NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay.....this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_on_go_co/terror_suspects_guns) is going too far??

WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

Right, so who is a "suspected terrorist" again?

Anyone the government decrees, yes? No trial required?

Key terms and phrases: "suspected" and "give the attorney general the discretion."

Good for them.

My despise for the NRA is conflicting with my nonacceptance of the administration's definition of suspected terrorist.

Then I realize the NRA are a bunch of uncaring dicks who worship guns and this administration will be gone soon enough and I side with the administration.

Right, so who is a "suspected terrorist" again?

Anyone the government decrees, yes? No trial required?
From the article:

Hertling also notes there is a process to challenge denial of a sale.

Okay.....this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_on_go_co/terror_suspects_guns) is going too far??


That bill is dangerous, as it would give the government the ability to deny second amendment rights to anyone, just by declaring them a suspected terrorist.

My despise for the NRA is conflicting with my nonacceptance of the administration's definition of suspected terrorist.

Then I realize the NRA are a bunch of uncaring dicks who worship guns and this administration will be gone soon enough and I side with the administration.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if they put me in prison for being a suspected terrorist."

I'm gonna enjoy the leaps of illogic this thread is going to generate from those posters who think any gun control is evil, but that it's a-ok to deny suspected terrorists any other constitutional right.

That bill is dangerous, as it would give the government the ability to deny second amendment rights to anyone, just by declaring them a suspected terrorist.
You people are paranoid to the extreme?

Terrorists buying guns are okay? Shall they be allowed pilots licences too?

I'm gonna enjoy the leaps of illogic this thread is going to generate from those posters who think any gun control is evil, but that it's a-ok to deny suspected terrorists any other constitutional right.
Exactly!!!!

That bill is dangerous, as it would give the government the ability to deny second amendment rights to anyone, just by declaring them a suspected terrorist.
The NRA is unscrupulous and this administration is unscrupulous, the difference is, one goes away in a couple years.

I'm gonna enjoy the leaps of illogic this thread is going to generate from those posters who think any gun control is evil, but that it's a-ok to deny suspected terrorists any other constitutional right.

Speaking of logic, that's so far a strawman.

My despise for the NRA is conflicting with my nonacceptance of the administration's definition of suspected terrorist.

Then I realize the NRA are a bunch of uncaring dicks who worship guns and this administration will be gone soon enough and I side with the administration.


I'm in the NRA, I care about preventing firearms crime (by enforcing the laws we already have, instead of things like plea deals that drop firearms charges). Also, I don't worship firearms (I only have 1 right now, for shooting paper targets at ranges of hundreds of yards). When I'm not using my firearm, it has a trigger lock on it, in a locked case, in a locked safe. I don't believe people that worship firearms would have that many locks between them and their firearms.

The NRA is unscrupulous and this administration is unscrupulous, the difference is, one goes away in a couple years.

No, I'm pretty sure the difference is the NRA is a vocal but generally powerless organization of citizens, whereas the government is a murderous machine of conquest, war and death responsible for the erosion of citizen's rights, America's credibility in the international scene, continued poisoning the well in the Middle East and an increased level of international terrorism.

You people are paranoid to the extreme?

Terrorists buying guns are okay? Shall they be allowed pilots licences too?

I'm not paranoid, I'm suitably cautious about potential laws that could be expanded to affect me, even though I'm a law abiding citizen.

Also, the bill is for SUSPECTED terrorists, not convicted terrorists. Innocent until proven guilty.

No, I'm pretty sure the difference is the NRA is a vocal but generally powerless organization of citizens, whereas the government is a murderous machine of conquest, war and death responsible for the erosion of citizen's rights, America's credibility in the international scene, continued poisoning the well in the Middle East and an increased level of international terrorism.
Sure, the NRA is composed of a bunch of citizens. Citizens belonging to one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the country. I think you will find that the top 5 lobbyists, which the NRA is one of, are far more powerful than any single entity in government on internal issues, which this is. What does foreign policy have to do with this law?

Speaking of logic, that's so far a strawman.
Oh? You have read Dk's postings, have you not? I can start pulling up threads on gun control where many of the folks who are active in screaming about how any form is unacceptable are also in the other threads talking how GITMO is fine, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is fine, that Muslims need to understand that they should get extra checking at airports, and that wiretapping for suspected terrorists without court approval is fine.

What strawman are you speaking of then?

The NRA is unscrupulous and this administration is unscrupulous, the difference is, one goes away in a couple years.


The NRA is unscrupulous? Is this the same NRA that backed the NICS check, the same NRA that supports felons and ajudicated mentally incompetent people from posessing firearms, the same NRA that pushed for (and got) tougher prison sentences for armed felons (as well as other people already disqualified to posess firearms)?

I'm not paranoid, I'm suitably cautious about potential laws that could be expanded to affect me, even though I'm a law abiding citizen.
I respect your safe storage of your weapon, but you do seem to be exhibiting paranoia to a law that ultimately is aimed at the protection of ALL law abiding citizens?

Also, the bill is for SUSPECTED terrorists, not convicted terrorists. Innocent until proven guilty.
Slippery slope?

Suspects took flying lessons in Florida (http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/09/14/stories/03140002.htm)

Also, the bill is for SUSPECTED terrorists, not convicted terrorists. Innocent until proven guilty.

Well that used to be the case yes, not so much anymore though. It is a little saddening.

Oh? You have read Dk's postings, have you not?

...

What strawman are you speaking of then?

DK hasn't posted on this thread, so while your amazing predictive abilities might prove true, they might not, and in any case it seems to just forestall any reasonable discussion on this issue by immediately turning it into some "left/right" pissing contest where I am sadly left out, because I for one, support gun ownership, and do not condone unlawful imprisonment or other rights violations of "suspected terrorists" either.

DK hasn't posted on this thread, so while your amazing predictive abilities might prove true, they might not, and in any case it seems to just forestall any reasonable discussion on this issue by immediately turning it into some "left/right" pissing contest where I am sadly left out, because I for one, support gun ownership, and do not condone unlawful imprisonment or other rights violations of "suspected terrorists" either.
DK is but one of the usual suspects around here. And I am sorry I left you out of my observation, I'll try harder to find a way to include you so you don't feel unloved next time, ok?

Sure, the NRA is composed of a bunch of citizens. Citizens belonging to one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the country. I think you will find that the top 5 lobbyists, which the NRA is one of, are far more powerful than any single entity in government on internal issues, which this is. What does foreign policy have to do with this law?

Nothing, except you are suggesting that the administration is somehow better to align oneself with purely on the basis that it isn't the NRA. Which it might be, if you ignore the entire spectrum of ethical considerations which differentiate the NRA from the Bush administration in rather drastic and crucial ways.

A few less people with guns, sounds like a perfectly good idea to me. Hell make it so noone can have guns, then theres no discrimination at all =)

DK is but one of the usual suspects around here. And I am sorry I left you out of my observation, I'll try harder to find a way to include you so you don't feel unloved next time, ok?

OK, you and others could help most though by not declaring that you're either "left" or "right," like:

1) Supports throwing terrorist suspects into Guantanamo for indefinite amounts of time to be tortured. Supports gun ownership.
2) Opposes throwing terrorist suspects into Guantanamo for indefinite amounts of time to be tortured. Opposes gun ownership.

I mean, there ARE other ways to think.

I respect your safe storage of your weapon, but you do seem to be exhibiting paranoia to a law that ultimately is aimed at the protection of ALL law abiding citizens?


Slippery slope?

Suspects took flying lessons in Florida (http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/09/14/stories/03140002.htm)

How does a law that prevents an innocent person from purchasing a firearm protect me? I'm an innocent person, but what if I was classified as a suspected terrorist for whatever reason (even though it's not true)? Does that mean that you support the government taking away my property (or denying my purchase of similar), simply on an accusation? I would support firearms being denied to anyone convicted of terrorism (or any other felony/violent crime, as well as anyone ajudicated mentally incompetent), but that's not what this law states. It is WAY too loosely worded for my liking.

How is my argument a slippery slope? Innocent until proven guilty is one of the supreme laws of the US. Should we start denying freedoms based soley on accusations, hunches, and hearsay now? I don't believe so, people should need to be convicted first, and I still support innocent until proven guilty.

A few less people with guns, sounds like a perfectly good idea to me. Hell make it so noone can have guns except criminals (which will keep theirs regardless of the laws), then theres no discrimination at all =)


Fixed it for you.

OK, you and others could help most though by not declaring that you're either "left" or "right," like:

1) Supports throwing terrorist suspects into Guantanamo for indefinite amounts of time to be tortured. Supports gun ownership.
2) Opposes throwing terrorist suspects into Guantanamo for indefinite amounts of time to be tortured. Opposes gun ownership.

I mean, there ARE other ways to think.
Now where did I in my original post state ANYTHING to do with Left or Right? I didn't even say anything about your two choices up above. In case your memory is failing I said only, "I'm gonna enjoy the leaps of illogic this thread is going to generate from those posters who think any gun control is evil, but that it's a-ok to deny suspected terrorists any other constitutional right."

Now note that I didn't say ALL posters who think that gun control is evil also think that the other rights for suspected terrorists is a-ok. Nor did I state the opposite. I DID note that there is a number of people on this board who do have posting histories in both camps. That doesn't include you, nor was that post meant to include anyone who doesn't do both.

In other words, it ain't about you, and it doesn't any anything like you claim.

I'm gonna enjoy the leaps of illogic this thread is going to generate from those posters who think any gun control is evil, but that it's a-ok to deny suspected terrorists any other constitutional right.

At the other end of the spectrum are those that champion those same suspected terrorists' rights but are all for denying them their second amendment rights at the whim of those the second amendment is designed to protect us from: Government.

Can't there ever be a happy medium? :(

Can't there ever be a happy medium? :(
Here? On NSG?! Perish the thought! :p

That being said, I actually do agree with the NRA on this one as I don't think that being suspected of anything means you lose rights.

Here? On NSG?! Perish the thought! :p

That being said, I actually do agree with the NRA on this one as I don't think that being suspected of anything means you lose rights.

:fluffle:

I have to say that while I'm no fan of guns, I don't like the idea of taking things away from people you 'suspect' of doing something. If you have a case, make it. If you think there's a case, investigate it, but to start condemning the accuses before they are convicted, I don't like the feel of it at all.

Government: All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspected, now would they? Obey. Obey! OBEY!

NRA: Everyone should have a gun because we'll need them for when the zombies attack.

I'm going to have to side with the NRA on this one. If government can stop people from owning weapons by simply placing them on some list without actually proving they did anything, what's to stop this institution of boundless caring from placing potential enemies on said list then running amok with the rest of our rights? In case you didn't notice, having the power to rise up against a tyrannical government is what preserves your rights and what gives you that power is weapons.

You people are paranoid to the extreme?

Terrorists buying guns are okay? Shall they be allowed pilots licences too?

Seems fair enough, planes can be weapons after all...

If it only relates to firearm weapons then a WW2 era plane (with any kind of gun/cannon) or just tape a pistol on a plane!

No, I'm pretty sure the difference is the NRA is a vocal but generally powerless organization of citizens, whereas the government is a murderous machine of conquest, war and death responsible for the erosion of citizen's rights, America's credibility in the international scene, continued poisoning the well in the Middle East and an increased level of international terrorism.

Are you talking about all governments or just this one?

Right, so who is a "suspected terrorist"?
required?anyone on the No-Fly list
.
Anyone the government decrees, yes?that is what I just said..

http://www.the-modeling-agency.com/images/blind_dart.jpg

I think both sides are tossers.

Whilst I do support a no guns-almost no guns for civilians I wouldn't support this particalur piece of law.

Now if it was for people that had passed araignment (so was heading off for a full trial) on terrorist charges I would support it. Only problem is that by the time they have been charged they are either: A) Held without bail or B) Wouldn't be able to do anything in terms of hijackings or explosions (unless you count assasainations).

Innocent until proven guilty.

This is as stupid as the no-fly list - we shouldn't be denying people their rights until there's some form of proof of their guilt.

If they have enough proof that you are planning a terrorist act, they can do better than just restrict gun sales. If they have clear evidence they should arrest that person and give him/her a fair trial! If the evidence for that is not enoough they can LEAVE THEM ALONE! Anyone remembers Innocent until proven guilty? tyvm!

Government: All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn't be suspected, now would they? Obey. Obey! OBEY!

NRA: Everyone should have a gun because we'll need them for when the zombies attack.

I'm going to have to side with the NRA on this one. If government can stop people from owning weapons by simply placing them on some list without actually proving they did anything, what's to stop this institution of boundless caring from placing potential enemies on said list then running amok with the rest of our rights? In case you didn't notice, having the power to rise up against a tyrannical government is what preserves your rights and what gives you that power is weapons.

I've never bought that piece of rhetoric. It might have been true in George Washington's day, when the US itself didn't really have a standing army, but time and time again it's been proven that no matter how many guns you have, the National Guard has more. And better tanks. It just doesn't hold true anymore.

The problem is that we can't trust the current government to use the power to declare someone a potential terrorist accurately, much less fairly. And if the no-fly list is being used as a basis for this, jesus-effing-christ that's going to be a fucked up situation. I'm a liberal, don't own a gun, don't want to own a gun, think that our gun control laws ought to be way more stringent than they are and even I don't like this legislation. Why? Because it gives the Attorney General's office way too much power to determine who can and can't buy one. If I trusted my government to be fair, maybe I'd give them the benefit of the doubt--but this government? The one that fires people because they're doing their jobs too well? No thanks. I'll take my chances with suspected terrorists, especially if those suspected terrorists include 70 year old nuns who were part of the peace movement in the 60s (famous occupants of the no-fly list).

Innocent until proven guilty.

This is as stupid as the no-fly list - we shouldn't be denying people their rights until there's some form of proof of their guilt.

Let's not forget that the 'no-fly' list has the guy who wrote Peace Train on it...

Let's not forget that the 'no-fly' list has the guy who wrote Peace Train on it...

And lots of people who just happen to have names similar to actual bad guys--and once you get on the list, it's damn near impossible to get off.

Yet another Washington power grab.

Today, castrate the second amendment.

Tomorrow, the first.

Yet another Washington power grab.

Today, castrate the second amendment.

Tomorrow, the first.
With things like 'free speech zones' it seems more like 'today the second, yesterday the first...'

I've never bought that piece of rhetoric. It might have been true in George Washington's day, when the US itself didn't really have a standing army, but time and time again it's been proven that no matter how many guns you have, the National Guard has more. And better tanks. It just doesn't hold true anymore.

True.

Let's not forget that the 'no-fly' list has the guy who wrote Peace Train on it...

It has Dr. Gregory House on it.

Well, not really, because he's not a real person. But, if anybody remembers Season Two, House ends up on the no-fly list.

Remember!

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/09/14/house_narrowweb__200x270.jpg

THIS IS YOUR TERRORIST ENEMY!

It has Dr. Gregory House on it.

Well, not really, because he's not a real person. But, if anybody remembers Season Two, House ends up on the no-fly list.

Remember!

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/09/14/house_narrowweb__200x270.jpg

THIS IS YOUR TERRORIST ENEMY!

Your knowledge of House disturbs me.

I must note, Allanea, that you fail. House flew on an Air Malaysia flight in a recent episode.

I've never bought that piece of rhetoric. It might have been true in George Washington's day, when the US itself didn't really have a standing army, but time and time again it's been proven that no matter how many guns you have, the National Guard has more. And better tanks. It just doesn't hold true anymore.
That is exactly what I was writing in a Letter to the Editor. You can point out that the Second Amendment was supposed to "protect your from and help prevent tyranny of the government" all you want, it worked perfectly back then - when everyone was armed with the black-powder muskets. Not so much now when the Army has smart bombs, tanks, body armor, and heavy arms and you have a shotgun.

The guy that caused me to write in talked about how "Krystalnacht might have been different if the populace was armed." Sure it would, there wouldn't be so many Jews left alive. The only thing protecting the people from the government is the government's aversion to having people killed en masse. When they start having no problems executing you on the spot, you immediately lose the ability to put up a defense without matching technology.

I've never bought that piece of rhetoric. It might have been true in George Washington's day, when the US itself didn't really have a standing army, but time and time again it's been proven that no matter how many guns you have, the National Guard has more. And better tanks. It just doesn't hold true anymore.


The thing is, the military has sworn an oath to defend the constitution. If the government tried anything that would warrant a revolution, the government may very well find that they are looking at the military on the opposing side of the field of battle.

The thing is, the military has sworn an oath to defend the constitution. If the government tried anything that would warrant a revolution, the government may very well find that they are looking at the military on the opposing side of the field of battle.
Alright, let's actually look at this:

There's four situations that I can foresee.

1. The second amendment is superseded by another amendment banning guns. Said amendment would have to pass both houses of Congress by 2/3 majority and pass muster by 2/3 of the states (hardly possibly, but we're playing let's pretend). Given this isn't just a majority, but a super majority, anyone holding on to their guns are criminals and can be hunted as such. It's the few vs the country. The few lose.

2. The government somehow becomes a tyranny (again, hard to say how). Said government however does not secure the military or only part of the military. The result is civil war. The guns owned by civilians won't do much in such a situation as it's the US's top military tech against itself.

3. The government becomes a tyranny and either secures the whole of the military or IS the military. Again, civilian weapons won't do much against top military tech to actually defeat them.

4. The US is somehow taken over by a foreign power. The US military is destroyed. Honestly, anything that can do THAT is gonna laugh at civilian weapons.

In any situation, the argument that people need guns to defend themselves from the government makes no sense.

US Army > Iraqi millitants, and we can all see how well that's panning out.

Excusing the Hyperboles, and a shoutout to Allanea, this 'No-Guns' list seems to be just another way for the administration to seem to be helping the people, by just castrating their rights, and needlessly inconveniencing citizens.

I'm sure we all remember this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Well armed students, taking down a school shooter, avoiding a V Tech, before V Tech.

And we can all cite sources about British violent and gun crime, seeing their crime rate soar when US crime rates fall.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm

The fact is, that no one could have caught Cho, nor could anyone stop him from getting a gun. Many find it disturbing that people can kill you at any moment for any reason, but that is no reason to panic and let your knee jerk reactions get in the way of common sense and statistics.

Allowing the responsible public to have access to guns, prevents crime, and statistically there is no argument against that. But if you cut off guns to everyone, imagine all those that could have been saved by guns, or by the fact that a burglar was too scared because there might have been guns, dead, along with the psychopaths who do school shootings, because they would have gotten illegal guns, all dead.

There is no way there can be enough police officers to protect us at all times. And even if we banned guns and hired 10 times more cops, they would all be tied up, locking up gun owners and trying to stop guns from coming into the country to protect us.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

This quote is on the Statue of friggin' Liberty, at least according to the Jefferson Library.

US Army > Iraqi millitants, and we can all see how well that's panning out.
QFMT. And although I usually side with the State in most things, being of the belief that we owe those many might deride as 'statists' like Julius Caesar or Napoleon Bonaparte most of the actual progress in the world; by dint of their kicking (sometimes literally) the most hidebound of the traditionalists out of power, and thus making innovation by individuals socially desirable as opposed to taboo, this proposed law is made of utter ph41l just like the no-fly list. And, what a surprise, for the exact same reasons; because those composing it are as much in a mood to exorcise personal political demons from their own pasts as worried about any more current threats. Utterly pathetic, really; especially once the name confusions are factored in.
Technophiles, remember this please: If it hurts, it works. Although a truly genocidal government could sweep away most civilian resistance (= irregular light infantry) easily, they would most likely be dealing with increased odds of their own units defecting in disgust as the campaign got bloodier unless the dicatorship in question is something like a RL version of Kraven. Hence, in the tradeoff between avoiding alienating your entire tyrannized populace verusus going for maximum destruction/intimidation at the price of higher defection risk, odds are the rebels still have the better deal of things however badly outgunned; unless the government proves it's as concerned with building as killing (in which case, the odds of it being a RL Kraven diminish accordingly). In that case however, the government's odds of compromising out of concern for its own self-image (not actual kindness, almost certainly) also increase accordingly.

I've never bought that piece of rhetoric. It might have been true in George Washington's day, when the US itself didn't really have a standing army, but time and time again it's been proven that no matter how many guns you have, the National Guard has more. And better tanks. It just doesn't hold true anymore.
There are about 80 million gun owners in the US with some 250 million guns dispersed among them. The US military consists of less than 5 million soldiers, many of which have never actually seen combat. Even disorganized and poorly trained, the citizenry vastly outnumbers the militay. And you'd have a damn hard time justifying the murder of 80 million people.

Still, there is always the case to be made for self-defense. Go to any prison and ask the inmates if they'd rather mug a paranoid nut with 6 guns on him at all times or the cowering pacifist? Not many that would take the former.

US Army > Iraqi millitants, and we can all see how well that's panning out.
Here's the difference though, the Iraqi militants never face the US Army in the open and fight. They are using other tactics than gun battles to try and drive the US away. They know they can't overthrow the US.

In the case of the first three situations that I typed, all the armed people in the US couldn't overthrow the government and you can't drive people who are home away.

There are about 80 million gun owners in the US with some 250 million guns dispersed among them. The US military consists of less than 5 million soldiers, many of which have never actually seen combat. Even disorganized and poorly trained, the citizenry vastly outnumbers the militay. And you'd have a damn hard time justifying the murder of 80 million people.
1. Military training is far better, combat experience or not, than your average shooter who gets what, a weekend or so at the firing range? 2. Why would they care about killing 80 million people? They wouldn't have to after all.

US Army > Iraqi millitants, and we can all see how well that's panning out.

Now multiply that by ten. *nod*

Here's the difference though, the Iraqi militants never face the US Army in the open and fight. They are using other tactics than gun battles to try and drive the US away. They know they can't overthrow the US.

In the case of the first three situations that I typed, all the armed people in the US couldn't overthrow the government and you can't drive people who are home away.

Actually, the situation for the military would be even worse because there's no 'friendly zone' to fall back into. The very people the military would be fighting would be the same people they depend on for resources. Factor in those in the military that side with the people(and their own families) and desert and provide better weapons and training to the rebels and it's pretty obvious that no army in the world can enforce it's will on an armed population of 300 million. Not by a longshot.

Actually, the situation for the military would be even worse because there's no 'friendly zone' to fall back into. The very people the military would be fighting would be the same people they depend on for resources. Factor in those in the military that side with the people(and their own families) and desert and provide better weapons and training to the rebels and it's pretty obvious that no army in the world can enforce it's will on an armed population of 300 million. Not by a longshot.
Actually, yes they can. Here's how. They bomb you flat. The use nuclear weapons and wipe out a town and make damn sure that they broadcast that they will keep going.

You guys are assuming that the people doing this would be nice, I don't think they would be. I think that they would be rat bastards who would have no qualms using fear and removing a few cities from the map in order to make their point. You oppose us, we kill you. You move, we kill your families. We irradiate the very ground and you won't be getting near it for a few centuries.

If it got that bad, that's what we would be facing. Sorry, but cowboy day dreams really won't be saving the day here.

Actually, yes they can. Here's how. They bomb you flat. The use nuclear weapons and wipe out a town and make damn sure that they broadcast that they will keep going.

You guys are assuming that the people doing this would be nice, I don't think they would be. I think that they would be rat bastards who would have no qualms using fear and removing a few cities from the map in order to make their point. You oppose us, we kill you. You move, we kill your families. We irradiate the very ground and you won't be getting near it for a few centuries.

If it got that bad, that's what we would be facing. Sorry, but cowboy day dreams really won't be saving the day here.


Hopefully, we'll never find out who's right, but I think you underestimate people in general, and Americans in particular. We like war. We're good at it. :cool: *nod*

Hopefully, we'll never find out who's right, but I think you underestimate people in general, and Americans in particular. We like war. We're good at it. :cool: *nod*
I hope and pray that we never do too.

But, LG, that's what I am basing my assessment on. If it did get that bad, it would be brother against brother once again.

I hope and pray that we never do too.

But, LG, that's what I am basing my assessment on. If it did get that bad, it would be brother against brother once again.

Well, more Americans died during the Civil War than any other. We kicked ass! :D

Well, more Americans died during the Civil War than any other. We kicked ass! :D
Well, yes, who else's asses did we have on hand to kick? ;)

Well, it IS a group all about guns, so it seems to make sense that they want more people with guns...

Actually, yes they can. Here's how. They bomb you flat. The use nuclear weapons and wipe out a town and make damn sure that they broadcast that they will keep going.

You guys are assuming that the people doing this would be nice, I don't think they would be. I think that they would be rat bastards who would have no qualms using fear and removing a few cities from the map in order to make their point. You oppose us, we kill you. You move, we kill your families. We irradiate the very ground and you won't be getting near it for a few centuries.

If it got that bad, that's what we would be facing. Sorry, but cowboy day dreams really won't be saving the day here.


The US would NEVER use nuclear weapons on its own soil. It would be contrary to their goals, and serve to galvanize the population against them.

Hopefully, we'll never find out who's right, but I think you underestimate people in general, and Americans in particular. We like war. We're good at it. :cool: *nod*

I think that only applies when it happens in other countries and on tv. If it occurred in your hometown on a regular basis, I think most Americans would get sick of it real fast.

The US would NEVER use nuclear weapons on its own soil. It would be contrary to their goals, and serve to galvanize the population against them.

The US as it is, probably. The US with a tyranny based government? Hardly. Well, for future prospects of later utilizing the land, maybe not. But that won't stop them from using FAE's to level the area.

I'm sure we all remember this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Well armed students, taking down a school shooter, avoiding a V Tech, before V Tech.
That bullshit has already been discussed. Totally different situation.

And we can all cite sources about British violent and gun crime, seeing their crime rate soar when US crime rates fall.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2656875.stm
I'm sure you of course realize that Britain and the US, and other countries, have different standards for classifying crimes.

The fact is, that no one could have caught Cho, nor could anyone stop him from getting a gun.
I'm sorry, what? If you paid attention, you would know that the states' failure to comply with federal regulations resulted in him being able to get guns he shouldn't have been able to get as a danger to himself and mentally unstable.

Allowing the responsible public to have access to guns, prevents crime, and statistically there is no argument against that.
It also gives criminals easy access to guns and increases the chance of some one dieing in a crime that shouldn't have resulted in anyone's death.

But if you cut off guns to everyone, imagine all those that could have been saved by guns, or by the fact that a burglar was too scared because there might have been guns, dead, along with the psychopaths who do school shootings, because they would have gotten illegal guns, all dead.
I'm done responding to poorly informed, delusional gun nuts.

OK, for now (despite what people say and do) it is a constitutional right to own a a gun (I prefer swords myself) within the United States of America.. people just need to fucking deal with it.

I support the law, and now for my reasoning.

Reasoning
Being suspected of being a terrorist these days is as simple registering as a democrat[/sarcasm]. In actuality though you can get flagged as a terrorist suspect for taking certain classes in college after 9/11. I took a political science and psychology class and BAM I was put on the watch list. I found out when I was a witness to a crime and the police took my information, the officer entered my ID into his little computer and says "Hey, do you realise your on the redlist?"
I haven't done anything! If I wanted a gun there is no reason to prevent me from getting one unless being a student is a major crime (then take me away and lock me up you fascist fucks; but I digress) the way the bill is written it grants a garanteed right for people in my predicament to buy a weapon if they so desire to. There are failsafes in place in case there is an actual reason to beleive you can't own one. It's not some half assed bill written by morons, its been thought through and planned out. There is no reason a bill like this should not pass; or do you want to further support Bush Baby's attempt to continue to tromp out constitutional rights?

I support the complete banning of semi-automatic and automatic weapons for civilian use entirely. What use does a law abiding citizen need a weapon like an AK-47, manufactured before or after any particular date?
The law, as far as I am concerned does not go far enough.
If the law IS passed, then it will simply be another piece of legislation enabling administration to futher harrass people in the US.
Of course, if the administration DOES have "suspicions" that these people are terrorists, why haven't they sent them to Guantanamo yet? Are there more than one type of terrorist, one of which it is imporant to keep away from planes and guns, but not from each other where they could plot the downfall of the American state?
If I was a terrorist, (and I'm not) and I found out that I couldn't buy a gun I would go home immidiantly, tell my cell that I had been compromised and shoot myself.
I would hope that terrorist suspects would be watched more suspectly.


See Wikipedia "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47" "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act"
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States"

The US would NEVER use nuclear weapons on its own soil. It would be contrary to their goals, and serve to galvanize the population against them.
You're assuming that such people would play nice. I don't think they would. I think such people who would suspend the Constitution would have no issues with removing a town giving them trouble to show what happens when you piss them off.

Hell, the US does that right NOW (just without the nuke part).

I support the complete banning of semi-automatic and automatic weapons for civilian use entirely. What use does a law abiding citizen need a weapon like an AK-47, manufactured before or after any particular date?
The law, as far as I am concerned does not go far enough.
If the law IS passed, then it will simply be another piece of legislation enabling administration to futher harrass people in the US.
Of course, if the administration DOES have "suspicions" that these people are terrorists, why haven't they sent them to Guantanamo yet? Are there more than one type of terrorist, one of which it is imporant to keep away from planes and guns, but not from each other where they could plot the downfall of the American state?
If I was a terrorist, (and I'm not) and I found out that I couldn't buy a gun I would go home immidiantly, tell my cell that I had been compromised and shoot myself.
I would hope that terrorist suspects would be watched more suspectly.


See Wikipedia "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47" "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act"
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States"

I use my AK-47 for target practice; nothing more.

I use my AK-47 for target practice; nothing more.

So you have no reason for having it, personally.

So you have no reason for having it, personally.

He has it for a sporting purpose. Target shooting.

"I support the complete banning of semi-automatic and automatic weapons for civilian use entirely. What use does a law abiding citizen need a weapon like an AK-47, manufactured before or after any particular date?"---Blackbug


There is only one reason why a civilian would ever need a semi-auto or automatic firearm.....self defense. A bolt-action, a muzzle loader, a revolver, a break action, a pump, a lever action.....if you cannot find one suitable for your particular hunting activity or that you would like to shoot paper targets with, it's your own fault for not looking hard enough.

there, i've gotten rid of the other reasons, now all you have to do is find a reason why self defense, the most basic of human rights, no longer applies. then, and only then, will there be logic behind your stance.

He has it for a sporting purpose. Target shooting.
So he has an AK-47 just to have one? Maybe he should get some more use out of it, fire it in the air at weddings and stuff.

So he has an AK-47 just to have one? Maybe he should get some more use out of it, fire it in the air at weddings and stuff.

Target shooting is a sport/sporting activity. Therefore, if he target shoots with an AK-47, he has a sporting purpose for having one. It's the same with me and my AR-15.

That would be a bad idea, because what comes up, must come down (unless the item reached escape velocity, which a bullet does not do). A responsible shooter wouldn't shoot into the air like that, since there's no telling where the bullet will land (it could end up going through a window, hitting a transformer, injuring someone, etc).

So you have no reason for having it, personally.

So you're kind of a shallow, personally.

So you're kind of a shallow, personally.

I meant you personally have no reason to have it.

I meant you personally have no reason to have it.

And I told you that I own a Norinco AK-47 7.62x39mm Assault rifle for the sake of shooting targets and sometimes catci whenever I'm out in the country.

And I told you that I own a Norinco AK-47 7.62x39mm Assault rifle for the sake of shooting targets and sometimes catci whenever I'm out in the country.

This definitely instills in me a want to support free gun ownership, especially of assault rifles.

This definitely instills in me a want to support free gun ownership, especially of assault rifles.

Why are you being such a smartass? You seem to think that my shooting PAPER TARGETS IS DANGEROUS.

What you can't seem to get through your head is that, I use my right to bear arms to shoot paper targets and/or cactus plants. I have never shot anything that moves or breathes, and I don't plan to. All 9 guns in my household have never been used to kill people, with the exception of the 77 year old Russian rifle I bought at the gun show.

People who don't know how to use font sizes safely go to the ignore list and really reinforce my opinion that assault rifles are extremely safe.

Alright, let's actually look at this:

There's four situations that I can foresee.

1. The second amendment is superseded by another amendment banning guns. Said amendment would have to pass both houses of Congress by 2/3 majority and pass muster by 2/3 of the states (hardly possibly, but we're playing let's pretend). Given this isn't just a majority, but a super majority, anyone holding on to their guns are criminals and can be hunted as such. It's the few vs the country. The few lose.

Yeah because no amendment has ever been passed unconstitutionally. Ohh wait ... the 16th Amendement was, ohh well nice try. You forget about the concept of "Innocent untill proven guilty" and the ability of "Jury Nulification". Juries are ALLOWED to nullify unjust and tyranical laws. Of course judges would have you think otherwise. More proof about the increasing Fascism in America today.

2. The government somehow becomes a tyranny (again, hard to say how). Said government however does not secure the military or only part of the military. The result is civil war. The guns owned by civilians won't do much in such a situation as it's the US's top military tech against itself.

Underestimate your opponent. Great thinking because plans always work out like they are supposed to.

3. The government becomes a tyranny and either secures the whole of the military or IS the military. Again, civilian weapons won't do much against top military tech to actually defeat them.

Yeah nuke and carpet bomb all of America. That way you can rule a Socalist Totalitarian Police State populated by rubble. Wait ... it would be radiated rubble, my apologies.

Sorry our armed forces number, what, 1.5 million (That is a generous number btw). How many gun owners are there in America? 250 million? Many, like myself, with multiple guns. Don't ever think that in a "David vs Goliath" fight that Goliath will always win. Again, underestimating your opponent.

4. The US is somehow taken over by a foreign power. The US military is destroyed. Honestly, anything that can do THAT is gonna laugh at civilian weapons.

Non sequitor specualtion.

People who don't know how to use font sizes safely go to the ignore list and really reinforce my opinion that assault rifles are extremely safe.

Sorry, I used the largest font possible because you seem to be deaf to logic and reason.

People who don't know how to use font sizes safely go to the ignore list and really reinforce my opinion that assault rifles are extremely safe.

lol

Sorry our armed forces number, what, 1.5 million (That is a generous number btw). How many gun owners are there in America? 250 million? Many, like myself, with multiple guns. Don't ever think that in a "David vs Goliath" fight that Goliath will always win. Again, underestimating your opponent.

I don't know about that...

The army has things like Tanks and helicoptors, plus stuff we probably don't even know about.

Yeah nuke and carpet bomb all of America. That way you can rule a Socalist Totalitarian Police State populated by rubble. Wait ... it would be radiated rubble, my apologies.

Wait, are you under the impression that all the military has are guns and bombs?

I wonder why so many people here seem to think that US soldiers are bulletproof.

Wait, are you under the impression that all the military has are guns and bombs?

Even the beds are bombs. ANd don't get me started on the food. >.<

Alrighty then, let me see here:

Yeah because no amendment has ever been passed unconstitutionally. Ohh wait ... the 16th Amendement was, ohh well nice try. You forget about the concept of "Innocent untill proven guilty" and the ability of "Jury Nulification". Juries are ALLOWED to nullify unjust and tyranical laws. Of course judges would have you think otherwise. More proof about the increasing Fascism in America today.
Conspiracy theory about the 16th amendment, incoherent ranting that ignores the supremacy clause, oh yeah, we're off to a good start here.

Underestimate your opponent. Great thinking because plans always work out like they are supposed to.
Hmm... So it works out like this:

You vs. US military.

You: Armed with a rifle.
US Military: Armed with a tank and military training to use it.

You: "Take that, evil military!" BANG!
Bullet hits tank. Bullet: Tink!

US Military: ... Ok. BOOM!

You: Well, you just got pwned by a tank, I don't think you'd have a lot to say at that point.

If you want a very abject lesson about rifles and hand guns against modern military tech, look no further than Poland's attempt to repel Nazi Germany. Or the Charge of the Light Brigade. Either works.

Yeah nuke and carpet bomb all of America. That way you can rule a Socalist Totalitarian Police State populated by rubble. Wait ... it would be radiated rubble, my apologies.
-5 points for the socialist comment. -10 for not understanding the concept of hostage taking. The threat of a nuke, especially if a lesser town is wiped out, will work quite well.

Sorry our armed forces number, what, 1.5 million (That is a generous number btw). How many gun owners are there in America? 250 million? Many, like myself, with multiple guns. Don't ever think that in a "David vs Goliath" fight that Goliath will always win. Again, underestimating your opponent.
Actually there are about 80 million gun owners, about 250 million guns. However, the military (which has 1.5 million on active duty and 1.2 million on reserve) has the tech and the training. Can you give me an actual modern example when David actually clocked the hell out of Goliath? Because the military history I know says that well trained, well led, and well armed beats the hell out of mob mentality any day of the week.

Non sequitor specualtion.
They would have to bet the best military on the planet. Somehow destroy or make irrelevant the largest nuclear stockpile on the planet. Invade and conquer the third largest country on the planet in terms of size and population.

If they could do that, yeah, I don't think your cowboy wet dreams are going to worry them a whole hell of a lot.

Right, so who is a "suspected terrorist" again?

Anyone the government decrees, yes? No trial required?

Righty-ho. Damn, I hate myself for agreeing with NRA on this. Anyway, whoever has been found guilty of a violent crime should be denied the right to carry ANY kind of weapon.

Can you give me an actual modern example when David actually clocked the hell out of Goliath? Because the military history I know says that well trained, well led, and well armed beats the hell out of mob mentality any day of the week.


Uhh...

Vietnam. Afghanistan. (ok, those militias received some training and had good equipment).
Hezbollah vs Israel, last year. Iraqi insurgence vs Iraqi government and US+coalition. (sort of D vs G, don't you think?)

Goliath sometimes loses. Mostly because in today's world Goliath isn't allowed to use all its theoretical capability. Of course, reducing southern Lebanon or Iraq to radioactive glass would end Hezbollah and the Iraqi insurgence, and Israel and the US have the technical capability to do so, but the political consequences of that would be terrible.

Goliath sometimes loses. Mostly because in today's world Goliath isn't allowed to use all its theoretical capability. Of course, reducing southern Lebanon or Iraq to radioactive glass would end Hezbollah and the Iraqi insurgence, and Israel and the US have the technical capability to do so, but the political consequences of that would be terrible.

If someone deceided to set up a dictatorship or Junta I don't think that they would have too much of a problem with international pressure or following these steps:

A) In the years previous to the takeover indoctrinating the defence forces to make them non-defecting

B) Create tensions with a poor section of the country, make sure no millitary personnel is from that area then bomb it as an example to the rest of the populace.

C) Carefully deploying millitary bases as quick deployment facillities to be able to pacify the population.

D) In the weeks prior to the takeover arrest/kill as many gun holders that hold anything more powerful than a pistol (including handguns with high calibre ammunition.

If someone deceided to set up a dictatorship or Junta I don't think that they would have too much of a problem with international pressure or following these steps:

...

D) In the weeks prior to the takeover arrest/kill as many gun holders that hold anything more powerful than a pistol (including handguns with high calibre ammunition.

Or, in a more simple way, secure the support of NRA to the coup.;)

Or, in a more simple way, secure the support of NRA to the coup.;)

*Laughs* That would always work too.

Uhh...

Vietnam. Afghanistan. (ok, those militias received some training and had good equipment).
As you yourself admit. Actual training, good military equipment.

Hezbollah vs Israel, last year.
Not really. One, Hezbollah has military grade equipment, what is being brought up is US civilians with civilian weaponry fighting. Two, Hezbollah did not directly engage the Israeli SDF in a toe to toe, because they knew they would get their asses handed to them. Three, international and home pressure forced Israel to break it off. If we're talking about a home overthrow, I doubt they would listen to pressure. If we're talking another country... maybe, but doubtful.

A better example would be Israel and PA. The PA has been annoying the hell out of Israel for decades now, but there is no way it can militarily get rid of Israel.

Iraqi insurgence vs Iraqi government and US+coalition. (sort of D vs G, don't you think?)
Hardly, again, they aren't fighting battles because they know there's no way to beat the US in open warfare.

Goliath sometimes loses. Mostly because in today's world Goliath isn't allowed to use all its theoretical capability. Of course, reducing southern Lebanon or Iraq to radioactive glass would end Hezbollah and the Iraqi insurgence, and Israel and the US have the technical capability to do so, but the political consequences of that would be terrible.
You really think the type of government or occupier that can take over the US would worry about the political consequences?

A better example would be Israel and PA. The PA has been annoying the hell out of Israel for decades now, but there is no way it can militarily get rid of Israel.

Agreed.


Hardly, again, they aren't fighting battles because they know there's no way to beat the US in open warfare.
Exactly! That's how David wins, usually. Change the battlefield, change the type of war; play to your strengths and to the weaknesses of the enemy.


You really think the type of government or occupier that can take over the US would worry about the political consequences?

Yes. No one can win if he manages to pit himself against the whole world, don't you think so? Of course, if someone has the capability to take over the USA, most countries will be quite cautious in dealing with him.

Conspiracy theory about the 16th amendment, incoherent ranting that ignores the supremacy clause, oh yeah, we're off to a good start here.

Show me the Federal law that states I have to pay income taxes. Supreme court judges have ruled that not only does the 16th amanedment grant Congress no new taxing powers, they have admitted that it was not ratified by the proper number of states.

Even if you could find a Federal Law saying I have to file a 1040, it would be unconstitutional. Income tax is a direct tax and direct taxes must be apportioned as per the constitution. The Income tax granted by the 16th Amendment says otherwise. And even if you COULD find a Federal Law stating my compliance in filing a 1040, that law, too, would be void since Federal Law, as you stated, must obey the Constitution. The Constitution demands all Direct Taxes, of which the 16th Amendment is, to be apportioned. Federal Income taxes are NOT apportioned as demanded and are, therefore, void themselves since the 16th Amendment is, itself, void because it wasn't properly ratified by enough states. The Supremacy Clause didn't really help your argument.

Nice try though. Continue to throw out abject conspiracy accusations if it makes you feel like your arguement, if you wanna call this chicken scratch that, holds actual weight.


Hmm... So it works out like this:

You vs. US military.

You: Armed with a rifle.
US Military: Armed with a tank and military training to use it.

You: "Take that, evil military!" BANG!
Bullet hits tank. Bullet: Tink!

US Military: ... Ok. BOOM!

You: Well, you just got pwned by a tank, I don't think you'd have a lot to say at that point.

If you want a very abject lesson about rifles and hand guns against modern military tech, look no further than Poland's attempt to repel Nazi Germany. Or the Charge of the Light Brigade. Either works.

Wow your debating prowress is so fierce. How can I possibly deabte such a logical and mature answer :rolleyes:

Your ignorance blinds you from seeing that having an open-bolt machine gun doesn't make you more combat effective. Most civilian weapons are of higher caliber and power than most military weapons. You can thank NATO and the UN for that. Not to mention that most serious gun enthusist own military hardware themselves. I forgot though in your fantasy land only the military owns an M-16 or AK-47 and tanks are on permanent "God Mode". No wonder you are so upset. There there now ...

One word ... Switzerland.


-5 points for the socialist comment. -10 for not understanding the concept of hostage taking. The threat of a nuke, especially if a lesser town is wiped out, will work quite well.

Hostage taking has what to do with any of this? And I apoligize, I thought you understood the concept of what a "Socialist Totalitarian Police State" was. I'll break it down to a simple, but crude, answer for you ... Fascism.

-20 for actually deducting points from this like it was a test, and assuming I cared :rolleyes:


Actually there are about 80 million gun owners, about 250 million guns. However, the military (which has 1.5 million on active duty and 1.2 million on reserve) has the tech and the training. Can you give me an actual modern example when David actually clocked the hell out of Goliath? Because the military history I know says that well trained, well led, and well armed beats the hell out of mob mentality any day of the week.

Don't have to other people already have. (See the 2nd part of my 2nd rebuttal for the rest of what I would put here)

They would have to bet the best military on the planet. Somehow destroy or make irrelevant the largest nuclear stockpile on the planet. Invade and conquer the third largest country on the planet in terms of size and population.

If they could do that, yeah, I don't think your cowboy wet dreams are going to worry them a whole hell of a lot.

Quite a feat to achieve. When the aliens land, please let me know.

Okay.....this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_on_go_co/terror_suspects_guns) is going too far??

The NRA has gone over the top with this one. They should be ashamed of themselves.

I'm gonna enjoy the leaps of illogic this thread is going to generate from those posters who think any gun control is evil, but that it's a-ok to deny suspected terrorists any other constitutional right.

Pretty much.

With things like 'free speech zones' it seems more like 'today the second, yesterday the first...'

Even my university has a free speech zone for protestors. It is for safety reasons though they can travel anywhere but they cannot enter into any of the buildings.

Here's the difference though, the Iraqi militants never face the US Army in the open and fight. They are using other tactics than gun battles to try and drive the US away. They know they can't overthrow the US.

In the case of the first three situations that I typed, all the armed people in the US couldn't overthrow the government and you can't drive people who are home away.

You have a problem with your scenerios though. The US Citizens does not need to comfront the Military directly. We can do just what the terrorists are doing in Iraq and attacking military targets. using unconventional means. We are also forgetting the gangs that are everywhere. If there is a dictatorship, those guys would be the first to fight.

Actually, the situation for the military would be even worse because there's no 'friendly zone' to fall back into. The very people the military would be fighting would be the same people they depend on for resources. Factor in those in the military that side with the people(and their own families) and desert and provide better weapons and training to the rebels and it's pretty obvious that no army in the world can enforce it's will on an armed population of 300 million. Not by a longshot.

Well said Lunatic.

Actually, yes they can. Here's how. They bomb you flat. The use nuclear weapons and wipe out a town and make damn sure that they broadcast that they will keep going.

That will backfire on them.

You guys are assuming that the people doing this would be nice, I don't think they would be. I think that they would be rat bastards who would have no qualms using fear and removing a few cities from the map in order to make their point. You oppose us, we kill you. You move, we kill your families. We irradiate the very ground and you won't be getting near it for a few centuries.

And the International Community would indeed step in and that will be that.

If it got that bad, that's what we would be facing. Sorry, but cowboy day dreams really won't be saving the day here.

Except that this is so unlikely to happen that what you are saying is very very funny. Using nukes to qualm a population. that would backfire both domesticly and internationaly. Sorry but that flies in the face of reality.

You're assuming that such people would play nice. I don't think they would. I think such people who would suspend the Constitution would have no issues with removing a town giving them trouble to show what happens when you piss them off.

Hell, the US does that right NOW (just without the nuke part).

what town have we removed?

Yeah because no amendment has ever been passed unconstitutionally. Ohh wait ... the 16th Amendement was, ohh well nice try.

The 16th Amendment was passed unconstitionally? :confused:

Show me the Federal law that states I have to pay income taxes. Supreme court judges have ruled that not only does the 16th amanedment grant Congress no new taxing powers, they have admitted that it was not ratified by the proper number of states.

Historical evidence to back that assertion up will be great.

Historical evidence to back that assertion up will be great.

No, he's right. Supreme Court Judges HAVE said that.

He just left out the fact that they were the minority viewpoint. The actual ruling was otherwise.

No, he's right. Supreme Court Judges HAVE said that.

He just left out the fact that they were the minority viewpoint. The actual ruling was otherwise.

He would have been more correct to have said "Supreme Court Justices have said..." The ruling, as you mention, went quite the other way, and many a tax evader has gone to jail as a result.

And the International Community would indeed step in and that will be that.
Would they? We haven't seen much of the international community for a while.

Except that this is so unlikely to happen that what you are saying is very very funny. Using nukes to qualm a population. that would backfire both domesticly and internationaly. Sorry but that flies in the face of reality.
You're assuming that they would care. We're talking about a dictatorship. North Korea doesn't seem to care, Burma doesn't care. Hell, a lot of the dictatorships really don't give two whoops in hell about what the US, the UN, and the rest of the world thinks and does.

Again, you're assuming that they will play nice. I don't think they would.

what town have we removed?
Lately? Fallujah. Remember the US Marines got annoyed at the attacks and leveled the place?

8 consecutive posts by Lancaster.

Surley that should be a record?

Show me the Federal law that states I have to pay income taxes. Supreme court judges have ruled that not only does the 16th amanedment grant Congress no new taxing powers, they have admitted that it was not ratified by the proper number of states.

Even if you could find a Federal Law saying I have to file a 1040, it would be unconstitutional. Income tax is a direct tax and direct taxes must be apportioned as per the constitution. The Income tax granted by the 16th Amendment says otherwise. And even if you COULD find a Federal Law stating my compliance in filing a 1040, that law, too, would be void since Federal Law, as you stated, must obey the Constitution. The Constitution demands all Direct Taxes, of which the 16th Amendment is, to be apportioned. Federal Income taxes are NOT apportioned as demanded and are, therefore, void themselves since the 16th Amendment is, itself, void because it wasn't properly ratified by enough states. The Supremacy Clause didn't really help your argument.

Nice try though. Continue to throw out abject conspiracy accusations if it makes you feel like your arguement, if you wanna call this chicken scratch that, holds actual weight.
SCOTUS has rulled, repeatedly that the 16th was valid. It has rulled that Congress can get you to pay taxes and that the IRS does have the power to compel you to do so. So, yeah, you're ranting about conspiracies that have no basis in reality.

Wow your debating prowress is so fierce. How can I possibly deabte such a logical and mature answer :rolleyes:

Your ignorance blinds you from seeing that having an open-bolt machine gun doesn't make you more combat effective. Most civilian weapons are of higher caliber and power than most military weapons. You can thank NATO and the UN for that. Not to mention that most serious gun enthusist own military hardware themselves. I forgot though in your fantasy land only the military owns an M-16 or AK-47 and tanks are on permanent "God Mode". No wonder you are so upset. There there now ...
You own surfice to air? You own an aircraft carrier plus all the planes? You own bombs? You own a nuke?

God, THINK for once!

One word ... Switzerland.
Which means what? That is their own military. The guys going out and bunny blasting don't have the training.

Hostage taking has what to do with any of this? And I apoligize, I thought you understood the concept of what a "Socialist Totalitarian Police State" was. I'll break it down to a simple, but crude, answer for you ... Fascism.

-20 for actually deducting points from this like it was a test, and assuming I cared :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:

Don't have to other people already have. (See the 2nd part of my 2nd rebuttal for the rest of what I would put here)
Already answered, no one has yet to come up with anything.

Quite a feat to achieve. When the aliens land, please let me know.
Didn't get the 'Let's pretend part'

Would they? We haven't seen much of the international community for a while.

If the INternational community does not step in when there is a nuclear attack then the world can go to hell because other nations will use nukes to further there end because they see that the world community cannot stand up to such usage.

You're assuming that they would care. We're talking about a dictatorship. North Korea doesn't seem to care, Burma doesn't care. Hell, a lot of the dictatorships really don't give two whoops in hell about what the US, the UN, and the rest of the world thinks and does.

Again, you're assuming that they will play nice. I don't think they would.

Let us put North Korea into perspective! They are negotiating with 5 other nations. Last I heard, they are planning on shutting their reactor down. That is a wonderful step. As to the other dictators, most if not all do not have nuclear weapons. I am talking about nukes here. Not conventional weapons.

Lately? Fallujah. Remember the US Marines got annoyed at the attacks and leveled the place?

Then why is the city still standing? Oh wait. That is because the place was not leveled by the Americans.

Then why is the city still standing? Oh wait. That is because the place was not leveled by the Americans.
60% was leveled. Population at 20% pre-war. That's not good numbers. Add in, oh say the fire bombings of Tokyo and other WWII targets and you see my point. The US has leveled towns before.

60% was leveled. Population at 20% pre-war. That's not good numbers. Add in, oh say the fire bombings of Tokyo and other WWII targets and you see my point. The US has leveled towns before.
Don't forget the nukes! But seriously, the city is still standing, everyone in it just got shot or moved away.

If the INternational community does not step in when there is a nuclear attack then the world can go to hell because other nations will use nukes to further there end because they see that the world community cannot stand up to such usage.
Yes, it has done so well on confronting N. Korea, Iran, Israel, India, Pakastian and the like. So very well that we don't have any worries about nuclear proliferation and the orginal nuclear powers are it. /sarcasm.

Let us put North Korea into perspective! They are negotiating with 5 other nations. Last I heard, they are planning on shutting their reactor down. That is a wonderful step. As to the other dictators, most if not all do not have nuclear weapons. I am talking about nukes here. Not conventional weapons.
Have they done so yet? No. Do they still have the bombs, yes. And when did they actually start this, last October. It's May now and the world has condemned them for years.

Doesn't seem to make a difference.

60% was leveled. Population at 20% pre-war. That's not good numbers. Add in, oh say the fire bombings of Tokyo and other WWII targets and you see my point. The US has leveled towns before.

Let me see. You are talking about Faluja which was a terrorist strong hold, was given fair warning what was going to happen and then when the attack was over, most of the city was indeed left standing. A far better cry than a World War II air attack that did level entire towns. Oh and let us not forget that the Axis powers did the exact samething when it leveled whole towns in England and other places. Be advised that during World War II, there was no such thing as precision bombing. In Faluja there was. The fact that the whole town (including mosques) were still standing is testiment that the city was not leveled. In order for it to be leveled, not a single building would be left standing. The city was still standing at the end of the operation.

Yes, it has done so well on confronting N. Korea, Iran, Israel, India, Pakastian and the like. So very well that we don't have any worries about nuclear proliferation and the orginal nuclear powers are it. /sarcasm.

Have those nations used nuclear bombs? No they have not. Also, how many of the nations listed are part of the NPT? ONE and that is Iran. Negotiations are working with North Korea it seems at the moment just like they worked with Kazahkstan and South Africa.

Have they done so yet? No. Do they still have the bombs, yes. And when did they actually start this, last October.

That last part is up for debate NERVUN. I have a feeling this has been going on for a lot longer than last October. In fact, I am willing to place bets on that and I do not gamble.

It's May now and the world has condemned them for years.

Doesn't seem to make a difference.

It did when it came to Kazahkstan and South Africa. North Korea seems to be willing to give them up to but I am not going to hold my breath on them honoring any agreement.

Don't forget the nukes! But seriously, the city is still standing, everyone in it just got shot or moved away.
60% destroyed and population reduced by 70-80% is not still standing, except in the sense that some of the buildings are still there.

Let me see. You are talking about Faluja which was a terrorist strong hold, was given fair warning what was going to happen and then when the attack was over, most of the city was indeed left standing. A far better cry than a World War II air attack that did level entire towns. Oh and let us not forget that the Axis powers did the exact samething when it leveled whole towns in England and other places. Be advised that during World War II, there was no such thing as precision bombing. In Faluja there was. The fact that the whole town (including mosques) were still standing is testiment that the city was not leveled. In order for it to be leveled, not a single building would be left standing. The city was still standing at the end of the operation.
Quoting from Wiki now: "Falluja's compensation commissioner has reported that 36,000 of the city's 50,000 homes were destroyed, along with 60 schools and 65 mosques and shrines... Pre-offensive inhabitant figures are unreliable; the nominal population was assumed to have been 200-350,000. Thus, over 150,000 individuals are still living as IDPs in harsh conditions in tent cities outside Fallujah or elsewhere in Iraq."
The city wasn't gven a biblical, leave no stone on top of another sow the earth with salt, but you cannot say that the city was left standing given the above numbers.

And, yes, it was a terorrist hide out, but so what? What do you think such a government that would do so to its own people like within the senario we're talking about (Remember that?) lable anyone opposed to them? Your comments about the Axis powers has no bering on the senerio proposed and quite honestly, this little side track is a side track to a side track.

Have those nations used nuclear bombs? No they have not. Also, how many of the nations listed are part of the NPT? ONE and that is Iran. Negotiations are working with North Korea it seems at the moment just like they worked with Kazahkstan and South Africa.
We shall see. Until North Korea actually disarms, I'm counting it in play. But the point being, again, you are assuming that whomever took over the US would listen. Given a number of nuclear standoffs in the world, I see no reason why they would.

That last part is up for debate NERVUN. I have a feeling this has been going on for a lot longer than last October. In fact, I am willing to place bets on that and I do not gamble.
North Korea exploded its first bomb in October of last year.

It did when it came to Kazahkstan and South Africa. North Korea seems to be willing to give them up to but I am not going to hold my breath on them honoring any agreement.
Exactly, why do you think that any such tyrants in control of the US stockpile (Remember, we're not talking one small firecracker, we're talking the other half of MAD) would honor anything more than North Korea does?

Quoting from Wiki now: "Falluja's compensation commissioner has reported that 36,000 of the city's 50,000 homes were destroyed, along with 60 schools and 65 mosques and shrines... Pre-offensive inhabitant figures are unreliable; the nominal population was assumed to have been 200-350,000. Thus, over 150,000 individuals are still living as IDPs in harsh conditions in tent cities outside Fallujah or elsewhere in Iraq."

And now we are back at the definition of what constitutes destroyed:

de·stroy (d-stroi) KEY

VERB:
de·stroyed , de·stroy·ing , de·stroys
VERB:
tr.

To ruin completely; spoil: The ancient manuscripts were destroyed by fire.
To tear down or break up; demolish. See Synonyms at ruin.
To do away with; put an end to: "In crowded populations, poverty destroys the possibility of cleanliness" (George Bernard Shaw).
To kill: destroy a rabid dog.
To subdue or defeat completely; crush: The rebel forces were destroyed in battle.
To render useless or ineffective: destroyed the testimony of the prosecution's chief witness.

So by definition, as the city was not completely ruined/spoiled, nor was it demolished, I have to question what definition of destroyed they were using.

The city wasn't gven a biblical, leave no stone on top of another sow the earth with salt, but you cannot say that the city was left standing given the above numbers.

Yes I can and I have and I will continously do so for the fact that the city was not destroyed as pertained to what I have seen from World War II! And I am not even arguing the bible here NERVUN so you can leave it out of this debate.

And, yes, it was a terorrist hide out, but so what?

Was that a rhetorical question?

What do you think such a government that would do so to its own people like within the senario we're talking about (Remember that?) lable anyone opposed to them? Your comments about the Axis powers has no bering on the senerio proposed and quite honestly, this little side track is a side track to a side track.

Sorry but it does fit in perfectly. I guess people just do not want to look at history when it comes to modern warfare. If we wanted level the place, we would have.

You must be Corneliu. Only he could argue such absolute and total bullshit while making himself look like an idiot with a straight face.

And I am not even arguing the bible here NERVUN so you can leave it out of this debate.

fucking priceless.

You must be Corneliu. Only he could argue such absolute and total bullshit while making himself look like an idiot with a straight face.

So because I use a definition and use such a definition to refute an argument makes me someone? Would you please stop with this. It really is getting very very annoying.

So because I use a definition and use such a definition to refute an argument makes me someone?

No, because you once again try desperatly to make your point even when every argument you can give fails, then you try to argue semantics, having demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the semantics that you're arguing.

The same thing you've ALWAYS done, every...single...time

Would you please stop with this. It really is getting very very annoying.

Sure, when you admit it.

No, because you once again try desperatly to make your point even when every argument you can give fails, then you try to argue semantics, having demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the semantics that you're arguing.

I do understand the semantics and you have no right to judge my intelligence just like I have no right to judge yours. All I am going to do now is bid you farewell and agree to disagree with you.

Sure, when you admit it.

As I have nothing to admit.

I do understand the semantics and you have no right to judge my intelligence

Of COURSE I do. You came here. You put your opinions into the public. You thrust your argument into the light for scrutinty.

I have every right to judge them as good arguments, or bad ones. If you did not wish for your intellect to be judged, you should not have made the arguments, thus putting the intelligence of your arguments at issue

All I am going to do now is bid you farewell

Yes I"m sure you have to go to help your father in the city with your girlfriend or whatever else line it is you use when you slink away.

That is un-fuckin-believable! The inbred hick bunch of shite! They would rather subvert democracy than risk one gun law! But I suppose that the breakdown of society would give them their ultimate dream- rule by the gun! String 'em up!

Of COURSE I do. You came here. You put your opinions into the public. You thrust your argument into the light for scrutinty.

And yet NERVUN and I have not hurled any insults at one another and are actually debating something in a calm manner. I am rather enjoying the back and forth. Then you come in and hurl accusations because you do not like what I am saying. I guess that is all you are apparently good at because in every thread we wind up on the opposite side, you hurl accusations. Something that is apparently common on this forum from both sides of the aisle.

I have every right to judge them as good arguments, or bad ones. If you did not wish for your intellect to be judged, you should not have made the arguments, thus putting the intelligence of your arguments at issue

I honestly do not care if you think they are good or not. The point of the matter is, NERVUN and I are having an intelligent debate. WHy do you want to ruin that with false accusations?

Yes I"m sure you have to go to help your father in the city with your girlfriend or whatever else line it is you use when you slink away.

Now you are trying to flamebait.

So by definition, as the city was not completely ruined/spoiled, nor was it demolished, I have to question what definition of destroyed they were using.
I have to question just what you are using. The city was destroyed. When your population drops to 20 or 30% and you lose over half of your buildings (along with most of the infrastructure) that means that the town was ruined. Hell, BODIE is in better shape right now.

Yes I can and I have and I will continously do so for the fact that the city was not destroyed as pertained to what I have seen from World War II!
Which makes even less sense as the cities labeled destroyed often had more standing than Fallujah.

And I am not even arguing the bible here NERVUN so you can leave it out of this debate.
Oooookkkkkaaaaaaay. That one came out of nowhere.

Was that a rhetorical question?
No. What does it matter in terms of this debate about what that city was and if the population was warned or not?

Sorry but it does fit in perfectly. I guess people just do not want to look at history when it comes to modern warfare. If we wanted level the place, we would have.
We did level the place, but again, screaming about Axis Powers and such like has nothing to do with the damned debate, which is not whether or not Fallujah was destroyed in the first place. Hell, the debate isn't even about the need for guns to defend against government tyranny. It was about the NRA protesting the bill to forbid suspected terrorists from buying weapons!

I am a British subject. I believe in democracy, free speech, the rule of law and the rights of the individual. I realise that capitalism is unfortunately the only way to go. But the more I go on this forum, the more I realise that America is insane. Totally.

I have to question just what you are using. The city was destroyed. When your population drops to 20 or 30% and you lose over half of your buildings (along with most of the infrastructure) that means that the town was ruined. Hell, BODIE is in better shape right now.

How about we say that it was mostly destroyed but not totally destroyed? That seems to be the more accurate description if you want my opinion.

Which makes even less sense as the cities labeled destroyed often had more standing than Fallujah.

Ok. There you do have a point so I will concede on that one.

No. What does it matter in terms of this debate about what that city was and if the population was warned or not?

Actually it has a lot to do with this debate as most of the city fled when word spread that America was going to attack the city.

We did level the place, but again, screaming about Axis Powers and such like has nothing to do with the damned debate, which is not whether or not Fallujah was destroyed in the first place.

I concur so why do we both move this topic back to the original discussion?

Hell, the debate isn't even about the need for guns to defend against government tyranny. It was about the NRA protesting the bill to forbid suspected terrorists from buying weapons!

I agree with you totally.