Gun laws do they work

[Dick7Access]

While I am also no expert on constitutional law, I do know that it does not provide a remedy for any scenario that could be dreamt up.
Impeachment is provided for, yet it would hardly be a remedy in the case in question, where the military opens fire on citizens.
Impeachment is a long, drawn out process and even impeachment does not necessarily remove a president from office. This would be as effective a remedy as petitioning the government to improve fire safety in the case of a fire.
By the way, this has actually happened - the firing on citizens, that is - in 1969 at Kent State University. This wasn't the president's order, and it wasn't the regular military, it was the National Guard. The president (Nixon) was almost impeached, but not about Kent State, it was about Watergate. It may have happened elsewhere too during rioting or mob violence.

Rain lover, I'm sorry to state that your question is unanswerable. The constitution does not cover all the hypothetical scenarios that anybody can dream up. It does not say:
If the president orders the military to shoot on civilians he must be immediately removed from office. How could it, without any awareness of the circumstances for this action which would be impossible to foretell?

Tell the people at the Waco shooting about the safety net!!

 

[Adam Caramon]

It does not say:
If the president orders the military to shoot on civilians he must be immediately removed from office. How could it, without any awareness of the circumstances for this action which would be impossible to foretell?

Right, but the point is that if, in the incredibly unlikely situation that the president ordered the military to turn their weapons on civilians, there are processes in place to be able to remove the president from office.

Our presidents are not dictators, they do not rule for life. I guarantee you if President Obama asked congress for a constitutional amendment allowing him to run for a 3rd term, even most Democrats would be against it.

Tell the people at the Waco shooting about the safety net!!

Yeah, its terrible when a child rapist and cult leader can lead gullible religious people into a violent confrontation with the federal government. But as long as people are ignorant enough to put their faith in stories men make up, there will be unfortunate accidents.

With people advocating for less restrictions on firearms, I could definitely see Waco-type incidents occurring in the future. We certainly have no shortage of gullible individuals.

 

[Dick7Access]

Right, but the point is that if, in the incredibly unlikely situation that the president ordered the military to turn their weapons on civilians, there are processes in place to be able to remove the president from office.

Our presidents are not dictators, they do not rule for life. I guarantee you if President Obama asked congress for a constitutional amendment allowing him to run for a 3rd term, even most Democrats would be against it.



Yeah, its terrible when a child rapist and cult leader can lead gullible religious people into a violent confrontation with the federal government. But as long as people are ignorant enough to put their faith in stories men make up, there will be unfortunate accidents.

With people advocating for less restrictions on firearms, I could definitely see Waco-type incidents occurring in the future. We certainly have no shortage of gullible individuals.

Come on Adam, we are not discussing the rights and wrong of the Waco wacko's. If the president can do it to a wacko group, then he can do it to who ever he deems as wacko. Everybody would be dead before congress even assembled. Also I could be wrong on this as it was a long time ago, but I believe they observed the leader going in and out of the bank several times, and could have arrested him many times but instead wacko Janet R. decided to use tanks. Sadly some Innocent young people were killed also.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Come on Adam, we are not discussing the rights and wrong of the Waco wacko's.

You're trying to equate 2 completely different scenarios. A gun owner buying guns to defend against the government is one thing (as silly as it is). A fanatical group stockpiling assault rifles and modifying them to fully automatic is another.

If the president can do it to a wacko group, then he can do it to who ever he deems as wacko.

I would certainly hope so. I would hate to think that if there is a group of crazies stockpiling weapons and breaking the law that the government would be prevented from bringing that group to justice.

Everybody would be dead before congress even assembled.

That's been my point. So how exactly are you going to use your weapons to stop the government again?

Sadly some Innocent young people were killed also.

Yes, that is sad. It is also a stark reminder that children sometimes pay for the insane decisions of their parents.

 

[dan-cat]

Take a look at Syria and Libya and get back to me.
I googled this question for you, and if you really want a whole lot of examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions#2000s

I know full well about Syria and Libya. Atrocities have been occurring in Syria for over a year in the name of your celebrated civil wars. The only reason why Libya did not follow suit was because of allied intervention with air superiority.

It baffles me that you cannot see the trend with that list you posted.

 

[Dick7Access]

You're trying to equate 2 completely different scenarios. A gun owner buying guns to defend against the government is one thing (as silly as it is). A fanatical group stockpiling assault rifles and modifying them to fully automatic is another.

You have a point there, but my contention is not which group, but that there is not safety net. The govermnt did not have to use tanks. They could have arrest him many times without killing children. If it can happy to a wacko group it can have others. Suppose a wacko AG like Janet R. decides that a legal operation gun range is really a subversive anti-American underground and sends in the tanks. No trial no witnesses, dead children, dead mom's and pop's.


I would certainly hope so. I would hate to think that if there is a group of crazies stockpiling weapons and breaking the law that the government would be prevented from bringing that group to justice.

Yes but what happens when a president decides that you an I are a threat to the people because we debate any item he doesn't like, then we are the wacko group?



That's been my point. So how exactly are you going to use your weapons to stop the government again?
So I die, I am not the author but give me liberty or give me death



Yes, that is sad. It is also a stark reminder that children sometimes pay for the insane decisions of their parents.

We certainly are in agreement there!!!!

 

[Libre]

I know full well about Syria and Libya. Atrocities have been occurring in Syria for over a year in the name of your celebrated civil wars. The only reason why Libya did not follow suit was because of allied intervention with air superiority.

It baffles me that you cannot see the trend with that list you posted.

If you have a point to make it's lost on me.
So, you want to cite the American civil war as the cause for the problems in Syria? Is that it? Could it have a little to do with their own regime there, or is this ALL America's fault then?
I honestly don't know what you're driving at. It seemed to me that you were taking the position that the populace could change the regime through peaceful means and gave a few examples as though that proved your point. So I gave a hundred or more examples of rebellions and revolutions through the eons and up to the present day. Now you act like this is what you were saying all along and wonder why - or rather you are baffled - that I don't see the trend.
If I'm missing some larger point you're trying to make, then I'm the one that is baffled. So now were both baffled. Doesn't make for a very productive conversation. If you want to explain yourself I'm glad to hear what you have to say.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Libre
Your list contained successful non violent protests, failed violent uprisings and the on going Mexican drug war !!
What was it supposed to show?

The only successful uprisings by a lightly armed populace, or should I say part of the populace, have needed outside help, except Afganistan where they are winning the war of attrition.
All of the successful wars against colonialism had outside help including your own, as I pointed out when it was first raised you would have lost without the intervention of the French.

If you want us to take your list seriously then you need to filter it, not ask us to do it.

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

If you have a point to make it's lost on me.

Let me talk you through it

a) We're talking about the viability of a militia in overthrowing a corrupt US government.

b) You gave examples of both Syria and Libya to support this.

c) I contested this by explaining that Syria is anything but a successful example. Libya is also an inadequate example as it required external resources to gain air superiority.

d) Brian has also explained why you need to pick out specific examples from the list as well as citing the fact that the US revolutionary war required external resources. Look at the US civil war to gain a perspective at what happens without it.

e) The trend I see in the list and that you cannot is that the list contained numerous examples of war-torn countries. Not developed, civilized ones.

 

[Libre]

Let me talk you through it
a) We're talking about the viability of a militia in overthrowing a corrupt US government.

Let me stop you here. I mean, if we can't get past a), there there isn't much point in proceeding to b), c), d), or e) now, is there?

So let's see. Now I have to find examples of a militia overthrowing a corrupt US government? When was this restricted to only the US? You keep moving the goalpost. I can't engage in a reasonable debate when every time someone asks for an example, and they get it, then they change the rules of what's an acceptable answer.

original Q: When has an armed population ever successfully defended against an attacking government?
A: The American Revolution.
your response: No no no! That was a population attacking a government!
my response: How can someone (the government) claim they were attacked when they went to another continent where the fight was?

Then somebody posted some examples where the government was peacefully overthrown - as though that was relevant to the question. This is like saying that there are no jellyfish anywhere in the ocean because there are other kinds of fish in the ocean. Then this person said let's have a few examples from the present day.

Then I mentioned Syria and Libya where an armed population was - or had - defended against an attacking government.

Then this person again discounted my examples and took the opportunity to blame the US Civil war for the war in Syria right now.

So then I googled the question and came up with a list of scads of uprisings, revolts, and revolutions by the people against the government and you say you can't be bothered to filter the list for me, and now the question becomes when in the US (now it's just the US) has an armed militia overthrown the government. Well you probably still won't accept the American Revolution, this time telling me that wasn't a US government, it was England. So fine, I know of no instance where an armed militia overthrew the US government. Does this concession strengthen your argument somehow?
In fact what in blazes IS your argument?
To me it sounds something like:
The population should not bear arms because there are no, or very very few cases, where the population successfully used those arms in defense or in an uprising against a government.
My answer to that is that there are hundreds of examples.
If this discussion is not about that, or if you want to nitpick every example saying it does not technically qualify, they I leave you to it.

 

[dan-cat]

So let's see. Now I have to find examples of a militia overthrowing a corrupt US government?

Seriously, what are you talking about?

The question is whether the 2nd amendment is still relevant in regards to the gun control debate.

I think you're deliberately complicating things.

 

[Dick7Access]

Seriously, what are you talking about?

The question is whether the 2nd amendment is still relevant in regards to the gun control debate.

I think you're deliberately complicating things.

See if this is relevant?

 

[Maineac]

Wow, I notice that this post started back in July and is still hot!

For my two cents I'll say:

1. Gun control does not mean Gun elimination! People seem to fall into one of two camps, either no gun control or no guns. That's rediculous.

2. Our focus is in the wrong area. We need to focus on reducing violence in our (American) culture. Managing guns better is part of that, but maybe not the biggest or hardest part of it.

3. IMO we should licese gun owners/users similar to the way we license car drivers. Getting a license should include a responsibility check (for criminal background and sanity), safety training and a gun proficiency test in which ever models (i.e. pistol, rifle or shotgun) you want to own/use. We should also encourage everyone to get a license even if they do not plan to buy a gun. This would go a long way in teaching people to respect firearms and not fear them so much. Also, to be valid, the license would need to be renewed regularly.

4. We should recognize that there are weapons that should be tightly controlled. Like machine guns, armor piercing bullets, hand grenades, etc.

5. We should address the impact of violent programming in all of our media. You cannot convince me that watching video has no impact on a persons attitude or behavior. Our multi-billion dollar advertising industry will defend me there.

6. We should stop impeding the BATF and encourage them to do their job. Part of which should be to register every gun sale in the United States. It's not such a big deal, we have more cars than we have guns and all of them are registered.

 

[Vassago]

Wow, I notice that this post started back in July and is still hot!

For my two cents I'll say:

1. Gun control does not mean Gun elimination! People seem to fall into one of two camps, either no gun control or no guns. That's rediculous.

2. Our focus is in the wrong area. We need to focus on reducing violence in our (American) culture. Managing guns better is part of that, but maybe not the biggest or hardest part of it.

3. IMO we should licese gun owners/users similar to the way we license car drivers. Getting a license should include a responsibility check (for criminal background and sanity), safety training and a gun proficiency test in which ever models (i.e. pistol, rifle or shotgun) you want to own/use. We should also encourage everyone to get a license even if they do not plan to buy a gun. This would go a long way in teaching people to respect firearms and not fear them so much. Also, to be valid, the license would need to be renewed regularly.

4. We should recognize that there are weapons that should be tightly controlled. Like machine guns, armor piercing bullets, hand grenades, etc.

5. We should address the impact of violent programming in all of our media. You cannot convince me that watching video has no impact on a persons attitude or behavior. Our multi-billion dollar advertising industry will defend me there.

6. We should stop impeding the BATF and encourage them to do their job. Part of which should be to register every gun sale in the United States. It's not such a big deal, we have more cars than we have guns and all of them are registered.

You had me through a lot of this except for the media comment. The only people influenced to commit murder by fiction media are the ones who have a weak mind already. There are millions of violent video games, movies, and even books, the Bible being one of them, sold every year. If media really had that must of an impact on violence in reality, there would be much more impact.

If nothing else, violent media provides an outlet for someone to sort of experience the violence without actually doing it. A safe zone if you will. Sort of like amusement park rides give people the thrill of free falling without the dangers (for the most part.)

I remember an episode of Penn & Teller's BS that dove into this topic. They took a child who was a first-person shooter player to a gun range so they can test out actually shooting a gun. The kid was scared of the actual gun and after it was fired, didn't want to go near it, although he had no problems playing the games. The kid understood the games were fiction and not real. The parents obviously raised that kid right in understanding the difference between reality and virtual reality.

 

[Vassago]

You had me through a lot of this except for the media comment. The only people influenced to commit murder by fiction media are the ones who have a weak mind already. There are millions of violent video games, movies, and even books, the Bible being one of them, sold every year. If media really had that must of an impact on violence in reality, there would be much more impact.

If nothing else, violent media provides an outlet for someone to sort of experience the violence without actually doing it. A safe zone if you will. Sort of like amusement park rides give people the thrill of free falling without the dangers (for the most part.)

I remember an episode of Penn & Teller's BS that dove into this topic. They took a child who was a first-person shooter player to a gun range so they can test out actually shooting a gun. The kid was scared of the actual gun and after it was fired, didn't want to go near it, although he had no problems playing the games. The kid understood the games were fiction and not real. The parents obviously raised that kid right in understanding the difference between reality and virtual reality.

Being convinced by media to buy a toaster is hardly a comparison.

 

[Maineac]

Vassago,

I hear you. I have been a player of some violent MMORPGs, Asheron's Call and World of Warcraft. I don't think that I have any urge to shoot people. But I realize that my experiences are not everyones.

Well over a Billion dollars was spent in the last political campain not to sell toasters, but to sell ideas and encourage action. Billions are spent in advertising every year to coerce us to go places, buy things and adopt ideas. Both the people buying the advertising and those making and selling it are convinced they work. Taking an isolated video gamer to a gun range does not prove that violence in video games, on TV and in the movies does not have an affect on our society. It's analogeous to the Tobaco industry citing an individual who started smoking at the age of 10 and died at the age of 95 as proof that smoking does no harm.

There is generally no question that the United States has the most violent culture among the industrialized nations. I am open to any suggestions as to why this is and what we can DO about it. I don't believe that guns cause violence. There are industrialized countries with a higher per capita gun ownership and a lower violence rate. I do believe that they exascerbate the situation and that we need to take some action to reduce the effect of the violence.

I think that our approach needs to be multifacited and not have each of us target our own scape goat.

 

[dbfool]

Just as in everything else that causes problems it is the person, his attitude, poverty level and inner thoughts that determine what he will do. I once saw a bumper sticker that said "If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?"

 

[Vassago]

Vassago,

I hear you. I have been a player of some violent MMORPGs, Asheron's Call and World of Warcraft. I don't think that I have any urge to shoot people. But I realize that my experiences are not everyones.

Well over a Billion dollars was spent in the last political campain not to sell toasters, but to sell ideas and encourage action. Billions are spent in advertising every year to coerce us to go places, buy things and adopt ideas. Both the people buying the advertising and those making and selling it are convinced they work. Taking an isolated video gamer to a gun range does not prove that violence in video games, on TV and in the movies does not have an affect on our society. It's analogeous to the Tobaco industry citing an individual who started smoking at the age of 10 and died at the age of 95 as proof that smoking does no harm.

There is generally no question that the United States has the most violent culture among the industrialized nations. I am open to any suggestions as to why this is and what we can DO about it. I don't believe that guns cause violence. There are industrialized countries with a higher per capita gun ownership and a lower violence rate. I do believe that they exascerbate the situation and that we need to take some action to reduce the effect of the violence.

I think that our approach needs to be multifacited and not have each of us target our own scape goat.

But is it that violence in fiction has an impact on society or is it really the other way around? I've seen plenty of studies to prove this as well. Studies that show we only enjoy fictional violence because of how it relates to reality. It allows us to experience what others go through without actually experiencing it. Case in point, part of the study was showing violent fiction videos to a peaceful tribe. They didn't want to watch it. They felt violated.

 

[Maineac]

IMO you are absolutely correct in that people cause problems. And things like a person's education level and income/poverty level affect a person's attitude and inner thoughts. I would also add that education and income level also seems to affect a persons suseptability to the effects of the media, in particular advertising. Although this is not always the case.

I also agree with the sentiment of your bumper sticker in that guns alone are not the problem. We need to deal with our violence problem. Although, it takes a lot more training with a sword to be as effective at killing as a poorly trained person with a gun.

The real question is, "What are YOU suggesting be done about the problem?"

 

[Dick7Access]

WHY GRAMPS CARRIES A GUN

My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life
when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's
when he becomes too old to take a whoopin.'

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the
world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating
myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not
on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a
cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the
ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am
inadequate...

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful
to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the
crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to
take an "ass" whoopin'....
.author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

**********************************************
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they
knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti gun-control message
to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important
than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED
COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT
TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!