandoned to die. This is an experience that very few Americans have lived in the last 100 years (thankfully). The stories of these people should be understood by all before we make idle threats about our "cold dead hands".

I have respect, and seek to learn, from the Soldier, the Survivor, and the fellow Pragmatist. Frankly, it is hard for me to find time for the Blissful and the Exuberant.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Well wildlife doesn't respect state boundaries, yet I have a right to harvest in MT, WY & ID. Therefore, the Fed should manage hunting.

Maybe they should, but for now, I point your attention to my repeated reference to the bill of rights and civil rights - and hunting isn't on that list.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Thanks for the mention of Scalia and the link. Obv a brilliant guy.

And his dear friend RBG was as well (even though I rarely agreed with her rulings)

 

[VikingsGuy]

As far as your Vegas odds, there have been failed governments and successful revolutions since the dawn of man, and there will be in the future.

The US revolution was the not first, and was not the last. Our constitution gave us a form of government by which we are not subjects, and our elected public servants are supposed to serve at our pleasure. Unfortunately, throughout human history mankind has willingly chosen subjugation over freedom and our citizens likely will as well. We have willingly given up freedom, after freedom, after freedom. It is our firearms that requires substantial approval each time we give up freedom, and we will likely give up our firearms willingly as well. However, once the citizenry is disarmed, human history suggests that our government will then take freedoms that we will not willingly give up, but we will no longer have any say in the matter.

Lots of good points here, but let's name all the successful citizen-led civil wars fought on the soil of a top 10 economy having a top 10 military in the last 150 years? I can only come up with Russia and China - not great success stories for liberty lovers.

 

[ImBillT]

My survey was meant to be a mix of fed and state issues, but obviously a complete web of overlap.

While I like the "incubator of democracy" part of giving states latitude, I don't think it works for things under the 2A and for things that move across state lines. If MN and WY decide I can have a "modern hunting rifle", but SD, ND and NE say I can't, it is not OK that I can't drive my rifle from home to WY to hunt while spending a night in a hotel in Rapid City along the way. Or if I am flying between Florida and MN via Chicago that Illinois can make me a felon because my flight is canceled due to weather and I had to take my gun to a local hotel. In 2021, frankly, I think the Fed Govt needs to layout a basic framework and then guarantee some basic minimum reciprocity as it relates to interstate commerce. The states can further regulate their citizens if they want (within the bounds of the 2A), but they should not be able to indirectly regulate the citizens of other states engaged in interstate commerce. State by state doesn't work in a modern economy for many civil rights. Look at states that wouldn't let Black employees of IBM in NY stay in hotels as they drove to Texas on business. When I was 18 I was all in on states' rights. But after decades of watching it play out, I am less than impressed on many topics - sanctuary states, etc. I am not willing to abandon it yet, but I do think it needs to be curbed when we are talking about constitutional rights.

The Bill of Rights, and perhaps the entire constitution, should be the bare minimum of freedom guaranteed by the federal government in all states. States rights should extend only to extra-constitutional issues.

TLDR, “It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.” - General Sherman.

Regarding the allusions to a violent event to "beat back tyranny", I grow weary, as I am not sure folks really appreciate what they are implying.

When it comes to armed resistance and war I generally place people in 5 broad baskets. Like any categorization, it is inherently limited and flawed at its inception, but I still find it useful to consider generally when these topics come up.

The Blissful: Those who have not experienced war or violence in any real sense, but somehow believe that there is a violence-free and war-free utopia this is out there just waiting for us to embrace it. To these folks, while I can see the appeal, nothing about human history or the nature of man suggests this is any more than a fantasy.

The Exuberant: Those who have not personally experienced war but idealize it and find it somehow noble and exciting - it's kinda the Disneyfication of war. On the eve of every conflict in the last 200 years, the population of young men who fall in this camp swells. And in every circumstance, those that actually make it to the battlefield learn a very sobering lesson.

The Pragmatist: Those who have also not experienced war or violence in any real sense but see history and our nature and realize it is a neverending part of the human story. One that is part of the human reality, but that that it results in few winners, comes at a horrific price and is something that should be avoided at almost all costs.

The Soldier: To start out - I thank all the men and women in this basket for their service. They stand the wall so that others may sleep and nothing in this post (or any other by me) should ever be viewed as dismissing their amazing service and sacrifice - I have not served but have the two bronze stars of my favorite uncle in my office. They have actually seen war. But for Americans that are in this basket, they have seen war through an experience where their family was safe at home, while they served afar. I respect their service and perspective, but I would guess their views might change if their kids/spouses/parents were the ones who ended up collateral damage on a regular basis.

The Survivor: People who have actually had their homes destroyed by war, their children pressed into service, their entire economies collapse, the elderly abandoned to die. This is an experience that very few Americans have lived in the last 100 years (thankfully). The stories of these people should be understood by all before we make idle threats about our "cold dead hands".

I have respect, and seek to learn, from the Soldier, the Survivor, and the fellow Pragmatist. Frankly, it is hard for me to find time for the Blissful and the Exuberant.

I fall within your “pragmatist” basket.

Where I live, the “cold dead hands” people are all wearing masks, and whining about it like a bunch of sissies. I find it hilarious that someone would claim that no one can take their guns, and the election was stolen while they willing put money into the pockets of FB, YouTube, Amazon, and Twitter. Those on the political right have a lot of non-violent and very low risk, but highly effective(if they all did it) options on the table, but 99.9% of them aren’t willing to just turn off the streaming website or pay $1 extra to order an item elsewhere. Then some small percentage of those same people, fantasize about participating in armed revolution.