We need more gun control

[dalynchmob]

There are significant differences between Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the modern day US. You're simply kidding yourself if you think that the average American citizen would be ready, willing and able to take up arms against the military.

Also, yes, it was insanely important in 1776. It's far less important now. Again, I'm not even for heavy




And 1940 America and 2015 America aren't vastly different? Both in military might and make up of the population? Not to mention technology employed in conflicts?

Come on you guys. I'm not even against you on this. I'm just against this reasoning that you need your 9mm or 12-gauge or AR-15 because of the threat of a tyrannical government (either from within or from outside). It's such a laughable argument.

And again, the territory outside of Kabul and Naperville are different animals. If the US Government actually turned against the US citizenry, it would have to be under such outrageously ridiculous circumstances that they wouldn't hesitate to go total warfare, and you're not doing much against the US military at that point.

We will just have to agree to disagree on that point, hopefully we never see it come to that.

One other thought relating to that subject, I believe another aspect of the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the practical side. The 2nd helps give considerable pause to any aggressor. Whether that be a tyrannical government or a foreign threat, they have to consider that there will be many thousands of people who can and will fight back.

 

[Catfish_ Crazy]

It's beyond pathetic that we are living like beside countless Wild West style cowboys in this country! It starts and ends with strict gun control.

We need people to get off their cells phones and pay attention while they are driving.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

There are significant differences between Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the modern day US. You're simply kidding yourself if you think that the average American citizen would be ready, willing and able to take up arms against the military.

Also, yes, it was insanely important in 1776. It's far less important now. Again, I'm not even for heavy




And 1940 America and 2015 America aren't vastly different? Both in military might and make up of the population? Not to mention technology employed in conflicts?

Come on you guys. I'm not even against you on this. I'm just against this reasoning that you need your 9mm or 12-gauge or AR-15 because of the threat of a tyrannical government (either from within or from outside). It's such a laughable argument.

And again, the territory outside of Kabul and Naperville are different animals. If the US Government actually turned against the US citizenry, it would have to be under such outrageously ridiculous circumstances that they wouldn't hesitate to go total warfare, and you're not doing much against the US military at that point.

You're not against us..... Yet you're arguing against us.

You're whole line of debate has tons of holes in it. I'll pick this up later tonight and point them out.

 

[Arbitr8]

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/306...content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Terror

This isn’t the first time ISIS has called for attacks on American soil, but none have yet been carried out. Still, FBI Director Jim Comey said that investigations into ISIS sympathizers are underway in all 50 states.

Since they already here thanks to the 2nd Amendment I am ready for them.

 

[SWIowahawks]

Slieb, you are grossly underestimating the will of the people to fight. There would be a couple million easily take arms.

 

[Nat Algren]

If you truly desire less gun violence, legalize the War on Freedom and end the War on Drugs. SSRI drugs and anti-depressants are linked to nearly all mass shootings. Have a war on those drugs. This would be a good start.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Slieb, you are grossly underestimating the will of the people to fight. There would be a couple million easily take arms.

And grossly over-estimating our military members to turn and act on the very communities that they come from. Our military swears an oath to defend the constitution of the United States. Not to blindly follow the orders of leaders.

 

[slieb85]

And grossly over-estimating our military members to turn and act on the very communities that they come from. Our military swears an oath to defend the constitution of the United States. Not to blindly follow the orders of leaders.

I'm doing neither.

I'm saying that if it ever came to the point where you were needed, you wouldn't be needed. Because things would be so bad that gun owners would be irrelevant in the fight.

Again, I'm not against gun ownership. I'm not a gun control nut. I think this "militia" argument is baseless. You think you're going to save the country if it somehow gets to the point where gun owners are needed (either from interior or exterior threats)? Good for you. I think you're delusional.

And you're not going to win over regular people in the debate on gun control by espousing some argument that you're essential for the protection of the US. Figures like the one below show how irrelevant "gun militias" are to this debate.

I'll leave it at that. Not sure I really feel like slamming my head into the wall over and over trying to get such a simple point across to you guys.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

I'm doing neither.

I'm saying that if it ever came to the point where you were needed, you wouldn't be needed. Because things would be so bad that gun owners would be irrelevant in the fight.

Again, I'm not against gun ownership. I'm not a gun control nut. I think this "militia" argument is baseless. You think you're going to save the country if it somehow gets to the point where gun owners are needed (either from interior or exterior threats)? Good for you. I think you're delusional.

And you're not going to win over regular people in the debate on gun control by espousing some argument that you're essential for the protection of the US. Figures like the one below show how irrelevant "gun militias" are to this debate.

I'll leave it at that. Not sure I really feel like slamming my head into the wall over and over trying to get such a simple point across to you guys.

I guess the funny part is you've decided that you're so much smarter than the rest of us, that your side of the debate is the only right one.

You completely dismiss the human element. And you completely dismiss what would go through the thoughts of our own servicemen and women if they were ever told to attack their fellow citizens.

The very reason and armed populace is something for any government to worry about is the sheer numbers of people who are armed. No army in the history of warfare has ever won a war when they are basically outnumbered 40 to 1.

Take a look at Vietnam as perfect proof that a country with just basic weaponry took on the Best equipped military on the planet and Fought us for 10 years and worked our ass up and down their tiny little country.

Oh but that's right I forgot, you have all the answers.

 

[slieb85]

I guess the funny part is you've decided that you're so much smarter than the rest of us, that your side of the debate is the only right one.

You completely dismiss the human element. And you completely dismiss what would go through the thoughts of our own servicemen and women if they were ever told to attack their fellow citizens.

The very reason and armed populace is something for any government to worry about is the sheer numbers of people who are armed. No army in the history of warfare has ever won a war when they are basically outnumbered 40 to 1.

Take a look at Vietnam as perfect proof that a country with just basic weaponry took on the Best equipped military on the planet and Fought us for 10 years and worked our ass up and down their tiny little country.

Oh but that's right I forgot, you have all the answers.

No, as per usual, you're not understanding what I'm saying.

I'm saying, there is no middle ground. There is no Dale from Wisconsin, the US Army private, coming into my building and warring against me and my neighbors.

I'm saying if it ever got to the point where the US government was warring with its citizens, all the guns in this country wouldn't make one bit of difference. Because it would be all-out destruction mode. Because there is no "typical" warfare if the US decided to war against its citizens.

I hope that will make it clear enough for you to finally understand what I'm saying.

As for the rest of your usual condescending bull shit. Have a nice Monday.

 

[FlickShagwell]

That Habah and Arbitr8 - two nearly brain dead idiots - are armed, is reason enough to be terrified.

This is brilliant, by the way:

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

You of all people complaining about someone being condescending? You really don't like being challenged, do you?

For your scenario to happen, the Gov't would have to be in complete self destruct mode. Not caring what was left after it was all said and done. Sorry...our Gov't has never operated that way.

We don't go "all out destruction mode" on our worst enemies....But our Gov't would practice that option against it's own citizens if it came down to that on our own soil? What makes you think that? Once again...you completely dismiss the human element and act as if the military would be robotic in any demand made of them. Which is so far removed from reality, that it's kind of funny.

I can guarantee you, that if our military was ordered to war against it's own citizens, there would be massive defections of our fighting forces from top to bottom. Why? Because of the military oath, and the principles that our troops are trained under and taught. Of course there are true believers who would do anything asked of them. But there are huge numbers of troops who would view any attack on our own citizens as a violation of their military oath, and would change sides to protect the American people and the countries assets. You would have thousands upon thousands simply refusing to fight and jumping sides. Why? Because they'd rather protect the people they love and the communities they grew up in, over destroying the nation they are sworn to protect. Secondly, our military is trained and taught to resist "unlawful" orders. And have the right to refuse to follow the command of unlawful orders and any level. And if many saw an order to fire on their own citizens as unlawful...the military would be in disaster mode.

 

[SWIowahawks]

I think you might be giving the military too much credit, SEC. The National Guard had no qualms over shooting college kids at Kent State. We see literally every single day video of police beating and killing American citizens. Seems like a gun and no personal accountability wins out over loyalty to one's fellow countrymen pretty often.

What percentage of police are killing and beating "innocent" people? Less than .00001%? You are correct that there are loonies in the military that wouldn't mind blowing a bunch of American citizens away, but you are significantly overestimating that number.

Also, has been described in this thread, protection from tyranny isn't just protection from our own govt.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

I think you might be giving the military too much credit, SEC. The National Guard had no qualms over shooting college kids at Kent State. We see literally every single day video of police beating and killing American citizens. Seems like a gun and no personal accountability wins out over loyalty to one's fellow countrymen pretty often.

After spending 24 years of my life inside the military community and observing first hand how the members of our modern military act and think? I'm not so sure I am giving too much credit.
The 60's were a much different monster in terms of how people view and trust the Gov't. You still had a lot of people in our populace who were riding the high of coming off a WWII victory, and thought that the Gov't was blameless and trustworthy. Today, vast numbers of our citizenry do not like, nor trust the Gov't in any capacity.....and that thought process does exist in our military ranks.......much more than you think.

When it comes to the police.........that is where you have a serious fight. And I'm with you on that. I think many police itch at the potential of being able to just take people out. And that is where the fight would start. However the citizens out gun our police by massive numbers. In people and weapons.

 

[KennyPowers_96]

FWIW, I think you are all guessing/stereotyping here. In this day in age, I would still like to side with SEC and hope that MOST would refuse. If most refuse, they would likely take care of the ones that won't.

They can't all be this guy, can they?

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

I hope it never comes to that, Flick. But you cannot deny that a large segment of the population is being pushed into a corner. We have a Gov't that demonstrates daily that it can't be believed in nor trusted at any turn. And this isn't because of the current administration. It's the Gov't as a whole.

The reason I'm making the comments I am....is that when I was in the military, and afterwards.......My old workmates and I....and even Mrs SEC's colleagues.......we've had this conversation about this very scenario. We talked about all kinds of scenarios and all kinds of situations, because we knew that we'd be called to act on orders given. But one repeated conversation was "What would we do, if the average American marched against and raised up against the Gov't in an attempt to take it down, and it became violent". Not a sleeper group, and not a group that was universally seen as a threat to our country. But that the every day people of our nation, in a wide spread attempt said that they had had enough of our Gov'ts abuse and wanted to take the country back into their hands to restore constitutional rights and to stop the fleecing of our citzens.

Not one of us, at that time, would follow the orders given to fight our own people. And most of us agreed that if we didn't lay down our weapons and walk away, that we would work to stop those who would carry out the order in any way we had to.

This is an occasional conversation that i've had for almost 30 years at different times with different members of the military and from different branches. I know that people in the military have this discussion. And it's almost universally been the same answers. That people would stand down on the order, if it was the scenario given in this thread.

And yes.....as Kenny said above...the 2nd Amendment isn't just about tyranny from our own Gov't. As I gave the example that during WWII, Japan considered and land invasion of the US. It was never carried out. And the reason is that they knew our citizens were armed, and very well armed and that it would spell disaster to invading forces. And at that time....Japan was very equal to the US in firepower and military capability.

 

[slieb85]

You of all people complaining about someone being condescending? You really don't like being challenged, do you?

For your scenario to happen, the Gov't would have to be in complete self destruct mode. Not caring what was left after it was all said and done. Sorry...our Gov't has never operated that way.

We don't go "all out destruction mode" on our worst enemies....But our Gov't would practice that option against it's own citizens if it came down to that on our own soil? What makes you think that? Once again...you completely dismiss the human element and act as if the military would be robotic in any demand made of them. Which is so far removed from reality, that it's kind of funny.

I can guarantee you, that if our military was ordered to war against it's own citizens, there would be massive defections of our fighting forces from top to bottom. Why? Because of the military oath, and the principles that our troops are trained under and taught. Of course there are true believers who would do anything asked of them. But there are huge numbers of troops who would view any attack on our own citizens as a violation of their military oath, and would change sides to protect the American people and the countries assets. You would have thousands upon thousands simply refusing to fight and jumping sides. Why? Because they'd rather protect the people they love and the communities they grew up in, over destroying the nation they are sworn to protect. Secondly, our military is trained and taught to resist "unlawful" orders. And have the right to refuse to follow the command of unlawful orders and any level. And if many saw an order to fire on their own citizens as unlawful...the military would be in disaster mode.

You're making this more difficult than it is. I have crap to do today, but I'll try one last time.

For the US government to order to attack/engage its own citizens, the situation would have to be SO messed up, that the amount of guns that your or I collect are irrelevant, because it would be total annihilation. I'm saying that it's so unbelievably far fetched for the US military to turn on us (for the reasons you've outlined so eloquently) that it simply will not happen, unless they go total warfare, which at that time, you and your .22 rabbit shooter are screwed.

I hope you will finally get what I'm saying. Not sure I can be more clear.

And hopefully you'll stop being a condescending prick. I'm trying to be better about my comments. Maybe you'll do the same.

 

[KennyPowers_96]

You're making this more difficult than it is. I have crap to do today, but I'll try one last time.

For the US government to order to attack/engage its own citizens, the situation would have to be SO messed up, that the amount of guns that your or I collect are irrelevant, because it would be total annihilation. I'm saying that it's so unbelievably far fetched for the US military to turn on us (for the reasons you've outlined so eloquently) that it simply will not happen, unless they go total warfare, which at that time, you and your .22 rabbit shooter are screwed.

I hope you will finally get what I'm saying. Not sure I can be more clear.

And hopefully you'll stop being a condescending prick. I'm trying to be better about my comments. Maybe you'll do the same.

I hear what you are saying, but you are debating on assumption. SEC is at least using some field research.

Out of curiosity, how or what general strategies would they use if you are talking "total war" that would take us all out?

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

You're trying to get better about your responses...........but still call me names. BTW, I haven't called you any names. I just said basically that I disagree with you based on real conversations I've had over the past 30 years with members of the military, and friends.

You don't want to debate. You want to hold court. And that what you say is the only logical or real scenario. Anyone who says the opposite is being stupid. But I'm being the prick? Why? Because I dare challenge your statements?

I love how you pick the weakest rifle on earth to make an assumption of what people have in their gun safe's and closets.

 

[SWIowahawks]

Slieb is correct about one thing. We will never have to find out because of the 2nd amendment.

It does show how much of a fantasy land he lives in when he used the .22 as a response. Dude has no idea the arsenal that the American people have. NO IDEA.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

He didn't use it as a "fantasyland" response as much as he did a "belittling" response.

 

[SWIowahawks]

Reading his other comments, he either doesn't want to know or has no idea.

Btw, I've seen your gif a hundred times and I still laugh. Too funny.

 

[MoneyintheBanks]

I don't have a dog in the fight but for all you 'second amendment' people, do you really think we still need a militia? It's not like another country is going to invade us any time soon. I'm actually anti-gun laws but let go of the second amendment, it's no longer relevant.

 

[SWIowahawks]

I don't have a dog in the fight but for all you 'second amendment' people, do you really think we still need a militia? It's not like another country is going to invade us any time soon. I'm actually anti-gun laws but let go of the second amendment, it's no longer relevant.

We will absolutely not let it go. The fact that there are people out there like yourself that want to rescind the 2nd amendment is why it's there. It doesn't affect you so the attitude that what doesn't affect me needs to go is absurd.

Are there any other amendments you don't agree with that need to go?

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

Even if you remove the "militia" language. It's still our basic constitutional right to bear private arms for whatever purpose we deem necessary.

Let it go? No longer relevant? One day, a right you feel is necessary will be deemed "no longer relevant"........do you want that right to be taken away because some people think you don't need it?

 

[MoneyintheBanks]

We will absolutely not let it go. The fact that there are people out there like yourself that want to rescind the 2nd amendment is why it's there. It doesn't affect you so the attitude that what doesn't affect me needs to go is absurd.

Are there any other amendments you don't agree with that need to go?

The actually wording of the 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I'll ask you this, do we still need a militia and why?

 

[MoneyintheBanks]

Bozo's, I have guns. I hunt and I shoot for fun, my family does also. I don't want guns banned, but the 2nd amendment was made because the Brits were in our country. Are they still here? Or what?

 

[SWIowahawks]

The actually wording of the 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I'll ask you this, do we still need a militia and why?

Again it doesn't matter if it's needed. We have the right to do it. It's pretty simple.

Do I trust that one day it may come down to our govt protecting us from all the enemies that we have made? Hell no.

 

[MoneyintheBanks]

We also have the right to text and drive in some states even though hundreds die every year because of it, but since we have the right to do it, it's okay?

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

It gives us the right to form and keep a militia if we feel the necessity to do so. Some still think they are needed.

Which is why in the 90's when people were forming militia groups, the Gov't really did nothing about it.
I agree that some were comical, and a bunch of rednecks with conspiracy theories......but some were very organized and had a lot of former military members in them.


You don't have a "right" to drive and text, just because a state doesn't have a law against it. I'm sorry...but that is a ridiculous assertion.

 

[SWIowahawks]

We also have the right to text and drive in some states even though hundreds die every year because of it, but since we have the right to do it, it's okay?

First, I misread your sentence about beig anti gun laws so that changes the tone of your argument, my bad.

If texting and driving were a "right" it wouldn't be acceptable in some states. It would be acceptable in all states because govt couldn't make a law outlining it.

 

[Thomas Barnes]

On boy. I'm gone for a day and the gun nuts mass in force. SWIowahawks, how can you give away something you didn't earn? Millions have died because of the dumb, dangerous gun laws. Memo: THE CIVIL WAR IS OVER AND ITS NOT 1776!

 

[strummingram]

I wish there were more members of militias and less members of the US Military.

Guns are not the problem. They never were. People USE guns and they do more damage WITH guns, but I don't think that makes the gun(s) the culprit.

 

[strummingram]

That Habah and Arbitr8 - two nearly brain dead idiots - are armed, is reason enough to be terrified.

This is brilliant, by the way:

View embedded media

Great take by Jefferies! I still don't think guns are the culprit. Guns just make the human behavior more dramatic.

 

[73chief]

Bozo's, I have guns. I hunt and I shoot for fun, my family does also. I don't want guns banned, but the 2nd amendment was made because the Brits were in our country. Are they still here? Or what?

Obviously history is not your strong suit. The 2nd Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights which was ratified in 1791. The American Revolution ended in 1783, so "the Brits" weren't in the country.

The basis for the 2nd Amendment came from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. It was established in English Common Law. Many English Common Law traditions were enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was one of them. The concept of habeas corpus and right to a jury trial are some others that we basically kept from the British.

 

[73chief]

Was slavery in there too? Genuinely curious here. Not being cute.

Yet.

No. the basis for Slavery was the 10th Amendment Which basically said any power not delegated nor prohibited to the United States by the Constitution, are reserved to the states. Since there was no mention of slavery in the US Constitution and no specific prohibition, it was up to the states to make their own laws regarding slavery. Hence why you had some states were it was illegal, and some where it was not. This is why the 13th Amendment was required to make slavery in the entire country illegal thus taking the power away from the states and giving it to the US Constitution. It's the same basis for same-sex marriage debate. The Constitution does not address that issue, therefore the 10th Amendment kicks in giving the authority to the individual states to legalize it or not.

 

[TheSasquatch]

I don't have a dog in the fight but for all you 'second amendment' people, do you really think we still need a militia? It's not like another country is going to invade us any time soon. I'm actually anti-gun laws but let go of the second amendment, it's no longer relevant.

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.
Unless you possess the ability to see into the future, the "no longer needed" argument makes you look very dim.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

On boy. I'm gone for a day and the gun nuts mass in force. SWIowahawks, how can you give away something you didn't earn? Millions have died because of the dumb, dangerous gun laws. Memo: THE CIVIL WAR IS OVER AND ITS NOT 1776!

I think the rest of us are going on the notion that you're probably not that bright.
Gun nuts? Who here has acted like a "gun nut"?

As I said in the beginning of the thread....Keep beating that false narrative.

 

[Hawk in SEC Country]

No. the basis for Slavery was the 10th Amendment Which basically said any power not delegated nor prohibited to the United States by the Constitution, are reserved to the states. Since there was no mention of slavery in the US Constitution and no specific prohibition, it was up to the states to make their own laws regarding slavery. Hence why you had some states were it was illegal, and some where it was not. This is why the 13th Amendment was required to make slavery in the entire country illegal thus taking the power away from the states and giving it to the US Constitution. It's the same basis for same-sex marriage debate. The Constitution does not address that issue, therefore the 10th Amendment kicks in giving the authority to the individual states to legalize it or not.

Chief is nailing the point very well on his last two posts.
We found one issue that is at least 8th most important to him.

 

[dgordo]

As long as someone doesn't pull out that, if your grandfather would have had a gun the Nazis never would have been able to lock him up crap.