Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)

[Terthna]

Supreme Court to take up major Second Amendment concealed handgun case

The case will examine whether a New York state law that makes it difficult to get a handgun permit is constitutional.

www.nbcnews.com

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet here. Good to see them (finally) taking a firearms case.

Now we just have to see what they do with the case. Are they going to adhere to the constitution like they should, or will they kowtow to the regressive left yet again?

 

[Captain X]

Cops warn Britain is being flooded with 3D printed guns thugs buy for £300

CRIMINALS are flooding British streets with 3D printed guns in an “unprecedented” security threat, a Sun investigation has found. Cops have been ordered to search for the futuristic dev…

www.thesun.co.uk

Found this article about 3d printed guns gaining ground in the UK. What's funny is they don't mention that the first person arrested for 3d printed gun charges was only making them as movie props. More interesting question: where do the criminals get bullets for these? UK has some strict ammo licensing.

Probably from crooked cops and/or someone in the military.

 

[Captain X]

Not sure if this will work, but I think this illustrates wonderfully that the cops will definitely break their oaths if they are ordered to do it:

 

[Zachowon]

Not sure if this will work, but I think this illustrates wonderfully that the cops will definitely break their oaths if they are ordered to do it:

So one cop represents all of them?

Like damn I guess the left has a point with ACAB then...

 

[LindyAF]

One cop isn't all cops. But it's definitely SOME cops. And if you habitually defend every cop like you do, you'll miss that.

The guy is also right about one thing- it is hard to tell your boss "F off" but that doesn't mean there aren't also points at which honor dictates that you do so or you are morally obligated to do so. I think a lot of people, particularly "2A supporting" cops overestimate their willingness to do so - or fail to understand what their unwillingness to do so means.

There are lots of cops that are confident that if there was ever gun confiscation, they would be the first to rise up against a tyrannical government. I'm sure even many of the cops that have enforced red flag orders think of themselves that way. There are plenty of cops that would think that they'd never confiscate guns up until they were ordered to do so, and then they'd find an excuse for why this wasn't really confiscation. You can see that guy doing it already with the scare quotes on freedoms and confiscation.

There are also plenty of good cops and miltiary personnel who would not do so- the Oathkeepers draws heavily from former cops and military - that's where the name comes from, keeping the Oath they gave. But the ones who would not do so are the ones who are, typically, the least knee-jerk defensive of these institutions when it comes to these issues.

That's why I think it's important for people in a potentially morally compromising line of work to have thought out specific things that are fairly likely to happen that will cause them to say "F off" or quit.

 

[Doomsought]

The guy is also right about one thing- it is hard to tell your boss "F off" but that doesn't mean there aren't also points at which honor dictates that you do so or you are morally obligated to do so. I think a lot of people, particularly "2A supporting" cops overestimate their willingness to do so - or fail to understand what their unwillingness to do so means.

I'm going to go ahead and set the high bar: A cop is only truly 2A supporting if they are willing to stand by or shoot other cops when a citizen resists gun confiscation with lethal force.

I'll, put that down for all human rights: you don't really support them unless you are willing to see people killed in order to protect the right.

 

[LordsFire]

I'm going to go ahead and set the high bar: A cop is only truly 2A supporting if they are willing to stand by or shoot other cops when a citizen resists gun confiscation with lethal force.

I'll, put that down for all human rights: you don't really support them unless you are willing to see people killed in order to protect the right.

Harsh, but not without some truth to it. I don't know if I agree with you 100%, but it's certainly closer to the truth than the appeasement line.

Part of why people try the frog-boiling method is because when things are ambiguous, it's easy to default to not taking the nuclear option. Frankly, it's ethical to not default to taking the nuclear option.

However, you also need to think ahead and clearly about where exactly you will draw the line when people start playing silly games with the middle ground. If you don't, then you're just making it easy for the frog-boiling method to work.

 

[Zachowon]

The military is a diffremt beast.
Since our oath first and foremost is to protect the constitution

 

[LindyAF]

The military is a diffremt beast.
Since our oath first and foremost is to protect the constitution

It's literally the same for police. Maybe not in all cases since there's more variance with state and local branches, but IIRC most cops in the united states do swear an oath to uphold the constitution specifically. Even in cases where they don't, if they swear an oath to uphold the laws of the united states then that also covers the constitution which supersedes all other laws. Like here's one for the state of Tennessee.

 

[Zachowon]

It's literally the same for cops. Maybe not in all cases since there's more variance with state and local branches, but IIRC most cops in the united states do swear an oath to uphold the constitution specifically. Even in cases where they don't, if they swear an oath to uphold the laws of the united states then that also covers the constitution which supersedes all other laws. Like here's one for the state of Tennessee.

There is no variance for me.
Literally the very first thing we swore too is the constitution and to defend againstforeign and domestic threats (It is a LOT harder for us to defend against the later)

 

[BlackDragon98]

There is no variance for me.
Literally the very first thing we swore too is the constitution and to defend againstforeign and domestic threats (It is a LOT harder for us to defend against the later)

That's open to definition.
And right now, anyone left of communist is on the list.

 

[Zachowon]

That's open to definition.
And right now, anyone left of communist is on the list.

it is a lot harder for the DoD to operate against US persons

 

[BlackDragon98]

it is a lot harder for the DoD to operate against US persons

For the DoD yes, but not the FBI, which is just as militarized.
Got a target?
They've got an agency/department for that.

 

[Zachowon]

For the DoD yes, but not the FBI, which is just as militarized.
Got a target?
They've got an agency/department for that.

I...was talking about the DoD

 

[BlackDragon98]

I...was talking about the DoD

I know.
DoD is fine for the most part.

Question: Is there a difference if the operation is on US soil or something?
I recall there being something about the US military not being able to operate on US soil or something.

 

[Zachowon]

I know.
DoD is fine for the most part.

Question: Is there a difference if the operation is on US soil or something?
I recall there being something about the US military not being able to operate on US soil or something.

The federal forces of the US can no operate on US soil unless certain things happen.
Martial law, or MPs being brought to add more support should national guard not work

 

[Panzerkraken]

The federal forces of the US can no operate on US soil unless certain things happen.
Martial law, or MPs being brought to add more support should national guard not work

For more detailed information, you can look at the Possee Comitatus Act in 18 U.S.C. Section 1385. Essentially it requires the same congressional action as declaring war to assign the United States Army or Air Force to operate in a law enforcement capacity within the U.S.

 

[Doomsought]

For more detailed information, you can look at the Possee Comitatus Act in 18 U.S.C. Section 1385. Essentially it requires the same congressional action as declaring war to assign the United States Army or Air Force to operate in a law enforcement capacity within the U.S.

The declaration of war part of the constitution has not been enforced for a good long while.

 

[LindyAF]

There is no variance for me.
Literally the very first thing we swore too is the constitution and to defend againstforeign and domestic threats (It is a LOT harder for us to defend against the later)

My point was that if that oath and your orders ever conflict, it's not going to be clear. You're not going to get a bright flashing sign, they're not going to say slowly and clearly "ALRIGHT, WE ARE ORDERING YOU TO CONFISCATE GUNS NOW, IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT! IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT PLEASE SAY SO RIGHT NOW!"

Like, let's go back to cops, because that was what we started with and that's what's more relevant. At what point does an enforcement of a law by a cop violate the second amendment? If a state bans open carry and is "may issue" for cc permits and then never issues, and citizens arm themselves and carry those arms, and cops arrest those citizens, are they violating their oath?How about if they only almost never issue. Would enforcing a mandatory buyback of AWB-banned weapons be a violation? Was enforcing the AWB a violation of that oath? How about enforcing red flag orders?

There are currently cops in the US right now enforcing laws that other cops in the US have said are a violation of the second amendment, and have said that they will refuse to enforce them.

 

[Captain X]

The military is a diffremt beast.
Since our oath first and foremost is to protect the constitution

You have no idea how many vets I've seen who are essentially anti-2A. The gun-grabbers just love to parade them out and spout that "you don't need 'weapons of war'" bullshit.