NationStates Jolt Archive

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5001380249576962921&q=bull****&pr=goog-sl

28 minutes of goodness. :p

Meh, they make mistakes in their presentation, but I give them an A for effort.

Thanks for the link. It was entertaining and confirmed my support for private gun ownership.

Like the rest of the "Bullshit!" series, this is, well, bullshit... Though mildly amusing bullshit :cool:

Like the rest of the "Bullshit!" series, this is, well, bullshit... Though mildly amusing bullshit :cool:
You're bullshit! :mad:

...

Kidding.

But yah. I've seen this. And really, it makes perfect sense to me. I've never been in favor of gun control; it simply never works.

lol erm that was interesting to say the least... :D

Gun control is hitting what you aim at ... who would be against that? :p

Two things:

1. If our right to firearms extends from our need to fight oppressive government, could the government prosecute those who do use firearms with treason?

2. Their interpretation of the wording of the Second Amendment seems to purposefully leave out the word "free". They are correct in interpreting that a militia is necessary in protecting a state, but the founders included the word free. The free state, according to the founders was a government of the people.

When one combines these two things, one finds that the founders meant that a militia is necessary to defend a government of the people. Therefore, the right of the people to own guns stems from their right to form a militia.

The militia and the people are the same thing. Not potential opponents as they would have you believe.

I support every single person owning a gun, I also support every single person having to test to get a license for that gun and periodically retest.

Oh my God, gun control!!11!
I demand freedom to own a car! I will not renew my licence and you can't make me.

1. If our right to firearms extends from our need to fight oppressive government, could the government prosecute those who do use firearms with treason?

Depends on who wins the revolution. ;)

Haha! That was funny. The name of the show says it all. That was complete bullshit.
They think private ownership of guns can defend us against the government? That is the funniest thing I have heard all day. The gun may be the ultimate equalizer when you are fighting other people with guns, but it doesn't mean shit when you are up against a tank and a helicopter. Ha, guns will protect us from the government. And push comes to shove, the government has the ultimate weapon on their side. Fear. And trust me, they can make us afraid. Anybody want to rebel after they threaten to use nuclear weapons? No, didn't think so. Man these guys are morons.

Haha! That was funny. The name of the show says it all. That was complete bullshit.
They think private ownership of guns can defend us against the government? That is the funniest thing I have heard all day. The gun may be the ultimate equalizer when you are fighting other people with guns, but it doesn't mean shit when you are up against a tank and a helicopter. Ha, guns will protect us from the government. And push comes to shove, the government has the ultimate weapon on their side. Fear. And trust me, they can make us afraid. Anybody want to rebel after they threaten to use nuclear weapons? No, didn't think so. Man these guys are morons.

Boy does this arguement get old. It also takes many assumptions as facts.

You have to assume the majority of the military would follow orders to fire on US civilians and that they wouldn't join them.

You have to assume that the citizenry hasn't armed themselves from local ANG centers. (yes, they have AA & AT weapons there)

You have to assume that (even if only 10% of the armed citizens joined), 4 million + people on their own territory could hurt the military/Gov't.

And the biggest assumption of all:

You have to assume the gov't would use nukes on its own territory.

I support every single person owning a gun, I also support every single person having to test to get a license for that gun and periodically retest.

Oh my God, gun control!!11!
I demand freedom to own a car! I will not renew my licence and you can't make me.
I never understood why it was easier to get a gun than it was to drive a car off the lot.

I never understood why it was easier to get a gun than it was to drive a car off the lot.

It isn't. You can't buy a firearm w/ a criminal record along w/ some other restrictions.

You can buy a car w/o a drivers license. You just can't use it on public roads.

Boy does this arguement get old. It also takes many assumptions as facts.

You have to assume the majority of the military would follow orders to fire on US civilians and that they wouldn't join them.

You have to assume that the citizenry hasn't armed themselves from local ANG centers. (yes, they have AA & AT weapons there)

You have to assume that (even if only 10% of the armed citizens joined), 4 million + people on their own territory could hurt the military/Gov't.

And the biggest assumption of all:

You have to assume the gov't would use nukes on its own territory.
We are assuming there is a reason for a rebellion, yes? Well something tells me that means the government has become corrupt and powerhungry, and most likely established a dictatorship. Dictatorships work on support from the military, so I think it is fairly safe to assume they have a very well disciplined military. And once they get power, they don't want to lose it. And would probably do whatever it takes to keep it. That includes the use of nuclear weaponry. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I support every single person owning a gun, I also support every single person having to test to get a license for that gun and periodically retest.

Oh my God, gun control!!11!
I demand freedom to own a car! I will not renew my licence and you can't make me.
The only issues I have with your scenerio are:

(A) Who writes & administers the test?
(B) At what cost? Think of the poor people.
(C) How do you keep the testing/administrating procedures corruption free? Make the test impossible to pass or impossible to take and you have effectively banned possession.

Otherwise - I'm all for making Gun licensing EXACTLY like Auto licensing (http://spaces.msn.com/syniks/). <(linky) :eek:

It isn't. You can't buy a firearm w/ a criminal record along w/ some other restrictions.

You can buy a car w/o a drivers license. You just can't use it on public roads.
Ok, Ok, I'll post it again...

Examining what Driver's licensing & vehicle registration truly entails, and setting up an equivilent Gun Licensing system:

Drivers Licenses.

Drivers Licenses are Shall Issue permits with universal reciprocity, requiring only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations.
Licenses are NOT required for purchase of a vehicle.
Licenses are NOT required for off (public) road use, i.e. agricultural use (farms/farm roads), racetracks, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM dirt trails etc.
Drivers education / auto safety classes are MANDATORY in many public school districts.

Vehicle Registration:

Registration of a motor vehicle is NOT required unless said vehicle is to be USED on public roads. Custom/show cars, racecars, farm equipment, antiques are exempt unless they are to be commonly USED on public roadways. If I am towing a '32 roadster (or ’99 dragster) through town, I cannot be cited for its' lack of registration.
Registration of vehicles exceeding "fleet" quantities is not required. I may maintain as many unregistered vehicles on my private property as I desire (provided they do not constitute an "eyesore" or some such other visibly property-devaluing neighborhood gripe.)
Registration and extra taxation of High Performance vehicles is NOT required, unless they are to be used on public roads. A 13,000 hp Pratt & Whitney Jet Car (which has no "practical" or "sporting" use) may be owned and kept, unregistered, alongside a VW powered off-road-only dune buggy, and used in non-public spaces with impunity.

Law enforcement of DMV rules:
As we know, there are literally thousands of people out there driving without a license. The only time they get punished is if they are caught violating some other driving law (i.e. causing harm to or endangering another’s person or property). Vehicle registration is somewhat easier to spot, as registration is denoted by a sticker of some sort, visible while the vehicle is in use. (Someone sees you use it without a tag, you get a ticket.)

This is all well understood and simple enough, so, let's apply this exact legal paradigm to guns, on a national level, as the panderer in chief (and others) say they want.

“Gun” Licenses: Gun owners would "get":

A genuinely nationally reciprocal, truly "shall-issue" concealed carry license. Now, while everyone hates DoL and the Licensing dept., you can't say they just arbitrarily deny licenses (as some "authorizing agencies" for CCW permits have done.) Only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations would be required.
Licenses would NOT be required for purchase of a gun.
Licenses would NOT be required for non-urban public land use, i.e. agricultural use (hunting/varmint control), ranges, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM hunting areas etc.
True gun safety could be taught in schools, not just anti-gun rhetoric.

“Registration” DMV style… Gun owners would “get”:

A Licensing & registration system that is useful (to the government) only after the fact, i.e. after the shooting stops (ignoring for the moment the fact of door-to-door tracking and confiscation – see California and NYC).
Registration of a firearm would NOT be required unless said firearm is to be USED in a public place. Custom/show guns, race-guns, long-arms or side arms, antiques, etc would be exempt unless they are to be commonly USED in public.
A DMV style registration system would deny “arsenal” registration rhetoric just as it currently does not apply to off-road “fleets”.
Removal of the National Firearms Act (1934) provisions against Class III (high performance/ specialized) weapons. If guns were to be treated as cars, the substantial similarity rules would apply. Just as "High Performance" or specialty vehicles are not restricted, except in their place of use (not on public roads), neither then could the law be justified in restricting the possession of "high performance" (Class III) firearms.

Law Enforcement:
Like Cars, so Guns. It can be truthfully stated that a gun in my possession, regardless of type, in a public place, is NOT being USED, only carried (much like towing a dragster), and therefore it need not be registered nor I licensed. However, should I use that firearm in said public place without License and Registration, I may be subject to penalty upon the assured following inquest … (to be judged by twelve) … perhaps.

Herein we see another potential benefit to "DMV style" gun laws... the principle of reasonable justification and good-Samaritan laws. I may speed, drive an unregistered car, drive without a license, etc in the commission of a life saving act. Judges and juries routinely throw out charges (if charges are even filed) of "rule violation" in such cases. Similar dismissals have obtained (and will continue to obtain) for many “rule violations” of current gun laws. Criminals would obviously receive no such benefit.

Admittedly, this “DMV-ing” argument plays into the Rights vs. Privileges debate, however, it has similarly been argued (with some precedent setting success) that motor vehicle ownership has grown from a privilege to a Right within today's society. (If motor vehicle ownership is now a Right (guaranteed nowhere) then how much more so is gun ownership?).

Sorry for the Thread Stopper.

Ok, Ok, I'll post it again...



Sorry for the Thread Stopper.

Like I didn't know that was coming.:p

Ok, Ok, I'll post it again...



Sorry for the Thread Stopper.
That's still a bit scary but it seems fair... I really don't like the idea of concealed weapons but that's more a matter of opinion than anything else. I guess anything that would encourage more responsibility and liability on the owner of the gun, the better I feel about it.

That's still a bit scary but it seems fair... I really don't like the idea of concealed weapons but that's more a matter of opinion than anything else. I guess anything that would encourage more responsibility and liability on the owner of the gun, the better I feel about it.

To a point. Do you support legislation making an owner liable for thier firearm being stolen and used in a crime?

I'm more for making people accountable for thier own actions.

<snippy> I guess anything that would encourage more responsibility and liability on the owner of the gun, the better I feel about it.
Got no issues here with that statement.

(edit - agree with Kecibukia's caveat)

niiice...

To a point. Do you support legislation making an owner liable for thier firearm being stolen and used in a crime?

I'm more for making people accountable for thier own actions.
Yes, I do... unless it was proven that the owner took precautions. For instance, if it was removed from a locked gun cabinet, I wouldn't look to the owner as being at fault.

Yes, I do... unless it was proven that the owner took precautions. For instance, if it was removed from a locked gun cabinet, I wouldn't look to the owner as being at fault.

See, now there's where we differ. I'm not one to blame an owner for the CRIMINAL activity of another. Especially when "safe storage" laws have been used to make ownership too expensive for your average person and make the firearm useless for self defense.

Going back to the car meme, would you hold an owner liable for having his car stolen and used in some criminal activity if they left it parked at a curb?

Howabout a computer user w/o updated firewalls etc. that gets hacked and its used in an illegal manner?

See, now there's where we differ. I'm not one to blame an owner for the CRIMINAL activity of another. Especially when "safe storage" laws have been used to make ownership too expensive for your average person and make the firearm useless for self defense.

Going back to the car meme, would you hold an owner liable for having his car stolen and used in some criminal activity if they left it parked at a curb?

Howabout a computer user w/o updated firewalls etc. that gets hacked and its used in an illegal manner?
If a car were only useful for quick get aways... then yes, I would hold the owner responsible for leaving it in a dumb place.

If a computer were only useful for illegal activity... then yes, I would hold the owner responsible.

A gun is only for shooting something. You should leave it in a place where irresponsible people cannot get to it easily.

If a car were only useful for quick get aways... then yes, I would hold the owner responsible for leaving it in a dumb place.

If a computer were only useful for illegal activity... then yes, I would hold the owner responsible.

A gun is only for shooting something. You should leave it in a place where irresponsible people cannot get to it easily.

Don't try and say a firearm is ONLY useful for illegal activities. I'm pretty sure you're not but it's heading there.

Having a firearm in my home does not mean it can be gotten to "easily". To get to it is called "breaking and entering", which is a crime.

Don't try and say a firearm is ONLY useful for illegal activities. I'm pretty sure you're not but it's heading there.

Having a firearm in my home does not mean it can be gotten to "easily". To get to it is called "breaking and entering", which is a crime.

What!? You can't be telling me that certain sports of the Olympics involving firearms are legal!!!

ZOMG!

Don't try and say a firearm is ONLY useful for illegal activities. I'm pretty sure you're not but it's heading there.

Having a firearm in my home does not mean it can be gotten to "easily". To get to it is called "breaking and entering", which is a crime.
What if it's a household member?

And you're right, I wasn't saying that a gun is only for illegal activities. But it is a weapon and one that should not be taken lightly.

(I'm also trying very hard to keep in mind that I do live in a place with a right to bear arms... but God help you gun owners when I'm king of the world.)

I'm more for making people accountable for thier own actions.

We tried that. People still managed to sue and win from Mac for 'making them fat' and there are numerous others of such cases. People don't like being held responsible for their actions.

It against human nature to take the blame if you can blame someone else.

We tried that. People still managed to sue and win from Mac for 'making them fat' and there are numerous others of such cases. People don't like being held responsible for their actions.

It against human nature to take the blame if you can blame someone else.

They didn't win.

A gun is only for shooting something. You should leave it in a place where irresponsible people cannot get to it easily.
A bat is only useful for hitting something, a knife is only useful for cutting something, and a drill is only good for putting holes in objects.

We tried that. People still managed to sue and win from Mac for 'making them fat' and there are numerous others of such cases. People don't like being held responsible for their actions.

It against human nature to take the blame if you can blame someone else.

Damn Straight! Taking blame is not something I like to fucking do!

Oh crap I just cussed in an open forum.....It's TV's fault! TV taught me them!

A bat is only useful for hitting something, a knife is only useful for cutting something, and a drill is only good for putting holes in objects.
Build a house or cook me some chicken with a gun, then we'll talk.

A gun is only for shooting something. You should leave it in a place where irresponsible people cannot get to it easily.
As long as you accept that the "something" being shot can be a legitimate target, like say, paper targets, tin cans, legal game and violent criminals.

But, in general, I agree - so long as you dont define "it in a place where irresponsible people cannot get to it easily" as "a $$$ government approved gun safe".

As long as you accept that the "something" being shot can be a legitimate target, like say, paper targets, tin cans, legal game and violent criminals.

But, in general, I agree - so long as you dont define "it in a place where irresponsible people cannot get to it easily" as "a $$$ government approved gun safe".
I'm not big on vigilantism (well, I am but I have a complex way of thinking about it) but yes... in a lot of cases, a violent criminal is a legitimate target and of course, inanimate objects.

To my way of thinking, I wouldn't find it irresponsible on the gun owner if it was in a wooden cabinet with say a master lock. As for those who say that it is inaccessible in the case of a home invasion... well, really. I'd be interested to see the figures in the cases where a gun was used successfully during a home invasion compared to figures with gun related accidents and suicides occuring in a home by a member of the household not authorized to use the gun.

Have these guys ever heard of the word OBJECTIVITY? As bad as Michael Moore, completely one sided and not at all informative. But, 10 out of 10 for entertainment.

We are assuming there is a reason for a rebellion, yes? Well something tells me that means the government has become corrupt and powerhungry, and most likely established a dictatorship. Dictatorships work on support from the military, so I think it is fairly safe to assume they have a very well disciplined military. And once they get power, they don't want to lose it. And would probably do whatever it takes to keep it. That includes the use of nuclear weaponry. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The US government wouldn't use nukes on US soil, as that would be counter-productive (the land/resourses would be useless to them as well). Also, the military personnel would be affected by the government establishing a dictatorship, and if we have a reason to rebel, they probably do too (regardless of their level of discipline).

Gun control is hitting what you aim at ... who would be against that? :p

I love that statement (I would've posted it if you didn't).

Have these guys ever heard of the word OBJECTIVITY? As bad as Michael Moore, completely one sided and not at all informative. But, 10 out of 10 for entertainment.

I disagree. Michael Moore intentionally misleads/misquotes people to get his side across. One specific example is cutting together multiple speeches (of different topics) by Charlton Heston for the specific purpose of misquoting him.

I love that statement (I would've posted it if you didn't).

Well I used to be very, very anti-gun ... but Syniks changed my mind. The only time anyone on NS changed my mind about anything.

While I'm not necessarily pro-gun, I now recognize that it is a basic freedom that all Americans have and is as important as Freedom of Speech and whatnot.

I don't own a gun, but I now would never make any attempt to stop you from owning as many, or as big, as you'd like.

Well I used to be very, very anti-gun ... but Syniks changed my mind. The only time anyone on NS changed my mind about anything. Allah Ackbar! I can die happy! :eek: ;)

While I'm not necessarily pro-gun, I now recognize that it is a basic freedom that all Americans have and is as important as Freedom of Speech and whatnot.

I don't own a gun, but I now would never make any attempt to stop you from owning as many, or as big, as you'd like.As it should be.

Though, 'twasn't really me that "changed your mind" so much as the basic truths presented and the willingness to set aside dogma and evaluate those truths. I just insist on being truthful and not dogmatic (I hope) and hope others do the same.

Guns aren't for everybody, but they aren't for nobody either. :D

Allah Ackbar! I can die happy! :eek: ;)

No you can't. :p You know you still want that little Syniks to teach to raise forum havoc in your wake.

Though, 'twasn't really me that "changed your mind" so much as the basic truths presented and the willingness to set aside dogma and evaluate those truths.

Don't be humble. You presented the arguments to me in a way I could understand. Kudos to you.

You have to assume the majority of the military would follow orders to fire on US civilians and that they wouldn't join them.
Then what is the point of the demand to own firearms if the military won't turn on the citizens?

Well I used to be very, very anti-gun ... but Syniks changed my mind. The only time anyone on NS changed my mind about anything.

While I'm not necessarily pro-gun, I now recognize that it is a basic freedom that all Americans have and is as important as Freedom of Speech and whatnot.

I don't own a gun, but I now would never make any attempt to stop you from owning as many, or as big, as you'd like.

The funny thing is, I don't, nor have I ever owned a firearm (although that might change within the next few months). Up until last month, I never fired one, either (I took the NRA pistol course). My roommate doesn't care for guns, but he is a firm believer in the Bill of Rights, so he took the class too.

Just some added info, I hit the metal target 8 out of 25 times when I went (with various calibers ranging from .22 to 9mm). For no firearms experience before, I'd think that was pretty good.

Sorry for the Thread Stopper.

First off the differences between a car and a gun are so numerous that any comparison between the two is dubious.

Were we to take on this same licensing, it is entirely possible for someone to walk out of jail, walk into a gun shop, walk around public, get stopped and searched by a cop, and not be hassled for the gun until after he shot someone? I mean I am sure he is going to be sweating the "firing a gun without a license" charge that is thrown on top of the murder charge :rolleyes:, but why make it so easy?

Just some added info, I hit the metal target 8 out of 25 times when I went (with various calibers ranging from .22 to 9mm). For no firearms experience before, I'd think that was pretty good.

I'm actually surprisingly good with a handgun. I once went with my grandfather to a shooting range and was able to hit a head target at 30 yards with an accuracy of 95% with a Glock made weapon. I'm sure I'd be a natural shooter if I wanted to be.

First off the differences between a car and a gun are so numerous that any comparison between the two is dubious.Well, yes. But it is an argument that is commonly used by anti-gun people. I thought turning it against them was a good idea... and it was somthing I wrote in 1999 that continues to be useful because anti-gun types keep saying "but we license cars! Why not guns?"

Click the link on my sig to my miniblog to see the whole, as published in the newspaper, article.
Were we to take on this same licensing, it is entirely possible for someone to walk out of jail, walk into a gun shop, walk around public, get stopped and searched by a cop, and not be hassled for the gun until after he shot someone? I mean I am sure he is going to be sweating the "firing a gun without a license" charge that is thrown on top of the murder charge :rolleyes:, but why make it so easy?
Well, yes. That's why it really isn't practical to use the comparison - and exactly why I make it in the way I do. Our regulation of firearms ownership is already significantly more stringent than that of cars, but the antis just don't get that.

I'm actually surprisingly good with a handgun. I once went with my grandfather to a shooting range and was able to hit a head target at 30 yards with an accuracy of 95% with a Glock made weapon. I'm sure I'd be a natural shooter if I wanted to be.
Range officer to Cadet Kuffs (Christian Slater - "Kuffs") after he makes a somewhat ragged 16-shot single hole in a police target:

"Where'd you learn to shoot like that?"

"I never shot a gun in my life."

"You're a natural!"

"You can be a natural at shooting?"

"You are."

"Heh!" :p

That video was Bullshit! :D

Well, yes. But it is an argument that is commonly used by anti-gun people. I thought turning it against them was a good idea... and it was somthing I wrote in 1999 that continues to be useful because anti-gun types keep saying "but we license cars! Why not guns?"

Click the link on my sig to my miniblog to see the whole, as published in the newspaper, article.

Well, yes. That's why it really isn't practical to use the comparison - and exactly why I make it in the way I do. Our regulation of firearms ownership is already significantly more stringent than that of cars, but the antis just don't get that.

Then I agree with you.

I also largely agree with the video, other than their interpretation of the 2nd.

Haha! That was funny. The name of the show says it all. That was complete bullshit.
They think private ownership of guns can defend us against the government? That is the funniest thing I have heard all day. The gun may be the ultimate equalizer when you are fighting other people with guns, but it doesn't mean shit when you are up against a tank and a helicopter. Ha, guns will protect us from the government. And push comes to shove, the government has the ultimate weapon on their side. Fear. And trust me, they can make us afraid. Anybody want to rebel after they threaten to use nuclear weapons? No, didn't think so. Man these guys are morons.



A: If you don’t think that small arms are a serious threat to a well armed military then you obviously have never studied Guerrilla tactics or “terrorist tactics as they label it now” Draw out conflict for as long as possible, cause fear and confusion, assimilate the populous, make the enemy’s followers question whether or not what they are doing is right, and most importantly break their will to fight. If you don’t believe me ask a Vietnam Vet.

B: The moment The United States uses nuclear weapons on its own people everyone will fight back, including other country’s with nukes, Americans often forget their not the only country with an insanely powerful army.

Hilarious, and for the most part I agree . . . but it would've been easier if they didn't use John R. Lott.

Although I do agree that the government needs to fear us.

Hilarious, and for the most part I agree . . . but it would've been easier if they didn't use John R. Lott.

Although I do agree that the government needs to fear us.
Yeah. Lott got greedy and wrecked his credibility with his antics. But his data is still better than Kellerman or Bellasides though.

(And if you have any affiliation with RKBA groups - esp. from Washington State - you would have been rolling your eyes at using Alan Gottleib too... :headbang: )

Haha! That was funny. The name of the show says it all. That was complete bullshit. They think private ownership of guns can defend us against the government?
It's better than nothing.

That is the funniest thing I have heard all day.
Then obviously, you didn't read your own post.

The gun may be the ultimate equalizer when you are fighting other people with guns, but it doesn't mean shit when you are up against a tank and a helicopter. Ha, guns will protect us from the government.
Actually, the government would rather have its hands full if mass rebellion broke out. Civilians are probably not the only ones that would take up arms; it's a pretty safe assumption that a healthy number of gun enthusiasts happen to be [or once were] in a military or law enforcement agency at some point themselves. The concept of an armed populace being utterly defenseless against a military complex is an overly simplistic and wholly naïve one. For historical references, I direct your attention to the American and French Revolutions. The rebel element generally found some way of getting their hands on heavy artillery; I fail to see how this would be impossible in today's day and age...

...if we have guns. If we don't, we might as well roll over and accept whatever heinous bullshit the government forces on us. A threat of reprisal must exist for the most greivous offenses against our basic rights. I daresay another 8 or 16 years of neoconservative politics might force the issue.

And push comes to shove, the government has the ultimate weapon on their side. Fear. And trust me, they can make us afraid. Anybody want to rebel after they threaten to use nuclear weapons? No, didn't think so. Man these guys are morons.
First of all, a government is not likely to nuke its own soil out of spite. Were a rebellion to arise, no administration could possibly afford to risk the long-term effects of such an attack in their own metropolitan areas. There's not much use in quashing a rebellion if there's nothing left to govern once they're done.

Secondly, fear is only as effective as you allow it to be. If you want to shit your pants and cower in a corner at your government's empty threats, then fine. I, for one, would rather make them put their money where their mouth is or die trying.

I daresay another 8 or 16 years of neoconservative politics might force the issue..

We can only hope, eh? I've got a 12-gauge in my closet and plenty of shells... ;)

Then what is the point of the demand to own firearms if the military won't turn on the citizens?

Because a goverment is far more reluctant to point guns at people who will point back. Almost any despot that has existed in the history of man banned weapons for citizens, and for good reason. An unarmed populace is unable to fight.

The thing is, if it ever does get bad enough, the government could still hold at the very least a small armed force, which would need to be quelled. In such situations, it is capable of buying absolute loyality, in one way or another.

Because a goverment is far more reluctant to point guns at people who will point back. Almost any despot that has existed in the history of man banned weapons for citizens, and for good reason. An unarmed populace is unable to fight.

There were lots of Ak-47's and RPGs knocking around Saddams Iraq.

There were lots of Ak-47's and RPGs knocking around Saddams Iraq.

Rebels tend not to follow the laws of the country they rebel against. Anyway, I didn't say that such acts actually worked to a great extent, and infact much of the time there are rebels present.

However, imagine if all citizens in Saddam's Iraq had guns. Do you seriously think that he would have, or even could have, oppressed his people as poorly before being overthrown? Likely not. If you give the ability to fight, and it makes it much harder to be oppressive.

There were lots of Ak-47's and RPGs knocking around Saddams Iraq.

From what I was told my Iraqis when I was there they were allowed 1 AK-47 per household, which is what they're also allowed now. And the only time they were supposed to have them outside of their house was for weddings and things like that, for celebratory fire.

During the invasion a lot of military facilities were simply abandoned, and all kinds of people came in and took whatever they want.

fail to see how this would be impossible in today's day and age...

...if we have guns. If we don't, we might as well roll over and accept whatever heinous bullshit the government forces on us. A threat of reprisal must exist for the most greivous offenses against our basic rights. I daresay another 8 or 16 years of neoconservative politics might force the issue.
Secondly, fear is only as effective as you allow it to be. If you want to shit your pants and cower in a corner at your government's empty threats, then fine. I, for one, would rather make them put their money where their mouth is or die trying.
This is something i can't understand from Americans. WHy are you ppl so shit-scared of your government?
The main reason bandied about constantly for gun ownership is that it protects the US citizen against an evil malicious government. The government that you elected. Why are you so afraid of the people you elect? Other countries with functioning democracies have strict gun laws and get along ok.
Why?
Because they trust the ppl they elect to pretty much do what they promised to do. If they don't, they're booted out next election.
To cling to the belief that having a gun somehow prevents dictatorship is to live in fear. Basically you're stating that you can't trust yourself to make a rational decision at the ballot box.
"Help me! I'm going to vote for a right-wing nutjob who's going to become an evil dictator! I can't stop myself! I can't think rationally anymore! Thank god I have my glock to keep my country safe!"



It is possible to have bloodless revolutions you know - Ukraine did it recently. And I notice the govt there is in danger of losing majority cause they haven't delivered on their promises. Democracy in action.

Rebels tend not to follow the laws of the country they rebel against. Anyway, I didn't say that such acts actually worked to a great extent, and infact much of the time there are rebels present.

However, imagine if all citizens in Saddam's Iraq had guns. Do you seriously think that he would have, or even could have, oppressed his people as poorly before being overthrown? Likely not. If you give the ability to fight, and it makes it much harder to be oppressive.
Actually, if even 5% of the population really wanted us gone, we'd be screwed. But the amount is much less than that.

It is possible to have bloodless revolutions you know - Ukraine did it recently. And I notice the govt there is in danger of losing majority cause they haven't delivered on their promises. Democracy in action.
Only because of international oversight. And I wouldn't call attempting to poison the opposition exactly bloodless.

They made some good points (and I liked "Guns, dont kill people and women dont kill people... men kill people"). Except they also made some very sloppy points and completely ridiculous ones too - overthrow of the US Govt? pahleeeeeeeeez

Go ahead and commit suicide if you wish.

I do believe that guns can be handy for protection so I'm not for banning guns but I do like to have a little gun control. I don't think we need assault rifles so much though. And I do think people should register for guns as well and we should do our best to keep them out of the hands of violent criminals. I'm sure we cant stop it completely but even if a small percent of violent criminals are kept from having them, thats a good thing.

I think some of you gun nutz are a bit too paranoid though. I've had run-ins with two gangs (yes, they had guns - I didn't - and they were violent assholes looking for trouble) and I came away alive, I did have few bruises but I wasn't killed or even hurt that badly because I am non-violent and can work magic with my mouth (no, not that way, well, yeah I can do that too but that has nothing to do with this story :p ).

Concealed carry is fine with me as I do think it's a good idea to keep the criminals scared of what they might run into.

On a somewhat similar note.. my friend from England enlightened me to the fact that they have Guns in England, just not hand guns, and that the ban went into effect like 10ish years ago. It was because they had a similar incident to columbine but it was some crazy guy that went into an elementary class and blew away the teacher and like 15 kids.

crazyness.

They made some good points (and I liked "Guns, dont kill people and women dont kill people... men kill people"). Except they also made some very sloppy points and completely ridiculous ones too - overthrow of the US Govt? pahleeeeeeeeez

Go ahead and commit suicide if you wish.

I do believe that guns can be handy for protection so I'm not for banning guns but I do like to have a little gun control. I don't think we need assault rifles so much though. And I do think people should register for guns as well and we should do our best to keep them out of the hands of violent criminals. I'm sure we cant stop it completely but even if a small percent of violent criminals are kept from having them, thats a good thing.

I think some of you gun nutz are a bit too paranoid though. I've had run-ins with two gangs (yes, they had guns - I didn't - and they were violent assholes looking for trouble) and I came away alive, I did have few bruises but I wasn't killed or even hurt that badly because I am non-violent and can work magic with my mouth (no, not that way, well, yeah I can do that too but that has nothing to do with this story :p ).

Concealed carry is fine with me as I do think it's a good idea to keep the criminals scared of what they might run into.

On a somewhat similar note.. my friend from England enlightened me to the fact that they have Guns in England, just not hand guns, and that the ban went into effect like 10ish years ago. It was because they had a similar incident to columbine but it was some crazy guy that went into an elementary class and blew away the teacher and like 15 kids.

crazyness.

The thing is, in the US, machine guns are regulated. New ones are considered post '86 dealer samples, and can't be owned by the general populous (only dealers/manufacturers with a certain type of Federal Firearms License can own/possess post '86 samples). Machine guns made previous to '86 require an NFA tax stamp ($200 fee, refundable if denied IIRC), and the chief law enforcement officer has to sign off on the NFA application before it's submitted to the BATFE (which has the final say on who gets a tax stamp). Semi auto firearms are not true assault weapons, although they are mislabeled/considered as such in 7 states (CA, CT, MA, NY, NJ, MD, and HI). Also, convicted felons in the US are not allowed to legally have/use firearms or ammunition.

I'm glad to hear that you survived your encounters without permanent physical harm, and hope that the criminals that were involved were prosecuted.

This is something i can't understand from Americans. WHy are you ppl so shit-scared of your government?
The main reason bandied about constantly for gun ownership is that it protects the US citizen against an evil malicious government. The government that you elected. Why are you so afraid of the people you elect? Other countries with functioning democracies have strict gun laws and get along ok.
Why?
Because they trust the ppl they elect to pretty much do what they promised to do. If they don't, they're booted out next election.
To cling to the belief that having a gun somehow prevents dictatorship is to live in fear. Basically you're stating that you can't trust yourself to make a rational decision at the ballot box.
"Help me! I'm going to vote for a right-wing nutjob who's going to become an evil dictator! I can't stop myself! I can't think rationally anymore! Thank god I have my glock to keep my country safe!"

It is possible to have bloodless revolutions you know - Ukraine did it recently. And I notice the govt there is in danger of losing majority cause they haven't delivered on their promises. Democracy in action.
First off, the fact that government is elected in no way protects the populace from it. Just because 51% [or more] of the population thinks its a good idea to put a certain group in power does not mean that those people necessarily have my best interests at heart--which is what I'm going to want from a politican if I'm going to vote for him/her [and yes, the pickins are slim]. Politicans in this country are invariably stupid, corrupt, or both. I can't think of any off the top of my head that got where they are today by "delivering on their promises."

Secondly, violent revolution isn't the only possible activity one can engage in when they own a gun. I own seven swords; that doesn't mean I impale people in a regular basis or that I want to impale people: I also own a .50 cal rifle; that doesn't mean I want to shoot anyone except possibly a burglar or the motherfuckers who keep vandalizing my car. Some people like to hunt with them, others shoot professionally or for fun: contrary to [apparently] popular belief, American's generally don't own guns so they can clutch them to their chests while looking anxiously towards Capital Hill for the Gestapo. The idea isn't so much that we're not trusting ourselves to make rational decisions at the ballot box so much as we don't trust a hundred million other nutjobs to make a rational decision at the ballot box. Your argument is specious because it assumes we want to carry weapons to correct our own mistakes; since if a despot comes to power and we didn't endorse it [which obviously would have to be the case for an armed rebellion to occur in the first place], the mistake is not ours but our neighbor's.

Lets put it this way: Do you trust the American voting public to make informed, rational decisions? Given their performance over the last 90 or so years, do you trust American politicians to uphold our rights and keep them sacrosanct?

If you answered "yes" to one or both questions, I must admit I'll be stricken dumb. There's not really any way to answer that without sounding horrifically patronizing and insulting.

-snip-

Fuck. I go off to do the dishes, and you log back on and reply to the very post I was looking forward to shredding.

Heh, sorry, it just sort of came out :p

You can still go on, if you'd like.

Heh, sorry, it just sort of came out :p

You can still go on, if you'd like.

Nah, you said everything I was going to say.

Well, the damage is done... My life may be shattered, but the night must go on.

It isn't. You can't buy a firearm w/ a criminal record along w/ some other restrictions.

You can buy a car w/o a drivers license. You just can't use it on public roads.

ditto

i know a guy with 5... not 1 but 5...dui convictions....he just bought a car and put it in his friends name...

he is far more dangerous then some guy with zip legal issues with a gun!

driving is a privaledge they tell us..and they are right to some extent..they maintain the roads,follow up accidents...etc...so i agree they have every right to regulate that.

but some guy sitting up on a hill that dont bother anyone...with his gun..is no threat...only if he carries it unstably into town does he become a threat.

so i agree with the attitude that if you allow someone to carry..they should pass muster..just as a driver.

but if your sitting on your property...go away...none of your biz.


actually..what the fuck you doing on my property..i hurt no one..go away...

and if you cant understand that...well your a sheeple.

i dont come to your home and tell you how to live..so what gives you the audacity to presume your above me,and can dictate how i live..as long as i bother no one or hurt no one..your no different then some religous zealot.

The show pretty much covers all the right points.

The show pretty much covers all the right points.

agreed here...gun control is stupid to the extreme.


it is akin to mind control.

before i get flamed...it is akin to pre emptive attacks on countries we think "may " be up to no good...and we all know how that goes.

i think if your in public with a gun/knife/car...any deadly object...you better be stable and licensed...but in your own home..the gov has no biz...unless your a freak....but the neighbors should beat your ass before the gov gets involved.
buy the time the gov gets involved...games is over...this directly relates to states rights by the way.

B E A utiful. I love watching Bullshit! Jacky Mason is the greatest Jew ever! What I'd like to know is how many gun control advocates have ever been the victim of a violent crime? I'm guessing not too many. I have been. I was in a restaurant with a friend of mine when an armed gunman came in and held up everybody (15 people). If anybody had a gun on them the outcome would've been completely different. The guy got away with about $400 - $500, $2 of which was mine that MOTHER FUCKER!!! I worked hard for that $2. I would've killed him over it too. If I had a gun on me at the time that is. The strangest thing about this that it took place less than a block away from a police station. One good thing that came from this is that our food and drinks were free thanks to the owner of the place and I got to be on the evening news the next day.

First off, the fact that government is elected in no way protects the populace from it. Just because 51% [or more] of the population thinks its a good idea to put a certain group in power does not mean that those people necessarily have my best interests at heart--which is what I'm going to want from a politican if I'm going to vote for him/her [and yes, the pickins are slim]. Politicans in this country are invariably stupid, corrupt, or both. I can't think of any off the top of my head that got where they are today by "delivering on their promises."

The idea isn't so much that we're not trusting ourselves to make rational decisions at the ballot box so much as we don't trust a hundred million other nutjobs to make a rational decision at the ballot box. Your argument is specious because it assumes we want to carry weapons to correct our own mistakes; since if a despot comes to power and we didn't endorse it [which obviously would have to be the case for an armed rebellion to occur in the first place], the mistake is not ours but our neighbor's.

Lets put it this way: Do you trust the American voting public to make informed, rational decisions? Given their performance over the last 90 or so years, do you trust American politicians to uphold our rights and keep them sacrosanct?

If you answered "yes" to one or both questions, I must admit I'll be stricken dumb. There's not really any way to answer that without sounding horrifically patronizing and insulting.
So in other words you live in fear that any govt elected is not going to have the american public's interests at heart. You live in fear that the american public isn't capable of making rational decisions. You live in fear that the american public could allow a dictatorship to occur and you have nothing but contempt for the decision-making ability of your fellow americans. The only thing that makes you feel safe in your world is hording a bunch of guns and knowing that all those ppl out there that you don't trust and whom you believe are incapable of rational thought when voting are hording guns as well.
okayyy....

So in other words you live in fear that any govt elected is not going to have the american public's interests at heart. You live in fear that the american public isn't capable of making rational decisions. You live in fear that the american public could allow a dictatorship to occur and you have nothing but contempt for the decision-making ability of your fellow americans. The only thing that makes you feel safe in your world is hording a bunch of guns and knowing that all those ppl out there that you don't trust and whom you believe are incapable of rational thought when voting are hording guns as well.
okayyy....
Swing and a miss. I don't fear these things because I have the power to correct them if they get out of hand. It would only be necessary to speak of fear in such broad terms if my government tried to strip me of this power.

I don't live in "fear" of the populace's shoddy decision-making skills, I live with the knowledge of the populace's shoddy decision making skills. I recognize the fact that they might at some point endorse some fascist whackjob who wants to throw me in a cage [physically or metaphorically--my insistence against either case will be a strong one].

You're twisting my words horribly and I don't care for it one goddamn bit. Moreover, you haven't answered a single one of my arguments, opting instead for a half-assed synopsis that misses the forest for the trees. You've got two more strikes if you'd care to establish any kind of credibility for yourself.

... I really don't like the idea of concealed weapons ...


On that point, I can't help noticing that it's really hard to conceal cars in public places, and strange as this may sound, I do tend to look at the faces and general deportment of the drivers. If they look intoxicated or otherwise not in control of themselves, or if they look aggressive or otherwise emotionally "stretched too tight", I can choose to avoid them. It's called "defensive driving", and the pedestrian version of that is slower-paced but similar.

I have what I consider compelling reasons for avoidance. [1] If I don't avoid them, I feel morally responsible actively to stop them if they really are likely to hurt other people. If the situation doesn't allow me to stop them, I'd rather not be there at all. [2] Avoidance, if there's opportunity, allows time for the situation to "cool off". [3] The auto is a proximity weapon; if it isn't near you, it can't hurt you. [4] It's all well and good talking about how my insurance might compensate me (or my widow), and how The Law will "punish" the person behaving criminally and "treat" him/her acting out of derangement, but by that time it's a bit late for me and whomever else they damage. 28.3495 grams of prevention is still worth 0.45359237 kilograms of cure in anyone's book.

Avoidance is more difficult when you're dealing with a concealed weapon. A lot of people walk around looking stressed or stoned, and if they're not in charge of vehicle, they aren't too dangerous unless someone gets too close, which I wouldn't do unless I have to intervene. "Too close" is hard to calculate when you're talking about a concealed object throwing tiny lethal projectiles over considerable distances at high speed.

If carrying a concealed weapon is made more commonplace, the opportunity for its misuse by someone experiencing emotional stress is increased to the levels of misuse of cars. But avoiding the person who might be about to abuse the gun will not be as easy.


Now for a slightly different but not completely separate point, as a specific consideration of the problem of concealed firearms, there are in any society some people who think that if they're losing an argument because they're wrong, they have the right to use force to win the argument. For that kind of person, if the gun is there they may resort to it. Scare-mongering? I don't think so. In the States, we've had instances of people being shot over things like parking spaces. While I've been living in the UK and around the rest of Europe, I've noticed it doesn't tend to be a problem. The worst that's likely to happen over a parking space is some swearing and the occasional punch in the face. Still wrong, but hardly ever fatal. The reason parking space shootings don't happen here? Guns aren't a fashion accessory and aren't a part of the self-image of the ordinary European. When the arguments break out, the gun's not ready to hand. The overgrown brat has to make do with less deadly ways to have his tantrum when he doesn't get his own way.

I realize this is unfair on the law-abiding person who doesn't want to abuse his or her weapon. After all, most gun-owners could wear a handgun under shirt or coat, or even carry a shotgun or assault rifle, into a bank and never even think of robbing the bank, right? Most gun-owners could get into a flaming row over a parking space or playing the stereo too loud or insulting somebody's spouse or partner, and never even consider shooting the other person, right? Of course, in just the same way that intoxicated drivers make up the minority of car owners, and (except maybe in the NYC greater metro) the same with aggressive drivers.

But unfairness to the gun-owner isn't the only relevant question. There is also unfairness to everyone else who can't tell the difference between a safe gun-carrier and a dangerous gun-carrier until the last moment: the moment the gun is out of the holster and the safety is flicked off. If people who want to live their lives in peace have to wait till then to dial "911" or "999" or "112" (pick as relevant), we might not live to complete the call.

At least with an intoxicated or aggressive driver, there is the possibility of "defensive driving" and being a careful pedestrian. This doesn't eliminate the danger completely, as statistics show, but it can reduce it. An aggressive gun-carrier doesn't wear a sign or issue periodic verbal warnings ("Caution: armed and potentially dangerous"), does he? One second, he's irritated but unarmed, the next second his gun can be in his hand. At that point it's too late.

The claim that gun restrictions are unfair are based on the fact that the chance of a gun-owner abusing his privilege is small; the claim that this unfairness is justified is based on the fact that if a gun-owner does abuse his privilege (can you say, "Columbine"?) the results can be irreversibly catastrophic.

They didn't win.


I guess we all should be glad they didn't decide to shoot somebody at McD's? :p

The US government wouldn't use nukes on US soil, as that would be counter-productive (the land/resourses would be useless to them as well). Also, the military personnel would be affected by the government establishing a dictatorship, and if we have a reason to rebel, they probably do too (regardless of their level of discipline).


The overwhelming firepower in the armed forces against any organized group in existence in the States right now (sorry to all those survivalist types who think they're "all that" -- you're not) is such that nukes are unnecessary.

The confidence that soldiers would be in solidarity with civilians really is touching, but it's historically not well-founded. Even putting military dictatorships aside, the armed forces don't have a great record of restraint in this area. Where civilians might feel we have a reason to rebel, the forces are more likely to feel they are the last bastions of Americanism.

I won't mention National Guardsmen -- practically civilians themselves in terms of where their true interests lay -- firing on and killing unarmed student demonstrators at Kent State University in 1970, although I could. Or even their use against non-violent civil rights demonstrators in the '50s and '60s. I'll just mention the way the fear of terrorism has already been used to prepare us all to believe that "extraordinary" measures may have to be used to prevent acts of terror. Mr Gonzalez believes it to the extent that he advocates setting aside the Geneva convention. Our soldiers believe this; and soldiers don't tend to be good at disobeying orders or standing against the prevailing expectation of their fellow-soldiers. They're trained to obey and to be part of the team.

I'd be surprised if the Pentagon doesn't already have plans for handling anything that could be called a rebellion. And I'd be surprised if those plans don't include martial law, not because they want to do it, but because they fear they might need to do it.

Two things:

1. If our right to firearms extends from our need to fight oppressive government, could the government prosecute those who do use firearms with treason?

2. Their interpretation of the wording of the Second Amendment seems to purposefully leave out the word "free". They are correct in interpreting that a militia is necessary in protecting a state, but the founders included the word free. The free state, according to the founders was a government of the people.

When one combines these two things, one finds that the founders meant that a militia is necessary to defend a government of the people. Therefore, the right of the people to own guns stems from their right to form a militia.

The militia and the people are the same thing. Not potential opponents as they would have you believe.


Exactly, that was my problem with their interpretation, and as equal to the anti-gun movements interpretation as well... They set the two at odds (they are not) the latter sets the former over the latter.

The 2nd Amendment, as well as every codified law in my own state (and every codified law at the federal level), recognizes that the PEOPLE, that is the citizens of this nation, ARE the militia.

The overwhelming firepower in the armed forces against any organized group in existence in the States right now (sorry to all those survivalist types who think they're "all that" -- you're not) is such that nukes are unnecessary.

You're once again assuming that the entire military would follow the orders to fire on civilians. You're also assuming that the populace wouldn't arm themselves from local ANG centers. Glad to know you ignore those points.

The confidence that soldiers would be in solidarity with civilians really is touching, but it's historically not well-founded. Even putting military dictatorships aside, the armed forces don't have a great record of restraint in this area. Where civilians might feel we have a reason to rebel, the forces are more likely to feel they are the last bastions of Americanism.

Any evidence of this? No. Didn't think so.

I won't mention National Guardsmen -- practically civilians themselves in terms of where their true interests lay -- firing on and killing unarmed student demonstrators at Kent State University in 1970, although I could. Or even their use against non-violent civil rights demonstrators in the '50s and '60s. I'll just mention the way the fear of terrorism has already been used to prepare us all to believe that "extraordinary" measures may have to be used to prevent acts of terror. Mr Gonzalez believes it to the extent that he advocates setting aside the Geneva convention. Our soldiers believe this; and soldiers don't tend to be good at disobeying orders or standing against the prevailing expectation of their fellow-soldiers. They're trained to obey and to be part of the team.

Now not only are you showing a distinct lack of any knowledge of what happened at Kent State beyond a High School class level, you're also contradicting yourself from previous. The NG makes up a considerable percentage of the military and now you're relating them to the civilians.

You also show very little knowledge of the US military person beyond typical propoganda pieces.

I'd be surprised if the Pentagon doesn't already have plans for handling anything that could be called a rebellion. And I'd be surprised if those plans don't include martial law, not because they want to do it, but because they fear they might need to do it.

And you're still assuming that the military will follow those orders.

If carrying a concealed weapon is made more commonplace, the opportunity for its misuse by someone experiencing emotional stress is increased to the levels of misuse of cars. But avoiding the person who might be about to abuse the gun will not be as easy.

And yet the evidence of this is lacking. In EVERY state that has issued CC laws, the people who get them are considerably MORE law abiding than the average person.


Now for a slightly different but not completely separate point, as a specific consideration of the problem of concealed firearms, there are in any society some people who think that if they're losing an argument because they're wrong, they have the right to use force to win the argument. For that kind of person, if the gun is there they may resort to it. Scare-mongering? I don't think so. In the States, we've had instances of people being shot over things like parking spaces. While I've been living in the UK and around the rest of Europe, I've noticed it doesn't tend to be a problem. The worst that's likely to happen over a parking space is some swearing and the occasional punch in the face. Still wrong, but hardly ever fatal. The reason parking space shootings don't happen here? Guns aren't a fashion accessory and aren't a part of the self-image of the ordinary European. When the arguments break out, the gun's not ready to hand. The overgrown brat has to make do with less deadly ways to have his tantrum when he doesn't get his own way.

and how often does this happen by people who legally own firearms? Rarely in comparison to those who have them illegally. There are numerous countries that have higher ownership rates than the US and have lower crime. Firearm ownership has nothing to do w/ it.

Once again. As has been proven over and over, CCW holders are MORE law abiding than the average citizen.

I realize this is unfair on the law-abiding person who doesn't want to abuse his or her weapon. After all, most gun-owners could wear a handgun under shirt or coat, or even carry a shotgun or assault rifle, into a bank and never even think of robbing the bank, right? Most gun-owners could get into a flaming row over a parking space or playing the stereo too loud or insulting somebody's spouse or partner, and never even consider shooting the other person, right? Of course, in just the same way that intoxicated drivers make up the minority of car owners, and (except maybe in the NYC greater metro) the same with aggressive drivers.

And it's illegal to drive drunk. Most of the situations that you mention don't occur by legal owners.

But unfairness to the gun-owner isn't the only relevant question. There is also unfairness to everyone else who can't tell the difference between a safe gun-carrier and a dangerous gun-carrier until the last moment: the moment the gun is out of the holster and the safety is flicked off. If people who want to live their lives in peace have to wait till then to dial "911" or "999" or "112" (pick as relevant), we might not live to complete the call.

Once again. CCW holders are MORE law abiding than the average citizen. Over 50% of murders are committed by criminals out on parole, probation, or bail. They're not allowed firearms in the first place.

At least with an intoxicated or aggressive driver, there is the possibility of "defensive driving" and being a careful pedestrian. This doesn't eliminate the danger completely, as statistics show, but it can reduce it. An aggressive gun-carrier doesn't wear a sign or issue periodic verbal warnings ("Caution: armed and potentially dangerous"), does he? One second, he's irritated but unarmed, the next second his gun can be in his hand. At that point it's too late.

Once again, your hypothetical if false. You're basing your judgement on illegal activities which legal owners rarely commit.

The claim that gun restrictions are unfair are based on the fact that the chance of a gun-owner abusing his privilege is small; the claim that this unfairness is justified is based on the fact that if a gun-owner does abuse his privilege (can you say, "Columbine"?) the results can be irreversibly catastrophic.

Can you say that the Columbine killers weren't legal owners. They ILLEGALLY obtained firearms.

Can you say that there are hundreds of thousands of people who use firearms to protect themselves, legally, each year.

Cany you say that the yearly murder rate in Texas is 6/100K while the rate for CCW holders in Texas is less than .3

And the question must also be asked of where ultimately a soldier's loyalties will lie: The government or family? If a soldier were ordered to fire on a crowd of people which had probability of having a family member in it, would they? Every soldier has family, and in a time of full rebellion, every soldier would need to make such a decision. The only way the government could fully control the military is to destroy family loyalty.

And the question must also be asked of where ultimately a soldier's loyalties will lie: The government or family? If a soldier were ordered to fire on a crowd of people which had probability of having a family member in it, would they? Every soldier has family, and in a time of full rebellion, every soldier would need to make such a decision. The only way the government could fully control the military is to destroy family loyalty.

When I was in the Guard, we were going through training preparing for Y2K. After hearing what we would do if something did happen, one of they guys asked why should we abandon our families and show up at the unit, potentially leaving them in danger? There was pretty much universal consent. The OIC told us that if something did happen to bring our families w/ us to the building and they would be cared for.

Those who keep saying "The military is trained to only follow orders and kill" show that they know very little about the military.

Haha! That was funny. The name of the show says it all. That was complete bullshit.
They think private ownership of guns can defend us against the government? That is the funniest thing I have heard all day. The gun may be the ultimate equalizer when you are fighting other people with guns, but it doesn't mean shit when you are up against a tank and a helicopter. Ha, guns will protect us from the government. And push comes to shove, the government has the ultimate weapon on their side. Fear. And trust me, they can make us afraid. Anybody want to rebel after they threaten to use nuclear weapons? No, didn't think so. Man these guys are morons.

Your stupid.
Time and again throught ALL of history has shown that in the People vs. the Government, the People will always win, and btw dumbass, victory does not simply go to the one with the most firepower, we learned that mistake in oh lets say VIETNAM! Learn a little about warfare and history before you go making such statements.

and another thing, a second amrican revolution is on the way to becoming a reality, I personnally lead a guerrilla organistion known as the partisans, at the moment we have only about 20 people but our #'s and power will grow, contact me to find out how to assist us if you feel.

We are assuming there is a reason for a rebellion, yes? Well something tells me that means the government has become corrupt and powerhungry, and most likely established a dictatorship. Dictatorships work on support from the military, so I think it is fairly safe to assume they have a very well disciplined military. And once they get power, they don't want to lose it. And would probably do whatever it takes to keep it. That includes the use of nuclear weaponry. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I'd hate to bust your naive little bubble, but it already is, has been, and will continue to be.

Scenario: You get elected into congress, pledging to be a clean and perfect representative, uncorruptable and untouchable. The people you're representing are more than likely idiots - Unless you explain everything to them individually, with specific details (many of which would violate national security), then any one of your actions could be considered bad and would be turned against you in the next election. People are sheep, and can be herded very easily to vote for someone else if enough money is placed in the right corners.

Now, you have two choices: A - you could do the right thing, and continue to refuse bribes, not allowing corrupt lobbyists to influence you to do immoral things, while the ones they -are- bribing are against you and are afraid you'll try to show them for the bastards they are, so they do all they can to make sure you're not re-elected. Not just that, they may even go as far as to get you into legal trouble by framing you for something serious. You could do that and go down in history as a horrible and corrupt politician, or you could B - give in and accept the bribes, become a puppet of the system and the corporations, joining the others in unholy sanction of the almighty dollar and the much-ignored greed that drives it, going down in history as a decent guy, using spin and immoral campaigns, lies, and deceit to make people believe you're a good person, and making a career out of being a slave.

You're trapped. You can't get out of it once you're in it, and there's no way you can struggle loose. Even if you don't mean to be, you WILL be a corrupt bastard in politics. The people are too easily swayed, and money is too powerful a tool when trying to persuade someone.


If ever there were a time when we needed a revolution to start over and make things better, it would be now.

I love that show. A great series. My favorite was on the government support of the cult of AA.

I support every single person owning a gun, I also support every single person having to test to get a license for that gun and periodically retest.

Oh my God, gun control!!11!
I demand freedom to own a car! I will not renew my licence and you can't make me.
We can take your fucking car if you don't have a proper license.

We can take your fucking car if you don't have a proper license.

Only if you're driving it on a public road.

I can own and use any type of car I want on private land.

When I was in the Guard, we were going through training preparing for Y2K. After hearing what we would do if something did happen, one of they guys asked why should we abandon our families and show up at the unit, potentially leaving them in danger? There was pretty much universal consent. The OIC told us that if something did happen to bring our families w/ us to the building and they would be cared for.

Those who keep saying "The military is trained to only follow orders and kill" show that they know very little about the military.

I wasn't saying that at all. The point I was trying to get across is that if a family member(say mother/father/brother/sister/possibly wife) was involved in a rebellion, how would a soldier react? At the very least, the soldier would have reservations of firing upon their family.

Also, what I was saying, is that in order to have complete, 100% loyalty of the military, you must destroy family loyalty. I'm not saying that the government completely controls the military now, just that they would need to have complete control to have complete loyalty.

I wasn't saying that at all. The point I was trying to get across is that if a family member(say mother/father/brother/sister/possibly wife) was involved in a rebellion, how would a soldier react? At the very least, the soldier would have reservations of firing upon their family.

Also, what I was saying, is that in order to have complete, 100% loyalty of the military, you must destroy family loyalty. I'm not saying that the government completely controls the military now, just that they would need to have complete control to have complete loyalty.

I'm sorry. I was agreeing w/ you. I posted my story to point out that (at least at my old unit) our families came first.

The gun may be the ultimate equalizer when you are fighting other people with guns, but it doesn't mean shit when you are up against a tank and a helicopter.

Which is why government should place absolutely no restrictions whatsoever on civilian weapons ownership.

This is something i can't understand from Americans. WHy are you ppl so shit-scared of your government?

We're not scared of government.

We're scared of what government can potentially do.

The US was founded on the proposition that no majority, however large, may legitimately violate an individual's rights.

Weapons ownership is so we can fight back if the majority tries to do that anyway.

It's not that I don't trust myself to make a rational decision; it's that I can't force others to make rational decisions. As those who have rejected reason cannot be conquered by it, I am unable to convince those who would make irrational decisions the error of their ways by reason. If they attempt to violate me, I can only deal with them by force--because force is all they understand.