Gun Confiscation = Civil War?

Post Reply New Topic

What I was trying to say in fewer words.

As I said tho, there would never be a civil war. Who would be fighting against who? The military will never fire on American citizens in large numbers. You'd likely see secession talk and outright nullification of federal authority. This isn't the 1800s, there aren't going to be any federal troops going to reestablish order and enforce federal laws.

In the end, none of this is going to happen. Even if Obama wanted to confiscate guns, he would not since the fallout would destroy his party.

I know of the conspiracy theories concerning Sirhan Sirhan having been turned into an unconscious assassin. While I think there's plenty of evidence that both the Kennedy brothers had been murdered as a result of conspiracies, I've only seen little more than theories about Sirhan and MKULTRA, and no real hard evidence. I think it more likely that Arab nationalist Sirhan had been played as a patsy by persons wanting to see Bobby Kennedy dead, and he was left holding the bag.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

MKULTRA didn't go as planned, and none of the subjects would have left the program in any mental state suitable to be used as an assassin. They had breaking people down refined to a science, but crating a new personality failed.

So you are agreeing, that many gun owners are a threat to other people and potential criminals? Theres no need for the " around the word terrorists. People threatening others with weapon, declaring to ignore existing laws, given by a democratic elected are terrorists. In your post you are just telling us, that you hate democracy, and would even fight against your own democratic elected government and state and people with weapons, if they do not obey you and would change the weapons laws, ignoring your royal will. And you are whondering why many people are afraid of people like you? It is pretty normal to be afraid of a guy, who tells us: "If you are not doing what i want, i will shoot."

I am also not agreeing to all laws in my country. Some seem terrible to me and i really like them to be changed. But all laws are made of a democratic elected government. So yes it sucks, but there are great advantages to democracy, worth protecting it. But with it there also come the misadvantage that i have to accept, when a huge amount of people do not agree with me, that the laws will be created addording to the will of the other people. This is democracy. So i can "fight" against this: By spreading information, discussing with people, writing in newspapers, demonstrations, delivering information to people on the street and so on. To convince people of what i think, and when there is the next voting, and i did well, more people will agree with me, voting for political clubs and politics that agree with my ideas. This is democracy and when many people think the same as i do, then the according politcal party will have the power to change the laws in the way i agree with them. But saying: "I will accept democratic laws of this country, as long as they are as i want them and if not i will be threatening the citizen of this country with weaponpower." as you do, is just criminal. So the word terrorist matches it, because this is what terrorists do: Threatening people so that they can do what they want, not caring if it is against democratic law or not.

I also do not agree with many laws of my country. But that doesnt give me the right to threat others with weapons, so i can do what i want.

Hitler was democratically elected...

Inalienable rights are inalienable. They exist whether the law says they do and not, this is not mob rule.

And the same just might be the case for James Holmes and Adam Lanza.

If Obama would declare the republicans to criminals, and forbid their party, arresting their politicians and voters...would you think the coming election would be "democratic" in any way?

And the problem with the word inalienable is the same with the bible. You will never know, if assault weapons were included in the mind of those who wrote the inalienable rights, because these didnt exist. So you know, that they meant handguns, or hunting guns and so on... but nobody knows if assault guns were meant to, because noone knew, that such weapons ever did exist. An Atombomb or Anthrax is also nothing more then a weapon. Still i dont think we need to discuss that there should be no right for everyone to own such things. Why. Because most of you agree, that these are do dangerous in the hands of normal people.

And with the assault rifles its the same. Something that didnt exist cant be part of an right, written down, when assault rifles didnt even exist. So instead of doing it the easy way like a bible fanatic, "...but here in this 4000 years old reading it is clearly to see, that god does not want us to receive blood of other people..." you just have to act grown up. So you as citizens of your country have to come together and talk and discuss with each other, if you think that assault rifles should be part of this inalienable rights or not. The people inventing this rights, couldnt do it for you, because they did not know of such weapons. You have to do that, just as you did with other new weapons before. There are weapons that are too dangerous and the desicion is up to you. And "If i am not allowed to do what i want i will threaten you with weapon force." is a lousy argument, i dont think it will convince anyone that such weapons shoud be freely available to everyone. -.-

Instead of threatening other with death, so they are even more afraid to allow you to have such weapons, why dont you try to explain what for you need it? Why you want to have it, so people can understand you? So i dont agree wiht hunting for fun, but i still can understand that there are people that see it as and adventure, proofing themself against nature or just loving to be around forests and so on. So i wished there were better laws (so the drunken hunter sitting on the tree and shooting on joggers instead of deer is a running joke in my country -.-), but i understand that these people do not focus on having weapon to threaten others, but because of this sport. So its no sport for me, but i understand that these is a sport for them.

So when it comes to assault rifles, i really dont know. They do not really fit for hunting as far as i know, they are too large to carry them around during normal day activities for self defense... So instead of threatening, why dont you start to explain so others can understand you?

I love all this crazyness starts out of the mere possibility that guns that were illegal 8 years ago become illegal again.

We're talking hypotheticals and the proposals go much further than the 1994 law.

and what did that law accomplish? Was there no gun crime or random shootings?

Our democratically elected government enforces its policies through threat of violence. If you fail to comply, whether the laws are just or unjust, you will be arrested and imprisoned. If you fail to comply with arrest, you will be forced through violence.

This country was founded on the principle that we are free people. We killed people to defend our position and we feel that we were justified in doing so. The right to keep and bear arms is our statement that we remember the original cause that founded this nation and if necessary, we'll rise again to free our people from unjust laws.

Those that are saying they won't give up their weapons are saying that they will respond to violence with violence rather than capitulating to laws that allow unjust seizure of their property. The gun owners are not the ones threatening violence -- they are responding to a threat of violence.

I can understand extremists in the margins of the intelligence community seeing violence as a means to remove leaders like the president of the United States, and his brother, the former Attorney General, but what would be gained by killing movie goers and school children?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Actually, Hitler wasn't democratically elected - that's a popular myth. In fact, the Nazi party had gained so much representation in the Reichstag that they had had enough muscle to get Germany's military-industrial complex to put pressure on Hitler's rival, German president Paul Von Hindenburg to make Hitler his chancellor. When Hindenburg died, Hitler simply moved into the top leadership slot, and passed the Enabling Acts, which amounted to permanent martial law. The Nazis then had conducted a plebiscite, in which people were asked if Hitler was accepted by the German people - hardly a real election. Even then, Hitler didn't get 100% of the vote.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Psychological warfare on the populace necessary to the plan of SEELE/The Conspirators/Whoever.

The question is, was there LESS gun crime or random shootings? I don't think anyone believes that there's a 100% foolproof solution that would prevent any future shootings or violent acts. But if a solution might not be 100% effective, but might be partially effective, then isn't it worth considering?

Look at it from another point of view. The United States does not seem to have a 100% foolproof way of preventing guns from reaching Al Qaeda. Does that mean we should not do everything in our power to try and prevent guns from reaching Al Qaeda anyway? Should we do anything less when the threat is domestic and the threat is generally more real than a domestic attack by Al Qaeda?

But with the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers, and MLK, the fingerprints of intelligence couldn't be wiped away adequately (Oswald's alleged Soviet Union defection and association with CIA connected Anti-Castro fanatics in New Orleans, James Earl Ray's apparently arranged passports and false identities, etc.). I see nothing of the sort with Holmes and Lanza.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer