Obama takes no action on gun control;

[Joe Miner]

taking it to extremes? did you even read the piece i linked? scalia really believes the second amendment, in todays world, is still about forming a miltia so that a recurrence of 17th century english tyranny can't happen again (while admitting that small arms are unlikely to accomplish much in the way of change of a modern government). this is just ridiculous, as the writer points out. democracies, in the modern world, are almost never overturned through force. armed regime change hasn't recently happened through small arms but through powerful military weapons provided by sympathetic superpowers. yet scalia gets bogged down by the word "bear" to define what arms should be available to the public. joking or not, discussing the legality of shoulder fired weapons that can bring down planes on fox news is extreme...especially for a supreme court justice.

 

For all the people that believe that citizens can't stand up to the US military, you are correct.

 

But citizens that are forming militias would be stupid to fight head to head against the US military. Instead they would take the fight to the gov't officials, the employees and their families in a guerrilla fashion.

 

And they wouldn't just use guns. Homemade explosives seem to work very well in other countries.

 

Granted, this is a complete anarchy scenario, but to pretend that the US military would just wipe any and all dissenters out is just silly.

 

You would also need to question how many military people would walk out before turning on American citizens. I've talked to a small handful of police officers that said they would quit before trying to remove weapons from citizens, I can only imagine there would be a few defectors should the US gov't try to turn them on US citizens.

 

Plus there is no way that the US military would just bomb US cities killing both the guerrilla combatants and the innocent civilians. That only works in other countries with other countries' citizens. The gov't isn't just gonna start rounding up people in hopes of capturing the guerrillas either. That's only going to cause other citizens to join their cause. The US military would be severely hamstrung fighting US citizens on US soil.

 

It's not nearly a simple victory for the US military that people seem to think it would be.

[Rob's House]

 

 

For all the people that believe that citizens can't stand up to the US military, you are correct.

 

But citizens that are forming militias would be stupid to fight head to head against the US military. Instead they would take the fight to the gov't officials, the employees and their families in a guerrilla fashion.

 

And they wouldn't just use guns. Homemade explosives seem to work very well in other countries.

 

Granted, this is a complete anarchy scenario, but to pretend that the US military would just wipe any and all dissenters out is just silly.

 

You would also need to question how many military people would walk out before turning on American citizens. I've talked to a small handful of police officers that said they would quit before trying to remove weapons from citizens, I can only imagine there would be a few defectors should the US gov't try to turn them on US citizens.

 

Plus there is no way that the US military would just bomb US cities killing both the guerrilla combatants and the innocent civilians. That only works in other countries with other countries' citizens. The gov't isn't just gonna start rounding up people in hopes of capturing the guerrillas either. That's only going to cause other citizens to join their cause. The US military would be severely hamstrung fighting US citizens on US soil.

 

It's not nearly a simple victory for the US military that people seem to think it would be.

Along the same lines, if our government has this much trouble with insurgents in Iraq & Afghanistan, imagine how difficult it would be to quash a nationwide domestic insurgency.

[3rdnlng]

taking it to extremes? did you even read the piece i linked? scalia really believes the second amendment, in todays world, is still about forming a miltia so that a recurrence of 17th century english tyranny can't happen again (while admitting that small arms are unlikely to accomplish much in the way of change of a modern government). this is just ridiculous, as the writer points out. democracies, in the modern world, are almost never overturned through force. armed regime change hasn't recently happened through small arms but through powerful military weapons provided by sympathetic superpowers. yet scalia gets bogged down by the word "bear" to define what arms should be available to the public. joking or not, discussing the legality of shoulder fired weapons that can bring down planes on fox news is extreme...especially for a supreme court justice.

 

Read what I said.

[B-Man]

The never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste Left is in assault mode on your Second Amendment rights. These gun grabbers think they're so clever with this line of questioning which (frustratingly) seems to stump the unprepared:

The Framers didn't write the Second Amendment with AR-15's in mind. Where do you stop? Should citizens be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

This is a hanging curve ball just waiting for you to crush it.

 

First of all, remind Democrats that the Framers didn't write the First Amendment with cable television, Internet communications or even the telegraph in mind. Should we limit the press's freedom of speech to the movable type printing press which was the primary means of mass communication at the time of the Framers?

 

More importantly, don't let the nuclear weapon ruse intimidate you. [For fun, pronounce it /nuke 'yuh ler/ just to show 'em who's boss.] The limits of the Second Amendment is a fair question that deserves an answer. It's simple: Law-abiding, free people should have the right to arm themselves with whatever weapons their government would use against them.

 

 

If the world is sufficiently dangerous that the police require semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines, then do not the free citizens who are sovereign over the police and who also live in the same dangerous world deserve to similarly protect themselves from it? In fact, are not the citizens -- not the police -- always the first ones who are forced to face those dangers?

 

There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve ... unless ... the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people. When the police are the only ones armed, then it is a police state.

 

 

Nah, that's crazy talk. The next thing you know, you'll claim that even the Department of Education is arming itself. Oh crap...

 

 

http://wolffiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-to-crush-democrats-dumb-gun-control.html

[section122]

aaaaand...

 

/crickets

I apologize for not hanging around the website yesterday afternoon and this morning. You've made your point and I've made mine. I have nothing to add to what I have already said. You won't convince me that your right to own something is worth killing other people and I can't convince you that it isn't.

 

I hope that it never comes to the day where you are forced to make the decision to fight or not. As I have repeated several times I am for gun ownership in this country I see no issue with it. I don't think guns are the issue. People are the issue. Society as a whole always needs to blame something to make themselves feel better, I don't. Sh*t happens. If Adam Lanza had it in his head that he was going to kill a bunch of kids he would have accomplished it with gun or without. The only thing I will ask is that you understand why people are reaching in the way that they are. They are searching for answers, an explanation, when there really isn't an easy one.

 

Your guns are safe, they will not be taken away. If they are I hope that you come up with a better solution to show your dissatisfaction then killing people to do it.

[Magox]

I seem to remember reading a thread where DC TOM and Simon got into a tiff about how he was temporarily banned and made mention of how he planned on visiting the site less.

[Rob's House]

 

I apologize for not hanging around the website yesterday afternoon and this morning. You've made your point and I've made mine. I have nothing to add to what I have already said. You won't convince me that your right to own something is worth killing other people and I can't convince you that it isn't.

 

I hope that it never comes to the day where you are forced to make the decision to fight or not. As I have repeated several times I am for gun ownership in this country I see no issue with it. I don't think guns are the issue. People are the issue. Society as a whole always needs to blame something to make themselves feel better, I don't. Sh*t happens. If Adam Lanza had it in his head that he was going to kill a bunch of kids he would have accomplished it with gun or without. The only thing I will ask is that you understand why people are reaching in the way that they are. They are searching for answers, an explanation, when there really isn't an easy one.

 

Your guns are safe, they will not be taken away. If they are I hope that you come up with a better solution to show your dissatisfaction then killing people to do it.

Because people, by & large, are willful idiots who seek an easy solution to everything that burdens their conscience so they can go about their lives & not have to worry about it.

[birdog1960]

Where do you all get this stuff...it's like a modern day version of the anarchists cookbook. And the pictures are right out of reefer madness...if it weren't so sad it'd be scary. But you go right on believing you could fight away the govt with your merry band of weekend warriors. That's the last thing the arms manufacturers want. Breaking the myth would cost them billions.

 

Re the Remington 870's: if they're good enough for the dept of education, they're good enough for me.

Edited January 17, 2013 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

Where do you all get this stuff...it's like a modern day version of the anarchists cookbook. And the pictures are right out of reefer madness...if it weren't so sad it'd be scary. But you go right on believing you could fight away the govt with your merry band of weekend warriors. That's the last thing the arms manufacturers want. Breaking the myth would cost them billions.

 

Re the Remington 870's: if they're good enough for the dept of education, they're good enough for me.

So you believe that boys from Vermont would be willing to shoot families from Texas because a power structure they are equally distant from has told them to? We have a civilian military, and our world has become very small. I doubt very much that any significant percentage of our military would be willing to commit those sorts of attrocties in the face of civilian opposition to a tyrannical government. Furthermore, as was mentioned earlier, the war would be waged with a guerrilla campaign; using a cellular structure similar to what we have seen be very effectively utilized by those groups our government has labled terrorist organizations.

 

Winning doesn't mean conquering in an open land war, winning means stealing the will of your enemy to fight.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I apologize for not hanging around the website yesterday afternoon and this morning. You've made your point and I've made mine. I have nothing to add to what I have already said. You won't convince me that your right to own something is worth killing other people and I can't convince you that it isn't.

 

I hope that it never comes to the day where you are forced to make the decision to fight or not. As I have repeated several times I am for gun ownership in this country I see no issue with it. I don't think guns are the issue. People are the issue. Society as a whole always needs to blame something to make themselves feel better, I don't. Sh*t happens. If Adam Lanza had it in his head that he was going to kill a bunch of kids he would have accomplished it with gun or without. The only thing I will ask is that you understand why people are reaching in the way that they are. They are searching for answers, an explanation, when there really isn't an easy one.

 

Your guns are safe, they will not be taken away. If they are I hope that you come up with a better solution to show your dissatisfaction then killing people to do it.

You've missed the point entirely. It isn't a guns issue at all. It's an issue of freedom.

 

Is there anything you value enough that you would be willing to die for it? Is there anything you value enough to kill for?

Edited January 17, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[birdog1960]

 

So you believe that boys from Vermont would be willing to shoot families from Texas because a power structure they are equally distant from has told them to? We have a civilian military, and our world has become very small. I doubt very much that any significant percentage of our military would be willing to commit those sorts of attrocties in the face of civilian opposition to a tyrannical government. Furthermore, as was mentioned earlier, the war would be waged with a guerrilla campaign; using a cellular structure similar to what we have seen be very effectively utilized by those groups our government has labled terrorist organizations.

 

Winning doesn't mean conquering in an open land war, winning means stealing the will of your enemy to fight.

Could it happen? Sure. The military could revolt against a tyrannical govt. But the citizenry owning a r15's and the like would be inconsequential to their decision to revolt or to the outcome.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Could it happen? Sure. The military could revolt against a tyrannical govt. But the citizenry owning a r15's and the like would be inconsequential to their decision to revolt or to the outcome.

Absolutely not. "AR-15's" (not specifically that particular rifle, but more the concept of what it embodies) are essential to the citizens will to resist. If the citizens have no means, and therefore no strength to resist, there will be no opposition for the military to oppose, and as such they will have no moral imperitives to consider as they simply follow their orders.

[IDBillzFan]

Absolutely not. "AR-15's" (not specifically that particular rifle, but more the concept of what it embodies) are essential to the citizens will to resist. If the citizens have no means, and therefore no strength to resist, there will be no opposition for the military to oppose, and as such they will have no moral imperitives to consider as they simply follow their orders.

 

I suspect you know this, but the reason you keep banging your head against the wall with people like birddog, etc., is because of one very basic, fundamental difference that essentially leaked out of the liberal minds during the past election.

 

People like you and me believe the government and its elected officials serve the people, where the liberal belief is simply that the people serve the government because without the government, you'd be nothing. Put another way, "you didn't build that." Without the government providing you with roads and police and schools, you'd be nothing more than another maggot in a long list of maggots infesting this great land.

 

You're pissing in the wind because the takers will never agree with your idea of the role government plays.

[Adam]

Could it happen? Sure. The military could revolt against a tyrannical govt. But the citizenry owning a r15's and the like would be inconsequential to their decision to revolt or to the outcome.

Can the drones revolt?

[B-Man]

Where do you all get this stuff...it's like a modern day version of the anarchists cookbook. And the pictures are right out of reefer madness...if it weren't so sad it'd be scary. But you go right on believing you could fight away the govt with your merry band of weekend warriors. That's the last thing the arms manufacturers want. Breaking the myth would cost them billions.

 

LOL............I win my bet (with myself).........

 

I've never seen that particular site before, it was linked to one of my news sites. I knew the commentary was too inflammatory for some here and that someone would be "outraged"...........................not that any of the points he is making (about the childishness of some liberal anti-gun strawmen) are really that far off, but obviously it was too "scary".................lol

 

 

as to your odd remarks about the pictures....how old are you ?

 

An AP picture of the Elian Gonzalez "rescue" and an actual picture of SWAT team equipment is out of Reefer Madness ???

 

Stop being such a sensitive poster.

 

 

.

[Rob's House]

Could it happen? Sure. The military could revolt against a tyrannical govt. But the citizenry owning a r15's and the like would be inconsequential to their decision to revolt or to the outcome.

Based on what? How's that whole insurgency thing working in Afghanistan?

[B-Man]

Nice work boys and girls, you had to hurry to get that headline..................

 

In haste, Cuomo and New York Legislature forgot to exempt police from draconian new gun law.

 

If I were a member of the legislature, I’d oppose a fix just as a lesson . . . .

 

.

[birdog1960]

Based on what? How's that whole insurgency thing working in Afghanistan?

first off, in the event that the military didn't go rogue in great numbers, there would be a great many more troops and weapons immediately available to quell an uprising and a stronger political will to subdue it. not to mention local knowledge of customs, geography, likely insurgency groups, local power structures and informants. i also don't think american civilians, in general, are any where near as tough as the afghani's but hopefully we'll never find out.

 

the biggest factor that you're discounting is the industrial part of the military-industrial complex. a small arms, popular revolution would be very bad for business....even to the arms and military suppliers but to many other industries as well. what if they decided to stop selling weapons and ammo or supplies to the rebels (populace) because it wasn't in their best interest (and it likely wouldn't be)?

 

 

but seriously, i can't believe we are even discussing these outrageous scenarios. what percentage of the armed populace do you guys estimate even contemplate armed revolt? just like in the last election, i think support (or even consideration of it) is greatly overestimated because discussions like this are often had in an echo chamber.

Edited January 18, 2013 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

first off, in the event that the military didn't go rogue in great numbers, there would be a great many more troops and weapons immediately available to quell an uprising and a stronger political will to subdue it. not to mention local knowledge of customs, geography, likely insurgency groups, local power structures and informants. i also don't think american civilians, in general, are any where near as tough as the afghani's but hopefully we'll never find out.

 

the biggest factor that you're discounting is the industrial part of the military-industrial complex. a small arms, popular revolution would be very bad for business....even to the arms and military suppliers but to many other industries as well. what if they decided to stop selling weapons and ammo or supplies to the rebels (populace) because it wasn't in their best interest (and it likely wouldn't be)?

 

 

but seriously, i can't believe we are even discussing these outrageous scenarios. what percentage of the armed populace do you guys estimate even contemplate armed revolt? just like in the last election, i think support (or even consideration of it) is greatly overestimated because discussions like this are often had in an echo chamber.

Less than 35% of the population supported opposition to England prior to the Revolution. A much, much smaller group supported armed resistance.

[birdog1960]

Less than 35% of the population supported opposition to England prior to the Revolution. A much, much smaller group supported armed resistance.

well, at least we've moved from the 17th century to the 18th.