When turbos are outlawed, only outlaws will have turbos.

Bookstores to gun stores? When I can download a dozen firearms onto my Kindle in an afternoon I'll be convinced that is a useful metric.



Since the idea of compromising on gun rights was brought up, I'm actually ready to discuss some compromises. The first compromise I would like to discuss is opening up the sale of fully automatic firearms to the citizenry without the Federal Class 3 license. The second compromise I wish to discuss would be nationwide reciprocity of concealed weapons permits. The third compromise I wish to discuss is removing the limitations on buying and selling firearms across state lines. The fourth compromise we should discuss is elimination of the counterproductive and highly dangerous "gun free zones" since only the law abiding honor them.

Let's compromise!

Lets not forget Undetectable Firearms Act, which surprisingly the NRA and various gun orgs was very quiet about.

For those of you who are not firearms people, let me walk you through something real quick...

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1389057010

This is a 1874 Sharps Cavalry Carbine. It has the distinction of being the first metallic cartridge rifle to be adopted for standard service by the US Army. It has no magazine and will fire 8–10 shots per minute. The above is probably chambered in .45-70. This would give it a muzzle velocity of 1,200 ft/s and an effective range of 500 yards.


https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1389057010

This fine specimen is the known as the United States Rifle, Caliber .30-06, Model 1903 or the M1903 Springfield Rifle. Its a bolt action rifle with an internal magazine that loads via an external stripper clip. While it is a blatant rip-off of the Mauser Model 93 (to the point where the US Government was ordered to pay MauserWerk something like $3,000,000 due to patent infringement) it is a fine rifle in its own right. After serving in both WW1 and WW2 it continued to be a part of the US Army and Marine Corps armories as a precision rifle platform for designated marksmen and snipers up until it was replaced sometime in the mid 80's. Quoted muzzle velocity is 2,800 ft/s and "effective range" is listed at 1,000 yards, though the wikipedia claims 5,500 yd as a "maximum range."


https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1389057010

The proper name for this rifle is the Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 but it is commonly known as the M1 Garand. This was the first semi-automatic rifle to be adopted by any world power as a standard issue infantry rifle. Gen. George S Patton is famously quoted as having referred to the M1 Garand as "the greatest battle implement ever devised." It holds 8 rounds of .30-06 Springfield and has a rate of fire of approximately 40−50 rounds/min. Muzzle velocity is quoted as something like 2,800 ft/s and effective range is over 500 yards. I can tell you first hand that its a lot farther than that...


https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1389057010

This handsome devil is known as the Short Magazine Lee-Enfield No 1 Mk III* as was the standard issue rifle for all branches of the British Armed Forces from its introduction in 1907 and used in limited roles up until the mid 80's, much like the US M1903 Springfield. It's 10 round detachable box magazine is chambered in .303 British and is quoted as having 2,441 ft/s muzzle velocity and claims as to rate of fire can vary. Pre WW1 British soldiers were expected to be able to perform "The Mad Minute" with this rifle. The "Mad Minute" consists of firing a minimum of 15 rounds into a 12" target @ 300 yards in less than one minute. It's one of the smoothest bolt action rifles I've ever handled

Every one of these rifles was designed and manufactured for one purpose: to kill people as efficiently and effectively as possible.

I personally own one of each of the above listed firearms.

Now, here is one of my current projects:

I am in the process of building an AR-15 variant of the M16-A4

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1389057010
(Note: This is not my rifle, its from the internet)

Due to a combination of Federal an State Law, I am unable to own either the full auto or select fire variants of the M16, so I must build my rifle on the civilian version of that platform known as the AR-15. Because I live in California, I will be limited to a 10 round magazine that I cannot remove from the rifle without using a tool. I also cannot purchase a genuine COLT AR-15 lower receiver as California has chosen to ban that particular brand. I am also prohibited from owning certain accessories that attach to the rifle for reasons that I don't fully understand.

To follow this up like I did above...
This AR-15 rifle is chambered in 5.56x45 NATO. It holds 10 rounds in a fixed magazine that cannot be removed without a tool. The 5.56 has a listed muzzle velocity of 3,110 ft/s and an effective range of approximately 400 meters. Its theoretical rate of fire is somewhere around 800 rounds per minute however removal and reinstallation of the 10 round magazine will effectively cut this to 30-40 rounds per minute.


So... what exactly is the difference? Why is one of these rifles that much more dangerous than the rest? Why am I not allowed to own one, but the rest are fine?

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1389057010

I would personally consider the M1 Garand a far more lethal firearm than the AR-15, even if I had access to 20-30 round magazines for the AR, yet no one seems to worry about the Garand. There were over 6,250,000 (That's SIX MILLION) Garands produced and you can STILL buy one (indirectly) from US Govt. stockpiles THROUGH THE MAIL via organizations like the Civilian Marksmanship Program for as little as $500-600, where as an AR-15 will cost you upwards of $1,000 in the current market.

The AR-15 is not an "assault weapon" it just happens to look like one. The M1 Garand is more of an "assault weapon" than the AR-15 will ever be.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1389057010

That's quite correct.

I realize that it is inevitable that any discussion of the politics surrounding certain issues will tend to devolve into a debate over the issue itself. And to some extent, I'm able to forgive this tendency, as it is so firmly ingrained the collective psyche as to be nearly axiomatic. But this does not constitute evidence that there is no merit at all in attempting to dissect the underpinnings of such arguments, if for no other reason than to gain a better appreciation of the human psychology at play.

In this case, an undeniable trend exists in the direction of "the government* is conspiring to deprive us of our liberties," and it's rather interesting to examine the philosophy of entitlement which leads to such generous interpretations of the nature of said liberties, and the increasingly hysterical and disjointed arguments from which are spawned.

So, what does "arbitrary" mean in this context?

Most laws are arbitrary. Why is the speed limit 65 MPH instead of 67? Why am I allowed to marry my first-cousin in Alabama, but only my second-cousin in Mississippi? Why am I allowed to keep a maximum of ten chickens in my backyard in Chapel Hill, NC, instead of nine or eleven? Why is the statute of limitations on medical malpractice claims in the state of New York 30 months? Why is the possession of two ounces of marijuana a felony in Vermont, but not 1.999999 ounces (and why doesn't this statue take into account variations in the earth's gravity due to elevation?)


If the mere fact that a certain law seems to be arbitrary to some degree is sufficient justification for you to feel threatened by it, then you have my sympathy, but not my respect.



The extent to which this right exists is debatable, and best left to a separate thread which I've been meaning to have for quite a while now. (I keep composing mental notes for it, but I never quite find the time to actually write it all down...)


That said, I don't think anyone is arguing against the notion that, wherein any deprivation or limitation of liberty is concerned, the burden of proof is incumbent upon those who would create such limitations. This is one of the primary functions of the congress, as outlined in Article 1.


In modern times, in fact, the US Supreme Court has tended to take a very anti-legislative, anti-police, pro-constitution stance when reviewing firearm-related appeals. For instance, in Bailey v. United States (1995), the court ruled against "enhanced sentences" for drug dealers who were pinched with both guns and drugs at the same time, provided that the guns were merely "in possession" (eg: in the locked trunk of a car, in a closet at home), and were not actively employed during the actual commission of drug trafficking.

Another good case is Staples v. United States (1994), where the court overturned a conviction under the National Firearms Act, deciding that it was necessary to prove that a defendant had full knowledge that a certain firearm was prohibited under that act in order to be convicted of possessing it. This case is especially fascinating, as it is a reversal of the classical holding Ignorantia juris non excusat, "Ignorance of the law excuses no one."


Taken collectively, these and other recent opinions form a strong basis to dispel the increasingly antiquated notion that the Federal government is moving in the direction of increased deprivation of liberty for its own sake. I would posit that those who argue that the US is devolving into a Police State would be well to invest some time in familiarizing themselves with present-day case law.

And here is one of the core elements from which all controversy over firearms legislation is derived.

I think we can all agree that, to some extent or another, an overwhelming majority of US citizens believe that one of the foundational responsibilities of any government is to protect the physical security of its citizens. This is even described in the preamble to the US Constitution, to "insure domestic Tranquility, (...), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

This expectation comes to the surface any time that a widespread or well-publicized tragedy occurs. In the case of a natural disaster with major loss of life and property, we typically expect to see news footage of wet, homeless people asking "where da gubment at?"

It can also be seen whenever any moderate-scale violent crime is committed, such as a mass shooting at a school. In such instances, public outcry tends to lean in the direction of "why isn't 'the government' doing more to protect our children?", and it is inevitable that knee-jerk legislation will result. For any legislative body to remain silent under such duress would not augur well their chances of re-election, and so we simply have to deal with the consequences of politicians quickly enacting legislation in order that they not be perceived to be doing nothing (from which careful, reasoned analysis of a problem is often indistinguishable in a soundbite-oriented society.)

Hanlon's razor implores that we must never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. While there may well be some small minority of politicians (or, more probably, holders of appointed office) who genuinely wish to act in a manner which is contrary to the preservation of freedom, a much greater number choose merely to act in the manner which they perceive to cause the least harm to their own career under circumstances of great duress.



And thus, the crux of the matter is exposed.

If we want to distill it down to something as simplistic as "pro" vs. "con," then it's fairest to say that those who are most strongly impassioned on both sides of the issue tend to argue from a principally emotional point of view, and seem to be much more interested in making their point heard than in listening to and comprehending any arguments being put forth by "the enemy."

This is no way to run a society, regardless of your personal biases or opinions on any given subject. And yet, it seems to be the system of policymaking which we have constructed for ourselves.

What to do...

I love that you make annotations! :bowrofl:

Just so we're clear, are you arguing in favor of arbitrary lawmaking? Or just noting that it exists? Because I've already done that.

I imagine he is arguing in favour because it is the only way to keep the system from immediately being so complicated that none of it works.

I think that there should be a council whos job it is to remove legislation as new legislation comes in.

or something I dunno. I am pretty anti statist, and regardless of the fact that a state will always exist due to human stupidity and laziness and sheep like tendencies, they long term effect of the state is that legislation just keeps getting added until everyone has a number, drives a blue prius, at 25mph to Gov Corp manufacturing Ltd, and eats corn flakes or whatever.

Eventually everything is legislated and no one has any freedoms.

Dann

That is one thing that has always really bothered me. New stuff passes, and the old outdated stuff isn't removed. It's like installing new firmware or drivers and leaving the old stuff there to conflict. I saw a graph somewhere a few months ago about the number of pages of federal law. Seems like the number at the turn of the last century was around 500. Current number is around 27,000. It's fucking ridiculous! And you just know that so much of that shit is so outdated, irrelevant and conflicting with current laws. That's exactly why so much in the US government is so inefficient and it takes so long to get anything done. Red tape EVERYWHERE!

BTW, that's pages, not laws. The number of laws that can fit on a page...?

And something else I found while browsing around. Feast your eyes upon that bullshit.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1389074655

I like pictures:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...Iz95ltbqWqvUJs


and the law: Happy New Year! 141 New Federal Regulations Added In 3 Days

For those that haven't actually read Dick's article... here:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-...ember-2013.pdf

I also urge anybody who has any interest in firearms one way or another to register at THEFIRINGLINE. Their Law&CivilRights forum is probably the best place on the entire internet to read and learn about gun-related legalities and policy. Many of the people who post in this forum are lawyers and firearms scholars. It is kept very civil and Obama rants are not tolerated... great place to get very specific technical and unbiased data from experts... kinda like MT.net.

The original topic of this post, regarding Dick Metcalfs article was hashed out back in November in great deal by people who actually know what they are talking about... for both sides of his article. I'll throw some highlights down here, but please, have a read through at least the first page:
No discussion of Dick Metcalf's article on gun regulations? - The Firing Line Forums

Dick wrote this article because there is a huge population of gun-owners that rely on the "what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand?" mindset and contribute absolutely nothing to the fight except their NRA memberships... which is awesome, but their attitudes don't actually "help" the NRA and other grass-roots organizations change laws, which is what counts. While I agree in principle with that statement, I also know we live in a nation of laws... and to keep my guns, I need to do more than just fold my arms and yell "NO". I need to be legally and politically active, write letters, appear at rally's, etc... Smart people understand this... dumb-ass rednecks do not.

Metcalf's problem was his timing. If he'd written this a couple years ago, mid-election cycle and before Aurora/SHE, he might have been better received... but with the current full-frontal attack on gun-ownership, the "You're either with us or against us" mindset is very powerful.

Grant Cunningham sums up some things pretty good:
http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog_...editorial.html

I'm espousing the rule of law as a general principle, and acknowledging the fact that while a law designed to cover the majority of situations may seem arbitrary in some, this does not diminish the necessity of having a uniform code of laws, but rather reinforces the vital significance of the role played by the judiciary in interpreting them. (See the citations provided in the second half of the post to which you are responding.)



Samnavy has dug up some really interesting and informative bits of discussion there, which really dig right down to the core of the "problem." It's not about guns at all, it's about people adopting extremist and binary points of view, and being completely unwilling (or unable) to have rational discussions about highly polarizing topics.

The question of "when regulation becomes infringement," for instance, is an excellent one, because it acknowledges that not all regulation is infringement, while simultaneously admitting that individual liberty must be accounted for in the debate about the common good.

Likewise, the writer who separates the form of the argument from the substance of the argument does a great service, in re: "Because Dick resorts to poor analogies people are going to claim that the underlying point he's making is false. It isn't." All too often, we make the mistake of judging that since a person has done a poor job of conveying a certain point, that not only is their argument invalid, but the point itself is false. In fact, this mindset is so ingrained in our society that criminal convictions are often overturned in the appeals courts not because the guilt of the defendant is specifically disproven, but because the argument made by the prosecution is found to be in some way defective.



Sadly, those who are most vocal in matters such as this are most often the least willing to even consider such arguments as these, as admitting the possibility (for instance) that not all regulation is inherently harmful to individual liberties is likely to inflame the opinions of the very extremists upon whose support said individual rely, be it in the form of magazine ads, campaign contributions, or votes at the poll.

Because the title of this thread is very hypocritical, I must ask Joe: did you do that on purpose?

It gave me a chuckle that you call out fear mongering pro gun lobbyists (which certainly DO exist) by using fear mongering in the title of the thread. This type of behavior exists on both sides of the argument (well, any argument really), and it's downright ridiculous.

It's meant to be a style-parody of many of the supposedly "serious" threads which pop up from time to time, not only here but in most public forums generally, wherein the author makes inflated and outrageous claims under the guise of "revealing the hidden truth," but with the actual purpose of merely inflaming public opinion towards the goal of [self-aggrandizement / selling advertising / winning an election / etc.]

I made a subtle reference to this back in post #41, under Note 3. This is similar to the thread which I created some time ago entitled "Breaking News from Fukushima!" to report that, in fact, nothing at all of any interest was happening. (This would be in contrast to the many "news" stories at the time which were speculating wildly about how the Fuku reactors were still going to explode, how fallout from them was going to poison every infant on the west coast of the US, etc.)





A similar concept would be Stephen Colbert's 2010 "March to Keep Fear Alive," which was a mock event intended to poke fun at Glenn Beck's announced "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial, and the subsequent "Reclaim the Dream" march staged by Al Sharpton on the same day. After John Stewart ALSO announced a similarly satirical "Rally to Restore Sanity," the two merged into the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear." It was considerably more popular than the supposedly "serious" rallies which it mocked.




But while the title is intended to be humorous, the thread itself is not. This actually is a very interesting subject- not "gun control" itself, but rather the public debate which surrounds it. It's a microcosmic illustration for the state of discourse in America generally, and a cautionary tale about how reductio ad absurdum sometimes manages to become actual policy if we let it.

On first day of online sign-up, 4,500 seek concealed carry permits - Chicago Sun-Times

Only 7,043 Illinoisans were enrolled in Obamacare plans two months after the website's launch, the Chicago Tribune reported in December.

Maybe we need to make gun ownership mandatory? seems like it's a purchase consumers actually want to make...

Still reading through the thread, but I had to post this.

This is the single most important line in the article. Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

Does this sound like the words of someone who intended gun rights to be purely for self defense and recreation? One of the main reasons we won the Revolutionary War is because we were using advanced French and German-style rifles with longer range and accuracy, and individual training while the red coats were still stuck with mostly inaccurate smooth bore muskets and formation training. If the opposite were true, we'd probably still be part of the Commonwealth. Part of the reason we're a country is that we (as individuals) had better weapons and training than our current army.

Here's a part of a copypasta I wrote, just in case someone has pulled out the "well regulated militia" talking point.

And my response to the "guns are designed to kill argument." From the Gun Rights thread. Edit: Just realized this has been paraphrased in this thread as the "Assault Pool" argument.

But no one is rushing out to ban swimming pools. Just "make them safer." What you're telling me here is your privilege to own a private lake is more important than my constitutional right to own a weapon to protect myself, my fellow citizens, or my country. A right that has already been thrashed by 75 years of anti-gun law.

Go back to Tumblr SJW. They miss you there. The recent Colorado shooting, the one that occurred just NINE DAYS after "the media" played recordings of the Newtown 911 tapes (remember, "the media" is innocent. They in no way let people know that if you're sick in the head and want to go down as a legend with 24/7 news feeds about your life that you need to do something horrific in a public place with unprotected people) was stopped when the school security guard booked it across campus and drew his gun on the shooter. Once he came up to armed resistance, the shooter committed suicide. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun..."

Gun murders are decreasing. By a lot. Gun suicides.... Not so much. But when you have the right tool for the job... :/ BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE KNEEJERK OVERREACTING GLORIFYING MEDIA. Or maybe it does.
'Columbine' Author Dave Cullen Criticizes Media's Handling Of Mass Shootings

Mass Shooting and Mass Media, Does Media Coverage Inspire Copycat Crimes?

And I had a list somewhere of what I considered real common sense gun law proposals that would actually work toward preventing gun crime. It might be on my other computer. I'll dig around for it and post it if I find it. Mostly it had to do with the ATF doing it's job, and not acting as the poster boy for the failed War on Drugs, using outdated laws designed to ensnare the Mafia on individuals without a clue.

If anyone here is legitimately interested in this topic, I do encourage you to read through the first page or two of the "Should you be allowed to own an RPG?" thread. Joe - That thread, read from your perspective, would be as much about the conversation and back-and-forth as it would the content.

I had started out as decidedly "pro-gun responsible gun ownership," but began to seriously question my position. While there was some initial less-constructive dialogue, I did additional research and some excellent points were made. Many of them have been paraphrased here.

The last couple of pages of that thread devolved into a more broadly political gun rights thread.

I take that back. That thread has a horrific signal to noise ratio.

I enjoyed reading some of this. Others parts, not so much.

I don't have a huge problem with what Dick wrote in his article. I think there are things that require more training, and carrying a firearm with you at all times is one of them. Personally, I think people should have more intensive driving examinations, and have to go through a lot more to get their license, but it is all about the money I suppose. Anyways, in the CCL class I took, it consisted of discussing rules with the judge for a few hours, then some range time where the deputies were happy to show off their swat weapons and let you use them. The full auto MP5 was a blast BTW. There were multitudes of people there who just plain couldn't shoot. They gave them their licenses anyways. So, this brings me to the first "compromise" that I would make:

I generally favor states rights, and states handling different regulations at local levels, but the self defense laws need some continuity and need to be the same or roughly the same over all states. In TX, I can shoot someone for stealing my laptop/car/lawn gnome. In TN I can't. In some states you have to try to retreat from the intruder which is threatening you. It is hard to keep straight. I don't want to have to sit there and ponder it if I am visiting another state. At the end of the day, I am going to do what needs to get done, but other people may not. Sort of the same with the CCL. I have to conceal in TX (for some reason you can't open carry, or give anyone reason to believe you have a weapon) and in TN, I can carry it openly however I want. I think qualifying for my gun license should be harder. I think it should be military style. You have to get so many hits in certain positions to qualify. If not, no license. I would be fine with that. You should have to demonstrate through knowledge of self defense laws and demonstrate capability with whatever weapon you have. It may be more expensive, I really believe there are some clowns out there with a CCL that don't know proper weapon clearing and safety procedures.



I truly believe that the crux of the situation is the media, and public perception. The media makes the "black scary rifle" out to be the bad guy. We have enough lemmings in our country to believe it. I don't believe automatic weapons are that bad. Have you ever tried to hit anything with one? It takes some training. The first time I shot one maybe one bullet went on target at 25m. The supressor thing is retarded as well. You can make them out of an oil filter or other readily available materials. Restricting these isn't keeping the criminals from getting them.

Restricting any semi automatic long rifle would be retarded. As everyone else has said, it just hurts the law abiding citizens. Those ridiculous CA, NY, and other laws are just that. I can reload one fairly quick with small mags, and the CA "tool" that they require is asinine. Aside from that, if anyone wants to do some damage in CA, all they have to do is adapt theirs, and drive to AZ to get some mags. That isn't stopping anything. Not like their isn't a ton of illegal weapons floating around over there anyways. All that did was hurt the normal guy.

What they need to do is get rid of the unenforcable laws that do nothing (see CA) and try to help the law abiding citizen make correct decisions about defending themselves against those who want to do harm. How to secure your fire arms and make sure they don't get used for illegal means. When to shoot, and when not to shoot.

As far as the mental evaluations go. I could easily fail one. However, I have seen a whacked out marine who had just had TBI from an IED strike pass not one, but six. Those things don't work. You could get a normal honest person failing one because they aren't trying to answer to the test, yet a psycopath passing one. Anyone with one iota of common sense can pass one, really. I think the bills existing are too strict on that. If I get in a fight with a guy, maybe even defending myself. Get charged with assault, and lose my rights, is that just? My dad can't legally buy a gun for that and he isn't likely to go on any shooting sprees.

Truth is, I would probably be much more deadly behind that M1 EO2K posted than behind an AR-15, definately at range. My Remington 798 is a beast and a motivated individual behind that would be unstoppable with a decent scope. It would be idiot proof at 300-400 yards. No one is gunning for that. No one is going to look twice at him zeroing the scope at the range, or buying a ghille suit, or whatever. My AR takes some thought and training to hit targets that far away.

At the end of the day, columbine, ok city, boston, and plenty of places over here have show what a bad guy can do with some improvised explosives versus large groups of people, and you just can't stop that. You can even do so with fairly complete anonymity or a death wish, and which dying is the least of their worries it seems.

If we are compromising, I would want to give into stricter licensing procedures for carrying a weapon (not owning one), and less equipment restrictions, which do relatively nothing.

Just nitpicking here... when you speak of NFA items, you've gotta be careful.

The actual use of an NFA item in a crime is VERY RARE... we're talking low-single-digits yearly, and all of those are illegally possessed.

In fact, the only reference I've found to a legally owned suppressor being used to kill somebody was a cop who shot his wife... JUST ONE INCIDENT EVER.

Additionally, there have been exactly 2 incidents of people being killed by legally owned machine guns... and one was a cop that shot an informant with his personal MAC11 back in the 80's.

Yup... that's it. I'm not gonna delve into SBR/SBS related crimes because they don't really matter... but you heard it... a grand total of 3 incidents ever where a legally owned NFA item was used in a murder.

The numbers for ILLEGALLY possessed hardware (semi-autos illegally converted to full-auto, and home-made suppressors, or stolen items) amount to low single-digits yearly across the country... yup, even though you can make a silencer out of a potato (not kidding), the bad guys just don't bother. And that's not just "used in a murder"... that's all types of crimes, whether it's simple brandishing all the way up to capital.

The anti's would have you believe that machine guns are everywhere and responsible for all the drug murders ever committed, and that every gang-banger is a ninja assassin sneaking silently into houses with silencers and killing kids in their beds. Movies don't help this popular idea and the anti's squeeze every last bit usefulness out of it.

The reality is that good guys don't use their NFA items in crimes, and it's too much trouble for bad guys to bother.

You know, I had never even thought to check. That is an interesting fact. I never thought it was very high.

Truth is, unless you were doing a full frontal assault on some well defended organization, a simple, illegally aquired handgun would be the way to go and easiest to conceal. Perfect for your street corner gangster/drug dealer.

I guess on GTA V where I was mowing down police, cruisers, and the national guard with a machine gun was pretty farfetched huh? :loser:

I was mainly stating that if I want to put a supressor on my AR for a hog killing excursion as not to upset the local populace by rocking the near by area with gunshots, or maybe I just don't want to wear ear plugs, I shouldn't be treated like a criminal for such.

Or were you saying that the NFA worked? I got kind of confused there.

Don't confuse the NFA with FOPA.

In 1934, the National Firearms Act started the requirement for registration of machine guns, suppressors, SBR/SBS, and AOW... among other things. $200 was the gong rate for a Tommy-gun, so they arbitrarily assigned that price to get your stamp... essentially doubling the cost of the most commonly used machine gun of the time. The whole thing was in response to the continuing proliferation of organized crime in major cities that came about during prohibition.

FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act) of 1986 put an instant cap on the sale of new machine guns. The numbers vary, and the ATF won't tell, but it's estimated that approx 175,000 machine guns were in the hands of civilians at the time, and isn't likely to have changed much.

Did the NFA work? If you assume that the recordkeeping from the time of enactment until present has been accurate, there have been a statistically insignificant number of crimes (including murder) committed with NFA items. We're talking about just 3 where it was the legal owner, and only a few more by illegal possessors. But you can apply that same metric to non-NFA firearms... how many crimes are committed by authorized persons with legally owned/possessed regular firearms?... ie, how many good guys with their own legally owned gun commit crimes with them? The answer is... not many. Almost all gun crimes of any kind are committed with illegally owned/possessed firearms.

Did FOPA work? In 1984, then-ATF Director Stephen E. Higgins testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, that registered NFA firearms aren't likely to be used in crimes, and more specifically that registered machine guns aren't considered a significant law enforcement problem. "In summary," Mr. Higgins concluded, "I would say that the National Firearms Act provides a satisfactory regulatory framework for keeping track of legally obtained weapons possessed by responsible, law-abiding gun owners." He went on to say that he knew of no more than 10 total crimes ever committed by owners of legally owned NFA items, and that some of those were simple administrative errors such as failing to notify the ATF that an owner had changed their state of residence.

In other words... it's impossible that FOPA "worked" because there was no problem to solve. It was a gun grab amendment put in at the last minute that nobody bothered to stop.

I'm a bit distressed by the fact that this thread seems to be drifting towards a debate over firearms legislation...

At any rate, getting back on topic...


"The Media" certainly plays a role, however I'm not sure that I'd dismiss this so simply as to say that they paint any specific picture per se.

It's been observed that Vietnam was the first "Television War," and that the mere fact that relatively immediate, deeply-integrated television coverage of the front lines existed at all was largely responsible for the shift in public opinion against both the war and the war-fighters, as compared to, say, every single foreign war which had preceded it. The raw, timely nature of "film at eleven" paints a rather starker picture of reality than the rose-colored tint of the conservatively-edited newspaper and newsreel journalism which had been the bastion of war reporting for the preceding century.

In much the same way, we now live in a world of not merely 24/7 live news coverage, but also 24/7 commentary and analysis. Whereas a story like University of Texas / Charles Joseph Whitman (1966) or even San Ysidro, CA / James Huberty (1984) would have merited a few minutes of airtime on the 6-o-clock news and a few columns in the "national" section of the next day's paper, sufficient media resources now exist to shove wall-to-wall coverage (and commentary, and opinion, and editorialism) of Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook into our ears for days on end like so many unwanted dicks. Its inevitable that the perception of such events will be greatly amplified, and so to the call for action in their wake.

Is this the fault of the media? Partially. They are certainly enablers, but the Fourth Estate have always done the same thing; report as much as possible, as rapidly as possible, to the fullest extend of their ability. If you want to lay blame, pin it on companies like Hughes Space and Communications (provider of satellite video services), the Moving Picture Experts Group (developers of video compression techniques), and Bolt Beranek & Newman / the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (creators and funders of the modern Internet.) They're the ones who have made possible this ceaseless barrage of "news".


Still, it's an interesting idea. We (WASPs), are pre-conditioned from birth to fear large, scary black things. :giggle:

I followed it for a while when it was first posted, but it seemed to devolve into silliness rather rapidly. (I mostly blame Braineack.)

I hold that thread in roughly the same regard as "The New Warrior Cop," as mentioned in Post 41 Note 3 of this thread.

Disclaimer: don't interpret any of what I am about to write as reflective of my opinions or lack thereof pertaining to firearms legislation itself. I am much more interested in dissecting the debate itself, rather than commenting on the supposed core issue. I promise that I will close the loop at the end of the post.


They sound like the words of a man who was a product of his era. As you note, the military landscape was much different then, both domestically and abroad. But times and technologies change, and so must attitudes.

The authors of the US Constitution knew this well, and devoted considerable attention to it. Article III Section 2 grants the authority to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution under circumstances unforeseen at the time of its authorship and to resolve questions or ambiguities arising from it, and Article V, in its entirety, is dedicated to describing the manner in which the Constitution may be amended, in order to adjust it to keep pace with changing times.

As is always the case in such situations, what actually matters is not what any one individual founder might have said extemporaneously to another, but what is written in the Constitution itself, and the manner in which that writing is interpreted by the highest Court at any given time.


Incidentally, the quote you refer to was taken from a letter penned by Jefferson to William S. Smith, an acquaintance of Jefferson's who fancied himself of Soldier of Fortune and would later raise funds to launch a private mercenary war against Venezuela in 1806. He was subsequently indicted and tried for violating the Neutrality Act of 1794, but escaped sentencing due to some legal sleight-of-hand.

During his trial, Smith claimed that he was acting under the authority of then-president Jefferson, a defense which the court rejected, stating that the President cannot legally authorize a private citizen to do that which is forbidden by the law. (Similar to a soldier's affirmative duty to disobey the unlawful orders of a superior.) Interestingly, Smith's private war was not merely in violation of the Neutrality Act, but of the Constitution itself. Article I, Section 8 specifically enumerates the power to declare war as belonging to the Congress, so if it is true that Jefferson endorsed this action (and a preponderance of sources suggest that Jefferson at least condoned this action privately), he did so in violation of the founding charter of the United States.


Unrelated, but relevant: Jefferson's solo acquisition of Louisiana in 1803 from a desperate France during the Napoleonic wars was also an unconstitutional usurpation of a power vested to the Congress.


I find it difficult to take seriously the opinion of a man so dedicated to the task of undermining the US Constitution, in a matter which is supported principally by that very same document.





And that was true in 1788. At that time, the US Army (officially created in 1784) was but a very small force, dedicated principally to the training of officers whose duty it would be to command the conscripted militia in time of need. The vast majority of the country's military capacity was vested in citizens who would be drafted into service as required, and who were expected to maintain both a fundamental level of combat-readiness and also their own armaments and tactical gear.

Today, something like the National Guard would be a vaguely analogous concept, though they are of course no longer the primary, front-line defense resource, nor are Guardsmen required to supply their own rifles and equipment. In the 21st century, we take for granted the concept of a permanent, professional, full-time standing Army. But no such concept was known in America during the 18th century. And, of course, the mast majority of the citizenry today have absolutely no military training of any sort, rending such comparisons even more tortured.


No, if we assume the present-day configuration of the US military to be a constant, then the notion of a popular uprising against the Federal government becomes somewhat antiquated. At best, we would expect such an insurrection to be quelled by the implementation of marshal law and the establishment of a police state; in the end, it would resemble little more than a typical Oakland riot (or, perhaps, the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion) rather than a Grand Revolution in the Bolshevik style.




Rather interestingly, this precise tactic (massed firing into an area) is one of the topics that I mentioned back in post #41, Note 1, when discussing the origin of the AR-15 rifle. During the 1940s and 50s, US Army doctrine shifted away from the marksman theory, and towards a recognition of the fact that massed fire supplied by small-caliber, fully automatic weapons tended to produce greater enemy casualties than the sort of individual marksmanship described by Robert K. Wright in the paper which you are quoting here (ful text).

This, of course, is reflective of changing technology. Prior to the development of lightweight, fully automatic, magazine-fed rifles, such a tactic could not possible have existed beyond the scope of those medieval-era archers and slingers which Wright refers to as the "Old World." But as technology made possible such weapons, military doctrine was adjusted to make the best utilization of them.

So, too, must attitudes towards the role of the citizen in the militia, and the role of the firearm in the life of the citizen.






All this having been said, I'm struggling to piece together a coherent notion of what it is specifically that I am meant to infer from all of this. That one man, speaking from a platform of no official authority whatsoever and commonly acting in direct contradiction to the very document which supporters of unregulated firearms possession cite as their sole authority, has a specific opinion about a controversial topic?

Is this meant to support an unregulated, literalist interpretation of the Second Amendment, or to attack it?

Sorry Joe, but all that fancy talk doesn't mean shit to the average gun owner. I own guns to protect my family and to tell the gov't they can fuck off when I've had enough.

When you start in with all the lawyer crap, debating comma placement and what a "militia" is, you lose all but the top 1% of gun-owners who aren't the ones you need to convince. This is what Metcalf was trying to get at... and the staff at G&A should have known better how it was going to be received.

The anti-gun types don't give a shit about that either, they're not interested in debating anything with you, let alone the actual law, they just want to take all the guns for feel-good reasons.

An intellectual discussion on this forum about the intricacies of the 2A just isn't possible. Nobody here has the vocabulary or legal expertise to do it at more than a superficial level. I've been neck deep in trying to understand every little bit I can about the subject for years, following every court case, every win/loss, and every new law, and unless you're a lawyer with a background in constitutional law, or a very dedicated and educated 2A scholar, you're just flappin' your gums.

I'm sorry Joe, I don't know how to say it kindly... but we're all really too dumb to talk about this like adults.

As far as I am aware, the Militia Act of 1903 is still on the books, which defines a reserve militia comprised of all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45. Some background is on Wikipedia


That seems a bit simplistic, If it were truly a popular uprising (as in lots of people) and the government did not back down, it would get really ugly. Probably similar to what we see in Syria.



Back to Dick Metcalf, he could not have been totally ignorant to what was going to happen. On some level I suspect he wanted a change in career path and used this incident as a means to enable that. This would also explain why he went and cried to the NY times about it.

I think the reason that many gun owners are sensitive to this sort of thing is because of the actions of prominent people such as Bill Ruger and manufacturers such as S&W or Colt in the early 1990's. Writing astroturf Op-eds is a favorite tactic of anti-gun groups, which also might help to explain why dissent is not tolerated for firearms journalists.

There are still gun-people who curse the name of Bill Ruger and refuse to buy their guns... even though he died a decade ago, and Ruger is now a public company who's current CEO is fucking awesome.

For those that don't know, Bill Ruger sold out the entire firearms industy in 1994 when he got the FEDERAL AWB passed (by supporting 10rd mag limits) with a loophole that allowed the MINI-14 to still be sold... making it the only semi-auto rifle that was still legal and allowing Ruger to corner the market for 10 years. Without his help, the anti-forces would not have succeeded. Read about it here: The Gun Zone RKBA -- William B. Ruger, Sr.'s dirty little secret

Well, again- I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. In fact, I'm trying really hard to keep this thread free of arguments which are directly for or against firearms regulation.

My real area of interest here is in analyzing the debate which surrounds firearms regulation, and insofar as that is concerned, you make an extremely valid point. I'm not quite convinced that the majority of Americans are "too dumb to talk like adults" (though I won't discount the possibility), but most people who do express a strong opinion on the subject certainly seem to be, at the very least, unwilling to have a rational, adult-level conversation on the matter.


I wonder... if we were to eliminate politicians from the sample, and draw a chart which correlates "strength of pro-gun / anti-gun sentiment" versus some metric such as educational background or IQ...

My thinking here is a sort of parallel to some of the existing studies which have done state-by-state comparisons of the outcome of presidential votes vs. metrics such as the rate of teen pregnancy, the percentage of the population who hold bachelor's degrees, average income, etc. While some of these purported reports have been confirmed as hoaxes, those which are in fact genuine do tend to show a small but consistently observable positive correlation between states which are traditionally "Red" and characteristics such as lower-than-average income, higher-than-average rates of teen pregnancy, and lower-than-average rates of graduation from a 4 year college.

I'd really like to see whether a similar negative trend is exhibited by those who express strong opinions on "gun control" in general, and whether a significant division exists between those who are strongly "anti-gun" vs. those who are strongly "pro-gun."

It's interesting that you bring this up, as I was just doing some research along similar lines.

The 1903 act is interesting because it actually took away a large degree of the autonomy which had defined the various Militae since the official codification in the immediate post-Confederate era. Specifically, it concentrated command authority at the Federal level, and resulted in the creation of what we now know as the National Guard. The practical effect of this was to improve the organization, training and readiness of the reserve military, and to make obsolete the old concept of the Militia as a loosely-organized bunch of farmers who could be called upon in times of need to shoulder their own rifles against an foreign enemy.

This is unsurprising, as mechanization was beginning to become a factor by the dawn of the 20th century, and advances in technology made obsolete the notion of farm-style muskets as an effective weapon against an organized professional army.


Today, of course, the notion of the "People's Militia" is obsolete for most practical purposes. The Selective Service system which we all had to register with when we turned 18 is a legacy of this concept, however consider the manner in which it is employed. During those wars in which the draft has been utilized, those conscripted have been provided the same formalized Basic Combat Training administered to all recruits in the Regular Army. They are likewise supplied with weapons, tactical equipment and clothing, and operate under the ordinary command structure of the Army.

The same applies to Guardsmen and Reservists, which the obvious exception that these second-line combat forces receive periodic, regular training in peacetime.

This is a far cry from the military landscape which existed during the time of the drafting of the Constitution, in which the "Militia" existed as a separate concept from the US Army (then the Continental Army), and Militiamen, when called to service, were provided with neither training nor arms, but rather were expected to provide all this for themselves.





Simplistic, but not unreasonable.

As I said before, martial law and a police state are probably the best-case outcome for a popular revolt in 21st century America. A determined uprising, against a determined government, would quite likely result in large-scale casualties. Would there be some degree of desertion and refusal to follow orders within the ranks of the Army? Quite possible, though I don't speak from an educated position here.

What would absolutely not occur, however, is the sort of bloodless coup and peaceful transition of power that we saw in the Soviet Union in 1991. That government was already on the verge of collapse, and the Red Army a shadow of its former self. Remember that the popular uprising there occurred on the heels of the August Putsch, in which hard-line elements within the KGB and Communist Party (including the vice president) successfully overthrew the Gorbachev government and seized power. The coup was short-lived and Gorbachev quickly returned to power, but that event had a hugely divisive and de-stabilizing effect within the USSR, weakening the government and throwing the military into chaos.

Had it not been for this event, the December uprising would have failed, and quite probably with civilian casualties on a scale similar to that which you describe above.

On that subject, consider for a moment just how sensitive the average US citizen has become to the notion of casualties in general. During the World Wars, and to some extent the Korean war, it was readily accepted that casualties, both to friendly military and enemy civilian populations, was simply a necessary burden to endure- the "price of freedom," to appropriate a phrase from Leonard H. Courtney.

In World War II, for instance, total civilian casualties across all involved nations outnumbered military casualties by nearly 3:1. A relatively small number of these are explainable by the German liquidation of large number of undesirables, and a somewhat larger number due to disease and starvation as a consequence of disrupted food and fuel supplies. Quite a large number, however, were killed in Europe and Asia (on both teams) as a consequence of military tactics such as saturation bombing, blitzkrieg, etc.

During the Vietnam war, the civilian deaths ratio fell to 2:1, and just as importantly, the ratio of US to NVA troops killed plummeted to somewhere in the vicinity of 1:10!

In the successive years, these ratios continued to improve as advancements in US tactics and technology made the concept of total war obsolete, and a sort of Pax Americana became the standard global condition. In the first Iraq war, the civilian : military casualty ratio flipped to 1:2, and the allied : enemy ratio remained somewhere in the vicinity of 1:10, though the total number of dead plummeted yet again, as precise infrastructure bombing eliminated much of Iraq's combat capability well prior to the actual ground invasion.

Similar trends continue on and on, to the point where in the present day, US military strategy is tipping in the direction of completely autonomous warfare, in which automated and remotely-guided aircraft and ground vehicles act as a proxy for US pilots and soldiers, with the aim of decreasing US combat fatalities towards zero.

This is understandable, really. I mean, it used to be that a casualty list of 10,000 provoked a teary eye and a sense of national pride. By comparison, a report today of six or ten US soldiers killed is enough to provoke outrage and protest.

How willing do you suspect that populace will be to directly engage in combat operations against its own government, and endure heavy casualties against the withering fire of a well-equipped mechanized infantry?



We are a nation of timid pacifists, not at all unlike internet era e-thugs. Many of us are willing to talk loudly and at great length about patriotism and duty, but relatively few, if the truth were known, would voluntarily answer a call to arms against an unconquerable foe.

I would like to propose that in a truly "popular uprising", the Department of Defense would publicly and outrightly refuse executive orders to resist the population. Your non-conscript military is a military "of the people", and the culture is very clearly defined such that we (military) exist for the sole purpose of defending the individual rights "of the people".

I expect that something as simple as "law" wouldn't stop the government from attempting to enforce martial law with active duty military, but I would like to point out that if the government were to follow its own laws in such a situation, the only military component that is legally allowed to operate on American soil (barring an unlikely invasion by a foreign military) is the National Guard. A response by the National Guard would even more completely define the phrase "of the people". Your police would be the ones to attempt to enforce blanket marshal law. Your military would shake hands with the population after "curfew" while providing a very small "show of presence" within immediate vicinity of "vulnerable high-value targets" - such as conducting "safety patrols" in the vicinity of hospitals once or twice a night.

The National Guard self-learned a valuable lesson in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. After Katrina, all guns were ordered to be confiscated. While the top commanders reluctantly agreed, entire units refused to carry out the orders, for it is the duty of every Soldier to refuse an unlawful order; and mass confiscation of privately owned weapons was in no uncertain terms, "unlawful". That defined a pretty significant culture shift in the National Guard - we don't Guard the interests of the state, we Guard the interests of the People.

In a popular uprising, the organizations that you absolutely must worry about are the internal bureaus and the local/state police; Employees of internal government bureaus rely on the governments function in order to maintain their livelihood, and can thereby be grouped into a category of people that self-define as "the ruling class". Local/state police would not be an across-the-board problem, but instead problems would come from individual departments depending on department attitude, feelings of entitlement, and C-LEO decisions.

In fact, I would like to suggest a distinct possiblity that the military would be far more likely to support the people than support the government, in the vast majority of cases by not participating, and in some cases, by either openly defending the population from government oppression, or by overrunning the smaller anti-uprising police establishments.

Just to add a bit on what Fooger was stating:

I was active duty Navy for 12 years, and am still in the reserves. Several deployments to the desert alongside Marines, Army, and Air Force personnel, under my belt, and still spend most of my days on the Navy base in Great Lakes.

The notion that the Military would ever take up arms against the American people on behalf of the Government is insane at best. If the Federal Government tried to use the Military to establish martial law, or to quell an uprising it would likely be the last action they take. Military personnel are more fed up with the Government than the average civilian, to the point that I believe that any sort of uprising would come from within the Military before the Civilian population. Granted, there would be a rift, and there would be some who side with the "orders are orders" crew, but they are vastly outnumbered by those who can see through the bullshit. People are just waiting for the "shot heard round the world".

It is well known in the ranks that we support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the Administration. Believe it or not, but that is emphasized these days from many of the top brass. Our senseless conquests, underfunding, overtasking, and lack of support by the current administration has not taken lightly by those in uniform, enlisted and officer, juniors and seniors.

Read that as a standalone piece and it serves just as well, in the context of this thread or any other debate or topic of argument.

This was actually addressed well in the previously referenced RPG thread. Somewhere around post #130 - #200 is the meat of the quality conversation. Fooger's comments below, vis a vis the distinction between police and active duty military, are a good recap.

I don't recall whether I made it that far into the thread the first time, but the specific post range which you pointed out is interesting.

Specifically, I went back and started re-reading from post #130. The very first sentence there was "His right to due process ended the minute he removed another person's right to due process far as I'm concerned."

I'm not even sure how to respond to that. I can't see how any rational person can genuinely put forth such an argument which completely disregards the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution in order to defend an extremely tortured interpretation of the second.

It's not merely that I disagree, it's that this kind of logic is so far outside of anything which I am capable of processing that I literally can't even formulate a cogent response. Anything which I might say in response to that would probably come out sounding like a joke.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, (...) nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

I mean, it's right there in plain English. The constitution specifically guarantees the protection of due process of law even to those who are accused of capital crimes. That such a thing can be so easily dismissed, while in the same breath holding dear a different right enumerated in the same document, is simply incomprehensible to me.

That portion of posts encapsulates an excellent microcosm of the conversation.

You have me, objectively questioning previously held beliefs. I dig into primary and secondary source data, citing much of it.

You have Mark, adding his often-succinct but cogent points.

You have Sam, adding a combination of well-researched points and some emotional emphasis.

Then, you've got some reasonable input on various relevant sub-topics (like the armed resistance vs conquest subject).

Finally, you have several people spouting off a combination of hyperbole, entrenched positions, knee-jerk reactions based on what they read into a post versus what was actually written, etc. Oh, and Hustler and Braineack.


All topics held in informal forums will contain signal-to-noise. Politically or religiously charged topics on car forums will tend to skew heavier toward the noise.

Dude, you know way more about this than I do. I think I have some more reading to do. I need to research more.

I thought I tried to address that. However, I believe that a story that addresses firearm legislation from a certain state is undoubtedly going to spill over onto the federal level. I believe that Illinois was well within their rights to do what they did. I do believe in states rights as long as they don't circumvent the constitution. I think more things should be handled at the state level. There are certain reasons I choose to live in the state that I do.

Oh, and LOL at your last comment.

Interesting, as we were having this conversation at work. I won't go into the details, but they all usually go the same. We were discussing how the government would probably use some organisation like DHS or something instead. We love to poke at those guys.

I agree, I just wanted to point out, that as far as the US Code is concerned, there is a rather specific definition as to what the militia is.


I guess it would come down to what is the catalyst for said warfare. Your resolve to fight would be a little bit stronger if your family and friends were being loaded into cattle cars than if you were lashing out over police officers beating someone you don't know.


I think they would have to use the military. We saw what happened to the LAPD when it was perceived that 1 person was systematically targeting them. Imagine what would happen if it were 10 people, and they weren't utter morons.

Entirely true.

Title 50 of the US Code (War and National Defense) also goes into specific detail about the criminal penalties associated with capture of or interference with a carrier pigeon employed in the service of the US Army; chapter 7 § 111 to 113.

However, neither carrier pigeons nor militia are relevant in the 21st century.



I don't mean to belittle what you're saying, I'm simply pointing out that the meanings and relevancy of things change over time. Whereas in the 18th Century the Militia was essentially a self-supplied peasant army, the Militia of the 21st century is a professional fighting force distinguished from the Regular Army only by the part-time nature of their service.

For instance, see the 2008 U.S. decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. At the district appeals level, the court stated that "the activities [the 2nd Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." And in electing to hear the case upon petition, the US Supreme that "The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia"

In other words, in the 21st century, the term "The Militia" does NOT describe every able bodied male. Rather, "The Militia" is a discrete organization, in which some men are members and participants and others are not.






And that's precisely why a popular uprising will never happen in the US in the first place.

I agree with everything you are saying about relevancy, but you lose me when you say this. The text of the 1903 ACT states:

As farm as I am aware, This text is still the law, and has not been modified by the legislature nor has it been rendered unconstitutional by the courts. It clearly states that all abled body male who is not a member of the organized militia is a member of the reserve militia.

Is it relevant to the right to keep and bear arms? no. Is it at all relevant to military combat and service? no. Is it relevant to this thread? no, except to answer the question TheScaryOne asked. The fact that it is not relevant does not invalidate the law. To use your pigeon example, the fact that the US Army does not use carrier pigeons does not repeal the law. It is still very much illegal to interfere with a US army Carrier Pigeon.


While I cannot come up with any realistic, simplistic scenario which would lead to a popular uprising, This logic seems a bit circular: The government will never do anything to trigger an uprising, therefore there will never be an uprising. Never is a long time.

I keep thinking about this...



I'm not a lawyer, nor am I a very dedicated and educated second-amendment scholar. In fact, I don't have any particularly strong convictions one way or another about the subject of firearms possession or firearms legislation. I really was serious when I said that I was much more interested in analyzing the debate about firearms legislation than the actual legislation itself, mostly because I find this sort of dissection to be immensely fascinating. I'm just a guy who likes to think about different sorts of things from time to time...



But am I the only one? It doesn't seem probable.



I think that you may be right, though. Actually, scratch that, I know that you're right. And yet I'm stuck with the problem that merely knowing something is not at all the same as really grokking it deeply.

I mean, I know that there are people who enjoy inserting rodents into their anus by way of a cardboard tube, and yet I can't really comprehend that fact in terms of empathizing with the desire to have a gerbil crawling around inside my rectum. It just doesn't compute, so to speak- like if I were to ask you what time it was, and you replied "Barry Goldwater."


The same concept applies here. When reminded, as you have done, I can certainly concede the notion that a large majority of Americans seem either unwilling or unable to devote even the smallest modicum of rational thought to most matters which are conventionally steeped in emotion, regardless of their importance. Or, perhaps even worse, at a rate inversely proportional to their importance (eg: we can have a rational discussion about which contestant on FOX's new hit series "Who Wants to Marry an Alaskan Crab Fisherman from the Jersey Shore" most deserves to die of a socially embarrassing disease, but not about nuclear energy, the due process clause or the nationalization of private industry.)

And from a purely intellectual standpoint, I also understand that this is why I'm so often accused of trolling or being contrarian, because just as I cannot comprehend their inability to engage in unbiased discourse, they can't comprehend the fact that I might have a genuine desire to do that very thing, nor my frustration when thwarted of it. (Does that sound patronizing or condescending? It's not my intention.)



I'm not really sure what to make of all this, really.




What does still puzzle me is the one thing that was floating around in my head back when I started this thread, and that was the sort of mindset that must accompany the sort of hysterical posting which I was attempting to emulate. In other words, when a person starts a thread such as "New warrior cop," and fills it with lots of cherry-picked, one-sided articles that paint an extremely biased (and often blatantly false) picture of a given topic with the inevitable result of inflaming emotions and creating lots and lots of patently ridiculous rambling, the one thing that I still can't quite figure is, well... why?

What's the motivation for that? Does the person genuinely believe that what they are writing is reasonable and valid? I refer not just to whomever re-posted the article on a forum, but the original author as well. Or is this intended to provoke irrational controversy for the sake of entertainment? That I can at least partially comprehend, since I'm in the business of selling audiences to advertisers, and one easy way to glue someone to a TV set is to give them something to get thoroughly riled up over.



But my suspicion, truth be told, is that we probably can't have a rational discussion about that either...

Okay, here's my best guess.

The reason the gun debate is so binary, with seemingly 99% of the population firmly entrenched on end of the spectrum or the other, is because of the dynamics of public debate and opinion itself. The less people care about something, the more likely you are to see a wide range of opinions, with nuance, compromise, and calm discussion.

But the more people care about something, the more likely you are to see opinions boiled down to two extremes. Instead of nuance, compromise, and calm discussion, you get black and white characterizations, entrenchment, and emotional hyperbole.

Okay, but maybe I'm just describing the state of affairs and not explaining it. Why does this binary state occur?

I think it's similar to the dynamics of Mutually Assured Destruction. Each side sees the other side's zealotry and is confident that if they give even an inch of compromise, the other side will take the proverbial mile. Even if one felt that some compromise would be reasonable and appropriate, publicly one states a much more extreme version of one's position in order to provide some buffer in case too much compromise occurs.

For example, say that I support the 2A but I believed that it would be reasonable to require certain training for CCW permits. However, I am concerned that if the anti-2A side believes I am willing to compromise on CCW permits, they will shoot for even more -- perhaps banning CCW altogether, something I would not support. Therefore, I don't publicly reveal my willingness to compromise on the CCW issue. If the anti-2A's happen to gain some ground politically or in public opinion, then I've saved a buffer between the battle line and the issues on which I'm unwilling to compromise.

What results is that both sides fear being the first to blink, and unwittingly giving away much more compromise than they intended or were willing to agree to. Instead, both sides shout down anyone who does voice public willingness to compromise. Over time, this methodology of public issues becomes an ideological position as internal thought begins to mirror the public statements.

So long as these two sides hold their positions, the battle line moves very little. The situation is balanced (mostly) and threatens to become unbalanced as soon as one side publicly voices willingness to compromise. So they don't. They shut down any talk of public debate or compromise, in order to maintain the balance.

Nope.

I'm interested in the economics of such debates - that doesn't necessarily mean "how much is someone willing to pay for something". In cases such as this, I'm always prying, trying to figure out "Why does each side value their own argument?" - or perhaps "What value would be given up by either side in the event of a loss?"

I've found that there are two major contributing factors to the arguments which polarize them.

First, is the value of the argument. As the value of the argument (or the value of loosing the argument) grows, the support grows stronger to those supporting that side of the argument.

Second, is the volume of the argument - that is to say the quantity of participants. As the volume of the argument grows, so does the support for that argument.

In order for the argument to properly "polarize", the product of the value and the volume must be roughly equal to both sides of the argument. That is to say that:
If [Value1*Volume1=Value2*Volume2], then polarizing effect is high.

It's difficult to assign an actual number to Value or Volume of the argument, but that's the rough equation.

It would seem, then, that the vast majority of issues would not be polarizing, as generally one side of the argument has either value or volume, while the other side lacks both. In some instances, when an issue lacks value and volume from both sides of the argument, the issue is simply pidgeonholed or ignored altogether.

For an argument such as nuclear power, then, the sides can be seen roughly as:
Pro-Nuclear has volume of argument, but lacks significant value of argument.
Anti-Nuclear has value of argument, but lacks significant volume of argument.

I would postulate that the majority of Americans, when polled independently, would support nuclear power, therefore they have volume, but their rationale is generally "clean, inexpensive power", which, as I'll explain later, is an extremely flat point of value.

Those that denounce nuclear power would be far fewer, but their point of value, generally, is the stongest point of value that human psyche can comprehend.

That value is what I call "Life" - or more appropriately, the threat of death. "Life" is the ultimate "point of value" or commodity, because without it, there is nothing left. So the pro-nuclear peoples say "clean, inexpensive power, yay!" while the anti-nuclear peoples say "yeah, but you'll die". Sure, it's not quite so simple as that, they're actually valuing "security of their lives" or some other environmental BS - which is merely a facade for their arguing for security of their life, but you get the point.

So lets move on to the gun debate. In the gun debate, I would suggest that the vast majority of Americans "simply don't give a fuck" one way or the other - they just want to feel better about themselves when they turn on the evening news, therefore both sides of the argument *usually* lack volume. Both sides, however, are lobbying for the same thing: Security of life. THAT is what makes the debate so polarizing. One side argues "If the bad guy can't get a gun, he can't kill you!" while the other side argues "The bad guy will find a way to kill you if he wants you dead, so having a gun can save your life!" - These are the primary arguments that each side uses, which is why each argument has such a strong value.

When a major gun crisis happens, the anti's feel two things - first, and most intensely, is the sypmathetic impact to the family members who were killed. Second, is a renewing feeling that their own lives might be threatened. This happens while the pro's are of generally mixed emotions, also sympathetic to the families of victims, but fear far less for their lives because they are able to prepare to defend themselves. With little resistance from the pro's (high value - no volume), the anti's who already had intrinsic value, now have volume (from emotional, high value people), and they have the power to initiate action issues.

Pro's are generally harmless until the Anti's mobilize on an issue. It is the action of anti's mobilizing on an issue which helps the pro's increase the volume of their high value argument. This stalls the anti's mobilization long enough for the emotional appeal to die off, which causes a drop in volume, while the pro's are able to retain volume and value much longer.

The lingering polarization that we are experiencing comes from the high values of the sides. In the current environment, where there is still high value but decreasing volume from both sides, it's generally seen as being a weak position to voice anything but the strongest support for ones own argument. It also helps to maintain volume - by claiming the other side of the argument is trying to do horrible things that will threaten security of life, each side of the argument is bolstering its own volume.

Think of it this way: the stronger and more vocal the argument, the more supporters you will maintain for your argument: The first side to fold, loses.

Early victories for the anti's were realized across the country, but almost immediately, the emotional appeal faded, and the pro's began quietly trampling legislation.