A Prayer

[submessenger]

The fucking government can't track 13 million illegal aliens. Good luck tracking 300 million guns.

I don't think her bill has a snowball's chance... However I'm sure the 130 million or so NICS checks will be a bootstrap. Fucking Bradys.

[submessenger]

Here's what is crazy. Go look at the other thread. Notice how EVERYONE keeps talking about "OMG Tonz of GUNZ?" Why do you need 2384762398462398731 quadrillllion trillion? Why does this red herring always appear?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/ny...rous.html?_r=0

Gun collection? 5 guns is now a gun collection? Oh and please note the rhetoric used throughout the article. Has anyone else noticed the sudden turn in her behavior? Now, she is "high strung" and "trying to keep it together." How long before we fins out she had "crazy" in her background?

Willful ignorance.

[Devil]

I don't think her bill has a snowball's chance... However I'm sure the 130 million or so NICS checks will be a bootstrap. Fucking Bradys.

They can't prove who owns those guns now. Only who originally purchased them. Maybe I sold all my guns to some dude. Sorry, I can't remember his name.

[Vieux Normand]

The US has a number of power divisions.

As does any Western country, among a number of others. Nothing new.

Right to bear arms is just one of them.

I hate to break this to some of you, but there are no forced-disarm provisions for European citizens. You want a gun here? You can get one, no problem.

The individual states do in fact have tanks and aircraft...but the president can federalize them..who's order would they follow?

The C-in-C.

Our military is divided into different branches, who would they follow if president did not give up power?

The C-in-C.

Civilian police forces are heavily armed also.

Some are: tactical teams. *cue "theme from SWAT" here*

A potential dictator also has to deal with the Secret Service which serves the President not a dictator.

...and if they're one and the same?

They also have arrest power if someone tried to usurp power from or threaten the elected President.

Ditto. Also, what if it's a movement within a political party (say, one interested in a fundamentalist theocracy) that is jockeying for power?

Your view of right to bear arms is simplistic.

As is your assumption that this right is unique to your country. The arms one can purchase in Europe are limited in the same way as those in the States: the practicality of affordability. Here, the State will always have the advantage, and it is naive to think otherwise

You've described a number of power divisions in your country--ones common in other nations as well--but the biggest source of armed power is still federally-controlled. These divisions you describe serve to consolidate federal power.

Your simplistic assumption that a single dictator is the only way totalitarian rule can come to a nation ignores the many instances in history that parties and similar groups were able to achieve this end.

Others have pointed out that written rights-in-principle exist in your country even though the political process can be--and sometimes has been--co-opted and corrupted by poweful vested interests. A number of other nations can make this exact point about their own political situations. So what?

[Mr. Machette]

As does any Western country, among a number of others. Nothing new.

Fantastic, then why did you ask if you already knew?

I hate to break this to some of you, but there are no forced-disarm provisions for European citizens. You want a gun here? You can get one, no problem.

Bullshit. Buy a full auto M60 then and post pics.

The C-in-C.

Is not infalible.

The C-in-C.

Works for us, not the other way around.

Some are: tactical teams. *cue "theme from SWAT" here*

Who are residents of the comunities they police.

...and if they're one and the same?

Then they are guilty of treason and vastly outnumbered.

Ditto. Also, what if it's a movement within a political party (say, one interested in a fundamentalist theocracy) that is jockeying for power?

Checks and balances. This is grade school civics over here BTW.

As is your assumption that this right is unique to your country. The arms one can purchase in Europe are limited in the same way as those in the States: the practicality of affordability.?

The intent of the right is unique AFAIK. There are no other contries to my knowledge that lists armed revolt as a natural right. (France? Maybe?) It is actually quite a dividing line between our society and most other developed nations.

Here, the State will always have the advantage, and it is naive to think otherwise.

Not in the case of small arms. Absent the current run on stock, with about 3k in funds I could purchase a rifle that our G.I. boys would love and deserve but will never in a million years rbe given out as an issue weapon.

We are also free to choose any caliber or projectile type available. This is not true for standing armies.

You've described a number of power divisions in your country--ones common in other nations as well--but the biggest source of armed power is still federally-controlled. These divisions you describe serve to consolidate federal power.

Which is power granted by "public mandate". Your looking at the ass of the snake and thinking it's the head. Are you by any chance a U.S. congressperson?

Your simplistic assumption that a single dictator is the only way totalitarian rule can come to a nation ignores the many instances in history that parties and similar groups were able to achieve this end. Others have pointed out that written rights-in-principle exist in your country even though the political process can be--and sometimes has been--co-opted and corrupted by poweful vested interests. A number of other nations can make this exact point about their own political situations. So what?

So, those abuses of power were invariably preceeded by disarmamnet of the population.

In fact, said corruption and abuse of power is specifically the "tyrany" described in the second amendment. It's intent is to maintain a society at arms. Period.

With traitors in both houses of congress, a president who literally signed amendments four through nine out the effing window, a viirtual civil war spilling across our southern border and China vocally stating it's intent to militarilly expand across the globe sometime this century, it is as relvant now as it ever was.

You need to stop applying you countries values to the conversation. Whatever arangement you have over there is your problem and completely irrelevant to U.S. law and regulations.

In fact, I would say you are wholey ignorant of the actual mindset of most American gun owners. Many of which are current or ex-military.

[Cullion]

The people talking about how the 2nd amendment is moot because it doesn't allow you to have the latest tanks or planes are not taking on board the history of either of the Afghan wars or Northern Ireland. Google 'guerrilla warfare'.

Besides, if things ever did get that bad, you'd have big chunks of the military defecting.

[Mr. Machette]

The people talking about how the 2nd amendment is moot because it doesn't allow you to have the latest tanks or planes are not taking on board the history of either of the Afghan wars or Northern Ireland. Google 'guerrilla warfare'.

Besides, if things ever did get that bad, you'd have big chunks of the military defecting.

With millitary harware up for grabs all over the place.

Our nation is nothing if not exceptional at making war.

With all the WMD's we've stockpiled for decades strewn throughout the country a modern civil war here could turn into a sci-fi apocalyptic nightmare. We have force multipliers capable of biblical level horrors. Some of them are a but a short roadtrip from the keyboard where I type this. Go to the east, you've got the worst chemical weapons ever cooked. Go to the north you've got plutonium stock piles and enough dirty bomb material to poison every living thing on earth. Anti tank? How about "anti city".

Most of the people posting "ya can't revolt" come from countries much smaller and weaker that ours. I mean, we've got individual states with more population, teritory, and arms than most countries. Hell, we've got "boats" that can make that boast!

This is a giant world power people. Even the soccer moms own ARs with pink grips and Hello Kitty stickers.

Poking the hornets nest is a bad, bad idea. (Just ask the Taliban...)

[mike321]

"the dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.”

[Vieux Normand]

Is not infalible.

Exactly the problem.

Works for us, not the other way around.

Again, this claim is made by the heads of a number of states, not only the US.

Who are residents of the comunities they police.

Any member of the State is a member of his or her community. They are not manufactured in vats.

Then they are guilty of treason and vastly outnumbered.

But not necessarily outgunned. Their arsenal is not limited to small arms.

Checks and balances. This is grade school civics over here BTW.

As it is here...with the proviso that they are theoretical and therefore subject to subversion. We are taught to be vigilant in respect to precisely this--by history as well as school.

The intent of the right is unique AFAIK. There are no other contries to my knowledge that lists armed revolt as a natural right. (France? Maybe?) It is actually quite a dividing line between our society and most other developed nations.

I am referring to practical real-life differences, not abstractions. Armed revolt will occur, given sufficient provocation, whether it is recognized in writing or not. That is our definition of a "natural right".

Not in the case of small arms.

The State arsenal is not, in modern countries, limited to small arms.

We are also free to choose any caliber or projectile type available. This is not true for standing armies.

Ditto.

So, those abuses of power were invariably preceeded by disarmamnet of the population.

No. They were only preceded by the disarmament of those persons who opposed them. Those who agreed with them, one the other hand...

In fact, said corruption and abuse of power is specifically the "tyrany" described in the second amendment.

The fact that something is in writing does not prevent its subversion.

It's intent is to maintain a society at arms. Period.

If that were true, you'd be doing like the Swiss and requiring households to be armed. Why, then, is this not done in the USA?

With traitors in both houses of congress, a president who literally signed amendments four through nine out the effing window, a viirtual civil war spilling across our southern border and China vocally stating it's intent to militarilly expand across the globe sometime this century, it is as relvant now as it ever was.

You are afraid, aren't you?

You need to stop applying you countries values to the conversation.

I made little or no mention of "me countries values", other than simply stating that gun ownership is not a big deal over here. It's a tool. We use it. Hunting, recreation and so on.

Whatever arangement you have over there is your problem and completely irrelevant to U.S. law and regulations.

Likewise. Duh.

In fact, I would say you are wholey ignorant of the actual mindset of most American gun owners. Many of which are current or ex-military.

I had previously written that the American take on guns appeared to be something akin to religious sacrament, as opposed to merely considering guns to be tools. However, the horrible-nightmare-of-nightmares scenario you've described above, with congress, the prez, the Mexicans and the Chinese all out to get you, indicate a mindset primarily dominated by abject fear.

The world's as scary as that, is it?

Well, I'm happy with my 10-ga. and my three-ought.

Maybe I should be...scared?

[mike321]

The C in C is the President. There is a huge level of respect for the President in the United States. With the exception of loud whackos on both sides the vast majority of Americans respect the president regardless of politics. The oath of office and military is to the constitution. If the office was usurped, this tremendous amount of respect suddenly becomes a huge negative for any would be dictator or totalitarian faction. Without constitutional mandate the C in C power goes away as a practical consequence of this.