quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn



But I ask once again... exactly what is everyone's scenario for using their weapons to fight the feared government takeover?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB



Yep fists, hands and knives cause more deaths than rifles, fair assumptions with these stat posted, I love how we all manipulate statistics to better our own cause or belief or need, I'm probably no different. Few men or women can stand back and look at stats or any other piece of evidence and make true and unbias assessment of any situation. Those few that do are truly great persons.
I can see it slightly differently than chijohnaok, approx 9450 people were killed by firearms as opposed 2450 by knives, fists and feet, yep banned rifles, feet fists and knives will protect us better using the same stats!!!
Just a final thought, that chinaman that slashed 20 odd kids recently in a Chinese school, do you think the result would have been different if he was armed with an AK47 and a couple pistols, an honest assessment yes. nuff sad

quote:

There is no gestapo that will take your gun away. I promise you this. This is never going to happen. No one will come and take anyone's gun away ever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

The Bill of Rights are not up for debate.

Period.

rhondabrwn, with all due respect ma'am, crazies are not constrained by any party or ideology. One need look no further than the Huffington Post. The progressives have commented many times about repealing the 2nd Amendment, calling the constitution toilet paper, suggesting house sweeps for guns, officially naming the NRA as a terrorist origination etc.

I have mostly respected liberals of the not so distant past, classical liberals if you will, even if I did not agree with some of the things they were for. But what has changed imo is that classical liberals feared, and for good reasons, a powerful overreaching government. The radicals of today care nothing of your rights or opinion because they have deemed you too ignorant to have any rational thought to begin with. And your rights? They consider them privileges.

They are calling for a national registry for one thing. Sure makes it easier when those same radicals violate the 4th Amendment and 'decide' to come and take them. Regulation is their vehicle. Confiscation is their designation.

Don't believe me. Just read what those who are pushing this agenda post. No need for conspiracies I say.

'those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.'

Ah, everyone is crazy save thee and me... and... (wait for it.....) sometimes I think ME a bit crazy as well [:D]

I'm not any kind of classic liberal... I'm just a reformed conservative Republican who fell on hard times and got a real, close look at poverty and discrimination in America... and it changed me forever... I care about people, all people, all races and I don't want to see them massacred in any "bloody Kansas" re-enactment over manufactured fears and hatreds. I want to see equal rights for all and the right to a living wage, adequate medical care, a decent un-politicized education for everyone, and personal safety and freedom for all. If that makes me crazy in some people's eyes, then so be it.

But I ask once again... exactly what is everyone's scenario for using their weapons to fight the feared government takeover? You have your guns, now how do you see them being used to defend freedom? I haven't heard a plan yet from anyone I've asked. What would ACW II look like... you are all expert military gamers... how do you see it playing out. What kind of government would replace the feared declaration of martial law by Executive Order. I'd be interested in your plans. Rush Limbaugh, President for Life perhaps? Imposition of Biblical Law? A mandated State Religion? A good old military dictatorship by the Joint Chiefs of Staff? A return to the Articles of Confederation and eliminate a National Government? A Libertarian society with minimal laws and everyone for themselves? So many possibilities, but would you really prefer any of these to our current, admittedly imperfect, Democracy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Old Eagle101

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri_Rebel

The Bill of Rights are not up for debate.

Period.

rhondabrwn, with all due respect ma'am, crazies are not constrained by any party or ideology. One need look no further than the Huffington Post. The progressives have commented many times about repealing the 2nd Amendment, calling the constitution toilet paper, suggesting house sweeps for guns, officially naming the NRA as a terrorist origination etc.

I have mostly respected liberals of the not so distant past, classical liberals if you will, even if I did not agree with some of the things they were for. But what has changed imo is that classical liberals feared, and for good reasons, a powerful overreaching government. The radicals of today care nothing of your rights or opinion because they have deemed you too ignorant to have any rational thought to begin with. And your rights? They consider them privileges.

They are calling for a national registry for one thing. Sure makes it easier when those same radicals violate the 4th Amendment and 'decide' to come and take them. Regulation is their vehicle. Confiscation is their designation.

Don't believe me. Just read what those who are pushing this agenda post. No need for conspiracies I say.

'those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.'

Ah, everyone is crazy save thee and me... and... (wait for it.....) sometimes I think ME a bit crazy as well [:D]

I'm not any kind of classic liberal... I'm just a reformed conservative Republican who fell on hard times and got a real, close look at poverty and discrimination in America... and it changed me forever... I care about people, all people, all races and I don't want to see them massacred in any "bloody Kansas" re-enactment over manufactured fears and hatreds. I want to see equal rights for all and the right to a living wage, adequate medical care, a decent un-politicized education for everyone, and personal safety and freedom for all. If that makes me crazy in some people's eyes, then so be it.

But I ask once again... exactly what is everyone's scenario for using their weapons to fight the feared government takeover? You have your guns, now how do you see them being used to defend freedom? I haven't heard a plan yet from anyone I've asked. What would ACW II look like... you are all expert military gamers... how do you see it playing out. What kind of government would replace the feared declaration of martial law by Executive Order. I'd be interested in your plans. Rush Limbaugh, President for Life perhaps? Imposition of Biblical Law? A mandated State Religion? A good old military dictatorship by the Joint Chiefs of Staff? A return to the Articles of Confederation and eliminate a National Government? A Libertarian society with minimal laws and everyone for themselves? So many possibilities, but would you really prefer any of these to our current, admittedly imperfect, Democracy?

Ask the Viet Cong how it's done. Or Castro. I could go on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

The only advantage an armed populous would have against a military is perhaps the will to out last.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

I like waffles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

The only advantage an armed populous would have against a military is perhaps the will to out last.

Any kind of war vs. the people in the US will see massive defections of military troops/units to the peoples side. There isn't the robotic culture of follow orders no matter what in the US military like there was in the German and Russian militaries of the past century, so as soon as someone said shoot them you'd see a huge shock reverberate throughout the military officer corps and my guess is a large percentage of it would turn on the government. That's why he asked for his own private army, "that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded".

Jim

quote:

It is estimated that if all lawful civilian self defense killings were counted, the actual number of violent criminals killed by citizens might exceed the number killed by police each year by as much as five times

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

1) the police cannot be there to prevent every crime.
Citizens should have the means to defend themselves.

quote:

It is estimated that if all lawful civilian self defense killings were counted, the actual number of violent criminals killed by citizens might exceed the number killed by police each year by as much as five times

http://www.guncite.com/journals/katesval.html#fn86

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Great video about crime statistics and how they get manipulated by the media and politicians:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

Turns out you brits without any guns to protect yourselves with are getting hammered by violent crimes. Almost 4 times more violent crime in Britain than the US. And in areas where gun ownership is common here in the states (rural non-urban), violent crime is almost non-existent.

Jim

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

1) the police cannot be there to prevent every crime.
Citizens should have the means to defend themselves.

quote:

It is estimated that if all lawful civilian self defense killings were counted, the actual number of violent criminals killed by citizens might exceed the number killed by police each year by as much as five times

http://www.guncite.com/journals/katesval.html#fn86

2) in the United States, the right to bear arms is a natural right protected in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.
It is a right, just as is the freedom of speech, of the press, of the right to due process, the right of assembly, etc.

3) unless you had some magical means to do so, you could not eliminate every gun in the United States (allowing for law enforcement to be armed).
Certain states and localities have enacted very strict gun controls, at times making it so difficult to obtain one that their legal possession was effectively banned.
The City of Chicago and Washington DC were examples of this. If i recall, Chicago in 2012 had more murders than any city in the US, despite the rigid restrictions. Criminals have the guns; the average law abiding citizen did not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

1) the police cannot be there to prevent every crime.
Citizens should have the means to defend themselves.

quote:

It is estimated that if all lawful civilian self defense killings were counted, the actual number of violent criminals killed by citizens might exceed the number killed by police each year by as much as five times

http://www.guncite.com/journals/katesval.html#fn86

2) in the United States, the right to bear arms is a natural right protected in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.
It is a right, just as is the freedom of speech, of the press, of the right to due process, the right of assembly, etc.

3) unless you had some magical means to do so, you could not eliminate every gun in the United States (allowing for law enforcement to be armed).
Certain states and localities have enacted very strict gun controls, at times making it so difficult to obtain one that their legal possession was effectively banned.
The City of Chicago and Washington DC were examples of this. If i recall, Chicago in 2012 had more murders than any city in the US, despite the rigid restrictions. Criminals have the guns; the average law abiding citizen did not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: barkorn45

another thing people ought to be worried about is the ruling of the supreme ct.on chicago's and wash.d.c gun bans.
it basically eliminates the individual states 2nd amendments in their state constitutions and makes the feds preeminent.
you watch and see the ruling will come up when that fool biden's committee comes up with their "comprehensive"gun legislation!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about. There's nothing that can convince me that assault weapons and military automatic weapons need to be possessed by citizens. Semi-automatic and no clips over 5 rounds.

Furthermore, state allegiance has pretty much disappeared outside of college sports. Now taking that into consideration, in order for there to be a civil war over a topic like guns, you have to be willing to kill your neighbor because there would not be clear cut lines. I'd like to think that there only so many nuts are willing to do that. At most, it would be cowardly terrorist acts against innocent people because these guys wouldn't face down tanks, and modern U.S. military.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwixt

Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about. There's nothing that can convince me that assault weapons and military automatic weapons need to be possessed by citizens. Semi-automatic and no clips over 5 rounds.

Furthermore, state allegiance has pretty much disappeared outside of college sports. Now taking that into consideration, in order for there to be a civil war over a topic like guns, you have to be willing to kill your neighbor because there would not be clear cut lines. I'd like to think that there only so many nuts are willing to do that. At most, it would be cowardly terrorist acts against innocent people because these guys wouldn't face down tanks, and modern U.S. military.

Could you please clarify what you mean by "these guys"?
Who does "these guys" consist of?

Also (while I'm not the gun expert) "military automatic weapons", while they maybe e obtained legally by average citizens, the process is so involved, and takes so long, that they are very uncommon. Could someone confirm or clarify this?