Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 insaniak wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Guns guarantee the ability to resist a tyrannical government..

Is that really a serious concern in a country with a democratically-elected government?

It's not. Many avid gun supporters are extremely paranoid (notice I said many, not all).

 Peregrine wrote:

Lol. Lawless and "most radical" by what standards? By any reasonable standards Obama is a center-left president with a love of "bipartisanship" and the same expansion of executive power that his predecessors had. So far he has yet to do anything that even comes remotely close to "radical".

Just look at that abuse of executive power!

Probably because dealing with a hypothetical armed rebellion (you know, the kind certain gun owners love to talk about) is part of their job? Also, if you're going to use this as an excuse for why you need to own a gun then you're not living in the same world as the rest of us. If the military decides it's time to kill you then you're going to die. Your toys aren't going to do anything to stop a drone or tank from killing you.

yeah the military has lots of free time anyways.

https://news.vice.com/article/the-pentagon-is-prepared-for-a-zombie-outbreak

They prep for everything.

I wouldn't be surprised if they had a contingency in place if mole people from the center of the earth came up with pitchforks and torches wanting revenge for the sun existing.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Don't engage Ashiraya at this point, those posts are simply designed to get a rise out of people, this is the same poster that made a thread on "proper passive-aggressive posting", just leave it be.

. That puts a lot of what he is writing here into proper perspective.

Johnnytorrance wrote:

But it makes you wonder, why high level officers in the military were given litmus tests, asking whether they would be ok ordering their men to kill citizens

Because it's their job?

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

"Obama's officers" need to be willing to kill you for the same hypothetical reason you need your guns to kill them.

Ashiraya wrote:

It was a joke thread. It was a thread that would work on my realm forum. Yes, it did not work on Dakka and I recognise that, but it was not designed with malicious intent, and it is unrelated to my posts on this topic.

With a history like that and posts basically dismissing the other sides arguments with appeals to emotion tend to illicit unfortunate reactions.

One must also keep in mind that the US is roughly the size of Europe, with just as much of a varied socio-economic strata. The argument that firearms are needed to protect against other people with firearms isn't quite accurate, many thousands of people in the US are killed every year by knives, blunt objects, and bare hands. Granted, in many areas, probably most, the need for such self defense weapons is probably not realistic, but that doesn't hold true everywhere.

insaniak wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Guns guarantee the ability to resist a tyrannical government..

Is that really a serious concern in a country with a democratically-elected government?

To be fair, there have been plenty of highly unsavory and unfortunate people and groups that came to power by democratic elections. Hitler, Hamas, Mugabe, Marcos, Milosevic, etc, and today some might point to Lukashenko, Karimov, Putin, Chavez,

I'm not of the opinion that the US is in imminent risk of that in this particular day, despite what some others may feel, but it's there just in case nonetheless.

Peregrine wrote:

Probably because dealing with a hypothetical armed rebellion (you know, the kind certain gun owners love to talk about) is part of their job? Also, if you're going to use this as an excuse for why you need to own a gun then you're not living in the same world as the rest of us. If the military decides it's time to kill you then you're going to die. Your toys aren't going to do anything to stop a drone or tank from killing you.

The point is largely that resistance would be possible, not that anyone's going to win a pitched conventional battle with a modern military. Like it or not, dudes with decades old kalashnikovs, improvised explosives, and cell phones have inflicted roughly sixty thousand (60,000) casualties (WIA+KIA) on US forces alone in Iraq and Afghanistan and drained untold tens if not hundreds of billions from US economy. I'm not one to keep firearms for this purpose or need, just addressing the point of resistance being pointless. Alternatively, the while the US currently has a powerful military, the US may not choose to maintain such indefinitely, the US has twice before gone from having one of, if not the, strongest armies in the world to one of the smallest following the US Civil War and World War 1.

 Vaktathi wrote:
With a history like that and posts basically dismissing the other sides arguments with appeals to emotion tend to illicit unfortunate reactions.

You know, incomprehension and astonishment is what you should expect from, I guess, any European that has not been previously exposed to the U.S. gun fetish. It is just not something we have here, so about anybody is going to react this way, not just trolls. It is really a north American specialty, as far as I can tell.

The United States military, counting law enforcement and reserves has roughly 3.5 million troops under arms. Assuming all those forces remain loyal (probably not but let's assume) There's 80 million gun owners in the United States with 340 million + small arms amongst them. If 10% of those owners engage in active rebellion against the United States who have 160,820.25 square miles to operate in just in the contiguous United States.

While the government forces have a variety of fun force multipliers, we have seen time and again in Vietnam, both Russia and the United State's engagements with Afghanistan, Iraq and other COIN wars that a superior conventional force can be defeated by dedicated guerrilla forces. Many of the government force multipliers such as drones, aircraft and other intelligence gathering methods, but we can't get close to 100% coverage 24 hours a day on a country as small as Afghanistan. With the various criminal elements in the United States, the cartels and triads could all be in a position to provide more financially secure rebel groups heavy weapons, the possibility of raids on National Guard armories also exist, MANPADs (MAN Portable Air Defense, aka shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles) and light anti-tank weapons would address much of the basic disparity and access to explosives could result in an road side bombing campaign similar to what we've experience in the sand box.

I think that line of reasoning is goofy at best as far as an armed populace goes, but from a theoretical stand point it's perfectly possible.

I would theorize if armed conflict comes to the United States it'll be in the form of a second Civil War any way, so the "heavy" disparity is hardly worth talking about.

Both concepts are laughable to everyone except Alex Jones at this point.

 Ashiraya wrote:

The knowledge that everyone you see is walking around with a killing machine and is ready to use it does not seem like the makings of a secure society.

Then why has gun crime gone down as gun ownership has gone up?

You ask why people need firearms to defend themselves? Because in the US the average police response time is 11 minutes. In Detroit it's 58 minutes.

Unless you've got really cordial criminals, they're not going to wait 11 minutes for police to come.

As an active duty military member, i think you would find it quite interesting if the government ever attempted to use us as an iron fist/internal police force. Most funded doesnt matter when over half your people go awol as soon as that order comes down

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
While the government forces have a variety of fun force multipliers, we have seen time and again in Vietnam, both Russia and the United State's engagements with Afghanistan, Iraq and other COIN wars that a superior conventional force can be defeated by dedicated guerrilla forces.

Those aren't really a good comparison because there's a huge difference between convincing an occupying army to give up and overthrowing an oppressive government on its own territory. For example, it was very easy to get the US out of Iraq because we didn't really have any good reasons for being there in the first place and had very little to gain by staying. So inflicting a few casualties and letting popular opinion shift to "why are we getting our troops killed" was all it took. And then there's also the reputation factor to consider: we had to use limited power in Iraq because massacring civilians isn't very good for our reputation. The same wouldn't be true of the kind of evil government that justifies armed rebellion.

With the various criminal elements in the United States, the cartels and triads could all be in a position to provide more financially secure rebel groups heavy weapons, the possibility of raids on National Guard armories also exist, MANPADs (MAN Portable Air Defense, aka shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles) and light anti-tank weapons would address much of the basic disparity and access to explosives could result in an road side bombing campaign similar to what we've experience in the sand box.

Sure, but now you're going way beyond private gun ownership. Militia groups and their man-doll AR15s aren't going to be contributing very much to this rebellion, the people who matter are going to be criminals with arms dealer connections and a tiny handful of retired veterans with specialized knowledge about things like how to set up an effective SAM network without just committing suicide as soon as you turn on the radar.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The United States military, counting law enforcement and reserves has roughly 3.5 million troops under arms. Assuming all those forces remain loyal (probably not but let's assume) There's 80 million gun owners in the United States with 340 million + small arms amongst them. If 10% of those owners engage in active rebellion against the United States who have 160,820.25 square miles to operate in just in the contiguous United States.

While the government forces have a variety of fun force multipliers, we have seen time and again in Vietnam, both Russia and the United State's engagements with Afghanistan, Iraq and other COIN wars that a superior conventional force can be defeated by dedicated guerrilla forces. Many of the government force multipliers such as drones, aircraft and other intelligence gathering methods, but we can't get close to 100% coverage 24 hours a day on a country as small as Afghanistan. With the various criminal elements in the United States, the cartels and triads could all be in a position to provide more financially secure rebel groups heavy weapons, the possibility of raids on National Guard armories also exist, MANPADs (MAN Portable Air Defense, aka shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles) and light anti-tank weapons would address much of the basic disparity and access to explosives could result in an road side bombing campaign similar to what we've experience in the sand box.

I think that line of reasoning is goofy at best as far as an armed populace goes, but from a theoretical stand point it's perfectly possible.

I would theorize if armed conflict comes to the United States it'll be in the form of a second Civil War any way, so the "heavy" disparity is hardly worth talking about.

Both concepts are laughable to everyone except Alex Jones at this point.

Possible? Of course, but anything is possible I mean I could become King of England one day.

But don't be so quick to write off the Federal government, I mean remember things like Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion or mabye that little thing called the Civil War? Federal won all those spats. I wouldn't write them off, especially if this is violent revolution in the streets at that point you have CNN covering it 24/7 and putting any of the civilian deaths all over their coverage (and there will be civilian deaths here killed at the hands of rebels). In the days of youtube and 24 hour news I could see not only popular support almost completely erode for the trouble makers but large calls for the government to put an end to the violence.

I mean this is modern news, a two star general Mark Kirk died and the news was all over it today. Just imagine if some FBI agent or something, you know some innocent cap with 3 kids and mortgage gets killed by the one of these armed rebels and then CNN and other news stations does nothing but talk about him 24/7 and all of sudden everyone hates that rebels guts for killing that poor chap.

 insaniak wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Guns guarantee the ability to resist a tyrannical government..

Is that really a serious concern in a country with a democratically-elected government?

I don't lose sleep worrying about it.

When politicians and citizens start getting vocal about gun control I perk up and pay more attention.

 Peregrine wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
While the government forces have a variety of fun force multipliers, we have seen time and again in Vietnam, both Russia and the United State's engagements with Afghanistan, Iraq and other COIN wars that a superior conventional force can be defeated by dedicated guerrilla forces.

Those aren't really a good comparison because there's a huge difference between convincing an occupying army to give up and overthrowing an oppressive government on its own territory. For example, it was very easy to get the US out of Iraq because we didn't really have any good reasons for being there in the first place and had very little to gain by staying. So inflicting a few casualties and letting popular opinion shift to "why are we getting our troops killed" was all it took. And then there's also the reputation factor to consider: we had to use limited power in Iraq because massacring civilians isn't very good for our reputation. The same wouldn't be true of the kind of evil government that justifies armed rebellion.

With the various criminal elements in the United States, the cartels and triads could all be in a position to provide more financially secure rebel groups heavy weapons, the possibility of raids on National Guard armories also exist, MANPADs (MAN Portable Air Defense, aka shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles) and light anti-tank weapons would address much of the basic disparity and access to explosives could result in an road side bombing campaign similar to what we've experience in the sand box.

Sure, but now you're going way beyond private gun ownership. Militia groups and their man-doll AR15s aren't going to be contributing very much to this rebellion, the people who matter are going to be criminals with arms dealer connections and a tiny handful of retired veterans with specialized knowledge about things like how to set up an effective SAM network without just committing suicide as soon as you turn on the radar.

Who needs a SAM network? A guy in a pick up truck with a Stinger can be even more effective in the right circumstances, and it's a gak ton harder to hit him with HARM, or target him with artillery. Pull the tube out, get lock, squeeze one off, maybe two if you're feeling sassy, and hoof it. If illiterate goat farmers can use them on Russian attack helicopters in Afghanistan I'm sure Americans can figure it out. The real day to day problem, would come down to the ability for government troops to be ambushed by people with rifles at any single point. Whether it's an AR-15 or grandpa's deer rifle doesn't matter that much (and the deer rifle might be a lot worse for the guy on the wrong end of it. I dunno if SAPI plates would stop a .300 WSSM to the chest). Quit thinking army on army. The long proven answer to Western Military superiority is a guy in his local area with light weapons. It's not something we've really figured out how to effectively counter either, which is why it killed so many of my Uncle's friends in Vietnam, and so many of my friends in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Blood Hawk, great two small revolutions and a conventional war. Solid and relevant to modern conflict and COIN. You'll notice we've never won a COIN engagement right? We may have won militarily in Vietnam, we put down a feth ton of hurt, but we had to haul ass out of there for a reason, and Saigon's been Ho Chi Minh city for awhile now. The reality of just how badly we screwed the pooch in Iraq is playing out RIGHT NOW, despite the best efforts of a lot of my friends to make that situation work. Now you can blame it on whatever you want, but a black mark in the book's a black mark in a book. Hell Afghanistan's the least mess we've created in the last 20 years, but that's only because it was a gak hole when we went it, and it'll be a gak whole when we leave. I'm still taking bets for how long it is before the Taliban's back in charge.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Who needs a SAM network?

Anyone who wants to shoot down drones and high-altitude bombers. Stingers are nice, but they have a serious altitude limit that most aircraft can fly over.

The real day to day problem, would come down to the ability for government troops to be ambushed by people with rifles at any single point.

Ambushing random troops isn't going to win a war. Remember, you're trying to beat an oppressive government on its own territory, not simply convince an occupying army that your country isn't worth dealing with. Killing random people doesn't have any real effect on the military's ability to kill you back, and probably just costs you the propaganda battle when the 24/7 news cycle is full of stories of the poor people you murdered and how pointless your war is.

Blood Hawk, great two small revolutions and a conventional war. Solid and relevant to modern conflict and COIN. You'll notice we've never won a COIN engagement right? We may have won militarily in Vietnam, we put down a feth ton of hurt, but we had to haul ass out of there for a reason, and Saigon's been Ho Chi Minh city for awhile now. The reality of just how badly we screwed the pooch in Iraq is playing out RIGHT NOW, despite the best efforts of a lot of my friends to make that situation work. Now you can blame it on whatever you want, but a black mark in the book's a black mark in a book. Hell Afghanistan's the least mess we've created in the last 20 years, but that's only because it was a gak hole when we went it, and it'll be a gak whole when we leave. I'm still taking bets for how long it is before the Taliban's back in charge.

But, again, none of those situations really compare to an armed rebellion. We left Vietnam and Iraq because we had no real stake in being there, once the wars lost too much popularity it was easy to just say "screw it, your country sucks, we have better things to do". All our enemies had to do was keep their morale up and keep fighting until we got tired of dealing with the mess and left, they never had to win any battles or inflict any meaningful damage on our forces. That's not going to be true when you're fighting against your own country, that evil government has nowhere to run away to and a lot more motivation to utterly crush you. And they can count on the rest of the world being a lot more willing to look the other way and call it an internal problem when they're oppressing their own citizens instead of a country they invaded. So you're fighting to the death, against an enemy that is not going to worry about collateral damage when they kill you.

 insaniak wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:
What the media doesn't report, is the astronomical amount of vehicular deaths, recently we had 46k deaths attributed to driving under the influence.

I'm confused... Should the fact that more effort isn't put into reducing drink driving make those thirty thousand people (or the other 70000 or so who were injured but not killed by firearms) feel better about the situation?

The fact that other things also result in an appalling death rate doesn't change an appalling death rate.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Johnnytorrance wrote:
We have a lawless president, most radical one we've ever had.

Indeed. I've heard that he's even been trying to give everyone access to affordable health care. The bastard.

He wasn't trying to give anyone affordable health care. HC premiums have skyrocketed. It was never his intension to produce cheap HC, but to tax Americans more. Across the board he's been a failure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:

But it makes you wonder, why high level officers in the military were given litmus tests, asking whether they would be ok ordering their men to kill citizens

Because it's their job?

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

"Obama's officers" need to be willing to kill you for the same hypothetical reason you need your guns to kill them.

Our oath isn't to the government, above all, it's the people, then the country, and finally the constitution. An order to kill civilians is an unlawful order that I'm willing to bet more than 80% of servicemen/women would never follow

Johnnytorrance wrote:
He wasn't trying to give anyone affordable health care. HC premiums have skyrocketed. It was never his intension to produce cheap HC, but to tax Americans more. Across the board he's been a failure.

Err, lol? Are you seriously claiming that Obama is some kind of comic book villain who just wants to increase taxes for the sake of making people pay more taxes, not because taxation is the price of getting government services?

Our oath isn't to the government, above all, it's the people, then the country, and finally the constitution. An order to kill civilians is an unlawful order that I'm willing to bet more than 80% of servicemen/women would never follow

So if a group of citizens decide to start an armed rebellion, murder a bunch of government officials, and declare themselves independent you seriously think that the military is going to refuse orders to deal with them? Do you think that if there was another 9/11-style attack with a citizen at the controls of the hijacked plane the military SAM operators would refuse to fire? Because that's the kind of thing that oath is talking about, and why an officer has to be willing to order their troops to kill citizens.

 Random Dude wrote:
It's not. Many avid gun supporters are extremely paranoid (notice I said many, not all).

Do you have any figures that show the number, or percentage, of gun owners that suffer from paranoia? What do you consider to be paranoia, or paranoid behaviour?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
You know, incomprehension and astonishment is what you should expect from, I guess, any European that has not been previously exposed to the U.S. gun fetish. It is just not something we have here, so about anybody is going to react this way, not just trolls. It is really a north American specialty, as far as I can tell.

One side of the gun debate sees a gun as a practical tool for hunting or self-defense, the other imbues it with magical properties to corrupt a human's thought process or able to act independent of it's operator ("the gun went off")


- Written by a poor, sweet European immigrant who's wife took him to the shooting range and who was subsequently possessed by an evil gun and no longer has free will. Now thanks to your post I see the truth. This is our most desperate hour. Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
For the former, uh, I dunno. This all just seems like a lot of hassle. Maybe just ban guns?

No.

No one should have to give up their rights because someone else has an insecurity, or it is "a lot of hassle". You may not ever want to hold a firearm, much less own one. That is your right. That does not give you agency to remove the rights from others who are not fearful of an inanimate object.

I never understood the reasons for civilians to walk around with weapons anyway. I mean, what do you expect to happen? They are designed to kill.

Only if you do it right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Okay, keep hugging your guns then. :| I will keep really far away while you continue to praise the public availability of killing machines.

Please do. We have enough whiny Calfornians coming here as it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Guns guarantee the ability to resist a tyrannical government..

Is that really a serious concern in a country with a democratically-elected government?

NSA spying on everyone and keeping a record of everything AND NOTHING BAD HAPPENING TO THE OFFENDERS AT ALL
IRS targeting opponents of the administration AND NOTHING BAD HAPPENING TO THE OFFENDERS AT ALL
.
CIA spying on the Congressional panel overseeing it AND NOTHING BAD HAPPENING TO THE OFFENDERS AT ALL
.

Oh yea, now more than ever.

Johnnytorrance wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Johnnytorrance wrote:

But it makes you wonder, why high level officers in the military were given litmus tests, asking whether they would be ok ordering their men to kill citizens

Because it's their job?

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

"Obama's officers" need to be willing to kill you for the same hypothetical reason you need your guns to kill them.

Our oath isn't to the government, above all, it's the people, then the country, and finally the constitution. An order to kill civilians is an unlawful order that I'm willing to bet more than 80% of servicemen/women would never follow

The oath is to the constitution first and foremost, if you don't get that then it explains all the other stuff you type.

And it sounds like we need to get rid of 80% of our military...

80% not following that order is generous on Johnny's part, and that's a damn good thing too. ANY order to intentionally kill civilians is illegal and should be refused. No matter who the civilians are. Killing our OWN civilians? Fat fething chance.

In a Constitutional sense, since as you point out properly the oath of enlistment is to the Constitution, it could be argued that any government that would turn the guns of it's standing military on it's own people is it self the domestic enemy. We are already obligated to not obey illegal orders, but in the face of such orders as attacking American citizens, a swift about face and marching on whoever gave such orders to bring them to justice is the only true way to fulfill our oaths.

Thats not how it would work. The military wouldn't be given illegal orders. Everything would be very legal, but the military wouldn't be involved.

DHS and the popo would be doing that part, and it all would be very legal.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
80% not following that order is generous on Johnny's part, and that's a damn good thing too. ANY order to intentionally kill civilians is illegal and should be refused. No matter who the civilians are. Killing our OWN civilians? Fat fething chance.

So I can walk onto the next base and start shooting soldiers one by one, and the MP are just going to stare at me and watch me kill everyone because I'm a civilian and they could never kill me because it is illegal and should be refused?

If me and my citizen buddies hijack a couple of planes and aim it at the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon we are going to auto-succeed because the only thing that can stop us would be the military and they could never ever shoot me down because we are civilians flying planes full of civilians?

If for some strange reason a bunch of civilians stage a rebellion and kill the law enforcement available, then the military would never step in and protect the rest of the people?

Because that is what you are saying. And if you can't do that, maybe the soldier thing isn't for you.

In a Constitutional sense, since as you point out properly the oath of enlistment is to the Constitution, it could be argued that any government that would turn the guns of it's standing military on it's own people is it self the domestic enemy.

Pretending that there would never ever be a valid reason to turn guns against your own people is as silly as arguing that it is always okay to kill your own people.

We are already obligated to not obey illegal orders, but in the face of such orders as attacking American citizens, a swift about face and marching on whoever gave such orders to bring them to justice is the only true way to fulfill our oaths.

Which is only valid if you pretend that every single order to attack American citizens is illegal.

So back to the "d-usa goes on a base and starts killing all the soldiers there" scenario. If you are given the order to shoot the civilian that is killing all the soldiers, are you supposed to turn around and kill the officer that gave you that order since it is "turning you against a civilian" and then turn back towards me and wait for me to kill you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: keep in mind that I'm a vocal opponent of using drones to kill US citizens that are accused of being terrorists simply because it is "too hard to get them and arrest them and put them through court". Any military action against citizens should be judged in the harshest light possible and we should always know why there was no other option available that made our government choose the military option.

I'm not saying that the military can just start shooting citizens for no good reason. I'm just acknowledging that there can be legitimate reasons for doing so (however rare and narrow they may be) and if members of the military are unwilling to do so then they have no business being in the military.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
You know, incomprehension and astonishment is what you should expect from, I guess, any European that has not been previously exposed to the U.S. gun fetish. It is just not something we have here, so about anybody is going to react this way, not just trolls. It is really a north American specialty, as far as I can tell.

One side of the gun debate sees a gun as a practical tool for hunting or self-defense, the other imbues it with magical properties to corrupt a human's thought process or able to act independent of it's operator ("the gun went off")

No, that is not why I speak of a gun fetish. I say that because, seriously, gun discussions around here are usually more heated than discussions about Israel/Palestine. And that is saying something.
Gun debates in Switzerland seems incredibly tame in comparison. And I do not remember any kind of gun debate ever in France.
If the law is changed in a way that remove availability of what you consider one practical tool, well, I guess it is legitimate to be a little bit annoyed. But not run completely amok.

Also, that “we need to keep the government in check” seems so out of touch with reality!

 Vaktathi wrote:

insaniak wrote:

jamesk1973 wrote:
Guns guarantee the ability to resist a tyrannical government..

Is that really a serious concern in a country with a democratically-elected government?

To be fair, there have been plenty of highly unsavory and unfortunate people and groups that came to power by democratic elections. Hitler, Hamas, Mugabe, Marcos, Milosevic, etc, and today some might point to Lukashenko, Karimov, Putin, Chavez,

So, the solution to the democratic election of Hitler or Mugabe would have been to allow tons of weapons to the electors of Hitler and Mugabe? How is that helping?

If the U.S. Hitler that you fear was democratically elected, it would mean he/she enjoy a great amount of support among the (armed) population of the United States. So, he/she will have the full power of the army (minus a few deserters) and the support of a huge portion of the population. Try to rise up against those odds! Really, if that U.S. Hitler bother you so much, your energy would be way better spent trying to convince your fellow citizen that he/she is bad and his/her ideology is wrong and harmful rather than fighting over gun laws.

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
80% not following that order is generous on Johnny's part, and that's a damn good thing too. ANY order to intentionally kill civilians is illegal and should be refused. No matter who the civilians are. Killing our OWN civilians? Fat fething chance.

So I can walk onto the next base and start shooting soldiers one by one, and the MP are just going to stare at me and watch me kill everyone because I'm a civilian and they could never kill me because it is illegal and should be refused?.

Its not illegal to stop a murder in progress. Thats not illegal. Quit being a dumbass.

He's not being a dumbass, it was literally said that ANY order to intentionally kill a civilian is illegal.

That is quoted in the quote you quoted, "quit being a dumbass".

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
80% not following that order is generous on Johnny's part, and that's a damn good thing too. ANY order to intentionally kill civilians is illegal and should be refused. No matter who the civilians are. Killing our OWN civilians? Fat fething chance.

So I can walk onto the next base and start shooting soldiers one by one, and the MP are just going to stare at me and watch me kill everyone because I'm a civilian and they could never kill me because it is illegal and should be refused?.

Its not illegal to stop a murder in progress.

To quote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
80% not following that order is generous on Johnny's part, and that's a damn good thing too. ANY order to intentionally kill civilians is illegal and should be refused. No matter who the civilians are. Killing our OWN civilians? Fat fething chance.

But thanks for agreeing with me that there are, in fact, situations where members of the armed forces may be tasked with killing a citizen which would not be considered unlawful.

Quit being a dumbass.

Awesome showing from an ex-MOD. You are truly the shining beacon of Dakka and an example to us all...

Dial it down a notch please.

Thanks.

This is pretty sad, normally d-usa is reasonable, but since this thread has taken the turn for pedantic stupidity due to a lack of actual argument on the part of the opposition I suppose that's the volleyball game.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
This is pretty sad, normally d-usa is reasonable, but since this thread has taken the turn for pedantic stupidity due to a lack of actual argument on the part of the opposition I suppose that's the volleyball game.

That's hilarious.

You say:

ANY order to intentionally kill civilians is illegal and should be refused. No matter who the civilians are. Killing our OWN civilians? Fat fething chance.

I reply "So the military should never be able to shoot down a group of hijacked passenger planes heading towards high priority targets? The military should not be able to stop an active shooter on a military base because he is a citizen?"

And your reply is to accuse me of being unreasonable and making a stupid and pedantic argument.

You painted yourself into a corner, not me. You can admit that there are valid reasons for why the military may be tasked with killing citizens, or you can stay in that corner while watching the paint dry.