BoatShoes;1346689 wrote:Go on thinking that America wouldn't be a substantially better country with less unnecessary deaths of we just imposed reasonable regulations on guns like other rich countries have in the same way we regulate speech, assembly and other guaranteed rights.
Yeah USA! Unlike the past, we don't need to worry about what occurred in other counties!BoatShoes;1346688 wrote:Even if we accept all of this...people in America arekilled and maimed more by the massive prevalence of guns than they are saved by our heroic vigilantes. In these other countries these mysterious gunmen aren't needing to be stopped by heroic vigilantes because they don't have guns.
Seems like a better choice than just giving everyone a gun.
Sonofanump;1346726 wrote:Yeah USA! Unlike the past, we don't need to worry about what occurred in other counties!
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
I am looking for an article about huge tragedies in Switzerland, I'll keep looking.
We can't rely on mere intuition when we make public policy. I agree what you suggest sounds like it would intuitively happen. "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns." Even the great Plato hypothesized something similar. This doesn't bear fruit in actual experience.Sonofanump;1346692 wrote:So only guns will exist illegally in the USA. I wonder who will obtain and use those? Gotcha.
Belly has his own Army 25 Vietnam Vets at a phone call armed, prepared to die and willing to .... but not without a fightBoatShoes;1346791 wrote:Well if you think survivalist loons hiding in their shed in Idaho with an AR-15 stand any chance against a tyrannical United States' President and his arsenal of soulless drones and the most formidable military force the world has ever seen you are loony.
In fact, arming individuals actual weakens the people against a Tyrannical government. Non-violent and robust exercise of the rights to freely assemble and speak...united against tyranny...are vastly more powerful against despots than individuals hiding out with their pitiful weapons.
The Tunisians have the least guns in the world and they toppled a dictator. Civil Rights were one through petition and assembly. The Indians were freed from the British Empire with non-violent civil disobedience.
A bunch of individuals alone with their guns are way less powerful than individuals united in their voice and assembly for freedom. Thus is the logic of collective action.
And either way...if that is such a concern we could actually regulate private gun ownership in the way the Swiss do and require conscription into militias in exchange for private gun ownership. Or, we could house armories in every County. These achieve the same purpose of an insurance policy against big gubmint without the pandemonium taking place with our massive amounts of barely regulated private gun ownership.
ccrunner609;1346894 wrote:Maybe we are missing the obvious....lets not let women be in control of guns. Maybe if this fucks dad was in the picture it wouldnt of happened.
In your scenario, why are the individuals with guns "alone", but the people exercising freedom of speech and assembly "united"? Of course any group united around a shared agenda will stand a greater chance of survival than a bunch of isolated individuals, whether they are armed with guns or ideas.BoatShoes;1346791 wrote:Well if you think survivalist loons hiding in their shed in Idaho with an AR-15 stand any chance against a tyrannical United States' President and his arsenal of soulless drones and the most formidable military force the world has ever seen you are loony.
In fact, arming individuals actual weakens the people against a Tyrannical government. Non-violent and robust exercise of the rights to freely assemble and speak...united against tyranny...are vastly more powerful against despots than individuals hiding out with their pitiful weapons.
The Tunisians have the least guns in the world and they toppled a dictator. Civil Rights were one through petition and assembly. The Indians were freed from the British Empire with non-violent civil disobedience.
A bunch of individuals alone with their guns are way less powerful than individuals united in their voice and assembly for freedom. Thus is the logic of collective action.
And either way...if that is such a concern we could actually regulate private gun ownership in the way the Swiss do and require conscription into militias in exchange for private gun ownership. Or, we could house armories in every County. These achieve the same purpose of an insurance policy against big gubmint without the pandemonium taking place with our massive amounts of barely regulated private gun ownership.
Common sense will never prevail.WebFire;1347153 wrote:I think this guys ideas on "gun control" are reasonable.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-lowden/gun-control-_b_2322619.html
I'd say the opposite is true. This woman was a survivalist loon but she appears the be the exception to the general rule. Men by and large commit more gun crimes and violence than women.ccrunner609;1346894 wrote:Maybe we are missing the obvious....lets not let women be in control of guns. Maybe if this fucks dad was in the picture it wouldnt of happened.
Funny too, when you consider it was the male that committed the crime and not the female, in this case.BoatShoes;1347205 wrote:I'd say the opposite is true. This woman was a survivalist loon but she appears the be the exception to the general rule. Men by and large commit more gun crimes and violence than women.
A united armed citizen is a militia and per the founders should be well regulated! Private, unregulated individuals preparing for a war of all-against-all in the economic collapse are not part of a well regulated militia united against tyranny. The later interpretation of the second amendment that thought private individuals ought to be armed in their homes to protect against other private mobs does not mesh with the interpretation of a well-trained, coordinated militia.jhay78;1346922 wrote:In your scenario, why are the individuals with guns "alone", but the people exercising freedom of speech and assembly "united"? Of course any group united around a shared agenda will stand a greater chance of survival than a bunch of isolated individuals, whether they are armed with guns or ideas.
And nobody that I've read on this thread ever claimed that guns (or violence) are the solution to every ill in every society. Doesn't always have to be. Now as a last resort . . .
But I'll trust the founders' view on a united armed citizenry defending itself against despotism. It has worked more than once.
The people don't have to be "united" until they have to be "united". That day isn't today but that doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow.BoatShoes;1347216 wrote:A united armed citizen is a militia and per the founders should be well regulated! Private, unregulated individuals preparing for a war of all-against-all in the economic collapse are not part of a well regulated militia united against tyranny. The later interpretation of the second amendment that thought private individuals ought to be armed in their homes to protect against other private mobs does not mesh with the interpretation of a well-trained, coordinated militia.
There are infinitely better ways we could form insurance militias as insurance against tyranny than unregulated widespread private gun ownership. In fact, our system is probably the worst way.
And, it's reasonable to believe that they're not united because the interpretation that justifies private gun ownership is protection against coercion from other private individuals rather than against the government. Think coach Boon in Remember the Titans going to get his shotgun when the racists in the town threw a brick threw his window.
What is the saying? "An armed society is a polite society?" Why is that? Because when men are having an argument, debate or dispute...what happens when one man shows the gun he's carrying? "I don't want no problems Mr."
Guns have a chilling effect on speech and assembly which are more powerful in the face of government force than the infinitely weaker force that is a gun in the hands of one individual who hasn't coordinated his actions with others.
So long as collateral damage is a concern. If it's the natural resources they want and need, they could just flatten everything and everyone.ccrunner609;1346935 wrote:We have guns, lots of guns. One reason why the US will never be attacked by land. Other countries will never send troops here, they would get killed by the general population
Coming up with effective military formations and paramilitary tactics with Joe from the bunker across the county on the fly is not going to be effective against a modern military force. It is the two prevailing views of the second amendment from our history coming into collision against each other.Con_Alma;1347218 wrote:The people don't have to be "united" until they have to be "united". That day isn't today but that doesn't mean it won't be tomorrow.
You're speaking from an effective military tactis perspective as opposed to the people having the right to revolt with arms and not having that right infringed upon. They are two different things. Being united in cause has changed the world many, many times.BoatShoes;1347231 wrote:Coming up with effective military formations and paramilitary tactics with Joe from the bunker across the county on the fly is not going to be effective against a modern military force. It is the two prevailing views of the second amendment from our history coming into collision against each other.
This needs repeated. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "the right of a militia to keep and bear arms" it's the right of the people. If they then want to form a militia, they then have that right, not a requirement.Con_Alma;1347235 wrote:In addition, Supreme Court rulings in 2008 and 2010 have clarified that the 2nd amendment grants individuals the right to arms without the association of a militia.
I don't think the Brits thought a bunch of disoarganized yankees could stand up to them either. Gorilla warfare (even in recent history) is very effective against a larger more advanced force and I think the most effective way to combat gorilla warfare would be to disarm the people.BoatShoes;1347231 wrote:Coming up with effective military formations and paramilitary tactics with Joe from the bunker across the county on the fly is not going to be effective against a modern military force. It is the two prevailing views of the second amendment from our history coming into collision against each other.
The most effective way to make gorilla warfare ineffective is to have a bunch of private individuals with guns wary of one another afraid they're going to steal the survival seeds they bought off of World Net Daily's website.FatHobbit;1347321 wrote:I don't think the Brits thought a bunch of disoarganized yankees could stand up to them either. Gorilla warfare (even in recent history) is very effective against a larger more advanced force and I think the most effective way to combat gorilla warfare would be to disarm the people.
But when Americans do organize groups to train people call them whackos.BoatShoes;1347739 wrote:The most effective way to make gorilla warfare ineffective is to have a bunch of private individuals with guns wary of one another afraid they're going to steal the survival seeds they bought off of World Net Daily's website.
The Yankees were not disorganized. They epitomized well regulated militias under the leadership of a great General. Even the Taliban engage in coordinated military training exercises. Individual extremist Afghans hiding in their house with an AK on guard against other Afghans protecting their goats are not going to be effective gorilla warriors.
Do you think that if there were a bunch of singularly armed Afghans who had never trained together but were just storing guns in their house wary of other Afghans stealing their shit....that if the U.S. decided to show up the Afghans would have had the success in foiling U.S. efforts that they have had? I hope you don't because they would not.
The reason the Taliban is able to have some success is because they're a well regulated militia...not a bunch of random Afghans who joined together Red-Dawn-Style when the Yankees arrived.
And this is all stemming from misunderstanding with regard to the history of jurisprudence regarding the 2nd Amendment
The Second Amendment was never interpreted to say that an Individual's right to bear arms in the privacy of their own home etc. was justified because it insured against tyranny....that was the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia.
The Individual Right to Bear Arms in your home or on your person as a concealed weapon is justified because it is a last line of defense against other private citizens....not government tyranny.
People building up arsenals in their homes to protect against home invasions from private citizens does not protect against government tyranny and the Founding Fathers never thought it would and neither should a reasonable person today.
But these two interpretations have been conflated across time.
A bunch of loons playing army in the woods isn't well regulated. It's called the National Guard. It was Alexander Hamilton who first suggested in the Federalist Papers that the militias should be regulated by the states (as opposed to the federal government).WebFire;1347767 wrote:But when Americans do organize groups to train people call them whackos.
American private firearms owners may or may not wish to "bolster state militias". Just being able to whenever they choose is part of the privilege of living here.BoatShoes;1347779 wrote:A bunch of loons playing army in the woods isn't well regulated. It's called the National Guard. It was Alexander Hamilton who first suggested in the Federalist Papers that the militias should be regulated by the states (as opposed to the federal government).
But, if Americans private firearm ownership to bolster state militias they ought to look the Swiss Model which is also well regulated and provides ample training and military exercises for the militiamen.
But, this all a red herring. Americans have guns and want guns and have the right to have guns as protection against other private citizens when the government provided security fails or is absent. The bluster about defending against tyranny is all a bunch of baloney Ron Burgundy.
So is the Taliban well regulated? They seem like a bunch of loons playing army too.BoatShoes;1347779 wrote:A bunch of loons playing army in the woods isn't well regulated. It's called the National Guard. It was Alexander Hamilton who first suggested in the Federalist Papers that the militias should be regulated by the states (as opposed to the federal government).
But, if Americans private firearm ownership to bolster state militias they ought to look the Swiss Model which is also well regulated and provides ample training and military exercises for the militiamen.
But, this all a red herring. Americans have guns and want guns and have the right to have guns as protection against other private citizens when the government provided security fails or is absent. The bluster about defending against tyranny is all a bunch of baloney Ron Burgundy.