On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama

[Highwayman]

And not surprising, really. But there is a big difference here. Gun control in the US is a blanket control not aimed at a particular ethnic or racial group. It's intended to limit violent crime, not disarm a group in preparation for genocide. But thank you for clarifying that. I did not see that in the original link.



I don't think outlawing guns is the answer. That's my point.



My comment wasn't directed towards you. :)


I used the Greeks and Persians as a really sarcastic joust. I understand their refusal to lay down arms (difference: they were a military unit) aided their people. I was just noting that despite Hitler banning guns from Jews (can we even say that Jews were avid gun lovers? How many of them would have even had guns without the ban? I think it is a valid question if one is to assert that the Jews would have avoided genocide if they had only not had gun control laws imposed agains them) I really don't think it would have made a significant difference. Yeah, a few of them would have taken down some SS troops, but overall, and unfortunately, the Jews would still have been subject to genocide.

Again, the law that was made in 1928 has a good intent, but it is not practical which is the point I've been trying to make...



I am well aware of the history of peoples and revolts against the government. But why can't you understand that is not possible in the US? A violent coup doesn't work when the citizen militia doesn't have access to the quantity or quality of weaponry they will face against our military.

Sure, that worked for our revolution, but if one can't distinguish now and then...one surely is "blind" and "close-minded."

Our own revolution is testimony to an armed people defeating the army of an oppressive government. In fact, many of Washington’s men were simple farmers, hicks if you will.

How much of a difference would it have made if the Jews were armed? We’ll never know that one. We do know that Hitler avoided Switzerland in his conquest of Europe. Partly because of the mountains restricted access and partly because every adult male was armed and prepared to defend their country. The Jews were easy, the Swiss were not.

Could we stand up to our modern military today? We would hope that day never comes, but if it does we better damn sure hope that our military would reject orders to fire on civilians and stand down. But now we’re drifting into Posse Comitatus and authorized uses of the Nation Guard in civilian law enforcement. Then, if it ever came to that, the laws would be out the window anyway. Still, small armed bands using guerrilla tactics have been known to inflict a lot of damage on superior forces and capture their weapons. And the civilian population is vastly superior in numbers to our military. I would never underestimate the ingenuity of a bunch of hicks, many who are military veterans. Nor do I believe our military isn’t smart enough to recognize a despot leader and give him blind obedience the way Germans did under Hitler. I do reject the idea that resistance is futile.

We know that innocent sounding gun laws that have been proposed here have been used against others in the past. Hitler used gun registration to find and confiscate weapons in order to minimize resistance. As told to me by an older couple that escaped from Czechoslovakia when it was under Soviet control, the first thing the Soviets did when they invaded was go to the courthouse and get the gun registration records. Then they went house to house collecting weapons. If you had lost or lent out a weapon and couldn’t produce it, you were taken into the street and shot on the spot. There are good reasons to resist gun registration, especially when the courts have ruled that convicted felons who possess a weapon illegally can not be forced to comply because it would violate his 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. If the criminals that we need to worry about are exempt from a gun control law, why should anyone be forced comply with it?

Our immediate and real concerns are the common criminals. Handguns are a preferred weapon of choice for honest folks that want to carry. Shotguns and so called assault weapons also have their place in self-defense. This BS about banning weapons that are preferred by criminals is just that. BS. Criminals prefer whatever they can get their hands on. Implement background checks and criminals turn to the black market or simply steal a gun. They don’t care. If the gun is too long to conceal under a long coat, there is such a thing as a hacksaw to fix that. As you correctly point out, banning guns is not the answer.

So getting back to VP’s first post, we have a candidate that rejects common sense and favors more worthless gun control. He favors laws that have already proven to fail at controlling crime. He favors judges that believe we have no right to defend ourselves. He is wrong on the Second Amendment and wrong for America.

[agnostic]

Some parts I agree. Some parts I disagree. When I have more time I will comment further.

Implement background checks and criminals turn to the black market or simply steal a gun. They don’t care. If the gun is too long to conceal under a long coat, there is such a thing as a hacksaw to fix that. As you correctly point out, banning guns is not the answer.

Spot on.

I think we can all agree that we need to find a solution. We NEED to get guns out of the hands of violent offenders.

I wish I knew the answer.

[Bubba]

...But why can't you understand that is not possible in the US? A violent coup doesn't work when the citizen militia doesn't have access to the quantity or quality of weaponry they will face against our military.

Sure, that worked for our revolution, but if one can't distinguish now and then...one surely is "blind" and "close-minded."

Military people are citizens too. All it would take is a few well placed military people that have the same feelings that have access to those weapons and those quality weapons could be used against the government.

[Army_of_One]

Some parts I agree. Some parts I disagree. When I have more time I will comment further.



Spot on.

I think we can all agree that we need to find a solution. We NEED to get guns out of the hands of violent offenders.

I wish I knew the answer.

I would agree but that is something that is almost impossible...especially since some people don't become "violent offenders" until they have weapons.

[lurker]

Some parts I agree. Some parts I disagree. When I have more time I will comment further. Please do when you adopt some 'beliefs'



Spot on.

I think we can all agree that we need to find a solution. We NEED to get guns out of the hands of violent offenders.

I wish I knew the answer.

It's so simple that I can't believe you have not thought of it...

First offense, use of a gun in a criminal action results in both thumbs being broken.

Second offense, both thumbs are broken off.

[K C Muffin]

Not a bad idea. A little archaic, but not a bad idea. Are you volunteering to be the guy in the black robe that breaks the thumbs or hacks them off?

[lurker]

Not a bad idea. A little archaic, but not a bad idea. Are you volunteering to be the guy in the black robe that breaks the thumbs or hacks them off?

Naw. I'd just gnaw them off.

[K C Muffin]

Naw. I'd just gnaw them off.

Ooh! That'd be even better to watch! Yuk.......

[agnostic]

Military people are citizens too. All it would take is a few well placed military people that have the same feelings that have access to those weapons and those quality weapons could be used against the government.

=\

Tanks, gunships, aircraft?

It would take a lot of those military people with those ideas. But that doesn't do much for the argument that 2nd amendment is necessary for revolt.

[Binky Bainbridge]

Our own revolution is testimony to an armed people defeating the army of an oppressive government. In fact, many of Washington’s men were simple farmers, hicks if you will.

So when do you think you simple farmers, (or hicks, if you like), will have to rise up and oppose your oppressive government? And who or what gives you the right to think and/or commit treason in a democratic country with a freely elected government?

How much of a difference would it have made if the Jews were armed? We’ll never know that one. We do know that Hitler avoided Switzerland in his conquest of Europe. Partly because of the mountains restricted access and partly because every adult male was armed and prepared to defend their country. The Jews were easy, the Swiss were not.

Rubbish, the Jews were spread out over many parts of Europe, and even where they were in concentrated situations where they were armed, e.g., the Warsaw ghetto, they were easily defeated by a massively overwhelming force.
Hitler avoided Switzerland for one simple reason, it was neutral! As were Ireland, Sweden, Spain & Portugal. Get your historical facts right.

Could we stand up to our modern military today? We would hope that day never comes, but if it does we better damn sure hope that our military would reject orders to fire on civilians and stand down. But now we’re drifting into Posse Comitatus and authorized uses of the Nation Guard in civilian law enforcement. Then, if it ever came to that, the laws would be out the window anyway. Still, small armed bands using guerrilla tactics have been known to inflict a lot of damage on superior forces and capture their weapons. And the civilian population is vastly superior in numbers to our military. I would never underestimate the ingenuity of a bunch of hicks, many who are military veterans. Nor do I believe our military isn’t smart enough to recognize a despot leader and give him blind obedience the way Germans did under Hitler. I do reject the idea that resistance is futile.

I think your scenario is pure paranoia - and highly treasonable.

We know that innocent sounding gun laws that have been proposed here have been used against others in the past. Hitler used gun registration to find and confiscate weapons in order to minimize resistance.

We don't have wholesale gun ownership in England or indeed in most parts of Europe, and indeed the world! In a civilised society mass ownership of guns is not necessary, its only in the minds of gun-addicts who perceive the day coming when they'll have to rise up against their own freely elected government! Its, as I've already stated, pure, and worrying, paranoia, and to make matters worse, its people like you who have access to lethal weapons - heaven help us is all I say!

Our immediate and real concerns are the common criminals. Handguns are a preferred weapon of choice for honest folks that want to carry. Shotguns and so called assault weapons also have their place in self-defense.

This sounds to me just like something I'd read out of a Wild West story!

This BS about banning weapons that are preferred by criminals is just that. BS. Criminals prefer whatever they can get their hands on.

... and they can certainly get their hands on plenty of weapons, there's between 260-280 million guns out there! No wonder everyone is gun-happy, the good guys carry guns to protect themsleves and the bad guys carry guns to rob the good guys - I'd call that a vicious circle of violence.

Implement background checks and criminals turn to the black market or simply steal a gun. They don’t care.

Why should they care there's 260 million guns out there so there's plenty of choice!

As you correctly point out, banning guns is not the answer.

I'd say most definitely it is.

So getting back to VP’s first post, we have a candidate that rejects common sense and favors more worthless gun control.

A candidate that favours gun control is a candidate with common sense and a positive moral compass.