Why The American Revolution Is Not A Model For Gun Ownership

[AllPurposeAtheist (OP)]

http://thehistoricpresent.wordpress.com ... hip-today/

Amazing how real historians just blow the shit out of populist and propagandists..
The utter bullshit we hear today about gun ownership and our tyrannical government is, well...bullshit.

[stromboli]

Unlike most people here, I grew up in an environment where hunting was a needed skill. Deer hunting was an annual event, and fishing and hunting for grouse and rabbits was part of our lives. There are still places, like Alaska, where that is a necessity. But most places food is store bought and farm raised. I believe it is this reason that the focus has changed to the concept of defending against an errant government.

The "guns" the colonists had were largely for hunting. There were undoubtedly some hand me downs from the previous French and Indian war, and a fair share of muskets. Rifles of that day, firearms with rifled barrels, were relatively slow to load and fire compared to a musket, which was a mass fire weapon and far less accurate. I believe the French supplied most of the firearms used in direct military conflict.

The right to keep and bear arms had more to do with having self defense against Indians and providing food. Where colonists were stripped of weapons, which in some cases they were, the obvious loss of food gathering and home defense was the big motivator. Warfare on a mass scale was never the intent of the colonists, who wanted only to be self governed and left to their own devices.

[mykcob4]

I have come across this many times in my life. I contend that no one needs a gun or should actually have a gun. I face opposition from gun people that say emphatically that the 2nd Amendment guarantees that they can own a gun. They go so far as to say that it dictates that every American MUST have a gun.
The 2nd doesn't do any such thing. In fact the 2nd is written in such a way as to say that a well regulated militia may be armed, because the Constitution does not and never provided for a standing Army.
Also the rightwing nuts think that the second is written in a way that the people shall be armed in order to overthrow the government. It is a delusional idea that has nothing to do with the Constitution at all. What they have done in this instance is confuse and pervert the reasoning given in the Declaration of Independence and the 2nd Amendment.
The DoI is a declaration for separation from the British rule and the explanation for doing so. Tyranny is just one reason. The 2nd nor any part of the Constitution gives any justification for overthrowing the government or even separation from the government, nor does it justify gun ownership for said purpose.
I say furthermore that there is no reason or justification to own or have a gun, and "because I want one" isn't good enough. The only reason constitutionally to have a gun is that the constitution doesn't specifically prohibit gun ownership. That is the only legal standing for gun ownership. The NRA and the righties actually know this, and know that any law that prohibits guns is and WILL be constitutional as it would specifically prohibit guns ownership and therefor be legal under the constitution. That is why they fight it and any gun legislation.
The arguments FOR gun ownership have all been shot down by every study that has ever addressed this issue.
Hunting-unnecessary and more costly than just buying food.
Protection-a nonstarter as it has been proven that having a gun is more likely to get the owner shot that if they didn't have one in the first place.
To overthrow the government-unconstitutional by every measure of the law and ineffective.
Because I want one-selfish, childish, and wholly irresponsible.
I served in combat. I am an expert with firearms. I don't need a gun in my civilian life. It doesn't make you a man. It only makes you dangerous to yourself and others. It doesn't prevent crimes, and shooting someone doesn't solve anything. In fact if you are ever unlucky enough to have to or just shoot someone, you will regret it your whole life. I have and I do.
Guns and gun ownership is just the manifestation of fanciful thinking. It is pseudo-machoism to the max. People watch movies and think "Hey I want to be that guy, he's cool."
There are better, safer, more effective, and more logical ways to deal with things. Killing brings a finality and a destruction that just doesn't make sense.

[AllPurposeAtheist (OP)]

The point of the article, and their right is the 2nd amendment makes no mention of crime rates nor of defending against OUR government much less most selfish motives gun ownership now represents in most cases. Very few people, in fact, I'd say less than .0001% have to rely on hunting to feed themselves. It's an absurd argument in todays world.
The point was that in the context of self defense it was to defend our nation against a foreign occupying army.
The 2nd has been perverted for selfish motives. (My opinion)

[Thumpalumpacus]

I live twenty miles from the nearest police station, which at 3 AM has one cop on duty covering how many miles? I had a prowler out on the property last week, and was happy that a loud voice was all it took ... this time.

I want  a shotgun, because when shit happens, I don't want it to rain on me.

I should have the right to defend myself and my property if the government cannot or will not do so.  And truth be told, I'll defend myself anyway and take my chances in court. 'Tis better to ask forgiveness than permission, etc etc.

[Hakurei Reimu]

The question is, will that shotgun actually make you safer, or will it just make you feel safer? Are you actually defending your property and yourself, or are you only fooling yourself?

These are real questions, and I have not seen a single study that convincingly makes the case that a gun really makes you safer. Quite the opposite.

[Johan]

.
Also the rightwing nuts think that the second is written in a way that the people shall be armed in order to overthrow the government.

Question for you, is it possible in your opinion, for a person to own a gun and not be a rightwing nut?

[GrinningYMIR]

My dad used to be a hunter, when he was young him and my granddad would go hunting in the mountains every weekend. Their family was poor, very poor, and the meat brought in form the hunting was very much needed. Added to that was an even poorer family down the street who would take the venison and other parts for food. They used every single piece, even the stuff you don't think about eating.

In that situation, hunting was needed and without the guns it would have let at least two families starve. It's not the case for everyone anymore, but as mentioned above; there are some families who still rely on hunting to bring home the food.

Nowadays my dad only has his shotgun for home defense; I never thought it was necessary until a pair of guys broke into my house last year. they were about to lift the TV when they found themselves looking down the barrel of my dad's weapon. They both promptly shit their pants and sat quietly in the corner until the cops got there. For which I am grateful.

I am of the opinion that yes, guns should be legal for people to own. But with limitations. You shouldn't be able to buy a 50 round drum for a semi-automatic weapon. There's no "hunting" involved in that. BS

And handguns. Handguns have one purpose, and its not hunting. A handgun is meant to close in on someone at close range and kill them.

You shouldn't be able to buy them.

That's my thing.


This is a delicate topic, as those of the far left will attack it, and those of the far right will defend it. And though I have right leading tendencies on some things, I do believe limitations are in order.

But no, banning guns outright is stupid and will only cause more conflict. In my own belief.

[AllPurposeAtheist (OP)]

.
Also the rightwing nuts think that the second is written in a way that the people shall be armed in order to overthrow the government.

Question for you, is it possible in your opinion, for a person to own a gun and not be a rightwing nut?

Of course there is, but when the 2nd amendment is taken completely out of context it destroys credibilty. It's kind of like someone making claims that smoking pot cures and prevents cancer. Gun ownership really makes nobody safer, but then if nobody owned guns clubs and knives would be the big danger and everyone would want them too...just in case.

[AllPurposeAtheist (OP)]

People hunted quite successfully before guns were invented. Guns and hunting is convenient, but not manditory. Personally I think you ought to be made to prove you can bring a deer down bare handed before permitted to do it with a gun, but that's never happening.   :-k

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I have come across this many times in my life. I contend that no one needs a gun or should actually have a gun.

Would you extend that prohibition to the police?  Why not?

Oh, and sorry about the PTSD that makes you hate guns.  I sympathize, PTSD sucks.

[stromboli]

.0001% in today's world is wrong, but we are talking about the U.S. People still need to hunt in some countries and some places in this country. But yeah, having a gun in the household is problematic and yeah, accidents happen.

Please note the following from Wikipedia:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country

After the U.S., you have Switzerland, Finland, Uruguay, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada and Iceland with high rates of gun ownership. The also have much lower crime rates by comparison.

The issue is much more complicated than statistical gun ownership. The type of guns, manner of carry, demographic mixture in a given area, a whole bunch of factors enter in. Switzerland has a very low gun crime rate. Switzerland also has a very low percentage of non-white, non-christian residents by comparison, and a very high level of education and standard of living. Likewise in Germany, Sweden and other countries.

Switzerland also had a standing reserve that up until recently required most adult citizens to participate in not only home defense but also national defense, and automatic weapons were issued to people in the reserves and kept in the home. Gun training was mandatory. In Israel, a standing reserve is also a big part of their national defense. Guess what? More people are still killed by drug overdose than guns or autos in the U.S..

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldohe ... s-n1687973
Yet prescription drugs don't seem to be on anybody's radar for more regulation and oversight.

I'm with Thumpalumpacus. I own guns. I also have training and knowledge of their use. He does as well, he was in the military. But I know what is useful and what isn't, what works and what doesn't. Gun ownership must include gun responsibility and training in the proper use of it. A shotgun up close and personal is a defensive weapon. It is not an assault weapon and doesn't have sniping capability. Far more people, intentionally or otherwise, are killed by pistols than shotguns. And having an assault rifle makes no sense to me overall, because they are not designed as hunting weapons.

[AllPurposeAtheist (OP)]

Wikipedia is notoriously inaccurate,  not a reliable source.

[stromboli]

http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-ac ... pedia.html

And last year, a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that Wikipedia had the same level of accuracy and depth in its articles about 10 types of cancer as the Physician Data Query, a professionally edited database maintained by the National Cancer Institute.

The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies.

To add to the debate, Life's Little Mysteries carried out its own, albeit small, test of Wikipedia's accuracy by consulting experts from two very different walks of life: theoretical physics and pop music.

Life's Little Mysteries asked Adam Riess, professor of astronomy and physics at Johns Hopkins University and one of the scientists credited with proposing the existence of dark energy , to rate Wikipedia's "dark energy" entry.

"It's remarkably accurate," Riess said. "Certainly better than 95 percent correct."

Overall, Wikipedia has been shown to be as accurate as other recognized sources.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Its uncentralized nature provokes people to ignorantly criticize its reliability whenever it is a source of facts that others dislike.

Don't you know, accuracy can only come from the top down?