Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

It is that momentous, and it remains beside the point.

That is not quite true, and it doesn't matter. That's not how tyranny commonly imposes itself anyway. The value of an armed citizenry in discouraging or resisting tyranny has little to do with its ability to take on a domestic standing army in combat.

And the deflection of the discussion into that minor or side issue is part of the jamb - both "sides" based in fantasy and irrationality, the reasonable split, political gains prevented.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the age of swords and spears, or in the age of muskets, it seems sensible that an armed population would be reasonably well-protected against a coup by its own military. In today's age with drones, nukes and armored vehicles, it's lunacy. Furthermore, in a society with centuries of established democratic norms, it seems highly implausible that the officer corps and lower-ranking soldiers would, man by man, region by region, follow obviously tyrannical orders from a central authority.

But if the population really thinks a bunch of hunting rifles, handguns and assault rifles are what they need to protect their collective freedoms, then there should be some sort of central democratically-controlled authority/militia for each region, whose sole job is to guard a local weapons arsenal and distribute it to the citizenry in times of national emergency. That way the US government can't just come seize everyone's guns prior to a coup, but crazy individuals aren't free to make the law as they please and declare resistance to tyranny when the cops show up to seize their child porn, or shoot that annoying neighbor who won't turn their stereo down, or shoot the dog that keeps peeing on his/her flower garden.

I don't understand why folks like Sculptor are so frightened of tyranny from a government they're supposed to help elect, but when an unelected government in Syria tortures and murders hundreds of thousands of its citizens and invites radical Islamic and fascist foreign militias and armies to take control of its territory, those who resist it are automatically and uniformly labeled by these people as terrorists. Maybe it's not about tyranny itself, but more about who gets to impose it on whom.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not get?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It doesn't say where you get to keep and bear them.

 

The opposite. They were subject to military coups and enslavements practically at whim - followed by disarmament, of course, to forestall rebellion.
Armies were cheaper and smaller then - easier to use. Modern firearms and the development of heavy military weaponry have brought a change in tyrant tactics - in those places blessed with such industrial advancement.

There is. And they are distributed accordingly. Right now. In case of emergency. That's the "keep and bear" part. (Most places have found it cheaper to not bother actually building an armory for the arsenal, since it plays such a minor role).

btw: You want to gather all the weapons into a central location controlled and overseen by the government, so that they can't be seized by the government? That's going to be a hard sell.

This strawman fantasy of how tyranny imposes itself is apparently a central confusion.
Tyrannies commonly use terrorism, not military assault, against their populations.

 

Are you an American, or someone from a "civilized" country? Keep and bear is pretty straightforward. Nowhere does it say where you can't keep and bear arms, and your niggling away at semantics is simpleminded.

 

So why then are you not allowed to take your guns with you on airplanes, to kill the terrorists with their boxcutters?

 

Well if the majority of the population isn't fit to wield such weapons, then it's pretty easy to control. I'm postulating a hypothetical scenario in which that's not an issue.

In Hitler's case that's realistic, but in the USSR's case they had the Red Army rampaging everywhere and it still took them years to seize power, plus they had Germany's help as part of undermining the Tsar. But suppose Hitler's approach to tyranny is adopted by a US president, faking terror attacks and then justifying martial law to oppose them. How the hell is an armed mob of citizens supposed to stand up to that if it successfully dupes every branch of the military and nearly every soldier from every city, town and county? Wouldn't the armed mob make things even worse and support the government in its actions against the fake terrorists?

 

Asshole, boxcutters are illegal on planes too. Are you going to try to make a point, or just keep trolling?

 

You were assuming historical states of affairs that did not exist.

The despotic coup itself - when the Revolution, a successful armed citizen's uprising against the military of the State, was betrayed into tyranny - was called the "Great Terror"; the analogous event after the French Revolution was called "Reign of Terror", and it failed: the ambitious despot was defeated.
If you are doing a statistical survey, count all the countries of Africa, Asia, and the Americas, that have suffered coups by despots of various kinds. The army, when it fought, fought another faction of the army or some other army - almost every time. Turning the domestic army against the domestic population is largely unworkable: very expensive, very dangerous, clumsy and slow and ineffective. That's not the threat an armed citizenry is primarily forestalling.

 

Why are you?

The whole point of an armed populace, as given in the Federalist papers, was to safeguard against an army capable of overwhelming the people.

The framers assumed it and Madison expressly allowed it as president.

Muzzleloading cannons not capable of firing fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 and replicas thereof are antiques and not subject to the provisions of either the Gun Control Act (GCA) or the National Firearms Act (NFA).
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-muzzleloading-cannons-classified-destructive-devices​

Again, what one "has" doesn't determine what one is "allowed to have." So all these "very few militia had" arguments are irrelevant red herrings.

No, it doesn't. Madison, as president, expressly said civilians could own cannons.

No, again, read the Federalist Papers. Or just keep sounding ignorant, which is one of the best arguments against gun control.

Airplanes are private property, where the owner or his representatives can bar guns on their property, just like anyone else.

 

That was also the point of limiting or forbidding a standing domestic army.
That has little to do with defeating said army in open battle.

They didn't have a standing army.

Now we see that language - the Constitution "allowing" people to have things - from the NRA side.
It's a "bothsides" issue, this jamb.

The existence of well regulated militia of the time without cannon proves that being a well regulated militia did not require cannon in the view of the authors of the 2nd Amendment.
And it wouldn't matter if it proved the opposite at the time - cannon like that are not the weapons of a well regulated militia now.

Guns are also banned on government owned airplanes, and from areas in municipal airports, and so forth.

 

Mr. Toad says that it constitutes an infringement of his right to keep and bear arms wherever he pleases. My argument is that he doesn't have that right, even in the US constitution.

 

I never said that. It speaks to your complete idiocy that you try to put words in my mouth when the evidence is here in print.

 

4372 words in the constitution
27 words in the second amendment

It really ain't a hard read.

 

firarms are situationally limited on aircraft
the general public can't carry as it's a pressurized tube in flight and it's not a common training tactic for the general public to train in pressurized tubes at 25K plus feet travelling at above 250+ knots depending.

Firearms are allowed for specifically trained personell due to the complexities of the situation
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunition

to share a quote from another experienced person, Christopher Hawk, Retired after 30+ years police/EMS experience:

 

I expect they're required to carry Glaser rounds when flying. I know I'd prefer that if I were flying and the air marshal had to fire on someone...

 

The bullet design can produce deep wounds[4] while failing to pass through structural barriers thicker than drywall or sheet metal.

 

And in schools?

 

currently this is also true of schools: Firearms are allowed for specifically trained personell due to the complexities of the situation