The disarming of America

[stephanie]

:eek:

LAST week's tragedy at Virginia Tech in which a mentally disturbed person gunned down 32 of America's finest - intelligent young people with futures ahead of them - once again puts the phenomenon of an armed society into focus for Americans.

The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million. What was clear last week is that at least two of those guns were in the wrong hands.

When people talk about doing something about guns in America, it often comes down to this: "How could America disarm even if it wanted to? There are so many guns out there."

Because I have little or no power to influence the "if" part of the issue, I will stick with the "how." And before anyone starts to hyperventilate and think I'm a crazed liberal zealot wanting to take his gun from his cold, dead hands, let me share my experience of guns.:poke:

As a child I played cowboys and Indians with cap guns. I had a Daisy Red Ryder B-B gun. My father had in his bedside table drawer an old pistol which I examined surreptitiously from time to time. When assigned to the American embassy in Beirut during the war in Lebanon, I sometimes carried a .357 Magnum, which I could fire accurately. I also learned to handle and fire a variety of weapons while I was there, including Uzis and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

I don't have any problem with hunting, although blowing away animals with high-powered weapons seems a pointless, no-contest affair to me. I suppose I would enjoy the fellowship of the experience with other friends who are hunters.

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

It would have to be the case that the term "hunting weapon" did not include anti-tank ordnance, assault weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, or other weapons of war.

All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections.

Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms. They would be required to maintain very tight inventories. Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer.

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying."

The "gun lobby" would no doubt try to head off in the courts the new laws and the actions to implement them. They might succeed in doing so, although the new approach would undoubtedly prompt new, vigorous debate on the subject. In any case, some jurisdictions would undoubtedly take the opportunity of the chronic slowness of the courts to begin implementing the new approach.

America's long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-gun dealerships installing themselves in Mexico, and perhaps in more remote parts of the Canadian border area, to funnel guns into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time.

There could conceivably also be a rash of score-settling during hunting season as people drew out their weapons, ostensibly to shoot squirrels and deer, and began eliminating various of their perceived two-footed enemies. Given the general nature of hunting weapons and the fact that such killings are frequently time-sensitive, that seems a lesser sort of issue.

That is my idea of how it could be done. The desire to do so on the part of the American people is another question altogether, but one clearly raised again by the Blacksburg tragedy.

Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007704250310

[Mr. P]

I really need to get off my ass and go buy that glock I want.

[Gaffer]

well when they cordoned of my area they would not get far before I started taking them down. And an entire nieghborhood arming tehmselves against such a sweep would mean street battles that would make iraq look like a play ground. Only liberals would roll over and let the police come confiscate their weapons. No incumbant politican would survive.

[Hobbit]

The day some jackass tries this is the day my guns are used to fight a revolution. Here's something everybody needs to know: The second ammendment is not for hunting, sport shooting, or collecting, though those are all good reasons to own firearms. The purpose of the second ammendment is to facilitate the inevitable violent overthrow of our government that will one day have to occur to keep this country from falling into tyranny.

[stephanie]

The day some jackass tries this is the day my guns are used to fight a revolution. Here's something everybody needs to know: The second ammendment is not for hunting, sport shooting, or collecting, though those are all good reasons to own firearms. The purpose of the second ammendment is to facilitate the inevitable violent overthrow of our government that will one day have to occur to keep this country from falling into tyranny.

Yep...And I'm beginning to feel that time could be getting closer and closer..

[grunt]

It will never happen. There are too many "guns" and too many people who would use them.

[diuretic]

well when they cordoned of my area they would not get far before I started taking them down. And an entire nieghborhood arming tehmselves against such a sweep would mean street battles that would make iraq look like a play ground. Only liberals would roll over and let the police come confiscate their weapons. No incumbant politican would survive.

If you're at all serious about any of these points I'd like to discuss them with you, seriously I would. If it's just bullshit you're spraying about to impress people then forget it.

[diuretic]

The day some jackass tries this is the day my guns are used to fight a revolution. Here's something everybody needs to know: The second ammendment is not for hunting, sport shooting, or collecting, though those are all good reasons to own firearms. The purpose of the second ammendment is to facilitate the inevitable violent overthrow of our government that will one day have to occur to keep this country from falling into tyranny.

Same for you Hobbit, if you're serious I'd like to debate you, if not, then don't worry about it.

[diuretic]

It will never happen. There are too many "guns" and too many people who would use them.

You too, invite extended.

[diuretic]

Yep...And I'm beginning to feel that time could be getting closer and closer..

You as well stephanie, invite extended.

[Pale Rider]

Stephanie, Mr. P, Gaffer, Hobbit, and MYSELF. There's five people just out of a few on a message board that will commit to an armed defense of gun confiscation. And I assure you, there would be MILLIONS more. The whole of America would become a virtual battle ground. The law makers know it.

[diuretic]

You too PR - a debate would be good.

My position on this is - you wouldn't have a chance against the military and the government. Not being nasty here - just a statement of my position. A citizen's uprising in the US - not to mention just about anywhere else in the developed world - would fail against the might of the most powerful military the world has ever seen and a government that is ruthless.

If someone would like to start? Tell me where I'm wrong and I'll return the favour.

Fantasies along the line of a domestic "Red Dawn" aren't valid arguments.

[emmett]

Steph...................It ain't happening!

Whenever we allow ourselves to become influenced by one single event (Va Tech, 911, airliner bombings or whatever) we must realize that the time to act was before the event took place. For instance: Had we influenced more college professors to carry guns and be properly trained on how to use them it is alot more likely that an event such as Va Tech could be avoided.

We have to stop sitting around waiting until disaster strikes and then coming up wityh these ridicolous solution ideas. Like I have posted elsewhere, the time to want to own and properly be able to defend oneself with a gun is not when the gunman is kicking the damn table out his way so he can shoot your cowaring ass in the head. Unfortunately, we can't stop wacko's from being wacko's. We CAN defend ourselves against them.

Trying to understand what makes these fools do this stuff is a waste of time. If we could understand it, we would be capable of it. Disarming the nation is the most ludicrous idea I have ever heard of. It WILL NOT WORK!!!!! The main reason it won't work is because I will not give up my gun. PERIOD!!!!! I won't do it! Millions won't do it! It's that simple.

Too many young lives have been lost in our struggle for self in history as our military has fought to preserve the liberties our forefathers saw as so fitting and it worked well for many years. I see it as insulting to their memories to even suggest the taking of one of our most fundamental rights and that being the right to defend our lives and family. I'll go further, you may as well piss on the grave of a dead soldier!

I'm done!

[diuretic]

I'm not getting any takers. Okay for what it's worth, some random thoughts.

Gun control is a good idea and no, I don't mean that nice little one-liner about controlling your gun (I have to admit I prefer the Weaver Stance but then I was trained in it so I suppose I'm used to it). Gun control is a good idea because it means that responsible gun-owners, which if you take out the gang-bangers (what's with that turning the weapon on one side anyway?) and crooks is nearly everyone. It's how it's constructed that's important, that's where the lobbying comes in.

I don't see anyone trying to take your guns away at the moment or in the near or far future. It won't happen. And again, for what it's worth, it shouldn't happen.

Now about VT and guns. Unless you're serving military,ex-military or have received tactical training then if Cho had pointed a gun at you, whether or not you were armed, you'd be one of those poor 32 people. Get tactical training if you own a firearm, keep your tactical training up to date, shoot a lot under varying conditions and in various simulated situations and if you're in the next mass murder situation you might get to be a real life hero or heroine.

[stephanie]

Steph...................It ain't happening!

Whenever we allow ourselves to become influenced by one single event (Va Tech, 911, airliner bombings or whatever) we must realize that the time to act was before the event took place. For instance: Had we influenced more college professors to carry guns and be properly trained on how to use them it is a lot more likely that an event such as Va Tech could be avoided.

We have to stop sitting around waiting until disaster strikes and then coming up with these ridiculous solution ideas. Like I have posted elsewhere, the time to want to own and properly be able to defend oneself with a gun is not when the gunman is kicking the damn table out his way so he can shoot your cowaring ass in the head. Unfortunately, we can't stop wacko's from being wacko's. We CAN defend ourselves against them.

Trying to understand what makes these fools do this stuff is a waste of time. If we could understand it, we would be capable of it. Disarming the nation is the most ludicrous idea I have ever heard of. It WILL NOT WORK!!!!! The main reason it won't work is because I will not give up my gun. PERIOD!!!!! I won't do it! Millions won't do it! It's that simple.

Too many young lives have been lost in our struggle for self in history as our military has fought to preserve the liberties our forefathers saw as so fitting and it worked well for many years. I see it as insulting to their memories to even suggest the taking of one of our most fundamental rights and that being the right to defend our lives and family. I'll go further, you may as well piss on the grave of a dead soldier!

I'm done!

I agree with you, my dear..
The idiot writer of that article said one thing I will agree with..
They'll take my guns from my cold dead hands..:cheers2:

[Hobbit]

You too PR - a debate would be good.

My position on this is - you wouldn't have a chance against the military and the government. Not being nasty here - just a statement of my position. A citizen's uprising in the US - not to mention just about anywhere else in the developed world - would fail against the might of the most powerful military the world has ever seen and a government that is ruthless.

If someone would like to start? Tell me where I'm wrong and I'll return the favour.

Fantasies along the line of a domestic "Red Dawn" aren't valid arguments.

You're making the mistake of assuming that the military and the police would side with the government. The police are sworn to protect and serve the people of their precincts, not to blindly obey whatever laws the government passes, and I'm sure many would take their police issue weapons and side with the uprising. Then there's the military. They're sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the Congress. Any of them who take their oath seriously, would go and defend the Constitution from the domestic enemies on Capitol Hill.

Then there's the fact that so many people think an armed rebellion with massive, local, public support won't work against the U.S. military in the United States, but that a few armed terrorists almost exclusively supported by foreign powers has already defeated the U.S. military in Iraq. We Americans are a tough breed, and when Capitol Hill falls, it'll be in the middle of the night with low-tech insurgents overpowering those who stuck to their posts while whatever military hasn't broken apart has trouble coordinating fire on D.C. without hitting national monuments.

[diuretic]

You're making the mistake of assuming that the military and the police would side with the government. The police are sworn to protect and serve the people of their precincts, not to blindly obey whatever laws the government passes, and I'm sure many would take their police issue weapons and side with the uprising. Then there's the military. They're sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the Congress. Any of them who take their oath seriously, would go and defend the Constitution from the domestic enemies on Capitol Hill.

On the police. The US has an interesting system of policing. You probably don't realise it - and I'm not having a go at your or trying to put you down, just making a point, if you know then my apologies for assuming lack of knowledge - that your country has the most localised police system in the world. There is strong identification with the local community. Now that's an excellent idea if you don't want central government to get too strong. It's actually one of the reasons the first State Police force (New Jersey) as founded, because the strikebreaking governor of NJ couldn't get the local cops to bludgeon unionists in their towns (many of the cops grew up with the unionists on strike). But, as usual, I digress.

Many police officers at the local level - municipal and county (Parish for our friends down there in La. the land of zydeco and scrumptious tucker) - would side with the community for sure. I'm not sure what the biggest departments would do. NYPD is bigger than some armies and is a massive bureaucracy that while it serves New York city may find that many of its officers don't actually identify with the city. Same for Chicago and LA. As for Philadelphia, dunno, I think the Philly cops would scare the crap out of anyone, even the military.

Sadly for your cause many smaller departments don’t have the sort of firepower and resources that would be needed for an insurrection. True the NYPD, the LAPD, Chicago PD have massive armouries and impressive equipment (the Philadelphia PD has access to endless amounts of Philly cheese steaks and while they won’t have an immediate effect years of chowing down on those would bring a government down, they’d all end up in the Cardiac Ward eventually) but again I don’t think it would be sufficient to counter the might of the government and its military.

On the military. Yes, the oath is to uphold the Constitution. I happen to think that’s a great idea. I am a fan of your Constitution, I went and paid it a visit just to gaze upon it. As you would say, “awesome.” The ship’s really neat too!

But the military obeys orders. Bush, like no other president in your history, has assumed very broad powers as Command in Chief. Very quietly, he has broadened out the concept of the C in C beyond its previous boundaries. I know Harry T booted MacArthur (btw remember his famous “I Shall Return” speech? He made it on a railway platform in a town about two hours north of where I live) in a demonstration of the power of the presidency but I suspect Bush wouldn’t have to do that, he has carefully filled the various positions in the US military with his people. They would do his bidding, trust me.

So it comes down to individual officers and soldiers (and Marines and Air Force and Navy and Coastguard personnel). Would they obey orders or would they throw their weapons down and head for the hills? Some would, most would do what they were ordered to do. Remember Kent State? I do. I remember it well.



Then there's the fact that so many people think an armed rebellion with massive, local, public support won't work against the U.S. military in the United States, but that a few armed terrorists almost exclusively supported by foreign powers has already defeated the U.S. military in Iraq. We Americans are a tough breed, and when Capitol Hill falls, it'll be in the middle of the night with low-tech insurgents overpowering those who stuck to their posts while whatever military hasn't broken apart has trouble coordinating fire on D.C. without hitting national monuments.

You are not a tough breed. You are soft. You’ve been softened by material indulgence. You have the worst obesity problem in the world in your population. You’re at the mall while your military is at war. You wouldn’t have sufficient people to summon up the gumption to take on your government. You laugh at the French but they had the guts to form a resistance. And what would your people do? They would whine, complain, listen to Rush, call Rush and “I’m with you Rush, dittohead here, we gotta get them out of DC”. And that would be it. Nothing. You are expressing the ideas of a fantasist. Put it on YouTube, call it "Red States Dawn", I don’t buy it it for a second and you know I'm right.

[stephanie]

You are not a tough breed. You are soft. You’ve been softened by material indulgence. You have the worst obesity problem in the world in your population. You’re at the mall while your military is at war. You wouldn’t have sufficient people to summon up the gumption to take on your government. You laugh at the French but they had the guts to form a resistance. And what would your people do? They would whine, complain, listen to Rush, call Rush and “I’m with you Rush, dittohead here, we gotta get them out of DC”. And that would be it. Nothing. You are expressing the ideas of a fantasist. Put it on You Tube, call it "Red States Dawn", I don’t buy it it for a second and you know I'm right.

Oh boy......You will not make any friends with them words my dear...You seem to know a lot about Rush Limbaugh, and might I add, you have a real hard on for him.. But..
Anybody who thinks President Bush is a dictator, who will wield the military on his own citizens........You are not from Australia, are you?.....You live at the DUunderground, don't you???

There is a portion of the US, that is as you say, just as is there is in other Country..
But.......When push comes to shove...I think you will see the tough ole sonofguns who sit in the background, don't make a spectacle of themselves, don't want the attention, but WILL STAND UP....
Now...you better look out...You ass is about to be hung out to be dried...:laugh2:

And I'll be the first in line.......ye haw.

[diuretic]

Oh boy......You will not make any friends with them words my dear...You seem to know a lot about Rush Limbaugh, and might I add, you have a real hard on for him.. But..
Anybody who thinks President Bush is a dictator, who will wield the military on his own citizens........You are not from Australia, are you?.....You live at the DUunderground, don't you???

Ah Rush. I used to listen to him every time I was in the States driving around out there in the boonies. I remember driving near Cortez, Colorado and pissing myself laughing in the rental car when an 18 year old female high school student handed him his lard arse on a plate. He must have sacked dozens of his call-screeners that day, he was furious! :laugh2: Ah but I bought one of his books in Cortez next day at a really lovely bookshop cum cafe. He's funny.

Oh DU - been there a few times - as well as Freeperville - nup, can't learn anything from sites which are all about spreading the news among like-thinkers. I know what I think, I like to test it with people who think otherwise. I never learned from anyone who agreed with me.




There is a portion of the US, that is as you say, just as is there is in other Country..
But.......When push comes to shove...I think you will see the tough ole sonofguns who sit in the background, don't make a spectacle of themselves, don't want the attention, but WILL STAND UP....
Now...you better look out...You ass is about to be hung out to be dried...:laugh2:

And I'll be the first in line.......ye haw.

I fully expect to get a bake. But hell if I don't say what I truly think and really believe then I'm doing a PR bullshit thing here.

[emmett]

Ah Rush. I used to listen to him every time I was in the States driving around out there in the boonies. I remember driving near Cortez, Colorado and pissing myself laughing in the rental car when an 18 year old female high school student handed him his lard arse on a plate. He must have sacked dozens of his call-screeners that day, he was furious! :laugh2: Ah but I bought one of his books in Cortez next day at a really lovely bookshop cum cafe. He's funny.

Oh DU - been there a few times - as well as Freeperville - nup, can't learn anything from sites which are all about spreading the news among like-thinkers. I know what I think, I like to test it with people who think otherwise. I never learned from anyone who agreed with me.




I fully expect to get a bake. But hell if I don't say what I truly think and really believe then I'm doing a PR bullshit thing here.

Rush is a propo blow hard. Like most talkers he is justpromoting a biused agenda. What he thinks though wouold have nothing to do with details associated with an uprising (which will never be necessary). The entire world is forever fasicnated by how we can be the fattest, dumbest, killingest, most undisciplined society in the world but still remain the world's leader. The reason for this is our core population gets no press.

Great debate going here though

[Hobbit]

On the police. The US has an interesting system of policing. You probably don't realise it - and I'm not having a go at your or trying to put you down, just making a point, if you know then my apologies for assuming lack of knowledge - that your country has the most localised police system in the world. There is strong identification with the local community. Now that's an excellent idea if you don't want central government to get too strong. It's actually one of the reasons the first State Police force (New Jersey) as founded, because the strikebreaking governor of NJ couldn't get the local cops to bludgeon unionists in their towns (many of the cops grew up with the unionists on strike). But, as usual, I digress.

Many police officers at the local level - municipal and county (Parish for our friends down there in La. the land of zydeco and scrumptious tucker) - would side with the community for sure. I'm not sure what the biggest departments would do. NYPD is bigger than some armies and is a massive bureaucracy that while it serves New York city may find that many of its officers don't actually identify with the city. Same for Chicago and LA. As for Philadelphia, dunno, I think the Philly cops would scare the crap out of anyone, even the military.

Sadly for your cause many smaller departments don’t have the sort of firepower and resources that would be needed for an insurrection. True the NYPD, the LAPD, Chicago PD have massive armouries and impressive equipment (the Philadelphia PD has access to endless amounts of Philly cheese steaks and while they won’t have an immediate effect years of chowing down on those would bring a government down, they’d all end up in the Cardiac Ward eventually) but again I don’t think it would be sufficient to counter the might of the government and its military.

On the military. Yes, the oath is to uphold the Constitution. I happen to think that’s a great idea. I am a fan of your Constitution, I went and paid it a visit just to gaze upon it. As you would say, “awesome.” The ship’s really neat too!

But the military obeys orders. Bush, like no other president in your history, has assumed very broad powers as Command in Chief. Very quietly, he has broadened out the concept of the C in C beyond its previous boundaries. I know Harry T booted MacArthur (btw remember his famous “I Shall Return” speech? He made it on a railway platform in a town about two hours north of where I live) in a demonstration of the power of the presidency but I suspect Bush wouldn’t have to do that, he has carefully filled the various positions in the US military with his people. They would do his bidding, trust me.

So it comes down to individual officers and soldiers (and Marines and Air Force and Navy and Coastguard personnel). Would they obey orders or would they throw their weapons down and head for the hills? Some would, most would do what they were ordered to do. Remember Kent State? I do. I remember it well.

There are several things that Bush has done, but expand the powers of the Commander in Chief ain't one of them. He's done nothing in that capacity that hasn't already been done by somebody else. As far as the individual soldiers, I think you misjudge them. The part of the oath that says "foreign and domestic" is taken very seriously and the men and women who serve do not do so blindly, nor do they do it to benefit the government. Most of them are also second ammendment loyalists who believe self-defense is a basic, human right. I don't see these guys just 'following orders' (they're all forced to study Nuremburg very thoroughly to know that that just won't work and that it's their duty to disobey orders that violate their oath or the UCMJ).


You are not a tough breed. You are soft. You’ve been softened by material indulgence. You have the worst obesity problem in the world in your population. You’re at the mall while your military is at war. You wouldn’t have sufficient people to summon up the gumption to take on your government. You laugh at the French but they had the guts to form a resistance. And what would your people do? They would whine, complain, listen to Rush, call Rush and “I’m with you Rush, dittohead here, we gotta get them out of DC”. And that would be it. Nothing. You are expressing the ideas of a fantasist. Put it on YouTube, call it "Red States Dawn", I don’t buy it it for a second and you know I'm right.

That was probably the single most idiotic thing I have ever seen you say, and that's saying a lot. Yeah, there's an element in our society who thinks violence solves nothing, the government is undefeatable, and would rather just buy crap they don't need with money they don't have to impress people they don't like than be prodoctive members of society, but you're missing the rest, and throwing in Limbaugh for good measure ain't helping you any. We here in the south eat, breathe, and sleep freedom. It's the one place in the country where the libertarian (notice the lower case 'l') movement is truly picking up steam. Everyone here can shoot. Half the people can survive in the wilderness, and we all know that those who came before us weathered the Depression, the War Between the States, and some of our ancestors (mine included) signed their lives away on a document that had only a glimmer of hope of granting this country freedom. As for the 'at the mall' comment. I'd like to know what you mean by that. I'm going to finish school before I enlist, and I know that not everyone is eligible or has the cajones to go fight for their country. What would you suggest they do in the meantime? Spend all of their spare time and money sending stuff to the troops? Sulking and bemoaning the fact that we're at war? Watching crappy news channels 24/7? That "at the mall while your military is at war" is nothing but a piece of rhetoric not even worthy to wipe my crack with, and its sole intention is to inspire a guilt trip in anyone who isn't, at this moment, shooting at ragheads.

[loosecannon]

An interesting read, a lotta hot air.

The federal government already put down an extremely well organized armed insurrection in the US. It is called the civil war.

Nothing personal but you won't put up half the fight that the south did 150 years ago.

Ya'll are far too soft.

Truth is none of you will fire on law enforcement if they come for your weapons. You will simply hide them the same way that criminals do today.

And you will become criminals in the process.

Legally your right to bear arms is granted by the federal constitution. What the constitution gives, the constitution can also take.

Turn your guns on the state and the state will take you out. Goodbye.

But don't worry. Stay organized and vigilant and try to become as efficient as AIPAC in lobbying for your rights.

Unfortunately AIPAC is 1/10th the size of the NRA and twice as succesful.

Lastly don't let them chip away at your rights or create false emergencies that justify an enhanced police state.

They are already doing this in the war on terror and many of ya'll have already fallen for it hook line and sinker.

Bush is definitely NOT on your side.

Only the bill of rights and it's followers are on your side. A unitary exec who makes a habit of trampling constitutional rights is an obvious enemy of your cause.

[Hobbit]

An interesting read, a lotta hot air.

The federal government already put down an extremely well organized armed insurrection in the US. It is called the civil war.

Nothing personal but you won't put up half the fight that the south did 150 years ago.

Ya'll are far too soft.

Truth is none of you will fire on law enforcement if they come for your weapons. You will simply hide them the same way that criminals do today.

And you will become criminals in the process.

Legally your right to bear arms is granted by the federal constitution. What the constitution gives, the constitution can also take.

Turn your guns on the state and the state will take you out. Goodbye.

But don't worry. Stay organized and vigilant and try to become as efficient as AIPAC in lobbying for your rights.

Unfortunately AIPAC is 1/10th the size of the NRA and twice as succesful.

Lastly don't let them chip away at your rights or create false emergencies that justify an enhanced police state.

They are already doing this in the war on terror and many of ya'll have already fallen for it hook line and sinker.

Bush is definitely NOT on your side.

Only the bill of rights and it's followers are on your side. A unitary exec who makes a habit of trampling constitutional rights is an obvious enemy of your cause.

This is the problem with modern liberalism. In their minds, the war is already lost. I can't believe what kind of self-righteous pricks think we're just going to roll over and accept tyranny. Actually, I do, and it's the same self-righteous pricks who think rights are derived from the frickin' government. Heads up, geniuses, your rights are derived from God/nature/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it and it's the government's job to protect those rights. The second they start taking those away is the second the government has lost its permission to rule.

Edit: It's also worth mentioning that despite wishful thinking to the contrary, the War Between the States was not an uprising. It was a full-scale war between two independant countries, one of which had broken off from the other and was, at the time, autonomous. An uprising or 'civil war' is when multiple factions within the same country vie for control of the same government. The South didn't want Washington. They just wanted to keep Richmond.

[Pale Rider]

You too PR - a debate would be good.

My position on this is - you wouldn't have a chance against the military and the government. Not being nasty here - just a statement of my position. A citizen's uprising in the US - not to mention just about anywhere else in the developed world - would fail against the might of the most powerful military the world has ever seen and a government that is ruthless.

If someone would like to start? Tell me where I'm wrong and I'll return the favour.

Fantasies along the line of a domestic "Red Dawn" aren't valid arguments.

First off, the resistance would be guerrilla style. Our military is presently stretched practically to the limit, JUST IN IRAQ! If you think our military could take over an armed nation as large as America, and HOLD it, you're crazy. We can't even stabilize Baghdad. Also think about how many of those citizens here are veterans such as myself. We're trained combatants, by our own military. We know what we're doing. Second, how many troops do you think would either refuse to carry out orders or DESERT after they were ordered to start KILLING their own COUNTRYMEN? I'm guessing the majority.

No, there is NO WAY POSSIBLE for this country to be ordered to disarm. Even a small effort to do such would erupt a civil war. And following such an order, after it failed, the people that tried to do it would be ran out of office.

[loosecannon]

it's the same self-righteous pricks who think rights are derived from the frickin' government. Heads up, geniuses, your rights are derived from God/nature/whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-call-it and it's the government's job to protect those rights.

The rights you speak of are delivered to you thru one and only one mechanism. The constitution.

If you don't have government protecting those rights you have nothing but rule of the jungle to do so. And within minutes of any resistance organizing it is already in the process of becoming that new government.

Rights do not exist unless some form of government protects them. They are like hopes and dreams, unable to realize themselves.


Edit: It's also worth mentioning that despite wishful thinking to the contrary, the War Between the States was not an uprising. It was a full-scale war between two independant countries, one of which had broken off from the other and was, at the time, autonomous. it was both, your own description even says so.

The south WAS breaking off and they were overwhelmed by the Union forces.

If the south could not overthrow the federal authority you don't have a chance in hell of doing so.

Whether or not the military and police will support an effort to take peoples arms depends on a lot of unknowns. But it has happened before and it usually works.

If you want to serve your cause do not allow a creep to occur. Defend all of the bills of rights, demand that the gummit adhere to the strict letter of the law (way too late) and do not allow a creep towards a police state. Which is happening now.

In Germany they came for the Jews guns first. Hence the saying "first they came for the jews and I said nothing".

In 1928, five years before the rise of Hitler, Germany’s freely elected government enacted a “Law on Firearms and Ammunition.” This law required anyone who owned a firearm, or who wanted to own a firearm, to make themselves known to the authorities. Anyone who wanted to purchase a firearm had to get a “Firearms Acquisition Permit.” If you needed ammunition, you had to get an “Ammunition Acquisition Permit.” When you wanted to go hunting, you had to get an “Annual Hunting Permit.” Every firearm that changed hands professionally had to have a serial number and the maker’s or dealers name stamped into the metal. “Proof of need” was made a condition for issuance of all licenses, not just the carry permit. Mandatory prison sentences were imposed on anyone who professionally sold or transferred a firearm or ammunition without a license. Truncheons and stabbing weapons were subject to the same licensing requirements as firearms, in terms of their manufacture and sale.

As a result of the 1928 Law, all firearms and firearms owners were registered. To take firearms from anyone they distrusted, the Nazis simply did not renew permits. Under the law, their privately created law, the Nazis could now easily confiscate all firearms and ammunition from any, or all, selected groups. The gun law of 1928 had served the Nazis well. It made almost all law abiding firearms owners known to the authorities. The 1928 law on firearms and ammunition helped the Nazis to destroy democracy in Germany, by disarming the law abiding majority, whom they feared.



a good read

http://infidelsarecool.com/2007/04/18/what-if-jewish-citizens-were-armed-in-nazi-germany-holocaust-or-no-ww2-or-no/


The incremental changes are the ones to watch for.

[Pale Rider]

The rights you speak of are delivered to you thru one and only one mechanism. The constitution.

If you don't have government protecting those rights you have nothing but rule of the jungle to do so. And within minutes of any resistance organizing it is already in the process of becoming that new government.

I disagree. It's the military that earned people those rights, and it's the military that protects them. A government is nothing without a military to back it up. A government can make decree after decree, but without a military, it's all empty rhetoric.

[loosecannon]

I disagree. It's the military that earned people those rights, and it's the military that protects them. A government is nothing without a military to back it up. A government can make decree after decree, but without a military, it's all empty rhetoric.


OK you made a really good point a military is required to uphold law. So is domestic law enforcement.

But both are departments of the gummit.

[loosecannon]

in case anybody believes it can not happen here:

It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)

much much more, well worth reading.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm

[diuretic]

Rush is a propo blow hard. Like most talkers he is justpromoting a biused agenda. What he thinks though wouold have nothing to do with details associated with an uprising (which will never be necessary). The entire world is forever fasicnated by how we can be the fattest, dumbest, killingest, most undisciplined society in the world but still remain the world's leader. The reason for this is our core population gets no press.

Great debate going here though

We're the second most obese. The stereotyped bronze Aussie is bullshit. We have a self-created myth of being anti-authoritarian. Again it's bullshit, we would make good Nazis, we would do as we were told. But since this thread is about the US and the violation of the Constitution I suppose I should hold my view about my own country for when it becomes a topic.

[diuretic]

There are several things that Bush has done, but expand the powers of the Commander in Chief ain't one of them. He's done nothing in that capacity that hasn't already been done by somebody else. As far as the individual soldiers, I think you misjudge them. The part of the oath that says "foreign and domestic" is taken very seriously and the men and women who serve do not do so blindly, nor do they do it to benefit the government. Most of them are also second ammendment loyalists who believe self-defense is a basic, human right. I don't see these guys just 'following orders' (they're all forced to study Nuremburg very thoroughly to know that that just won't work and that it's their duty to disobey orders that violate their oath or the UCMJ).

On Bush - putting aside the C in C aspect for a second, Bush has - with assistance of course - developed the theory of the unitary executive. It is legal bullshit but until someone calls him on it he will keep operating according to its fictional lines. In effect what this means is that he believes the president is above the Congress and the Supreme Court rather than there being a gathering of equals, with all the constitutional checks and balances.

On your millitary. It's good to know that they feel that they're bound to the constitution and not solely to the commander in chief. But what would they do if the c-in-c traduced the constitution in issuing instructions to the Joint Chiefs of Staff who then transmitted those orders through the ranks? In your opinion would the JCS overthrow the president?



That was probably the single most idiotic thing I have ever seen you say, and that's saying a lot. Yeah, there's an element in our society who thinks violence solves nothing, the government is undefeatable, and would rather just buy crap they don't need with money they don't have to impress people they don't like than be prodoctive members of society, but you're missing the rest, and throwing in Limbaugh for good measure ain't helping you any. We here in the south eat, breathe, and sleep freedom. It's the one place in the country where the libertarian (notice the lower case 'l') movement is truly picking up steam. Everyone here can shoot. Half the people can survive in the wilderness, and we all know that those who came before us weathered the Depression, the War Between the States, and some of our ancestors (mine included) signed their lives away on a document that had only a glimmer of hope of granting this country freedom. As for the 'at the mall' comment. I'd like to know what you mean by that. I'm going to finish school before I enlist, and I know that not everyone is eligible or has the cajones to go fight for their country. What would you suggest they do in the meantime? Spend all of their spare time and money sending stuff to the troops? Sulking and bemoaning the fact that we're at war? Watching crappy news channels 24/7? That "at the mall while your military is at war" is nothing but a piece of rhetoric not even worthy to wipe my crack with, and its sole intention is to inspire a guilt trip in anyone who isn't, at this moment, shooting at ragheads.


Stick around I’ve got plenty of idiotic ideas yet, you might agree you might not but I’ll continue to express them – without fear nor favour. Some of them might even be interesting.

The Southland. I’m not contesting your views, you live there, I’ve only visited so I’ll take your point.

The mall comment. It’s not mine, it’s been around for ages. I think the exact quote is, “Marines are at war, America is at the mall.” The context in which I saw the phrase used and discussed was the suggestion that the professional military is involved in really serious warfighting in Iraq and Afghanistan but back home you wouldn’t know it. I detected a sense of abandonment in the phrase. You’re wise, if I may say so, to finish your education before signing up, I wish you well.

[diuretic]

First off, the resistance would be guerrilla style. Our military is presently stretched practically to the limit, JUST IN IRAQ! If you think our military could take over an armed nation as large as America, and HOLD it, you're crazy. We can't even stabilize Baghdad. Also think about how many of those citizens here are veterans such as myself. We're trained combatants, by our own military. We know what we're doing. Second, how many troops do you think would either refuse to carry out orders or DESERT after they were ordered to start KILLING their own COUNTRYMEN? I'm guessing the majority.

Guerilla activity is interesting, yes, it's the only option of course. I'm wracking my brain here trying to think of instances when guerilla activity was used in a domestic uprising. Obviously Iraq is a prime example of guerilla activity right now. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines is another example. Aside from the French resistance I think the most successful to date has been the Maoist model in China. As we know Mao was so successful he took over an entire country. That might be the most effective model. There's a copy of his famous On Guerilla Warfare text here - http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/guerrilla-warfare/

Could the US military take and hold the US. In a sense it already does. There are bases all over the US. Using the Maoist model of guerilla warfare makes sense in the case of a domestic uprising in the US. My advice would be to convert the local base if possible. A problem might be - just a thought, you'd know better of course - would the loyalty to the military overcome the attachment to the local population, particularly since I would imagine bases are staffed by individuals from outside the region. For example, how many native Texans are based at Fort Hood? I don't know, just throwing it into the mix for thought.

Yes, veterans are the key. Using that Maoist approach I think the vets would be the key, they would have to provide the necessary leadership and training. Now if I were in the government military and I was running the anti-guerilla operations I would pick up every single veteran in my area of responsibility and ship them to Egypt or Uzbekhistan. Yes, I would use extraordinary rendition to cut the uprising down before it could begin. Training civilians takes a lot of time and as an activity it would be noticed by the government, especially through the use of spies, which of course would be seeded throughout the population.l

I'd like to think the majority (preferably all) of the military would walk away from orders to kill their own countrymen, yes.



No, there is NO WAY POSSIBLE for this country to be ordered to disarm. Even a small effort to do such would erupt a civil war. And following such an order, after it failed, the people that tried to do it would be ran out of office.

The people who tried it would enforce it as we're discussing. I doubt if they'd be run out of government immediately because that assumes that the normal functions of the state are solid. In a coup by the administration against the Constitution it would be a zero-sum game, they would need to get their ducks in a row before moving.

[diuretic]

OK you made a really good point a military is required to uphold law. So is domestic law enforcement.

But both are departments of the gummit.

Small correction. Law enforcement operates on three levels in the States - federal, state and local. I would think local would tell the administration mounting the coup to shove it, the states could go either way, the feds I think would probably stick with the coup masters.

[Pale Rider]

Guerilla activity is interesting, yes, it's the only option of course. I'm wracking my brain here trying to think of instances when guerilla activity was used in a domestic uprising. Obviously Iraq is a prime example of guerilla activity right now. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines is another example. Aside from the French resistance I think the most successful to date has been the Maoist model in China. As we know Mao was so successful he took over an entire country. That might be the most effective model. There's a copy of his famous On Guerilla Warfare text here - http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/guerrilla-warfare/

Could the US military take and hold the US. In a sense it already does. There are bases all over the US. Using the Maoist model of guerilla warfare makes sense in the case of a domestic uprising in the US. My advice would be to convert the local base if possible. A problem might be - just a thought, you'd know better of course - would the loyalty to the military overcome the attachment to the local population, particularly since I would imagine bases are staffed by individuals from outside the region. For example, how many native Texans are based at Fort Hood? I don't know, just throwing it into the mix for thought.

Yes, veterans are the key. Using that Maoist approach I think the vets would be the key, they would have to provide the necessary leadership and training. Now if I were in the government military and I was running the anti-guerilla operations I would pick up every single veteran in my area of responsibility and ship them to Egypt or Uzbekhistan. Yes, I would use extraordinary rendition to cut the uprising down before it could begin. Training civilians takes a lot of time and as an activity it would be noticed by the government, especially through the use of spies, which of course would be seeded throughout the population.l

I'd like to think the majority (preferably all) of the military would walk away from orders to kill their own countrymen, yes.



The people who tried it would enforce it as we're discussing. I doubt if they'd be run out of government immediately because that assumes that the normal functions of the state are solid. In a coup by the administration against the Constitution it would be a zero-sum game, they would need to get their ducks in a row before moving.


In very simple terms partner, it's a loosing proposition.

[loosecannon]

Small correction. Law enforcement operates on three levels in the States - federal, state and local. I would think local would tell the administration mounting the coup to shove it, the states could go either way, the feds I think would probably stick with the coup masters.

I think at least half prob more of local enforcement would back the feds. Locals are not very powerful.

States tough to say, prob most would back the feds.

But it is easy work to bring the people to the fed's bidding.

We are talking about them removing our arms, not a rebellion.

The rebellion would be regional at most.

[diuretic]

In very simple terms partner, it's a loosing proposition.

And here I was looking for a rebuttal I could get into.

[diuretic]

I think at least half prob more of local enforcement would back the feds. Locals are not very powerful.

States tough to say, prob most would back the feds.

But it is easy work to bring the people to the fed's bidding.

We are talking about them removing our arms, not a rebellion.

The rebellion would be regional at most.

I think you're right. Of course I hasten to add that it will not happen but if it did, yes, it would highly regionalised. I've never lived in the States but I have been able to travel through much of it and I don't think it takes a brain surgeon to work out that in the major metro areas I would think there wouldn't be too much resistance. In rural areas or more sparsely populated states and regions, yes, a plan like this would meet resistance for a while.

Anyway I'm speculating. As I said, it won't happen.

[TheStripey1]

You are not a tough breed. You are soft. You’ve been softened by material indulgence. You have the worst obesity problem in the world in your population. You’re at the mall while your military is at war. You wouldn’t have sufficient people to summon up the gumption to take on your government. You laugh at the French but they had the guts to form a resistance. And what would your people do? They would whine, complain, listen to Rush, call Rush and “I’m with you Rush, dittohead here, we gotta get them out of DC”. And that would be it. Nothing. You are expressing the ideas of a fantasist. Put it on YouTube, call it "Red States Dawn", I don’t buy it it for a second and you know I'm right.

When 67% of the population is overweight, that means that being fit is abnormal. Personally, I'm abnormal and proud of it. The tip of my nose sticks out further than my belly button and I can rise from a cross legged seating position to a standing one without the use of my paws... but... there are tons of people that can't even shift in their chairs without groaning...

tons of people...

literally...

I think you're right, D... americans just THINK we are capable of repelling an invading or occupying force... but I think we're for the most part...

a fat target...

[TheStripey1]

First off, the resistance would be guerrilla style. Our military is presently stretched practically to the limit, JUST IN IRAQ! If you think our military could take over an armed nation as large as America, and HOLD it, you're crazy. We can't even stabilize Baghdad. Also think about how many of those citizens here are veterans such as myself. We're trained combatants, by our own military. We know what we're doing. Second, how many troops do you think would either refuse to carry out orders or DESERT after they were ordered to start KILLING their own COUNTRYMEN? I'm guessing the majority.

No, there is NO WAY POSSIBLE for this country to be ordered to disarm. Even a small effort to do such would erupt a civil war. And following such an order, after it failed, the people that tried to do it would be ran out of office.

You have just made a very compelling arguement for any Iraqi to become an insurgent... you do realize that, don't you?

and another thing, there're mercenaries in the mix these days... and not all of them are hired in america...

[Gaffer]

If you're at all serious about any of these points I'd like to discuss them with you, seriously I would. If it's just bullshit you're spraying about to impress people then forget it.

Sure what do you wish to discuss?

[glockmail]

I'm not getting any takers. Okay for what it's worth, some random thoughts.
..... That's bull, man. We've been through this before. NO ONE's taking our friggin guns away, and if they try, it will be much more than the libs could ever endure.

[Gaffer]

You too PR - a debate would be good.

My position on this is - you wouldn't have a chance against the military and the government. Not being nasty here - just a statement of my position. A citizen's uprising in the US - not to mention just about anywhere else in the developed world - would fail against the might of the most powerful military the world has ever seen and a government that is ruthless.

If someone would like to start? Tell me where I'm wrong and I'll return the favour.

Fantasies along the line of a domestic "Red Dawn" aren't valid arguments.

Your right in the sense that the civilian population could not take on the US military. But he US military is made up of Americans and they would be as divided as the rest of the country. It also depends on how the divid runs. Liberal verses conservative or just a tyrant taking control of the government? The military is commanded by the president, however their oath of service is to the constitution.

The American populace is in a position to take on the local police. Again, many of those would be likely to join the rebeling populace. A Red Dawn senario is not going to happen.

[Kathianne]

Your right in the sense that the civilian population could not take on the US military. But he US military is made up of Americans and they would be as divided as the rest of the country. It also depends on how the divid runs. Liberal verses conservative or just a tyrant taking control of the government? The military is commanded by the president, however their oath of service is to the constitution.

The American populace is in a position to take on the local police. Again, many of those would be likely to join the rebeling populace. A Red Dawn senario is not going to happen.

Not to mention that if the American citizenry reacted with arms, tax paying would stop. The military that were in it for other than patriotism, (those would have already crossed), would realize the pay train was derailed.

[Gaffer]

Not to mention that if the American citizenry reacted with arms, tax paying would stop. The military that were in it for other than patriotism, (those would have already crossed), would realize the pay train was derailed.

So very true. The money would dry up fast.

[diuretic]

That's bull, man. We've been through this before. NO ONE's taking our friggin guns away, and if they try, it will be much more than the libs could ever endure.

You're exactly right, no-one's taking your weapons away. It would be a really, really stupid policy.

[diuretic]

Your right in the sense that the civilian population could not take on the US military. But he US military is made up of Americans and they would be as divided as the rest of the country. It also depends on how the divid runs. Liberal verses conservative or just a tyrant taking control of the government? The military is commanded by the president, however their oath of service is to the constitution.

The American populace is in a position to take on the local police. Again, many of those would be likely to join the rebeling populace. A Red Dawn senario is not going to happen.

Agreed.

[glockmail]

You're exactly right, no-one's taking your weapons away. It would be a really, really stupid policy.


Agreed.

What's with that? A Lib giving up so easily?

[diuretic]

What's with that? A Lib giving up so easily?

It's not contest. I only pipe up to:

1. Disagree on principle
2. Test someone else's point of view
3. Test my own point of view
4. Join in a bit of good-natured stirring.

You posted stuff I agreed with. I said so. That's that. :coffee:

[glockmail]

It's not contest. I only pipe up to:

1. Disagree on principle
2. Test someone else's point of view
3. Test my own point of view
4. Join in a bit of good-natured stirring.

You posted stuff I agreed with. I said so. That's that. :coffee:

This is the second time that you brought up this issue from your negative perspective. That makes you a troll.

[diuretic]

This is the second time that you brought up this issue from your negative perspective. That makes you a troll.


And this yet another demonstration of your shortcomings. Can you differentiate between a point made in serious pursuit and a posting which is intended to be light-hearted? Is that all you can do, respond by insult? You know it's posters like you that make boards like this unpopular. Far from me being the troll I think you're kept under the bridge to make using this board deliberately unpleasant. Fortunately I don't give a flying fuck about your opinion :finger3:

[glockmail]

And this yet another demonstration of your shortcomings. Can you differentiate between a point made in serious pursuit and a posting which is intended to be light-hearted? Is that all you can do, respond by insult? You know it's posters like you that make boards like this unpopular. Far from me being the troll I think you're kept under the bridge to make using this board deliberately unpleasant. Fortunately I don't give a flying fuck about your opinion :finger3:

OIC. You mess up, so you're "only kidding". Then you give me the finger.

[Dfresh]

:eek:

LAST week's tragedy at Virginia Tech in which a mentally disturbed person gunned down 32 of America's finest - intelligent young people with futures ahead of them - once again puts the phenomenon of an armed society into focus for Americans.

The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million. What was clear last week is that at least two of those guns were in the wrong hands.

When people talk about doing something about guns in America, it often comes down to this: "How could America disarm even if it wanted to? There are so many guns out there."

Because I have little or no power to influence the "if" part of the issue, I will stick with the "how." And before anyone starts to hyperventilate and think I'm a crazed liberal zealot wanting to take his gun from his cold, dead hands, let me share my experience of guns.:poke:

As a child I played cowboys and Indians with cap guns. I had a Daisy Red Ryder B-B gun. My father had in his bedside table drawer an old pistol which I examined surreptitiously from time to time. When assigned to the American embassy in Beirut during the war in Lebanon, I sometimes carried a .357 Magnum, which I could fire accurately. I also learned to handle and fire a variety of weapons while I was there, including Uzis and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

I don't have any problem with hunting, although blowing away animals with high-powered weapons seems a pointless, no-contest affair to me. I suppose I would enjoy the fellowship of the experience with other friends who are hunters.

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

It would have to be the case that the term "hunting weapon" did not include anti-tank ordnance, assault weapons, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, or other weapons of war.

All antique or interesting non-hunting weapons would be required to be delivered to a local or regional museum, also to be under strict 24-hour-a-day guard. There they would be on display, if the owner desired, as part of an interesting exhibit of antique American weapons, as family heirlooms from proud wars past or as part of collections.

Gun dealers could continue their work, selling hunting and antique firearms. They would be required to maintain very tight inventories. Any gun sold would be delivered immediately by the dealer to the nearest arsenal or the museum, not to the buyer.

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying."

The "gun lobby" would no doubt try to head off in the courts the new laws and the actions to implement them. They might succeed in doing so, although the new approach would undoubtedly prompt new, vigorous debate on the subject. In any case, some jurisdictions would undoubtedly take the opportunity of the chronic slowness of the courts to begin implementing the new approach.

America's long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-gun dealerships installing themselves in Mexico, and perhaps in more remote parts of the Canadian border area, to funnel guns into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time.

There could conceivably also be a rash of score-settling during hunting season as people drew out their weapons, ostensibly to shoot squirrels and deer, and began eliminating various of their perceived two-footed enemies. Given the general nature of hunting weapons and the fact that such killings are frequently time-sensitive, that seems a lesser sort of issue.

That is my idea of how it could be done. The desire to do so on the part of the American people is another question altogether, but one clearly raised again by the Blacksburg tragedy.

Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007704250310

Guns keep the politicians honest.....if they had all the guns we'd be fucked. I see where your coming from but bad idea.

[stephanie]

Guns keep the politicians honest.....if they had all the guns we'd be fucked. I see where your coming from but bad idea.

I agree with what you said..

I only posted the article to show how the loony anit-gun people think..:cheers2: