Page 3 of 6 [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

jwfess
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Location: New York

27 Feb 2015, 3:27 pm

Dox47 wrote:
jwfess wrote:
Actually this was mentioned in the bit. Do you really think the US government fears people with guns when the government has drones that can blow you up without you even knowing you are a target? Please. An army of citizens with assault rifles could be wiped out as easily as me stepping on an ant.


How many years has it been since we conquered Iraq and Afghanistan again? I keep forgetting.


Ummm..., I think we ousted those governments pretty quickly. The rest of the military operations in those countries was not intended to be a conquest.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

27 Feb 2015, 3:28 pm

I'll tell you what I think is illogical:

The association with violent crime and gun legislation/rights. There simply isn't any conclusive evidence of a general correlation of either argument and violent crime worldwide, or the developed world. For every place the is one possible association one way, there is a another place the opposite appears to be the case. That tells you that there is an inconclusive result. Guns may change the nature of violent crime but its influence is not clear, it is certainly not a primary or even a secondary factor in rates of violent crime.

Another this POV perception. Point of view or first person imagining of hypothetical scenarios where gun may hinder/help. Individual perceptions, are known to be an unreliable indicator of general trends, it is known as confirmation bias. This especially applies to crime, and there have been studies on perception of crime vs. the reality. Don't get me wrong I'm all for individual views and doing what you think is right, but this is unreliable basis for policy.

The events that tend to cause the most uproar are extremely rare events. Especially spree killing.

Spree killing pathology has similarities with those that join terrorist group. the key differnce is the outlets, and the isolation. Both are about the person getting into a victim mentality, and failing to recognize their potential victims as so.

With violent crime, it is better to look as what cultures, and other factor are leading to this. If you took out the cities US wouldn't be that violent. US is a very violent place there is not doubt about that. The idea that the legal status of guns is a magic pill.

I don't think the UK views on guns is why we have a lower violent crime rate. The reason why our crime rate has reduced over the centrism is down to cultural changed. Even our underworld has shrunk.

US has gone through massive change, the great drive west had a major impact on culture (and even policing as "lawmen" were often lowlifes who dealt swift judgments, and I think this legacy can cause an impatience with due process, which can be branded as being tough on crime), as did the relationship between different groups migrating to the country at different times. I find it weird when people start talking of segregation in the UK, especially as segregation was once widespread in the US and that wasn't so long ago.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

27 Feb 2015, 3:44 pm

On of the myths you get is the police not being routinely armed in UK having something to do with gun legislation. Even though it predated the gun legislation in the UK by at least a 100 years. It actually goes back to the founding of the Met, and the concept of "policing by consent" that Robert Peel championed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

I would have thought this would echo similar feeling in the US, about fear of oppression.

The use of guns by police is a decision for head of policing in each county's force.

There are countries that do similar that have far less restrictions on guns.

It is cultural thing, which I will appreciate some will find hard to get their head round. But the net effect hasn't been clearly detrimental, and we have lasted this long.

So there isn't a one size fits all. Each country has to come up with their own solution.



jwfess
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Location: New York

27 Feb 2015, 3:56 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
jwfess wrote:
...Do you really think the US government fears people with guns when the government has drones that can blow you up without you even knowing you are a target? Please. An army of citizens with assault rifles could be wiped out as easily as me stepping on an ant.

Facts to consider in this hypothetical situation:

1) Like ants, we surround them; the number of privately owned firearms in the United States (270 million) dwarfs whatever arsenal they have. Therefore, I believe that, in military terms, it would be a turkey shoot.

2) Like the statement "you have to sleep sometime," drones have to land eventually (especially when they run out of munitions and are no longer useful unarmed); I believe that such landing fields would quickly become a skeet shoot to those who oppose their use against citizens ("Pull!"). And, that isn't even considering the ability of mediocre hackers who have proved the ability to digitally commandeer drones http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/1 ... gress-told .


Sorry but not many US citizens are willing to fight and die for the right to bear arms. If you all want to congregate around an airfield have fun in your mass grave. There might be 270 million guns in the US but how many can pierce a M1 Abrams' armor or take down a Warthog? You can have all the assault rifles you want, all the government needs is a few GAU-8 Avengers to wipe your ass out.



jwfess
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Location: New York

27 Feb 2015, 4:06 pm

sly279 wrote:
people fly those, people with families, people who eat, sleep and can be shot, people whose families may be the very people targeted, would you blow up your family cause some guy who you don't know, sitting in a bunker hundreds of miles a way without a care for anyone but themselves told you to? I'm willing to be most military won't target us citizens for the president. the reality is a lot of military makes up the pro gun people who would be the targets, kinda hard to have them kill themselves. you'd probably have troops walking off base with equipment, drones targeting the gov, shoot outs on bases, whole bases turning to the resistance etc. the marines tend to be very honor bound and swear to protect the constitution. the whole people with guns can't stand up to the gov doesn't understand the gov is people not robots, people who in the ground level are part of the communities they expect them to kill. besides that, can you imagine the moral when air force starts bombing US cities, the masses will grow to resent the gov, they'll start joining the resistance. just like in afgan like dox said. It's why we had to do all kinds of restrictive ROE, every civilian you kill causes 2-5 people or more to join the other side, you end up providing more man power and support to the people you're trying to kill.

no they won't use drones, planes, bombs, etc. they'll need to make them seem like terrorists, that the gov is the victims, you don't do that by bombing cities and having civilians die in the cross fire. or by locking down whole cities, besides we don't even have enough military to secure the whole nation maybe one state if you move all of them there. to be honest you'd be off worrying that if the nation goes into anarchy that there isn't enough man power to bring back order and if they do it might take years one city at at time.

luckily It seems highly doubtful that any of this will happen, still better safe then sorry.


I know this is all speculation and it won't happen, but my first point is that governments will not bomb cities, they don't even have to do that in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have laser guided missiles that take people out. Also, pro-gun people don't live in cities, they live in the countryside.

Second, I've worked with a lot of vets, and I don't think they are the same crowd as the pro-gun lobby. Maybe the pro-gun lobby think they are similar to the military, but the military does not have any more sympathy for pro-gun people than any other citizens.

And if citizens form a militia intended to overthrow the government, the military will have no problems slaughtering those treasonous bastards.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

27 Feb 2015, 4:39 pm

jwfess wrote:
...There might be 270 million guns in the US but how many can pierce a M1 Abrams' armor or take down a Warthog? You can have all the assault rifles you want, all the government needs is a few GAU-8 Avengers to wipe your ass out.

Then, I wonder why so many ground troops are armed with firearms if they are so useless.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

27 Feb 2015, 8:32 pm

jwfess wrote:
sly279 wrote:
people fly those, people with families, people who eat, sleep and can be shot, people whose families may be the very people targeted, would you blow up your family cause some guy who you don't know, sitting in a bunker hundreds of miles a way without a care for anyone but themselves told you to? I'm willing to be most military won't target us citizens for the president. the reality is a lot of military makes up the pro gun people who would be the targets, kinda hard to have them kill themselves. you'd probably have troops walking off base with equipment, drones targeting the gov, shoot outs on bases, whole bases turning to the resistance etc. the marines tend to be very honor bound and swear to protect the constitution. the whole people with guns can't stand up to the gov doesn't understand the gov is people not robots, people who in the ground level are part of the communities they expect them to kill. besides that, can you imagine the moral when air force starts bombing US cities, the masses will grow to resent the gov, they'll start joining the resistance. just like in afgan like dox said. It's why we had to do all kinds of restrictive ROE, every civilian you kill causes 2-5 people or more to join the other side, you end up providing more man power and support to the people you're trying to kill.

no they won't use drones, planes, bombs, etc. they'll need to make them seem like terrorists, that the gov is the victims, you don't do that by bombing cities and having civilians die in the cross fire. or by locking down whole cities, besides we don't even have enough military to secure the whole nation maybe one state if you move all of them there. to be honest you'd be off worrying that if the nation goes into anarchy that there isn't enough man power to bring back order and if they do it might take years one city at at time.

luckily It seems highly doubtful that any of this will happen, still better safe then sorry.


I know this is all speculation and it won't happen, but my first point is that governments will not bomb cities, they don't even have to do that in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have laser guided missiles that take people out. Also, pro-gun people don't live in cities, they live in the countryside.

Second, I've worked with a lot of vets, and I don't think they are the same crowd as the pro-gun lobby. Maybe the pro-gun lobby think they are similar to the military, but the military does not have any more sympathy for pro-gun people than any other citizens.

And if citizens form a militia intended to overthrow the government, the military will have no problems slaughtering those treasonous bastards.


yeah you are believing false generations that all gun owners live in the country, probably 50/50, most i've met seen, talked to or followed on the net live in cities, they range from ceos to janitors. people tend to think all pro gun people live in the country and are red necks, this is so utterly false.

all military I've met love guns, support the constitution and would go awol if any order was given to attack citizens, see the oath keepers organization. are there some who won't yep, just like nazis following orders blindly to kill 6 million people did. lucky in the us theres far more who won't then who will blindly genocide people cause they were told to.

those laser guided missiles aren't that good and are responsible for a lot of unarmed innocent deaths. wups hit a school full of children, now all their families joined the taliban. gee wonder why they are pissed, maybe cause they had to go pick up their dead lifeless childs body cause we missed or got bad intell. we had to stop doing that, stop blowing up houses with tanks, too many civilian deaths the people there were hating us.

brought up the bombing cause often the antis are like how you going stop a b52 bomber or apache gun ships. or ac130, its called blending in guerrilla warfare. when you don't know who is bad or who isn't you start killing innocent people. you can't tell me apart from an anti gun person standing next to me.

anyways stuff isn't black in white, plenty of urban people own guns and are pro 2nd amendment. I grew up never being allowed to be around them and told they are bad. I'm a city boy as country people tell me over and over.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

27 Feb 2015, 10:12 pm

on the effectiveness argument.

This idea that knives or even swords are potentially as dangerous as guns, if in the hands of a person with intent is just laughable. I've yet to see or hear about a mass killing in recent memory that was orchestrated in a western country using a bladed, non explosive or non-projectile weapon.

If you remove guns from the equation that leaves bombs, but bombmaking isnt exactly something the layman can just take up over the weekend so massacres simply aren't going to happen in a developed country where no regular joe can easilly get access to guns or explosive materials. It took certain militant organisations in Ireland years to research bomb development.

During the Northern Irish conflict, even the IRA had to get their equipment imported from Libya and America. That guns are illegal in this country coupled with the death of colonel Gadaffi that stockpile of bullets and semtex is almost depleted.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

28 Feb 2015, 1:47 am

thomas81 wrote:
on the effectiveness argument.
If you remove guns from the equation that leaves bombs, but bombmaking isnt exactly something the layman can just take up over the weekend so massacres simply aren't going to happen in a developed country where no regular joe can easilly get access to guns or explosive materials. It took certain militant organisations in Ireland years to research bomb development.

And how exactly do you "remove" guns from the equation?

Quote:
During the Northern Irish conflict, even the IRA had to get their equipment imported from Libya and America. That guns are illegal in this country coupled with the death of colonel Gadaffi that stockpile of bullets and semtex is almost depleted.

Guns are illegal in N. Ireland, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
Quote:
Northern Ireland
More than 100,000 people in Northern Ireland own firearms, having 380,000 among them.[49] Gun control laws in Northern Ireland are less restrictive than gun laws in the rest of the UK, due to the Good Friday Agreement, allowing Northern Ireland to govern itself and pass less restrictive laws. Gun laws in Northern Ireland are primarily affected by the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. Under the new law, first-time buyers will be required to demonstrate they can be trusted with the firearm. It will be up to firearms dealers selling the products to tell new buyers, and those upgrading their firearms, about the safety procedures. Firearm possessors in Northern Ireland must not transport their firearms to Great Britain. All gun owners in Northern Ireland are required to apply for a firearms certificate to possess firearms. Permits are normally issued to anyone who has good reason to possess firearms, such as target shooting, hunting, and personal protection.[50] Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom where personal protection is accepted as a legitimate reason to obtain and own a firearm and is the only part of the United Kingdom where handguns are permitted. Semi-automatic rifles are only permitted when chambered in .22 calibre (with certain exceptions). Handguns and Shotguns are permitted in any calibre. There is no limit on magazine capacity for rifles and handguns, and the magazine limit for shotguns is 2 rounds. Also, carrying a firearm in plain view in a public place is allowed without a permit. Open carry of handguns is not common. However, in the countryside, people will often open carry loaded rifles and shotguns.[49] A firearm certificate for a personal protection weapon will only be authorised where the Police Service of Northern Ireland deems there is a ‘verifiable specific risk’ to the life of an individual and that the possession of a firearm is a reasonable, proportionate and necessary measure to protect their life.[51] Permits for personal protection also allow the holder to carry their firearms concealed. They may also allow the holder to possess fully automatic weapons and center fire semi-automatics in some instances.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

28 Feb 2015, 7:03 am

US supply of arms to the IRA were through a Corsican connection. It was a Corsican American Arms dealer that was involved, and the IRA had links to Corsican militants.

I always felt that US support of the IRA was very naive and that is putting it politely. Things started to change, when there were rival factions, and the Libyan connection.

I recommend an excellent play on the subject called the The Big Fellah.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

28 Feb 2015, 8:34 am

0_equals_true wrote:
US supply of arms to the IRA were through a Corsican connection. It was a Corsican American Arms dealer that was involved, and the IRA had links to Corsican militants.

I always felt that US support of the IRA was very naive and that is putting it politely. Things started to change, when there were rival factions, and the Libyan connection.

I recommend an excellent play on the subject called the The Big Fellah.


Whaa, the US really supported the IRA? I did not know that. That is quite a betrayal to their British allies.



jwfess
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Location: New York

28 Feb 2015, 10:34 am

sly279 wrote:
jwfess wrote:
sly279 wrote:
people fly those, people with families, people who eat, sleep and can be shot, people whose families may be the very people targeted, would you blow up your family cause some guy who you don't know, sitting in a bunker hundreds of miles a way without a care for anyone but themselves told you to? I'm willing to be most military won't target us citizens for the president. the reality is a lot of military makes up the pro gun people who would be the targets, kinda hard to have them kill themselves. you'd probably have troops walking off base with equipment, drones targeting the gov, shoot outs on bases, whole bases turning to the resistance etc. the marines tend to be very honor bound and swear to protect the constitution. the whole people with guns can't stand up to the gov doesn't understand the gov is people not robots, people who in the ground level are part of the communities they expect them to kill. besides that, can you imagine the moral when air force starts bombing US cities, the masses will grow to resent the gov, they'll start joining the resistance. just like in afgan like dox said. It's why we had to do all kinds of restrictive ROE, every civilian you kill causes 2-5 people or more to join the other side, you end up providing more man power and support to the people you're trying to kill.

no they won't use drones, planes, bombs, etc. they'll need to make them seem like terrorists, that the gov is the victims, you don't do that by bombing cities and having civilians die in the cross fire. or by locking down whole cities, besides we don't even have enough military to secure the whole nation maybe one state if you move all of them there. to be honest you'd be off worrying that if the nation goes into anarchy that there isn't enough man power to bring back order and if they do it might take years one city at at time.

luckily It seems highly doubtful that any of this will happen, still better safe then sorry.


I know this is all speculation and it won't happen, but my first point is that governments will not bomb cities, they don't even have to do that in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have laser guided missiles that take people out. Also, pro-gun people don't live in cities, they live in the countryside.

Second, I've worked with a lot of vets, and I don't think they are the same crowd as the pro-gun lobby. Maybe the pro-gun lobby think they are similar to the military, but the military does not have any more sympathy for pro-gun people than any other citizens.

And if citizens form a militia intended to overthrow the government, the military will have no problems slaughtering those treasonous bastards.


yeah you are believing false generations that all gun owners live in the country, probably 50/50, most i've met seen, talked to or followed on the net live in cities, they range from ceos to janitors. people tend to think all pro gun people live in the country and are red necks, this is so utterly false.

all military I've met love guns, support the constitution and would go awol if any order was given to attack citizens, see the oath keepers organization. are there some who won't yep, just like nazis following orders blindly to kill 6 million people did. lucky in the us theres far more who won't then who will blindly genocide people cause they were told to.

those laser guided missiles aren't that good and are responsible for a lot of unarmed innocent deaths. wups hit a school full of children, now all their families joined the taliban. gee wonder why they are pissed, maybe cause they had to go pick up their dead lifeless childs body cause we missed or got bad intell. we had to stop doing that, stop blowing up houses with tanks, too many civilian deaths the people there were hating us.

brought up the bombing cause often the antis are like how you going stop a b52 bomber or apache gun ships. or ac130, its called blending in guerrilla warfare. when you don't know who is bad or who isn't you start killing innocent people. you can't tell me apart from an anti gun person standing next to me.

anyways stuff isn't black in white, plenty of urban people own guns and are pro 2nd amendment. I grew up never being allowed to be around them and told they are bad. I'm a city boy as country people tell me over and over.


So you equate soldiers who would suppress a militia attempting to overthrow the US government to Nazis who committed genocide?

Bottom line is soldiers protect the US. If the US changes the laws and made firearms illegal, then that's what the citizens need to obey. The right to bear arms like any law can be changed. If you think that law is wrong, too bad, your interests are not greater than the wellbeing of society.

But we all know that guns are here to stay in the US. And hey, I'm not actually anti-gun, I'm not sure if they should be illegal or legal to be honest. But I do believe that any sort of uprising if that would occur if the government changed the law would be wiped away with ease.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

28 Feb 2015, 11:12 am

jwfess wrote:
...If the US changes the laws and made firearms illegal, then that's what the citizens need to obey. The right to bear arms like any law can be changed....

Not quite. The natural right to keep and bears arms (all weapons, not only firearms) is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. As such, Article Five of the Constitution defines expressly how the Constitution may be amended (two-thirds of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives OR a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states; AND the request of legislatures of three-fourths of the states OR state-ratifying conventions of three-fourths of the states. Without amending the Constitution according to this constitutionally required method is, by itself, a violation of the Constitution.

Laws, on the other hand, can come and go quite easily requiring usually a simple majority vote of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives and the president's signature.

So, "the right to bear arms, like any law, can be changed" isn't an accurate statement.

Also, the recent affirmations of the Second Amendment in 2010 and 2012 by the U.S. Supreme Court, not to mention the inability of the Congress to adopt gun-control laws much less amend the Constitution, and ongoing public-opinion polling which shows that majorities of Americans support the Second Amendment for the defense of themselves, their families and friends against violent crime and government abuse suggests to me, at least, that changing the natural right to keep and bears arms isn't going away very soon.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

28 Feb 2015, 12:36 pm

jwfess wrote:
Sorry but not many US citizens are willing to fight and die for the right to bear arms.

No way of telling what they would do if the time came. It's not just for the love of firearms but one has to ask WHY the right to bear arms would be removed and the answer would indicate a malevolence. Besides, it's not gonna happen. The last 6 years has seen a huge increase of new gun owners.

Quote:
If you all want to congregate around an airfield have fun in your mass grave. There might be 270 million guns in the US but how many can pierce a M1 Abrams' armor or take down a Warthog? You can have all the assault rifles you want, all the government needs is a few GAU-8 Avengers to wipe your ass out.

Obviously, you don't target an A-10 or an M1A. For a militia it would be more about small unit tactics such as ambushes, hit & run raids, use of IED's or other boobie traps, sabotage, long range rifle work where a skilled rifleman or two take out a few targets then vanish.
It's called guerrilla warfare and I'm surprised at how many people are ignorant of it whenever this topic comes up.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

28 Feb 2015, 2:31 pm

jwfess wrote:

So you equate soldiers who would suppress a militia attempting to overthrow the US government to Nazis who committed genocide?

Bottom line is soldiers protect the US. If the US changes the laws and made firearms illegal, then that's what the citizens need to obey. The right to bear arms like any law can be changed. If you think that law is wrong, too bad, your interests are not greater than the wellbeing of society.

But we all know that guns are here to stay in the US. And hey, I'm not actually anti-gun, I'm not sure if they should be illegal or legal to be honest. But I do believe that any sort of uprising if that would occur if the government changed the law would be wiped away with ease.


just as you equate revolutionaries to militia trying to overthrow the government. sure the nazis thought they were doing the right thing. the people in the rest of europe on the other hand saw them as oppressors. if they'd won ww2 we'd be talking a different tone, probably praising them as heroes.

in fact it would be average citizens not militias that would raise up to stop and fix, not overthrow a corrupt broken government. the result would be a similar government just with its unlawful obtained powers rolled back to the 1900s style it was suppose to be. if the gov suspends all bill of rights, then it is no longer a gov for the people by the people, but a government trying to create a dictatorship. if you are behind supporting that then you on the wrong side. yes they will then claim anyone fighting for the bill of rights to be terrorist or militia as a propaganda.

all comes down to point of view. I don't view those who would fight for freedom from this gov that has removed our rights that predate the us as a legit government. a show jericho was good at what could happen. finally the military decided they no longer recognized the new gov as legit.( in the show this gov was behind 26 nuke stricts on the us, and civil war, all to gain control and remove the bill of rights and fix what they saw as a weak nation)

I don't think a future government that takes away all our rights is impossible. probably far off though. the founders of our nation saw this as possible heck they'd just defeated one in a war, they new it was possible. we've seen other nations in recent times do this. to think it can't and won't happen in the us cause we are so amazing is living blind.

so yes any government and military that would remove our rights, oppress people, round them up and camps will get compared to nazis.

well being of society, well to be honest, a complete military control where the military controls everything we do, say, think and live. were theres border checks, chips in our arms, and we go from work to home only, would be great for our wellbeing. no one would die, we would be completely safe from dangers, this however would mean no freedom, to many freedom is way more important then well being. anyways only way since the legal way is impossible to do, would be for the gov/president to illegally remove the 2nd amendment. which is why such people fighting against this gov would not be illegal in their actions.

really don't see a point in talking to antis though, they live in a make beleive world.
as for wiped away with eas, looks what happens when one black guy is shot by a cop, now do that times millions. how about adding in no freedom of speech, no internet. people will go crazy rioting all over. and when the military starts popping shots into the crowd, you're get uprising like happen in the middle east.



jwfess
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 122
Location: New York

28 Feb 2015, 3:13 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
jwfess wrote:
...If the US changes the laws and made firearms illegal, then that's what the citizens need to obey. The right to bear arms like any law can be changed....

Not quite. The natural right to keep and bears arms (all weapons, not only firearms) is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America. As such, Article Five of the Constitution defines expressly how the Constitution may be amended (two-thirds of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives OR a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states; AND the request of legislatures of three-fourths of the states OR state-ratifying conventions of three-fourths of the states. Without amending the Constitution according to this constitutionally required method is, by itself, a violation of the Constitution.

Laws, on the other hand, can come and go quite easily requiring usually a simple majority vote of both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives and the president's signature.

So, "the right to bear arms, like any law, can be changed" isn't an accurate statement.

Also, the recent affirmations of the Second Amendment in 2010 and 2012 by the U.S. Supreme Court, not to mention the inability of the Congress to adopt gun-control laws much less amend the Constitution, and ongoing public-opinion polling which shows that majorities of Americans support the Second Amendment for the defense of themselves, their families and friends against violent crime and government abuse suggests to me, at least, that changing the natural right to keep and bears arms isn't going away very soon.


Yes you are right, I was not accurate when stating changing "laws" versus amending the constitution. But we both agree that nothing is going to change any time soon.

But the definition of "arms" is interesting, I'd imagine some people could debate what that means. Knives and bats? Pistols? Machine guns? Obviously some arms are legal and other aren't.