Obama will take away your guns!

[akhalteke]

 

Bug. What did the invading units in Afghanistan have that the Soviets didn't have at their disposal? They rode horses and shot Kalashnikovs for Christ's sake. Ever hear about Roger's rangers? Unconventional Warfare is a motherfucker man. Don't underestimate.

american provided stingers seemed to make a pretty decisive difference for the mujis though

 

...and the Taliban didn't have any weapon selling allis? Please.

[minx]

fuckin A already boys. give it a rest already. scott shouldn't you be out killing bambi or something?

[akhalteke]

No I wouldn't. I agree with him and there is that pesky Posse Comitatus thingy to deal with

 

If there were a band of domestic terrorists waging war against the United States and the Constitution, you would refuse an order to open fire on them because they're your "brothers and sisters?" I thought you were a military man.

 

Remember the Civil War? The U.S. Army sure didn't have a problem firing upon their "brothers and sisters" then.

 

Why is Fort Knox protected by the military? Sounds like the military would never think to attack U.S. citizens. We should just walk over there, kick open the gate and take some of that gold.

 

Read up on the duties of soldiers. Also: What constitutes a lawful order.

 

We are not in a civil war.

 

If there were terrorists againsthe constitution, it would defeat the purpose for those in a militia to defend the constitution wouldn't it? I am sure the FBI, ATF, ect. would have that taken care of. Not really my bag baby.

 

[minx]

do you have a problem with reading comprehension? give it a rest. this is old old old!

[ken4ord]

Hey Akhateet, I don't know who bonked you on the head, but dude you sound like chicken little running around screaming, "The sky is falling!!! The Sky is falling!!!" I find it super humorus keep up the good work.

[Fairweather]

 

Hell, swap an epidemic for politics and you'd see some pretty drastic and ugly behavioral changes overnight.

 

This is an interesting thought, but I don't think it's true at all. The flu pandemic of 1918-1920 killed between 20 million and 50 million world-wide and had little effect on the political landscapes of any nations. In fact, it is one of the most under recorded events in human history. Unless you're talking about zombies or something, I don't think a pandemic would have any major effect on ongoing human events.

[Lars]

Not if Captain Kirk has anything to say about it...

Aye Aye Kiptin'

[billcoe]

Since our country was founded - this has worked pretty good. As far as you folks who want to restrict honest citizens from having this control, you might consider that the largest acts of deadly terrorism were caused by:

 

A) box cutters. (and Arabs with commandeered airplanes)

 

b) fertilizer. (and a rental U-haul truck)

 

Not guns.

 

The idea that you can give up some of your guns is typical creeping incrementalism. At some time in the future, some piss-ant lil punk will walk into a school with his dads "legal" hunting rifle and a "legal" 5 round mag or 3 and that will be the next thing restricted. Then another incident followed by more un-needed laws and restrictions - then more laws. The net result is an eventual unbalancing of political things.

 

But you, john Q public, are still at risk from box cutters and fertilizer. All the new future laws against firearms will do is give the politicians more power, since they will still have the guns. They'll figure out a way to protect themselves against the box cutters and fertilizer of course, and get a net power gain.

 

My point is this: the system we have is not perfect but works. I don't for the life of me know why any of you want to give up this control to the politicians. There are too many laws already. Leave it alone.

 

 

[ivan]

a question for you bill:

 

what, if any, weapons should americans be restricted from possessing?

[tvashtarkatena]

I couldn't agree more here, Bill. With the highest violent gun crime rate in the first world, our country is just about perfect the way it is; no improvement necessary.

 

And there are too many laws. Fewer laws is better. No laws at all would be best.

 

And don't forget that the Japanese used torpedoes and bombs to attack Pearl Harbor; not guns. Guns are not the problem. I mean, what's next, a law to take away our torpodoes and bombs?

 

As for the kid in the highschool, what's the difference between 5 rounds in the mag, semi auto, and 30 rounds full auto? About 25 bodies, but with 6.5 billion people on the planet, bodies are a cheap commodity. Where would it end? Requiring a license to carry concealed a boxcutter? Can you imagine how many stockboys with priors would lose their jobs?

Edited October 24, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Skeezix]

Ah, you fucking rednecks don't need any fucking guns anyway.

[JosephH]

Bill, I think in the end, for the whole guns-for-rights vs. guns-for-self-defense argument to be legitimate it has to be grounded in some remotely plausible mechanism or scenario for private weapons being used effectively against our government. And by that I mean in today's world, not 225 years ago. I just can't for the life of me envision a single scenario in today's America (regardless whether the setting is rural, suburban, or urban) where private weapons could be employed to effectively prevent or counter an out-of-control, dictatorial Executive.

 

And as others have stated elsewhere in the thread, we've seen a deliberate and systematic attack on the balance of power as designed by our founders. Formerly-young Nixon and Reaganites, using John Yoo's 'doctrine' claiming unlimited and unrestrainable power of a unitary Executive have been the greatest threat to America since the South's succession from the Union in the civil war. What has flowed from that [Yoo] doctrine of an unlimited power of the Executive has been illegal wiretaps, illegal search and siezure of records (FBI 'Security Letters'), torture, rendition, a suspension of Habeas Corpus, and several attempts to eliminate or weaken the protection against the domestic use of the military as provided by the Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Acts. Add to that this President's use of 'Signgin Statements' when signing legislation whereby the he claims [again and again] that the legislation 'signed', either whole or in part, is merely advisory relative to the President versus the law of the land and you have a frighteningly slippery slope to exactly the scenarios you claim to fear. In fact, Bush has used Executive signing statements more times than all the Presidents before him combined. At no time during the past eight years have gun owners, as a group, raised so much as a peep against those deliberate abuses.

 

The Neocon's relentless attacks on the Constitution and Bill of Rights has not been resisted by the NRA or gun owners as a political group, but rather supported at every turn. I personally am not quite sure what to even make of it - gun owners as a group supporting the most systematic assault on the Constitution the nation has ever seen. What am I supposed to make of it other than to assume the majority of gun owners have to-date proven themselves part and parcel with attempts to overthrow the balance of powers so carefully designed by our Founders. It's really hard to come to any other conclusion but that gun owners as a class are easily manipulated and would likely be on the frontlines of any attempt by a nationalist, dictatorial Exective to sieze our government - and not on our side, but rather on the side of those siezing the government. If anyone thinks that's unlikely, think again, that's is exactly the scenario that played out in Yugoslavia/Serbia.

[WylDanimal]

Guns don't kill people...bullets do...

 

Why not raise the taxes on bullets to the point where it costs more to shoot someone, than you would gain in robbing someone..

 

and since you generally, unless you are a very poor shot, kill a deer/elk/bear/moose/goose, whatever with one shot, not multiple...I would venture to say a moose is worth a $50.00 bullet...just don't miss.

Edited October 24, 2008 by WylDanimal

[ivan]

Guns don't kill people...bullets do...

 

Why not raise the taxes on bullets to the point where it costs more to shoot someone, than you would gain in robbing someone..

 

and since you generally, unless you are a very poor shot, kill a deer/elk/bear/moose/goose, whatever with one shot, not multiple...I would venture to say a moose is worth a $50.00 bullet...just don't miss.

wasn't this somebody's comedy routine?

[WylDanimal]

Probably, my ideas are usually second hand ideas...

[ivan]

my solution's always been just ban everything BUT 2nd-amendment-origin-era muskets - you still get your militia, you still get your hunting, you still get your home defense, you still get your carry permit - if you take on you whole high school alone though, you're going down (we might want to ban bayonents though )

[prole]

Bill, I think in the end, for the whole guns-for-rights vs. guns-for-self-defense argument to be legitimate it has to be grounded in some remotely plausible mechanism or scenario for private weapons being used effectively against our government. And by that I mean in today's world, not 225 years ago. I just can't for the life of me envision a single scenario in today's America (regardless whether the setting is rural, suburban, or urban) where private weapons could be employed to effectively prevent or counter an out-of-control, dictatorial Executive.

 

And as others have stated elsewhere in the thread, we've seen a deliberate and systematic attack on the balance of power as designed by our founders. Formerly-young Nixon and Reaganites, using John Yoo's 'doctrine' claiming unlimited and unrestrainable power of a unitary Executive have been the greatest threat to America since the South's succession from the Union in the civil war. What has flowed from that [Yoo] doctrine of an unlimited power of the Executive has been illegal wiretaps, illegal search and siezure of records (FBI 'Security Letters'), torture, rendition, a suspension of Habeas Corpus, and several attempts to eliminate or weaken the protection against the domestic use of the military as provided by the Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Acts. Add to that this President's use of 'Signgin Statements' when signing legislation whereby the he claims [again and again] that the legislation 'signed', either whole or in part, is merely advisory relative to the President versus the law of the land and you have a frighteningly slippery slope to exactly the scenarios you claim to fear. In fact, Bush has used Executive signing statements more times than all the Presidents before him combined. At no time during the past eight years have gun owners, as a group, raised so much as a peep against those deliberate abuses.

 

The Neocon's relentless attacks on the Constitution and Bill of Rights has not been resisted by the NRA or gun owners as a political group, but rather supported at every turn. I personally am not quite sure what to even make of it - gun owners as a group supporting the most systematic assault on the Constitution the nation has ever seen. What am I supposed to make of it other than to assume the majority of gun owners have to-date proven themselves part and parcel with attempts to overthrow the balance of powers so carefully designed by our Founders. It's really hard to come to any other conclusion but that gun owners as a class are easily manipulated and would likely be on the frontlines of any attempt by a nationalist, dictatorial Exective to sieze our government - and not on our side, but rather on the side of those siezing the government. If anyone thinks that's unlikely, think again, that's is exactly the scenario that played out in Yugoslavia/Serbia.

 

WE HAVE A WINNER!!

[mattp]

I agree with what Joseph says here except for one thing: the fact that gun owners and enthusiasts tend to support the right wing policies of Bush and Company doesn't necessarily mean they would never seek to revolt. I don't think they could pull it off, but you can bet there'd be a lot of clamoring for armed insurrection if the government suddenly took a big jump to the left.

[prole]

The Yankee Doodle Martyrs Brigades

[builder206]

One more time: The gun nuts are on the government's side.

 

Join a couple shooting clubs, spend a couple years getting to know gun nuts. Right now you're talking out your ass, clueless.

[prole]

As mattp points out, it's all about the government.

[ashw_justin]

Gee, and all of this time I was thinking that they were just really interested in trying to reduce the homicide rate in cities.

(Which is not to say that I necessarily assume that the tactics being employed to address this problem are ideal.)

 

I wonder if the NRA has any better ideas? I presume there would some kind of plan involving handing out guns to everyone in the ghetto, so that they could police their own neighborhoods, and/or wipe each other out once and for all in a "righteous" bloodbath.

 

note: before someone feels compelled to mention it, the statistically rare suburban rampage seems to be a different issue, but perhaps no less up for debate.

[ivan]

 

I wonder if the NRA has any better ideas? I presume there would some kind of plan involving handing out guns to everyone in the ghetto, so that they could police their own neighborhoods, and/or wipe each other out once and for all in a "righteous" bloodbath.

having taught in the ghettoes for a buncha years, i can say pretty much everyone there already has one

[Fairweather]

my solution's always been just ban everything BUT 2nd-amendment-origin-era muskets

 

Should your idea apply to the First Amendment too?

 

I don't completely agree with Bill or live under any illusions about small arms being effective against a tyrannical government. The real power lies in data bases and the government's ability to deny you a job, credit, health care, the ability to drive a car, etc. But let's face it: If the government did their job and protected law abiding citizens from the dregs of society--the same criminals that liberals seem so hell bent on keeping out of prison or off the electric chair--then this argument would be largely moot. My guns, for the most part, are to protect my family from the people my government refuses to lock up.

[prole]

That sounds like an argument for more tyrannical government?