|
|
Post by USCGME2 on Jan 9, 2013 17:33:16 GMT -7
I largely side with Will on this one. The difference between owning an Ahbrams M1 and an AR15 is who we entrust these things to. We dont (normally) let citizens own A-10 Warthogs, LAW rockets and tanks because they can take out a whole city block and only superior military armament can stop it. A man with a rifle does not require such a complicated response. There is also a butt-load of security op protocols, info sec, firing codes etc, and a chain of command to direct that kind of extreme firepower on the battlefield, not our city streets. A pilot cant just take a weapons loaded F-111 out for a spin and just start dropping ordinance at will. They have measures to keep it reigned in.
I remember a "chase" not long ago where a guy jacked a tank from his local reserve depot and wreaked havoc on the streets with it. The cops were helpless and he didnt even have ammo for the cannon thank God. ( He eventually high centered it and they shot him inside). Me, Im totally cool with extremely high powered military stuff being in the hands of the military and not average Joe who has no accountability or superior oversight.
Those who are charged with protecting us, ie) the Police, Nat Guard, USAF, etc absolutely need to be better prepared to stop the threats presented so that society may exist in any form of peaceable restraint. There are already too many threats to handle as it is. If I have RPGs and Mini's and all Will gets is his 40cal, guess who wins? Thats why its called the THIN Blue Line. With out it we become just like the third world $h!t holes in Central Africa.
I am as pro-gun as the next guy, trust me. Most of us just dont need the kind of power unmanned drones, tanks and missiles can carry just to defend a case of tuna, and Spam. There does have to be a line somewhere cause ya'll just dont need me having any Claymore's strung around the perimeter! ;D
JMO
|
|
|
|
Post by thywar on Jan 9, 2013 17:54:15 GMT -7
I suppose there are some 'groups' out there that would like to have that but I don't believe that's the core issue being discussed. We are discussing personal protection and hunting. The majority of Americans are responsible law abiding gun owners. To take this topic to absurd extremes (see Alex Jones' interviews and the media painting him as the example of 2nd ammendment proponents) I don't believe advances the narrative. I don't see the NRA or responsible gun organizations advocating this silliness. It's all about personal use and protection.
Ask the mujahideen how they were taking out Russian helicopters in Afghanistan. They learned to shoot the 'Jesus' nut on the rotors.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Galt on Jan 9, 2013 18:50:03 GMT -7
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal protection.
|
|
|
|
Post by mud on Jan 9, 2013 19:15:58 GMT -7
civilians can and do own tanks.
WILL. I understand where you are coming from in the belief that the author was condoning cop killing or some such but what I took out of it was; if they get to the point where the law of the land (being the Constitution) is bypassed or otherwise neutered, we lose the rule of law. At that point he becomes sarcastic in pointing out that giving them or them taking it upon themselves to do so is and would be no less tragic than the people using rocket launchers to kill cops or 'shoot them in the face'. Just as The Constitution protects our rights and liberties, LEO's protect society. To lose either would be a travesty. I think it is unfortunate using the symbolism as he has. There is more but I cannot seem to get the words right so I will leave it here for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by twicebitten on Jan 9, 2013 19:33:08 GMT -7
Absolutely right. We are raising a country of mental and ethical wimps. Educations have become more watered down and pathetic (there are, of course, exceptions to this), with lowered expectations and standards, while educators clamor for more money. During a conversation at lunch today the subject came up of those settlers that went through the Cumberland Gap. They had to be some tough folks, fighting weather, Indians, wild animals and many other hazards. Do you think the majority of people today would have the same inner fires to be able to re-start their lives? There was no one at the table that thought the simple majority of people in this country could do that, especially those that voted for the Chief Socialist. And the subject of coming for your guns reared its head. Someone mentioned that most of law enforcement must have gone through the mental gymnastics of "what do I do when some form of 2nd Amendment destruction comes down as an order?" As has been pointed out, a law which runs counter to the Constitution isn't really a law...... but local police officers and deputies are forced, mentally, to do a gut check and decide where their loyalties lay. Do they take the side of firepower and self-preservation, or do they support the Constitution they are sworn to uphold, and made this country the greatest experiment in democracy ever? Someone at the table mentioned Waco, and the thugs blindly following orders. Those in the military will have to make the same decision. The repercussions of winding up on the wrong side would be much more punishing, for themselves and their families. In that respect the result we came up with (obviously a small and informal poll of like-minded citizens) was that most if not all military would side with blindly following orders. Waco was the proof on a small scale, and the punishment meted out if someone did not blindly follow orders would be too much to bear. If they come for your guns, it's going to get ugly. Smaller more incremental steps must occur first, and the upcoming Executive Order (and that WILL be the way this next round will happen, he's an expert on that b/c it's what he studied) will be just the first round in the fight. There is still time to study and plan. But putting off the decision of how you will respond to whatever restrictions are put in place b/c the contemplation is uncomfortable will ultimately prove to be a form of self-destruction. The undecided will be sheeple, just like the ones Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler used. |
|
|
|
Post by Cwi555 on Jan 9, 2013 21:57:47 GMT -7
I wouldn't give up a single one of my guns. I fully expect revolution the day the government goes door to door to take peoples guns away. Everyone knows that. Just the thought of the ATF kicking in law abiding citizens doors to seize the family guns is enraging to any red blooded American. It ain't happening for just that reason. The article's author is getting off on some sick cop killing fantasy with his constitutional chest beating. If he really believed a single word he spewed, he would have already acted since none of us possess or will ever be allowed to possess a long list of weapons technology. Just as Onidah posted, the constitution is already seriously compromised because private citizens can’t get their hands on WMDs. FYI, it’s that way because America wants it like that. Americans don’t want private ownership of weapons of mass destruction, tanks, bombs, etc. Why isn’t he on his soap box about private ownership of that stuff? Why isn’t he killing cops over those issues? I’ll tell you why, because we would laugh him right out the door. Because he’s captain obvious troll, looking to score some internet glory off a hot topic. He likes appearing like a bad boy. Look, America is struggling with a difficult decision on re-instating a stricter Brady Bill. That’s all. We already went through the Brady Bill and it was still America. We’re nowhere near talking about shooting cops just yet, and this guy is a dangerous glory hound. I have to agree to some extent with your interpretation of the article. There is too much of a focus on law enforcement, though I don’t know that I would go so far as to characterize him as “captain obvious troll”. He does go way to far on the LEO comments, and should remember that most LEO, especially on the state and local level will be in the same boat as the rest of us if law abiding citizens of America as a whole are disarmed, leaving only an overbearing Federal Government, and the thugs armed. That latter statement has a multitude of historical examples of why that’s a bad idea (Nazi Germany for one). Centralized governments to a fault have historically collapsed under their own weight for those not nudged over in civil war. One of the more notables was the former Soviet Union. |
|
|
|
Post by onidah on Jan 9, 2013 22:06:01 GMT -7
... Because he’s captain obvious troll, looking to score some internet glory off a hot topic. He likes appearing like a bad boy. ... We’re nowhere near talking about shooting cops just yet, and this guy is a dangerous glory hound. Will, are you referring to me or the author of the article? I'm certainly not looking for any "internet glory" - whatever that is. I'm just looking to hold on to the small portion of what few rights I still have left as we cascade down an ever steeper slippery slope. How does pointing out that by definition (shall not be infringed) the second amendment prohibits limits on what arms we should be able to keep and bear make me appear as a "bad boy"? Perhaps you misunderstood the intent of my earlier post. Hopefully, you were just referring to the article author and got your personal pronoun antecedents and their associated pronoun referents mixed up. Onidah |
|
|
|
Post by Ceorlmann on Jan 9, 2013 23:05:46 GMT -7
Someone at the table mentioned Waco, and the thugs blindly following orders. Those in the military will have to make the same decision. The repercussions of winding up on the wrong side would be much more punishing, for themselves and their families. In that respect the result we came up with (obviously a small and informal poll of like-minded citizens) was that most if not all military would side with blindly following orders. Waco was the proof on a small scale, and the punishment meted out if someone did not blindly follow orders would be too much to bear. If they come for your guns, it's going to get ugly. Smaller more incremental steps must occur first, and the upcoming Executive Order (and that WILL be the way this next round will happen, he's an expert on that b/c it's what he studied) will be just the first round in the fight. There is still time to study and plan. But putting off the decision of how you will respond to whatever restrictions are put in place b/c the contemplation is uncomfortable will ultimately prove to be a form of self-destruction. The undecided will be sheeple, just like the ones Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler used. Yes and no on the military almost if not completely following orders no Qs asked. Yes, the young privates and equally young (in experience) lieutenants won't know any better, and basic enlisted do make up the majority of our military. The NCOs (non-commissioned officers; generally Corporals, Sergeants, and Petty Officers) on the other hand likely will know better. Not just from their paygrade but also their longevity in service which means they're in a position to think for themselves and the consequences of a decision they make based on past experience while serving. Decision-making, initiative, and judgment are a big part of what makes an NCO an NCO. And who will the privates fear the most regarding repercussions for not following orders? The NCOs. Nothing scares a Private like a ticked-off Corporal or Sergeant. Also, at Waco last I recall the ATF did a lot of the dirty work. It's not like they called in the USMC with air support. I will say this on the subject of gubby going door-door to take the guns: during the Revolution both sides were relatively equal regarding weapon technology. Both had muskets, pistols, cavalry, cannons, ships, etc. The British simply had more at their own disposal; along with ammo. A lot of weapon tech today is designed to end the fight before it even starts. Unless a good chunk of our military (and LE depending on equipment and experience as a whole) are part of those who oppose the actual gun grabbing we have no chance in winning in anything even close to open war. |
|
|
|
Post by Redneckidokie on Jan 9, 2013 23:35:33 GMT -7
The question was, what will you do when they come for your guns?
I don't think there was any mention of rocket launchers, and tanks, planes or nukes.
There is and has been for a long time a list of no no weapons that we were all happy with abiding by. Ok no problem. I do not want military weapons. Well maybe an (A-10 Wart Hog)?
What they intend to come for are my legally purchased, small arms. That is the problem. I have violated no law in any way by having them, so what could possibly give the representatives of my wishes the power to tell me what I can and can't own?
The issue is the government has an agenda and disarming us is only step one in the plan, and the day is coming soon that we will be forced to make the decision.
I will not turn over any thing under force, whether it be a slice of bread, or any other item I own.
How they choose to react to that will dictate my further action.
I hope by then LE will be on our side. If not?
I truly hope some common ground can be found before there is a point of no return. This is like the Cuban missile crisis of the sixties.
Missile
|
|
|
|
Post by WILL on Jan 10, 2013 3:49:49 GMT -7
... Because he’s captain obvious troll, looking to score some internet glory off a hot topic. He likes appearing like a bad boy. ... We’re nowhere near talking about shooting cops just yet, and this guy is a dangerous glory hound. Will, are you referring to me or the author of the article? I'm certainly not looking for any "internet glory" - whatever that is. I'm just looking to hold on to the small portion of what few rights I still have left as we cascade down an ever steeper slippery slope. How does pointing out that by definition (shall not be infringed) the second amendment prohibits limits on what arms we should be able to keep and bear make me appear as a "bad boy"? Perhaps you misunderstood the intent of my earlier post. Hopefully, you were just referring to the article author and got your personal pronoun antecedents and their associated pronoun referents mixed up. Onidah The author. I used your post as an example of how the constitution is already violated all over the place. My only point was that we're nowhere near the point of Americans shooting Americans over this issue and the author is taking a dangerous stance. Also, the constitution issue isn't black and white. |
|
|
|
Post by mud on Jan 10, 2013 7:04:59 GMT -7
Glad u cleared that up on your opinion as i really was confused at how you felt. ( insert sarcasm smiley)
While i agree that we are not there yet, unfortunately the discussion needs to happen so both sides clearly understand the ramifications. The only part i disagree on is the wording of the Constitution not being black and white. The founders wrote it in a manner that even the uneducated could clearly comprehend the meaning. Any smudges come from self serving politicians and judges over the years.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmarshnh on Jan 10, 2013 7:29:23 GMT -7
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal protection. Nor has the word "arms" ever been defined. That is the Supreme Court's job-to interpret the Constitution. Since they have never been asked to define it, it remains loose and everyone has their own opinion as to what it means. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by John Galt on Jan 10, 2013 8:46:27 GMT -7
They never will because the honest answer will make some people very uncomfortable. For example, colonists did have privately owned cannons....
The clear intent of the 2A is to protect that same type of ownership for future generations. Provided we could maintain the republic, which we have not.
|
|
|
|
Post by missasip on Jan 10, 2013 9:55:06 GMT -7
I guess I’m reading a different article than some here. I see nothing about LEOs. Here is a quote from the article than mentions “any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty”. Is that what some are seeing as LEOs? Really? Seems to me then the NG, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, Homeland Security would be included in that statement too. Mr. Garrison also says this is strictly a self-defense situation. How does one get from the blog “does that mean it's legal for me buy a RPG in Mexico and then walk down Main Street USA with it slung on my back? That's bearing arms right? And when the cop tries to arrest me, it's cool if I shoot him in the face right? That's what I read there..... “ ? Where does it say the author has some “sick cop killing fantasy with his constitutional chest beating”  Those statements sound like paranoia to me. Quoting Dean Garrison “If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights.” The man has strictly written about if they COME to take your guns. Not if you’re walking down the street with an obvious illegal weapon of mass destruction. I also see nothing in the blog, what so ever about the right to bear arms, in the form of weapons of mass destruction. Which, is defined here; www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/04/definition_of_w.htmlMr. Garrison went to great links at times to make sure one would read this as a SELF DEFENSE article about the government coming to your doorstep to take your guns. Nothing about out on the streets, nothing about any sort of particular weapon, nothing about obtaining illegal weapons. Just self-defense of ones constitutionally rights. Yes he did say you have the right to put them 6 feet under, IF they come for your constitutionally protected LIBERTY!!! If one wants to inflect the way they read it, fine. But to make the man a troll? And accuse him of being a bad boy? If we get to the point of gun confiscation we better hope there are a lot of bad boys out ther. If constitutional chest beating is some sort of wrong thinking, guess I’m as wrong as it gets. This mans blog is as black and white as the constitution is. Jimmy |
|
|
|
Post by thywar on Jan 10, 2013 10:07:57 GMT -7
Just gather all the gun owners and tell them to arrest you. There is no way the government can process 100 million gun owners. Nor can they feed you or house you or even provide you with one prison jumpsuit. The prisons are already releasing inmates as quickly as they can because of prison overcrowding and to reduce costs.. (while this sounds good, I'm not going to surrender or go to prison.. I'm just advocating a different thought pattern).... but this is another way of forcing the government's hand. Quite honestly I think someone should offer that as an option to Biden right now before any laws are passed and see how they answer these logistical questions..
|
|
Those statements sound like paranoia to me.
