Will New Federal Gun Control Lead To States Seceding?

[doodle]

Anytime you attempt to overthrow a government with less than the majority of people on your side, you are entering into dangerous waters. If the country is split 50/50 then weapons will simply lead to a bloodbath civil war. If the numbers in oppposition to the government are 80 / 20 there is a pretty good chance that government wont last long if the people decide to just go on strike and flood the streets.

What was the percent of Crown supporters in the colonies during the Revolutionary War period?

According to wikipedia:

While there is no way of knowing the numbers, historians have estimated that about 15–20% of the population remained loyal to the British Crown; these were known at the time as "Loyalists", "Tories", or "King's men". The Loyalists never controlled territory unless the British Army occupied it.[65] Loyalists were typically older, less willing to break with old loyalties, often connected to the Church of England, and included many established merchants with strong business connections across the Empire, as well as royal officials such as Thomas Hutchinson of Boston

[murphy_p_t]

How is a balance to be found between the two? People's liberty to freely buy guns is conflicting with many people's entitlement to live.

How so? Consider the number of unjustified shooting vs the number of guns owned by Americans. Also, consider the number of times weapons are used to defend oneself or others.

Your statement fails to pass a simple smell test.

[doodle]

"There is no reason why Amendments are set in stone. "

Part of the problem w/ this statement is that the underlying assumption is that the right to keep and bear arms is granted by the State. Same with freedom of speech, association, etc. This is incorrect. The right (and duty) to suitable self defense is comes from God, Natural Law, part of our human nature, etc. The duty to protect oneself is not granted by government...rather it is primordial.

The 2nd amendment simply recognizes this fact. To be denied our human freedom is to be placed under totalitarian oppression.

What defines "suitable"? Can I plant landmines on my front lawn? Can I bury a missile silo in my backyard and stock it full of nuclear and chemical warheads. By many peoples logic here, no one has the right to decide this definition of suitable but the individual.

Tools of war which a soldier/infantryman/militiaman can carry should be allowed by 2nd amendment ("keep" and "bear"). A single troop cannot shoulder a nuclear warhead today...neither could they shoulder ("bear") a cannon back in revolutionary war days. Re: landmines: this is unit equipment, not equipment of a single infantryman...to allow this, in my mind, would stretch the 2nd amendment beyond what it states...as this is born by a military unit, not a single infantryman.

Why let men who have been dead 250 years decide what a "suitable" amount of weaponery is? Why cant I decide it for myself in light of my individual temperament and circumstances. If Larry Ellison wants chemical and nuclear weapons to protect his island, why cant he do that?

I'm guessing that if you believe people have the right to protect themselves then we shouldn't be meddling in Irans desire to aquire nuclear weapons or even the Talibans attempts to do so. By what right does America decide what weapons another sovereign people can or cannot aquire?

We are arguing on principle after all..

[murphy_p_t]

Anytime you attempt to overthrow a government with less than the majority of people on your side, you are entering into dangerous waters. If the country is split 50/50 then weapons will simply lead to a bloodbath civil war. If the numbers in oppposition to the government are 80 / 20 there is a pretty good chance that government wont last long if the people decide to just go on strike and flood the streets.

What was the percent of Crown supporters in the colonies during the Revolutionary War period?

According to wikipedia:

While there is no way of knowing the numbers, historians have estimated that about 15–20% of the population remained loyal to the British Crown; these were known at the time as "Loyalists", "Tories", or "King's men". The Loyalists never controlled territory unless the British Army occupied it.[65] Loyalists were typically older, less willing to break with old loyalties, often connected to the Church of England, and included many established merchants with strong business connections across the Empire, as well as royal officials such as Thomas Hutchinson of Boston

Wasn't it much higher % before the war and all began?

[murphy_p_t]

Why let men who have been dead 250 years decide what a "suitable" amount of weaponery is?

Well...our entire legal/judicial system is build upon the past. We don't tear it down and begin again with the turning of each year of the calendar. A big part of our system is a written consitution, complete with amendments. This is the law of the land, which our elected officials swear to uphold and protect.

Why cant I decide it for myself in light of my individual temperament and circumstances.

If you wish to do this legally, then first work to get the laws changed, including the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

I'm guessing that if you believe people have the right to protect themselves then we shouldn't be meddling in Irans desire to aquire nuclear weapons or even the Talibans attempts to do so. By what right does America decide what weapons another sovereign people can or cannot aquire?

We are arguing on principle after all..

This line of questioning has no bearing on the conversation.

[murphy_p_t]

Back to the headline question...can we learn anything from other countries where extreme gun control measures were implemented, such as UK, Canada, Australia?

[TripleB]

Back to the headline question...can we learn anything from other countries where extreme gun control measures were implemented, such as UK, Canada, Australia?

UK now has the largest network of CCTV cameras watching every movement of its citizens.

Australia has some draconian internet monitoring/kill switch system.

Then again, I think the reason the US hasn't done this yet has nothing to do with being scared of gunowners revolting but moreso due to the large geographic size and relatively low population density compared to the UK, because the internet kill switch/SOPA/PIPA is coming.

[doodle]

Communist perspective from nytimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opini ... neral&_r=0

Among the O.E.C.D. countries that the World Bank groups as “high income,”? America has the highest gun homicide rate, the highest number of guns per capita and the highest rate of deaths due to assault. In fact, America has more homicides by gun than all of the other high-income O.E.C.D. countries combined.

If you look at the numbers we have 88 firearms per 100 people. That is more than double the closest OECD country. If every man woman and child in America was given a gun by the government...do you think the number of total homicides by firearms in America would increase or decrease?

[Pointedstick]

If you look at the numbers we have 88 firearms per 100 people. That is more than double the closest OECD country. If every man woman and child in America was given a gun by the government...do you think the number of total homicides by firearms in America would increase or decrease?

As always, I think that arming dangerous people would result in more violence, while arming responsible people would prevent and diminish it. So I suppose it depends on what you think the proportion is.

[murphy_p_t]

Doodle...by again throwing more st*ff at the wall, rather than responding when I called out your fallacious line of argument...do you acknowledge that your previous attempt lacks merit?

[doodle]

What fallacious argument are you refering to?

[Pointedstick]

I'm guessing that if you believe people have the right to protect themselves then we shouldn't be meddling in Irans desire to aquire nuclear weapons or even the Talibans attempts to do so. By what right does America decide what weapons another sovereign people can or cannot aquire?

We are arguing on principle after all..

Just for the record here, I completely agree. Nuclear non-proliferation and arms embargoes are just international gun control.