6 ms·

Well, not that I agree with it entirely, but here's my understanding of the argument (which might be entirely wrong): Going way back, the 2nd amendment entitle

Well, not that I agree with it entirely, but here's my understanding of the argument (which might be entirely wrong): Going way back, the 2nd amendment entitles US citizens to own firearms because it's supposed to be a government for the people, by the people. If the people no longer support the government, they can revolt (ala american revolution). At the time, citizenry owning firearms was sufficient for a revolution to be successful. See 3rd amendment, as well. So, the 2nd amendment was really an escape clause for citizens if they no longer wish to support the government. It just happened to be written as a gun measure. Having a governmental database controlling gun ownership thus violates that intention.

revelation 10y ago
Is there an argument in here? None of that has anything to do with having an registry of who bought a gun. Vehicles have to be registered, and so should guns. For essentially the very same reasons.
- chris_va 10y ago
  The argument is that a gun registry defeats the intended purpose of the second amendment, which (indirectly) is to prevent the government from stopping a popular revolution.
  - revelation 10y ago
    When you say indirectly, you gotta make the connection for it to be an actual argument. Something like "when the government has a list of every gun owner, they could stop a popular revolution because (X insert here)". You can't hand wave it into being. I don't see the connection to a registry at all. So you're an evil dictator and want to kill that revolution, what good is a list of 150m individual persons? What good is the mapping from "identification number" to "gun owner"? Is it important which "guns" participate in the revolution? Can anyone tell that?
    - chris_va 10y ago
      The "indirection" here is on the intention of the 2nd amendment, which while written to provide for gun ownership is actually intended to provide for popular revolution. Having said that, yes, I left out why a gun registry might restrict the probability of a revolution unstated. Let's imagine it's 1860, and the local ex-slave population is acting up. But, you have a registry of all ex-slaves who own guns. You drive around with a posse and confiscate them all before a popular revolution gets going. Is that in the best interests of the local people? Probably not, thus a registry in this context could be used to suppress the citizenry. The same thing is true today, but realistically there is no way individual gun ownership in 2016 is going to be sufficient to for a population to successfully revolt. It's not like we are letting people own gunships. However, the 2nd amendment hasn't been updated to reflect modern reality. In a lot of ways, this boils down to an "originalist vs living constitutional" argument.
      - jameshart 10y ago
        But in that story it's the decision to use the database to carry out confiscation which is unconstitutional, not the existence of the database in the first place. If a government decided to confiscate all the cars from Hispanic people by using their vehicle registration database, that would be unconstitutional too - but that doesn't mean having a vehicle registry is invalid.
        dsfyu404ed 10y ago
        Practically everyone owns a car. There'd be some pretty obvious writing on the wall if a small vocal minority demonized cars and convinced the gov't to confiscate them from one minority (racial or otherwise) everyone else would catch on quick. Not as many people have skin in the game in terms of gun ownership. Why don't you trust the populace with their guns rather than ask the populace to trust the gov't with a registry? For X amount of bad things to happen (where X is a large number) you need a lot more coordinated or systemically encouraged action in the first situation whereas in the latter a few insulated members of the elite and a loud lobby by a few interest groups would suffice.
        10y ago
  - gcr 10y ago
    How does collecting a gun database prevent a revolution? Concretely, what's the argument here other than "surveillance is bad"? Using such a database to deny a citizen the right to purchase a gun would be one way, for example, but I don't see that mentioned here.
    - lwhalen 10y ago
      A gun database enables mass confiscation, and historically a gun database precedes mass confiscation by a few short years.
      - gcr 10y ago
        Historically? When has this happened in the past?
        hga 10y ago
        Off the top of my head: Nazi Germany, initially using "well intentioned" Wiemar law, in fact (the period after the WWI defeat was very chaotic and bloody). See this book by the #1 RKBA legal scholar for all the details: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1598131613/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1598131613/ The description also helps confirm this next example: Any country they invaded with registration lists, including the Netherlands; perhaps the #1 US RKBA activist of the 20th Century got started down that path in basic training after WWII, when a refugee from there related an atrocity he'd witnessed, where a whole family was machine gunned in the village/town square after the head of the household couldn't produce a handgun the register said he had. The above examples are particularly instructive since by definition you can never know who might in the future use such data for ill. Soviet Russia if I remember correctly; in fact, if I remember correctly, there was not a single genocide in the 20th Century that wasn't proceeded with the pattern, aside from China, where the Communists instead dried up the supply of guns held by the population by imposing "rifle taxes" on the wealthy. Basically, their life was forfeit unless they supplied the Communists with a certain number of guns, and they moved heaven and earth to do that, not that it did them any good in the end. Of course, the poorer the population in general, the easier it is to pull of such a gambit, or a registration followed by a confiscation, so many fewer have guns. Communist Cuba, for sure. They came up with a catchy slogan, got too many people to register, confiscated the guns, and then gangs of them started having fun with their class enemies. As noted elsewhere in this discussion, in smaller numbers for select types of weapons, with of course the option to remove them from the state, this has happened in California when the status of the obsolescent (but certainly effective, e.g. used by the recent Dallas cop shooter) SKS, and in New York State. Something like it might be playing out right now in Massachusetts as their AG decided to redefine their "assault weapons" law, but she's still changing her not actually all that official position on it (i.e. it's published in unofficial venues like the office's web cite, no proper rule making process was followed).
mpetrovich 10y ago
Another case of antiquated laws losing touch with current realities. Are people really that naïve to think that a few handguns or rifles will matter against a government with superior weaponry? This isn't the 18th century anymore; handguns and assault rifles won't stand up to tanks and jets.
- modoc 10y ago
  Granted this is a massive over simplification, but during the Revolutionary War a bunch of farmers with the simplest of firearms did pretty well against better equipped, organized, trained soldiers. In many fights of this type (internal) victory doesn't necessarily require militia A defeating army (with tanks) B. It can come from militia A being a large enough PITA to warrant a change in plans, or gathering enough popular engagement and outrage to make a difference, or for members of Army B to say "hey I don't want to shoot (or be shot by) my neighbors in Milita A". FWIW I am not a proponent of armed revolt against our government, but I think your question regarding AR-15s vs M1 Abrams isn't capturing a possible/likely reality.
  - Maken 10y ago
    That's a heavily romanticized vision of the American Civil War. The revolutionary army was composed in a good part of pre-existing militia from the colonies, which was later expanded with enlisted civilians.
    - modoc 10y ago
      Like I said, super simplified. But surely you aren't arguing that the revolution army was trained or equipped to the same degree as the British Army?
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  I don't see why you're being downvoted, but: trained and well-equipped people with hunting rifles can form an effective guerrilla. However, whether they could do much in the US today other than harass the civilian population, much in the same way as violent gangs in the inner cities already do, is highly questionable.

revelation 10y ago

Is there an argument in here? None of that has anything to do with having an registry of who bought a gun. Vehicles have to be registered, and so should guns. For essentially the very same reasons.

chris_va 10y ago
The argument is that a gun registry defeats the intended purpose of the second amendment, which (indirectly) is to prevent the government from stopping a popular revolution.
- revelation 10y ago
  When you say indirectly, you gotta make the connection for it to be an actual argument. Something like "when the government has a list of every gun owner, they could stop a popular revolution because (X insert here)". You can't hand wave it into being. I don't see the connection to a registry at all. So you're an evil dictator and want to kill that revolution, what good is a list of 150m individual persons? What good is the mapping from "identification number" to "gun owner"? Is it important which "guns" participate in the revolution? Can anyone tell that?
  - chris_va 10y ago
    The "indirection" here is on the intention of the 2nd amendment, which while written to provide for gun ownership is actually intended to provide for popular revolution. Having said that, yes, I left out why a gun registry might restrict the probability of a revolution unstated. Let's imagine it's 1860, and the local ex-slave population is acting up. But, you have a registry of all ex-slaves who own guns. You drive around with a posse and confiscate them all before a popular revolution gets going. Is that in the best interests of the local people? Probably not, thus a registry in this context could be used to suppress the citizenry. The same thing is true today, but realistically there is no way individual gun ownership in 2016 is going to be sufficient to for a population to successfully revolt. It's not like we are letting people own gunships. However, the 2nd amendment hasn't been updated to reflect modern reality. In a lot of ways, this boils down to an "originalist vs living constitutional" argument.
    - jameshart 10y ago
      But in that story it's the decision to use the database to carry out confiscation which is unconstitutional, not the existence of the database in the first place. If a government decided to confiscate all the cars from Hispanic people by using their vehicle registration database, that would be unconstitutional too - but that doesn't mean having a vehicle registry is invalid.
      - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
        Practically everyone owns a car. There'd be some pretty obvious writing on the wall if a small vocal minority demonized cars and convinced the gov't to confiscate them from one minority (racial or otherwise) everyone else would catch on quick. Not as many people have skin in the game in terms of gun ownership. Why don't you trust the populace with their guns rather than ask the populace to trust the gov't with a registry? For X amount of bad things to happen (where X is a large number) you need a lot more coordinated or systemically encouraged action in the first situation whereas in the latter a few insulated members of the elite and a loud lobby by a few interest groups would suffice.
      - 10y ago
- gcr 10y ago
  How does collecting a gun database prevent a revolution? Concretely, what's the argument here other than "surveillance is bad"? Using such a database to deny a citizen the right to purchase a gun would be one way, for example, but I don't see that mentioned here.
  - lwhalen 10y ago
    A gun database enables mass confiscation, and historically a gun database precedes mass confiscation by a few short years.
    - gcr 10y ago
      Historically? When has this happened in the past?
      - hga 10y ago
        Off the top of my head: Nazi Germany, initially using "well intentioned" Wiemar law, in fact (the period after the WWI defeat was very chaotic and bloody). See this book by the #1 RKBA legal scholar for all the details: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1598131613/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1598131613/ The description also helps confirm this next example: Any country they invaded with registration lists, including the Netherlands; perhaps the #1 US RKBA activist of the 20th Century got started down that path in basic training after WWII, when a refugee from there related an atrocity he'd witnessed, where a whole family was machine gunned in the village/town square after the head of the household couldn't produce a handgun the register said he had. The above examples are particularly instructive since by definition you can never know who might in the future use such data for ill. Soviet Russia if I remember correctly; in fact, if I remember correctly, there was not a single genocide in the 20th Century that wasn't proceeded with the pattern, aside from China, where the Communists instead dried up the supply of guns held by the population by imposing "rifle taxes" on the wealthy. Basically, their life was forfeit unless they supplied the Communists with a certain number of guns, and they moved heaven and earth to do that, not that it did them any good in the end. Of course, the poorer the population in general, the easier it is to pull of such a gambit, or a registration followed by a confiscation, so many fewer have guns. Communist Cuba, for sure. They came up with a catchy slogan, got too many people to register, confiscated the guns, and then gangs of them started having fun with their class enemies. As noted elsewhere in this discussion, in smaller numbers for select types of weapons, with of course the option to remove them from the state, this has happened in California when the status of the obsolescent (but certainly effective, e.g. used by the recent Dallas cop shooter) SKS, and in New York State. Something like it might be playing out right now in Massachusetts as their AG decided to redefine their "assault weapons" law, but she's still changing her not actually all that official position on it (i.e. it's published in unofficial venues like the office's web cite, no proper rule making process was followed).

mpetrovich 10y ago

Another case of antiquated laws losing touch with current realities. Are people really that naïve to think that a few handguns or rifles will matter against a government with superior weaponry? This isn't the 18th century anymore; handguns and assault rifles won't stand up to tanks and jets.

modoc 10y ago
Granted this is a massive over simplification, but during the Revolutionary War a bunch of farmers with the simplest of firearms did pretty well against better equipped, organized, trained soldiers. In many fights of this type (internal) victory doesn't necessarily require militia A defeating army (with tanks) B. It can come from militia A being a large enough PITA to warrant a change in plans, or gathering enough popular engagement and outrage to make a difference, or for members of Army B to say "hey I don't want to shoot (or be shot by) my neighbors in Milita A". FWIW I am not a proponent of armed revolt against our government, but I think your question regarding AR-15s vs M1 Abrams isn't capturing a possible/likely reality.
- Maken 10y ago
  That's a heavily romanticized vision of the American Civil War. The revolutionary army was composed in a good part of pre-existing militia from the colonies, which was later expanded with enlisted civilians.
  - modoc 10y ago
    Like I said, super simplified. But surely you aren't arguing that the revolution army was trained or equipped to the same degree as the British Army?
semi-extrinsic 10y ago
I don't see why you're being downvoted, but: trained and well-equipped people with hunting rifles can form an effective guerrilla. However, whether they could do much in the US today other than harass the civilian population, much in the same way as violent gangs in the inner cities already do, is highly questionable.