The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[LexusInfernus 908]

Meh, I think that video suffers a little from some psychological trick. People, social creatures that we are, have a tendency to try to impress people in order to be liked. The reporter in that video made it appear as he was in favor of banning corporate profits so people, eager to please, went with him on that. If you asked the question a little differently, you would definitely get a whole other answer. 

[metarvo 710]

Well, they want to ban coal, fracking, and guns.  So, why stop there?  Where's the limit?

[Jim14409 448]

Well, they want to ban coal, fracking, and guns.  So, why stop there?  Where's the limit?

"THEY" will decide what is and is not to be banned. I suppose our pressure cookers are next...

[LexusInfernus 908]

'THEY' have always decided what is and is not to be banned, usually for the good of 'YOU'. Unsafe medicine, unsafe cars, unsafe planes, unsafe airliners, unsafe food, etc. 

 

If you don't want 'THEY' to meddle with your life, I suggest you go to a place like Somalia. 'THEY' only control one street block in Mogadishu, from there the law of the jungle is the law that matters. 

[hym 358]

'THEY' have always decided what is and is not to be banned, usually for the good of 'YOU'. Unsafe medicine, unsafe cars, unsafe planes, unsafe airliners, unsafe food, etc. 

 

If you don't want 'THEY' to meddle with your life, I suggest you go to a place like Somalia. 'THEY' only control one street block in Mogadishu, from there the law of the jungle is the law that matters. 

 

The problem is that they can, and sometimes do, mix in liberal helpings of power grabbing with the "we're doing this to help you" thinking.

 

There are parts of the US that want strict gun control measures and feel that they are necessary for a safe society.  There are other parts that absolutely do not want strict gun control measures and feel that they are nothing more than a power grab by Washington lawmakers.

 

I happened to recently read an op-ed piece for the New York Times that, among other things, basically made the argument that because other parts of the country don't want new gun control legislation and are refusing to tighten gun reguations, that this is proof that Washington needs to act to bring them under heel.  This is the kind of thinking that is helping cause so much opposition to new gun control legislation.  It convinces people that Washington really is filled with nothing more than a bunch of wannabe tyrants. 

[Jim14409 448]

'THEY' have always decided what is and is not to be banned, usually for the good of 'YOU'. Unsafe medicine, unsafe cars, unsafe planes, unsafe airliners, unsafe food, etc. 

 

If you don't want 'THEY' to meddle with your life, I suggest you go to a place like Somalia. 'THEY' only control one street block in Mogadishu, from there the law of the jungle is the law that matters. 

 

As an adult I prefer to make decisions for myself, not have them made for me. As society as a whole abandons traditional morality, self control, and the golden rule it unfortunately becomes increasingly needful for government or other authority to step in so as to maintain some semblance of order and civil atmosphere. Thankfully there are still many of us who do not need a babysitter and can control our behavior.

 

On another note, I don't need to be told to go elsewhere because I happen to see things differently than some do. One wonders what ever happened to tolerance? If more folks applied it once in a while they just might learn to see some things in a new light unless they are paralyzed by fear.

 

 

'THEY' have always decided what is and is not to be banned, usually for the good of 'YOU'. Unsafe medicine, unsafe cars, unsafe planes, unsafe airliners, unsafe food, etc. 

 

If you don't want 'THEY' to meddle with your life, I suggest you go to a place like Somalia. 'THEY' only control one street block in Mogadishu, from there the law of the jungle is the law that matters. 

 

The problem is that they can, and sometimes do, mix in liberal helpings of power grabbing with the "we're doing this to help you" thinking.

 

There are parts of the US that want strict gun control measures and feel that they are necessary for a safe society.  There are other parts that absolutely do not want strict gun control measures and feel that they are nothing more than a power grab by Washington lawmakers.

 

I happened to recently read an op-ed piece for the New York Times that, among other things, basically made the argument that because other parts of the country don't want new gun control legislation and are refusing to tighten gun reguations, that this is proof that Washington needs to act to bring them under heel.  This is the kind of thinking that is helping cause so much opposition to new gun control legislation.  It convinces people that Washington really is filled with nothing more than a bunch of wannabe tyrants. 

 

 

Well said and so very true. Authoritian power works like erosion, it advances until it hits a rock wall and even then keeps looking for opportunity.

[Bdub01 201]

'THEY' have always decided what is and is not to be banned, usually for the good of 'YOU'. Unsafe medicine, unsafe cars, unsafe planes, unsafe airliners, unsafe food, etc.

But who are "they" to decide what is for the good of "me"? What if "they" decide I should weigh 180 lbs or I would be better as a farmer in stead of a nurse. I don't want "they" to decide what's good for me. Let "me" decide it. And if something isn't good for "me" and "I" do it anyway, it's "my" problem not "they". Just sayin'...,

[north country dude 202]

'THEY' have always decided what is and is not to be banned, usually for the good of 'YOU'. Unsafe medicine, unsafe cars, unsafe planes, unsafe airliners, unsafe food, etc. 

 

Isn't that how distopias start out? On the one hand it is good to have some regulations about services and goods, and on the other hand, it becomes oppressive when there are regulations about everything you can say, or do.

 

 

 

If you don't want 'THEY' to meddle with your life, I suggest you go to a place like Somalia. 'THEY' only control one street block in Mogadishu, from there the law of the jungle is the law that matters.

 

Or, better yet, we could just stay right where we are now and vote for what we want and stand in the way of Federal Government when it tries to take away our civil liberties. You have to admit, it seems ironic for someone who does not live in the US or participate in the US governmental system to tell US citizens that if they don't like what the US government is doing, they should move to a different country.

 

Instead of going to all that expense, US citizens should participate and vote.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Follow up to the video I posted about the veteran:

Texas Police Dept. Provides Statement to TheBlaze on Vet Arrested After ‘Rudely Displaying’ Rifle (Plus, a Texas Firearms Attorney Weighs In)

More news:

What You Need to Know About Filming, Photographing Police in Public

News about the Gun Control vote in Congress and some opinions. Again these are just opinions about the news.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Someone above remarked that the UK doesn't have a constitution but goes strictly on precedent.  That's true. 

 

We were the same until 1982 when we adopted a constitution, the first part of which is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which enshrined in statute the freedoms in Canada.  This document was derived from many others and a huge committee which came down on the right side of things, mostly.  The Supreme Court of Canada has been very busy since this Act of Parliament received royal assent, testing its boundaries and in some cases disposing of some other statutes ruled as now unconstitutional.  You might enjoy a read of our view of what's legal and good.  Remember that the motto of Canada is "Peace, Order, and good Government."  Notice the limits on the duration of a Parliament.

[Metalpuritan 160]

Okay, this is how I see it.

 

We have the RIGHT to bear arms in this country due to our background of resistance.  Our forefathers left a land riddled with oppression, this land of oppression actually tried to claim us back, if it were not for our guerrilla military(normal everyday people with guns) we would be a province of Great Britain.

 

We were allowed to keep our RIGHT to bear arms for exactly this purpose going into the future, to stave off government oppression, not just that but our own personal safety as well.

 

Fast forward to today though.  We now have a government so big and powerful it pretty much does what it wants when it wills it.  It oppresses it's people, not to mention the people of other completely unrelated countries.  Again the way I see it, our government is trying to limit(severely) the amount of guns out there so that it can continue it's unending progress towards complete and total servitude of it's people.  Taking the the RIGHT to bear arms(or any right) paves the way for other rights, no more or less important than this one to get steam rolled.  

 

If we lose even one of our RIGHTS we might as well have lost them ALL.  It isn't just about the guns.

 

I have been held up at gunpoint once a few years back and even still, with that experience I would not even dream of taking away or restricting the Second Amendment.  I was a victim and I would still not take any action against the right to bear arms.  I fully understand the implications of such a grievous act(taking or restricting rights) though.  It would be the beginning of the end for freedom of the people of this once great country.

 

Which leads me to the ultimate conclusion, the people of this country are the problem.  We have become so engrossed with political correctness we no longer can tell the difference between right and wrong, let alone enforce right and punish wrong, simply out of fear of retaliation from either the right or the wrong.  There is no more black and white, right or wrong, it is only shades of gray.  My people are confused and they do not know how to act right(not the majority at least, I hope it is not the majority).

 

Our government has taken it upon itself to become the caretaker of all the people that are now mired by the many shades of gray, they are now wards of the state, if you will.

 

If our people would just stop and think for a moment, actually have a true lucid thought, leave out all irrational and emotional attachments and make the most clear decisions they can make, bar convenience and bar all the things that do not truly matter, they will see that we cannot hinder our bill of rights, not even in the slightest bit.

 

The people of The United States of America have had and always will(pending debate on the 2nd Amendment) have all of the power.  At any time we can rise up and do something about all this mess if we all stick together and focus on that which matters most, our rights, there is nothing more sacred, not our houses, not our jobs, not our cars, not even our kids or our families or even our friends, not even our very own lives.  Our rights come first and foremost, they are even worth dying for, our forefathers thought so, and nothing has changed in that regard since the Constitution's inception.  Many people died for our liberties, a lot of blood was spilled upon the ground on both sides, I would really like to not see that go to waste.

 

One last argument against further gun regulation.  Gun regulations like the ones being proposed and debated on by our government officials have been implemented in other countries, Australia to name one, and if you are to ask those people today what they think, they will tell you that what has happened there is a tragedy and should have never happened, they will also warn you not to do the same, they already have in fact, they have already warned us.

 

Most of this regulation "stuff"(not the word I want to use) is purely knee jerk reaction, based solely on fear and emotion, there is no measure at all, no logic, no reason, just pure emotion, and when emotions are involved people make irrational decisions, often leading to disaster.

 

Personally, i am prepared to go to war with my government and anyone backing them.  I am already ready to go.  I have made it so that all of my possessions can fit into the backseat or truck of a car, and at that I am willing to get rid of all that too.  I have armed myself.  I have done everything that a single individual can do.  I am just waiting now for the rest of my fellow countrymen to come around.  

 

I see the line that was drawn and they are way over it now, and have been for a very long time, for at least 60 years now.  our great grandparents, allowed things to get out of hand, our grandparents added to it and our parents added even more, I do not want to be a part of that cycle, I would rather be a part of the solution, at any cost.  I do not want to pass this ruinous government off to my kids.

[Larks2242 251]

Success!, the gun control bill has died.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politics/senate-guns-vote/index.html

 

 

Even including the Toomy - Machan provision that would have expanded background checks that I personally wouldn't have minded.

 

NRA is still king when it comes to lobbying though, which is important.

 

Maybe now as we move passed guns as an issue, we can shift focus to more serious issues such as the mental health factor that causes people to abuse tools.

 

Democratic majority too, Senator Feignstein must be having a stroke.

[Metalpuritan 160]

Personally, I don't even see why this was even a debate.  The fact that it became a debate at all in the first place is a problem.  I understand people's freedom of expression but what was at stake was far greater.  We should never allow our rights to come into question ever again, it never should have happened in the first place even.  I will fall back and defer to the wisdom of our forefathers every time.  They were not short sighted, they envisioned a future where our government could possibly get really big(too big) as it is today and they gave us rights so that we could stop it.  That is wisdom, to be able to see something a couple hundred years into the future and to plan on it even.  Just pure wisdom.  How does one question wisdom of that magnitude?  How does one justify it?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

@Metalpuritan:  Not true that you would still be a British dependency.  George III was mad as a bedbug, and your people were just a little too impatient.  The whole mess was on the verge of the French Revolution when your people pulled the trigger.  I wonder just how hard they tried negotiating with the Colonial Office?  To a certain extent I think the American Revolution was whipped up by the same set of free political thinkers that kicked off the French debacle with terrible results.  The Second Amendment is what kept the US from such a mess as the French Directory.

 

However, if you had managed to stay the course and remain British, you might have achieved your independence without all the bloodshed a little later, and perhaps the Civil War would also not have happened.  Too many people in the late 18th and early 19th centuries had burrs under their saddles. 

 

While you were busy during the Napoleonic era trying to take us over, you helped make us what we are today.  The behaviour of the US troops at the occupation of York (Toronto) really set your own people against you.  Most of the people at York were Americans attracted to Upper Canada by the offer of land.  When the US troops raped the town, that was the switch that was thrown that made a bunch of American immigrants into the first real Canadians.  Thanks.

[astronelson 339]

Someone above remarked that the UK doesn't have a constitution but goes strictly on precedent.  That's true. 

That's not entirely accurate.

 

While it is true that the UK does not have a single document that can be called "The Constitution of the United Kingdom", there are a set of laws that together serve the same purpose - the Magna Carta, Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, Habeas Corpus Act (1679) and Bill of Rights (1689) among them.

[Wiimeiser 444]

Success!, the gun control bill has died.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politics/senate-guns-vote/index.html

 

 

Even including the Toomy - Machan provision that would have expanded background checks that I personally wouldn't have minded.

 

NRA is still king when it comes to lobbying though, which is important.

 

Maybe now as we move passed guns as an issue, we can shift focus to more serious issues such as the mental health factor that causes people to abuse tools.

 

Democratic majority too, Senator Feignstein must be having a stroke.

You didn't notice the republicans who killed the proposal only got 9% of the vote if you count the entire country, right? That's certainly not legal. And unfortunately neither is secession, so the US can't just send all their problems away elsewhere...

[LexusInfernus 908]

Personally, I don't even see why this was even a debate.  The fact that it became a debate at all in the first place is a problem.  I understand people's freedom of expression but what was at stake was far greater.  We should never allow our rights to come into question ever again, it never should have happened in the first place even.  I will fall back and defer to the wisdom of our forefathers every time.  They were not short sighted, they envisioned a future where our government could possibly get really big(too big) as it is today and they gave us rights so that we could stop it.  That is wisdom, to be able to see something a couple hundred years into the future and to plan on it even.  Just pure wisdom.  How does one question wisdom of that magnitude?  How does one justify it?

And do tell, how is guns going to solve a tyrannical government. And what is a tyrannical government?

 

And lets say that tomorrow the government turns into a tyranny. 10% of the people are with you and will wage war on this government,. Another 35% are somewhat open to your cause but would prefer more peaceful ways of protest, 40% are totally indifferent or undecided to your cause or the government, and the remaining 15% are completely with the government. Also assume that the government retains control over the army, national guard and police forces. What will you do, how will you do it, and do you honestly believe you stand a chance? 

 

Everyone who makes the argument that guns protect you from a government gone tyrannical, feel free to participate in this little thought experiment. What would you do given the above set of circumstances. And feel free to answer the other question as well. What is a tyrannical government, how do you know its there, how does it look like, what does it do? 

[Metalpuritan 160]

I have already begun a peaceful resistance in my lifestyle alone.  I work very little so I do not pay taxes.  I pay my taxes but I then get it all back.  That is intentional.  I believe my government is spending our money blindly, irresponsibly.  It is spending more than it is collecting and then demanding more.  Furthermore, I do not consume products or any kind, so am paying as little in sales tax as possible as well.  Everything I have right now at this very moment with exception to my computer that I am using right now will last me my entire life and beyond.  One simple rule ensures this "If I cannot repair it, I simply do not own it."  Most of the things I have are custom made for me, in most cases designed by me, or inspired by my idea and crafted by skilled crafters upon my request.

 

As far as I am concerned, I have already exhausted all peaceful avenues.  You could not find a more peaceful and useful protest than what I have done thus far.  My life is not easy, nor is it convenient, I have had to make a great many sacrifices in all aspects of my life.

 

I am not even going to bother with your percentages though.  Purely made up numbers, hypothetical hypotheticals(LOL).  I prefer peaceful solutions too.  Like I said, I am doing all that one person CAN do.  I am actually doing something though.  Even if I am alone, and I know I am not, I am told everyday I am not alone, I am happy with what I have accomplished.  Going the "extra mile" is quite rewarding.  I am physically fit and mentally as well.  If you do not go grocery shopping and buy hundreds of dollars in food and cart it home in your car, but instead shop for your food only as you need it as to avoid waste and do this on a bicycle and do it everyday, you become quite fit naturally.

 

My lifestyle, my fight, allows me to see the little changes.  I will use gasoline as an example(our government is also neck deep in that too).  When I was 17 Years old, a gallon of gasoline cost me .79 a gallon, nowadays some places are selling for $4.50 or more in many locations.  That is an increase of over 450%, this all happened in the course of only 16 years.  Nobody does anything but lip service over it.  Where are the riots?  This is certainly riot worthy.  Nothing has increased 450% in the last 16 years, not even the amount of gasoline used.  To use 450% more gasoline to justify the demand of more money we would have also had to increase our population and consumption of all things as a result by 450% as well.  The thing is though, is that it was done a little bit here and a little bit there and has risen over time and strategically so.  They will raise the prices .30 on a gallon at a time, it will last for a month at those prices before the people start to scream about it, and they eventually start to complain(not good enough in my opinion) and the industry will lower the prices by .10 to shut them up and shut up they do indeed, they are now happy.  They are now happy with a .20 increase.  Baby steps.  

 

Everything is working that way.  All of it, and everyone seems to be perfectly fine with it.  I am not.  I got rid of my car ages ago.  Again, I am doing all that I can, all an individual can do.  As I have said countless times I am just loitering waiting for the rest of you to come around.  Then again, I might be special, I doubt that though, I consider myself quite average in every way.

 

I think the better question, to oppose your questions, would be, How far are you willing to let it go before YOU do something about it.  Are you willing to draw a line in the sand and defend it?  Or will you just draw a new one when they cross the old one?

 

One last thing, If I had replaced the word tyranny with "out of control" would you have asked your questions?  I will not debate it, in my opinion it is no longer up for debate, it is now in your face, you need not see a study on it or an audit or read a poll, it is in your face, on display for all to see.  To not see that our government is "out of control" you must just simply be in denial.  Which is okay in my book because sooner or later denial breaks.  I am good with the waiting game, it took 2 weeks for the leather worker to make my belt, I waited 2 weeks for a belt that I could have gone to a Wal-Mart and bought in just minutes.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder.  From outside, any dictatorial government appears to be a tyranny, including absolute monarchies.  I haven't heard anyone complain about the government in any of the few monarchies that still exist, lately.  Anyone else?

 

From within, any government that displeases a citizen could be called a tyranny.  In our western systems, it could be called a tyranny of the majority.  Let's see ...

 

Tyranny

 

Tyranny Tyr"an*ny (t[i^]r"an*n[y^]), n. [OE. tirannye, OF.
 tirannie, F. tyrannie; cf. It. tirannia; Gr. tyranni`a,
 tyranni`s, L. tyrannis. See Tyrant.]
 1. The government or authority of a tyrant; a country
 governed by an absolute ruler; hence, arbitrary or
 despotic exercise of power; exercise of power over
 subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or
 justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government.
 [1913 Webster]

 "Sir," would he [seneca] say, "an emperor mote need
 Be virtuous and hate tyranny." --Chaucer.
 [1913 Webster]

 2. Cruel government or discipline; as, the tyranny of a
 schoolmaster.
 [1913 Webster]

 3. Severity; rigor; inclemency.
 [1913 Webster]

 The tyranny of the open night's too rough
 For nature to endure. --Shakespeare.
 [1913 Webster]
 
    -- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

 

Seems my dictionary app is an American one.

 

Most "representative" governments these days have devolved into a oligarchic plutocracy, including the US and Canada. 

 

Let's not kid ourselves, the US congress is a bunch of squabbling oligarchs trying to get the most of each of its members without regard to the general good.
 

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

I have already begun a peaceful resistance in my lifestyle alone.  I work very little so I do not pay taxes.  I pay my taxes but I then get it all back.  That is intentional.  I believe my government is spending our money blindly, irresponsibly.  It is spending more than it is collecting and then demanding more.  Furthermore, I do not consume products or any kind, so am paying as little in sales tax as possible as well.  Everything I have right now at this very moment with exception to my computer that I am using right now will last me my entire life and beyond.  One simple rule ensures this "If I cannot repair it, I simply do not own it."  Most of the things I have are custom made for me, in most cases designed by me, or inspired by my idea and crafted by skilled crafters upon my request.

 

 

As far as I am concerned, I have already exhausted all peaceful avenues.  You could not find a more peaceful and useful protest than what I have done thus far.  My life is not easy, nor is it convenient, I have had to make a great many sacrifices in all aspects of my life.

Gee, I wonder why it is not collecting enough money, if people don't pay their freaking taxes. Or contribute to the economy. But that is your choice. 

 

In any case, you haven't answered my question. How are guns helping you with your protest against the government? 

 

 

My lifestyle, my fight, allows me to see the little changes.  I will use gasoline as an example(our government is also neck deep in that too).  When I was 17 Years old, a gallon of gasoline cost me .79 a gallon, nowadays some places are selling for $4.50 or more in many locations.  That is an increase of over 450%, this all happened in the course of only 16 years.  Nobody does anything but lip service over it.  Where are the riots?  This is certainly riot worthy.  Nothing has increased 450% in the last 16 years, not even the amount of gasoline used.  To use 450% more gasoline to justify the demand of more money we would have also had to increase our population and consumption of all things as a result by 450% as well.  The thing is though, is that it was done a little bit here and a little bit there and has risen over time and strategically so.  They will raise the prices .30 on a gallon at a time, it will last for a month at those prices before the people start to scream about it, and they eventually start to complain(not good enough in my opinion) and the industry will lower the prices by .10 to shut them up and shut up they do indeed, they are now happy.  They are now happy with a .20 increase.  Baby steps.  

 

Everything is working that way.  All of it, and everyone seems to be perfectly fine with it.  I am not.  I got rid of my car ages ago.  Again, I am doing all that I can, all an individual can do.  As I have said countless times I am just loitering waiting for the rest of you to come around.  Then again, I might be special, I doubt that though, I consider myself quite average in every way.

 

You do realize that gas prices are mostly the result of what OPEC countries do. Rioting wouldn't change much as it is an issue that is beyond the control of the US. Though it should be a nice incentive to look for alternative fuel solutions. 

 

I think the better question, to oppose your questions, would be, How far are you willing to let it go before YOU do something about it.  Are you willing to draw a line in the sand and defend it?  Or will you just draw a new one when they cross the old one?

I have not drawn any lines in the sand yet, and when I do, that line will be very much in favor of the government. It would have to turn into a petty dictatorship before I would consider action. But I try to avoid that by voting for the right guy. 

 

 

One last thing, If I had replaced the word tyranny with "out of control" would you have asked your questions?  I will not debate it, in my opinion it is no longer up for debate, it is now in your face, you need not see a study on it or an audit or read a poll, it is in your face, on display for all to see.  To not see that our government is "out of control" you must just simply be in denial.  Which is okay in my book because sooner or later denial breaks.  I am good with the waiting game, it took 2 weeks for the leather worker to make my belt, I waited 2 weeks for a belt that I could have gone to a Wal-Mart and bought in just minutes.

Your government is not out of control. It is simply adapting to the circumstances. It is ridiculous to see the standard set 200 years ago as absolute and any deviation from it as out of control. And again, how are guns going to be part of the solution? 

[Jim14409 448]

I disagree that "Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder.". Tyranny is not an opinion that changes with the wind. Tyranny is determined by comparing actions and words to a set standard of law, in this case, the U.S. Constitution. Our government is increasingly breaking with the Constitution and in so doing is becoming increasingly tyrannical every year. This should not only concern Americans but every nation around the world who are free and those longing to be free.

 

Tyrannical evidence is available in the voting records, the bills signed into law and the thousands of little "deals" taking place daily that lay the groundwork against our traditional form of constitutional government. This is not conspiracy theory, but fully supported in the evidence.

 

Sometimes I wonder which is the greatest threat to personal freedom and national liberty, government or big business. No one should underestimate the power these big corporations have attained in the last few decades. When a company is "too big to fail" something is terribly wrong and dangerous.

 

As some have said, our guns would be no match for federal troops but arming the public is the same principal as arming a nation. Those with no standing army or means of national defense are subject to attack from their enemies who are armed. Also when the public is armed any invader knows the battle would not end if they were able to set foot on American soil. They would then have to battle millions of armed citizens which history shows to be a powerful force when all is said and done.

 

We should keep guns not only for national purposes of protection, but for personal and home. A criminal is less likely to invade a home where he knows firearms are kept and used. Add that to your "security" package.

[north country dude 202]

And do tell, how is guns going to solve a tyrannical government. And what is a tyrannical government?

 

And lets say that tomorrow the government turns into a tyranny. 10% of the people are with you and will wage war on this government,. Another 35% are somewhat open to your cause but would prefer more peaceful ways of protest, 40% are totally indifferent or undecided to your cause or the government, and the remaining 15% are completely with the government. Also assume that the government retains control over the army, national guard and police forces. What will you do, how will you do it, and do you honestly believe you stand a chance? 

 

Everyone who makes the argument that guns protect you from a government gone tyrannical, feel free to participate in this little thought experiment. What would you do given the above set of circumstances. And feel free to answer the other question as well. What is a tyrannical government, how do you know its there, how does it look like, what does it do? 

 

Sir, we have already had this discussion. What Metalpuritan said about this worst, worst case scenario being "Purely made up numbers, hypothetical hypotheticals" is true.

 

The percentages used are arbitrary and the argument used is dichotomous. It assumes "the government retains[complete] control over the army, national guard and police forces as a premise, while realistically it can be shown that much of police and sheriff departments do not go along with the proposed gun control laws. The US Military is forbidden by law from conducting military operations against US citizens and if given such a blatantly illegal order, such as this, will flat out refuse. I am not speaking about the average soldier when I say this, but the actual command structure. It will be completely divisive should it ever come to this worst of the worst case hypothetical.

 

In a realistic sense, there may be riots and bloodshed, but in the end, the(hypothetical)tyranny will be overthrown. Examples can be drawn from many of the historical situations that have occurred with the dissolution of the USSR over the past 20 years.

 

As a "thought experiment" it is just flawed on so many levels that it can not be a credible argument for strict gun control in America.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I disagree that "Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder.". Tyranny is not an opinion that changes with the wind. Tyranny is determined by comparing actions and words to a set standard of law, in this case, the U.S. Constitution. Our government is increasingly breaking with the Constitution and in so doing is becoming increasingly tyrannical every year. This should not only concern Americans but every nation around the world who are free and those longing to be free.

 

Tyrannical evidence is available in the voting records, the bills signed into law and the thousands of little "deals" taking place daily that lay the groundwork against our traditional form of constitutional government. This is not conspiracy theory, but fully supported in the evidence.

 

Sometimes I wonder which is the greatest threat to personal freedom and national liberty, government or big business. No one should underestimate the power these big corporations have attained in the last few decades. When a company is "too big to fail" something is terribly wrong and dangerous.

 

As some have said, our guns would be no match for federal troops but arming the public is the same principal as arming a nation. Those with no standing army or means of national defense are subject to attack from their enemies who are armed. Also when the public is armed any invader knows the battle would not end if they were able to set foot on American soil. They would then have to battle millions of armed citizens which history shows to be a powerful force when all is said and done.

 

We should keep guns not only for national purposes of protection, but for personal and home. A criminal is less likely to invade a home where he knows firearms are kept and used. Add that to your "security" package.

Say that 75% tomorrow decides that the US constitution sucks and votes in a special referendum to get rid of it (I know, hypothetical situation, not going to happen in reality). According to your definition, the government that follows would be a tyranny. Some of the people here pretty much implied that if that was the case they would begin to wage war against the government. Even if that government only does what the people want them do.

 

And what do you think the people that would wage a war against the new US government in that case would be called and how they would call themselves? Im pretty sure the public would call them terrorists, while they would call themselves freedom fighters or something.

 

As for depending on it for national defense. Meh, that was France's tactic during several wars and they lost all of those wars.  

 

 

Sir, we have already had this discussion. What Metalpuritan said about this worst, worst case scenario being "Purely made up numbers, hypothetical hypotheticals" is true.

 

The percentages used are arbitrary and the argument used is dichotomous. It assumes "the government retains[complete] control over the army, national guard and police forces as a premise, while realistically it can be shown that much of police and sheriff departments do not go along with the proposed gun control laws. The US Military is forbidden by law from conducting military operations against US citizens and if given such a blatantly illegal order, such as this, will flat out refuse. I am not speaking about the average soldier when I say this, but the actual command structure. It will be completely divisive should it ever come to this worst of the worst case hypothetical.

 

In a realistic sense, there may be riots and bloodshed, but in the end, the(hypothetical)tyranny will be overthrown. Examples can be drawn from many of the historical situations that have occurred with the dissolution of the USSR over the past 20 years.

 

As a "thought experiment" it is just flawed on so many levels that it can not be a credible argument for strict gun control in America.

 

Which is why it is a thought experiment, not an argument of anything...yet. Furthermore, the thought experiment I proposed did not mention any kind of gun control. If you want, you can assume that the government has not touched the issue of gun control, and the situation remains to what it is now. 

 

The reason why I gave the US government the control over the army is because basically, every time someone says that guns will allow citizens to fight a tyrannical government, they somehow expect that the US army will either join them, or at the very least will just sit back and watch how angry gunmen storm the capitol and execute the government. I believe that is an unrealistic expectation. The US army will likely allow such a thing to happen when there is indeed a very broad consensus among the general population that the government is indeed illegal and must go, with force if they do not step down peacefully. So basically, only once it becomes clear that the government is on the loosing side regardless and army heads will roll if this turns into a blood bath. 

 

What I want to know is what happens when such a broad consensus is not realized yet, when the government is tyrannical according to a significant part of the population, but not a the majority yet. And more importantly, I want to know how guns are going to help in this situation. 

[Metalpuritan 160]

 

I disagree that "Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder.". Tyranny is not an opinion that changes with the wind. Tyranny is determined by comparing actions and words to a set standard of law, in this case, the U.S. Constitution. Our government is increasingly breaking with the Constitution and in so doing is becoming increasingly tyrannical every year. This should not only concern Americans but every nation around the world who are free and those longing to be free.

 

Tyrannical evidence is available in the voting records, the bills signed into law and the thousands of little "deals" taking place daily that lay the groundwork against our traditional form of constitutional government. This is not conspiracy theory, but fully supported in the evidence.

 

Sometimes I wonder which is the greatest threat to personal freedom and national liberty, government or big business. No one should underestimate the power these big corporations have attained in the last few decades. When a company is "too big to fail" something is terribly wrong and dangerous.

 

As some have said, our guns would be no match for federal troops but arming the public is the same principal as arming a nation. Those with no standing army or means of national defense are subject to attack from their enemies who are armed. Also when the public is armed any invader knows the battle would not end if they were able to set foot on American soil. They would then have to battle millions of armed citizens which history shows to be a powerful force when all is said and done.

 

We should keep guns not only for national purposes of protection, but for personal and home. A criminal is less likely to invade a home where he knows firearms are kept and used. Add that to your "security" package.

Say that 75% tomorrow decides that the US constitution sucks and votes in a special referendum to get rid of it (I know, hypothetical situation, not going to happen in reality). According to your definition, the government that follows would be a tyranny. Some of the people here pretty much implied that if that was the case they would begin to wage war against the government. Even if that government only does what the people want them do.

 

And what do you think the people that would wage a war against the new US government in that case would be called and how they would call themselves? Im pretty sure the public would call them terrorists, while they would call themselves freedom fighters or something.

 

As for depending on it for national defense. Meh, that was France's tactic during several wars and they lost all of those wars.  

 

 

Sir, we have already had this discussion. What Metalpuritan said about this worst, worst case scenario being "Purely made up numbers, hypothetical hypotheticals" is true.

 

The percentages used are arbitrary and the argument used is dichotomous. It assumes "the government retains[complete] control over the army, national guard and police forces as a premise, while realistically it can be shown that much of police and sheriff departments do not go along with the proposed gun control laws. The US Military is forbidden by law from conducting military operations against US citizens and if given such a blatantly illegal order, such as this, will flat out refuse. I am not speaking about the average soldier when I say this, but the actual command structure. It will be completely divisive should it ever come to this worst of the worst case hypothetical.

 

In a realistic sense, there may be riots and bloodshed, but in the end, the(hypothetical)tyranny will be overthrown. Examples can be drawn from many of the historical situations that have occurred with the dissolution of the USSR over the past 20 years.

 

As a "thought experiment" it is just flawed on so many levels that it can not be a credible argument for strict gun control in America.

 

Which is why it is a thought experiment, not an argument of anything...yet. Furthermore, the thought experiment I proposed did not mention any kind of gun control. If you want, you can assume that the government has not touched the issue of gun control, and the situation remains to what it is now. 

 

The reason why I gave the US government the control over the army is because basically, every time someone says that guns will allow citizens to fight a tyrannical government, they somehow expect that the US army will either join them, or at the very least will just sit back and watch how angry gunmen storm the capitol and execute the government. I believe that is an unrealistic expectation. The US army will likely allow such a thing to happen when there is indeed a very broad consensus among the general population that the government is indeed illegal and must go, with force if they do not step down peacefully. So basically, only once it becomes clear that the government is on the loosing side regardless and army heads will roll if this turns into a blood bath. 

 

What I want to know is what happens when such a broad consensus is not realized yet, when the government is tyrannical according to a significant part of the population, but not a the majority yet. And more importantly, I want to know how guns are going to help in this situation. 

 

At this point your questions cease to be questions are just simply rhetoric.  Rhetoric warrants no respect and no answers.

 

By the way, I have many friends still int he military, they won't fire upon the citizens of the US, not without a good $%&^! reason.  They feel very much the same way as well.  They too do not like our government.  You mentioned earlier an all volunteer force, that happens to be exactly what our military is right now.  For the most part they signed up for a paycheck, not to kill the people of the country they are in service to protect.  The control of everything in this country belongs to the people.  PERIOD  We have every right(literally) to take any and all action to take it back.  PERIOD 

 

We know you are not arguing, you don't even have a point, you are only using rhetoric to confuse people.  All you are doing is muddying the waters for anybody that is not entirely certain as to what is going on.  Creating confusion is ALL you are doing.  I don;t fall for that BS.  You might not even know you are doing it.

[north country dude 202]

 

Say that 75% tomorrow decides that the US constitution sucks and votes in a special referendum to get rid of it (I know, hypothetical situation, not going to happen in reality)...., that was France's tactic during several wars and they lost all of those wars.  

 

Which is why it is a thought experiment, not an argument of anything...yet. ...,I want to know how guns are going to help in this situation. 

 

In answer to those points.

 

1) not going to happen in reality is correct. To even consider it shows a complete lack of understanding of how the US Constitution frames, and is integral to the structure and function of the US Government. (see "separation of powers" here, and how it works in the US Constitution here.)

 

2) as for France's tactic during several wars,...France is not the United States, and the issues of how and why they lost several wars can be attributed to more than the single factor of the population being armed. That statement is an oversimplification of the issue of armed citizens versus outside aggression. If you apply the same overly simplified issue to American History, there is a lot of evidence that it helped America during the War of 1812.

 

3) whether it is an argument of anything, yet, implies that it will be at some point. Yet the very premise (if it is used as an argument later) is flawed for the reasons previously stated. Only a boob wouldn't see that trap coming and when you apply simple logic and reason and show it to be unrealistic hypothesis, the proposed argument falls apart.

 

The elected officials in the US Government know this, and even if armed citizens were a non-issue, why would certain elected officials want very much to disarm the American citizen? Public Safety? hogwash, the proposed laws do little to nothing for public safety and the American public knows it. The proposed gun control measures have been rejected by Congress.

 

Now, if you will excuse me, I have some personal health issues to attend to after a particularly rough week. I leave the rest of that issue to the people who have participated in this discussion to explain why the proposed argument is flawed and why the next arguments to follow will also be, (personal defense, and public safety), flawed.

[LexusInfernus 908]

At this point your questions cease to be questions are just simply rhetoric.  Rhetoric warrants no respect and no answers.

 

 

By the way, I have many friends still int he military, they won't fire upon the citizens of the US, not without a good $%&^! reason.  They feel very much the same way as well.  They too do not like our government.  You mentioned earlier an all volunteer force, that happens to be exactly what our military is right now.  For the most part they signed up for a paycheck, not to kill the people of the country they are in service to protect.  The control of everything in this country belongs to the people.  PERIOD  We have every right(literally) to take any and all action to take it back.  PERIOD 

 

We know you are not arguing, you don't even have a point, you are only using rhetoric to confuse people.  All you are doing is muddying the waters for anybody that is not entirely certain as to what is going on.  Creating confusion is ALL you are doing.  I don;t fall for that BS.  You might not even know you are doing it.

 

Oh wow, you managed to get confused from a simple question, namely how are guns going to stop a tyrannical government. I proposed a reasonable thought experiment where the government but where not the entire country is convinced yet that it should go and what methods should be used to make them go. Then Ive asked you what you would do or how this would work out, with the idea that this is the perfect opportunity to explain to me how guns are going to play in all this, so you would answer my first question. 

 

As for your buddies in the army, I have no doubt they do not like shooting at civilians. I wonder however, if they feel the same way once those civilians start shooting at them first. An unarmed protester is hardly a threat, the guy with the AR-15 pointing at you is. 

 

Indeed, you have a right, perhaps a duty even to kick the government out once it is clear that it is no longer a government by the people for the people. The point is that there is no clear threshold, no clear line that once it is crossed you go from a free democratic nation to a dictatorship. Often your freedom is taken from you bit by bit and in ways most people don't notice or don't care or they even agree with the measures being taken. It might very well be that you believe the government has become tyrannical while the majority of your countrymen believe the government is doing just fine. And those people will likely not take it kindly when you storm in guns blazing shooting at every government employee or politician you can get in your sights. And I can assure you, at that moment no law enforcement agent will hesitate to shoot you to pieces. You know, because right then you are still considered to be a homegrown terrorist, rather than a patriotic freedom fighter. 

 

In answer to those points.

 

 

1) not going to happen in reality is correct. To even consider it shows a complete lack of understanding of how the US Constitution frames, and is integral to the structure and function of the US Government. (see "separation of powers" here, and how it works in the US Constitution here.)

 

The elected officials in the US Government know this, and even if armed citizens were a non-issue, why would certain elected officials want very much to disarm the American citizen? Public Safety? hogwash, the proposed laws do little to nothing for public safety and the American public knows it. The proposed gun control measures have been rejected by Congress.

 

Now, if you will excuse me, I have some personal health issues to attend to after a particularly rough week. I leave the rest of that issue to the people who have participated in this discussion to explain why the proposed argument is flawed and why the next arguments to follow will also be, (personal defense, and public safety), flawed.

 

1 was just an attempt to show how tyranny is not a set in stone standard and very much depends on the person. It was never meant as an argument on actually changing the constitution or anything. 

 

As for why they would want to ban people from having certain types of weapons? Personally I would call it common sense. You know, just like not allowing civilians to own and operate a fully functional and armed tank is considered by most to be common sense.

[AcmeSigns 97]

You know, just like not allowing civilians to own and operate a fully functional and armed tank is considered by most to be common sense.

 

 

There are many people in this country who legally own functioning tanks (military history preservationists ~ on a Mythbusters episode they found a guy who had [at least] two). Armed?...maybe not. And, while I don't have an actual answer, I wonder just how difficult it really would be to retrofit one? Granted, the cost of the ordinance would be a killer.

[LexusInfernus 908]

 

. You know, just like not allowing civilians to own and operate a fully functional and armed tank is considered by most to be common sense.

 

 

There are many people in this country who legally own functioning tanks (military history preservationists ~ on a Mythbusters episode they found a guy who had [at least] two). Armed?...maybe not. And, while I don't have an actual answer, I wonder just how difficult it really would be to retrofit one? Granted, the cost of the ordinance would be a killer.

 

With a functioning firing mechanism? 

 

And I think the real cost of a tank goes into the tracks. You need to replace them quite often, and I believe they have special vehicles for them as well. Although Im not sure if that is necessary for older tanks. 

 

Anyways, well, there goes my argument :/ You can apparently own pretty much every weapon ever build if you live in the US. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Let's face it, there are no true democracies except perhaps Switzerland. 

 

With the kind of populations we have on this continent and the amount of acreage, representative government is the only way to fly.  Ours is a constitutional monarchy, US is a republic.  While democratic principles may be espoused, a true democracy with this kind of population numbers is impossible.  You want to go vote on every bill that is proposed?

[Bdub01 201]

Everybody!!! Please calm down before Timmie decides to lock this thread . Take deep breaths and find your inner sim city...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TZZx5lnj0Fk

Well hopefully y-all have pcs to watch the video on, for some reason I can't get it to play on my iPhone, which is weird cause I watching it no problems just a few days ago...

[hym 358]

A bunch of posts have been removed from this thread.  Some were merely off topic, while others were blatantly violating the rules.

 

Staff has said it more times can any of us could possibly count, but here it is again:  Discuss the issues, not each other.  (Use of the word "you" is a bad thing here.)

 

I would like to draw everyone's attention to the little blurb towards the top of the forum.  Members are expected to treat each other with civility.