CptJake wrote: I guess another way to ask the same question would be:
Would you be willing to go to war and allow thousands if not millions to die in order to repeal the 2nd amendment?
Isn't that just as stupid to go to war over?
The 2nd could be repealed at any point via a simple constitutional and lawful process. If such a process ever takes place, then it happens because there is enough support in the population for that change because it would require lawful elections that resulted in a federal congress willing to propose that constitutional change lawful elections that resulted in enough states having a legislature that would ratify such a change.
At this point your scenario becomes "would you be willing to go to war and allow thousands if not millions to die who love their guns more than their constitution".
But I have had more than one Constitution worshiping patriot make it clear to me that they will burn the constitution as soon as they disagree with it.
Frazzled wrote: It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.
It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."
If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.
Amendments designed to protect you from your government should be permanent. The writing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" implies a degree of permanency.
Funnily enough, I'd argue that to be actual tyrrany; if future generations are not allowed to decide their own laws then what's the point in defending "freedom"?
An amendment that protects you from tyranny is actual tyranny?
Frazzled wrote: It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.
It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."
If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.
Amendments designed to protect you from your government should be permanent. The writing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" implies a degree of permanency.
Funnily enough, I'd argue that to be actual tyrrany; if future generations are not allowed to decide their own laws then what's the point in defending "freedom"?
An amendment that protects you from tyranny is actual tyranny?
The 2nd isn't tyranny.
Making any amendment permanent would be tyranny.
Frazzled wrote: It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.
It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."
If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.
Amendments designed to protect you from your government should be permanent. The writing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" implies a degree of permanency.
Funnily enough, I'd argue that to be actual tyrrany; if future generations are not allowed to decide their own laws then what's the point in defending "freedom"?
An amendment that protects you from tyranny is actual tyranny?
The 2nd isn't tyranny.
Making any amendment permanent would be tyranny.
The inclusion of the bill of rights was required for ratification of the constitution. The bill of rights IS the foundation of this government. If this government is to remain in place all of the bill of rights must be permanent. The bill of rights has stood the test of time for over 200 years without need for change because all of them are specific grants of liberty to the people and restrictions placed on the government to protect the people. It would be disingenuous of any government to try to repeal any of the bill of rights and also I can assure you - there is no legal way to remove any one of them.
Umm, that's plainly wrong. It is possible to repeal all of the bill of rights, it would just be extremely hard. Totally legal though. You might need to read up on this if you really don't know about it.
Slavery being legal and slaves counting as 3/5th of a person was also a requirement to pass the constitution. But the constitution luckily included provisions to make changes to the constitution.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: of course I also think that the Bill of Rights completely changed the meaning of the constitution and gave the federal government more power than the constitution, so there is that.
Forar wrote: So, I read the first page, and then skipped to the last page.
Out of curiosity when does the revolution start? I'm guessing it's detailed somewhere in the intervening 8 pages, because people here seem awfully convinced that this time, they really are coming for the guns. All the guns. And the revolution begins when?
I mean, so I can start ferrying some friends out of the warzone before the citizenry rise up against their oppressors.
Just checking in.
Young man the Revolution will not be Televised!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: But they aren't. Unless you write a new constitution that can't be changed and get it recognized, you have to live with the fact that if a group can get congress and a majority of the states to agree on something it can be made constitutional law. Or unmade in this case.
Since only one minor provision has been repealed your argument falls.
d-usa wrote: Slavery being legal and slaves counting as 3/5th of a person was also a requirement to pass the constitution. But the constitution luckily included provisions to make changes to the constitution.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: of course I also think that the Bill of Rights completely changed the meaning of the constitution and gave the federal government more power than the constitution, so there is that.
Slavery has nothing to do with the bill of rights. Absolutely nothing.
djones520 wrote: I don't exactly like the direction of where this conversation is going, but I'd like to remind everyone of what the first battle of the American Revolution was fought over.
The sovereign government trying to take our bloody weapons away from us.
Are you talking about the Powder Alarm? If so, that was a battle only in the loosest sense of the word and not at all as simple as "The sovereign government trying to take our bloody weapons away from us."
Co'tor Shas wrote: But they aren't. Unless you write a new constitution that can't be changed and get it recognized, you have to live with the fact that if a group can get congress and a majority of the states to agree on something it can be made constitutional law. Or unmade in this case.
Since only one minor provision has been repealed your argument falls.
Not really. All I'm arguing is that he is wrong when he says that it is permanent. They could be repealed, it's just that there is no reason to do so.
By the time of the Powder Alarm the forest was already ablaze. That's why so many people were focused on British troop movements involving the control of British munitions.
The inclusion of the bill of rights was required for ratification of the constitution. The bill of rights IS the foundation of this government. If this government is to remain in place all of the bill of rights must be permanent.
No, that isn't true. The foundation of the US Federal Government is the Constitution less all of it's Amendments. The Amendments are very important, but the fundamental structure of the US Federal Government would remain without them.
It would be disingenuous of any government to try to repeal any of the bill of rights and also I can assure you - there is no legal way to remove any one of them.
Any Amendment included in The Bill of Rights can be legally removed by another Amendment. It is highly unlikely that will happen, but it is legally possible.
CptJake wrote: I guess another way to ask the same question would be:
Would you be willing to go to war and allow thousands if not millions to die in order to repeal the 2nd amendment?
Isn't that just as stupid to go to war over?
The 2nd could be repealed at any point via a simple constitutional and lawful process. If such a process ever takes place, then it happens because there is enough support in the population for that change because it would require lawful elections that resulted in a federal congress willing to propose that constitutional change lawful elections that resulted in enough states having a legislature that would ratify such a change.
At this point your scenario becomes "would you be willing to go to war and allow thousands if not millions to die who love their guns more than their constitution".
But I have had more than one Constitution worshiping patriot make it clear to me that they will burn the constitution as soon as they disagree with it.
Exactly, hence why prohibition is no longer the law of the land despite there being an amendment saying it's the law.
Again, put up or shut up. Only one has been repealed and it was bogus to begin with. The Second Amendmnet is part of the Bill of Rights. You with that at your political peril.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Umm, that's plainly wrong. It is possible to repeal all of the bill of rights, it would just be extremely hard. Totally legal though. You might need to read up on this if you really don't know about it.
Again, try it.
Try to repeal one of the First Ten Amendments and
1) any politician trying will no longer be a politician.
2) any non-politician trying or seizing power will be dead in 24 hours because thats ACW II.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Slavery being legal and slaves counting as 3/5th of a person was also a requirement to pass the constitution. But the constitution luckily included provisions to make changes to the constitution.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Edit: of course I also think that the Bill of Rights completely changed the meaning of the constitution and gave the federal government more power than the constitution, so there is that.
The bill of rights are amendments to the constitution. Arguing that you can't change a change is idiotic, as is the argument that only one minor change has happened to the constitution. We have changed presidential terms, senate elections, slavery, prohibition and back, voting rights, and many many others.
So you can put up and show where the constitution specifically excludes the first 10 amendments from the amendment process, or you can shut up with the whole "put up or shut up" business.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Umm, that's plainly wrong. It is possible to repeal all of the bill of rights, it would just be extremely hard. Totally legal though. You might need to read up on this if you really don't know about it.
Again, try it.
Try to repeal one of the First Ten Amendments and
1) any politician trying will no longer be a politician.
2) any non-politician trying or seizing power will be dead in 24 hours because thats ACW II.
I need you to not just respond, and actually read what I'm saying.
There is a legal path to repeal the first 10 ammendments. Same as there is a legal path to repeal any amendments. The bill of rights gets no special protection.
I'm not saying that it will happen nor do I want that to happen, I am simply stating it can happen. Now, it would be nigh-impossible to get enough support to do so, but if there was that support it could be done.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Umm, that's plainly wrong. It is possible to repeal all of the bill of rights, it would just be extremely hard. Totally legal though. You might need to read up on this if you really don't know about it.
Again, try it.
Try to repeal one of the First Ten Amendments and
1) any politician trying will no longer be a politician.
2) any non-politician trying or seizing power will be dead in 24 hours because thats ACW II.
I need you to not just respond, and actually read what I'm saying.
There is a legal path to repeal the first 10 ammendments. Same as there is a legal path to repeal any amendments. The bill of rights gets no special protection.
I'm not saying that it will happen nor do I want that to happen, I am simply stating it can happen. Now, it would be nigh-impossible to get enough support to do so, but if there was that support it could be done.
Now do you get what I am saying?
Exactly.
I am pro-constitution, which includes the 2nd as well as a process to repeal it. I don't think it will happen nor do I want it to happen. But people claiming it can't be changed or arguing that they will rise up if it is changed are no better than people wanting to ignore the 2nd as long as it is law.
d-usa wrote: The bill of rights are amendments to the constitution. Arguing that you can't change a change is idiotic, as is the argument that only one minor change has happened to the constitution. We have changed presidential terms, senate elections, slavery, prohibition and back, voting rights, and many many others.
So you can put up and show where the constitution specifically excludes the first 10 amendments from the amendment process, or you can shut up with the whole "put up or shut up" business.
The Constitution would not have passed without the Bill of Rights.
please keep arguing you can change an Amendment, much less a Bill of Rights. Please publish your list of politicians supporting you.
But kiss them goodbye as they'll be gone the next election cycle.
d-usa wrote: The bill of rights are amendments to the constitution. Arguing that you can't change a change is idiotic, as is the argument that only one minor change has happened to the constitution. We have changed presidential terms, senate elections, slavery, prohibition and back, voting rights, and many many others.
So you can put up and show where the constitution specifically excludes the first 10 amendments from the amendment process, or you can shut up with the whole "put up or shut up" business.
The Constitution would not have passed without the Bill of Rights.
please keep arguing you can change an Amendment, much less a Bill of Rights. Please publish your list of politicians supporting you.
But kiss them goodbye as they'll be gone the next election cycle.
But you agree that it can get changed? That's my point. Someone (I forget who) was saying it couldn't legally get changed. But it can. Same goes for every amendment. You just need both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states (or 2/3, not sure off the top of my head) to agree. Which is why it's nigh impossible. It was designed to be really hard to do. A vast majority of the country has to agree.
Frazzled wrote: It violates the 2nd Amendment and is therefore ILLEGAL. Your claim is bs.
It's illegal if Obama turns up on the telly tomorrow and says "I'm taking all your guns. I don't care what the constitution or the Supreme Court says, I'm your king now, bitches."
If it is passed by constitutional amendment, or if a Supreme Court reduces the level of protection, back to where it was before the NRA lobbying effort, well that would be legal. It's a very weird thing Americans do, where they keep talking about an amendment as if it must be permanent.
Amendments designed to protect you from your government should be permanent. The writing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" implies a degree of permanency.
Funnily enough, I'd argue that to be actual tyrrany; if future generations are not allowed to decide their own laws then what's the point in defending "freedom"?
An amendment that protects you from tyranny is actual tyranny?
A law that cannot be changed even if 100% of the population wanted it gone is beyond stupid and squarely in the territory of parody. To impose today's values permanently on following generations without any sort of way to adapt to changing realities is imposing your own will on every future American without them having even a theoretical say in it, and thus tyrrany. You're not protecting anyone from anything, you're just trying to cement your own point of view as permanent.
When did Harry Reid vote to repeal the Second Amendment?
He voted to alter the First Amendment by way of a new Amendment, meaning he is a politician that has remained a politician after trying to change one of the 1st 10 Amendments.
Erm... what's the point in this? Historically, I'm right and it wasn't until the SC incorporated those onto the States.
The point is that the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, restrains more than the Federal Government due to Supreme Court rulings grounded in the doctrine of Incorporation.
When did Harry Reid vote to repeal the Second Amendment?
He voted to alter the First Amendment by way of a new Amendment, meaning he is a politician that has remained a politician after trying to change one of the 1st 10 Amendments.
Erm... what's the point in this? Historically, I'm right and it wasn't until the SC incorporated those onto the States.
The point is that the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, restrains more than the Federal Government due to Supreme Court rulings grounded in the doctrine of Incorporation.
So thats a no, he hasn't voted to repeal the Second Amendment.
d-usa wrote: The bill of rights are amendments to the constitution. Arguing that you can't change a change is idiotic, as is the argument that only one minor change has happened to the constitution. We have changed presidential terms, senate elections, slavery, prohibition and back, voting rights, and many many others.
So you can put up and show where the constitution specifically excludes the first 10 amendments from the amendment process, or you can shut up with the whole "put up or shut up" business.
The Constitution would not have passed without the Bill of Rights.
The Constitution wouldn't have passed without slavery and the 3/5th compromise, yet we still amended it to ban slavery years later.
Coincidentally, the Constitution did in fact pass without the Bill of Rights and was ratified without a Bill of Rights in 1788.
3 years later the US ratified the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, and many many more after that. Constitutional law is very clear on the legality of making changes to the original constitution itself as well as any of the subsequent amendments.
please keep arguing you can change an Amendment, much less a Bill of Rights.
I can give you 27 examples that make it perfectly clear that it is legal to make any changes to the Constitution, and one example that makes it perfectly clear that it is legal to repeal a previous amendment.
I look forward to your posting of the section of the constitution that states "this is how you change the constitution, but not the first 10 Amendments that haven't even been written yet".
Please publish your list of politicians supporting you.
Thankfully Constitutional law does not rely on politicians supporting me. Something is legal even if nobody wants to do it.
But kiss them goodbye as they'll be gone the next election cycle.
If you want to change your argument to "it would be political suicide if politicians were to try to repeal the 2nd" then you might very well be right. And I readily admit that I don't want to see this process played out. I like my guns, thank you very much.
But if you want to make the argument that it would be illegal to change the Constitution using the process found in the Constitution to change it, then you would be very wrong.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Umm, that's plainly wrong. It is possible to repeal all of the bill of rights, it would just be extremely hard. Totally legal though. You might need to read up on this if you really don't know about it.
Again, try it.
Try to repeal one of the First Ten Amendments and
1) any politician trying will no longer be a politician.
2) any non-politician trying or seizing power will be dead in 24 hours because thats ACW II.
I need you to not just respond, and actually read what I'm saying.
There is a legal path to repeal the first 10 ammendments. Same as there is a legal path to repeal any amendments. The bill of rights gets no special protection.
I'm not saying that it will happen nor do I want that to happen, I am simply stating it can happen. Now, it would be nigh-impossible to get enough support to do so, but if there was that support it could be done.
Now do you get what I am saying?
Sure... not disagreeing with you.
But, I think you're missing the Big Picture™.
The big picture, based on historical documents such as the Federalist Papers... have long referred to the 1st and 2nd Amendments as the rights of rebellion. The founding fathers believed in a moral, but not legal, right to rebel. Which seems assed-backwards, but was purposely done.
That doctrine is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.
That is...if tyranny should arise, we have the right to speak and print to warn people, to call people to arms (1st Amendment). We have the right to assemble (1st Amendment). And we have the right arm that crowd (2nd) ...
In short we have a have a right to raise an army and arm it. All of that is legal, as long as all the "i" is dotted and the "t" is crossed (not that it means we can have a nuke or illegal destructive devices).
It is simply that the moment the assembly becomes violent (remember it is a right to peaceable assembly), that it becomes illegal. In other words, preparation for rebellion is legal (strange, huh?)... but the act of rebellion is illegal and you will have to make the appeal to God, Mother Gaia or whom/whatever in the heavens for the righteousness of it as our founders did in 1776.
Now that's the "whys" we have the Bill of Rights stated in such a way... the practicality of this ever happen?
Not likely at all. Because, while there *is* a mechanism to repeal any amendments, as you opined... there's no chance in hell that'd it ever happen (as stated by frazzeled).
Frazzled wrote: So you've just agreed there's no way the Second Amendment gets repealed. Thank you for your support.
Considering that the 2nd will be repealed long before you will ever admit to being wrong I will accept your squirming out from under your previous statements as an apology.
please keep arguing you can change an Amendment, much less a Bill of Rights. Please publish your list of politicians supporting you.
...which is not directly related to the 2nd Amendment, or the repeal of any Amendment. Rather it is directly related to a change in any of the 1st 10 Amendments and, in a portion of your post I did not quote, whether or not a politician favoring such a change could remain in office.
Harry Reid supported a change to the Bill of Rights, and Harry Reid is still in office.
Frazzled wrote: please keep arguing you can change an Amendment, much less a Bill of Rights. Please publish your list of politicians supporting you.
dogma wrote: Harry Reid is a good example, as is every Senate Democrat participating in that vote. And last I checked, most of them are still in office.
Frazzled wrote: When did Harry Reid vote to repeal the Second Amendment?
dogma wrote: He voted to alter the First Amendment by way of a new Amendment, meaning he is a politician that has remained a politician after trying to change one of the 1st 10 Amendments.
Frazzled wrote: So you've just agreed there's no way the Second Amendment gets repealed. Thank you for your support.
That's some pretty good moving of the goalposts there. As always, a rousing game of pigeon chess.
Frazzled wrote: So you've just agreed there's no way the Second Amendment gets repealed. Thank you for your support.
Considering that the 2nd will be repealed long before you will ever admit to being wrong I will accept your squirming out from under your previous statements as an apology.
Not me, nothing to apologize for. You've admitted its politically impossible.
Frazzled wrote: please keep arguing you can change an Amendment, much less a Bill of Rights. Please publish your list of politicians supporting you.
dogma wrote: Harry Reid is a good example, as is every Senate Democrat participating in that vote. And last I checked, most of them are still in office.
Frazzled wrote: When did Harry Reid vote to repeal the Second Amendment?
dogma wrote: He voted to alter the First Amendment by way of a new Amendment, meaning he is a politician that has remained a politician after trying to change one of the 1st 10 Amendments.
Frazzled wrote: So you've just agreed there's no way the Second Amendment gets repealed. Thank you for your support.
That's some pretty good moving of the goalposts there. As always, a rousing game of pigeon chess.
Ok, then I'll restate. Please show me where Reid voted (in a real vote) to repeal any of the Bill of Rights.
Why don't we just stipulate there there is no technical reason that any of the first 10 amendments cannot be repealed or changed; but that it's very unlikely to ever happen?
Frazzled wrote: So you've just agreed there's no way the Second Amendment gets repealed. Thank you for your support.
Considering that the 2nd will be repealed long before you will ever admit to being wrong I will accept your squirming out from under your previous statements as an apology.
Not me, nothing to apologize for. You've admitted its politically impossible.
I never made the argument that it is politically possible today. I made the argument that it would be legal to repeal it.
I will also repeat my statement that anyone who screams "I can have guns because Constitution" from one side of their mouth and "if there is a constitutional amendment against guns then I will start a war" out of the other side is an idiot.
Ouze wrote: Why don't we just stipulate there there is no technical reason that any of the first 10 amendments cannot be repealed or changed; but that it's very unlikely to ever happen?
Frazzled wrote: So you've just agreed there's no way the Second Amendment gets repealed. Thank you for your support.
Considering that the 2nd will be repealed long before you will ever admit to being wrong I will accept your squirming out from under your previous statements as an apology.
Not me, nothing to apologize for. You've admitted its politically impossible.
I never made the argument that it is politically possible today. I made the argument that it would be legal to repeal it.
I will also repeat my statement that anyone who screams "I can have guns because Constitution" from one side of their mouth and "if there is a constitutional amendment against guns then I will start a war" out of the other side is an idiot.
True. The constitution doesn't give people rights, it restricts the ability of the government to infringe on our pre-existing inalienable rights.
True. The constitution doesn't give people rights, it restricts the ability of the government to infringe on our pre-existing inalienable rights.
I think that this is probably the biggest problem with the Bill of Rights: that it changed the dynamics between "rights" and the role of government. And I agree with a lot of the arguments that were made against it.
The original Constitution is very much a set of rules saying "this is what the Government can do". The Bill of Rights is very much a set of rules saying "this is what the Government cannot do". In wargaming terms one is a permissive rule set and one is a restrictive rule set. And this was one of the arguments between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists: one side arguing that they need an Amendment restricting the Government from establishing a state religion and the other side arguing that it is not needed since nothing in the Constitution gives the government the authority to establish a state religion. One side arguing that we need to restrict the Government from disarming the population and the other one arguing that it's not needed because there is no authority for the Government to do so in the Constitution. It changed the dynamic from "the constitution says I can do X" to "the constitution doesn't say I can't do X".
So now we have lawyers and politicians and judges who look like two WAAC players arguing their case "show me where it says you can" and "show me where it says I can't".
Both were permissive. Fortunately we had the Bill of Rights post ACW and Roosevelt SCOTUS, that protected us once the government decided they could do what they wanted.
Frazzled wrote: Both were permissive. Fortunately we had the Bill of Rights post ACW and Roosevelt SCOTUS, that protected us once the government decided they could do what they wanted.
2nd amendment wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That's telling the State what it cannot do, which is a restrictive rule, not permissive.
What? what does a corporate business entity have to do with 5.56 steel tipped ammo purchased by people who are too insecure to buy a proper Mosin Nagant with matching molotov cocktail?
M4 cleaning kit: Your M4 is lovingly cleaned with a multidue of brushes, cleaners, and carefully applied oils.
AK 47: Your AK can be cleaned with shoe strings run through engine oil.
Nagant: Your cleaning kit is buried under an apartment complex in Budapest.
Frazzled wrote: What? what does a corporate business entity have to do with 5.56 steel tipped ammo purchased by people who are too insecure to buy a proper Mosin Nagant with matching molotov cocktail?
You know I was referring to the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights.
Frazzled wrote: Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?
there isnt a difference,
which might actually be the point.
the criteria that the 5.56 "meets" is the same criteria that almost every single centerfire rifle cartridge also meets.
after all, if the 5.56 being banned can penetrate lvl 2 armour, why not ban the 30 06 which can penetrate even thicker armour?
it is a sniper assault armour peircing round with no regulation, and saying "ought six" sounds too tacticool to not be uber, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
*also* people should know damn well that jesus only shoots 30 06, 12g, and .45
Frazzled wrote: Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?
If Jesus shot anything it was probably a composite bow.
Ouze wrote: Why don't we just stipulate there there is no technical reason that any of the first 10 amendments cannot be repealed or changed; but that it's very unlikely to ever happen?
Frazzled wrote: Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?
If Jesus shot anything it was probably a composite bow.
Pfft Jesus had a compound recurve bow with fiber optic sights baby.
Frazzled wrote: Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?
If Jesus shot anything it was probably a composite bow.
Pfft Jesus had a compound recurve bow with fiber optic sights baby.
Jesus followed on from his main man David and used a sling actually.
Frazzled wrote:
If they are trying ton confiscate firearms is because the Bill of Rights has finally fallen, so you better believe the war starts then.
For those who misunderstood Fraz, he's referring to the fact that the 2nd Amendment is the one that guarantees all the others.
I'll throw in that, in the event of a serious civil insurrection (20% of the population or more) , the US military would be grossly outnumbered, with only about 1.5 million under arms and another 800k in reserve, including National Guard. .
Frazzled wrote:
If they are trying ton confiscate firearms is because the Bill of Rights has finally fallen, so you better believe the war starts then.
For those who misunderstood Fraz, he's referring to the fact that the 2nd Amendment is the one that guarantees all the others.
I'll throw in that, in the event of a serious civil insurrection (20% of the population or more) , the US military would be grossly outnumbered, with only about 1.5 million under arms and another 800k in reserve, including National Guard. .
I guess that makes sense, but I'd disagree. I'd say it's more the fact the politicians are elected by the people and derive their power from the people.
For example, if those in power tried to do away with the bill of rights, do you think that our military and police forces would enforce that? Of course they wouldn't. Not out of a fear of the people, but out of a desire to protect peoples freedoms. If it really was the US millitary vs an amred uprising, the uprising would almost assuredly lose, because it doesn't have access to what the military has (military weapons, huge funding and supply, good training, tanks, fighters, bombers, ICBMs, ect.). But an armed uprising would never have to happen because the people would not allow that to happen in the first place. Imagine trying to get both houses of congress and 3/4ths of the states to do something like that. The president could declare himself king, and that would mean nothing because the military would not support him or her. If you don't have the support of the people, you don;t have any power.
Dude, it's an amendment. The name itself should give you a pretty big clue that the nature of it, and the rest of the constitution, is inherently changeable. Much harder to change than a regular law, of course, but changeable all the same. It was the ability to alter the constitution that got that part about bear arms in there in the first place.
Contrary to the govenrment confiscators, gun rights have massive support in this country. Ask the Colorado politicians thrown out after they passed unfavorable legislation.
Of course they have massive support, the discussion that it might be altered or repealed is entirely hypothetical. It won't be happening any time soon, the point was just to get you to recognise that if people wanted to, they could change it, because that's how your process works.
It isn't really preparation - a middle class guy who goes out target shooting isn't in any sensible way preparing to be an effective revolutionary.
Preparation would be developing underground cells, forming connections with other cells. You know, the kind of stuff that lots of people quite rightly freak out about if its revealed, because it's pretty damn close to terrorist planning.
And yet, you say you own a gun and go shooting in part because you want to be ready in case the government goes bad, and it doesn't register as crazy for lots of people. This is because no-one really believes that weekend shooting is actually so they're ready 'just in case'. That's just a fantasy that gets added on top of an otherwise fun weekend hobby.
Revolutions don't fail when revolutionaries outnumber the army 10:1 or even 20:1. Ofc this is crazy talk because it will never happen. Nor do I want it to happen. The question you have to ask yourself is what do "they" want.
Yes, it is crazy talk. And yet it is crazy talk that comes up in every single gun debate. There are lots and lots of good arguments for gun ownership that are almost never heard, but that one crazy argument comes up every single time. Exactly why would be an interesting discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Amendments designed to protect you from your government should be permanent. The writing "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" implies a degree of permanency.
What about the word 'amendment'... does that imply permanency?
Dude, amendments, and anything else, can be changed if that's what the people want. You can establish certain rights as being more important, and much more difficult to change (and an amendment is, of course, very difficult to remove), but if a future generation wants none of that stuff, then they have every right to change it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: There won't be a warzone. More than likely it would be our own military seizing power from a corrupt congress and presidency in a coup d'etat. It would last a few hours. New legestlation would be passed to protect against future corruptions and wed all go on with our little lives.
It's quite telling that you consider the military seizing power from a corrupt congress... but not the possibility of a corrupt military seizing power from a legitimate congress.
There have been lots of military coups in history, and nothing in that history suggests you can just assume the military are the good guys.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: An amendment that protects you from tyranny is actual tyranny?
An amendment that strips away the right of the people to decide how they want their own country to operate would be tyranny, yes.
Consider the hypothetical that, when the constitution was formed, there was no amendment process. It was written as it was, with no allowance that it could ever be changed. Consider how fair it would on subsequent generations to have to deal with that 'permanent' constitution, unable to add amendments guaranteeing freedom of speech, free assembly, privacy, and everything else, including the right to bear arms.
The amendment process is an essential part of freedom.
It isn't really preparation - a middle class guy who goes out target shooting isn't in any sensible way preparing to be an effective revolutionary.
Preparation would be developing underground cells, forming connections with other cells. You know, the kind of stuff that lots of people quite rightly freak out about if its revealed, because it's pretty damn close to terrorist planning.
And yet, you say you own a gun and go shooting in part because you want to be ready in case the government goes bad, and it doesn't register as crazy for lots of people. This is because no-one really believes that weekend shooting is actually so they're ready 'just in case'. That's just a fantasy that gets added on top of an otherwise fun weekend hobby.
There are plenty of people who train and do "operator" stuff. Pretty much the idea is if SHTF (crap hits the rotary oscillator), it would take a lion to lead the sheep. They're made out to be crazy for prepping, but hey -- at least they're ready in case the unfathomable happens. The idea of it is outlandish and insane to the normal person, but the men and women who are able to do this are the true patriots in this nation.
That aside, there's a sizable portion of gun owners who fear this is a signal that the gov't is coming for ammunition in general, because after all what is a vehicle with no gasoline to fuel it? Whether or not that's true remains to be seen -- but the proposed ban on M855 makes no sense to begin with and should be tossed out, proponents of the ban with it too. At its best, all this is doing is giving the economy a small boost because 5.56 ammo is just flying off the shelves. It's like AR-15 sales after the Sandy Hook incident.
I guess that makes sense, but I'd disagree. I'd say it's more the fact the politicians are elected by the people and derive their power from the people.
For example, if those in power tried to do away with the bill of rights, do you think that our military and police forces would enforce that? Of course they wouldn't. Not out of a fear of the people, but out of a desire to protect peoples freedoms. If it really was the US millitary vs an amred uprising, the uprising would almost assuredly lose, because it doesn't have access to what the military has (military weapons, huge funding and supply, good training, tanks, fighters, bombers, ICBMs, ect.). But an armed uprising would never have to happen because the people would not allow that to happen in the first place. Imagine trying to get both houses of congress and 3/4ths of the states to do something like that. The president could declare himself king, and that would mean nothing because the military would not support him or her. If you don't have the support of the people, you don;t have any power.
Your assumption is that the military and police would stop them rather than blindly go along with it. You're forgetting that democratically elected governments have gone under before. It just takes a charismatic leader with a message that appeals to the majority of the military and makes the public afraid of what will happen if they don't go along with it.
“But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” -Hermann Göring
On the issue of insurrection beating the US military: You don't need those things to break an army. One, a civilian gun or IED will kill a soldier just as dead as a military grade gun or land mine and you can download the hows tos off the internet, in great detail, thanks to AQ. Two, if you have enough of a numbers discrepancy, it simply does not matter. Air support can't be everywhere, and when dealing with a force as relatively small as the US military trying to enforce tyranny against as large a population and across an area as large as the United States has, it's far less effective than you might think.
And if you really think you need military grade gear, the simple answer is to set up an ambush, and take it off the military.
There are plenty of people who train and do "operator" stuff. Pretty much the idea is if SHTF (crap hits the rotary oscillator), it would take a lion to lead the sheep. They're made out to be crazy for prepping, but hey -- at least they're ready in case the unfathomable happens. The idea of it is outlandish and insane to the normal person, but the men and women who are able to do this are the true patriots in this nation.
A lion leading sheep will still lose. You need lions leading lions to make an effective revolutionary cell. And you need a leader who is more than just a military leader. They need to be a political leader, charismatic, able to get peoples trust and able to convince them that violent revolution is the only solution.
From what I've seen of "preppers" (and admittedly that is probably only the most crazy who actually get outside attention) they don't fit that criteria.
And if you really think you need military grade gear, the simple answer is to set up an ambush, and take it off the military.
This would probably be the main source of military equipment for any revolutionary cell. The Cuban revolution made great use of ambushes to acquire equipment and ammunition, though setting up an ambush against an enemy with spy planes with infrared cameras and other surveillance equipment will be pretty hard unless you do it in a city which increases the risk of collateral damage which could reduce support for your cause.
This would probably be the main source of military equipment for any revolutionary cell. The Cuban revolution made great use of ambushes to acquire equipment and ammunition, though setting up an ambush against an enemy with spy planes with infrared cameras and other surveillance equipment will be pretty hard unless you do it in a city which increases the risk of collateral damage which could reduce support for your cause.
Well, two things, the reverse is also true: if it's the military who hands out the collateral damage, your support goes up.
Two: they had those in Iraq and Afghanistan too. They do work, but the issues with there not being enough of them get magnified the bigger the area you're trying to cover. You can also lure them into a prepared kill zone (using things like sniper fire, faked calls for assistance from local police, etc). Given the number of abandoned buildings in major cities, you can eliminate much of the risk of civilian casualties.
For example, if those in power tried to do away with the bill of rights, do you think that our military and police forces would enforce that? Of course they wouldn't.
Wait have you not kept up with current events? We're well on our way already. You say this after the government admitted it records every call and email made by US citizens in direct violation of that same Bill of Rights. I agree a call to war is needed using legal means. Its our last chance to fix the Republic.
But I'm not blind to history. We're one catastrophic event away from it at any given time.
For example, if those in power tried to do away with the bill of rights, do you think that our military and police forces would enforce that? Of course they wouldn't.
That's no problem!
Just bring in 10 or 20 million illegals from another country and have them fill the ranks. Voila! Someone with no fielty to the Constitution OR the American people will have no qualms about shooting someone when ordered to. Worked in China (they brought forces in from other areas of China to quell TIenamen) and in the first American Civil War (Irish immigrants signed up to vote AND serve fresh off the boat).
d-usa wrote: The bill of rights are amendments to the constitution. Arguing that you can't change a change is idiotic, as is the argument that only one minor change has happened to the constitution. We have changed presidential terms, senate elections, slavery, prohibition and back, voting rights, and many many others.
So you can put up and show where the constitution specifically excludes the first 10 amendments from the amendment process, or you can shut up with the whole "put up or shut up" business.
They are amendments that were included in the first version of the ratified constitution - no constitution existed without them (excluding the articles of confederation) ! They essentially aren't amendments - they are the final draft of the constitution.
They are amendments that were included in the first version of the ratified constitution - no constitution existed without them (excluding the articles of confederation) ! They essentially aren't amendments - they are the final draft of the constitution.
The US Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788 by every state save Rhode Island and North Carolina, and neither RI or NC held out because of the BoR. RI didn't like the idea of a federal government strong enough to shut down its massively corrupt state legislature (RI was by far the most corrupt state in the Union until somewhere around 1820) and NC just liked the AoC more. Either way, both ratified by 1790. The Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791**.
The US Constitution even then, went into effect in 1789* even in RI and NC, so their ratification was somewhat irrelevant as anything more than a political sticking point. I.E. The US Constitution was in place and in effect as a legal document 2 years before the BoR was ratified. The BoR wasn't even written until after Washington and Adams were elected. The whole reason it was written was because the Anti-Federalists threw a massive temper tantrum in the first meeting of Congress and the Federalists said "fine we'll do it shut up already!"
*Technically, the Articles Congress recognized that the Constitution was ratified in September 1788 and had passed it into law, as RI and NC were not needed to meet the requirements of ratification.
**And it's also worth noting Georgia and Connecticut did not ratify any of the amendments until 1792. Wrong story. Neither of these states "officially" ratified until 1939. Yeah. Two states didn't "officially" ratify the Bill of Rights until 1939.
Frazzled wrote: Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?
there isnt a difference,
which might actually be the point.
the criteria that the 5.56 "meets" is the same criteria that almost every single centerfire rifle cartridge also meets.
after all, if the 5.56 being banned can penetrate lvl 2 armour, why not ban the 30 06 which can penetrate even thicker armour?
it is a sniper assault armour peircing round with no regulation, and saying "ought six" sounds too tacticool to not be uber, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
*also* people should know damn well that jesus only shoots 30 06, 12g, and .45
This ofc was my original argument. 5.56 AP rounds pail in comparison to much heavier rounds. ESP at shorter ranges. It's a dang joke. Knowing this about penetration it's pretty obvious that they are just trying to go after the ar-15 one peice at a time. First certain ammo, then mag capacity, then it will be barrel length, then something else, then semi automatics. Screw them all, they are all traitors IMO. Ready to get crushed by a tyrant.
Again, thats the fear. This is just the camel's nose under the tent.
As most major rifle calibers can be put into some sort of "pistol" (even if its a Thompson single shot long range target competition pistol) somewhere, they can and will now ban them.
They are amendments that were included in the first version of the ratified constitution - no constitution existed without them (excluding the articles of confederation) ! They essentially aren't amendments - they are the final draft of the constitution.
The US Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788 by every state save Rhode Island and North Carolina, and neither RI or NC held out because of the BoR. RI didn't like the idea of a federal government strong enough to shut down its massively corrupt state legislature (RI was by far the most corrupt state in the Union until somewhere around 1820) and NC just liked the AoC more. Either way, both ratified by 1790. The Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1791.
The US Constitution even then, went into effect in 1789* even in RI and NC, so their ratification was somewhat irrelevant as anything more than a political sticking point. I.E. The US Constitution was in place and in effect as a legal document 2 years before the BoR was ratified. The BoR wasn't even written until after Washington and Adams were elected. The whole reason it was written was because the Anti-Federalists threw a massive temper tantrum in the first meeting of Congress and the Federalists said "fine we'll do it shut up already!"
*Technically, the Articles Congress recognized that the Constitution was ratified in September 1788 and had passed it into law, as RI and NC were not needed to meet the requirements of ratification.
I didn't remember that part from school. Point still remains minus a 2 year period in the countries infancy the bill of rights has existed untouched and is the corner stone of our nation. I remember the federalist anti federalist debates about the BoR inclusion - it was my understanding that the articles were always legally in effect until the BoR was included.
Frazzled wrote: Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?
there isnt a difference,
which might actually be the point.
the criteria that the 5.56 "meets" is the same criteria that almost every single centerfire rifle cartridge also meets.
after all, if the 5.56 being banned can penetrate lvl 2 armour, why not ban the 30 06 which can penetrate even thicker armour?
it is a sniper assault armour peircing round with no regulation, and saying "ought six" sounds too tacticool to not be uber, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
*also* people should know damn well that jesus only shoots 30 06, 12g, and .45
This ofc was my original argument. 5.56 AP rounds pail in comparison to much heavier rounds. ESP at shorter ranges. It's a dang joke. Knowing this about penetration it's pretty obvious that they are just trying to go after the ar-15 one peice at a time. First certain ammo, then mag capacity, then it will be barrel length, then something else, then semi automatics. Screw them all, they are all traitors IMO. Ready to get crushed by a tyrant.
The first Congress under the new constitution met in 1789. Same one that then immediately drafted the original 12 Bill of Rights (yeah there were 12, but 1 was redundant with the now 1st Amendment and pretty much everyone though the one about common suits being tried by juries was pointless).
No. The biggest issues over the BoR were;
Federalists didn't see the point. A Bill of Rights was already standard in the State Constitutions and thought those were sufficient to protect the rights in question. Georgia felt so strongly it was unnecessary, they didn't even ratify it at all (CT just couldn't get the paper work in order). In their minds the States were still top dog when it came to this sort of thing, the Federal government simply providing a necessary framework for them to work together.
Anti-Federalists (and correctly I think) thought that without a BoR there was nothing to stop the Federal Government from make the States subservient to the Constitution (as in, that the States cannot violate the Federal Constitution), which is exactly what ended up happening by the end of the Reconstruction Period just under a century after the debate over the BoR.
I think in the end the Anti-Federalists were right, and the BoR was ultimately necessary, but all this talk about how the Bill of Rights can never be repealed is just nonsense. They can be. The provisions to do so are in the Constitution. Whether anyone ever will is another matter.
Frazzled wrote: Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?
there isnt a difference,
which might actually be the point.
the criteria that the 5.56 "meets" is the same criteria that almost every single centerfire rifle cartridge also meets.
after all, if the 5.56 being banned can penetrate lvl 2 armour, why not ban the 30 06 which can penetrate even thicker armour?
it is a sniper assault armour peircing round with no regulation, and saying "ought six" sounds too tacticool to not be uber, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
*also* people should know damn well that jesus only shoots 30 06, 12g, and .45
This ofc was my original argument. 5.56 AP rounds pail in comparison to much heavier rounds. ESP at shorter ranges. It's a dang joke. Knowing this about penetration it's pretty obvious that they are just trying to go after the ar-15 one peice at a time. First certain ammo, then mag capacity, then it will be barrel length, then something else, then semi automatics. Screw them all, they are all traitors IMO. Ready to get crushed by a tyrant.
Not sure if serious or just trolling.
What part of what I'm saying suggests troll? The facts I stated about penetration? or the fact that the US government is after private gun ownership? Do they teach history in Sweden?
Frazzled wrote: Again I say what does that have to do with 5.56 ammo purchased by people who don't understand that Jesus would shoot a bolt action 30.06?
there isnt a difference,
which might actually be the point.
the criteria that the 5.56 "meets" is the same criteria that almost every single centerfire rifle cartridge also meets.
after all, if the 5.56 being banned can penetrate lvl 2 armour, why not ban the 30 06 which can penetrate even thicker armour?
it is a sniper assault armour peircing round with no regulation, and saying "ought six" sounds too tacticool to not be uber, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
*also* people should know damn well that jesus only shoots 30 06, 12g, and .45
This ofc was my original argument. 5.56 AP rounds pail in comparison to much heavier rounds. ESP at shorter ranges. It's a dang joke. Knowing this about penetration it's pretty obvious that they are just trying to go after the ar-15 one peice at a time. First certain ammo, then mag capacity, then it will be barrel length, then something else, then semi automatics. Screw them all, they are all traitors IMO. Ready to get crushed by a tyrant.
Not sure if serious or just trolling.
What part of what I'm saying suggests troll? The facts I stated about penetration? or the fact that the US government is after private gun ownership? Do they teach history in Sweden?
Calling people with different political opinions to your own "traitors". It's so over the top that I can't quite be sure.
Frazzled wrote: You say this after the government admitted it records every call and email made by US citizens in direct violation of that same Bill of Rights.
Er, did I miss something? PRISM never recorded actual call or email body information, I thought? It was metadata. "Call from xxx-xxx-xxxx to yyy-yyy-yyyy lasting z:zz minutes.", not "Hey Joe, how's the wife and kids?" Same with email?
I mean, it's still pretty frelling awful, but it's not the same thing as Fourth Amendment violations or anything, I don't think. (then again, not a lawyer, so....)
Frazzled wrote: You say this after the government admitted it records every call and email made by US citizens in direct violation of that same Bill of Rights.
Er, did I miss something? PRISM never recorded actual call or email body information, I thought? It was metadata. "Call from xxx-xxx-xxxx to yyy-yyy-yyyy lasting z:zz minutes.", not "Hey Joe, how's the wife and kids?" Same with email?
I mean, it's still pretty frelling awful, but it's not the same thing as Fourth Amendment violations or anything, I don't think. (then again, not a lawyer, so....)
You did.
Although, they believed it was a very limited scope, but leaked reports gave anecdotal evidence that some calls/messages/contents were recorded.
And frankly, I don't think there's a law that prevents the NSA from doing so... but, using such information in courts. That's a whole different level.
Frazzled wrote: You say this after the government admitted it records every call and email made by US citizens in direct violation of that same Bill of Rights.
Er, did I miss something? PRISM never recorded actual call or email body information, I thought?
Where in the constitution does it say they can do that?
Why do you believe them?
There are plenty of people who train and do "operator" stuff. Pretty much the idea is if SHTF (crap hits the rotary oscillator), it would take a lion to lead the sheep. They're made out to be crazy for prepping, but hey -- at least they're ready in case the unfathomable happens. The idea of it is outlandish and insane to the normal person, but the men and women who are able to do this are the true patriots in this nation.
A lion leading sheep will still lose. You need lions leading lions to make an effective revolutionary cell. And you need a leader who is more than just a military leader. They need to be a political leader, charismatic, able to get peoples trust and able to convince them that violent revolution is the only solution.
From what I've seen of "preppers" (and admittedly that is probably only the most crazy who actually get outside attention) they don't fit that criteria.
And if you really think you need military grade gear, the simple answer is to set up an ambush, and take it off the military.
This would probably be the main source of military equipment for any revolutionary cell. The Cuban revolution made great use of ambushes to acquire equipment and ammunition, though setting up an ambush against an enemy with spy planes with infrared cameras and other surveillance equipment will be pretty hard unless you do it in a city which increases the risk of collateral damage which could reduce support for your cause.
The point of being irregulars/militia forces is that they are not actual soldiers with training. This can be overcome if a "lion" leads them, someone who has experience and knows what they're doing. There's plenty of these people living in the US. Not sure why we're talking about a revolution, though, or why you think everyone must be strong individuals for it to happen. Sheep follow the shepherd.
Can we get back on track though? I'm interested in hearing actual reasoning for this ban.
Some argue that ATFIS is simply executing on a law passed previously.
I disagree.
See the reading of the law below. M855 was never originally DESIGNED AND INTENDED for use in a pistol, regardless of what folks are doing with it now. Nor is it completely steel.
A projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
A full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
Can we get back on track though? I'm interested in hearing actual reasoning for this ban.
There isn't a valid reason to enact the proposed ban. The only reasoning that has been given is that M855 is a centerfire rifle cartridge than can be fired from a pistol and has the ability to penetrate typical Level II body armor typically worn by law enforcement officers. In short the ATF wants to ban it becuase they think they can get away with banning it. For all the years that M855 has been readily available to the civilian populace nobody has loaded an AR-15 pistol with it and gone out and used it to murder cops. Nobody was being harmed by M855 but the ATF thinks they can ban it via some rules lawyering techinicality based arguments and an apathetic and miseduacated public.
The point of being irregulars/militia forces is that they are not actual soldiers with training. This can be overcome if a "lion" leads them, someone who has experience and knows what they're doing. There's plenty of these people living in the US. Not sure why we're talking about a revolution, though, or why you think everyone must be strong individuals for it to happen. Sheep follow the shepherd.
Can we get back on track though? I'm interested in hearing actual reasoning for this ban.
Sheep follow the shepherd until the wolves come. Then they're just a pack of sheep.
The Airman wrote: There are plenty of people who train and do "operator" stuff. Pretty much the idea is if SHTF (crap hits the rotary oscillator), it would take a lion to lead the sheep. They're made out to be crazy for prepping, but hey -- at least they're ready in case the unfathomable happens. The idea of it is outlandish and insane to the normal person, but the men and women who are able to do this are the true patriots in this nation.
Exactly - go out shooting and no-one thinks twice. Do 'operator' stuff (which is still pretty tame compared to what would actually be really useful), and people think you're crazy.
This is because no-one, absolutely fething no-one anywhere, honestly believes that going out target shooting makes you anywhere near skilled enough to be a useful revolutionary.
The idea that you can buy a rifle and go shooting on weekends and be ready if government goes bad is the fantasy of a weekend warrior.
That aside, there's a sizable portion of gun owners who fear this is a signal that the gov't is coming for ammunition in general, because after all what is a vehicle with no gasoline to fuel it? Whether or not that's true remains to be seen -- but the proposed ban on M855 makes no sense to begin with and should be tossed out, proponents of the ban with it too.
No, it is seen quite clearly from here - there is no scope at all for this law to follow on and start scooping up all ammo. Now, to clarify, I'm not in favour of targeting this kind of ammo, it is neither a sensible nor useful control on firearms and ammo. But just because it is bad law doesn't mean it's limitless, or the first of many future bad laws. It is, instead, a piece of law that limped in through a largely mythical fear about 'cop killer' bullets, reaching the absolute maximum limits of its effect.
At its best, all this is doing is giving the economy a small boost because 5.56 ammo is just flying off the shelves. It's like AR-15 sales after the Sandy Hook incident.
And now, I hope, you're starting to realise what the real game is here - tell crazy stories and sell, sell, sell.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Wait have you not kept up with current events? We're well on our way already. You say this after the government admitted it records every call and email made by US citizens in direct violation of that same Bill of Rights. I agree a call to war is needed using legal means. Its our last chance to fix the Republic.
But I'm not blind to history. We're one catastrophic event away from it at any given time.
Oh come on. Next election there is nothing stopping you from running a party called 'no more recording of emails and phone calls, protect our Bill of Rights'. No-one can stop you running. No-one can stop people voting for you.
And yet you don't even talk about that as an option. It's just straight to "a call to war is needed using legal means". As if the issue was so great and so important that millions will rise up to fight with you, but you couldn't get them to vote for you in the ballot box. Incredible.
The idea that you can buy a rifle and go shooting on weekends and be ready if government goes bad is the fantasy of a weekend warrior.
So, in other words, the National Guard is not combat ready?
In all seriousness, one on one, you're absolutely correct. The point of my argument though was that (bar a MASSIVE force increase ) that it wouldn't matter. Get enough of a numbers discrepancy going on, and the most advanced army in the world can be beaten to death with rocks and clubs. In the event the US government went bad, the Military would (at least initially) have it's feet nailed to the floor in cities and bases, bar large patrols in force. Too much territory + too many people + way too many guns + too few soldiers.
Plus you have all the fun that goes along with such fun like local troop mutinies and the issue of the loyalty of the National Guard at that point.
sebster wrote: As if the issue was so great and so important that millions will rise up to fight with you, but you couldn't get them to vote for you in the ballot box. Incredible.
sebster, maybe you don't pay much attention, but you can have the majority of the votes in an American election.... and still not win. In fact, if you're the wrong party in a given district, you may not even be able to get on the ballot given how crooked the rules for running for office have become.
As an example, in PA in some districts, you cannot get on the ballot unless you get more registered members of your party to sign off on it than actually live in the district. Effectively, unless challenged from within the dominant party, the incumbents don't even really need to campaign, because no one can run against them.
This is, by the way, why American politics have become increasingly polarized. To win elections, candidates need no longer appeal to the center, but instead must appeal to the further extremes of their party.
The idea that you can buy a rifle and go shooting on weekends and be ready if government goes bad is the fantasy of a weekend warrior.
So, in other words, the National Guard is not combat ready?
From my understanding: No, they are not.
They train on the weekends and they have their summer training, but if they are called to duty they don't just jump in a plane tomorrow and jump off in a combat zone ready to fight. It is my understanding that they do some intense training specific to their mission after being called to active duty and prior to being deployed.
I readily admit that I could be wrong though.
This is, by the way, why American politics have become increasingly polarized. To win elections, candidates need no longer appeal to the center, but instead must appeal to the further extremes of their party.
I know we have districts and all that for a reason and the whole "representative democracy" thing. But at times I really feel like we could benefit from a parliamentary system that would allocate based on overall results instead of this whole "Party X got 52% of the vote, but got 80% of the districts and gets 80% of the representation" crap we got going on right now.
Military units do ramp up their training before deployments, but that's not to say that they only do the minimum training the rest of the time. Sure, the National Guard won't exactly be kicking down doors like the Marines, but you're going to have some decently trained and competent soldiers in there regardless. It's all relative.
The Airman wrote: There are plenty of people who train and do "operator" stuff. Pretty much the idea is if SHTF (crap hits the rotary oscillator), it would take a lion to lead the sheep. They're made out to be crazy for prepping, but hey -- at least they're ready in case the unfathomable happens. The idea of it is outlandish and insane to the normal person, but the men and women who are able to do this are the true patriots in this nation.
Exactly - go out shooting and no-one thinks twice. Do 'operator' stuff (which is still pretty tame compared to what would actually be really useful), and people think you're crazy.
This is because no-one, absolutely fething no-one anywhere, honestly believes that going out target shooting makes you anywhere near skilled enough to be a useful revolutionary.
The idea that you can buy a rifle and go shooting on weekends and be ready if government goes bad is the fantasy of a weekend warrior.
So I guess there's never been a successful revolution in history short of the intervention of an outside power...
BaronIveagh wrote: So, in other words, the National Guard is not combat ready?
If the national guard involved people turning up, shooting some rounds down range and absolutely nothing else, you'd have a point. But the existence of a chain of command, that organises all participants in to a structure that can operate in militarily effective units is a very big difference.
In all seriousness, one on one, you're absolutely correct. The point of my argument though was that (bar a MASSIVE force increase ) that it wouldn't matter. Get enough of a numbers discrepancy going on, and the most advanced army in the world can be beaten to death with rocks and clubs. In the event the US government went bad, the Military would (at least initially) have it's feet nailed to the floor in cities and bases, bar large patrols in force. Too much territory + too many people + way too many guns + too few soldiers.
Plus you have all the fun that goes along with such fun like local troop mutinies and the issue of the loyalty of the National Guard at that point.
When you mention local troop mutinies you're actually touching on a point that is missed in these debates. I can't think of a single revolution in history that lined up neatly as 'all the civilians' vs 'all the army'. The civilian population will split among both sides, and typically the military will show competing loyalties, with significant portions either defecting or having such dubious loyalty that they are kept away from fighting and effectively useless to the government.
And amidst the role all that political complexity plays in determining the final outcome of an attempted revolution, it should become clear that a civilian population that shoots guns on the weekend and might fight on your side is really not a factor.
sebster, maybe you don't pay much attention, but you can have the majority of the votes in an American election.... and still not win. In fact, if you're the wrong party in a given district, you may not even be able to get on the ballot given how crooked the rules for running for office have become.
Yeah, maybe it's possible I don't pay much attention to US politics. Maybe that's... oh for feth's sake.
Yes, there are issues with the US electoral system. Major issues. And yes, many of those issues function as very effective blockades against minor parties. But we are talking about an issue that fraz believes is so important to millions of Americans that they will be willing to fight and die over it, as a last chance to fix the Republic. But apparently there isn’t enough support to even try forming a new political party, or dragging an existing political party towards your point of view.
This is, by the way, why American politics have become increasingly polarized. To win elections, candidates need no longer appeal to the center, but instead must appeal to the further extremes of their party.
I've been saying that very thing over and over on this forum for probably around a decade now. But leaping from the recognition of a problem to violent revolution without stopping in between and trying legitimate reform is barking mad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkLink wrote: So I guess there's never been a successful revolution in history short of the intervention of an outside power...
You need to read what I'm actually saying.
I have never said that civilians can't become effective soldiers.
I am saying that whether they become effective soldiers has nothing to do with whether or not they were going to the range before the revolution started, or whether they already owned a gun. The formation of effective & secure organisations, the will to continue despite casualties and counter insurgency efforts, these things really matter.
Getting your hands on guns and learning to be accurate enough, that's the easy bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I know we have districts and all that for a reason and the whole "representative democracy" thing. But at times I really feel like we could benefit from a parliamentary system that would allocate based on overall results instead of this whole "Party X got 52% of the vote, but got 80% of the districts and gets 80% of the representation" crap we got going on right now.
Nitpicking, but you have a parliament right now. All parliament means is that the executive is accountable to it, and it was democratically elected (by whatever method).
I think the term you're looking for proportional representation, where you get seats directly allocated based on your overall percentage of the vote.
The Airman wrote: There are plenty of people who train and do "operator" stuff. Pretty much the idea is if SHTF (crap hits the rotary oscillator), it would take a lion to lead the sheep. They're made out to be crazy for prepping, but hey -- at least they're ready in case the unfathomable happens. The idea of it is outlandish and insane to the normal person, but the men and women who are able to do this are the true patriots in this nation.
Exactly - go out shooting and no-one thinks twice. Do 'operator' stuff (which is still pretty tame compared to what would actually be really useful), and people think you're crazy.
This is because no-one, absolutely fething no-one anywhere, honestly believes that going out target shooting makes you anywhere near skilled enough to be a useful revolutionary.
The idea that you can buy a rifle and go shooting on weekends and be ready if government goes bad is the fantasy of a weekend warrior.
That aside, there's a sizable portion of gun owners who fear this is a signal that the gov't is coming for ammunition in general, because after all what is a vehicle with no gasoline to fuel it? Whether or not that's true remains to be seen -- but the proposed ban on M855 makes no sense to begin with and should be tossed out, proponents of the ban with it too.
No, it is seen quite clearly from here - there is no scope at all for this law to follow on and start scooping up all ammo. Now, to clarify, I'm not in favour of targeting this kind of ammo, it is neither a sensible nor useful control on firearms and ammo. But just because it is bad law doesn't mean it's limitless, or the first of many future bad laws. It is, instead, a piece of law that limped in through a largely mythical fear about 'cop killer' bullets, reaching the absolute maximum limits of its effect.
At its best, all this is doing is giving the economy a small boost because 5.56 ammo is just flying off the shelves. It's like AR-15 sales after the Sandy Hook incident.
And now, I hope, you're starting to realise what the real game is here - tell crazy stories and sell, sell, sell.
Anyone can be a revolutionary, even Bill in IT who fixes jammed printers for a living. The point is to act, and others follow suit. Or they don't. Either way, Bill's a revolutionary. If he shoots every weekend that means he's more proficient at operating his firearms than the average citizen.
Additionally, I'm not saying that it's impending doom for gun owners, this ban. Only that there's a lot of fear that is might be because of WHY the ATF is going after M855. I mean, if a standard 5.56 ball round out of an AR pistol can pierce a cop's vest, then the rabbit hole of poor logic follows suit. It might sound insane to you, but this isn't the first nor last time there will be restrictions proposed or imposed upon gun owners. I'd say they have a LEGITIMATE reason to be concerned about this ban. It's probably not going to pass, but it does represent the ever present threat to the 2A. Taking out this source of munitions alone will strain the supply of 5.56 to begin with, I'd hate to see it expanded upon.
Edit: I'd like to see 5.45 7n6 come back onto the market.
Well, now I am well and truly confused. I thought we established on the third page that the "no sporting purpose" determination was made way back in 2012, and that it already has passed. Now we're just talking about logistics of removing it from the market - Is that not accurate?
The point of being irregulars/militia forces is that they are not actual soldiers with training. This can be overcome if a "lion" leads them, someone who has experience and knows what they're doing. There's plenty of these people living in the US. Not sure why we're talking about a revolution, though, or why you think everyone must be strong individuals for it to happen. Sheep follow the shepherd.
Can we get back on track though? I'm interested in hearing actual reasoning for this ban.
Sheep follow the shepherd until the wolves come. Then they're just a pack of sheep.
A man once said you can be sheep, the shepherd, or the wolf.
I say I saw the Wolfman down at Trader Vics, and his hair was perfect. Awoooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
But the existence of a chain of command, that organises all participants in to a structure that can operate in militarily effective units is a very big difference.
I might point out that the cell structure, which generally lacks those things, can also be fairly effective.
sebster wrote: And amidst the role all that political complexity plays in determining the final outcome of an attempted revolution, it should become clear that a civilian population that shoots guns on the weekend and might fight on your side is really not a factor.
In a insurgency, or revolution, every man who picks up a gun and fights is a factor. Individually, not a big one, perhaps, but he's got a leg up on the guys who sign on that have never seen a gun before.
I've been saying that very thing over and over on this forum for probably around a decade now. But leaping from the recognition of a problem to violent revolution without stopping in between and trying legitimate reform is barking mad.
Do you think that people haven't tried reforms? Campaign finance reform was one step. Man did that die a horrible death. The fact is that the people in the best position to enact reform are also the one's who's jobs hinge on no reform taking place. And they shut it down, faster than you can say 'conflict of interest'.
Getting your hands on guns and learning to be accurate enough, that's the easy bit.
There's a world of difference between the guys that have shot all their lives and the guys who just learn once the shooting has already started.
Maybe it's the fact that I can name years I'd have starved to death in winter if it wasn't for the fact I can shoot, and track through nasty terrain. (Deer are delicious, but like sheep, can wear on you after a month or two of nothing but.)
I've been using firearms since i was six. Most of my neighbors have too. I think that when Frazz and I talk about people who practice on weekends, and you talk about them, we're talking very different things.
I can definitely say the 'problem states' would be New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Texas. Lots of guns, and large populations who would take a dim view of such changes, and know how to use said guns.
Well, now I am well and truly confused. I thought we established on the third page that the "no sporting purpose" determination was made way back in 2012, and that it already has passed. Now we're just talking about logistics of removing it from the market - Is that not accurate?
Then it should be reversed because it's solely used for sporting purposes and not for shooting cops. After all, that's literally the ATF's stance on things. I wonder what they'll go for next; the Five-Seven and Tokarev can pose a threat to law enforcement with their capabilities to penetrate protective vests and armor, AKA armor penetration. Those 5.7 needs military rounds to be truly AP, it's still damn good -- a Tokarev cartridge on steroids.
I've heard some rattlings about the EPA going after lead ammo (which is, what, 90% of ammunition on the market?) but I hope it's just typical Elmer Fudd hearsay.
The Airman wrote: There are plenty of people who train and do "operator" stuff. Pretty much the idea is if SHTF (crap hits the rotary oscillator), it would take a lion to lead the sheep. They're made out to be crazy for prepping, but hey -- at least they're ready in case the unfathomable happens. The idea of it is outlandish and insane to the normal person, but the men and women who are able to do this are the true patriots in this nation.
Exactly - go out shooting and no-one thinks twice. Do 'operator' stuff (which is still pretty tame compared to what would actually be really useful), and people think you're crazy.
This is because no-one, absolutely fething no-one anywhere, honestly believes that going out target shooting makes you anywhere near skilled enough to be a useful revolutionary.
The idea that you can buy a rifle and go shooting on weekends and be ready if government goes bad is the fantasy of a weekend warrior.
That aside, there's a sizable portion of gun owners who fear this is a signal that the gov't is coming for ammunition in general, because after all what is a vehicle with no gasoline to fuel it? Whether or not that's true remains to be seen -- but the proposed ban on M855 makes no sense to begin with and should be tossed out, proponents of the ban with it too.
No, it is seen quite clearly from here - there is no scope at all for this law to follow on and start scooping up all ammo. Now, to clarify, I'm not in favour of targeting this kind of ammo, it is neither a sensible nor useful control on firearms and ammo. But just because it is bad law doesn't mean it's limitless, or the first of many future bad laws. It is, instead, a piece of law that limped in through a largely mythical fear about 'cop killer' bullets, reaching the absolute maximum limits of its effect.
At its best, all this is doing is giving the economy a small boost because 5.56 ammo is just flying off the shelves. It's like AR-15 sales after the Sandy Hook incident.
And now, I hope, you're starting to realise what the real game is here - tell crazy stories and sell, sell, sell.
Anyone can be a revolutionary, even Bill in IT who fixes jammed printers for a living. The point is to act, and others follow suit. Or they don't. Either way, Bill's a revolutionary. If he shoots every weekend that means he's more proficient at operating his firearms than the average citizen.
Additionally, I'm not saying that it's impending doom for gun owners, this ban. Only that there's a lot of fear that is might be because of WHY the ATF is going after M855. I mean, if a standard 5.56 ball round out of an AR pistol can pierce a cop's vest, then the rabbit hole of poor logic follows suit. It might sound insane to you, but this isn't the first nor last time there will be restrictions proposed or imposed upon gun owners. I'd say they have a LEGITIMATE reason to be concerned about this ban. It's probably not going to pass, but it does represent the ever present threat to the 2A. Taking out this source of munitions alone will strain the supply of 5.56 to begin with, I'd hate to see it expanded upon.
Edit: I'd like to see 5.45 7n6 come back onto the market.
Get learned, friend.
This ban would set a precedent. It's an obvious strategy. Can't get any antigun legislation through the house/senate, so they say "lets start small, with something obscure." Then years later when they call for bans on all penetrating rounds - they say "look, weve already done it, we are just making the law better." An ape could see how obvious this is.
This ban would set a precedent. It's an obvious strategy. Can't get any antigun legislation through the house/senate, so they say "lets start small, with something obscure." Then years later when they call for bans on all penetrating rounds - they say "look, weve already done it, we are just making the law better." An ape could see how obvious this is.
This ban would set a precedent. It's an obvious strategy. Can't get any antigun legislation through the house/senate, so they say "lets start small, with something obscure." Then years later when they call for bans on all penetrating rounds - they say "look, weve already done it, we are just making the law better." An ape could see how obvious this is.
Is there any dispute that the liberal agenda right now is to ban guns? Specifically "military style" "assault rifles" most of which use 5.56? It's a little late for paranoia. This is how politics work now. Like boiling a frog - you do it slowly so as they don't realize they are being cooked alive.
This ban would set a precedent. It's an obvious strategy. Can't get any antigun legislation through the house/senate, so they say "lets start small, with something obscure." Then years later when they call for bans on all penetrating rounds - they say "look, weve already done it, we are just making the law better." An ape could see how obvious this is.
You mean other than at least one state already does that right?
Yeah, there are actually people who walk around with tinfoil lining their clothing here. Some even go so far as to line the interior of their houses. All they're doing is giving the zombies a ready-made oven to cook up some brains in.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, there are actually people who walk around with tinfoil lining their clothing here. Some even go so far as to line the interior of their houses. All they're doing is giving the zombies a ready-made oven to cook up some brains in.
Yankees call it the Zombiepocalypse. Texans call it the Zombie Games.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Sheep follow the shepherd until the wolves come. Then they're just a pack of sheep.
I really, really hate this analogy. Sheep flock together for protection like fish move in schools. They have no other defense. When they stand really close together, it makes it hard to single out a particular animal. It's a defense mechanism, not something they do because they're stupid. They are actually fairly smart animals.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Sheep follow the shepherd until the wolves come. Then they're just a pack of sheep.
I really, really hate this analogy. Sheep flock together for protection like fish move in schools. They have no other defense. When they stand really close together, it makes it hard to single out a particular animal. It's a defense mechanism, not something they do because they're stupid. They are actually fairly smart animals.
Source: Me, I raise sheep.
Yes they do and yes it does but that is exactly why many predators work in teams to split a herd and separate weaker elements.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Sheep follow the shepherd until the wolves come. Then they're just a pack of sheep.
I really, really hate this analogy. Sheep flock together for protection like fish move in schools. They have no other defense. When they stand really close together, it makes it hard to single out a particular animal. It's a defense mechanism, not something they do because they're stupid. They are actually fairly smart animals.
Source: Me, I raise sheep.
Yes they do and yes it does but that is exactly why many predators work in teams to split a herd and separate weaker elements.
Lions, Wolves, Killer Whales etc.
This analogy doesn't work - wolves don't exist today and if they did - they get wrecked by sheep. This leaves the shepherd feeling quite useless. They will even sometimes invent wolves to scare the sheep. EXACTLY what is happening here.
A Town Called Malus wrote:Yes they do and yes it does but that is exactly why many predators work in teams to split a herd and separate weaker elements.
Lions, Wolves, Killer Whales etc.
I know how pack hunting works. It doesn't change that their flock behavior isn't stupidity; it's defense, and the only one they have.
Xenomancers wrote: Is there any dispute that the liberal agenda right now is to ban guns? Specifically "military style" "assault rifles" most of which use 5.56?
Yes.
Are there people that want to ban guns? Sure. Is there some kind of overarching "liberal agenda" in which they are slowly and quietly plotting to take away our guns? No.
It's a little late for paranoia.
See above.
This is how politics work now.
Now? New to politics, are you?
Like boiling a frog - you do it slowly so as they don't realize they are being cooked alive.
That is like the third time you've used that patently untrue folk warning. And also stop with the "sheep, shepherds, and wolves" analogies while you're at it. I think you're letting American Sniper go to your head a little too much. The real world isn't as binary as these idiotic adages make them out to be.
Xenomancers wrote: Is there any dispute that the liberal agenda right now is to ban guns? Specifically "military style" "assault rifles" most of which use 5.56?
Yes.
Are there people that want to ban guns? Sure. Is there some kind of overarching "liberal agenda" in which they are slowly and quietly plotting to take away our guns? No.
It's a little late for paranoia.
See above.
This is how politics work now.
Now? New to politics, are you?
Like boiling a frog - you do it slowly so as they don't realize they are being cooked alive.
That is like the third time you've used that patently untrue folk warning. And also stop with the "sheep, shepherds, and wolves" analogies while you're at it. I think you're letting American Sniper go to your head a little too much. The real world isn't as binary as these idiotic adages make them out to be.
There is no liberal agenda? Good one man. I find that hilarious.
I didn't start this analogist gak ether...though I did enjoy it a great deal.
Xenomancers wrote: There is no liberal agenda? Good one man. I find that hilarious.
I didn't start this analogist gak ether...though I did enjoy it a great deal.
Not as hilarious as your paranoia.
I do apologize though, it's just I instantly dismiss anyone who uses the phrase "____ agenda." You'll find it's quite common for rational people to do that.
Xenomancers wrote: There is no liberal agenda? Good one man. I find that hilarious.
I didn't start this analogist gak ether...though I did enjoy it a great deal.
Not as hilarious as your paranoia.
I do apologize though, it's just I instantly dismiss anyone who uses the phrase "____ agenda." You'll find it's quite common for rational people to do that.
Okay, so you don't think political parties have agendas? Then you claim to be rational? Having a hard time understanding this.
Frazzled wrote: You must live towards the East of Cali, there's quite a few Wolves in the WEst and Northwest NA.
I live in Florida man, Jacksonville. Technically it's the murder capitol of the nation. It's sheep killing sheep though. No wolves required.
Ok gotcha. Out west wolves have been reintroduced to many federal lands.
The only thing I know about sheep is they stink.
You are talking about the mexican wolf. I am actually a member of the mexican wolf conservation group on facebook. I love animals especially wolves, I own a wolf hybird lol.
Xenomancers wrote: There is no liberal agenda? Good one man. I find that hilarious.
I didn't start this analogist gak ether...though I did enjoy it a great deal.
Not as hilarious as your paranoia.
I do apologize though, it's just I instantly dismiss anyone who uses the phrase "____ agenda." You'll find it's quite common for rational people to do that.
Okay, so you don't think political parties have agendas? Then you claim to be rational? Having a hard time understanding this.
That's not what he said, and you know it, too.
The only real agenda any political group has is the perpetuation of their own power, influence, and wealth. Once you learn that basic rule, you'll start to see through all the razzle dazzle of the political circus.
Xenomancers wrote: There is no liberal agenda? Good one man. I find that hilarious.
I didn't start this analogist gak ether...though I did enjoy it a great deal.
Not as hilarious as your paranoia.
I do apologize though, it's just I instantly dismiss anyone who uses the phrase "____ agenda." You'll find it's quite common for rational people to do that.
Whats the weather like in Duh Nile? Things still rosy there?
"Liberal agenda" is one of those things that annoys me. You could say democratic agenda, which makes sense because democrats do have an agenda (although I don't think it goes to actually banning guns) Liberals do not have any agenda, because "liberal" is not a group. I'm liberal, leaning radical at times, and I don't want to ban guns. Just because someone is liberal doesn't mean they want to ban guns, and just because someone wants restriction on weapons doesn't mean they want to ban guns. I want certain restrictions on weapon (I don't want civilians armed with RPGs, rockets, or insane stuff like that), but certainly don't want guns banned.
And I will point out that "Liberal Agenda" is one of those things synonymous with conspiracy theories. You will find yourself taken more seriously if you don't use that particular term.
I have similar opinion of that. People seem to think that all liberals are the same and all conservatives are they same, which is pretty damn stupid. And people use liberal for democrat and conservative for republican. There are plenty of conservative democrats and liberal republicans (Democrats usually for social reasons, Republicans for economic, or at least that's what I have seen).
Co'tor Shas wrote: "Liberal agenda" is one of those things that annoys me. You could say democratic agenda, which makes sense because democrats do have an agenda (although I don't think it goes to actually banning guns) Liberals do not have any agenda, because "liberal" is not a group. I'm liberal, leaning radical at times, and I don't want to ban guns. Just because someone is liberal doesn't mean they want to ban guns, and just because someone wants restriction on weapons doesn't mean they want to ban guns. I want certain restrictions on weapon (I don't want civilians armed with RPGs, rockets, or insane stuff like that), but certainly don't want guns banned.
And I will point out that "Liberal Agenda" is one of those things synonymous with conspiracy theories. You will find yourself taken more seriously if you don't use that particular term.
Fair enough.
I apologize for referring to an over generalized "Liberal Agenda" myself.
But semantics aside, it's fact that there are many social and political groups that do want to ban all guns, and many are willing to start with banning ammo, or implementing registration, etc. and going from there. That's fact, not paranoia. And that's the concern.
Co'tor Shas wrote: "Liberal agenda" is one of those things that annoys me. You could say democratic agenda, which makes sense because democrats do have an agenda (although I don't think it goes to actually banning guns) Liberals do not have any agenda, because "liberal" is not a group. I'm liberal, leaning radical at times, and I don't want to ban guns. Just because someone is liberal doesn't mean they want to ban guns, and just because someone wants restriction on weapons doesn't mean they want to ban guns. I want certain restrictions on weapon (I don't want civilians armed with RPGs, rockets, or insane stuff like that), but certainly don't want guns banned.
And I will point out that "Liberal Agenda" is one of those things synonymous with conspiracy theories. You will find yourself taken more seriously if you don't use that particular term.
Fair enough.
I apologize for referring to an over generalized "Liberal Agenda" myself.
But semantics aside, it's fact that there are many social and political groups that do want to ban all guns, and many are willing to start with banning ammo, or implementing registration, etc. and going from there. That's fact, not paranoia. And that's the concern.
Oh, there are definitely people who want to ban guns, but they are firmly in the minority. Think about it, even in Britain you can still own guns. Mostly "anti-gun" people want restrictions whether it be large, or small. At the same time, a lot of "pro-gun" people to balk at any restriction, even reasonable stuff like "You can't own grenade launchers". This, it seems to me, is largely based on mis-information that both sides spew, and fear which both sides propagate.
I remember one story about people fighting against a ban on silencers, which is a pretty stupid thing to fight against IMO. But it is a fueled by the "evil liberals after your guns" attitude of groups like the NRA. Honestly, the NRA seems to just give gun enthusiasts a bad name.
Why should suppressors be illegal? They're not illegal in the UK, and from what I can tell they are not difficult to get for someone who can legally own a firearm.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons for wanting to own a suppressor, beyond just "I want one" (which really should be enough on its own, suppressors don't really add some incredible capability like they do in films).
Oh, there are definitely people who want to ban guns, but they are firmly in the minority. Think about it, even in Britain you can still own guns. Mostly "anti-gun" people want restrictions whether it be large, or small. At the same time, a lot of "pro-gun" people to balk at any restriction, even reasonable stuff like "You can't own grenade launchers". This, it seems to me, is largely based on mis-information that both sides spew, and fear which both sides propagate.
I remember one story about people fighting against a ban on silencers, which is a pretty stupid thing to fight against IMO. But it is a fueled by the "evil liberals after your guns" attitude of groups like the NRA. Honestly, the NRA seems to just give gun enthusiasts a bad name.
"Pro-gun" people balk at restrictions because we've been putting up with ridiculous restrictions of every kind - the National Firearms Act, import bans, the 86 manufacturing ban on machine guns (which is different from the NFA), the absurd 94 Assault Weapon Ban (and its ridiculous legacy that lives on in many Democrat-dominated states), and countless other attacks on our rights.
Our gun rights ARE restricted. I'm not going to speak for everyone, but honestly I have zero interest in giving up any more of my gun rights. Let's talk SENSIBLE reform - why the blue feth do I need to pay Uncle Sugar $200 and wait 6 months for the incompetent ATF to run a background check on me, just so I can have a rifle with a 15.9899887799389" barrel?
Once the government can account for all of those weapons it sold Mexican drug cartels, and once they've shown competence in enforcing the laws already on the books, then we can have an honest dialogue about gun law reform. I'd like to see SCIENCE come into play when these politicians introduce new legislation. Explain to me specifically how, with evidence, a proposed law is worth infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens. As it is, the government just does whatever the feth it wants, and gun owners are rightfully sick of it.
And by the way, "silencers" is a complete misnomer. SUPPRESSORS make guns anything but "silent" and they are just as easy to buy as firearms in Europe. The ban on SUPPRESSORS is completely idiotic...what percentage of murders prior to the ban were carried out using suppressed guns? If you can't answer that question, then you have NO BUSINESS AT ALL infringing on my rights. As it is, you can buy suppressors but again, you have to pay Uncle Sugar $200, which is used to fund an inept agency whose tasks include further infringing upon your rights.
No idea, but it's a silly thing to make a huge fuss over. Unlike bullets, they are not required for the guns to function and really serve no purpose unless you are doing illegal things. It's like buying lockpicks. some states don't allow you too, even though it may seem silly, it's just out of a concern (possibly misplaced) of people doing illigal things.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No idea, but it's a silly thing to make a huge fuss over. Unlike bullets, they are not required for the guns to function and really serve no purpose unless you are doing illegal things. It's like buying lockpicks. some states don't allow you too, even though it may seem silly, it's just out of a concern (possibly misplaced) of people doing illigal things.
They also allow you to hunt without hearing protection, so you can better hear and identify your game. They also allow newer shooters the opportunity to improve by reducing their startle response. If you have to use a gun in your house to protect your family, a suppressor keeps everyone from suffering permanent hearing loss.
Before the NFA, suppressors were actually mainly purchased by dairy farmers who wanted a way of exterminating pests without freaking out their cows. What a bunch of criminals.
"Pro-gun" people balk at restrictions because we've been putting up with ridiculous restrictions of every kind - the National Firearms Act, import bans, the 86 manufacturing ban on machine guns (which is different from the NFA), the absurd 94 Assault Weapon Ban (and its ridiculous legacy that lives on in many Democrat-dominated states), and countless other attacks on our rights.
Our gun rights ARE restricted. I'm not going to speak for everyone, but honestly I have zero interest in giving up any more of my gun rights. Let's talk SENSIBLE reform - why the blue feth do I need to pay Uncle Sugar $200 and wait 6 months for the incompetent ATF to run a background check on me, just so I can have a rifle with a 15.9899887799389" barrel?
I feel pretty much the same way. And it's especially annoying because almost anytime an anti-gun person brings it up, they talk about wanting to "compromise." But they don't actually mean compromising, they mean they want to take more gun rights away - they almost never offer anything in return. If they actually brought something to the table, like a shall-issue CCW permit with reasonable requirements that was accepted nationwide, then I might be willing to entertain accepting something like "increased background checks" - whatever those actually are meant to be, since every gun purchased from an FFL requires a background check anyway.
But it's not like that. "Compromise" doesn't mean compromise, it means "further restriction of your already restricted rights."
Co'tor Shas wrote: No idea, but it's a silly thing to make a huge fuss over. Unlike bullets, they are not required for the guns to function and really serve no purpose unless you are doing illegal things. It's like buying lockpicks. some states don't allow you too, even though it may seem silly, it's just out of a concern (possibly misplaced) of people doing illigal things.
They also allow you to hunt without hearing protection, so you can better hear and identify your game. They also allow newer shooters the opportunity to improve by reducing their startle response. If you have to use a gun in your house to protect your family, a suppressor keeps everyone from suffering permanent hearing loss.
Yup, exactly this. The idea that suppressors are only useful for criminals is flat wrong, and the capability they are shown as having in most films is pure fantasy.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Huh, I don't know gak about guns, so I wouldn't know. I just seemed silly to me. Well, it's always good to learn new things.
See, that's the problem though. There are people (a few actually with some influence) who are trying to increase restrictions on weapons, and they are extremely uninformed about them. I'm not knocking you; you are having a discussion with us, and are open to learn new things, which is excellent! However, before posting here, it probably seemed "obvious" to you that suppressors or silencers were bad, or only served a purpose if you were doing illegal things. It's not necessarily bad to be wrong, or mistaken, but there are people who are misinformed, and not open to learning new things who have tried to restrict our constitutional rights without good reason. I'm sure it seemed "obvious" to people who supported Feinstein's assault weapons bill that the things she was trying to ban were dangerous and only of use in a warzone, even though most of us here know those features are for the most part purely cosmetic.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No idea, but it's a silly thing to make a huge fuss over. Unlike bullets, they are not required for the guns to function and really serve no purpose unless you are doing illegal things. It's like buying lockpicks. some states don't allow you too, even though it may seem silly, it's just out of a concern (possibly misplaced) of people doing illigal things.
Ninjed (by a ninja)
bs. For example, they are great for hog hunting. You can cap a whole group instead of getting 1 or 2 before the rest scatter. And in some places, assuming you get the class 3 stamp, that is perfectly legal (and even encouraged). Feral hogs do a lot of damage.
The Airman wrote: Anyone can be a revolutionary, even Bill in IT who fixes jammed printers for a living. The point is to act, and others follow suit. Or they don't. Either way, Bill's a revolutionary. If he shoots every weekend that means he's more proficient at operating his firearms than the average citizen.
Yes, but to make the point again, firearm proficiency is a really, really small part of the issue. Organisation is so much more important. But people who go out shooting typically don't worry about organisation and structure of their potential revolutionary group.
Because they're not really going out shooting to be ready. That's just a fun fantasy they put on top of their fun weekend hobby.
Additionally, I'm not saying that it's impending doom for gun owners, this ban. Only that there's a lot of fear that is might be because of WHY the ATF is going after M855. I mean, if a standard 5.56 ball round out of an AR pistol can pierce a cop's vest, then the rabbit hole of poor logic follows suit. It might sound insane to you, but this isn't the first nor last time there will be restrictions proposed or imposed upon gun owners. I'd say they have a LEGITIMATE reason to be concerned about this ban. It's probably not going to pass, but it does represent the ever present threat to the 2A. Taking out this source of munitions alone will strain the supply of 5.56 to begin with, I'd hate to see it expanded upon.
For what it's worth, I actually think the restriction is bad law. It's pretty iffy given the law (what does 'designed and intended' mean - can you apply that to a round that has since had pistol developed for it?), but more than that it's a law based more on a weird 90s scare than anything real in the gun violence in the US. The number of people, police or otherwise, killed by rifle rounds fired out of pistols is pretty damn close to zero - this cop killer thing was silly scare.
But none of that justifies the silliness that's gone in this thread, the utter lie the OP was originally posted under, the claims that this will lead to all guns being taken, the stuff about taking up guns against government... all that is the same crazy we get in every gun control thread, and it needs to be argued against and dismissed. The health of US gun culture needs to have that nonsense dismissed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: I might point out that the cell structure, which generally lacks those things, can also be fairly effective.
When you have individual cells operating in isolation it is typically very ineffective. It is when the cells develop means of working without other cells, without comprising the security of each other, that it becomes very effective.
And that, of course, is a very sophisticated kind of organisation.
In a insurgency, or revolution, every man who picks up a gun and fights is a factor. Individually, not a big one, perhaps, but he's got a leg up on the guys who sign on that have never seen a gun before.
Yeah, but operating in isolation or without effective co-ordination, he's pretty close to useless. With effective co-ordination, even a man who's never seen a gun before is vastly more useful.
Do you think that people haven't tried reforms? Campaign finance reform was one step. Man did that die a horrible death. The fact is that the people in the best position to enact reform are also the one's who's jobs hinge on no reform taking place. And they shut it down, faster than you can say 'conflict of interest'.
Campaign finance reform was led almost entirely from the top of the two main parties. When it died there were no protests in the streets, no new political parties sprung up to take this issue directly to the ballots. To argue that the only option left is to take up arms against government is fething ridiculous.
Maybe it's the fact that I can name years I'd have starved to death in winter if it wasn't for the fact I can shoot, and track through nasty terrain. (Deer are delicious, but like sheep, can wear on you after a month or two of nothing but.)
I've been using firearms since i was six. Most of my neighbors have too. I think that when Frazz and I talk about people who practice on weekends, and you talk about them, we're talking very different things.
No, I'm not talking about anything different. I'm coming from a background of having read about the partisan efforts through the 20th century, and while experienced riflemen were very common (especially up to an including WWII) they didn't make anywhere near as much of an impact as effective organisation, and of course all the various political factors.
Being able to disappear in to the woods and potentially snipe at any soldiers that come your way is not actually that useful. Being able to communicate with other revolutionaries and co-ordinate attacks gives you a chance of being effective.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: This ban would set a precedent. It's an obvious strategy. Can't get any antigun legislation through the house/senate, so they say "lets start small, with something obscure." Then years later when they call for bans on all penetrating rounds - they say "look, weve already done it, we are just making the law better." An ape could see how obvious this is.
In the ape's defence, it can't read legislation or know that other rounds have already been banned, and that never kicked off a steady banning of other rounds.
I'm not sure excuse we can find for humans falling for the same slippery slope nonsense, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Is there any dispute that the liberal agenda right now is to ban guns? Specifically "military style" "assault rifles" most of which use 5.56? It's a little late for paranoia.
Your argument there is completely at odds with political reality. There is effectively zero political capital for a ban on guns - they can't even get mental health checks over the line.
This is how politics work now. Like boiling a frog - you do it slowly so as they don't realize they are being cooked alive.
This is a myth, by the way. Frogs will jump out of the water.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KiloFiX wrote: ....into Google and you'll find lots of groups with a very directly stated Liberal Agenda to ban and confiscate all guns.
Go hunting around on google and you'll find people who thinkSandy Hook was a false flag operation to take all the guns and install a one world government.
We can spend all day getting scared about groups we find a congress, but the funny thing about random groups on google is that they don't mean gak in a country of 300 million. What matters is the overall, and in this case we simply know when you can't get a law on mental health checks for gun purchases over the line, any attempt to ban guns is complete fiction.
A sensible, mature gun debate needs to worry about what is actually politically possible. Talk about all guns being banned is just political fantasy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: It's just hyperbolic man... you gotta just weed through it.
The problem is that once we get through the hyperbole in this thread, there's nothing left. That's frustrating because there is a sensible argument to be made against this move, but no-one here is making it.
Instead of talking about an unnecessary and inconsistent approach to one type of ammo, all we get is silliness about liberal agendas and fantasies about taking on the government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: See, that's the problem though. There are people (a few actually with some influence) who are trying to increase restrictions on weapons, and they are extremely uninformed about them. I'm not knocking you; you are having a discussion with us, and are open to learn new things, which is excellent! However, before posting here, it probably seemed "obvious" to you that suppressors or silencers were bad, or only served a purpose if you were doing illegal things. It's not necessarily bad to be wrong, or mistaken, but there are people who are misinformed, and not open to learning new things who have tried to restrict our constitutional rights without good reason. I'm sure it seemed "obvious" to people who supported Feinstein's assault weapons bill that the things she was trying to ban were dangerous and only of use in a warzone, even though most of us here know those features are for the most part purely cosmetic.
The problem is that much of the anti-gun lobby knows nothing useful about guns, and much of the pro-gun lobby is completely barking. The resulting debate... does not produce useful gun legislation.
Co'tor Shas wrote: "Liberal agenda" is one of those things that annoys me. You could say democratic agenda, which makes sense because democrats do have an agenda (although I don't think it goes to actually banning guns) Liberals do not have any agenda, because "liberal" is not a group. I'm liberal, leaning radical at times, and I don't want to ban guns. Just because someone is liberal doesn't mean they want to ban guns, and just because someone wants restriction on weapons doesn't mean they want to ban guns. I want certain restrictions on weapon (I don't want civilians armed with RPGs, rockets, or insane stuff like that), but certainly don't want guns banned.
And I will point out that "Liberal Agenda" is one of those things synonymous with conspiracy theories. You will find yourself taken more seriously if you don't use that particular term.
You may not want to ban guns but please find me a liberal hero who doesn't want gun control. As a libertarian (and a contrarian) I regularly get in fights with the rabid right wingers on gun websites (who would have figured Frazzled being ornery on the internetz) but they do have a bit of a point on that front.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Huh, I don't know gak about guns, so I wouldn't know. I just seemed silly to me. Well, it's always good to learn new things.
Thats the problem. You self admittedly don't know gak about guns, yet you want to regulate them based on what you think is important WITHOUT KNOWING gak ABOUT GUNS.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah, but operating in isolation or without effective co-ordination, he's pretty close to useless. With effective co-ordination, even a man who's never seen a gun before is vastly more useful.
I won't disagree. But this is the age of info technology. There are groups out there...now.
And thats nothing new. Revolutions always spring up and develop, even before Da Internetz.
I'm not sure how it's possible so many legislators are unaware that this was actually already secretly done wayyyy back in 2012, but I suppose they could just all be as dumb as me.
I'm not sure how it's possible so many legislators are unaware that this was actually already secretly done wayyyy back in 2012, but I suppose they could just all be as dumb as me.
It's extremely possible. "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it" readily comes to mind. Many times, regulatory changes dont get much press time/exposure, and many times, it is the staff of the representatives that do most of the reading and only give the rep what he or she needs to know in regards of how to vote on a particular issue. That this is a regulatory change, its not surprising that it went unnoticed for as long as it did.
When you have individual cells operating in isolation it is typically very ineffective. It is when the cells develop means of working without other cells, without comprising the security of each other, that it becomes very effective.
Typically, but not always. The Hopper network springs to mind, they were not big on working with others, and still conducted one of the most effective assassination sprees the French resistance managed to field during the Occupation.. And, again, my point about numbers is not refuted by this.
sebster wrote: When it died there were no protests in the streets,
Incorrect. Actually, stop by SCOTUS next time you have a moment when they're in session to see how much 'Not Protesting' is still going on.
no new political parties sprung up to take this issue directly to the ballots.
It's been to the ballots. and been declared unconstitutional every time. Even those occasions it's made it all the way to law.
Further, you don't actually get to vote on Constitutional amendments, IIRC. Your state government does. The same ones that also spent so much time loading the dice in the first place.
Oh, and TRY getting a new political party on the ballot. If you think running as a member of a party other than whatever party is dominant in a district is hard, wait till you see the rules to get a new PARTY on the ballot. Hell, PA doesn't even put most existing parties on the ballot. You have to have gotten at least 20% of the National vote, the previous year, IIRC, before PA will put you on.
Being able to disappear in to the woods and potentially snipe at any soldiers that come your way is not actually that useful. Being able to communicate with other revolutionaries and co-ordinate attacks gives you a chance of being effective.
You can snipe, don't get me wrong, but it's far less effective in this terrain, than, say, an IED. Lots of heavy brush and thick canopy. Lot of hidden sink holes and natural caves, too. Low visibility. Generally not fun.
Sorry, but something being on ballots and getting voted down does not make it unconstitutional. It makes it unpopular. The vast majority of the population couldn't name the Secretary of State- forget about them knowing about constitutional law.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled, show me a conservative, even yourself, who doesn't want some form of gun control and I will show you a nut. You don't want mentally handicapped people and children under five owning guns, do you? That's gun control. Not trolling. Just saying that claims like "show me a liberal that doesn't want gun control" means nothing in that context. I am a liberal. I don't want to take your precious guns, as much as I think you are weak (both morally and intellectually) for wanting to cling to them so adamantly. Morality and ignorance are not the purview of the law. Not my concern. Do what you want as long as it doesn't infringe on my constitutional rights to organize peacefully and speak my mind freely (until the voters or the courts legally deem those rights should no longer be rights-god doesn't get a vote).
Gordon Shumway wrote: I don't want to take your precious guns, as much as I think you are weak (both morally and intellectually) for wanting to cling to them so adamantly.
Could you clarify this a bit more? If you think it's morally and intellectually weak for someone to want to keep their guns, do you think it is morally and intellectually strong for someone to want to take someone else's guns away? Or is it determined by how adamantly someone wants these things? For example, if someone wants to keep their guns, but is only moderately adamant about it, are they not as morally and intellectually weak? Does this only apply to guns, or all rights?
I'm not sure how it's possible so many legislators are unaware that this was actually already secretly done wayyyy back in 2012, but I suppose they could just all be as dumb as me.
It's extremely possible. "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it" readily comes to mind. Many times, regulatory changes dont get much press time/exposure, and many times, it is the staff of the representatives that do most of the reading and only give the rep what he or she needs to know in regards of how to vote on a particular issue. That this is a regulatory change, its not surprising that it went unnoticed for as long as it did.
Why is the timeline of this stealth change moving? What happened to it being secretly banned in 2012 - why are we now moving to "it was in the works since 2014"?
Gordon Shumway wrote: I don't want to take your precious guns, as much as I think you are weak (both morally and intellectually) for wanting to cling to them so adamantly.
Could you clarify this a bit more? If you think it's morally and intellectually weak for someone to want to keep their guns, do you think it is morally and intellectually strong for someone to want to take someone else's guns away? Or is it determined by how adamantly someone wants these things? For example, if someone wants to keep their guns, but is only moderately adamant about it, are they not as morally and intellectually weak? Does this only apply to guns, or all rights?
Sure thing. I think people who cling to firearms (or any physical weapon) as the end all and be all as an oppositional perspective are inherently weak. Anybody who needs to resort to a physical weapon of violence to resolve any conflict, be it personal or political has already lost the war. Look at what we are doing here right now. I am not threatening you, you are not threatening me with any sort of physical violence. We are having a discussion. Someday, someone will will gain a majority of opinion and win the debate. Look at the previous posts. Many (from the pro gun perspective) point out that any insurrection will win because numbers are on the winning side regardless of the quality of arms. That is where the power truly rests, in popular opinion and the ability to sway it. Guns may help sway opinion, but once one has to resort to that last resort, they have failed in every other aspect...so yeah, guns are morally and intellectually weak.
Edit addition: that in no way means that I want guns to be outlawed or overly restricted but I do reserve the right to laugh at people who do to an extreme or don't to an extreme--first amendment came before second.
Weapons are a necessary tool however. This is because there are always going to be arguments which cannot be settled with words, and there are always going to be evil people who will seek to impose their will on others. They cannot be resisted with words.
Wars always start with words, they always end with weapons.
Grey Templar wrote: Weapons are a necessary tool however. This is because there are always going to be arguments which cannot be settled with words, and there are always going to be evil people who will seek to impose their will on others. They cannot be resisted with words.
Wars always start with words, they always end with weapons.
The concept of "evil" is purely perspective. There are always going to be people who who seek to impose their will on others who will always see them as evil. Why are weapons necessary? If you want to win at all costs, sure. You will be able to kill more people and possibly win if you kill enough people who oppose your opinion. Or you could preserve your dignity and win enough support because your ideas make more sense. I once heard there was this one fella named Jesus whose entire philosophy was based on turning the other cheek contrary to two pages back where we were debating how big of a bazookas he could carry. I know that discussion was tongue in cheek but look up "muscular Christianity" and you will see that many see that it isn't just rational people on dakka that have thought that way.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I don't want to take your precious guns, as much as I think you are weak (both morally and intellectually) for wanting to cling to them so adamantly.
Could you clarify this a bit more? If you think it's morally and intellectually weak for someone to want to keep their guns, do you think it is morally and intellectually strong for someone to want to take someone else's guns away? Or is it determined by how adamantly someone wants these things? For example, if someone wants to keep their guns, but is only moderately adamant about it, are they not as morally and intellectually weak? Does this only apply to guns, or all rights?
Sure thing. I think people who cling to firearms (or any physical weapon) as the end all and be all as an oppositional perspective are inherently weak. Anybody who needs to resort to a physical weapon of violence to resolve any conflict, be it personal or political has already lost the war. Look at what we are doing here right now. I am not threatening you, you are not threatening me with any sort of physical violence. We are having a discussion. Someday, someone will will gain a majority of opinion and win the debate. Look at the previous posts. Many (from the pro gun perspective) point out that any insurrection will win because numbers are on the winning side regardless of the quality of arms. That is where the power truly rests, in popular opinion and the ability to sway it. Guns may help sway opinion, but once one has to resort to that last resort, they have failed in every other aspect...so yeah, guns are morally and intellectually weak.
Edit addition: that in no way means that I want guns to be outlawed or overly restricted but I do reserve the right to laugh at people who do to an extreme or don't to an extreme--first amendment came before second.
Personally I find people unwilling to fight for anything and those willing to believe and submit to 'majority of opinion' to settle issues about individual rights morally and intellectually weak as well as naive.
Ouze wrote: I'm not sure that analogy worked since they were still punching each other? I mean, ultimately, that was a "conflict" that was resolved with violence.
Yeah, i got caught up in the drama of old boxing matches again and had no one to pick me back up.
Grey Templar wrote: Weapons are a necessary tool however. This is because there are always going to be arguments which cannot be settled with words, and there are always going to be evil people who will seek to impose their will on others. They cannot be resisted with words.
Wars always start with words, they always end with weapons.
The concept of "evil" is purely perspective. There are always going to be people who who seek to impose their will on others who will always see them as evil. Why are weapons necessary? If you want to win at all costs, sure. You will be able to kill more people and possibly win if you kill enough people who oppose your opinion. Or you could preserve your dignity and win enough support because your ideas make more sense. I once heard there was this one fella named Jesus whose entire philosophy was based on turning the other cheek contrary to two pages back where we were debating how big of a bazookas he could carry. I know that discussion was tongue in cheek but look up "muscular Christianity" and you will see that many see that it isn't just rational people on dakka that have thought that way.
While Jesus did advocate turning the other cheek, he isn't a pacifist. The disciples were commanded to take up the sword, and many times God commanded the faithful to make total war on their enemies.
Grey Templar wrote: Weapons are a necessary tool however. This is because there are always going to be arguments which cannot be settled with words, and there are always going to be evil people who will seek to impose their will on others. They cannot be resisted with words.
Wars always start with words, they always end with weapons.
The concept of "evil" is purely perspective. There are always going to be people who who seek to impose their will on others who will always see them as evil. Why are weapons necessary? If you want to win at all costs, sure. You will be able to kill more people and possibly win if you kill enough people who oppose your opinion. Or you could preserve your dignity and win enough support because your ideas make more sense. I once heard there was this one fella named Jesus whose entire philosophy was based on turning the other cheek contrary to two pages back where we were debating how big of a bazookas he could carry. I know that discussion was tongue in cheek but look up "muscular Christianity" and you will see that many see that it isn't just rational people on dakka that have thought that way.
While Jesus did advocate turning the other cheek, he isn't a pacifist. The disciples were commanded to take up the sword, and many times God commanded the faithful to make total war on their enemies.
All cherish those who believe n the savior. And if you think I am talking about 40k , good luck fella
I'm not sure how it's possible so many legislators are unaware that this was actually already secretly done wayyyy back in 2012, but I suppose they could just all be as dumb as me.
It's extremely possible. "We have to pass the bill to know what's in it" readily comes to mind. Many times, regulatory changes dont get much press time/exposure, and many times, it is the staff of the representatives that do most of the reading and only give the rep what he or she needs to know in regards of how to vote on a particular issue. That this is a regulatory change, its not surprising that it went unnoticed for as long as it did.
Why is the timeline of this stealth change moving? What happened to it being secretly banned in 2012 - why are we now moving to "it was in the works since 2014"?
We havent, Ill help you keep up:
2012, November "Sporting Purpose" determination made without public comment. Links to November determination PDF pulled from ATF by December.
2014, ATF published rules (December) exclude exemption for SS109/ XM855, no public comment period preceded change of published rules. ATF claims exclusion was a "typo".
2015, ATF solicits public comment on how best to stop manufacture and importation of XM855 bullets.
I love how gun advocates love bringing up that little bit of Luke while ignoring all the other times Jesus professed a distaste for violence.
Only twice in the NT does Jesus talking about having swords. Matthew 10:34 is figurative, a direct reference to Messianic prophecy common in Jesus' time. The sword in this case, is divine truth or more simply the Word of God. This was a well understood Jewish analogy.
The second time, in Luke, Jesus wants a sword not to defend himself, but rather to convict himself. The authorities who sought his arrest accused him of leading a band of brigands, but you can't do much briganding without weapons. Jesus desired 2 swords so that he would be arrested, tried, and convicted, so as too fulfill his purpose.
Jesus' philosophy is profoundly anti-violence. The one time one of his disciples took up a weapon, Jesus expressed nothing but disappointment and warned Peter that those who live violently die violently.
Jesus, as best as we can know him, was a pacifist.
The Prophet Samuel delivers a message to King Saul.
This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’"
Later in the same passage, Saul disobeys by keeping the Amalekite King alive as a prisoner and keeping animals as spoils. Samuel confronts him about it and informs him the God has rejected him as King over Israel. Samuel then kills Agag himself.
God is not averse to violence. He is a god of judgement and righteous anger just as much as he is a god of love and forgiveness.
Grey Templar wrote: They're not entirely different things. The god in the old testament is the same and the one in the new.
I was responding to the comment that Jesus 'wasn't a pacifist.' I think it's abundantly clear in the NT that Jesus was a pacifist. The most violent thing he does in the entire thing is knocking over the merchant stands in the Temple.
Why is Jesus so peaceful, while in the OT God seems to endorse the use of violence? That probably deserves its own thread
Grey Templar wrote: They're not entirely different things. The god in the old testament is the same and the one in the new.
I was responding to the comment that Jesus 'wasn't a pacifist.' I think it's abundantly clear in the NT that Jesus was a pacifist. The most violent thing he does in the entire thing is knocking over the merchant stands in the Temple.
Why is Jesus so peaceful, while in the OT God seems to endorse the use of violence? That probably deserves its own thread
Well its because Jesus wasn't coming to be violent. He was coming to be the final sacrifice for sin.
But even then, the violence of the Second Coming is not violence brought by Jesus, but by man's own sins. The great finale for the original sin that has plagued man since Adam and Eve.
2012, November "Sporting Purpose" determination made without public comment. Links to November determination PDF pulled from ATF by December.
2014, ATF published rules (December) exclude exemption for SS109/ XM855, no public comment period preceded change of published rules. ATF claims exclusion was a "typo".
2015, ATF solicits public comment on how best to stop manufacture and importation of XM855 bullets.
I'm glad we're still going with this narrative. It's my favorite one because it requires a shadowy government fantasy.
it's going to be super funny when public pressure during the comment period causes the ATF to reconsider the plan to remove the exemption; and the system works, because I'm going to keep asking how that's possible when the exemption was pulled 3 years ago in a secret document.
2012, November "Sporting Purpose" determination made without public comment. Links to November determination PDF pulled from ATF by December.
2014, ATF published rules (December) exclude exemption for SS109/ XM855, no public comment period preceded change of published rules. ATF claims exclusion was a "typo".
2015, ATF solicits public comment on how best to stop manufacture and importation of XM855 bullets.
I'm glad we're still going with this narrative. It's my favorite one because it requires a shadowy government fantasy.
it's going to be super funny when public pressure during the comment period causes the ATF to reconsider the plan to remove the exemption; and the system works, because I'm going to keep asking how that's possible when the exemption was pulled 3 years ago in a secret document.
Stop being obtuse. There is no secret document (sorry to pop your lil progressive bubble), just ATF removing documents from their archives whose existence is mentioned in ATF documents circa 2014-2015. This is nothing new as ATF has been shady in its dealings for well over 30 years. Its not a "fantasy" when its actually happening, you should keep up with current events
I hope pressure can be exerted to change all this, but Im not holding my breath as the Executive Branch seems to get its way at every turn lately. I guess its a "democracy" (which this country isnt, its a republic) if its your guy in power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Norn King wrote: What has a government got to gain by pissing off the people so much that they revolt?
An excuse to exert complete control in the guise of an emergency is my guess.
2012, November "Sporting Purpose" determination made without public comment. Links to November determination PDF pulled from ATF by December.
2014, ATF published rules (December) exclude exemption for SS109/ XM855, no public comment period preceded change of published rules. ATF claims exclusion was a "typo".
2015, ATF solicits public comment on how best to stop manufacture and importation of XM855 bullets.
I'm glad we're still going with this narrative. It's my favorite one because it requires a shadowy government fantasy.
it's going to be super funny when public pressure during the comment period causes the ATF to reconsider the plan to remove the exemption; and the system works, because I'm going to keep asking how that's possible when the exemption was pulled 3 years ago in a secret document.
Stop being obtuse. There is no secret document (sorry to pop your lil progressive bubble), just ATF removing documents from their archives whose existence is mentioned in ATF documents circa 2014-2015. This is nothing new as ATF has been shady in its dealings for well over 30 years. Its not a "fantasy" when its actually happening, you should keep up with current events
I hope pressure can be exerted to change all this, but Im not holding my breath as the Executive Branch seems to get its way at every turn lately. I guess its a "democracy" (which this country isnt, its a republic) if its your guy in power.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Norn King wrote: What has a government got to gain by pissing off the people so much that they revolt?
An excuse to exert complete control in the guise of an emergency is my guess.
I don't buy this. Any idiot worth his salt knows that he's probably going to shorten his life expectancy if he tries this.
Spacemanvic wrote: I guess its a "democracy" (which this country isnt, its a republic)
Merriam Webster wrote:republic
noun re·pub·lic \ri-ˈpə-blik\ : a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen
Spacemanvic wrote: I guess its a "democracy" (which this country isnt, its a republic)
Merriam Webster wrote:republic
noun re·pub·lic \ri-ˈpə-blik\ : a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen
: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
: a country ruled by democracy
: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights
A republic is a form of democracy by definition, no matter how much you wish it otherwise.
Actually, the two are antithetical to each other. Democracy is the unlimited power of the majority over that of the individual, whereas Republic is the limited power of the majority protecting the rights of the individual and the minority.
Your argument is off the mark in regards to the political structure of the United States. If you care to reply, Ill be off line for several hours as Ill be at the gun store working, so it may be a while.
Spacemanvic wrote: Stop being obtuse. There is no secret document (sorry to pop your lil progressive bubble)
Well, I must be obtuse - that, or your story is confusing as all hell. Definitely one or the other.
In your timeline, the ATF pulls the exemption for M855 which would as a result ban it from lawful sale in 2012. They don't actually ban it in any functional way, or keep it from being sold by the bucketful, because reasons. This is all laid out on a document which no longer exists and so the actual effect of this, well, I guess you can't understand stuff when you're in a progressive bubble like I am.
The important point of this is there is no secret document.
Spacemanvic wrote: The exemption for XM855 ammunition and the S109 bullet was pulled quietly, wiithout public comment in December 2012. Went completely under the radar, the PDF on the ATF site was scrubbed. We can find links for it using WABAC, and some people on 4Chan dug a little deeper and found that yes, ATF did make the determination December 2012.
Except for that secret document. But that was probably something else. Moving on.
Then in 2014, the ATF omits the round from the exemption list. When called on it, they claim it's a typo - your explanation, I haven't researched this. I'll assume that's true. So at this point the round has been banned for 2 years but it's a double secret ban that no one knows about except the ATF and when they are called on it, they also pretend it doesn't exist. So, that's pretty effective.
Spacemanvic wrote: I guess its a "democracy" (which this country isnt, its a republic)
Merriam Webster wrote:republic
noun re·pub·lic \ri-ˈpə-blik\ : a country that is governed by elected representatives and by an elected leader (such as a president) rather than by a king or queen
: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
: a country ruled by democracy
: an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights
A republic is a form of democracy by definition, no matter how much you wish it otherwise.
Actually, the two are antithetical to each other. Democracy is the unlimited power of the majority over that of the individual, whereas Republic is the limited power of the majority protecting the rights of the individual and the minority.
Your argument is off the mark in regards to the political structure of the United States. If you care to reply, Ill be off line for several hours as Ill be at the gun store working, so it may be a while.
And how is the legislature chosen? Through voting, which means the majority rules, which means a republic is a democracy. QED.
It's the administrative branch in which the Department of Veterans Affairs reports directly to the Department of Defense and neither of them are a cabinet level agency.
Or something like that, I'm not sure. I just remember a slight warning from my boss when I told that person "that's the dumbest thing I have heard all year and I have to walk away from you before I get Forest Whitaker eye".
I'm pretty sure that's a misuse of the concept of the 4th Estate, but whatever.
Speaking of anti-gun agenda, I guess there was a commission to investigate the events of Sandy Hook that just released its results. Since it was a violent crime committed with firearms, they had a list of recommended laws intended to prevent future Sandy Hook-style shootings. The list is pretty sad. Instead of actually looking at the events of Sandy Hook and saying "how can we prevent this from happening again", instead they just copy/pasted a bunch of unrelated "recommendations" off of like, the Brady Campaign's website. Almost none of them are even remotely applicable to what occurred at Sandy Hook. Here's some of the list:
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1. Mandatory background checks on the sale or
transfer of any firearm, including long guns, at private and gun show sales.
Adam Lanza stole his firearms from his mother, who legally owned them. Gun show sales have nothing to do with Sandy Hook.
NO. 2. Require registration, including a certificate of
registration, for every firearm. This certificate of registration should be issued
subsequent to the completion of a background check and is separate and
distinct from a permit to carry.
NO. 3. Require firearms permits to be renewed on a
regular basis. This renewal process should include a test of firearms handling
capacity as well as an understanding of applicable laws and regulations.
NO. 6. Allow ammunition purchases only for registered
firearms.
NO. 7. Evaluate best practices for determining the
regulation or prohibition of the sale and purchase of ammunition via the
Internet.
NO. 8. Evaluate the effectiveness of federal law in
limiting the purchase of firearms via the Internet to only those individuals who
have passed the appropriate background screening.
NO. 9. Limit the amount of ammunition that can be
purchased at any given time.
NO. 14. Require gun clubs to report any negligent or
reckless behavior with a firearm, or illegal possession of any firearm or
magazine, to the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public
Protection, Commissioner of Public Safety, and local law enforcement.
NO. 15. Requiring promoters of gun shows to receive a
permit from the Chief of Police or Chief Elected Official as well as provide notice
to the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services
and Public Protection.
NO. 17. Any person seeking a license to sell, purchase
or carry any type of firearm in the state should be required to pass a suitability
screening process.
Again, AL stole the firearms (and ammo), so his inability to get a certificate or purchase guns or ammo over the internet is irrelevant.
NO. 5. Institute a ban on the possession or sale of all
armor-piercing and incendiary bullets, regardless of caliber. First-time
offenses should be classified as a Class D Felony.
He just used normal bullets here, no one was wearing any body armor, etc. Nothing to do with Sandy Hook.
C. Assault Weapons
The Commission found that the legal definition of ―assault weapon‖ at
the time it issued its Interim Report allowed for cosmetic changes to militarystyle
firearms that did not reduce their lethality, yet facilitated their lawful
purchase. The Commission determined that defining an ―assault weapon‖ by
its form rather than its function had been ineffective. The consensus of the
Commission was that gun violence is an issue that transcends the tragedy at
Sandy Hook, and the commonality of high-capacity firearms in violent crimes
had to be acknowledged. According to the 2011 Connecticut Uniform Crime
Reporting Program, only two (2) of 94 firearm-related homicides in the state
were committed with a rifle or a shotgun. It was the consensus of the
Commission that firearm lethality directly correlated to capacity, a correlation
borne out not only in Sandy Hook Elementary School, but in other violent
confrontations in and beyond Connecticut. Therefore, the Commission
proposed the following recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10. Prohibit the possession, sale or transfer of any
firearm capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading. This
prohibition would extend to military-style firearms as well as handguns. Law
enforcement and military would be exempt from this ban.
So... they directly state that rifles and shotguns are rarely used in crimes and virtually all crimes are committed with handguns, then directly contradict that statement that the "lethality" of a firearm is based on magazine capacity? I mean, I guess AL did use an AR-15 for most of the shooting, but with the lack of resistance and the fact it took police over 10 minutes to respond, even with a handgun or anything with 10 round magazines, there was nothing stopping him from putting out as many rounds as he wanted. Magazine swaps only take a handful of seconds each, and even with 10 round magazines you can put hundreds of rounds downrange in 10 minutes. And their initial argument is completely disconnected with the recommendation. If they at least stated "AL used normal capacity magazines, and that allowed him to shoot more students" or something, I can at least see that argument even if a 10-round limit wouldn't have been a meaningful restriction. But they don't back up their recommendation to even that extent.
NO. 16. Require that any shell casing for ammunition
sold or possessed in Connecticut have a serial number laser etched on it for
tracing purposes.
At least this is better than the stupid firing pin stamp idea...
There are one or two items that might arguably possibly be relevant (one other recommendation was to require gun owners to lock up all firearms always all the time), but for the most part as far as gun control is concerned this is just an excuse to use a tragedy to further a bunch of bs. This is an official government commission formed by the state's Govenor consisting of 16 members ranging from teachers, police/fire, political staff, etc. An anti-gun sentiment would be perfectly understandable, but this is just so detached from the reality of what occurred at Sandy Hook that it's hard to take these recommendations seriously.
Darklink I know I'm preaching to the choir but I think your point illustrates the disgusting practices of the antigun left - they have no interest in actually saving lives and think nothing of dancing on the graves of children to push their agenda.
Theoretically, though, wouldn't a background check on the mother have turned up information on the son, thus possibly stopping the sale to the mother, and stopping the son from stealing from the mother?
That's my Convoluted Thought for the Day™.
And as far as "dancing on graves" to pursue an agenda, let's be honest about it, the right is just as fething guilty of it as the left.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Theoretically, though, wouldn't a background check on the mother have turned up information on the son, thus possibly stopping the sale to the mother, and stopping the son from stealing from the mother?
That's my Convoluted Thought for the Day™.
feth 'theoretically'. The mother did go through the required background checks. The background checks did NOT turn up info on the son, nor should they have.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Sorry, but something being on ballots and getting voted down does not make it unconstitutional. It makes it unpopular. The vast majority of the population couldn't name the Secretary of State- forget about them knowing about constitutional law..
Except it was voted up, and still thrown out, due to being unconstitutional. (if they voted against it, you'd have a point)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Sure thing. I think people who cling to firearms (or any physical weapon) as the end all and be all as an oppositional perspective are inherently weak. Anybody who needs to resort to a physical weapon of violence to resolve any conflict, be it personal or political has already lost the war.
Churchill could give a hell of a speech. That didn't bother the Luftwaffe in the least. But men in planes with guns did.
Grey Templar wrote:Weapons are a necessary tool however. This is because there are always going to be arguments which cannot be settled with words, and there are always going to be evil people who will seek to impose their will on others. They cannot be resisted with words.
Wars always start with words, they always end with weapons.
Well, technically, unless you're completely eradicating the enemy entirely, wars start with words, are fought with weapons, and then end with words again.
Ouze wrote: Well, technically, unless you're completely eradicating the enemy entirely, wars start with words, are fought with weapons, and then end with words again.
Some words:
"Sure, we want to go home. We want this war over with. The quickest way to get it over with is to go get the bastards who started it. The quicker they are whipped, the quicker we can go home." George Patton
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Darklink I know I'm preaching to the choir but I think your point illustrates the disgusting practices of the antigun left - they have no interest in actually saving lives and think nothing of dancing on the graves of children to push their agenda.
This being said in a thread where the OP claimed that Obama had used executive actions to implement gun control.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Darklink I know I'm preaching to the choir but I think your point illustrates the disgusting practices of the antigun left - they have no interest in actually saving lives and think nothing of dancing on the graves of children to push their agenda.
This post is really repugnant, when you consider that the anti-regulation crowd are the ones that allowed VA Tech to happen. Or Newtown.
Thanks to the "ER MER GERD, SLERPERY SLERP" crowd, voluntary committal to a mental facility does not prevent gun ownership. Cho should never have been allowed to purchase those guns. Nor the "ER MER GERD ERPERCALERPSE!" woman that was Lanza's mother.
So you can make your idiotic posts about "dancing on the graves of children", but common sense legislation could have left those graves empty to begin with.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Darklink I know I'm preaching to the choir but I think your point illustrates the disgusting practices of the antigun left - they have no interest in actually saving lives and think nothing of dancing on the graves of children to push their agenda.
This post is really repugnant, when you consider that the anti-regulation crowd are the ones that allowed VA Tech to happen. Or Newtown.
Thanks to the "ER MER GERD, SLERPERY SLERP" crowd, voluntary committal to a mental facility does not prevent gun ownership. Cho should never have been allowed to purchase those guns. Nor the "ER MER GERD ERPERCALERPSE!" woman that was Lanza's mother.
So you can make your idiotic posts about "dancing on the graves of children", but common sense legislation could have left those graves empty to begin with.
edited for clarity.
Lanza stole his guns, and Cho didn't have any kind of criminal record and was not involuntarily committed according to VA law. The only thing your post convinces me of, is that you know absolutely nothing about this topic.
But I doubt that will stop you from sharing your wisdom about how restricting the rights of millions of Americans would have prevented these acts.
NO. 16. Require that any shell casing for ammunition
sold or possessed in Connecticut have a serial number laser etched on it for
tracing purposes.
At least this is better than the stupid firing pin stamp idea...
That doesn't make it workable though. It completely ignores those who reload their own bullets.
streamdragon wrote: This post is really repugnant, when you consider that the anti-regulation crowd are the ones that allowed VA Tech to happen. Or Newtown.
Thanks to the "ER MER GERD, SLERPERY SLERP" crowd, voluntary committal to a mental facility does not prevent gun ownership. Cho should never have been allowed to purchase those guns. Nor the "ER MER GERD ERPERCALERPSE!" woman that was Lanza's mother.
So you can make your idiotic posts about "dancing on the graves of children", but common sense legislation could have left those graves empty to begin with.
edited for clarity.
Specifically what "common sense" legislation would have prevented Newtown? The Commission's findings and recommendations did not put forward a proposal that would have prevented Newtown. Instead it was just a re-tread of primarily previously rejected gun control ideas.
2012, November "Sporting Purpose" determination made without public comment. Links to November determination PDF pulled from ATF by December.
2014, ATF published rules (December) exclude exemption for SS109/ XM855, no public comment period preceded change of published rules. ATF claims exclusion was a "typo".
2015, ATF solicits public comment on how best to stop manufacture and importation of XM855 bullets.
BREAKING: ATF Claims Guide with M855 Ban Was a “Publishing Error”
By Robert Farago on March 6, 2015
ATF Press Release on the recently revealed Regulation Guide Announcing M855 Ammo Ban. Note: this does NOT mean the AFT have given-up on their proposed ban. It simply means that they announced its adoption and implementation prematurely. We can assume that they assumed it would go through, prepared their Guide accordingly and released it inadvertently.
On Feb. 13, 2015, ATF released for public comment a proposed framework, including legal and technical analysis, to guide its determination on what ammunition is “primarily intended for sporting purposes” for purposes of granting exemptions to the Gun Control Act’s prohibition on Armor Piecing Ammunition. This proposed framework is posted for public comment only; no final decisions have been made as to its adoption . . .
Media reports have noted that the 2014 ATF Regulation Guide published online does not contain a listing of the exemptions for Armor Piercing Ammunition, and concluding that the absence of this listing indicates these exemptions have been rescinded.
Please be advised that ATF has not rescinded any Armor Piercing Ammunition exemption, and the fact they are not listed in the 2014 online edition of the regulations, was an error, which has no legal impact on the validity of the exemptions. The existing exemptions for armor piercing ammunition, which apply to 5.56 mm (.223) SS 109 and M855 projectiles (identified by a green coating on the projectile tip), and the U.S .30-06 M2AP projectile (identified by a black coating on the projectile tip), remain in effect.
The listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions can be found in the 2005 ATF Regulation Guide on page 166, which is posted here.
The 2014 Regulation Guide will be corrected in PDF format to include the listing of Armor Piercing Ammunition exemptions and posted shortly. The e-book/iBook version of the Regulation Guide will be corrected in the near future. ATF apologizes for any confusion caused by this publishing error.
Lanza stole his guns, and Cho didn't have any kind of criminal record and was not involuntarily committed according to VA law. The only thing your post convinces me of, is that you know absolutely nothing about this topic.
But I doubt that will stop you from sharing your wisdom about how restricting the rights of millions of Americans would have prevented these acts.
And your post shows literacy is not your strong point.
I did not say Cho was involuntarily committed. I did in fact point out that because he was voluntarily committed, despite every therapist he saw saying "he is a ticking time bomb", he was still able to purchase guns.
I did not say Adam Lanza bought his guns. I referred specifically to his mentally unstable mother, whose guns he stole and murdered her with.
My post's point was to show exactly how suggesting "dancing on children's graves" is somehow a tactic of the "liberal agenda", when groups like the NRA are responsible for blocking common sense legislation that could have prevented either tragedy.
My post never suggested that guns should be banned; I am a gun owner myself. My post was to point out the absolute grotesquery in your post suggesting that liberal groups are somehow rejoicing in dead children as a means of pushing their agenda, especially when GRA groups like the NRA are the ones whose lobbying efforts put those children in a crosshair to begin with.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Sorry, but something being on ballots and getting voted down does not make it unconstitutional. It makes it unpopular. The vast majority of the population couldn't name the Secretary of State- forget about them knowing about constitutional law.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled, show me a conservative, even yourself, who doesn't want some form of gun control and I will show you a nut. .
Right. Now please somehow relate that to anything in reality.
Specifically what "common sense" legislation would have prevented Newtown? The Commission's findings and recommendations did not put forward a proposal that would have prevented Newtown. Instead it was just a re-tread of primarily previously rejected gun control ideas.
Nothing suggested after Newton would have prevented it; I agree on that. I admit that part of my posts focuses more on Cho's ability to purchase guns, despite being obviously unstable.
Nancy Lanza knew her son was unhinged. She even said as much to various people she knew. "Common sense", to me, would be not keeping guns in the same location as someone whose obsession with death, murder and mass killings was pretty well documented. If you'd like to argue she herself is still allowed to have guns, I would not disagree, provided they were safely secured (have we since discovered if she had a gun safe? Honest question, I can't find anything definitive.)
Again, I'm a gun owner. I'm not looking to ban guns or ammo.
I am also not suggesting that those trying to pass legislation are "dancing on children's graves", while ignoring all the ways that the Gun Lobby has made their lives more dangerous to begin with.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Darklink I know I'm preaching to the choir but I think your point illustrates the disgusting practices of the antigun left - they have no interest in actually saving lives and think nothing of dancing on the graves of children to push their agenda.
This post is really repugnant, when you consider that the anti-regulation crowd are the ones that allowed VA Tech to happen. Or Newtown.
Thanks to the "ER MER GERD, SLERPERY SLERP" crowd, voluntary committal to a mental facility does not prevent gun ownership. Cho should never have been allowed to purchase those guns. Nor the "ER MER GERD ERPERCALERPSE!" woman that was Lanza's mother.
So you can make your idiotic posts about "dancing on the graves of children", but common sense legislation could have left those graves empty to begin with.
edited for clarity.
And you seem to be blind to how repugnant your statement that "anti-regulation crowd are the ones that allowed VA Tech to happen. Or Newtown."
streamdragon wrote: Nothing suggested after Newton would have prevented it; I agree on that. I admit that part of my posts focuses more on Cho's ability to purchase guns, despite being obviously unstable.
It seems that there is some discussion on that topic;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Psychiatric_evaluation On December 13, 2005, Cho was found "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization" by New River Valley Community Services Board.[65] The physician who examined Cho noted that he had a flat affect and depressed mood, even though Cho "denied suicidal thoughts and did not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder."[65] Based on this mental health examination and because Cho was suspected of being "an imminent danger to himself or others", he was detained temporarily at Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, Virginia, pending a commitment hearing before the Montgomery County, Virginia district court.[65]
Virginia Special Justice Paul Barnett certified in an order that Cho "presented an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness," but instead recommended treatment for Cho as an outpatient. On December 14, 2005, Cho was released from the mental health facility after Judge Barnett ordered Cho to undergo mental health treatment on an outpatient basis,[66] with a directive for the "court-ordered [outpatient] to follow all recommended treatments." Since Cho underwent only a minimal psychiatric assessment,[65] the true diagnosis for Cho's mental health status remains unknown.
“Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was "involuntarily committed" or ruled mentally "incapacitated".[67] ”
Because Cho was not involuntarily committed to a mental health facility as an inpatient, he was still legally eligible to buy guns under Virginia law.[67] However, according to Virginia law, "A magistrate has the authority to issue a detention order upon a finding that a person is mentally ill and in need of hospitalization or treatment." The magistrate also must find that the person is an imminent danger to himself or others.[66][68] Virginia officials and other law experts have argued that, under United States federal law, Barnett's order meant that Cho had been "adjudicated as a mental defective" and was thus ineligible to purchase firearms under federal law; and that the state of Virginia erred in not enforcing the requirements of the federal law Had the Magistrate used the powers at his disposal this could have been averted. And without new laws.
streamdragon wrote: Nancy Lanza knew her son was unhinged. She even said as much to various people she knew. "Common sense", to me, would be not keeping guns in the same location as someone whose obsession with death, murder and mass killings was pretty well documented. If you'd like to argue she herself is still allowed to have guns, I would not disagree, provided they were safely secured (have we since discovered if she had a gun safe? Honest question, I can't find anything definitive.)
You specifically said "common sense legislation could have left those graves empty to begin with". What "common sense legislation" do you believe could have prevented Adam Lanza from his vile deeds? No Commission or government recommendation has been able to specify what "common sense legislation" would have prevented Newtown.
The question to how her firearms were secured is one that I have never had a satisfactory answer to either.
streamdragon wrote: I am also not suggesting that those trying to pass legislation are "dancing on children's graves", while ignoring all the ways that the Gun Lobby has made their lives more dangerous to begin with.
In what ways has the gun lobby "made their lives more dangerous to begin with"?
streamdragon wrote: I am also not suggesting that those trying to pass legislation are "dancing on children's graves", while ignoring all the ways that the Gun Lobby has made their lives more dangerous to begin with.
In what ways has the gun lobby "made their lives more dangerous to begin with"?
Presumably by using up a year's worth of slippery slope fallacies every time anything remotely resembling gun control is mentioned.
streamdragon wrote: I am also not suggesting that those trying to pass legislation are "dancing on children's graves", while ignoring all the ways that the Gun Lobby has made their lives more dangerous to begin with.
In what ways has the gun lobby "made their lives more dangerous to begin with"?
Presumably by using up a year's worth of slippery slope fallacies every time anything remotely resembling gun control is mentioned.
Infringing upon peoples' rights isn't something you should do because you "feel" a certain way about things. The left has a serious issue with providing evidence that a regulation would do anything other than screw law abiding citizens.
Show me the money. How would ANY of the left's proposed legislation save ANY lives? Without that proof, it's merely dancing on the graves of children and it's absolutely disgusting.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Presumably by using up a year's worth of slippery slope fallacies every time anything remotely resembling gun control is mentioned.
Because the constant effort to rescind or restrict gun rights is not a reality?
I'll ask this again- how many police officers have been shot/injured/killed by the M855 round?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Presumably by using up a year's worth of slippery slope fallacies every time anything remotely resembling gun control is mentioned.
Because the constant effort to rescind or restrict gun rights is not a reality?
I'll ask this again- how many police officers have been shot/injured/killed by the M855 round?
Come on, lets give them a fighting chance.
How many people of any kind have been shot at by someone using an M855 round in the US?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Presumably by using up a year's worth of slippery slope fallacies every time anything remotely resembling gun control is mentioned.
Because the constant effort to rescind or restrict gun rights is not a reality?
I'll ask this again- how many police officers have been shot/injured/killed by the M855 round?
Come on, lets give them a fighting chance.
How many people of any kind have been shot at by someone using an M855 round in the US?
How many armed uprisings by citizens of the United States have been successful?
streamdragon wrote: I am also not suggesting that those trying to pass legislation are "dancing on children's graves", while ignoring all the ways that the Gun Lobby has made their lives more dangerous to begin with.
The common arguments used to restrict gun rights are;
1.) Think of the children
2.) If it saves one life
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Presumably by using up a year's worth of slippery slope fallacies every time anything remotely resembling gun control is mentioned.
Because the constant effort to rescind or restrict gun rights is not a reality?
I'll ask this again- how many police officers have been shot/injured/killed by the M855 round?
Come on, lets give them a fighting chance.
How many people of any kind have been shot at by someone using an M855 round in the US?
How many armed uprisings by citizens of the United States have been successful?
2. The American Revolution and that one incident in, I want to say, Indiana where there was a rigged election and the citizens rose up and got rid of the corrupt sheriff and his lackeys. Don't remember what it was called.
It does not say. The figures given were just 5 LEOs killed with any type of rifle, and 2 Federal Agents killed with firearms. So it seems unlikely that all 7 law enforcement personnel were killed using both an AR15, and one firing M855 rounds. Even if we accept that the 5 LEOs were killed with the M855 round that figure stands against the 765,000 sworn officers in the United States.
In fact the issue of the M855 round has been commented on by the Fraternal Order of Police;
“Any ammunition is of concern to police in the wrong hands, but this specific round has historically not posed a law enforcement problem,” said James Pasco, executive director of the Washington office of the Fraternal Order of Police, the world’s largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, with more than 325,000 members.
He told Secrets that the round used mostly for target practice “is not typically used against law enforcement.”
Sometimes people look at the 2A in a very narrow view and think it's just to deter a tyrannical government.
But they forget that:
1. Government doesn't always just mean vs. the entire might of the U.S. armed forces. They'd just hit us with gunships anyway. Rather, it also applies to local oppression on a smaller scale.
2. It is also about the common law and everyone's intrinsic right to self defense.
I was once at a golf club in the Middle East and I saw some royal bash a caddie on the head with a golf club simply because the former had hit a poor shot. Yeah, that ain't happening with 2A.
How many times has the 2nd amendment been successfully used against the United States?
Depends on how you define 'used against' and 'successfully'.
Arguably, in the end, the Whiskey Rebellion was ultimately successful in it's resistance to the collection of the Whiskey tax, which was repealed in 1801.
Conversely, the Confederacy was able to create a very real threat to the US government, despite being ultimately unsuccessful due to their inability to garner sufficient foreign support.
Note that neither Washington nor Lincoln made any motion to repeal the 2nd amendment. Washington upheld it, despite his effort to call on the militias to suppress the rebellion causing draft riots, and Lincoln ignored it as he did much of the rest of the Constitution before the Supreme Court reigned him in. (Lincoln also had draft riots, but unlike Washington's deft hand at suppressing them without violence, Lincoln just had the Army slaughter the rioters.)
KiloFiX wrote: I was once at a golf club in the Middle East and I saw some royal bash a caddie on the head with a golf club simply because the former had hit a poor shot. Yeah, that ain't happening with 2A.
I could be mistaken, but despite the presence of the second amendment I believe there are still quite a few assaults in this country.
BaronIveagh wrote: Conversely, the Confederacy was able to create a very real threat to the US government, despite being ultimately unsuccessful due to their inability to garner sufficient foreign support.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Presumably by using up a year's worth of slippery slope fallacies every time anything remotely resembling gun control is mentioned.
Because the constant effort to rescind or restrict gun rights is not a reality?
I'll ask this again- how many police officers have been shot/injured/killed by the M855 round?
Come on, lets give them a fighting chance.
How many people of any kind have been shot at by someone using an M855 round in the US?
How many armed uprisings by citizens of the United States have been successful?
2. The American Revolution and that one incident in, I want to say, Indiana where there was a rigged election and the citizens rose up and got rid of the corrupt sheriff and his lackeys. Don't remember what it was called.
Where do you think they got many of their initial guns? While they did empty every arsenal they could, it was not near enough to arm everyone. The shipments from England, France, and Prussia didn't just suddenly appear on day one of the Civil War. That's why I said it would depend on what he meant by 'successful' and 'use against'. the Confederates used their privately owned guns to their advantage, against the US. In fact, several units both north and south were entirely armed via the private purchase of firearms, as opposed to being issued weapons by the US government.
Where do you think they got many of their initial guns?
Private purchases made with the aid of largely unregulated international commerce. That's not a 2nd Amendment issue, its an Article 1 Section 10 issue.
Grey Templar wrote: No, but it should because its the same deal. We beat off the most powerful empire in the world.
A foreign empire that was 3000 miles away. It's kind of an important distinction from something more domestic.
That actually makes it easier in many ways.
The government can't be as heavy handed because it will erode any popular support they might have. When its "over there" its not directly effecting the citizens as much.
It also means there isn't any place that could be called safe from the rebels. The British weren't dealing with attacks on their government in Britain. In the case of a rebellion in the US you most certainly would see military bases and political officials getting attacked. Made more complicated by those places often being in and around civilian population centers.
I really don't understand why we keep talking about wars that happened 150+ years ago. Even if we assume that privately-owned guns had a significant role in those wars military technology was very different back then. The common soldier with a rifle was a much bigger part of a complete army, and modern inventions like machine guns and aircraft didn't exist at all. So if you have a large number of militia with their personal rifles you just need to get some cannons and horses and you've got an army. Now you need tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc, all of which cost obscene amounts of money and will never be available to private owners.
Next person to refer to an entire half of the political spectrum as dancing on the graves of children, or something equally reprehensible, won't be participating for a while. It's a definite violation of rule 1
Grey Templar wrote: No, but it should because its the same deal. We beat off the most powerful empire in the world.
The British Empire was no where near the height of their power during the American Revolution, especially compared to the late Empire at the end of the 19th century. They didn't become the "most powerful empire in the world" until the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, which left them expand and exert their influence more or less unchecked for over a century.
And by "we," I hope you also mean us and our very powerful allies.
Peregrine wrote: I really don't understand why we keep talking about wars that happened 150+ years ago. Even if we assume that privately-owned guns had a significant role in those wars military technology was very different back then. The common soldier with a rifle was a much bigger part of a complete army, and modern inventions like machine guns and aircraft didn't exist at all. So if you have a large number of militia with their personal rifles you just need to get some cannons and horses and you've got an army. Now you need tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc, all of which cost obscene amounts of money and will never be available to private owners.
You don't need tanks to overthrow a govt from within. But you have made a good argument for why those things should be allowed for private ownership. Sure, most people won't be able to afford those things, but that's irrelevant.
I constantly wonder why everyone assumes that any potential civil war within the United States where the citizen has to rise up against the tyrannical United States Government will necessarily imply the common civilian fighting against the full might of the United States Military. Do people think the US Military (who skew very pro-2nd amendment as a rule) will just wantonly invade and destroy large swathes of the country?
I realize this isn't necessarily an endorsement of the 2nd amendment. There's certainly a segment of the pro-2nd amendment crowd that see themselves as the Red Dawn defense against an overly aggressive military. I think the fact of the matter is that quite a few of those people you would think would be the jack-booted oppressor would instead be the people taking up arms - at least in the sort of fictionalized scenario that gets John Q. Public to spend several thousand dollars on his AR-15.
The government, if it were so inclined, would strip your freedom through legal channels. After all, it is the government. When the constitution is legally amended to outlaw the private ownership of guns, would you then rise up in opposition to it?
The truth is that the government cements whatever power it wants without resorting to banning guns. Banning guns makes for good TV, but isn't strictly necessary. Why should I fear you and your gun when I can seize your property through eminent domain or force you out of work or garnish your wages or any other ways to make you the pariah? If you have no food, no money, and no reputation, then you are no threat.
Peregrine wrote: I really don't understand why we keep talking about wars that happened 150+ years ago. Even if we assume that privately-owned guns had a significant role in those wars military technology was very different back then. The common soldier with a rifle was a much bigger part of a complete army, and modern inventions like machine guns and aircraft didn't exist at all. So if you have a large number of militia with their personal rifles you just need to get some cannons and horses and you've got an army. Now you need tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc, all of which cost obscene amounts of money and will never be available to private owners.
You don't need tanks to overthrow a govt from within. But you have made a good argument for why those things should be allowed for private ownership. Sure, most people won't be able to afford those things, but that's irrelevant.
So government oppression is a big enough danger that there's a need for the populace to be armed, but multimillionnaires being allowed their own private armies isn't a potential disaster waiting to happen?
Peregrine wrote: I really don't understand why we keep talking about wars that happened 150+ years ago. Even if we assume that privately-owned guns had a significant role in those wars military technology was very different back then. The common soldier with a rifle was a much bigger part of a complete army, and modern inventions like machine guns and aircraft didn't exist at all. So if you have a large number of militia with their personal rifles you just need to get some cannons and horses and you've got an army. Now you need tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc, all of which cost obscene amounts of money and will never be available to private owners.
What I don't understand is why it matters one way or another.
The logistics and practicality of an armed uprising against the U.S. government by its citizens could be argued ad infinitum, but even if that was done until the death of the universe, at no point would either ever become relevant to the enforcement Second Amendment or the ATF banning of M855 ammo.
That being said, regarding tanks, aircraft and missiles...
Aircraft: Can own. Demilitarized, though.
Tanks: Can own, with functional weapons, too. If the main gun is a muzzle-loader, you don't even need to do any paperwork!
Peregrine wrote: I really don't understand why we keep talking about wars that happened 150+ years ago. Even if we assume that privately-owned guns had a significant role in those wars military technology was very different back then. The common soldier with a rifle was a much bigger part of a complete army, and modern inventions like machine guns and aircraft didn't exist at all. So if you have a large number of militia with their personal rifles you just need to get some cannons and horses and you've got an army. Now you need tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc, all of which cost obscene amounts of money and will never be available to private owners.
You don't need tanks to overthrow a govt from within. But you have made a good argument for why those things should be allowed for private ownership. Sure, most people won't be able to afford those things, but that's irrelevant.
So government oppression is a big enough danger that there's a need for the populace to be armed, but multimillionnaires being allowed their own private armies isn't a potential disaster waiting to happen?
Peregrine wrote: I really don't understand why we keep talking about wars that happened 150+ years ago. Even if we assume that privately-owned guns had a significant role in those wars military technology was very different back then. The common soldier with a rifle was a much bigger part of a complete army, and modern inventions like machine guns and aircraft didn't exist at all. So if you have a large number of militia with their personal rifles you just need to get some cannons and horses and you've got an army. Now you need tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc, all of which cost obscene amounts of money and will never be available to private owners.
You don't need tanks to overthrow a govt from within. But you have made a good argument for why those things should be allowed for private ownership. Sure, most people won't be able to afford those things, but that's irrelevant.
So government oppression is a big enough danger that there's a need for the populace to be armed, but multimillionnaires being allowed their own private armies isn't a potential disaster waiting to happen?
Correct, it isn't a problem. The majority of the cannons used by the colonial army in the revolution were privately owned and many of the regiments in the ACW bought all their weapons privately. Private citizens in the US today own machine guns but nobody has committed a crime with their privately owned and registered full auto. Private citizens can own tanks but the collectors who have them aren't using them to break the law.
Whether a law abiding citizen is armed with a pistol or a rifle or a tank or a howitzer that person isn't a danger to society. Weapons are inanimate objects they can't make anyone do anything. We have an armed society and since we allow private citizens to own firearms there's no reason for restrictions. How fast a gun can shoot or the capacity of the magazine or the material in the ammo or whether or not it has a foregrip or bayonet etc doesn't matter in regards to how the weapon will be used. An armed citizen can go hurt people and commit crimes with any weapon, arbitrary limits do nothing to stop that possibility.
My neighbors and felloe citizens can a themselves however they see fit in my opinion. I'm not afraid of them the vast majority of them are great people and the tiny minority that are dangerous can be held in check by the vigilance of the rest of us.
Then what do you do when they army brings its tanks and starts crushing your attempt to overthrow the government?
But you have made a good argument for why those things should be allowed for private ownership. Sure, most people won't be able to afford those things, but that's irrelevant.
So if most people can't afford them then what's the point? Having your single 1970s-era fighter jet that is immediately shot down by a dozen F-22s as soon as you take off isn't meaningfully different than having no jet at all. You're not going to make any difference in the final outcome of the hypothetical revolution, so your private ownership of that tank/plane/whatever isn't really justified by the "defend against the government" argument. And that tiny chance of contributing something is outweighed by the much greater chance that you'll do something stupid with your toy and get people killed.
Prestor Jon wrote: Private citizens can own tanks but the collectors who have them aren't using them to break the law.
Counter-example: people can own fighter jets, but until the FAA put some very strict limits on flying them there were a lot of crashes involving high-performance military aircraft and under-qualified pilots. You don't have to deliberately murder people to kill them with toys like that.
Whether a law abiding citizen is armed with a pistol or a rifle or a tank or a howitzer that person isn't a danger to society.
Of course they are. A law-abiding citizen with a rifle is pretty limited in how much accidental damage they can do, a law-abiding citizen who doesn't quite understand how strong wind can carry a shell beyond the boundaries of their artillery range is a much bigger danger. The fact that it was a tragic accident isn't going to be worth very much when they blow up a whole apartment building and kill everyone inside.
And then of course there's the question of what happens when they decide not to obey the laws. So far we haven't invented a magic "will this person ever become a criminal" detector that can keep weapons out of people who will someday use them for murder. And I'm pretty glad the upper limit on the damage a murderer can do is set at "shoot some people with a gun" and not "shell half a town off the map with artillery".
Then what do you do when they army brings its tanks and starts crushing your attempt to overthrow the government?
Molotov Cocktails, RPGs, IEDs, etc...
Tanks are very vulnerable to infantry and improvised weapons. They're also quite useless against an insurgency that blends into the civilian population.
We weren't using tanks to combat terrorists in Iraq.
cincydooley wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why people are so convinced, were this to happen, a good portion of the military wouldn't side with the people?
Realistically, there would be a good chunk of the military that would defect.
Of course, its also possible that this tyrannical government has spent several years grooming the military to remain loyal to the state in the event of a rebellion. Ensuring its only filled with the most loyal soldiers.
But we could totally overthrow the government even if the military was 100% supporting the government so its not super important.
Grey Templar wrote: Anyone who has the cash to purchase an artillery piece is going to have the foresight to ensure they don't accidentally hit something they shouldn't.
Just like people who have the cash to purchase cars that cost more than artillery have the foresight to ensure they don't accidentally wreck it and hurt others?
cincydooley wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why people are so convinced, were this to happen, a good portion of the military wouldn't side with the people?
Realistically, there would be a good chunk of the military that would defect.
Of course, its also possible that this tyrannical government has spent several years grooming the military to remain loyal to the state in the event of a rebellion. Ensuring its only filled with the most loyal soldiers.
But we could totally overthrow the government even if the military was 100% supporting the government so its not super important.
If there was a lawful constitutional change to the 2nd resulting in an uprising and a good chunk of the military decided to defect and ignore their oaths, then they should be shot on sight and we should feel sorry for letting those idiots enlist.
That's not a fair assessment, d-usa. A vehicle is handled completelely different by its purchaser than an artillery piece. They're in two completely different categories; why would you even seek to compare them?
The Airman wrote: That's not a fair assessment, d-usa. A vehicle is handled completelely different by its purchaser than an artillery piece. They're in two completely different categories; why would you even seek to compare them?
Edit: Damn autocorrect.
Because "they spend a lot of money, so they are going to use it well" is a stupid argument.
The Airman wrote: That's not a fair assessment, d-usa. A vehicle is handled completelely different by its purchaser than an artillery piece. They're in two completely different categories; why would you even seek to compare them?
Edit: Damn autocorrect.
Because "they spend a lot of money, so they are going to use it well" is a stupid argument.
You can borrow money to buy a car. You probably can't to buy an artillery piece.
Which means it was your own personal money that you had to spend on it. Which means you're reasonably in control of your finances. Which is a sign of a stable individual. Which means you're not the type of person who would make a mistake as huge as miscalculating the trajectory of an artillery shell or being stupid enough to fire one in a location where it has any chance of hitting something it shouldn't.
Got any sort if facts to base your allegations on, or are you just sad that your argument has no basis on reality?
"They spend money so they won't screw up" is an argument that makes zero sense considering that we see people who spend money on things constantly screw up with those things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hell. People who spend cold hard cash on guns manage to have negligent discharges every single day, responsible and stable people with responsible and stable lives. Justin Bieber spends cold hard cash on all kinds of stupid crap and doesn't have to use credit, but I would imagine that he alone ruins your entire argument of "spend money, be responsible".
We're not talking an amount of money that just anyone has. We're talking easily half a million or more. Thats not something anyone can just plunk down.
I don't have anything yet. But I'll try and find something.
The higher your socioeconomic status, the less likely you are to have a traffic accident. This indirectly shows that people have better judgement if they have money. its not necessarily true, but we can definitely make some conjecture.
Grey Templar wrote: Realistically, there would be a good chunk of the military that would defect.
That is impossible to say with any certainty, so just stop saying it.
Of course, its also possible that this tyrannical government has spent several years grooming the military to remain loyal to the state in the event of a rebellion. Ensuring its only filled with the most loyal soldiers.
How are you to say that the service members currently serving aren't loyal to the government right now? I know it's common to think that most service members are "on your side," but if you really took up arms against the government even with an accusation of "tyranny," it would be their duty to defend it... you know, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
But we could totally overthrow the government even if the military was 100% supporting the government so its not super important.
No, you really couldn't. It is a fantasy. A rag tag band of "militia" wouldn't stand a chance against the military, no matter how much MOLLE gear and AR-15s you had... the real world isn't like Red Dawn.
Grey Templar wrote: Realistically, there would be a good chunk of the military that would defect.
That is impossible to say with any certainty, so just stop saying it.
Well the current military is made up of human beings who have families in the actual civilian populace, so they would definitely have issues fighting their fellow countrymen, friends, and family.
It would actually be very improbable that there wouldn't be significant defection.
Of course, its also possible that this tyrannical government has spent several years grooming the military to remain loyal to the state in the event of a rebellion. Ensuring its only filled with the most loyal soldiers.
How are you to say that the service members currently serving aren't loyal to the government right now? I know it's common to think that most service members are "on your side," but if you really took up arms against the government even with an accusation of "tyranny," it would be their duty to defend it... you know, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
But we could totally overthrow the government even if the military was 100% supporting the government so its not super important.
No, you really couldn't. It is a fantasy. A rag tag band of "militia" wouldn't stand a chance against the military, no matter how much MOLLE gear and AR-15s you had... the real world isn't like Red Dawn.
Real world revolutions and conflicts say you are wrong.
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda have had remarkable success resisting the US military with no tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc...
Grey Templar wrote: Anyone who has the cash to purchase an artillery piece is going to have the foresight to ensure they don't accidentally hit something they shouldn't.
Only because currently the price to own and operate artillery is artificially limited by the extreme scarcity of legal guns and ammunition, and the mountain of paperwork and licenses you'd have to get to use them. If you remove those regulations the price goes down.
They're also quite useless against an insurgency that blends into the civilian population.
Why are you assuming that the civilian population is on the revolution's side?
Why are you assuming that the civilian population is on the revolution's side?
Not all of them necessarily. But a chunk of them do, if they didn't there wouldn't be a revolution in the first place. That should be painfully obvious.
The American Revolution succeeded with maybe 20% of the population on its side.
Grey Templar wrote: You can borrow money to buy a car. You probably can't to buy an artillery piece.
Why not? You can borrow money to buy all kinds of non-essential things. I don't see why you assume that no bank would offer a loan to buy artillery, assuming that the potential buyer's credit is in good shape and the market value of the weapon they're buying is sufficient for the bank to recover their money if the buyer can't pay it back.
Which means it was your own personal money that you had to spend on it. Which means you're reasonably in control of your finances. Which is a sign of a stable individual. Which means you're not the type of person who would make a mistake as huge as miscalculating the trajectory of an artillery shell or being stupid enough to fire one in a location where it has any chance of hitting something it shouldn't.
History disagrees with you about this assumption. Ex-military aircraft have always been expensive, even in the good old days when there were a lot more of them available to buy. And yet the FAA had to step in and impose strict rules about flying them because a lot of people with more money than sense were buying them and getting into fatal accidents (and only some of them were limited to killing the idiot pilot). It turns out that people with lots of money can still make mistakes like trying to take a P-51 out for a test flight without realizing that quickly giving it full throttle on an aborted landing (standard procedure in most other aircraft) will flip the plane on its back and kill you.
The revolution will succeed because people who spend money on stuff are automatically responsible and won't feth it up and the military will join the revolutionaries because civilian families will join the revolutionaries who will be successful in a domestic insurgency against the largest military complex on the planet because of reasons.
This thread had reached Palin levels of non-evidence based hypothetical outcomes.
I did post some evidence that people with more education(and education is positively linked to being wealthier) are less prone to accidents, which are caused by lapses in judgement.
Grey Templar wrote: It would actually be very improbable that there wouldn't be significant defection.
Then why does it matter if random civilians have guns? If half the military defects and takes their weapons with them then a few more AR-15s isn't contributing very much. Civilian weapons only matter in a case where the military doesn't defect and the rebellion doesn't have that easy option for getting weapons.
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda have had remarkable success resisting the US military with no tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc...
The Viet Cong did a pretty good job of it too.
Except there's one key difference: they did it in wars against an occupying power with little incentive to be there, not their own government. It's much easier to win a war when all you have to do is convince the enemy that the minimal benefits of continuing to fight are not worth the trouble. It's not so easy to win a war when the enemy is your own government and they have nowhere to retreat to.
Grey Templar wrote: Well the current military is made up of human beings who have families in the actual civilian populace, so they would definitely have issues fighting their fellow countrymen, friends, and family.
It would actually be very improbable that there wouldn't be significant defection.
It hasn't stopped them in the past. We've already had one civil war in this country (and two really, as the Revolution was basically one).
Real world revolutions and conflicts say you are wrong.
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda have had remarkable success resisting the US military with no tanks, aircraft, missiles, etc...
The Viet Cong did a pretty good job of it too.
Yeah, no. You're vastly overlooking how politically complex the Vietnam War was and also that it was a proxy war against the USSR. It was also mismanaged by people who expected to be fighting another Korean War, which it most definitely not. As far as the war in Afghanistan goes, the insurgency against coalition forces is not the resounding success you're making it out to be.
In fact, you've been droning on and on about the American Revolution about how you think it proves your point while completely ignoring the reality of the war.
Again, history is full of successful rebellions without aid from a defecting military.
Grey Templar wrote: I did post some evidence that people with more education(and education is positively linked to being wealthier) are less prone to accidents, which are caused by lapses in judgement.
And I posted some evidence that this doesn't mean much. If people can make stupid decisions and crash million-dollar warbirds then they can make stupid decisions with their toy artillery guns.
I think it speaks volumes about gun culture in this country that any thread that even tangentially touches on it inevitably, and with 100% accuracy, eventually because a discussion on the logistics of a violent overthrow of the US government.
Grey Templar wrote: Well the current military is made up of human beings who have families in the actual civilian populace, so they would definitely have issues fighting their fellow countrymen, friends, and family.
It would actually be very improbable that there wouldn't be significant defection.
It hasn't stopped them in the past. We've already had one civil war in this country (and two really, as the Revolution was basically one).
You mean the civil war in which a large part of the US military defected to the CSA?
BaronIveagh wrote: Typically, but not always. The Hopper network springs to mind, they were not big on working with others, and still conducted one of the most effective assassination sprees the French resistance managed to field during the Occupation.. And, again, my point about numbers is not refuted by this.
That's a classic example of why one skilled fighter is irrelevant in isolation. For all his remarkable success, Hopper did nothing to threaten German control of France. Hoping that a whole bunch of Hoppers will rise up in armed rebellion, and all run about fighting their own personal wars until government collapses is not very sensible.
Incorrect. Actually, stop by SCOTUS next time you have a moment when they're in session to see how much 'Not Protesting' is still going on.
Been there!
And there were protestors numbering at least 50, but they were all abortion protestors. Possibly one of the people off on the side might have been there for campaign finance reform, I guess. I guess you and Fraz should contact that guy for setting up your armed rebellion.
Oh, and TRY getting a new political party on the ballot. If you think running as a member of a party other than whatever party is dominant in a district is hard, wait till you see the rules to get a new PARTY on the ballot. Hell, PA doesn't even put most existing parties on the ballot. You have to have gotten at least 20% of the National vote, the previous year, IIRC, before PA will put you on.
Meh, then move in force in to an existing party, and use primaries to elect your candidates.
Point being, if you've got the tens of millions of dedicated believers needed for a revolution to have any chance, then those kinds of numbers at the ballot box will have a massive impact through simple brute force, no matter the legal obstacles built in to the system.
And yet we see no such effort, little real effort in new parties. What efforts there have been, such as the Tea Party, are still fundamentally business as usual (the Tea Party could be best described as conservatism that was filled up with a lot more hyperbole than usual).
Where are the millions who just can't take it any more, who'd accept death over another day like today? They don't exist. So talk of rebellion is silly.
You can snipe, don't get me wrong, but it's far less effective in this terrain, than, say, an IED. Lots of heavy brush and thick canopy. Lot of hidden sink holes and natural caves, too. Low visibility. Generally not fun.
An interesting point on the tactical front, but irrelevant to the point I'm trying to explain - one guy acting in isolation is irrelevant. Change the explanation to one guy disappearing in to the woods and planting IEDs, and the result is still the same - no effective rebellion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I love how gun advocates love bringing up that little bit of Luke while ignoring all the other times Jesus professed a distaste for violence.
What I love is how threads on Islam will always have a bunch of verses from the Koran pointing out Islam is a religion of violence, and any response with biblical passages of violence will get a most unpleasant reaction. But then in a thread like this the same people will quote those verses pointing out that violence is fine.
It's almost as if a certain political mindset wants their own religion to have moral superiority by claiming it is the religion of peace, but at the same time doesn't want their religion to stop them acting in violence whenever they want.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spacemanvic wrote: Actually, the two are antithetical to each other. Democracy is the unlimited power of the majority over that of the individual, whereas Republic is the limited power of the majority protecting the rights of the individual and the minority.
Nope, having a bill of rights or any other form of in-built protection for individuals does not stop you being a democracy. Nor does it make you a republic.
Seriously, democracy and republic are words with actual, formal and agreed upon meanings. But we've had this conversation before. Definitions have been provided, and ignored, because ultimately you just don't give a gak what words actually mean, you've a political theory to prop up.
By looking to the rest of the world, and identifying all the countries which shared rights similar to the US except gun rights, but lost those rights to government intrusion, while the population said 'gee we'd like to do something about this but we don't have any guns'.
Find one example, and the notion of US gun rights protecting freedom begins to make sense.
Got one example?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KiloFiX wrote: I was once at a golf club in the Middle East and I saw some royal bash a caddie on the head with a golf club simply because the former had hit a poor shot. Yeah, that ain't happening with 2A.
And that was all because of a lack of guns? No thought for inequality of wealth, status and effective legal protection?
Come on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I think it speaks volumes about gun culture in this country that any thread that even tangentially touches on it inevitably, and with 100% accuracy, eventually because a discussion on the logistics of a violent overthrow of the US government.
Yes, exactly. I've said in probably every gun laws thread I've gone in to – guns are far less of a concern, the problem is with US gun culture.
So much of US gun culture is all built around a macho fantasy. You aren’t just buying a useful tool for hunting or target shooting, but you’re buying the capability to be a real, honest to god fighter that can take on the government. That armed insurrection like that makes little sense given current US society, and that guns aren’t actually the important part of effective rebellion doesn’t matter. The fantasy is all important.
The other part of the fantasy is self-defence, of course. In fact it’s basically the same thing, handing some money over the counter has made you a defender of your family. That violent home invasions and other similar events in which a gun would be useful are statistically very unlikely just doesn’t matter. People want the fantasy.
*In fact, from a personal POV guns are awesome. I wish my country’s gun laws were more practical so I could get myself some guns and go shooting. Well I’d also need some spare time, so maybe when the kids have grown up and our out of the house… let a man dream, dammit.
Grey Templar wrote: Well the current military is made up of human beings who have families in the actual civilian populace, so they would definitely have issues fighting their fellow countrymen, friends, and family.
It would actually be very improbable that there wouldn't be significant defection.
It hasn't stopped them in the past. We've already had one civil war in this country (and two really, as the Revolution was basically one).
You mean the civil war in which a large part of the US military defected to the CSA?
Are you sure about that?
The Union army was not large by the time the Civil War began, with about 16,000 troops while on the other hand, the CSA had almost no army to speak of. It wasn't until Lincoln's call for the states to muster militias after the Battle of Fort Sumter did Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee join the CSA (and of course Virginia brought Robert E. Lee with her, even though he desired for the Union to remain whole). As the threat of war loomed, both the Union and the CSA filled their ranks with eager volunteers and as the luster of the war began to fade, both armies resorted to conscription.
But thanks for bringing that up, with all this talk about revolting against the government, people are forgetting how the last turned out for the South.
sebster wrote: The other part of the fantasy is self-defence, of course. In fact it’s basically the same thing, handing some money over the counter has made you a defender of your family. That violent home invasions and other similar events in which a gun would be useful are statistically very unlikely just doesn’t matter. People want the fantasy.
I disagree with this. Violent home invasions are statistically unlikely in the same way that your house burning down and justifying all the money you spent on insurance is pretty unlikely. They happen (and people use guns to stop them), it's just unlikely that they will happen to any particular person. So, much like buying insurance against a fire, it is rational to want to be prepared in case you happen to be one of the unlucky few who experience one of those rare events. A successful violent revolution by civilians with their personal weapons, on the other hand, isn't just unlikely, it's complete fantasy.
Peregrine wrote: I disagree with this. Violent home invasions are statistically unlikely in the same way that your house burning down and justifying all the money you spent on insurance is pretty unlikely. They happen (and people use guns to stop them), it's just unlikely that they will happen to any particular person. So, much like buying insurance against a fire, it is rational to want to be prepared in case you happen to be one of the unlucky few who experience one of those rare events. A successful violent revolution by civilians with their personal weapons, on the other hand, isn't just unlikely, it's complete fantasy.
Yes, they do happen, and yes there are instances of guns being used to stop them. And for many individuals, for instance people who live in very dodgy neighbourhoods or people with threatening ex-partners, a gun would actually increase their safety. But guns aren’t bought for home defence purely by people in those circumstances, and so for most bringing a gun in to the household there’s actually an increased risk of suicide and accidents far greater than the minute likelihood of defending an invasion.
In itself that’s merely just bad risk assessment, and nothing particularly remarkable (our risk assessment as a species is amazingly bad). But the macho fantasy is there because of how people talk and act about buying a gun to defend their home. Think of it this way, have you ever seen someone brag on-line about having just paid their fire insurance? Ever seen someone brag that they just got a better deadbolt system for their doors and windows? But forums are full of people bragging they got this firearm or that firearm for their homes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KiloFiX wrote: Seeing that my wife has had to draw her gun once already for self defense I don't think anyone can convince me that self defense is fantasy.
You’ve misunderstood what I’ve said. Self defence isn't a fantasy, rather it is statistically very unlikely across the general population*. That people ignore that statistical improbability and buy a gun despite there being very little chance of them ever needing it is because there is a fantasy about being taking on criminals.
*In some circumstances it is far more likely than others. Many people will be quite rational and acting according to the most likely outcomes in buying a gun. But there are not that many people in those circumstances, and most of the gun sales for home defence are to people with very, very little chance of ever needing to use them.
Peregrine wrote: I disagree with this. Violent home invasions are statistically unlikely in the same way that your house burning down and justifying all the money you spent on insurance is pretty unlikely. They happen (and people use guns to stop them), it's just unlikely that they will happen to any particular person. So, much like buying insurance against a fire, it is rational to want to be prepared in case you happen to be one of the unlucky few who experience one of those rare events. A successful violent revolution by civilians with their personal weapons, on the other hand, isn't just unlikely, it's complete fantasy.
Yes, they do happen, and yes there are instances of guns being used to stop them. And for many individuals, for instance people who live in very dodgy neighbourhoods or people with threatening ex-partners, a gun would actually increase their safety. But guns aren’t bought for home defence purely by people in those circumstances, and so for most bringing a gun in to the household there’s actually an increased risk of suicide and accidents far greater than the minute likelihood of defending an invasion.
In itself that’s merely just bad risk assessment, and nothing particularly remarkable (our risk assessment as a species is amazingly bad). But the macho fantasy is there because of how people talk and act about buying a gun to defend their home. Think of it this way, have you ever seen someone brag on-line about having just paid their fire insurance? Ever seen someone brag that they just got a better deadbolt system for their doors and windows? But forums are full of people bragging they got this firearm or that firearm for their homes.
Study by the CDC and IOM after Obama issued his exec order to improve firearm research.
Page 45 : "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence...."
Page 45 : ".... estimates range from 500,000 to more than 3 million per year...."
Page 46 : "....found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."
Excerpt From: Alan I. Leshner, Bruce M. Altevogt, Arlene F. Lee, Margaret A. McCoy, Patrick W. Kelley, Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence, Executive Office, Institute of Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education & National Research Council. “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.” The National Academies Press, 2013-08-24.
So defensive gun use is not a fantasy.
Now, to be fair, the report also says that more guns means more gun deaths.
33,636 in 2013 to be exact (though the same report also says 60% of those gun deaths were suicides). That also makes sense.
So the question should be, are increased gun deaths overall worth the self defense value of guns?
If you make the argument that increased self defense, isn't worth increased gun deaths overall; I would disagree since even on the low end, self defense usage > total gun deaths, including justifiable shootings and suicide), but at least I can understand the position. But to say that guns have no utility whatsoever is far from fact.
It's like cars. More cars means more car deaths. But cars have enough utility that we keep them around.
The Airman wrote: That's not a fair assessment, d-usa. A vehicle is handled completelely different by its purchaser than an artillery piece. They're in two completely different categories; why would you even seek to compare them?
Edit: Damn autocorrect.
Because "they spend a lot of money, so they are going to use it well" is a stupid argument.
And the inference that they'll misuse it is equally as stupid.
Sure, I have no problem with someone owning an artillery piece. Good luck to them when they try to find fireable shells of which to use their weapon. Even if they were able to acquire said shells, it's ridiculous to say they'd use them for ill intent as there's no reasoning for it other than unfounded fear.
@Defense: Increased death when it comes to general crimes with firearms, or when used in self defense? Believe it or not, there is a wide difference on these two things. @Peregrine: Additionally, I'd rather have a firearm and not have to use it than not have such a thing when I need it. I'm sorry your feelings are in conflict with my rights. /shrug
Grey Templar wrote: But we could totally overthrow the government even if the military was 100% supporting the government so its not super important.
The more I thought about this statement, the more I realized how absolutely ludicrous it really is.
Think about what you wrote for a minute... you are claiming that the government could be overthrown by "us," even with the entire 1.3 million active duty members of United States armed forces completely dedicated to maintaining it. This is the very same military we entrust to safeguard the nation against any threat abroad. The same military we give the world's largest defense budget to (over $500 billion) in order to keep it the best trained and equipped fighting force the world has ever seen. Yet somehow, a tenacious band of wannabe soldiers, kitted out in their tacticool costumes and their AR-15s, would be so effective that the United States armed forces at 100% fighting capacity wouldn't be "super important."
I've seeing some whoppers in the OT, but... damn, that amount of fantastical thinking is a doozy.
Grey Templar wrote: Well the current military is made up of human beings who have families in the actual civilian populace, so they would definitely have issues fighting their fellow countrymen, friends, and family.
It would actually be very improbable that there wouldn't be significant defection.
It hasn't stopped them in the past. We've already had one civil war in this country (and two really, as the Revolution was basically one).
You mean the civil war in which a large part of the US military defected to the CSA?
Are you sure about that?
The Union army was not large by the time the Civil War began, with about 16,000 troops while on the other hand, the CSA had almost no army to speak of. It wasn't until Lincoln's call for the states to muster militias after the Battle of Fort Sumter did Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee join the CSA (and of course Virginia brought Robert E. Lee with her, even though he desired for the Union to remain whole). As the threat of war loomed, both the Union and the CSA filled their ranks with eager volunteers and as the luster of the war began to fade, both armies resorted to conscription.
But thanks for bringing that up, with all this talk about revolting against the government, people are forgetting how the last turned out for the South.
Well, you're right that the army was small before the war and most of the troops were volunteers or conscripts who joined after the war started. That said, many of the key leaders in the CSA were former Union officers, and even though the South lost, they were still able to pose a legitimate threat to the Union.
Hordini wrote: Well, you're right that the army was small before the war and most of the troops were volunteers or conscripts who joined after the war started. That said, many of the key leaders in the CSA were former Union officers, and even though the South lost, they were still able to pose a legitimate threat to the Union.
Okay, that wasn't the claim you made so now you're just moving goalposts.
The majority of the armed forces on both sides at the beginning of hostilities were made up of state militias mobilized under governors. There weren't massive defections to the Confederate cause because there was much of an army to begin with; the pre-Civil War military was essentially a frontier force.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: There weren't massive defections to the Confederate cause because there was much of an army to begin with; the pre-Civil War military was essentially a frontier force.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: There weren't massive defections to the Confederate cause because there was much of an army to begin with; the pre-Civil War military was essentially a frontier force.
I don't believe Hordini used the word "massive".
Hordini wrote: You mean the civil war in which a large part of the US military defected to the CSA?
So to try and get this discussion back on track are we any closer to finding out just how many LEOs/Federal Agents have been killed by this round that would necessitate action being taken against the M855 round to protect these same individuals?
with that at your political peril. 
However, before posting here, it probably seemed "obvious" to you that suppressors or silencers were bad, or only served a purpose if you were doing illegal things. It's not necessarily bad to be wrong, or mistaken, but there are people who are misinformed, and not open to learning new things who have tried to restrict our constitutional rights without good reason. I'm sure it seemed "obvious" to people who supported Feinstein's assault weapons bill that the things she was trying to ban were dangerous and only of use in a warzone, even though most of us here know those features are for the most part purely cosmetic.
I think we all know 
