The debate "If there is much more gun restrictions there will be a second US civil war." was started by
September 27, 2019, 2:35 pm.
22 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 31 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
JDAWG9693 posted 9 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 9 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
JDAWG9693, dinosaurrawr, Lynn, Mice, MightyJackalope, CastLight, YEET and 15 visitors agree.
historybuff, Nemiroff, ezekiel, sn0wman02, Priyan_shiii00, Shrivali_16, Agrumentman and 24 visitors disagree.
I dont understand.
this is the time of fewest gun restrictions. the wild west had no carry laws, open or concealed. unless you had a badge, or were breaking the law.
these are false arguments in order to protect the status quo or loosen it at any cost. honesty is not a priority.
1) I think the training should be supplemented by the government to keep costs down. For private trades, I would say it would require some form of official intervention. IE have a court official, police station etc sign off on it to ensure that the receiver has the proper training certificate and has had their background check. That way you can't just hand your gun off to some crazy person.
2) my point is that people who see themselves as loyal, law abiding americans are not going to want to shoot police officers. They are not going to want to shoot at US soldiers. There is a very big leap from wanting to keep your gun to cold blooded murder. Alot of people talk big, but when it comes down to it, most will not be willing to murder people over it.
3) The intentional homicide rate per 100,000 people in the US is 5.3. The rate in the UK is 1.2. You have more than 4 times the murder rate that they do. I had trouble finding stats for assaults, it doesn't look like they are tracked the same. Do you really want to use a country that has 1/4 of your murder rate as an example of some "lawless" wasteland?
4) umm no. that is blatantly not true. They have less than 1/4 of the murder rate that America does.
1) I do believe a mandatory training would be okay, but I also think that at that point it should be reduced in price or complimentary. Also, I'm not sure how that would be enforced for private trades. I don't think limiting the number of firearms would be okay, though. However, in much of the US, illegally owning or altering a firearm is almost always a felony so I dont think making the punishment harsher would do anything.
2) When the US left Britain, they were also treasonous and criminals. Those who hid Jews from the nazis were treasonous criminals. Those who helped free the slaves were criminals. Sometimes what's right isn't what's legal. Very rarely nowadays, but still possible.
3) Once no one owns firearms, or only extremely limited firearms, you'll see the blade and blunt weapons death toll skyrocket just like the UK is seeing now. It's not the tool, it's the mindset. They've now banned most knives in public and I can almost guarantee blunt weapons deaths will become prevalent. Also, some of us are extremely proficient with "antique" weapons (that have been improved and modernized, by the way). I have been a practitioner in several martial arts since age four and have done mock fights with friends when they had airsoft firearms and, more times than not, I still faired well with my "antique" weapons. You seem to underestimate the capabilities of old arts. Obviously takes way more practice than pulling a trigger, but is still possible.
4) Obviously if you take away the firearms in an area the gun death toll is gonna go down, but as Australia and the UK has seen, murder has not. As I've said before, it's not the tools used, it's the mindset. If I am determined to kill someone, I will do it with whatever is available.
4a) I forget who said it, but one of the saying I definitely live by is this: I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. That reigns true in this context, as well. I am willing to die for my family and my beliefs.
1) I use the AR-15 because it is the most common. But other guns are equally or more ridiculous for civilians to own. I do not mean to limit restrictions to just that one. I would agree that hand guns are also quite problematic. But you might be able to do other things than a ban. For example, in order to own a hand gun you have to pass a safety course and a security check. Make it mandatory to have a refresher course every, lets say 5 years. That way only people who are supposed to have them and are willing to learn how to use them can legally own them.
Limit the amount of guns a person is permitted to own. This could limit guns being lost, stolen or otherwise ending up on the black market. Stiffer penalties for possession of an illegal firearm. If getting caught with an illegal gun came with serious jail time, then people would me much less likely to carry one around.
These are just ideas. There are lots of ways you could make it more difficult for criminals and unqualified people from owning guns. That would solve alot of the problems even if you don't want to go as far as banning them.
2) If they are in the military, they are by definition not a civilian. It's one thing to say you would protect your gun. It's quite another to open fire on police or your fellow soldiers. If you do that you are a traitor and a criminal. I think you will find that while alot of people would be angry, there aren't all that many who would be willing to commit murder and treason over it.
3) mine isn't arbitrary. I say that weapons that are designed for the express purpose of hunting. (like a bolt action rifle with a 5 round magazine for example) are fine. However if it is a modern weapon designed to kill humans, then no civilian needs to own it. A spear and a sword are not modern weapons. they are antiques. Feel free to own all the muskets you want too.
4) the idea that having a gun makes you safer is a popular right wing talking point. Research shows this isn't true. The research says that if you own a gun, you are more likely to die, both by suicide and by homicide. There is no evidence that you are safer by owning a gun. And the fact that potential assailants are also likely to have guns amplifies this.
And as I already pointed out, the idea that civilians could overthrow the US military is testosterone fueled fantasy. If the military decided to stop you, you'd die.
1) You seem obsessed with AR-15s? There are even scarier guns that civilians own. I would be way more worried about handguns, which can be concealed WAY easier and are equally as deadly, even if they don't look as scary. Should I be allowed to own a Glock 17/19/22 (the three main handguns of police officers)? Or would that be too militant? That's also a main handgun of many US soldiers.
2) The military is comprised of civilians! It seems that you think they're robots or something. I think the soldiers have more loyalty to the people they protect than the governmental body. And, I know for a fact most of them wholeheartedly believe in gun rights and would stand against if a buyback or something similar was instituted
3) A spear is designed for killing. A bow with arrows is designed for killing. Swords are designed for killing. Should we ban these things, too? Also, guns are designed for killing, not just to kill humans, same with the other mentioned instruments. You claim that mine drawn line is arbitrary, but you are drawing an equally arbitrary line, just at a different point.
4) To protect the lives and property of myself and others is literally the reason I keep firearms in my house. I practice, I hunt, I shoot for fun, but for protection is why I keep them. The lives of others, whether they be threatened by an assailant or a tyrannical government, is literally why i have my firearms.
4a) I go back to the woman having a gun to protect from a rapist scenario. Literally the reason the woman needs a gun is to protect her from a bigger, stronger man. The reason (one of) that civilians have guns is to protect them from the bigger, stronger government. You are telling the woman that she should just lie down and take the raping (maybe try to diplomatically ask him not to) and just hope he doesnt kill her after she rapes her. You are telling me that I should just tell the tyrannical government (at that point, not a democracy) that I dont like what they're doing and when they say "too bad," just lie there and take it and hope they dont kill me for it.
1) even if this were true back then, it is simply absurd today. There is absolutely no chance that a group of civilians could overthrow the US military. It doesn't matter how many AR-15s you own. And abrams will win. A drone will take you out without you ever knowing it was there. There no chance in hell an armed rebellion could succeed.
2) you think that soldiers who have fought for their country are more loyal to their gun than to their nation and their people? You have a very low opinion of people in the military. And if the military turned on the government, then it is the military that is doing the work. There is no need for the civilians to have the assault weapons in the 1st place.
3) in my opinion, any weapon that is designed for killing a human should not be owned by a civilian. if you got rid of those weapons you would seriously lower the number of crimes being committed with guns and therefore the number of people being killed.
I find it baffling that people put more value in a hypothetical fantasy where civilians could somehow overthrow a modern military over the lives of their friends, neighbors and children.
1) Partly the militaries were aided by militias, yes. But also they had just left a tyrannical government and recognized that if the US ever became similar, there should be a way for the people to rebel.
2) I think that much of the military population will be in support of the ideas being pushed from the civilians and many will join the cause
3) You have created an equally arbitrary line; spears are more dangerous than knives, should I have no spears? Any gun with 15 mag holding can be deadly quicker than one with five, which can be deadly quicker than one with bolt action? Also, most handguns hold more than five in their mag, so what's the plan on that? buyback? I dont think that'll go over well
"The whole point of civilians having guns is to overthrow a tyrannical government"
No, it was so that civilians could take part in a well regulated militia. When that amendment was added the US regular military was tiny and needed the militias. The amenment was later re-interpreted to mean different things.
"Was there any chance of the colonialists defeating the country with the world's strongest navy and immensely more resources? No way! But they did it anyways."
They got massive amount of help from the french. Their victor still wasn't super likely, but it wasn't as one sided as Americans like to pretend it was. It's also completely irrelevant to modern day gun control.
"Have fun convincing the military to storm their own cities"
They won't be though. They will be reestablishing order after a riot. Do you think the military wouldn't put down rioters to protect their country? Do you think they love guns more than they love the country they have literally risked their lives for?
"I didnt say I could kill faster with a knife, I said that I could kill many in a timely manner with a knife"
And you could kill more with a gun. And you could kill more than that with belt fed weapon. And you could kill more than that with a grenade launcher. Unless you are in favor of those being legalized as well, then you are proposing that the arbitrary line you drew is an absolute constitutionally protected line when that doesn't make any sense. You could just as easily interpret the 2nd amendment to only protect weapons that existed when it was written. Or to only protect people who are regular members of a state militia. Both would be just as valid as the arbitrary rules the right try to impose.
The truth is that while it is possible to kill with a knife it is alot harder than using a gun. The more people that have guns, the more they are used. The more they are used, the more people die. It is not a complicated issue to work out.
That's like telling a women that she shouldn't have a handgun to protect herself from a possible rapist because the man is bigger and stronger and will just take the gun away, so she had just lie there and take it and just hope that he doesnt kill her after he rapes her. The whole point of civilians having guns is to overthrow a tyrannical government, no matter how powerful. Was there any chance of the colonialists defeating the country with the world's strongest navy and immensely more resources? No way! But they did it anyways. And, who do you think comprises the military, cyborgs? Most of the people saying "I'll die for my guns" are veterans and many soldiers feel the same way! Have fun convincing the military to storm their own cities for using something that they're also using.
And, I didnt say I could kill faster with a knife, I said that I could kill many in a timely manner with a knife, especially if I had half a brain and took two minutes to plan. For example, in a classroom setting: bring several larger knives (6"-8" blade) mostly folding for easier hiding and sit in the back. Lock the door before you enter, or jam it. Make sure there is only one door to enter from. Then, wait until the teacher is turned around or busy for an extra few seconds, begin slitting throats to nearby classmates until stabbing is the more logical option. once everyone freaks and crowds the door, continue stabbing, aim for the neck. It is simple and could be done in a timely fashion. Gruesome, obviously, but you have to think like a criminal to stop a criminal. Anyone could get most of the classmates in a room like that, just like they could get most at an assembly with firearms (which they illegally obtained, not to mention)
The idea that you could ever kill more people faster with a knife than you could with a gun is ludicrous. If you feel that way then you should be in favor of people having belt fed machine guns and rocket launchers or even nuclear weapons. I mean, you could kill millions of people with a knife too....
This tired old argument of there are other weapons in the world so I should be allowed to have a weapon specifically designed to kill people is just insane. There is no logical reason why a civilian would ever need a military style shotgun.
"a large portion of the civilians would... actively be against the government and possibly attempt an overthrow."
And the US military would put you down. Do you think your shotgun is going to beat a drone that can kill you from miles up? Or maybe it will beat an Abrams and it's 120 mm cannon.... The idea that civilians could overthrow the US government is nonsense.
No, by civil war I mean that a large portion of the civilians would, not just have a few riots, but would actively be against the government and possibly attempt an overthrow. I know that, personally, and many of my friends feel the same, if a mandatory buyback or something similar were enacted, they would have to put me down for my firearms.
Also, I have a Mossberg 590 tactical pump shotgun (among others) that holds 6+1 shells, but I am damn fast with it. I can accurately shoot 21 shells in 90 seconds; with buck or 00 buckshot I could easily kill 21 people, and it didn't take a lot of time practicing. If the reason for the bans is to eliminate mass shootings, then it won't work because it took me only a few months to get that fast. If someone is determined, they will be able to do it with nearly any tool. I could also probably kill 20 people with a bigger knife depending on the setting (churches, theater, sports game, classroom (only one exit point), etc.). There are several tools that can do the same job.
Typically it only refers to a rifle. But i agree that a simple assault rifle ban isn't nearly enough. You also need magazine limits. For example it is seriously illegal to own a magazine that hold more than 5 rounds. Thus making mass shootings extremely difficult. I would also be in favor of banning semi auto shotguns that can hold more shells than that as well.
You are saying that states would be officially succeeding from the Union. At that point they aren't "their own people", they are traitors attempting to literally destroy america.
What precisely do you foresee happening? Are we talking about states getting together and leaving the country? Or are you talking about some sort of civilian uprising?
Is it specifically a rifle? One could kill a lot of people with handguns and shotguns (just as deadly, by the way, many even semi-automatic). Also, only military looking/made rifles? Because there are many wood based rifles that have literally the same capabilities as an AR-15. Not all guns that can do the same thing look the same; the AR-15 looks scary, but there are "hunting rifles" that can do the same thing (semi-automatic and everything).
Also, I'm willing to bet that a large portion of the military would not attack, or in a very limited manner, their own people.
An assault weapon is typically a rifle that was designed for military service or that closely mimics a weapon for military service. If it could reasonably be equipment to a soldier in the military, a private citizen should not own it.
In the US civil war you were talking about states succeeding from the Union. I thought you were talking about a mass uprising by armed idiots with AR 15s. Are you suggesting that a large number of states would succeed from the Union? Because that is even less likely, to the point of being virtually impossible.
The military is national. There are no state militias. You would have a bunch of loons with civilian equipment attacking the US military. It would be over in a matter of days.
It's either 2/3 of the states or of both houses calling a vote to change an amendment.
And, are you saying that the South was nothing but violent criminals? Also, it's only criminal once the law has passed, currently they are mostly law abiding citizens. But, if it becomes illegal, then by default they would become criminal. Also, can you define "assault weapon" because from what I can tell, I can use a brick as a weapon to assault somebody? The label is too vague and intentionally so
Still doubtful. The only forced buyback being suggested is for assault weapons which were already banned before. There is no new legal ground in saying they are illegal and should not be in private hands. If this were implemented there would be alot of angry people. There would likely be some rioting and violence. But if gun rights advocates are what you say they are, ie law abiding citizens, then they would never take up arms against the government. If they are in fact violent criminals then they might. Are you saying that gun owners are violent criminals?
I think changing the constitution requires the states to sign off on it. If that kind of support were possible, there definitely wouldn't be enough people to start a civil war. Certainly not one that would last for long.
No, but if there were something like a buy-back or a repeal of the second amendment (which is an express goal of several runners) then I think that would cause a legitimate war, or at least severe riots that may lead to war
I would say this seems highly unlikely. Common sense gun laws are popular. The NRA, which is insanely corrupt, is in chaos at the moment and in no position to cause much trouble.
I would say that groups like fox news could stir people up and cause trouble. There would be protests and maybe some rioting and violence. But like gun advocates keep saying, most gun owners are law abiding citizens. They aren't going to become traitors to their nation and start gunning down the police.
One of the main stances for many of the Democratic runners is to ban or restrict more and more guns or necessary accessories. I think if they do much more of this, because of the American culture and centrality of firearms, the will be another US civil war.