No Second Amendment in the UK

[Sytes]

@ajricketts , upon reflection of your question with your statement, "not a fan"...
Not a fan = Not a personal desire for open carry, IMO, not anti 2A. This is how I took your post to read.
However, if I misread your post and this was your intent; Not a fan = vote / protest in opposition towards the right to, "bear arms"... yes, IMO, that is a direct anti 2A position.

 

[SAJ-99]

You think an armed or unarmed population is more easily controlled?

It appears we have learned that a population that spends 3 hours per day on Facebook is easily controlled. You seem to think ‘control’ only comes through direct fear, but it’s the message of fear that seems to do more harm.

 

[FI460]

@ajricketts , upon reflection of your question with your statement, "not a fan"...
Not a fan = Not a personal desire for open carry, IMO, not anti 2A. This is how I took your post to read.
However, if I misread your post and this was your intent; Not a fan = vote / protest in opposition towards the right to, "bear arms"... yes, IMO, that is a direct anti 2A position.

So your position is that to propose legislation in opposition to open carry is inherently 2A? Is that true for all legislation/ regulation of arms in your opinion?

 

[LWC55]

Here is my answer to your earlier question (and no, I am not playing the cross-examination game of "you must answer solely yes or no", or answer "when did you stop beating your wife?" - these rhetorical tricks are beneath the level of quality discussion that HT often has - save that for reddit).

At the level of arms and training available the average US citizen, and in the numbers of such citizens that have ever actually taken up arms against the US or state government in the last 150 years I do not believe that an "unarmed population" is any easier to control in a democratic society.

As for your new question - you mix two different histories. The first is that authoritarian governments have historically limited access to weapons for the purpose of maintaining their authoritarian government. The second is in the case of democratic governments, they have sought to limit access to weapons at the democratic request of their citizens for the purpose of limiting the violence that may be done between such citizens. Two completely different reasons. To rally around the first scenario, the burden is clearly on you to demonstrate we are living in the first instance.

Not liking a democratically enacted tax, or zoning requirement, or environmental regulation, or court judgement etc etc etc are not authoritarian acts that should be met with armed resistance. I get it, people don't like changes - but give me a clearly supported argument that the US is moving towards a true authoritarian form of government (think Hilter, Stalin, Mao - not modern France, Sweden or Belgium) and that this move can be effectively prevented by me having a 17 round magazine for my glock.

Since you won't answer it honestly, I'll give you the answer. Yes, unarmed citizens are much easier to control than armed citizens. If one group has weapons and another group does not, the unarmed group has no choice but to cede control. For thousands of years, governments around the world have limited their citizens' ownership of weapons for POWER AND CONTROL. Power and control over a certain group or ideology. This fact does not change now that one party's attempting to do so under the guise of "for your own safety". Semi-auto weapons did not change the motivations of power hungry people throughout the world. Semi-autos gave them the propaganda to herd the sheep. People really should study more history.

 

[Sytes]

So your position is that to propose legislation in opposition to open carry is inherently 2A? Is that true for all legislation/ regulation of arms in your opinion?

Definition: Bear.

verb

1. 1.
   (of a person) carry.
   "he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses"

 

[FI460]

Since you won't answer it honestly, I'll give you the answer. Yes, unarmed citizens are much easier to control than armed citizens. If one group has weapons and another group does not, the unarmed group has no choice but to cede control. For thousands of years, governments around the world have limited their citizens' ownership of weapons for POWER AND CONTROL. Power and control over a certain group or ideology. This fact does not change now that one party's attempting to do so under the guise of "for your own safety". Semi-auto weapons did not change the motivations of power hungry people throughout the world. Semi-autos gave them the propaganda to herd the sheep. People really should study more history.

Where did anyone here mention their support for disarmament?

 

[FI460]

Definition: Bear.

verb

1. 1.
   (of a person) carry.
   "he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses"

I specifically avoided using the term bear. I figured I knew where you stood on that, and I dont disagree with you.

But what about other regulation? "Armor piercing" rounds, automatic weapons, SBRs, etc?

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

That is a whole other topic from what this thread covers, but I will say I think that this is a pretty simplistic view of what things would look like if, God forbid, the situation in this country devolves into chaos.

The military is made up of people with families and friends and differing political views. If we get to the point that we have devolved into armed conflict the likelihood that it would be the whole of the military armed to the teeth against some portion of the population with nothing but AR's and hunting rifles is remote. I can't see it breaking down that neatly.

I pray we never get to find out.

I know what you're saying, but that doesn't match up with what I was addressing.... Sytes was alluding that without the 2A that we won't be able to stop a dictator like Hitler taking over the USA. I'm saying that at the end of the day, people with AR's and bolt action rifles aren't going to do a thing to stop something like that. We didn't stop Hitler with our bolt action rifles like we stopped the British with our smoke sticks.

In our current world the 2A does not protect the 1A. I don't have the right to say what I want on HT because I have a rifle. If the Gov't wanted to shut me up my rifle isn't going to stop that in the slightest. We have those rights because the Constitution, and that the majority of the nation agrees that is the case.

That's what I'm getting at here, original quote I was addressing for reference:

Sytes said:
Far too many anti 2A folk forget their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents who fought not more than 75 years ago against a mad man who ruled a country bent on genocide.

75 years ago...

The same anti 2A people in America wept at such a shocking loss 2016. Outrage and direct ridiculous / outlandish remarks by the <HT censored political party> leaders and followers related to the alleged extremes of our current POTUS...

Yet only 75 years ago...

But hey, who cares, right?

Without the 2nd there would be no 1st. Without the first there would be no freedom.

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

@ajricketts , upon reflection of your question with your statement, "not a fan"...
Not a fan = Not a personal desire for open carry, IMO, not anti 2A. This is how I took your post to read.
However, if I misread your post and this was your intent; Not a fan = vote / protest in opposition towards the right to, "bear arms"... yes, IMO, that is a direct anti 2A position.

If it helps clarify, I would vote against an open carry law in Florida.

 

[Sytes]

Well, we've both answered our Q's, respectfully. @ajricketts

 

[VikingsGuy]

Since you won't answer it honestly, I'll give you the answer.
. . .
People really should study more history.

Telling me what "my honest answer is", is particularly arrogant and obnoxious. I gave you a full and thoughtful answer, one that is much more carefully crafted than your question. If you don't agree, then fine, but to say it is not honest is total BS. And in return, you ignore my follow up question.

As for history - people should understand our full history, not a semi-mythic history provided on the side of a cracker-jack box in 1955. If you are a fan of President Washington (I certainly am) I suggest you read a good book about the Whiskey Rebellion as a start.

 

[rwc101]

@devon deer , I used to watch a lot of MCQBushcraft on youtube (appears channel is gone now) where he hiked, camped, and hunted rabbits in the UK. Was that likely private land or is there any public land available for hunting?

 

[Sytes]

I specifically avoided using the term bear. I figured I knew where you stood on that, and I dont disagree with you.

But what about other regulation? "Armor piercing" rounds, automatic weapons, SBRs, etc?

I'm not a fan of AP's, nor full auto... however, ill leave that to the big boys and girls to argue the militia individual citizen equivalent as intended when written. There is a level that exceeds the individual "militia" citizen of the time... i.e. cannon, warship, etc. You get the idea, I believe.

 

[LWC55]

Telling me what my honest answer is particularly arrogant and obnoxious. I gave you a full and thoughtful answer, one that is much more carefully crafted than your question. If you don't agree, then fine, but to say it is not honest is total BS. And in return, you ignore my follow up question.

As for history - people should understand our full history, not a semi-mythic history provided on the side of a cracker-jack box in 1955. If you are a fan of President Washington (I certainly am) I suggest you read a good book about the Whiskey Rebellion as a start.

No disrespect intended. But you are not being honest if you can't admit that unarmed folk are easier to control than armed folk. You can dress it up however you want. But that was my question and you would not answer it which is your prerogative.

I'm a fan of Washington too. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[VikingsGuy]

No disrespect intended. But you are not being honest if you can't admit that unarmed folk are easier to control than armed folk. You can dress it up however you want. But that was my question and you would not answer it which is your prerogative.

I'm a fan of Washington too. Thanks for the suggestion.

If by control, you mean you and I are in a parking lot and you have a gun and I don't, yes of course you have more control. But at a societal level at a reasonable scale and a reasonable time frame, I don't agree that the relative power imbalance is the same as my parking lot example. A few guys with glocks & ARs against a Sheriff department over the course of a year - my money is on the sheriff every time.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Since you won't answer it the way I want you to honestly, I'll give you the answer.

Fixed it. Carry On.

 

[FI460]

I'm not a fan of AP's, nor full auto... however, ill leave that to the big boys and girls to argue the militia individual citizen equivalent as intended when written. There is a level that exceeds the individual "militia" citizen of the time... i.e. cannon, warship, etc. You get the idea, I believe.

So you believe there are reasonable limitations to the right. I think we're in much closer alignment than we know.

Do you think a safe storage mandate (when the firearm is not in use) would be in violation of the right to keep and bear arms? Is such a thing anti-2A?

 

[Tiredofthebickering]

Well, we've both answered our Q's, respectfully. @ajricketts

I bet we answered it differently

 

[LWC55]

If by control, you mean you and I are in a parking lot and you have a gun and I don't, yes of course you have more control. But at a societal level at a reasonable scale and a reasonable time frame, I don't agree that the relative power imbalance is the same as my parking lot example. A few guys with glocks & ARs against a Sheriff department over the course of a year - my money is on the sheriff every time.

I agree with your first sentence and your last sentence. But we aren't talking about a few guys in America with guns. We are talking about millions and millions of citizens. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, farmers, firemen, politicians, mechanics, salesmen, single mothers, stay at home moms, small business owners, factory workers, etc....etc.... 2 Million new gun owners in 2020 alone. The collective ownership of firearms from such a diverse group makes our citizens harder to control if our government decides to become more tyrannical. If we slowly give up our gun rights through a more "nuanced conversation" we will get to see firsthand how valuable the 2A WAS. I myself hope this never happens. Appears many on here are just fine with it and don't realize they are the frog and the water is getting warmer by the day.

 

[Sytes]

So you believe there are reasonable limitations to the right. I think we're in much closer alignment than we know.

Do you think a safe storage mandate (when the firearm is not in use) would be in violation of the right to keep and bear arms? Is such a thing anti-2A?

A gov firearm safe storage mandate upon law abiding citizens smells of political banter <HT Censored Political Party>, Don Lemon / CNN sensationalized as a means to govern private parental decisions.