Gun Control and the Second Amendment

[SealHammer]

Are you speaking from experience? Because i am. I'm israeli, and most of my friends were fighters, most of them were in gaza, and when we had to use force to take down terrorists we would use tanks, airplanes, guided missiles and all that jazz. Besides, what about Afghanistan, Iraq - the US interventions? You think there weren't planes and tanks and missiles there?

Your friends' experience is not your experience. Israeli soldiers have also killed a lot of civilian noncombatants in the process of getting the armed combatants. Besides, that's not an example of domestic occupation: it's a foreign invasion. They unlawfully entered into a nation of sovereign people and killed them.
Afghanistan is a foreign country, not the continental US. Furthermore, as a military endeavour, Afghanistan is no place for conventional infantrymen - the primary users of air support in-country. CAS's primary use is as a suppressive tactic, and rarely does it actually kill enough enemy to make a difference. There's not enough undeveloped area in US population centers for such tactics to be used without significant collateral damage, both to property and civilian lives.
Iraq was also a sovereign nation with a functioning military, which the US military toppled in a few weeks. Most Iraqi soldiers had ditched their uniforms by that point and either quit fighting altogether or became guerrilla fighters. Tanks became useless once the Republican Guard's armored divisions got knocked over and there were no conventional battles to fight. And have you seen the videos of Syrian rebels fighting tanks in their cities? It's ridiculous how easily they get up to these vehicles and engage them without being engaged. The only way the Syrian army would be able to fight against those kinds of tactics using their current tactics would be to murder fucking everyone.

None of those tactics are feasible for a domestic occupation. They're money sinks. Fool's errands. They don't work.

 

[subwayrider]

This was posted on the first page: http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-Benjamin-Franklin-Caus-by-Mike-Kirchubel-110711-773.html

It's highly informative and particularly eye-opening to the way that what we are taught in American public schools can be extremely biased, perhaps outright lies. That the Revolutionary War was fought over the stamping down of the colonial currency and the forced intervention by the Bank of England makes a lot more sense than mere taxation without representation, which is what I was taught all these years.

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

Your friends' experience is not your experience.

My friends are like family and thus i have heard / seen pictures / videos of many many things.

Israeli soldiers have also killed a lot of civilian noncombatants in the process of getting the armed combatants.

This has nothing to do with this discussion.

Besides, that's not an example of domestic occupation: it's a foreign invasion.

Many of these territories were captured by us when we were attacked by 4 different nations at the same time, to ensure the borders are protected. Afterwards, we withdrew from those territories since we don't want to rule over palestinians. When terror returned we had to make moves against terror organizations and use our tank airplanes and missiles. The territories are well mapped and known to us, and are urban territories. The fact remains, that tanks airplanes and missiles > semi automatic rifles. This was my argument.

Tanks became useless once the Republican Guard's armored divisions got knocked over and there were no conventional battles to fight.

This is simply not true. Tanks are very useful in combination with ground infantry for taking over streets. You march in with the tank to suppress any resistance and to fire at hostile windows and buildings, opening convenient paths for your infantry, at times shooting holes in walls to make secondary entrances.

And have you seen the videos of Syrian rebels fighting tanks in their cities? It's ridiculous how easily they get up to these vehicles and engage them without being engaged.

I'm sorry but the Syrian army is not much more than a joke, they are a bunch of power drunk fools with little to no military training, and their helicopters are falling out of the sky due to lack of maintenance and knowledge.

The only way the Syrian army would be able to fight against those kinds of tactics using their current tactics would be to murder fucking everyone.

This is exactly what they are doing if you haven't kept tap. In case you don't understand what's going on there; it is a genocide.

On 2 January 2013, the United Nations put out an estimate of 60,000 that had died in the war.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

Please try being less arrogant when conversing since it makes a harsh atmosphere and really takes the conversation away from being useful.

 

[Lerxst]

Why would they say "A well regulated Militia" and then follow it with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms?"

They should have foreseen the problems the lack of consistency would cause hundreds of years down the line.

Or maybe they did it on purpose just to fuck with us...

But why use "State" in capital letters? In modern language the amendment reads:

The right of a large community of people, such as found in a State or country, to keep and bear arms as needed for their security.

There has never been any indication that the amendment ever once applied to an individual; "free State" and "people" are the only words you need to look at to get any understanding of what was meant. The entire language is directed towards groups of organized people acting as a cohesive unit, not small splinters of random people acting on their own.

The ones championing gun ownership have no clue what the 18th century was like in this country, willingly ignore facts shown to them (texts from the period and so on), and have even less of a clue when it comes to linguistics. They WANT guns, so they make it look and sound like it applies to them, removing the context in which it was written.

Like it or not, our Founding Fathers created this country with Socialist ideals in mind. They were united, they believed in democracy and they created a government that was supposed to represent the majority of people in the country. They didn't fight Britain off so they could establish an Anarchy. The fact that they fought to create a unified government, representative of its people, negates every single argument modern-day Americans make in favor of their personal rights to keep weapons.

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

Long story short, you can't fight the new modern tanks with rifles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava#Merkava_Mark_IV - 1999 - currently used by many top notch armies. (Note this is not the newest).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-55 - This is from 1946, and is what is used in Syria today.

 

[subwayrider]

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

lol

 

[the]

Omg I must be infj too!!! 1!!!

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

Omg I must be infj too!!! 1!!!

I somewhat doubt that notion. You come up as more of an ST than an NF to me.

 

[subwayrider]

Omg I must be infj too!!! 1!!!

So other types have it too? I could have sworn it was always just me. My inability to side with one group or the other has gotten me in trouble in the past.

 

[Rcs6r]

What I don't get is why the elite families would be so crazy as to want to control the whole planet, or at least the west. Sounds like a pain in the ass chore to me; all this trouble they're going through just to get to that point. And for what? To feel safe from other humans? I've had an existential crisis before, but this...

Not that I'm doubting it could happen, it just seems kinda mad.

Edit to add:

Even if guns were more controlled, it wouldn't stop potential violence at schools.

I read a comment on Facebook that all this fear mongering could just be a ruse used to sell guns and ammo. I'll just quote it, because I don't think I could re-articulate the points originally made; it's a tad long so bare with me:

This same threat has been around for at least 12 years, at least.

I notice this guy on the video has Alex Jones videos on his channel. I notice a lot of people have recently starting paying attention to Alex Jones.

But, before Obama, Alex Jones was saying the exact same stuff he is saying now, that this guy is saying, about Obama. But Alex Jones was saying it about Bush. Back then, Bush was the socialist dictator. Bush was the puppet. Bush was the tyrannical overlord.

For the last twelve years. Alex Jones has been preaching the prophesied martial law, gun grabs, and fema camps. And it was just around the corner. It was the next house bill, or senate bill, or executive order.

Republicans use to make fun of Alex Jones or anyone who would say anything like what is being said now.

I know all this, because I was in the place you are now. I feared the impending societal meltdown. I wasted years studying every law. Reading through all the bills. I horded weapons. I had an escape plan.

And for what? Are they finally catching up? Will we finally have our martial law and revolution?

Or, is this all hype...again?

In the months leading up to the end of 1999. Honda had the greatest year of generator sales...of ALL TIME!

Why?

Because everyone was afraid. Corpocracy had found a new ally in mass media combined with fear.

They told use the Y2K bug was going to bring down America. That planes would fall from the sky. Power grids would shut down. Banks would turn into vacant buildings. The apocalypse was at hand.

And of those of us who knew better, who knew the real problem was solved back in 1978, we were ridiculed for not seeing the obvious. Blind sheep, we were called.

Yet, they sold all sorts of products. Didn't matter what it was, they threw a "Y2K compliant" sticker on it and it was sold.

Then came that fateful evening. The true believers were bunkered down. Armed and ready to fend off the hordes of displaced scavengers ready to kill their families and steal their supplies.

And at the stroke of midnight...Nothing. Just the faint sounds of laughter from the distant corporate owners.

Now look at today. Record numbers on sales of ammo and guns.

Is it a conspiracy to try to disarm every single American, knowing full well that it would lead into the bloodiest civil war in the history of the world? And the end result would most likely be them hung in the streets.

Or, is it a bunch of fear mongering to generate sales?

I am still waiting for Bush to declare himself Emperor of America, as promised would happen in 2008. I am still waiting for the forced vaccines and RFID chips. The round ups and detention camps. I am still waiting.

The truth is, if they are going to do it. There is absolutely nothing any of us could possibly do about it.

It's the Military Industrial Complex after all!

They can shoot you from freakin space!

If they are posed to do what you think they are going to do, then they are not going to play fair. And not on a leveled playing field.

15, 25, even 100 ordinary folks, held up in a house (made from cheap siding, and particle board, and sheetrock), with thousands of rounds of consumer grade ammunition, are going to last about two hours after their first engagement. Has anyone every seen an AH-64 in action?

It is weird to me, that on one hand, people will brag about the might of the American Military War Machine. How kick ass it is. How no other trained military force on the planet can even come close to defeating it.

Then, on the other hand, these same people think they will defeat this ultimate military force with their guns they got from wal-mart, and their extensive training they got from watching football games.

But... No harm in being prepared, I guess.

 

[the]

So other types have it too? I could have sworn it was always just me. My inability to side with one group or the other has gotten me in trouble in the past.

i think sometimes people can see other sides but refuse to admit it in order to validate their own perspective.

 

[SealHammer]

My friends are like family and thus i have heard / seen pictures / videos of many many things.

I have had family members deployed as combat infantrymen in Afghanistan, involved in direct combat with Haqqani and Al Qaeda insurgents, and I've seen the pictures they've brought home, heard the stories, but I don't consider this experience, and neither should you. It belittles the very real and very traumatic experiences that people take home with them from battle.

This has nothing to do with this discussion.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the discussion. We're not talking about conventional warfare, we are talking about engagements between a regular army and what would be known as "unlawful combatants" under the Geneva conventions. That is, they are non-uniformed, armed civilians.

The fact remains, that tanks airplanes and missiles > semi automatic rifles. This was my argument.

In a stand-up, conventional fight, yeah sure. Not against guerrillas hiding amongst civilians. You need infantry to root out a well-entrenched enemy hiding among a non-combatant populace.

This is simply not true. Tanks are very useful in combination with ground infantry for taking over streets. You march in with the tank to suppress any resistance and to fire at hostile windows and buildings, opening convenient paths for your infantry, at times shooting holes in walls to make secondary entrances.

How many tankers do you think would be willing to put a HEAT shell through someone's house in their own country? It's one thing to do it to some brown person who you've never met in your entire life; it's another entirely to do it to your own countrymen. Tanks are only brought into urban combat situations when fighting is particularly heated, and only as a last resort because of their destructive capability. About the only thing you can use them for in a CQC-type battle is a big piece of moving cover with a coax machine gun on it, unless you want to commit a blue-on-blue or kill civilians by using explosive cannon rounds in close proximity to residential areas. Taking into account the many angles from which a tank or any armed element can be attacked in an urban setting and you further exacerbate the problem. It's a gamble no matter how you slice it.

I'm sorry but the Syrian army is not much more than a joke, they are a bunch of power drunk fools with little to no military training, and their helicopters are falling out of the sky due to lack of maintenance and knowledge.

No argument there, but there are a lot of Ba'athist loyalists in Syria and they're a whole hell of a lot better equipped than the rebels. If anything, that alone is testament to the idea that the man makes the danger, not the weapon.

This is exactly what they are doing if you haven't kept tap. In case you don't understand what's going on there; it is a genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

That's a list of total deaths. On both sides. Including combatants. Some of the estimates in that article claim that a greater number of loyalist servicemen have been killed in the fighting than civilians and oppositionists, but even those estimates are apparently unreliable.



e:

Long story short, you can't fight the new modern tanks with rifles.

I never said you could. I said that tanks would never be used in a domestic situation.

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

I never said you could. I said that tanks would never be used in a domestic situation.

Let's agree to disagree then. I still think guns shouldn't be sold like candy.

 

[gd65h8as7]

What I don't get is why the elite families would be so crazy as to want to control the whole planet, or at least the west. Sounds like a pain in the ass chore to me; all this trouble they're going through just to get to that point. And for what? To feel safe from other humans? I've had an existential crisis before, but this...

Not that I'm doubting it could happen, it just seems kinda mad.

Edit to add:

Even if guns were more controlled, it wouldn't stop potential violence at schools.

I read a comment on Facebook that all this fear mongering could just be a ruse used to sell guns and ammo. I'll just quote it, because I don't think I could re-articulate the points originally made; it's a tad long so bare with me:

Yeah I agree with your point about the elite families. [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION], although I agree with you that people at the top are fucking and will continue to fuck the general population over as much as they possibly can, I think you assign them a little bit too much power and influence. There is a very interesting quote by Bill Clinton though, he made this while he was President.

"You know, by the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions. You may find you can get away with virtual presidents, virtual prime ministers, virtual everything."

I agree with a great deal of the points you make, but no offense, you give off the impression of being paranoid when you mention the bankers and stuff in every post. But then again, I could be wrong and you could be right. I just think there is way too much ambiguity and that no one really knows what goes on at the "top". Hell, I don't even think people at the top know what's going on, this quote by Thomas Pynchon explains what I'm trying to say much better than I can.

"There is no real direction here, neither lines of power nor cooperation. Decisions are never really made – at best they manage to emerge, from a chaos of peeves, whims, hallucinations and all around assholery."


EDIT: Actually thinking back on it now, since it was Zionists that brought the US into WWI, I agree with muir in that the US is run by Zionists. But I don't think it's necessarily the "bankers" that want to confiscate our guns, I don't believe it goes up that high. I think the Obama Adminstration understands very well that mass civil unrest is inevitable because of the state of the economy and the inability of our Congress to do anything productive.

 

[Rcs6r]

What [MENTION=6042]Izan[/MENTION] said is spot on. I think no one really knows how to run civilization since it's gotten so complex, and no one can predict how even a single human may act towards others*, which yes could be why the governments/banks want to control everything. But everything is just too much.

*I feel this is once again coming down to psychological health and how much this area of study needs to be improved in society.

 

[gd65h8as7]

But in regards to gun control, this is how I feel about what's going on right now.

With the Aurora shooting massacre, there are multiple reports that there was at least one other person involved, the way James Holmes apartment was rigged for bombs appeared to experts to be a professional job, he had tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, and the first time we were able to see him on television (when he was in court), he looked as if he was whacked out of his fucking mind.

Regarding the Sandy Hook shooting, there are WAAAYYYYYY too many holes in the official narrative to use that as a pretext to go after the Second Amendment. The legislation that Dianne Feinstein plans on proposing to impose gun reform is draconian and is basically the end of the Second Amendment as we know it. There are simply too many inconsistencies with the Aurora and Sandy Hook shooting to use those as reasons to confiscate guns.

Every American should be concerned because this is honestly an attempt to gun grab. Our economy still hasn't been fixed, we're most likely going to see a rehash of what happened in 2008 in 3-5 years, the US is preparing for mass civil unrest and they're going to do everything they can do to stop it. Don't believe the lies in that gun reform is going to "make us safer", it's bullshit.

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

I'm not American so my opinion is probably somewhat biased but i truly believe that gun reform is a must to make America a safer and saner place.

 

[Apone]

But in regards to gun control, this is how I feel about what's going on right now.

With the Aurora shooting massacre, there are multiple reports that there was at least one other person involved, the way James Holmes apartment was rigged for bombs appeared to experts to be a professional job, he had tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, and the first time we were able to see him on television (when he was in court), he looked as if he was whacked out of his fucking mind.

Regarding the Sandy Hook shooting, there are WAAAYYYYYY too many holes in the official narrative to use that as a pretext to go after the Second Amendment. The legislation that Dianne Feinstein plans on proposing to impose gun reform is draconian and is basically the end of the Second Amendment as we know it. There are simply too many inconsistencies with the Aurora and Sandy Hook shooting to use those as reasons to confiscate guns.

Every American should be concerned because this is honestly an attempt to gun grab. Our economy still hasn't been fixed, we're most likely going to see a rehash of what happened in 2008 in 3-5 years, the US is preparing for mass civil unrest and they're going to do everything they can do to stop it. Don't believe the lies in that gun reform is going to "make us safer", it's bullshit.

I really don't think that Aurora and Sandy Hook were staged, if that's what you're getting at. The idea that one person out of 400 million could be insane enough to do something like this really doesn't seem so unbelievable to me… and it shouldn't be to anyone who has ever seen some of the more out there youtube videos. I actually grew up around people who wouldn't surprise me if they had done something like this… and the thing is, I think that if you live in the US, chances are you did too.

You can download all kinds of things online-- how to make bombs, military tactics, survival guides, etc… given enough time, it really wouldn't be so hard to know how to rig your apartment with explosives.

And I seem to remember arguing this before-- but it's really not so hard to walk into a classroom and shoot a bunch of kids. They're more likely to die from being shot than adults, and probably easier to shoot in the first place… because they won't necessarily understand the situation. That's why the shooting was so horrible.

The murder rates all over the US have been declining over the past 20 years, but to me it seems pretty obvious that more guns means more mass shootings, and more murders over all. Guns don't kill people, okay… but they definitely make it a lot easier. And some of the guns they're talking about banning honestly don't have many other practical purposes. You're not going to go hunting with a semi-automatic assault rifle.

This isn't even an all-or-nothing situation… worst case scenario the US becomes more like Canada, where the gun laws aren't even restrictive so much as sane.

 

[this is only temporary]

Sigh. Well, I'll just pipe up and say that guns are very, very, VERY easy to get in the US and if anyone is actually staging a "gun grab" they've got one hell of a challenge cut out for them. I would not personally mind some more restrictive laws around gun ownership, but the only problem I see with that is I doubt those laws would work anyway, because I know people who own guns illegally. Also, I know plenty of people who probably shouldn't have ever been able to purchase a gun but did so quite easily. I'll tell you about two of them.

First was a young woman I knew who was being treated for bipolar disorder, and there was some possibility she was also schizophrenic. She certainly was suicidal; she had been suicidal and had attempted suicide on two previous occasions. She walked into a Bass Pro Shop and obtained a gun easily, and the day she got it, she killed herself with it. There is a fine line between someone who will kill herself and someone who will kill others, and I see no way to know the difference, but I know with absolute certainty that people with debilitating mental illness can and do obtain guns easily. I do not understand why someone who is being actively being treated for severe mental illness, as both the Sandy Hook and Aurora shooters had been, and who had two previous suicide attempts on record, was able to get a gun so easily. I see no reason why it should be that easy. But it was, and now she's dead.

Secondly, I had an elderly relative who owned a gun that was illegal. It was some kind of sawed-off shotgun thing (I don't know exactly) that had been banned ages ago. She had macular degeneration, drank heavily, and had a deep-seated paranoia that people were trying to break in her house and steal her china, and she lived alone and felt she needed protection. Believe me, you did NOT want to approach her house unannounced. We had no idea the thing was illegal, but when she died, we discovered it had been made illegal in about 1960, but no way was she going to give it up. You would have gotten a $250,000 fine if you had been caught with that weapon, but a little old 5' 1" mostly blind lady still had hers. So I don't see how anyone is going to succeed in taking away people's weapons.

That's not even counting the various hunters I know, who for the most part, are quite responsible and sane -- and have lots of guns.

Moral of the story is there are plenty of heavily armed people who really really REALLY shouldn't have guns and I don't think they're going to go away anytime soon.

(Come to think of it, I bet a few of them are on this forum.)