U.S. gun laws and the N.R.A.

I believe that martial law needs to be declared so the military can come and take all of the guns. We would also need to have a very high number of police for several years afterwards. I think 20 years of martial law would be enough to find most of the guns and flesh out the anti-government types.

I feel that there's a very anarchist, anti-government mentality in this country, where people want to be completely self-reliant and unaccountable to the government, laws, or their community. Granted, it's probably worse where I live because I'm in Texas, but the point is that any part of the country where they value order and community has insanely high property values and rents, while this awful mentality permeates much of the rest.

All the anti-police rhetoric on the news only encourages this, and encourages the irrational self-defence/tough-guy/NRA mentality. A nation of laws should have appointed protectors and users of force. Every man for himself is the law of the jungle and the frontier, not of a civilized society built upon a social contract.

Of course there need to be guns, but the guns should be in the hands of the police and the military, and not common, ordinary people that will serve their self-interests rather than the interests of others. People who will just cause chaos and do whatever they want, possibly even overthrowing the government.

The fact that there are so many people comfortable living without laws, without direction, and without strong government is disturbing to me. I am determined to change this culture, because the people of this country deserve better than to live according to such flawed, populist notions promulgated by paranoid people who believe they are being oppressed. Many of these same people also believe they've been abducted by aliens, or that they have devices embedded in their bodies. And yet we allow people in this state of mind to vote and determine the course of our country. It's disheartening, really.

I believe that martial law needs to be declared so the military can come and take all of the guns. We would also need to have a very high number of police for several years afterwards. I think 20 years of martial law would be enough to find most of the guns and flesh out the anti-government types.

I feel that there's a very anarchist, anti-government mentality in this country, where people want to be completely self-reliant and unaccountable to the government, laws, or their community. Granted, it's probably worse where I live because I'm in Texas, but the point is that any part of the country where they value order and community has insanely high property values and rents, while this awful mentality permeates much of the rest.

All the anti-police rhetoric on the news only encourages this, and encourages the irrational self-defence/tough-guy/NRA mentality. A nation of laws should have appointed protectors and users of force. Every man for himself is the law of the jungle and the frontier, not of a civilized society built upon a social contract.

Of course there need to be guns, but the guns should be in the hands of the police and the military, and not common, ordinary people that will serve their self-interests rather than the interests of others. People who will just cause chaos and do whatever they want, possibly even overthrowing the government.

The fact that there are so many people comfortable living without laws, without direction, and without strong government is disturbing to me. I am determined to change this culture, because the people of this country deserve better than to live according to such flawed, populist notions promulgated by paranoid people who believe they are being oppressed. Many of these same people also believe they've been abducted by aliens, or that they have devices embedded in their bodies. And yet we allow people in this state of mind to vote and determine the course of our country. It's disheartening, really.

So much wrong with this post its ridiculous.

The anti-police sentiment is not overwhelming coming from the people who want to be self-reliant from government like the people you encounter in Texas. Its largely coming from the people who are more likely to be dependent on government and in fact often don't have much hope of being independent of the state. This is often encouraged by those at the top with agendas to push such as the financier of black lives matter Soros.

Guns should only be in the hands of state actors because normal citizens are only interested in themselves while obviously its impossible for state employees to be self interested and abuse their power? Ha what a joke of a statement really.

You see, the problem is that that ship sailed a very long time ago.

There are MILLIONS & MILLIONS of guns in the US - (registered and unregistered) Nobody is ever going to pass a law at Federal level requiring they be handed in (for a start that would require a change in the Constitution - ain't happening) and if they could even do that, those that had registered guns would resist doing what the law requires, and they'd still be millions on unregistered weapons out there.

Just as an example, I actually purchased a semi-automatic AK47 at a gun fair in Orlando. I no longer own it but the point is that I paid cash for it. No questions asked. No bill of sale. I've no idea who I bought it from and the guy who sold it has no idea who he sold it to. Whatever laws are passed you'll never get those gray market weapons off the streets.

So, the only thing left to do is ensure that you can protect yourself and your family by staying locked and loaded.

That's not even joined up thinking.

There a thing called "The Constitution". Declaring martial law to quash the Constitution (or part of it) is one of the reasons that Americans hold the right to bear guns so dearly - fear of government. You really prove the point. One of the reasons that people want to bear arms is fear that government will become despotic - and here you are recommending they do so by riding roughshod over the Constitution. It's a bizarre position to take.

Good luck trying to sell "strong government" to the "people of this country" (especially in Texas - maybe try Vermont instead?)

for a start that would require a change in the Constitution

How about we sell the guns, right, but no bullets? But I guess people would start putting things like jaffa cakes in the holes and shooting them out at dangerous speeds. It's a tough one.

They have a saner attitude to self protection than we do. I'd rather self reliant, moral people could own weapons for self defense than the only people that get guns are the corrupt agents of the state and degenerate criminal scum.

I'm fairly sure this is what Switzerland does. It allows citizens to own a gun but you need a good reason to actually have the ammunition, hence why its gun crime rate is so low whilst gun ownership is high.

But ofc this is America so there would just end up being a massive black market for ammunition instead.

Incorrect, private ammunition is freely available in Switzerland.

Would it?

There is very little caselaw on the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court has a tradition of ducking cases on the issue.

Leaving aside the "only arms for a militia" argument, what is to stop the Supreme Court saying that there is a constitutional right to bear smooth bore muzzle loading weapons firing solid projectiles propelled by black powder and only those?

And if that isn't the case why isn't there a constitutional right to bear an H Bomb?

The highest court in the land has spoken on it:

In District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

So yes, it would require a constitutional amendment.

Leaving aside the "only arms for a militia" argument

What part of:-

did you struggle to understand?

Scalia J in the Heller case does comment on what are "arms" for the purpose of the US Constitution but that really wasn't in issue in that case (none of the dissenters address it) and he gets in an awful mess with the decision in Miller that really cannot stand with Heller on this subject and ends up with circular reasoning.


However, that is by the by. The Supreme Court frequent speaks and then changes its mind and speaks again differently. Do you seriously think that if one of the majority judges was gunned down by a crazed schoolboy and was replaced by Obama with say Andrew Cuomo the decision in Heller would not be effectively be reversed at the first opportunity?

Essentially the definition of what are "arms" for the purposes of the 2nd Amendment is a much more promising area for argument than the rather sterile "only arms for a militia" argument. You only have to ask the question would the founding fathers have held that a widow had the right to keep a gun to see that the "only arms for a militia" argument is nonsense.

I'm not going to sit here splitting hairs with you. If you imagine that guns could be taken away from private individuals in the US without a change in the Constitution you're simply delusional. Get yourself a tin foil hat.

I'm not going to sit here splitting hairs with you. If you imagine that guns could be taken away from private individuals in the US without a change in the Constitution you're simply delusional. Get yourself a tin foil hat.