Special Forces and the 2nd Amendment

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.

**Relapse**

LordofHats wrote:
So I should just take your word for it rather than looking at all the examples to the contrary?

I'm still waiting.

Hordini wrote:
You realize that full-fledged "hunting rifles" and sniper rifles are basically the same thing, right? Except "hunting rifles" usually have wooden stocks and sniper rifles usually have polymer stocks? There are a lot of people out there who have a lot more than just "hunting rifles" too.

I was unware US citizens owned RPG's, SAW's and, C4 (though I admit a clever person could make some of that or something just as good).

I also point out, every time someone makes the comment that you just made, that insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have been able to put up heavy resistance against very well-equipped, modern militaries while being drastically outmatched in terms of weapons.

They're fighting enemies with home bases on the other side of the planet in extremely rough terrain. Unless we're talking about being invaded by China, it's not really applicable. The Taliban also have the benefit of not being under an assault weapons ban.

The same is true in Syria. You don't need tanks, jet fighters, or drones to successfully resist an army with tanks, jet fighters, or drones. I'm not sure why that is so difficult to understand when we've been seeing evidence of that for over ten years now in the Middle East and Asia.

Because Syria is a modern state with an effectively lead and administered military. Oh wait, they're not... Right... Do we really need to go over the monumental social, political, and economic differences between a modern fulled developed state and a failing third-world state? The silly part about your examples, is that they all take place under completely different circumstances than the one you propose guns protect US citizens from. Why can't you actually give an example that's on point? I suppose it might be because we have yet to see a modern state undergo such a event... Probably a reason for that but to admit it would ruin the fantasy that owning a gun serves some grand purpose beyond owning a gun.

EDIT: Oh, and how are those rebels doing btw? Still holed up in a city surrounded by the Syrian army? Lets not forget that much of the Arab Spring revolutions were committed by what were largely unarmed citizenries and involved a rather impressive lack of blood considering the last spree of revolutions in region, Syria and Libya being the exceptions.

Note: I don't have a problem with gun ownership, just with the numerous fantasies pro-gun rights groups seem to indulge in.

Seems Lybia threw off a dictator because of guns. As far as an up to date military goes, a lot, if not most gun owners are prior military service and have extensive training. Yeah, I think guns protect the second ammendment.

**LordofHats**

CptJake wrote:
AND feel that the 1st Amendment, written to protect POLITICAL speech, obviously covers kids video games which already have a Gov't imposed rating system which is supposed to limit who can buy them.

Just because YOU feel Big Gov't Regulation is The Answer to every problem you shouldn't assume others feel the same way. I suspect the author of that document would love the video game companies to police themselves up without more Federa involvement and would want parents to do their jobs.

I think you should read this.

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is a self-regulatory organization that assigns age and content ratings, enforces industry-adopted advertising guidelines, and ensures responsible online privacy principles for computer and video games in Canada and the United States.

There are no laws passed by the federal government concerning the game industry. The only laws on books are state laws banning the sale of M games to minors, which are pointless laws because retailers had long adopted those policies of their own volition by the time they were being passed.

Also, want to throw in a plug for a relevant book to the topic, "On Killing" by a (now retired) LTC Grossman, discusses the evolution of training which enables a very high percentage of troops to pull a trigger on another human in combat compared to WW2, and then goes and discusses how modern video games mirror some of the methods but do so without the 'laws of war' and other decision making tools and lessons on ethics/ROE the soldiers are given. It is an interesting read.

It's interesting as Grossman offers a very strong and knowledgeable view into the psychology of a soldier. Unfortunately his section of video games is essentially a stream of dribble born from the wake of violent media debates of the early 90's and doesn't have the same quality as the rest of his book. In short, sir Grossman should have stuck to what he knew well, rather than make off handed commentary about what is essentially a myth created by modern politics to distract/shift focus from the actual issue of violence in the US.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Seems Lybia threw off a dictator because of guns. As far as an up to date military goes, a lot, if not most gun owners are prior military service and have extensive training. Yeah, I think guns protect the second ammendment.

Last I checked, US citizens don't have fifty cals, RPG's, AK's and don't live in a country ruled by a man with sever mental illnesses.

**DutchKillsRambo**

Did Relapse just claim most gun owners are vets? Lulz!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if I dont hear the words "firearm" "gun" rights" "tyranny" "ban" or "assault" in the next month I will be supremely happy.

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
CptJake wrote:
OAND feel that the 1st Amendment, written to protect POLITICAL speech, obviously covers kids video games which already have a Gov't imposed rating system which is supposed to limit who can buy them.

A.) We don't "feel" that way. It's not a matter of opinion. It is a fact that video games are protected art under the first amendment, as evinced by the near-unanimous rulings of nearly every court that has ever ruled on video game related legislation, including of course the court that matters most.

B.) The ratings system is not government imposed. It's wholly voluntary, and created by the industry, just like the MPAA is voluntary and created by their industry. Neither board has even a tenuous link to the government.

Seriously, read a little before you form an opinion.

About 20 minutes to hit the mine field.

So, we have established that the 1st Amendment clause about free speech intended to protect political speech does indeed cover entertainment and a slew of other types/classes of speech and when a state tries to infringe on that right 'For the Children' or 'For the Collective good of society' they correctly get slapped down. 7-2, a darned good slapping. I suspect the guys who wrote the opening article get that too.

BUT you are okay with attempts to infringe on the 2nd Amendment by states, municipalities and the Feds, since it is For the Children or for the Collective Good of us all.

Folks can buy violent games because they want to and it is their right. Societal costs have no bearing on that right. Folks can buy AR15s and 30 round magazines because they want to and it is their right. Societal costs have no bearing on that right. Yet some of you disagree with that and feel entitled to infringe on that right (or more accurately have the gov't do it for you with your encouragement).

Again, thanks. I was wondering how long it would take.

**d-usa**

Who keeps on advocating this hypothetical removal of the 2nd and the taking of your guns?

**Ratbarf**

d-usa wrote:
Who keeps on advocating this hypothetical removal of the 2nd and the taking of your guns?

It is highly likely that any kind of further gun regulation would result in guns being taken away from some people, unless they were grandfathered in. The magazine limit especially would result in a large amount of now illegal property that would likely have to be confiscated without compensation.

**djones520**

d-usa wrote:
Who keeps on advocating this hypothetical removal of the 2nd and the taking of your guns?

Who keeps advocating the hypothetical removal of 1st Amendment rights.

On wait... no one, the part in question is only a small portion of it.

Don't like it, huh?

**d-usa**

Have you seen me argue against the hypothetical removal of the 1st?

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
Who keeps on advocating this hypothetical removal of the 2nd and the taking of your guns?

People on Facebook.

**d-usa**

Hey when I reference Facebook I say so. I can't help it if people are unable to clarify if they are talking about people in the thread or on Facebook.

I do advocate removing some people's right to Facebook though...

**Relapse**

LordofHats wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Seems Lybia threw off a dictator because of guns. As far as an up to date military goes, a lot, if not most gun owners are prior military service and have extensive training. Yeah, I think guns protect the second ammendment.

Last I checked, US citizens don't have fifty cals, RPG's, AK's and don't live in a country ruled by a man with sever mental illnesses.

I don't think you give people enough credit for being able to make do until heavier weapons could be obtained.

**Seaward**

This forum's full of COIN experts. I'm pretty impressed.

**Ratbarf**

LordofHats wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Seems Lybia threw off a dictator because of guns. As far as an up to date military goes, a lot, if not most gun owners are prior military service and have extensive training. Yeah, I think guns protect the second ammendment.

Last I checked, US citizens don't have fifty cals, RPG's, AK's and don't live in a country ruled by a man with sever mental illnesses.

Huh, it's amazing what five years can do for a country's perception.

**Relapse**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Did Relapse just claim most gun owners are vets? Lulz!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if I dont hear the words "firearm" "gun" rights" "tyranny" "ban" or "assault" in the next month I will be supremely happy.

It could be a safe bet, but I'll be willing to say I'm wrong if I am. I know what you mean about reading about guns or someone being killed everytime you turn around. It's a media blitz to push Obama and the anti gun crowd's agenda. If they were against alcohol or drugs.(which actually cause more death than criminal activity with guns)
the way they are against guns, they'd be pulling stunts like putting the names and addreses of those convicted of impaired driving on the inter net
or highlighting the daily victims of an impaired driver. They could highlight the people who died of liver failure, etc.
If they were really ambitious, they could back track some drugs that came up from Mexico or even from in country sources and show the trail of death that resulted from them as they worked their way to the users. It wouldn't be hard since more people die from that stuff than from guns.

**djones520**

LordofHats wrote:

Last I checked, US citizens don't have fifty cals, RPG's, AK's and don't live in a country ruled by a man with sever mental illnesses.

Do you think the Libyans had them either at the beginning?

Nope. They raided weapon depots and got them.

You notice all of the National Guard armories scattered about the country? What do you think they've got in them?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Did Relapse just claim most gun owners are vets? Lulz!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if I dont hear the words "firearm" "gun" rights" "tyranny" "ban" or "assault" in the next month I will be supremely happy.

It could be a safe bet, but I'll be willing to say I'm wrong if I am. I know what you mean about reading about guns or someone being killed everytime you turn around. It's a media blitz to push Obama and the anti gun crowd's agenda. If they were against alcohol or drugs.(which actually cause more death than criminal activity with guns)
the way they are against guns, they'd be pulling stunts like putting the names and addreses of those convicted of impaired driving on the inter net
or highlighting the daily victims of an impaired driver. They could highlight the people who died of liver failure, etc.
If they were really ambitious, they could back track some drugs that came up from Mexico or even from in country sources and show the trail of death that resulted from them as they worked their way to the users. It wouldn't be hard since more people die from that stuff than from guns.

As a member of the military, I'd say the bet isn't that safe.

Especially the well trained part. Most folks in the Air Force couldn't find the safety switch on an M-16 from their ass.

**DutchKillsRambo**

Relapse wrote:
DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Did Relapse just claim most gun owners are vets? Lulz!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if I dont hear the words "firearm" "gun" rights" "tyranny" "ban" or "assault" in the next month I will be supremely happy.

It could be a safe bet, but I'll be willing to say I'm wrong if I am. I know what you mean about reading about guns or someone being killed everytime you turn around. It's a media blitz to push Obama and the anti gun crowd's agenda. If they were against alcohol or drugs.(which actually cause more death than criminal activity with guns)
the way they are against guns, they'd be pulling stunts like putting the names and addreses of those convicted of impaired driving on the inter net
or highlighting the daily victims of an impaired driver. They could highlight the people who died of liver failure, etc.
If they were really ambitious, they could back track some drugs that came up from Mexico or even from in country sources and show the trail of death that resulted from them as they worked their way to the users. It wouldn't be hard since more people die from that stuff than from guns.

I'm sorry but do you really think 150+ million guns in the US are owned by exclusively vets? Or rather, that at least half of the population have served in the military? Or that I had to sign away 4+ years of my life to learn how to handle a gun? Anecdotally speaking here, but you're wrong on at least one person.

You have some good points, some dumb. But my point was I'm just sick of gun debates. Obama and his slowed plan needs to stop along with the NRA and their bs stats. And all these posts. I remember Dakka OT was full of pics of boobs and fun times. Not people arguing with each other over views they already have and aren't going to change. Bring back the fun!

Edit: Ah Dakka changes the are word to slowed I was confused there for a second.

**Ouze**

CptJake wrote:
Again, thanks. I was wondering how long it would take.

Oh, your clever ruse at appearing not to know what the hell you are talking about was actually a devious trap, intended to reveal my rank hypocrisy since "I'm okay with attempts to infringe on the 2nd Amendment by states, municipalities and the Feds, since it is For the Children or for the Collective Good of us all".

Of course, your Machiavellian scheming sort of breaks down when you consider I never endorsed any of the things you are stating I endorsed, and certainly not for the reasons you state I did. But who knows - perhaps instead of the current perception, which is a poster who is talking out of their ass about things they don't know anything about, I just hit the third level if your Inception-like strategy to finally resolve this thread.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Who keeps on advocating this hypothetical removal of the 2nd and the taking of your guns?

Just about every Democratic politican on TV, including the governor of NY.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:
This forum's full of COIN experts. I'm pretty impressed.

I'm a Tex Mex expert. Does that count?

**Ouze**

Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.

**djones520**

Ouze wrote:
Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.

Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.

**whembly**

djones520 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.

Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.

Took the words right outta my moawf...

Neverthanless... the point of all this is to have a civil discussion.

Cool?

**Shredsmore**

Relapse wrote:
It was well thought out and reasonably written with several intellegent points. Obama, Biden, and other clowns like them therefore will pay no attention to it.

Exalted

Well, except for the part about desensitizing children with violent games, it honestly sorta felt like they were trying to make an excuse.

**Ratbarf**

By discussion do you mean war?

**Cheesecat**

djones520 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.

Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.

Jamie Foxx is racist?

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.

Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.

Neither of which are important.

**djones520**

Cheesecat wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.

Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.

Jamie Foxx is racist?

His recent rant about how killing white people was such a black thing to do, not with standing, yes I believe whole heartedly he's a racist.

**dogma**

LordofHats wrote:

5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.

Good luck finding a consensus to that effect in the psychological community. If anything the majority to studies into the subject have determined the opposite to be true.

I also like the implication that, while media producers are exploiting something they know nothing about, these Special Forces soldiers are qualified in social psychology regarding media consumption by children.

**Cheesecat**

djones520 wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.

Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.

Jamie Foxx is racist?

His recent rant about how killing white people was such a black thing to do, not with standing, yes I believe whole heartedly he's a racist.

I don't know he might have intended that as a joke, I can't imagine that being a serious statement although I need context.

**djones520**

Cheesecat wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Bottom line, I think the anonymous authors of this letter are just as qualified to speak on gun policy and constitutional principles as Jamie Foxx is.

Except these are folks who routinely put their lives in danger for our constituion for chicken scratch, and Jamie Foxx is a raving racist who makes millions.

Jamie Foxx is racist?

His recent rant about how killing white people was such a black thing to do, not with standing, yes I believe whole heartedly he's a racist.

I don't know he might have intended that as a joke, I can't imagine that being a serious statement although I need context.

Tell that to the Kramer guy who had his career ruined by making a joke along those lines. Yet people just yawned when Jamie Foxx did it.

But this is getting way off topic.

**Relapse**

DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Relapse wrote:
DutchKillsRambo wrote:
Did Relapse just claim most gun owners are vets? Lulz!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if I dont hear the words "firearm" "gun" rights" "tyranny" "ban" or "assault" in the next month I will be supremely happy.

It could be a safe bet, but I'll be willing to say I'm wrong if I am. I know what you mean about reading about guns or someone being killed everytime you turn around. It's a media blitz to push Obama and the anti gun crowd's agenda. If they were against alcohol or drugs.(which actually cause more death than criminal activity with guns)
the way they are against guns, they'd be pulling stunts like putting the names and addreses of those convicted of impaired driving on the inter net
or highlighting the daily victims of an impaired driver. They could highlight the people who died of liver failure, etc.
If they were really ambitious, they could back track some drugs that came up from Mexico or even from in country sources and show the trail of death that resulted from them as they worked their way to the users. It wouldn't be hard since more people die from that stuff than from guns.

I'm sorry but do you really think 150+ million guns in the US are owned by exclusively vets? Or rather, that at least half of the population have served in the military? Or that I had to sign away 4+ years of my life to learn how to handle a gun? Anecdotally speaking here, but you're wrong on at least one person.

You have some good points, some dumb. But my point was I'm just sick of gun debates. Obama and his slowed plan needs to stop along with the NRA and their bs stats. And all these posts. I remember Dakka OT was full of pics of boobs and fun times. Not people arguing with each other over views they already have and aren't going to change. Bring back the fun!

Edit: Ah Dakka changes the are word to slowed I was confused there for a second.

I'm not saying that guns are owned exclusivly by vets, but that I venture that a large portion, and by that I mean significant number of gun owners are vets. Of course, I should add that I'm going off what I see in my area. I'm with you totaly on being sick of the fact that you can't go a day without being bombard with this by the news.