Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jim Clipper
climber
from: forests to tree farms
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 04:36pm PT
|
Just wondering. Any data about a change in collateral damage from police shootings as the power and capacity of their weapons increased?
A shootout with assault rifles on a playground with kids scrambling for cover could be "problematic".
It seems like a bit of an arms race. Our tradition is muskets. Then, something like: cap and ball, revolvers, lever action rifles, automatic pistols, etc. To what end?
The police's response to more powerful weapons has been carrying more powerful weapons.
I'm not necessarily anti-gun, but assault rifles were made to gravely injure people, during wars. Modern policing is different, and I guess that is partially a consequence of the weapons out there.
Says me, who will change no one's belief on the interwebs.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 04:48pm PT
|
Just wondering. Any data about a change in collateral damage from police shootings as the power and capacity of their weapons increased?
A shootout with assault rifles on a playground with kids scrambling for cover could be "problematic".
http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/
Cops miss a LOT, and they are not nearly was well-trained as the public believes that they are.
Fortunately, school shooters thus far don't stand and fight. They die quickly at their own hand or via the assault team sent in (hopefully sooner than later). These are nut-jobs, cowards that are seeking all and only soft-targets.
The scenario of "a playground with kids scrambling for cover" is more like a terrorist attack than a traditional school shooter.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 04:55pm PT
|
What I proposed is not my idea. It is the thinking of a clear majority that wants at least that much done:
Everyone that owns them right now could be buried with them
Link, please.
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
from: forests to tree farms
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 05:09pm PT
|
In an age where we all have our own "facts", I googled:
change in police shootings with increase in gun capacity
I still don't think that our founding fathers, living in an unpopulated, sometimes hostile wilderness, imagined weapons that allow one person to take out a room full of 6 year olds.
Edit: climbers limit the gear they use because, ethics. Still, some want no limits on the guns they own. If anyone goes grizzly hunting with a muzzle loader, I'd shake their hand, and slap them on the shoulder of their bear skin coat. Maybe try to buy some sausage. I've heard it's tasty.
|
|
Jim Clipper
climber
from: forests to tree farms
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 05:20pm PT
|
Agreed DMT. United States vs. Miller. Seems our grandparents realized that sawed off shotguns aren't necessary for hunting, or something like that.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 05:29pm PT
|
Was that in true context up there?
Read what Bernie has to say.By the way ,a pro gun senator.
I agree Dingus.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 05:32pm PT
|
And it is not a simple ,nor ,small majority.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 05:38pm PT
|
An amendment is required. This ain't the 18th Century any more. There is no way they could anticipate the readily available killing power we have today.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 05:56pm PT
|
This ain't the 18th Century any more. There is no way they could anticipate the readily available killing power we have today.
True, but they most certainly did anticipate the idea that American individuals should have always have the weaponry needed to mount at least effective guerrilla warfare against a tyrannical government.
And before you say, "Pfttt. There's no fighting against the US military," please recognize that that's a functional claim rather than a viable assertion against the PRINCIPLE the founders were trying to enshrine into law.
And that functional claim also founders on two hard rocks.
First, there is no guarantee that the military would fire on any significant proportion of American citizens that could make a solid argument that the government had become tyrannical; rebels would have to make the philosophical case long prior to taking up arms!
Second, a resistance doesn't have to "win." Witness Afghanistan vs. the Soviets. A resistance only needs to accomplish enough to bring the "big boss" back to the negotiating table. It's possible, it's been accomplished against super-powers, and principled people willing to die for their principles have done absolutely amazing things in modern warfare even in our lifetimes.
The second amendment had exactly zero to do with hunting or even self-defense. And, even if you managed to completely remove the second amendment from the constitution, you wouldn't have touched the rights elsewhere enshrined in the constitution. Not granted by the constitution, mind you, just mentioned in both the constitution and the DofI.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 06:22pm PT
|
I would like to see significant gun control enacted.
So would I.
The devil's in the details of what the phrase "significant gun control" actually means.
As just one example, I would be entirely in favor of a universal background check process, with mandatory federal prison time for non-compliance.
But....
The process should not result in a federal registry of gun owners.
Hard to convince people to do the former without the latter. So, compromise is hard to achieve, even on such a "simple" point.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 06:25pm PT
|
I really hate being so Liberal because what I have seen.
Not granted by the constitution, mind you, just mentioned in both the constitution and the DofI.
I will keep that in mind.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 06:28pm PT
|
MB2 has it wrong with respect to the original idea of the potential superiority of the militias over the federal forces,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46
made the case that the militias would very likely be a force much larger than those of the federal authorities, and thus prevent a tyrannical federal take over.
But one must ask if the assumptions of the "framers" are pertinent these 200+ years later. After that period of time the history of peaceful transition of governments by way of the democratic process must modify the fears of a tyranny.
At the time of the Federalist Papers were written the democracy was very young and the possible scenarios of federal overreach were largely unknown. Looking back over the history of the democracy, one has to think that the need for a stronger militia than federal military force is antiquated, and today largely irrelevant.
We seemed to have checked the federal powers by way of voting, and the tradition of peaceful transition. Additionally, the checks and balances seem to have largely worked.
So if the need for militias is no longer necessary to insure the transition of government, what then of the 2nd Amendment?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 06:33pm PT
|
MB2 has it wrong with respect to the original idea of the potential superiority of the militias over the federal forces,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46
made the case that the militias would very likely be a force much larger than those of the federal authorities, and thus prevent a tyrannical federal take over.
I don't see how this has me having it wrong. The fact that we've drifted so far astray over time doesn't change what the founders intended or envisioned.
And we could very, very quickly return to a state in which the militias were a superior force. Scale back the US military, anybody? Do we really need to be policeman to the entire world?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 06:35pm PT
|
The fact that we've drifted so far astray over time doesn't change what the founders intended or envisioned.
but they were anticipating something that, in the end, hasn't happened in 200+ years, and isn't likely to happen.
That certainly has to be considered.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 06:36pm PT
|
We seemed to have checked the federal powers by way of voting, and the tradition of peaceful transition. Additionally, the checks and balances seem to have largely worked.
Patently false.
If anything, what Federalist 10 warned about and attempted to remedy has come to full fruition!
That's why the two-party system has now almost perfectly divided this great nation. When the "win" means factious power to foist off an agenda opposed by the other (at that moment, bare "minority") side, the government has devolved entirely into CONTROL over the basic, negative rights (such as property rights) of that momentary (bare) minority.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 06:45pm PT
|
I don't think it is patently false, but there are aspects of the current two party system that will be remedied.
Not by force of militia, but by the political will of the people, peacefully.
One could take the Civil War as an example of States trying to assert their rights by force, and the Federal Government in collaboration with the other States waging war, successfully against the assertion of the southern States.
This was not anticipated by the "framers" (the "founders" aren't really relevant, the DofI is a position paper based on very thin assertions), that is, that the state militias might align with the federal army against other state militias.
In any case, the will of the people at the time, abolitionist, was upheld.
Later on, this would happen without wars between state militias and the federal forces.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 06:49pm PT
|
I really love how some define and defend our Constitution but forget the first paragraph.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 06:57pm PT
|
ok, sentence,lol.
|
|
Fritz
Social climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 06:59pm PT
|
madbolter 1! Per your assertion upthread:
First, there is no guarantee that the military would fire on any significant proportion of American citizens that could make a solid argument that the government had become tyrannical; rebels would have to make the philosophical case long prior to taking up arms!
I’m not used to you straying so far from reality, as to join in the slight insanity of thinking that U.S. troops will not fire on U.S. citizens in rebellion. We enjoy a rich history of U.S. troops dealing firmly with rebellion, starting with the Whiskey Rebellion in PA in 1891.
Of course, you also ignore the Civil War.
Per this article, in quora.com, there are also lots of late 19th century & 20th century examples of U.S. troops dealing violently with unarmed rebellion.
https://www.quora.com/Would-the-American-military-fire-on-its-own-citizens-if-ordered-to
Of course. There is a fantasy that the American military is somehow immune to being used as a tool of repression. Comes from watching too much Hollywood, reading too much Tom Clancy, perusing too many right wing blogs, and not checking out enough actual US history.
News flash: the US military has seldom hesitated to shoot or otherwise use violence against US civilians when ordered to do so. Last major instance I know of was the Kent State Massacre , gunning down protesting students in an Ohio university campus.
The Ludlow Massacre , when the Colorado National Guard opened fire on an encampment of striking coal miners, killing over two dozen people, including women and children, before destroying the encampment.
The Pullman Strike , when 12,000 men from the US Army were sent in to break the strike. 30 strikers were shot dead in the process, and about another 60 injured.
US cavalry, supported by tanks and led by George Patton under orders from Douglas MacArthur (whose aide at the time was Dwight Eisenhower - all in all, an inglorious day in the careers of some of America’s greatest soldiers), charging at the protesters of the Bonus Army in Washington, DC, and burning out their shacks. 50+ protesters and their family members were injured, some of whom later died.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2018 - 07:21pm PT
|
Not by force of militia, but by the political will of the people, peacefully.
It's not clear to me who "the people" are in your statement. And "political will" just is force. But that's an aside.
Part of the reason we have had over 200 years of relative peace within the nation just is the fact that "one half" knows that "the other half" will only be pushed so far. We have a long history of both the means and willingness to fight perceived tyranny. That's a history that should not be nerfed going forward, imo.
If anything, the federal government today doesn't resemble what the founders (framers, whatever), federalist and anti-federalist alike intended. They never imagined that we would get to where we are via the slow, almost imperceptible steps we have taken, resulting in a federal government that now invades and controls the tiniest details of individuals' lives.
A clear, bright line was crossed almost without the notice of "the people" regarding what line was crossed, when Roberts asked (and then self-answered) his fateful question: "If government can do this, then what can government not do?" By voting as he did, Roberts (of all people) sealed the deal: "Government can do anything." Whatever else the originators intended, they did not intend this.
So, we'll go (peacefully) limping toward ever more federal control over ever more and tinier details of our lives. I believe it was Franklin who said, "People don't get the government they deserve; they get the government they tolerate." Take the point of the second amendment out of the constitution, and you take away even the basic principle that people retain the means of finally saying, "No, THIS we do not tolerate, and there is no peaceful way back across this line."
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!