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.

 daedalus wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's a safeguard in case of duress that dates back nearly 240 years.

How many time was it used during those 240 years?

I've lived 30 years without a house fire. Were I a thinking man like yourself, I would rip out all those costly smoke alarms and sprinkler systems.

And homeowners insurance? Screw that.

And liability insurance for my car? Please, the chances of me having an accident are very slim. And nobody's gonna find out I don't have it.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:

Skim through his room, his computer(if you cant google his youtube account). Maybe interview his family, friends. Check his cellphone. Check his work place. Check the government records. Make sure his house isn't being foreclosed. Check for suicidal urges, interview neighbors. Check his finance. Any one of those things, preferably all of them. As for determinations made and potential danger, I don't have a certain opinion yet. I'll have to get back to you on that. For now, use your imagination. At what point do you think a person should have gun privileges withheld?

Ahh. So infringe upon all of his civil liberties. Got it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's a safeguard in case of duress that dates back nearly 240 years.

How many time was it used during those 240 years?

I've lived 30 years without a house fire. Were I a thinking man like yourself, I would rip out all those costly smoke alarms and sprinkler systems.

And homeowners insurance? Screw that.

And liability insurance for my car? Please, the chances of me having an accident are very slim. And nobody's gonna find out I don't have it.

Well, I live in St. Louis. Gonna just keep that liability insurance. I'm not THAT crazy.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I've lived 30 years without a house fire. Were I a thinking man like yourself, I would rip out all those costly smoke alarms and sprinkler systems.

I think you'd be safe. I also think that's a genuine curiosity he has about that 240 years.

Oh, well, if you're right, I just feel like a jerk. :(

I would imagine that it probably was used in the civil war quite a bit as well. I doubt everyone who had to participate was a part of the actual army.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's a safeguard in case of duress that dates back nearly 240 years.

How many time was it used during those 240 years?

I'm no American but off the top of my head...

French & Indian Wars.
War of Independence.
War of 1812.
Civil War.

And all manner of conflicts, skirmishes and periods of lawlessness.

Those would have surely all involved civilian Militias involved in armed conflict, resisting invasion and oppression or just simply defending themselves in lawless regions (the Frontier) against Indian tribes, bands of outlaws and each other? Having been founded as a nation of Colonial settlers spread out over huge distances far from Authorities and security forces, people had to fend for themselves.

"Better to have and not need" as the saying goes.

The downside of not having an armed populace is unacceptable, no matter how low the chance of such a situation happening.

And frankly, legislating ANYTHING is reaction to a high profile, but very rare, event is just a bad idea period.

There is not enough harm being caused by mass killings to warrant any legal changes.

This really isn't a gun control issue, since he got it rolling with some stabbings, yes?

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
It was used during the western expansion era's.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I'm no American but off the top of my head...

French & Indian Wars.
War of Independence.
War of 1812.
Civil War.

And all manner of conflicts, skirmishes and periods of lawlessness.

Those would have surely all involved civilian Militias involved in armed conflict, resisting invasion and oppression or just simply defending themselves in lawless regions (the Frontier) against Indian tribes, bands of outlaws and each other? Having been founded as a nation of Colonial settlers spread out over huge distances far from Authorities and security forces, people had to fend for themselves.

So, are you both speaking about just using guns, or specifically using guns to keep the government in check? Because I am of course familiar with the whole western/cowboy/civil war thing. I mean, the Italians did such a good job at making movies out of it . But I was wondering about examples specifically against the government of the U.S.A.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:


I wish we did.

In Ohio you have to take 8 hours of classroom training, apply for your license, get fingerprinted, have your fingerprints run through AFIS, and then typically wait 2-3 months to get it (I've seen shorter, I've seen longer).

That's what I was implying earlier: that not all states are "get it and go."

In Ohio you also have to have 4 hours of range time, so it ends up being 12 hours of training total.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's a safeguard in case of duress that dates back nearly 240 years.

How many time was it used during those 240 years?

It's been used plenty, there's been Indians and Mexicans to kill all through out US history, and you never know when Canada may step out of line.



Guns are needed for when the government fails the people, which can happen at any point and we're not talking strictly about at national level. Police are managed by the local government, often they are very far away and unable to deal with crimes. This was also the case for much of US history, while major cities have police rural areas do not and you cannot depend on them for help when they may be a very long distance away. Even in modern day there are areas of the country where if you call the police for help they may not respond for an hour or more.

Even inner city areas like Detroit, Los Angeles, New York all have incredibly long response times _if_ they even show up at all.

You have to keep in mind most of our states are larger than the average country in Europe, it's a lot of territory to cover and a lot of areas are pretty sparsely populated and they don't have a regular police force. Suppose you live in Troyes, would you be comfortable waiting for police to reply if they had to come all the way from Paris? There are many areas of the US where police help is that far away or more.

 Grey Templar wrote:
The downside of not having an armed populace is unacceptable, no matter how low the chance of such a situation happening.

I disagree. I even disagree with the idea that this is a downside. I believe I live in a society developed enough that people can get their voice heard and can even overthrow government without needing guns. Revolutions and regime change have been known to happen without armed populace/mob and heavy fighting in several occasions. Actually, I think those tend to lead on with better, more democratic and stable regime imho.

Someday things will change.

Europe will eventually again be crushed under the boot of a dictator. It may be a hundred years off, but it will happen eventually. And you will lament that you didn't see it coming, and couldn't stop it with a vote at the polls.

The ultimate folly is thinking your society is incapable of crumbling and falling to a dictatorship.

 Hordini wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:


I wish we did.

In Ohio you have to take 8 hours of classroom training, apply for your license, get fingerprinted, have your fingerprints run through AFIS, and then typically wait 2-3 months to get it (I've seen shorter, I've seen longer).

That's what I was implying earlier: that not all states are "get it and go."

In Ohio you also have to have 4 hours of range time, so it ends up being 12 hours of training total.

Forgot about the range time stipulation.

Needless to say the range time wasn't a big concern for me


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I disagree. I even disagree with the idea that this is a downside. I believe I live in a society developed enough that people can get their voice heard and can even overthrow government without needing guns. Revolutions and regime change have been known to happen without armed populace/mob and heavy fighting in several occasions. Actually, I think those tend to lead on with better, more democratic and stable regime imho.

And hilarity ensues.

Maybe you can hug them into agreeing with you.

You know the Nazis were pretty popular in Germany, they took over democratically.

 stanman wrote:
Guns are needed for when the government fails the people, which can happen at any point and we're not talking strictly about at national level. .

The example of Koreatown during the LA riots is instructive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
You know the Nazis were pretty popular in Germany, they took over democratically.

I believe we also had Zimmerman in this thread earlier, so... it's going pretty well.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I believe I live in a society developed enough that people can get their voice heard and can even overthrow government without needing guns. Revolutions and regime change have been known to happen without armed populace/mob and heavy fighting in several occasions.

Can you please provide some instances for peaceful revolution on a national level?

I'd love to see an instance where an existing government has been overthrown by the people without armed revolt occurring. It might happen with small townships or villages but on a national level there's always serious fighting involved. A peaceful resolution would be ideal, but the problem is that the world doesn't operate in the realm of ideals and potential violence cannot be eliminated as a consideration in any aspect of life.

Lets have a quick quiz. Does anyone think that to exercise any other right there should be background checks, waiting periods, arbitrary restrictions, licensing, and training?

 LumenPraebeo wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Be specific. How precisely do you think that gun control laws can be "more thorough and stringent"? Remember, the attacker got his guns legally in California which is not exactly a Mecca for gun owners, is known for being a "may issue" State, and has been at the forefront of "common sense" restrictions on firearms.
You also ignored the point that a Senator cane out after this tragedy to push for gun control, and pretty much admitted that what he is pushing would have done nothing in this case.
There we go with the contradictions again,. And self-defense against crime or an attack only happens at home?
If you really can't substantiate your position then is it a viable one? Why should someone not be able to possess a CCW in public?
So we install firearms (who installs them? Who purchases them? Who buys the ammunition? Who is responsible for the maintenance? Who is accountable for them? Who has access to them? How are they secured?) that are likely only to see periodic use by people who are unfamiliar with them, and that is supposed to make people safer? Surely it is easier to allow for CCW so that the people possessing the firearm actually know the features of the weapon (location of safeties; whether you hold the sights on target, or at 6 o'clock; recoil to expect; etc.)
How can we be too strict with gun control laws, yet have laws that are too loose when it comes to people buying guns? I would really like you to explain this, and be specific.

Dude, I'm too lazy to post a small essay to explain to you everything I'm thinking. Use your imagination.
You know what, maybe I'll come back to it when I feel like writing an essay. Maybe I'll PM it to you.

So no suggestions as to what could be improved, and I am to make your argument for you. That is certainly an interesting way to have a conversation.

 Ouze wrote:
This really isn't a gun control issue, since he got it rolling with some stabbings, yes?

That is the elephant in the room. Very few people who want gun control want to talk about that inconvenient fact.

It's a sad thing that this occurred, but at the same time nobody cries tragedy over the number of auto related deaths that occur every day (which is an average of about 90-100 per day in the US).

Guns get a lot of media hype over a fairly small number of related deaths, cars, alcohol, drugs and even cigarettes kill far more people on a daily basis but we don't have news articles lam blasting them at every opportunity.

They refuse to "identify" him... but have no problem showing part of his tape... riiiiight




This reminds me of the boston bombing survivor who backed out of meet the press because they dared mention the names of the bombers. You know, journalism.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You know the Nazis were pretty popular in Germany, they took over democratically.

Yeah. That is precisely why Germans having guns would not have prevented them rising to power. Especially since gun-toting SA and SS would have certainly out-violenced those that would have faced them.
Guns will not prevent fascism from rising to power through subversion of our democratic systems. And fascism will not be able to gain power by other means in western European countries, or the U.S.A. Hence, if we are to focus on preventing fascism from taking over our countries, really we should focus on educating people about its danger rather than getting more weapons out into the public.

 stanman wrote:
Can you please provide some instances for peaceful revolution on a national level?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_revolution_%28German%29
That is some pretty well-known and major event imho, since the Cold War was something quite global, and that started the crumbling of the whole Communist side of it.
You can find more here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_revolution
Now, I do not think this page is complete. For instance, stuff like this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Democracy_Movement could certainly fit in too.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Someday things will change.

Europe will eventually again be crushed under the boot of a dictator. It may be a hundred years off, but it will happen eventually. And you will lament that you didn't see it coming, and couldn't stop it with a vote at the polls.

And how exactly is private gun ownership in the US going to change anything if that happens here? Any government that is legitimately evil enough to justify violent revolution is unlikely to show any reluctance to crush the revolution with overwhelming firepower. It might be fun to lovingly stroke your AR-15 and fantasize about leading a revolution, but your gun isn't going to do anything to stop a tank or B-52 strike. And if the military supports the revolution then a few untrained civilians with fancy toys are completely redundant, and at absolute most your contribution to the revolution will consist of sitting around guarding something worthless (just to keep you out of the way) while the military does all the real work.

 Peregrine wrote:


And how exactly is private gun ownership in the US going to change anything if that happens here? Any government that is legitimately evil enough to justify violent revolution is unlikely to show any reluctance to crush the revolution with overwhelming firepower. It might be fun to lovingly stroke your AR-15 and fantasize about leading a revolution, but your gun isn't going to do anything to stop a tank or B-52 strike. And if the military supports the revolution then a few untrained civilians with fancy toys are completely redundant, and at absolute most your contribution to the revolution will consist of sitting around guarding something worthless (just to keep you out of the way) while the military does all the real work.

Stop poking holes in their fantasy.

 Crablezworth wrote:
They refuse to "identify" him... but have no problem showing part of his tape... riiiiight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7YRUdFZuJU

This reminds me of the boston bombing survivor who backed out of meet the press because they dared mention the names of the bombers. You know, journalism.

That's funny because I think he was a fan of theirs

maybe not, but any attempting to set up a dictatorship would have to contend with an armed population. And a classic sign of attempting to solidify power is to disarm the civilians(or at least those who don't support you)

An armed populace keeps the politicians scared. And believe me that the gun grabbers are scared of gun holders, because they don't like what they signify. That ultimate power rests with the people.


The vote isn't your power, the vote is just your means of voicing your opinion. The power behind that vote is a .45 in one hand and a Molotov in the other.

 Grey Templar wrote:
An armed populace keeps the politicians scared.

No it doesn't.

And believe me that the gun grabbers are scared of gun holders, because they don't like what they signify.

Yeah. They don't like a bunch of people running around with guns spouting insanity. People get scared by that kind of stuff just as much as you get scared by tyranical government.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Now, I do not think this page is complete. For instance, stuff like this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Democracy_Movement could certainly fit in too.

I can't decide if that's funny, sad or both. South Korea protests Roh Tae Woo being selected for president without a vote, demands a vote but immediately elects Roh Tae Woo. How is this supposed to be a vast reformation of the government? End result is that it's the same guy in office regardless of if they were to have a vote or not.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So, are you both speaking about just using guns, or specifically using guns to keep the government in check? Because I am of course familiar with the whole western/cowboy/civil war thing. I mean, the Italians did such a good job at making movies out of it . But I was wondering about examples specifically against the government of the U.S.A.

Come on, think. Its not that complicated. Imagine any situation when armed civilians resisted the rule of Governments and other entities of Authority, whether domestic or foreign.

The Civil War would qualify as armed civilians "specifically resisting the Government of the USA".

Other than that, just because Americans have never since been in open, armed conflict with their own government doesn't mean they haven't needed their firearms against invading Foreign powers.

French & Indian Wars.
Series of wars and skirmishes between the French and British Colonial powers (with the American states being British colonies at the time). Both sides exploit native Indian tribes to launch raids into enemy territory, harass supply lines, raze communities etc. Regular troops engage in battle, invade and occupy territory. Armed civilians defend themselves against invaders and raiders.

War of Independence.
American rebels, patriots and militias overthrew a remote and tyrannical Government. Lots of Militias are formed to resist British rule,

War of 1812.
Said tyrannical Government and its Colony invaded America.

Civil War.
Civil War erupts between the States and two rival Governments are formed. The South views the Union Government as a tyranny, attempting to force its will onto them and to strip away the Southern States' rights and the rights of Slave-owners. Both sides raid across the borders, terrorising civilians. Civilians form Militias to defend their communities, fight as partisans or sign up to the Confederate or Union armies.


Plus as other posters have mentioned, there was the War with Mexico.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stanman wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Now, I do not think this page is complete. For instance, stuff like this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_Democracy_Movement could certainly fit in too.

I can't decide if that's funny, sad or both. South Korea protests Roh Tae Woo being selected for president without a vote, demands a vote but immediately elects Roh Tae Woo. How is this supposed to be a vast reformation of the government? End result is that it's the same guy in office regardless of if they were to have a vote or not.

Thats assuming that the vote wasn't rigged to produce the result the Elite wanted...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Someday things will change.

Europe will eventually again be crushed under the boot of a dictator. It may be a hundred years off, but it will happen eventually. And you will lament that you didn't see it coming, and couldn't stop it with a vote at the polls.

And how exactly is private gun ownership in the US going to change anything if that happens here? Any government that is legitimately evil enough to justify violent revolution is unlikely to show any reluctance to crush the revolution with overwhelming firepower. It might be fun to lovingly stroke your AR-15 and fantasize about leading a revolution, but your gun isn't going to do anything to stop a tank or B-52 strike. And if the military supports the revolution then a few untrained civilians with fancy toys are completely redundant, and at absolute most your contribution to the revolution will consist of sitting around guarding something worthless (just to keep you out of the way) while the military does all the real work.

Because they would literally have to kill 80%+ of the population to do that.

But otherwise they'd have no country to rule.

A B-52 is going to be worthless in the event of a guerrilla war against insurgents in your own country. Tanks are VERY vulnerable to people with any amount of ingenuity and some gasoline.

As was pointed out earlier, there is nowhere near enough soldiers in the US army to control all the armed civilians there are in the US. Even if only a portion were involved in resistance they'd still be fighting a losing battle.

You say an insurgence wouldn't work, yet it seems to be working just fine in Iraq and Afghanistan. And beat the US in Vietnam. Even the Russians couldn't beat Afghanistan, and they certainly had no qualms about collateral damage.


Would private gun ownership stop it once it started? No.

Would it help end it and provide one heck of a deterrent? Hell yes.

 Peregrine wrote:
And how exactly is private gun ownership in the US going to change anything if that happens here? Any government that is legitimately evil enough to justify violent revolution is unlikely to show any reluctance to crush the revolution with overwhelming firepower. It might be fun to lovingly stroke your AR-15 and fantasize about leading a revolution, but your gun isn't going to do anything to stop a tank or B-52 strike. And if the military supports the revolution then a few untrained civilians with fancy toys are completely redundant, and at absolute most your contribution to the revolution will consist of sitting around guarding something worthless (just to keep you out of the way) while the military does all the real work.

That is precisely what I think, but apparently I am wrong and the civilians with their guns would somehow crush the army. Apparently they have proof of that from the fact Afghanistan won the war against the U.S.A. thanks to the insurgents or something. I somehow felt like the fact there were many U.S. troops in Afghanistan and no Afghan forces in the U.S. was as a clear sign that the U.S. won, but apparently it is the other way around.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And how exactly is private gun ownership in the US going to change anything if that happens here? Any government that is legitimately evil enough to justify violent revolution is unlikely to show any reluctance to crush the revolution with overwhelming firepower. It might be fun to lovingly stroke your AR-15 and fantasize about leading a revolution, but your gun isn't going to do anything to stop a tank or B-52 strike. And if the military supports the revolution then a few untrained civilians with fancy toys are completely redundant, and at absolute most your contribution to the revolution will consist of sitting around guarding something worthless (just to keep you out of the way) while the military does all the real work.

That is precisely what I think, but apparently I am wrong and the civilians with their guns would somehow crush the army. Apparently they have proof of that from the fact Afghanistan won the war against the U.S.A. thanks to the insurgents or something. I somehow felt like the fact there were many U.S. troops in Afghanistan and no Afghan forces in the U.S. was as a clear sign that the U.S. won, but apparently it is the other way around.

They don't have to have won to show its effectiveness.

Insurgents just need to outlast their opponents, or kill them all.


Anyway, take Vietnam. That war got lost because the insurgents outlasted public opinion of the war.

An analogous situation would be the rebels in a Dictatorship lasting till they gain more popular support and overthrow the government.