if the government were to turn the army on the citizenry?
Paranoid and unlikely.
And no they wouldn't rise they'd roll over and take it. You only have to look at the Rhodesians, the Boers in South Africa, the Israeli Gazan settlers people don't rise against their governments.
Just doesn't happen. I mean when people are actually opressed by a weak and imposed government then there might be a revolt, usually only with substantial external support.
Quote: sootyj @ 12th January 2016, 5:32 PM GMTAnd no they wouldn't rise they'd roll over and take it.
Governments need to fear the people and not the other way around. If the government ever tries to take away America's guns you'll see just how much blood they're willing to shed.
But it's all unlikely because the Second Amendment is popular with all parties, races, genders and levels of income. That's why nobody has been able to make gun control stick.
I've not seen any proposals to: take away America's guns
from a well trained populace.
I only see proposals to ensure that the purchase of guns is restricted to those who are not likely to misuse them.
Reading through the Gun Violence Archives http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/last-72-hours it is clear that a significant number of cases are where gun owners are insufficiently trained or careless or are prone to anger bursts in which they would use the nearest weapon to hand.
Several of the actual news articles (not the summaries) mentioned " he/she was playing with the gun " In one case the man removed the magazine and then pointed it at his girlfriend's head during sex and pulled the trigger. He had forgotten there would be a round in the chamber & shot her dead. In another a man had bought a new gun and was playing with it causing it to fire; the bullet went through his floor and fatally wounded a 13 year old girl in the apartment below. etc etc.
Cars too are lethal and the laws require that to drive a car you have to show you are capable of driving with reasonanle safety. Also all cars are registered and identified.
I see no real reason why these two requirements should not also apply to gun ownership.
Very little DaButt, you're a smart guy which makes what you're saying a bit weird. It's a bit like when you're talking to someone about God and they say yeh he talks to me.
But no nonsence. In South Africa the Afrikaaner Freedom Party planned a well organised resistance to free elections. They had thousands of members, hundreds of thousands of supporters and millions of bullets.
They weren't just armed, they were organised and trained. They were represented at every level of the military and security services.
In the end it took I think 12 deaths, mostly in an ill thought out intervention in Bantustan who were shot by the police.
That was it they crawled off into histories great epilogue. And they were facing total disenfranchisment and poverty both of which happened.
The idea that your self indulgent, paranoid nitwits occupying a bird sanctuary are going to frighten a government, really?
So it boils down to - we need guns in case the government sets the army on us. Is it still the wild wild west out there?
Or Syria
Perhaps we should all get guns too.
It does make America sound more like a third world country.
Quote: billwill @ 12th January 2016, 8:03 PM GMTI've not seen any proposals to: take away America's guns from a well trained populace.
I only see proposals to ensure that the purchase of guns is restricted to those who are not likely to misuse them.
Then you haven't been paying attention, because I've posted numerous indications to the contrary over the last months and years.
The president has been touting Australia's 1990s gun laws (i.e. confiscation) as a "common sense" example that we should follow. He's on record as being opposed to handguns and semi-automatic firearms of all kinds. The president could outlaw all firearms other than allowing each qualified adult to own one single-shot .22 derringer and one round of ammunition and still not technically violate the Second Amendment, but it would mean the effective disarming of the populace.
This all boils down to the citizens not wanting to be treated like criminals unless they are criminals. I shouldn't have to face a felony charge because a politician decides that adding an inert handgrip to my rifle is a grievous crime against humanity.
As President Carter's former press secretary famously advised Bill Clinton when he decided to tackle guns early in his presidency, "As much as I hate to say it, the NRA is effective primarily because it is largely right when it claims that most gun control laws inconvenience and threaten the law-abiding while having little or no impact on violent crime or criminals."
Quote: billwill @ 12th January 2016, 8:03 PM GMTCars too are lethal and the laws require that to drive a car you have to show you are capable of driving with reasonanle safety. Also all cars are registered and identified.
I see no real reason why these two requirements should not also apply to gun ownership.
The right to bear arms for protection is guaranteed by the Constitution, so the best you could hope for would be to make gun buyers sit through a stupid safety briefing. It would do nothing to lessen gun crime, since criminals buy their weapons on the street and pay no heed to licensing requirements or laws.
A national gun registry is atop the gun haters' wish list, since the only way the government would be able to hold a mass confiscation in the future would be to actually know where all the guns actually were. Again, such a requirement would only affect law-abiding citizens and would completely bypass any of the millions of illegal guns already on the street.
Quote: sootyj @ 12th January 2016, 8:05 PM GMTBut no nonsence. In South Africa the Afrikaaner Freedom Party planned a well organised resistance to free elections. They had thousands of members, hundreds of thousands of supporters and millions of bullets.
This is the United States, not South Africa. Comparison with another country is pointless.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 12th January 2016, 9:54 PM GMTSo it boils down to - we need guns in case the government sets the army on us.
No, we also need guns for protection from criminals. We need guns to protect us from deadly wildlife. We need guns to hunt for our food. We need guns to practice our shooting hobbies.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 12th January 2016, 9:54 PM GMTPerhaps we should all get guns too.
Suit yourself, it wouldn't affect me at all. But I hope you realize that if a gun materialized in your closet tonight it wouldn't turn you into a raving murderer tomorrow.
Quote: zooo @ 12th January 2016, 10:19 PM GMTIt does make America sound more like a third world country.
As for guns and homicides, we pale in comparison to third world countries. This is an interesting video:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/pELwCqz2JfE?rel=0&autoplay=true
Well there goes comparative politics! As the US would appear to be the most unique democracy in the world.
Thing is what you're talking about is armed insurrection, revoloution no government has a place for accepting armed opposition to it's power. Nor for that matter will its citizenery.
In the US when this has happened since the Civil War this has been the ultimate result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eHpRjxk7N4
good thing it's so rare. So if these nitwits are planning to challenge the government it's a revoloution. Are they smuggling in Stingers to bring down helicopters and Javelins in case Obama breaks out the Bradleys again?
Are you going to copy the succesful tactics of actual revoloutinaries? IEDs on the road to blow State troopers into chilli chunks? How about kidnapping meter maids and beheading them live on YouTube? What about necklacing someone you think grassed on your revoloutinaries? Maybe they're innocent but hell it'll scare everyone else.
Maybe a barrel bomb or two from someone's private Cesna for that high school where they all smoke weed and your taxes promote the liberal agenda?
Because that's what a revoloution looks like these days. It's power drills in the knee caps and beheadings with home made knives. And living on neighbourhood cats in the chilly hills whilst watching the skies.
But if you're idea of resisting the government is stomping around the woods a couple of times a year, posting on Facebook and occupying a bird sanctuary. Then really grow up and look at how the government took control of all the important parts of your life whilst you weren't looking.
The president has been touting Australia's 1990s gun laws (i.e. confiscation) as a "common sense" example that we should follow. He's on record as being opposed to handguns and semi-automatic firearms of all kinds.
He may well hold those views but has he actually definitively put forward any legal change other than ones which try to ensure that guns are not sold to innapropriate citizens.
>The right to bear arms for protection is guaranteed by the Constitution,
You speak as though it is the right of EVERY US Citizen to bear arms. This clearly is not so.
A 1 month old baby does not have the right to bear arms; this 'right' magically appears some time between 1 month and 21 years old.
The distribution of intelligence among US citizens, follows (I presume) the usual bell curve, so there are inevitably some US citizens of reduced intelligence, so assuming s/he definitely has this right at an IQ of 100, at what lower figure does the right dissapear? 70 ? 60 ? 50 ? 40? 20? 10?
Do people in prison have the "right to bear arms" If so how come anybody is still in prison.
From quotes above it is clear that the original 2nd amendment clearly inferred that armed citizens are supposed to be TRAINED. This seems to be a basic requirement, If people are to have guns, it only makes sense if they are trained in the safety precautions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the statistics for this year already (only 13 days) http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ the number of accidental shootings is 78 wheras the number of defensive use cases is 47. You citizens evidently face a higher risk of being shot by accident than being shot by a criminal. Is it worth it?
~~~~~~~~~~
I'm certainly not advocating that all existing guns be surrendered; there is no point in that. But the selling of guns to innapropriate citizens needs to be controlled and the training of legal buyers needs to be ensured.
> since criminals buy their weapons on the street and pay no heed to licensing requirements or laws.
As you say, probably, but where do the street SELLERS get the guns to sell. At some place back up the line there was a legal but uncontrolled sale.
Do you personnaly really advocate that any young neighbour of yours should be allowed to buy a gun and be allowed to use it anywhere without anyone ensuring that he has at least the basic training to use it safely.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting
Quote: billwill @ 13th January 2016, 12:59 PM GMTIn the statistics for this year already (only 13 days) http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ the number of accidental shootings is 78 wheras the number of defensive use cases is 47. You citizens evidently face a higher risk of being shot by accident than being shot by a criminal.
To be fair, that statistic doesn't take into account those occasions when guns worked as a defensive deterrent; how often were crimes prevented because the potential victim was known to be armed?
Quote: billwill @ 13th January 2016, 12:59 PM GMTHe may well hold those views but has he actually definitively put forward any legal change other than ones which try to ensure that guns are not sold to innapropriate citizens.
He doesn't have the power to do more, or he would. But the actions he's taken by executive order will do absolutely nothing to reduce gun crime in the nation. I'm sure even he realizes that.
Quote: billwill @ 13th January 2016, 12:59 PM GMTA 1 month old baby does not have the right to bear arms; this 'right' magically appears some time between 1 month and 21 years old.
Incorrect. There is no age limit for the right to bear arms.
Quote: billwill @ 13th January 2016, 12:59 PM GMTThis seems to be a basic requirement, If people are to have guns, it only makes sense if they are trained in the safety precautions.
There are probably a handful of untrained people out there who legally possess a firearm, but all of the rest have been trained in gun safety by a friend, family member, youth organization, professional instructor, or the military.
Quote: billwill @ 13th January 2016, 12:59 PM GMTIn the statistics for this year already (only 13 days) http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ the number of accidental shootings is 78 wheras the number of defensive use cases is 47. You citizens evidently face a higher risk of being shot by accident than being shot by a criminal. Is it worth it?
No, those numbers would mean that you're more likely to be shot by accident than to shoot a criminal in self-defence. The actual number of shootings by criminals is surely in the hundreds.
And, yes, it is worth it, because the only statistic that I worry about is me. If I find myself confronted by a threat to my life -- be it a criminal or an animal -- it would be very unlikely that a law enforcement officer would be close enough to protect me.
Quote: billwill @ 13th January 2016, 12:59 PM GMTAs you say, probably, but where do the street SELLERS get the guns to sell. At some place back up the line there was a legal but uncontrolled sale.
Incorrect. At some place back up the line there was a legal but controlled sale. All original firearm sales require an FBI background check. Every single one of them.
Guns on the street are typically stolen. The ISIS supporter who shot a Philadelphia cop last week was using a gun that had been stolen from another police officer.
Quote: billwill @ 13th January 2016, 12:59 PM GMTDo you personnaly really advocate that any young neighbour of yours should be allowed to buy a gun and be allowed to use it anywhere without anyone ensuring that he has at least the basic training to use it safely.
How young is young? There are already laws in place which place age limits on the purchase of firearms. There are also laws in place that forbid shooting in specific places: typically within the city limits. But just about every youngster over the age of 10 in my neighborhood has been well trained in firearm safety and I don't blink an eye when I see them holding their rifles.
It's another world.
And one I am no longer in a hurry to visit.
Quote: Stephen Goodlad @ 14th January 2016, 4:20 PM GMTIt's another world.
And one I am no longer in a hurry to visit.
It's actually a lot like the UK, but with less crime. 
>There are probably a handful of untrained people out there who legally possess a firearm, but all of the rest have been trained in gun safety by a friend, family member, youth organization, professional instructor, or the military.
The evidence in those news stories linked from the statiistics pages indicate that there are MANY gun owners inadequately trained.
Quote: billwill @ 14th January 2016, 4:42 PM GMTThe evidence in those news stories linked from the statiistics pages indicate that there are MANY gun owners inadequately trained.
Every accidental/negligent discharge doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of training and training does not guarantee absolute safety. How many trained and licensed drivers are killed or injured on the roadways every year? Cops and soldiers are highly trained in the use of firearms, but they still discharge their weapons negligently at times.
The key word is 'negligence,' although not all accidental shootings are negligent. One of your stats includes a young girl who was killed when a cop's bullet passed through her armed father's body. No negligence or lack of training in that case.