6 ms·

> rural people and some others will not consent to giving up 2A or being disarmed, full stop. I read some “gun people” discussing this. An argument was that th

> rural people and some others will not consent to giving up 2A or being disarmed, full stop. I read some “gun people” discussing this. An argument was that they were not single issue voters, but rather they were a foundational issue voters. That all rights (to him/them) are supported by the idea the public is a counter force to the government. Fundamental before all other issues because is the prevention of the gov backtracking or infringing on anything “down stream”. So... That if a politician supported the disarming of civilians that was indeed a full stop to other thoughts on abortion or the foreign trade or etc. It was a good read really, because calling them a single issue voter may give the wrong impression, which is good for no one coming to the table on other issues.

maxerickson 6y ago
None of them have tanks, it's not a foundational issue, it's identity politics.
- anonfornoreason 6y ago
  Go tell that to the Afghans and Iraqis that don’t have tanks either.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    I'm not making an argument about the effectiveness of small arms, I'm saying if you punt on tanks, you aren't actually an absolutist about the right to bear arms.
    - anonfornoreason 6y ago
      Ahh got it sorry, I misread your comment. My apologies!
    - glenra 6y ago
      > I'm saying if you punt on tanks, you aren't actually an absolutist about the right to bear arms. Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon." The word "arms" in the right to keep and bear arms explicitly meant weapons that could be carried by a single infantryman. It was never about (and still isn't about) tanks, or cannon, or warships, or nukes. So no, you don't have to be committed to allowing tanks to be fully keen on the right to keep and bear arms. (if you still doubt this, focus on the word "bear". You can't "bear" a tank, if anything a tank bears you.) ( https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/iii-what-arms-meant-circa-1787 https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/iii-what-arms-meant-circa-17... ) That said, it actually happens to be totally legal for private citizens to own a tank in most countries, including the US. They're expensive, get terrible gas mileage, probably not street-legal to drive on the freeway, unlikely to fit in your garage and the neighbors are bound to complain if you fire the main gun...but you totally could own one (and drive it around your own private property) if so inclined.
      - sk5t 6y ago
        Is it your position that you could purchase and possess shells for your main battle tank without uncomfortable inquiries by BATF?
        glenra 6y ago
        You could register the gun and make it fully legal to use under the NFA in which case yes, you could possess shells and even fire them. There's paperwork, but it's possible and some people do it. Um, here: https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/operational-tank-for-sale-armslist/ https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/operational-tank-for-sale-a... (Making, say, a 50 caliber gun legal under the NFA is indeed somewhat more onerous than owning a shotgun. And a gun rights advocate certainly could care about trying to make it less so but they're not required to care about it because - as I said above - a tank doesn't count as "arms".)
      - pdpi 6y ago
        > That said, it actually happens to be totally legal for private citizens to own a tank in most countries, including the US. Case in point: A few years ago I had a company outing to go play tank paintball. This was in the UK.
    - miked85 6y ago
      Why stop at tanks in your argument? What about nuclear weapons?
- rayiner 6y ago
  We just had a bunch of yokels with small arms nearly overthrow the government.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    That's not a particularly apt description of what happened. (they weren't yokels, they weren't particularly armed, they were aligned with officials, etc.)
  - sk5t 6y ago
    It will take some time yet to unravel what happened, and more importantly, who permitted it to happen that way. Their arms didn't enter into the equation, and frankly it is shocking that violent insurrectionists at the Capitol weren't met by a hail of rubber bullets or worse.
    - brutal_chaos_ 6y ago
      "and frankly it is shocking that violent insurrectionists at the Capitol weren't met by a hail of rubber bullets or worse." For the cynics and BLM activists and more, this is seen as obvious (no rubber bullets, no real resistance). The police forces will tear gas (illegal in warfare), rubber bullet, etc. black lives matter protestors, but won't dare go against white protestors / insurrectionists. We still have a 'uge race issue here. We just cover it up with policies. In reality (aka both insurrection and protests) we clearly see the two groups treated completely different.
      - miked85 6y ago
        A women was shot in the neck and killed. I am sure she would have preferred the tear gas or rubber bullets.
  - AuryGlenz 6y ago
    “Nearly overthrow the government” is a bit of an exaggeration.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  Tanks are fully legal to own. So are the cannons. Not thinking a tank is a good buy doesn’t make a gun rights advocate any less of a foundation issues voter. I’m pretty sure you dismissing the conversation I reported as “identity politics” is exactly what the argument was warning against; people misreading opponents of gun control as some surface level thing that can be hand waved away. Also, “identity politics” isn’t right. No one is born a gun owner, nor can you identify one in a line up or nod to one walking down the street unless they want you to know they are “one of us”. Nor does owning a gun preclude you from another group like being white or black might, although there is a long running AK vs AR debate, but I think that’s pretty much been settled!
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    Tanks that are capable of firing are not usually legal to own - much like most military equipment. Obviously, it is state dependent. But I agree there is a foundational element to the 2nd amendment (which is why they passed it 2nd), and it is not (only) identity politics.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  People brought pipe bombs to the US capitol.
- Ancapistani 6y ago
  Point of order - there are a fair number of us in the US that do in fact own tanks. If you expand the definition of “tanks” to the commonly used one of “armored vehicles”... then there are a lot more than you’d likely expect.

maxerickson 6y ago

None of them have tanks, it's not a foundational issue, it's identity politics.

anonfornoreason 6y ago
Go tell that to the Afghans and Iraqis that don’t have tanks either.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  I'm not making an argument about the effectiveness of small arms, I'm saying if you punt on tanks, you aren't actually an absolutist about the right to bear arms.
  - anonfornoreason 6y ago
    Ahh got it sorry, I misread your comment. My apologies!
  - glenra 6y ago
    > I'm saying if you punt on tanks, you aren't actually an absolutist about the right to bear arms. Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon." The word "arms" in the right to keep and bear arms explicitly meant weapons that could be carried by a single infantryman. It was never about (and still isn't about) tanks, or cannon, or warships, or nukes. So no, you don't have to be committed to allowing tanks to be fully keen on the right to keep and bear arms. (if you still doubt this, focus on the word "bear". You can't "bear" a tank, if anything a tank bears you.) ( https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/iii-what-arms-meant-circa-1787 https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/iii-what-arms-meant-circa-17... ) That said, it actually happens to be totally legal for private citizens to own a tank in most countries, including the US. They're expensive, get terrible gas mileage, probably not street-legal to drive on the freeway, unlikely to fit in your garage and the neighbors are bound to complain if you fire the main gun...but you totally could own one (and drive it around your own private property) if so inclined.
    - sk5t 6y ago
      Is it your position that you could purchase and possess shells for your main battle tank without uncomfortable inquiries by BATF?
      - glenra 6y ago
        You could register the gun and make it fully legal to use under the NFA in which case yes, you could possess shells and even fire them. There's paperwork, but it's possible and some people do it. Um, here: https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/operational-tank-for-sale-armslist/ https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/operational-tank-for-sale-a... (Making, say, a 50 caliber gun legal under the NFA is indeed somewhat more onerous than owning a shotgun. And a gun rights advocate certainly could care about trying to make it less so but they're not required to care about it because - as I said above - a tank doesn't count as "arms".)
    - pdpi 6y ago
      > That said, it actually happens to be totally legal for private citizens to own a tank in most countries, including the US. Case in point: A few years ago I had a company outing to go play tank paintball. This was in the UK.
  - miked85 6y ago
    Why stop at tanks in your argument? What about nuclear weapons?
rayiner 6y ago
We just had a bunch of yokels with small arms nearly overthrow the government.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  That's not a particularly apt description of what happened. (they weren't yokels, they weren't particularly armed, they were aligned with officials, etc.)
- sk5t 6y ago
  It will take some time yet to unravel what happened, and more importantly, who permitted it to happen that way. Their arms didn't enter into the equation, and frankly it is shocking that violent insurrectionists at the Capitol weren't met by a hail of rubber bullets or worse.
  - brutal_chaos_ 6y ago
    "and frankly it is shocking that violent insurrectionists at the Capitol weren't met by a hail of rubber bullets or worse." For the cynics and BLM activists and more, this is seen as obvious (no rubber bullets, no real resistance). The police forces will tear gas (illegal in warfare), rubber bullet, etc. black lives matter protestors, but won't dare go against white protestors / insurrectionists. We still have a 'uge race issue here. We just cover it up with policies. In reality (aka both insurrection and protests) we clearly see the two groups treated completely different.
    - miked85 6y ago
      A women was shot in the neck and killed. I am sure she would have preferred the tear gas or rubber bullets.
- AuryGlenz 6y ago
  “Nearly overthrow the government” is a bit of an exaggeration.
SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
Tanks are fully legal to own. So are the cannons. Not thinking a tank is a good buy doesn’t make a gun rights advocate any less of a foundation issues voter. I’m pretty sure you dismissing the conversation I reported as “identity politics” is exactly what the argument was warning against; people misreading opponents of gun control as some surface level thing that can be hand waved away. Also, “identity politics” isn’t right. No one is born a gun owner, nor can you identify one in a line up or nod to one walking down the street unless they want you to know they are “one of us”. Nor does owning a gun preclude you from another group like being white or black might, although there is a long running AK vs AR debate, but I think that’s pretty much been settled!
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Tanks that are capable of firing are not usually legal to own - much like most military equipment. Obviously, it is state dependent. But I agree there is a foundational element to the 2nd amendment (which is why they passed it 2nd), and it is not (only) identity politics.
threatofrain 6y ago
People brought pipe bombs to the US capitol.
Ancapistani 6y ago
Point of order - there are a fair number of us in the US that do in fact own tanks. If you expand the definition of “tanks” to the commonly used one of “armored vehicles”... then there are a lot more than you’d likely expect.