Gun Control

[Judgement]

He won the electoral. I want a recount on Obama, lets recount each and every one of the next few presidents. Besides, wikipedia is editable, anyone can put any information on there and it does not have to be correct. I have seen information on there so many times that is not correct.

Wikipedia is indeed editable, so I'm going to go with the majority opinion of Bush v. Gore:

The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.



That essentially handed Bush the electoral votes of Florida.


Anyway, back to the issue of gun control:


The implication of D.C. vs Heller is that banning handguns is unconstitutional, and that restrictions such as mandatory trigger locks are unconstitutional.


However, there is no ruling by the Supreme Court preventing the reinstatement of the ban on assault weapons, which was an effective law that did reduce crime rates. And let's get back to how banning guns affects reality- just take a look at Mexico. Recent information in publications such as the New York Times have shown how the availability of arms in the United States is perpetuating violence in Mexico through gun smuggling - primarily of assault rifles.



Think about it this way: who really needs an assault rifle except for someone who is planning on killing people? It's not like you need a rifle with a high firing rate to kill a deer or something else. Who's seriously just buying assault rifles to pump animals full of lead? That kind of takes away from the whole idea of buying guns for sport. Handguns are understandable for self-defense. Regular .22 rifles, and shotguns, and similar firearms are understandable and reasonable for sport. But .50-caliber assault rifles? Those are definitely made to kill.

 

[Invective]

Wikipedia is indeed editable, so I'm going to go with the majority opinion of Bush v. Gore:

The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State’s electors to “participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,” as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 2000 WL 1725434, *13 (Fla. 2000). That statute, in turn, requires that any controversy or contest that is designed to lead to a conclusive selection of electors be completed by December 12. That date is upon us, and there is no recount procedure in place under the State Supreme Court’s order that comports with minimal constitutional standards. Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.



That essentially handed Bush the electoral votes of Florida.

Originally posted by Fat http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_00_949

Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5). Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case.

so, yeah, what won bush the election was the obvious subjectivity of a hand recount that would have surely ensued had the ballots been recounted.

Think about it this way: who really needs an assault rifle except for someone who is planning on killing people? It's not like you need a rifle with a high firing rate to kill a deer or something else. Who's seriously just buying assault rifles to pump animals full of lead? That kind of takes away from the whole idea of buying guns for sport. Handguns are understandable for self-defense. Regular .22 rifles, and shotguns, and similar firearms are understandable and reasonable for sport.

think of assault weapons as insurance. say youre bear hunting and you take your first shot. it doesnt kill the bear, just enrages it. now, which would you rather have to do? pull the trigger again, or have to pull back the bolt to chamber your new round, level the gun again and shoot.
you dont need the firing rate, but it can save you should you come face to face with a bear/boar/big animal. extreme case, but applicable nonetheless.
also, .22s have almost no stopping power, so unless youre hunting small game, theyre next to useless.

But .50-caliber assault rifles?

and as a nitpick, there actually arent many 50 cal assault rifles. most are snipers that are bolt action, so that discounts those. the only 50 cal assault rifle i can think of is the beowulf, and the only snipers i remember that are semi auto are the m82 family.

note, however, that the snipers are not considered assault rifles seeing as how they have only two modes of fire, safe and semi.

Those are definitely made to kill.

arent all guns made to kill?

 

[Son of Disaster]

For pity sakes quit calling them assault weapons. That's really just a non-applicable and misleading term. Fully automatic weapons are illegal to posses if not registered before 1986. If you wish to possess one before said date you must pay a tax, register with the government, send fingerprints and photographs, get the signature of the chief of police, pass an extensive background check, and other rules and regualtions. Automatic weapons are not a problem.

THe mexican mafia is getting them from other sources. AK-47's are Russian weapons that were spread throughout the cold war. It's not a problem in the US. Claiming that mexico's crime problems stem from us is ridiculous to say. Even if it was our problem we shouldn't make new weapon legislation we should simply enforce our border laws. The new york times is also one of the most liberal papers in existence....

You are also gonna need a much more powerful rifle than a .22 if you are hunting, especially for big game. There is no such thing as a .50 cal assault weapon. There's a .50 cal sniper and .50 cal machine gun. THe latter is illegal for civilian use. As for the sniper it's not a weapon seen hardly at all and very expensive.

 

[akuchi]

If Akuchi has no problem with us tossing out our 2nd Amendment and doesnt give half a shit about our Constitution then I guess she wouldnt care if we toss out numbers 13,14, 19. She doesnt give a shit about people's rights so who cares. Lets not forget that guns were necessary to get us the Constitution in the first place. And before any of you even try to say that the Revolutionary war was fought with a US Military please go back and actually study history. There was no US military at the time, the people fought on their own with their own weapons because they fought for their protection and something they believed in, their freedom.

Oh. I don't like guns, so I TOTALLY ENDORSE SLAVERY! YEAH!

 

[Luduan]

think of assault weapons as insurance. say youre bear hunting and you take your first shot. it doesnt kill the bear, just enrages it. now, which would you rather have to do? pull the trigger again, or have to pull back the bolt to chamber your new round, level the gun again and shoot.
you dont need the firing rate, but it can save you should you come face to face with a bear/boar/big animal. extreme case, but applicable nonetheless.
also, .22s have almost no stopping power, so unless youre hunting small game, theyre next to useless.

To my knowledge, most bear hunters don't use semiautomatic weapons anyway; hell, plenty hunt with bows or muzzleloaders. I think you may also be confused as to what constitutes an assault rifle. See below.

For pity sakes quit calling them assault weapons. That's really just a non-applicable and misleading term. Fully automatic weapons are illegal to posses if not registered before 1986. If you wish to possess one before said date you must pay a tax, register with the government, send fingerprints and photographs, get the signature of the chief of police, pass an extensive background check, and other rules and regualtions. Automatic weapons are not a problem.

How is it misleading and non-applicable? It is a legal term.

You are also gonna need a much more powerful rifle than a .22 if you are hunting, especially for big game. There is no such thing as a .50 cal assault weapon. There's a .50 cal sniper and .50 cal machine gun. THe latter is illegal for civilian use. As for the sniper it's not a weapon seen hardly at all and very expensive.

Can you please tell me of a hunting scenario in which you would need a weapon falling under these provisions:

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Conspicuous pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher
• Barrel shroud

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I really havent been following this thread, but I want to at least say that it is amazing that people could want guns to be as much of a part of American culture as they are.

If a robber holds you up and you draw a gun, you are going to get shot before you even have a chance to defend yourself. If you are being held up and you do not draw a weapon, 99% of the time you will not be harmed. Are you really willing to stake your life to protect the $100 or whatever you have in your wallet by betting that your reaction time is faster than this thief's? Owning a gun does not automatically make you safe, as the gun advocates in this thread would have me believe. If anything, it makes you less safe by immediately letting your assailant know that you are a serious threat and should not be treated lightly.

This "arm bank employees" argument is also asinine...yeah, let's give old ladies with no incentive to protect the bank weapons so that THEY can shoot the robbers! Being a bank teller definitely qualifies you to own a gun, with all of that combat training they have! Against a planned criminal assault in close quarters, nothing would go wrong there! What a ridiculous line of thinking. "I need a fucking M16 to protect my house and slaughter helpless animals!" Great idea! Nothing bad could come from that!

Guns are nice to have in the utmost of emergencies, for self-defense. Nobody in their right mind would advocate for a complete blanket ban on guns. But some of the things advocated by posters in this thread and by governmental officials abroad are just scary. We have the right to bear arms, not the right to own weapons so powerful that we can threaten anyone we want with them.

If you really support gun freedom, would you support everybody giving guns to their children before sending them to school? It's so they can protect themselves, you know. As soon as you acknowledge that there are bad situations for guns to be present in, it is pretty hard to justify allowing them to be as freely distributed and encouraged as they are.

 

[Invective]

To my knowledge, most bear hunters don't use semiautomatic weapons anyway; hell, plenty hunt with bows or muzzleloaders. I think you may also be confused as to what constitutes an assault rifle. See below.

This is the definition i was going by.
This is where the confusion is coming from i believe.

This definition of the term "assault weapon" is notably different from the definition of "assault rifle"

Can you please tell me of a hunting scenario in which you would need a weapon falling under these provisions:

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Conspicuous pistol grip
• Bayonet mount
• Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
• Grenade launcher
• Barrel shroud

well, its usually more practical for travel and transportation if the stock is telescoping/folding. it takes up less space and makes the gun as a whole less bulky.
im not exactly sure what is meant by conspicuous pistol grip, but in my experience, pistol grips are easier to hold onto than other styles, but if its referring to a forward pistol grip, those help steady your aim and keep your hand farther from the barrel to avoid burns.
barrel shrouds protect ones hands from coming into contact with the barrel as well to protect against burns. woudnt want to burn your hand hunting, or any other time for that matter.

everything else though, is not applicable in any hunting scenario.

 

[Janenmori]

These so called "assualt type weapons" are a bit frivilous, but the Constitution does allow the right to bear arms. It does not mention what kind, so that is left up to the determination of the Supreme Court regarding the laws that restrict certain types. I say that no types of weapons should be banned but rather controlled to the extent that they are not a threat to the common citizen, but only regarding ridiculously powerful weapons like .50 caliber sniper rifles and automatic weapons. I have seen .50 caliber rifles on sale in Utah (duh) in a regular sporting goods store. High powered handguns, like the Desert Eagle, actually serve no purpose beyond recreational use due to the awkward size and massive kick.

High caliber weapons are actually the primary weapon of choice for any hunter. Especially since any hunter with self-respect will fell his kill in one hit. Most, if not all, guns designed with hunting in mind are bolt action. They can do damage to people at a distance if treated like a sniper rifle, but they often have clips of very few shots and the ammunition is very expensive. Remember, not every person out there is psychopath who wants to get a hunting rifle just to shoot a bunch of innocents at a distance.

Oh. I don't like guns, so I TOTALLY ENDORSE SLAVERY! YEAH!

Lexite was simply saying that you believe in taking away people's guaranteed rights.

 

[akuchi]

no, I don't attach any weird significance to a piece of paper. freedom from slavery and freedom to own a weapon are rather different things.

 

[b0b3rt]

no, I don't attach any weird significance to a piece of paper. freedom from slavery and freedom to own a weapon are rather different things.

Freedom to own a weapon will make sure that you never have to try and convince your government that you would make a bad slave.

The founders put the second amendment in place in case our government became corrupt and we had to violently overthrow it (this is not speculation, it was written in the Federalist Papers, which were written by the founders).
As such, the second amendment protects the others. I think the Jews who lived in Germany could have done with some weapons, before they started getting carted off to camps.

 

[Trax]

The founders put the second amendment in place in case our government became corrupt and we had to violently overthrow it (this is not speculation, it was written in the Federalist Papers, which were written by the founders).

It was also put in there because this was in a time when Law Enforcement agencies were several miles away and cars didn't exist yet.

 

[TeaBag]

Many of you advocates of gun control neglect to realize one of the central arguments for the defense of gun rights. The irony of that is that this very argument is made in favor of the legalization of marijuana, etc. -- legalizing pot encourages its regulated sale and federal control while simultaneously discouraging drug cartels; the alternative is urban alleyway sales and gang drug wars.

Banning domestically available firearms arguably will increase the organized crime rate in America a la Al Capone during prohibition, slums drug dealers today, etc. There exists an inevitable demand for firearms throughout the world and without the government's legal, organized, and restrictive control of its distribution, ownership, and use illegal weapons trafficking will increase substantially.

In short, domestic firearms' legal status is a necessary and lesser "evil" in consideration of the society as a whole.

ps: the real irony is neocon's die-hard protection of the Second Amendment yet their fervent rejection of legal narcotics.

 

[akuchi]

Freedom to own a weapon will make sure that you never have to try and convince your government that you would make a bad slave.

The founders put the second amendment in place in case our government became corrupt and we had to violently overthrow it (this is not speculation, it was written in the Federalist Papers, which were written by the founders).
As such, the second amendment protects the others. I think the Jews who lived in Germany could have done with some weapons, before they started getting carted off to camps.

Why the fuck does the Holocaust come into it? It did last time and quite frankly I think it's sick. Auschwitz would still have been built if the local rabbi had an ak-47 under his desk. To suggest otherwise quite frankly makes a mockery of the multitude of reasons behind the Holocaust. I can't put it any more eloquently than that because I've just woken up, but seriously, who the fuck do you think you are?

And, uh, I have no access to a gun of any description (or weapon, actually, unless you count the crowbar in my dad's garage) and I'm pretty sure Teh Big Bad Evil Government hasn't rocked up at my house to sell me into a life of slavery (though amusingly enough I think capitalism pretty much equates to wage slavery, and America certainly ain't got out of that one).

 

[DM]

Many of you advocates of gun control neglect to realize one of the central arguments for the defense of gun rights. The irony of that is that this very argument is made in favor of the legalization of marijuana, etc. -- legalizing pot encourages its regulated sale and federal control while simultaneously discouraging drug cartels; the alternative is urban alleyway sales and gang drug wars.

Banning domestically available firearms arguably will increase the organized crime rate in America a la Al Capone during prohibition, slums drug dealers today, etc. There exists an inevitable demand for firearms throughout the world and without the government's legal, organized, and restrictive control of its distribution, ownership, and use illegal weapons trafficking will increase substantially.

In short, domestic firearms' legal status is a necessary and lesser "evil" in consideration of the society as a whole.

ps: the real irony is neocon's die-hard protection of the Second Amendment yet their fervent rejection of legal narcotics.

You can't have a garden that grows guns. Argument void.

 

[Janenmori]

Why the fuck does the Holocaust come into it? It did last time and quite frankly I think it's sick. Auschwitz would still have been built if the local rabbi had an ak-47 under his desk. To suggest otherwise quite frankly makes a mockery of the multitude of reasons behind the Holocaust. I can't put it any more eloquently than that because I've just woken up, but seriously, who the fuck do you think you are?

If Jews had weapons to defend themselves from a corrupted government, the Holocaust would not have been so quick to devastate the Jewish population because they would be able to fight back. He is not saying that the Holocaust would not have happened if the Jews had access to weapons, he is merely suggesting that the Germans would not have had an easy time of it, which quite honestly, they did.

And, uh, I have no access to a gun of any description (or weapon, actually, unless you count the crowbar in my dad's garage) and I'm pretty sure Teh Big Bad Evil Government hasn't rocked up at my house to sell me into a life of slavery (though amusingly enough I think capitalism pretty much equates to wage slavery, and America certainly ain't got out of that one).

And Socialism makes you a slave of the state. You have no voice to choose what you want to do and prices are controlled by the government depending on how much revenue they need to make off of taxes. So it is rather arbitrary. In America, things are very different. We had to establish ourselves through fighting a corrupted government, so the founders wanted to ensure that the citizens would be able to do so again if the need arose.

 

[Ancien Régime]

The Warsaw Jews held off the Wehrmacht for two weeks. While virtually unarmed.

Do you realize that a closed off ghetto with pistols and homemade bombs was able to hold off the most powerful military machine on the planet simply by saying "fuck no" when the Nazis told them to get on the trains?

Don't fucking TELL me some machine guns wouldn't have made a difference. At least, the Nazis would had a much tougher time carrying out their Final Solution.

 

[Lexite]

And, uh, I have no access to a gun of any description (or weapon, actually, unless you count the crowbar in my dad's garage) and I'm pretty sure Teh Big Bad Evil Government hasn't rocked up at my house to sell me into a life of slavery (though amusingly enough I think capitalism pretty much equates to wage slavery, and America certainly ain't got out of that one).

How is it wage slavery if you can pick where you work most of the time? My gosh you really are just clueless? Yeah my job is just wage slavery. Doing something that is actually in the field you enjoy is wage slavery? Please Excuse me but you have to work if you want to live, you cant just get a free ride all your life and suckle off the drying tits of the government, get a clue in life. If you have a shitty job you are more then welcome to leave, nothing is holding you there. I am sick and tired of people thinking that someone else should just take care of you and you don’t have to do shit. Get a clue in life. People have had to work to make a living since the day we came into existence. Animals have to work to live, and it is a hell of a lot harder for them then it is for us. If we can’t work, someone else will take care of us, for the animals, tough luck. So enough with the wage slavery bull. You don’t live in the US, shut up. Most people here have a decent job or did prior to the economic fall. And before the economy got bad, if a family did not have enough money to live on (excluding medical reasons) it really was their own fault because they can always try to improve. I by myself make more then some of these families that are on welfare and I am afraid I make more money then my mom does even with her having 2 jobs. She doesn’t want to go quite her jobs for some reason so instead she works two kinda shitty jobs and makes slightly less then her 21 year old daughter. Even though she has an AS degree and I have nothing.

And Communism does force you into wage slavery. You work for the state doing what they tell you do to. So seriously, get a clue or take a hike.

 

[ivar]

I'm pretty sure Teh Big Bad Evil Government hasn't rocked up at my house to sell me into a life of slavery (though amusingly enough I think capitalism pretty much equates to wage slavery, and America certainly ain't got out of that one).

Socialism (the only "non-wage slavery" system of governance I can think of) equates to government slavery--same shit, different packaging, except I prefer the ambiguous notion that somehow competitive labor markets equate to non-institutionalized slavery, rather than unambiguous government coercion. And historically Teh Big Bad Government has rocked the houses of others into lives of slavery, if not yours (to use the popular example of the Holocaust).

My view concerning the right to possess arms is that it is an anachronism of US policy; perhaps in the scenario that such a right can be used to protect oneself from government coercion it can be useful, but the US is such a militaristic powerhouse that... individual gun ownership is futile (unless there is some large enough, collective militia, but even that doesn't seem to be enough). Plus, I just don't see the US military being responsible for some civil genocide, since civic culture has been ingrained. That's why all these arguments concerning gun ownership as protection from the government (such as what the Jews could have done to protect themselves from the SS) in the US are a bit dated and out of proper historical context, unless we are arguing for gun ownership on the basis of principle, instead of on the basis of US policy.

After that it boils down to whether or not gun ownership can protect one from robberies and such. It may... but if the robber in question has momentum (i.e. a gun to your face), there is not much that can be done. Plus, I've heard that most individual guns are used more against family members than antagonistic forces (I'm not sure about this).

 

[b0b3rt]

Socialism (the only "non-wage slavery" system of governance I can think of) equates to government slavery--same shit, different packaging, except I prefer the ambiguous notion that somehow competitive labor markets equate to non-institutionalized slavery, rather than unambiguous government coercion. And historically Teh Big Bad Government has rocked the houses of others into lives of slavery, if not yours (to use the popular example of the Holocaust).

My view concerning the right to possess arms is that it is an anachronism of US policy; perhaps in the scenario that such a right can be used to protect oneself from government coercion it can be useful, but the US is such a militaristic powerhouse that... individual gun ownership is futile (unless there is some large enough, collective militia, but even that doesn't seem to be enough). Plus, I just don't see the US military being responsible for some civil genocide, since civic culture has been ingrained. That's why all these arguments concerning gun ownership as protection from the government (such as what the Jews could have done to protect themselves from the SS) in the US are a bit dated and out of proper historical context, unless we are arguing for gun ownership on the basis of principle, instead of on the basis of US policy.

After that it boils down to whether or not gun ownership can protect one from robberies and such. It may... but if the robber in question has momentum (i.e. a gun to your face), there is not much that can be done. Plus, I've heard that most individual guns are used more against family members than antagonistic forces (I'm not sure about this).

You do realize that as of a few years ago, there were 43 million households with guns in America, right? So if even if one in every 10,000 people who have a gun decide to pop the soldier they sent to their house, that's 4,300 soldiers dead. I'm pretty sure the rest would revolt after that.

Also the second statistic is bullshit, it's an absolute lie; I've seen it spread everywhere and it's annoying as hell. There are 600 accidental gun deaths per year, effectively a statistical anomaly. This isn't even accidental gun deaths of a friend/family member in a household, that's 600 total accidents that cause a fatality. Only slightly more then the accidental deaths related to poison gas, and less then pretty much any other significant cause of accidental deaths.

 

[akuchi]

neocon crap

There is genuinely no point arguing with you, much as you'd like one - I'm perfectly content to live in a society that provides for me whilst I'm too busy with schoolwork to get a job, you think it's the equivalent of living in Hell. Fair enough.

 

[ivar]

You do realize that as of a few years ago, there were 43 million households with guns in America, right? So if even if one in every 10,000 people who have a gun decide to pop the soldier they sent to their house, that's 4,300 soldiers dead. I'm pretty sure the rest would revolt after that.

Honestly, you totally missed the point where I insinuated that the whole scenario of the US government charging in and forcefully enslaving a sizable portion of its own citizenry--when it is an innocent one--is absurd; that's why it's an anachronism, because that will just about never happen in contemporary US, meaning that the right to bear arms is unnecessary as a measure of protection from the government in the US.

Not only that, but it is impossible to hypothesize over this ridiculous possibility. For one, it is not a guarantee that the people who are being enslaved even have guns. Also, when you are being surrounded by tanks, or a military that can threaten to air bomb you, I'm pretty sure you have no chance in taking anyone down. Further, the moment they see you with a gun you get shot (and they will say that if you have a visible weapon you will get shot). When they declare that message you're not gonna be thinking "hey, I've got a 1/10,000 shot (it would probably be way less, since they would have snipers at a distance ready to cap you if you pull out a weapon and all sorts of ways to stop you from getting a shot off) to cap a solider with a stray bullet before I die". You're thinking "holy shit I hope I don't die". Seriously, the military can, if it wants to, enslave you without losing a single man. And even if I am to assume that 1/10,000 number that you pulled out of your ass is possible (and by some stroke of luck all the enslaved households are gun owners), I can guarantee you that the military would be willing to lose 4000 odd men to enslave over 43 million households. Even if the enslaved population forms a collective militia, they will not have the technology to deal with dudes on Gatling guns taking them down from air jets, and bombs, and tanks and shit like that. Not only that, but I can guarantee you that nobody would have the balls to take on the US military and if the military is swift enough, they can get to them before any collective is formed. I can't believe I even played along with that preposterous scenario (there is so much more to say, too), but there... now you know.

lso the second statistic is bullshit, it's an absolute lie; I've seen it spread everywhere and it's annoying as hell. There are 600 accidental gun deaths per year, effectively a statistical anomaly. This isn't even accidental gun deaths of a friend/family member in a household, that's 600 total accidents that cause a fatality. Only slightly more then the accidental deaths related to poison gas, and less then pretty much any other significant cause of accidental deaths.

Like I said, I was unsure about it. Still, that's 600 preventable accidental deaths. It's not like the benefits outweigh it, since attempted murder is even more of a statistical anomaly. Plus, who is to say you'll even have your gun when someone tries to kill you (it's extremely rare that murders are done in someone's own home, and it's not like you can go clubbing with a piece in your handbag; even then, let's say I ring your doorbell and put a gun to your face: what will you do? Hold on, let me just get my Uzi).

 

[Relictivity]

Hmm... the soldiers are very loyal to the country... but renember, they are people too. Would most soldiers listen to orders to enslave the people they protect? Probably not, at least I hope not.

 

[Ancien Régime]

Honestly, you totally missed the point where I insinuated that the whole scenario of the US government charging in and forcefully enslaving a sizable portion of its own citizenry--when it is an innocent one--is absurd; that's why it's an anachronism, because that will just about never happen in contemporary US, meaning that the right to bear arms is unnecessary as a measure of protection from the government in the US.

Do not underestimate the evil of the State. You seem to buy into the lie that those people in DC would hesitate to enslave us all at gunpoint to line their own pockets.

Not only that, but it is impossible to hypothesize over this ridiculous possibility. For one, it is not a guarantee that the people who are being enslaved even have guns.

Also, when you are being surrounded by tanks, or a military that can threaten to air bomb you, I'm pretty sure you have no chance in taking anyone down.

Did you fucking sleep through the entire Iraq conflict? Were you sleeping when they discussed Vietnam in class?

stuff

An insurgency can't beat a conventional army in direct combat. However, unless your attitude towards military victory is similar to that of George W. Bush, you can't believe that beating an initial resistance "wins" the battle. Can the conventional military deal with guerrilla tactics (history says they can't). Do they know the terrain? Can they deal with superior numbers? Can they overcome declining morale, and constant stress (because guerrilla attacks can come at any time, and are usually by stealth)? can they keep better weapons out of the occupied area?

The insurgency force will almost always have 3 key advantages:

- Numbers - they will outnumber the invaders at least 2:1.
- Terrain - They will know the terrain and how to fight in it, the invaders will not.
- Morale - Attacking US citizens will cause mass defections; the only way to avoid this is extreme coercion. This will not do a thing for morale. On the other hand the defenders will be highly motivated, and will simply not surrender (knowing that surrender means enslavement or death).

All the tanks and bombers and military tech in the world will not matter when the enemy is hiding in the mountains and forests. To actually occupy an area of land, it comes down to infantry, and infantry alone, and throughout conventional infantries have constantly lost to insurgencies.


And of course, this assumes the military doesn't undergo mass defection.

 

[b0b3rt]

Do not underestimate the evil of the State. You seem to buy into the lie that those people in DC would hesitate to enslave us all at gunpoint to line their own pockets.

Not only that, but it is impossible to hypothesize over this ridiculous possibility. For one, it is not a guarantee that the people who are being enslaved even have guns.

Did you fucking sleep through the entire Iraq conflict? Were you sleeping when they discussed Vietnam in class?

An insurgency can't beat a conventional army in direct combat. However, unless your attitude towards military victory is similar to that of George W. Bush, you can't believe that beating an initial resistance "wins" the battle. Can the conventional military deal with guerrilla tactics (history says they can't). Do they know the terrain? Can they deal with superior numbers? Can they overcome declining morale, and constant stress (because guerrilla attacks can come at any time, and are usually by stealth)? can they keep better weapons out of the occupied area?

The insurgency force will almost always have 3 key advantages:

- Numbers - they will outnumber the invaders at least 2:1.
- Terrain - They will know the terrain and how to fight in it, the invaders will not.
- Morale - Attacking US citizens will cause mass defections; the only way to avoid this is extreme coercion. This will not do a thing for morale. On the other hand the defenders will be highly motivated, and will simply not surrender (knowing that surrender means enslavement or death).

All the tanks and bombers and military tech in the world will not matter when the enemy is hiding in the mountains and forests. To actually occupy an area of land, it comes down to infantry, and infantry alone, and throughout conventional infantries have constantly lost to insurgencies.


And of course, this assumes the military doesn't undergo mass defection.

Thanks.. not to mention we outnumber the army by quite a bit more then 2:1.
Edit: I would die defending myself/family before being enslaved by my country.

 

[ivar]

Do not underestimate the evil of the State. You seem to buy into the lie that those people in DC would hesitate to enslave us all at gunpoint to line their own pockets.

No. The US military will not enslave a significant portion of its own citizenry! I don't care what you say about the evils of the State; YOU underestimate the protection against genocides offered by civic culture, ingrained in the US. It will never happen.

An insurgency can't beat a conventional army in direct combat. However, unless your attitude towards military victory is similar to that of George W. Bush, you can't believe that beating an initial resistance "wins" the battle. Can the conventional military deal with guerrilla tactics (history says they can't). Do they know the terrain? Can they deal with superior numbers? Can they overcome declining morale, and constant stress (because guerrilla attacks can come at any time, and are usually by stealth)? can they keep better weapons out of the occupied area?

And pray tell, who in the US is expertly trained in guerrilla warfare? Those who are are likely in the military! You fail to mention, when referencing the insurgency of Iraq and Vietnam, is that the insurgents were military trained, yet it is those who are military trained that are precisely the ones hunting you down! Seriously, most people get their food from the grocery store, and now they are going to be hiding up in the mountains, eating berries and killing goats while making attacks against the US military with their handguns? Oh please. ALSO, the military can easily just make a surprise coup; it can, in one day, just come to your house, with its shiny and scary-looking weapons, and ask you to come with them, as it is a matter of national security. What are you gonna do in that situation? Make a run for it? No, you're just gonna go along. They don't even need to attack you. People are just not prepared for their own military attacking them; it is a situation so bizarre that they will not think to hide out in the mountains with their piece.

The insurgency force will almost always have 3 key advantages:

- Numbers - they will outnumber the invaders at least 2:1.
- Terrain - They will know the terrain and how to fight in it, the invaders will not.
- Morale - Attacking US citizens will cause mass defections; the only way to avoid this is extreme coercion. This will not do a thing for morale. On the other hand the defenders will be highly motivated, and will simply not surrender (knowing that surrender means enslavement or death).

You mention the problem of mass defections. This is why such enslavement will never happen--too many people are against it! Even if you are skeptical about the goodwill of the military, you should know that the military is not totally fuckin' stupid; they know that enslaving 43 million households in America is a dumb fuckin' plan that nobody would agree with. The possibility wouldn't even enter their minds.

And how will the invaders not know the terrain if its in the damn US? You'd think the US military would know its own terrain.

I can't be the only one who thinks this whole thing is just ridiculous.