Guns, Guns Guns

What our sheeple disarmed friends from foreign countries do not want to understand is that our US Constitution went to great lengths to protect the people from a tyrannical government.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is all about the necessity of the armed population to kill off all the bad government if and when that government becomes ... tyrannical to the people.

Scary? Consider the time the Constitution was written. We here in American were very lucky indeed to have been able to defeat the British. Only blind luck and the French saved our asses.

Our Revolutionary War was very nasty, vindictive and bloody. To keep this from happening again, our founding Fathers wrote specific laws providing for the people to keep and bear arms.

This at the time included ordnance including big cannons and mortars. This today SHOULD include anything the military has up to and including big crew served stuff including aircraft.

Absolutely non believable by sheeple people living in disarmed nanny state nations where most sheeple have not even SEEN a real gun much less legally own and shoot automatic rifles and such.

I for one find it humorous that such disarmed unmanned individuals can even spout off on such gun subjects about which they know nothing and never will. Very funny on the face of it.

What will YOU folks do if YOUR government busts down YOUR front door and invades your home? What CAN you do? Call the police? Ha ha ha. Employee a cricket bat? A kitchen knife?

I do not know what action you disarmed nanny folks may employ, but in SW OR USA we would just pull our legal handguns and stop the threat. But then again a .45 hasn't the range of denial.

HB of CJ wrote:The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is all about the necessity of the armed population to kill off all the bad government if and when that government becomes ... tyrannical to the people.

But what it doesn't do is define where the line is to be drawn between a democratically legitimized government and a tyrannical one. That line has to be drawn by the readers, and as such, is highly subjective. For some, it has already been crossed, for others, it's not yet gone so far. Who is right? At what point is the will of the people, as expressed through plebiscites and elections no longer a valid source of governmental power?

Scary? Consider the time the Constitution was written. We here in American were very lucky indeed to have been able to defeat the British. Only blind luck and the French saved our asses.

Our Revolutionary War was very nasty, vindictive and bloody. To keep this from happening again, our founding Fathers wrote specific laws providing for the people to keep and bear arms.

And yet, just a few decades later, you had a civil war that left scars that can still be seen throughout your country.

Also, an argument can be made that the original intent of the second amendment was to remove the need for a standing army, something which I believe at least some founding fathers saw as an absolute evil.

This at the time included ordnance including big cannons and mortars. This today SHOULD include anything the military has up to and including big crew served stuff including aircraft.

And what if those weapons and weapon systems are available to the public in the same way rifles are today, and the wrong people get hold of them? How much damage done by terrorists are you willing to accept?

Absolutely non believable by sheeple people living in disarmed nanny state nations where most sheeple have not even SEEN a real gun much less legally own and shoot automatic rifles and such.

I for one find it humorous that such disarmed unmanned individuals can even spout off on such gun subjects about which they know nothing and never will. Very funny on the face of it.

I have shot pistols, rifles and machine guns. Because of that, I strongly support the gun control regimes we have around here, because guns are far too dangerous to have out in the public in large numbers, and you know what? It works! While it obviously hasn't eradicated violent crime, it has severely limited the amount of damage any single criminal can do. Which is a good thing in my book.

What will YOU folks do if YOUR government busts down YOUR front door and invades your home? What CAN you do? Call the police? Ha ha ha. Employee a cricket bat? A kitchen knife?

How often have you been subject to government raids? Be honest here!

I do not know what action you disarmed nanny folks may employ, but in SW OR USA we would just pull our legal handguns and stop the threat. But then again a .45 hasn't the range of denial.

I dunno, not be stupid about the kinds of people we elect into office in the first place.

You pretty much answered my questions for me and thank you. All the sheeple ways to validate their own disarmed and therefore unthinkable situations. What is sad here is that you pretty much did it all to yourselves. Denial is not the river flowing through Egypt. Also perhaps some more study about US History would be appropriate. Respectfully.

HB of CJ wrote:What our sheeple disarmed friends from foreign countries do not want to understand is that our US Constitution went to great lengths to protect the people from a tyrannical government.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is all about the necessity of the armed population to kill off all the bad government if and when that government becomes ... tyrannical to the people.

Ah, the right's favorite Constitutional myth...


The defense against the government turning tyrannical was making the primary military force available to that government the militias and not a standing army. The reasoning being it's hard to turn tyrant over the people when you have to ask said people to enforce your tyranny for you. And of course IF the people forming the militias are going to be the primary military force of the nation they need to be able to be freaking armed (as well as WELL REGULATED)


Taking up arms against the government on the other hand was called the exact same thing by the Founders as it is today. Insurrection and Treason. It is defined as such right there in the Constitution. Article III, section 3.


In the meantime, the government has been given its permanent large standing military force the Founders never wanted it to have... in spades. But you never hear the people who are ever so concerned about what the Founders wanted to protect people from batting an eye at the military budget for some reason.

Provocative word "sheeple", I suspect it is meant to say that any citizen of a country that has effective gun laws is ineffective, impotent and under the control of their government.

Firstly I'm not disarmed, and many others have arms across many countries. Sure we don't have assault rifles, or hand guns but so what?

Secondly we have been through this before, but once again. The concept of an armed citizenry overthrowing a democratically elected government by lethal force is defined as treason or insurrection.

Thirdly this is just not a practical option anyway. A rogue militia would quickly find itself in deep do do when the real soldiers turned up.

Forthly a recent comment here asking what we would do if the government broke down our door sarcastically asked if we'd use a cricket bat to defend ourselves. If you were to use one of your cherished guns to shoot government employees in that situation your medical situation would soon be rated as deceased. We on the other hand, if the entry was illegal, would be sitting still, quietly thinking about how we would spend the compensation money.

What I'm trying to say in a long winded way is that you can continue to cherish your illusion that you are somehow freer and tougher because you are able to have easier access to guns, and we elsewhere have no reason or desire to change that. Why should we? However we at the same time are free to look at your situation from a distance, have a bit of a chuckle, and go anywhere without any threat of being shot, or perceived need to be armed.

HB of CJ wrote:You pretty much answered my questions for me and thank you. All the sheeple ways to validate their own disarmed and therefore unthinkable situations. What is sad here is that you pretty much did it all to yourselves. Denial is not the river flowing through Egypt. Also perhaps some more study about US History would be appropriate. Respectfully.

so I saw a meme today that made me laugh. 2 guys standing, "did you hear a Liberal stopped a shooting today by telling the shooter his gun was banned?"
"Really?"
"No, he got shot!"
Lol

A dad joke. Funny to us because our equivalent to the Republicans is the Liberal party.
Fully agree that a current shooter wouldn't acknowledge that his gun being banned would make a damn bit of difference. However if there had been gun control (not banning) for a couple of generations then it may well make a difference to availability. Has with us. Still some illegal guns among the bad guys, losers and idiots, but many less than there used to be.

Odium wrote:so I saw a meme today that made me laugh. 2 guys standing, "did you hear a Liberal stopped a shooting today by telling the shooter his gun was banned?"
"Really?"
"No, he got shot!"
Lol

Here's an interesting piece by Ken White at Popehat, provocatively titled "In support of a total ban on civilians owning firearms", which everyone in this thread should read.

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/a6d4 ... 44ae2006fa

Sorry tried to copy graph, but you can access it with this link. Says 64k Gun Shops, 38k Grocery stores,14k McDonalds, and 10k Starbucks in the USA.
Seems too big a difference to be true.

Are you all right, gcomeau? I find your posts oddly agreeable lately. Perhaps I am ill? Anyway....

The use of guns are indeed subject to regulation but not the ability to possess them. That argues bans on owning automatic weapons is unconstitutional. The current license requirements for fully automatic weapons amounts to a ban on new ownership of those weapons.

I have no problems with legislation when and where a weapon may be used. I do have issues with severe limitations on being able to have the guns available. So anyone should be able to own any sort of single person operated weapon or even crewed weapons, but how and where those weapons are used are subject to regulation.

Tom Kratman uses the one person, one vote measure to provide a limiting principle for the sorts of weapons that may be owned. The idea is that if we have but one vote per person, then our ability to directly influence our nation is limited. Our ability to physically protect that ability to influence our nation should be equally limited. So, individual or crewed weapons are consistent with the one person, one vote limitation.

gcomeau wrote:

HB of CJ wrote:What our sheeple disarmed friends from foreign countries do not want to understand is that our US Constitution went to great lengths to protect the people from a tyrannical government.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is all about the necessity of the armed population to kill off all the bad government if and when that government becomes ... tyrannical to the people.

Ah, the right's favorite Constitutional myth...


The defense against the government turning tyrannical was making the primary military force available to that government the militias and not a standing army. The reasoning being it's hard to turn tyrant over the people when you have to ask said people to enforce your tyranny for you. And of course IF the people forming the militias are going to be the primary military force of the nation they need to be able to be freaking armed (as well as WELL REGULATED)


Taking up arms against the government on the other hand was called the exact same thing by the Founders as it is today. Insurrection and Treason. It is defined as such right there in the Constitution. Article III, section 3.


In the meantime, the government has been given its permanent large standing military force the Founders never wanted it to have... in spades. But you never hear the people who are ever so concerned about what the Founders wanted to protect people from batting an eye at the military budget for some reason.