Engi-ninja

Counter devil's advocate: If civilians with guns pose no threat to the government whatsoever, why has pretty much every totalitarian dictator in history started with disarming the public?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Serious response:

It really comes down to whether you believe that the structure and laws of the US government would permit a totalitarian dictator to rise to power.

If this were to occur, then the Posse Comitatus Act (along with the rest of the Code of Federal Regulations and the Constitution) go out the window. A think that a lot of folks would probably feel slightly validated by this, as it would prove that they were right all along, and we should expect to see a lot of situations like Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the Montana Freemen taking place, most likely with similar results. (eg: Everyone who shoots back ends up dead, some of the folks who don't last long enough to surrender and be taken into custody.)

I personally don't believe that this is likely to happen, mostly because of how large and complex the Federal government is. It's hard enough for the Executive branch of government to get anything accomplished in the best of times, and that's when they don't have Congress calling for their removal from office and onto the end of a rope.


So, by way of a direct response: totalitarian dictators have called for the disarming of the people because their grasp of authority, at least in the early days of their reign, is tenuous. A country like Germany following World War 1 was sufficiently de-stabilized and disorganized that its government was easily manipulated.

Lokiel

What I find "funny" is that the issue only seems to be "polarizing" in the USA - in the rest of the world most people agree that civilians should NOT be allowed to own guns.

In a country where "More guns!" seems to be the only outcome to every one of these incidents, which occur almost exclusively in the USA, the killing->grief->rhetoric cycle will sadly continue.

Gee Emm

So how is that 2A thing working out over there?

What's that? Another school shot up, small number of kids killed and a few wounded? No big deal I guess, nothing to worry about. It's freedom in action, making America great again.

hector

You know why Australians even care about the things that happen in The USA? Because it is the Greatest Country in the world!

You deal with your issues, we will deal with ours. And We are keeping Our guns!

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

The polarization in most countries is not whether civilians should own guns... it's about what kind of guns and what to use them for. Even in countries with strict gun control, when you find somebody that says "People shouldn't be able to own guns...", and then you say "Well, what about for hunting?"... "Oh, that's OK, I meant blah blah..."

Gun Control: What It's Like to Own Guns in Australia | Time
Here's an interesting article from an Australian gun-owner. You'll note that he makes the statement, "If you were to ask the average Australian who isn’t a shooter, they would say that most people shouldn’t have access to any firearms." I'm curious for a followup. I've met tons of Australians, and since I'm from 'Merica, we always end up talking about guns. I've never met an Ozzie that was blanket "against gun ownership"... but most have the same talking points and beliefs about what being a gun owner means. Owning guns for hunting or target practice are OK as long as the guns aren't too dangerous, but anything past that is a no-no.

For most first world countries, being a gun owner is a hobby. It's for recreation or fun or sport or whatever. I am "free" to own guns as long as I do exactly what the government tells me and am a good subject.

In America, being a lawful gun owner is almost always firstly about self-defense and protection from the government. I own guns to ensure the freedom that my government cant turn me me into a subject. Being able to defend myself against somebody in my own home trying to kill me or my family is another reason. Deer hunting is cool too.

All that being said, I do think we're in for some changes in American gun laws. Some will be for the better, some for the worse. I'm not a "What part of shall-not-be-infringed do you not understand" dipshits. However, I know for a fact that "they're coming for our guns" has historical precedence in several states and is likely coming to several more. Some give and take is how the country works, always has. California is probably going to ban all semi-auto rifles of any kind here shortly. New York may beat them to it. There will be a new round of assault weapon bans and background check laws in every state legislature and they will get far more traction than ever before. Ammunition purchase restrictions, magazine limits, age requirements, training requirements, etc... are also coming to a liberal state near you... or at least the legislation for them will be bigger and hotter than ever before.

Me personally, I'd gladly accept mandatory federal background checks in exchange for the HPA getting passed. Granted, mando federal checks is defacto universal registration, but like I said... give and take.

Gee Emm

Sam, that is a pretty accurate and balanced article, and I think it reflects the general public's sentiment in this country. I wouldn't read too much into your quote, though I understand why you picked up on it. The firearms regime we have here is not under pressure from either direction, though of course there are outbreaks of 'tighter' and 'looser' from time to time.

Looking from the outside, I would not have thought that US democracy was so fragile that an authoritarian President (or anyone else) could suspend the legislature and overturn the rule of law. Regardless, if the 'government' comes for you, is an AR15 going to make a difference? I doubt it. In that case, is an AR15 really need for self-protection? Hunting? target shooting? If those activities are not precluded, would a ban on such weapons in private hands be such a disaster? Would seriously tight regulation of their purchase, storage and use be the end of the world as you know it?

The ongoing saga of mass shootings surely must be addressed. Guns v guns cannot be the answer, while a school may possibly be sealed and 'defended', is that going to work at the mall, cinema, concert ... etcetera. These people seem not to be very concerned that they survive, only that they get some sort of revenge/satisfaction for past hurts/make a statement, so while an armed guard/teacher may kill the perp, likely it will not be before he has acted. The toll may be reduced, but that is little consolation to those who still lose loved ones. If he cannot do so in one of the 'traditional' ways, he will find another, heaven knows there are virtually unlimited places/events where numbers of people gather, and it cannot be feasibly for ALL possible vulnerable areas to be guarded.

Whatever, I really hope that you can get this situation under control - the innocents deserve it. FWIW, I think your concessional approach here is commendable, and I hope that similar sentiments become widespread.

.Sam, I don't understand how you can be anything other than a subject of your government? Doubly so, being in the military? As a citizen-resident, you are subject to all the federal, state and local laws and ordinances. Owning a gun does not exempt you from that, nor allow you to pick and choose about what laws to observe. What am I missing Sam?

Lokiel

... but you STILL can't have your ****:

This Week In America: Legislators Declare **** Is A Health Risk, Assault Weapons Totally Fine Though

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

I'd like to watch Australian news coverage of what goes on here. I've always been under the assumption that the country leaned hard left and I would suppose that most of the mass-media outlets also lean that way. If that's the case, it would be tough to grow up there and not feel that American right-leaning people were anything other than lunatic rednecks. Have you ever seen on Australian TV a show or program that painted law-abiding gun-owners in a positive light?

Again, I'll reference the Waco Seige and a half-dozen other events just like it over the years here in the states. The answer is that their possession of firearms didn't make a difference in the end. Most of them died. The idea to get across is that the government was willing to kill them all to win. When your belief system leads you to a place where you are willing to die rather than give up, then the other side must be willing to kill you to win. That's an easy call for the gov't when it's a hundred fanatical child molesters, but would be impossible if a whole state called bullshit. And if it comes to that, it's tough to take a stand against people carrying guns without any of your own. The biggest take-away to firearms ownership in the USA being a right instead of a privilege, is that there are a lot of people here who would die bearing arms against our own government rather than see it become something it wasn't meant to be. I can pretty much guarantee you that current and former members of the military will lead the charge.

One of the propaganda techniques that anti-gun types use is to say "We support the 2A, but you don't need an assault rifle to hunt deer!" Due to the decline of civics and government classes within our public education system, most kids graduating high school have no clue what's actually in our Constitution, and would be genuinely surprised that the majority of our countries founding documents are written in a way that almost mandates they rise up in revolution under certain circumstances, to include taking up arms. Kinda tough to do if you don't have any, or if you're so hopelessly outmatched that the the government no longer fears the capability of the people to revolt.

If you don't know anything about guns (most people don't), then it's kinda pointless to try and convince you why I feel that I need a particular type of weapon. We might as well talk about why we "need" a 300whp Miata to get to work. But I get your point. Perhaps I could enjoy my hobbies without being able to shoot a rifle fast and make do with a pistol for home-defense. But where do you set the bar for what I should give up because of the actions of another? I should be able to own an AR15 AND my kids should be able to go to school without worrying about getting shot. I should not be forced to give up my personal property because some ******* used a particular inanimate object for evil. And I'll point out that Columbine was done with 2 9mm guns and 2 shotguns. VaTech was done with a Glock19. Charleston was a Glock41. I'll also point out that in most major cities, hundreds of people are shot and killed every holiday weekend by little .22 pistols and revolvers and the mass-media is virtually silent about it. Last year in Chicago on 4thofJuly, 105 people were shot and not one by an AR15. Don't for a second think you're not being spoon-fed delicious propaganda when you see 24hr coverage of a bunch of white people getting shot by an AR15 and zero coverage of black people getting shot by small pistols.

I'll go back to the experiment. Americans are not "subjects" in the respect that people who lived centuries under the Crown were subjects. True, the powers of kings and queens in most countries is nothing more nowadays than figureheads while some sort of actual democratically elected body really runs the country. But historically, that is all relatively new. The USA on the other hand, from it's creation, was a democracy at a time when kings and queens ruled. No American has ever been ruled over by a king. That's part of the foundation of how we perceive being an American. And no, I as an individual do not get to pick and choose what individual laws I observe... but if millions of us determine we no longer want to observe a law, and the processes to effect change are no longer functioning, then we have the responsibility to change them by force.

I'll quote from Wikipedia the Australian oath for members of the military:
"I, (name), swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, as a member of the (insert Royal Australian Navy , Australian Army , or Royal Australian Air Force ) ... and that I will resist her enemies and faithfully discharge my duty according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!"

And now for the American military:
I,(name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I don't think there could be a clearer example the differences in our countries. Serving the Queen vs. Defending the Constitution.

ALL THAT IN THE OPEN, I'll reiterate that I think change is coming. I foresee a lot of low-hanging fruit... bans on certain gimmicks (like bump stocks), raising the minimum age for rifles to 21 (the same as pistols), mandatory background checks by state, and a few others. I don't see semi-auto rifles going away anytime soon federally, but there are a few states who are already jumping. Mental health restrictions are gonna get tighter, so are reporting mandates and data collection for NICS. All of this is technically goodness as long as it's implemented properly. More is on the horizon, but nothing too drastic will happen with Republicans controlling everything. Come January of 2021, if we have a Democrat in the White House and both chambers of Congress turn blue, they will gut the 2A overnight.

Lokiel

Don't give that allegiance to the crown crap too much credence, Australians, the Australian Prime Minister and the Australian military certainly didn't during WWII and we don't today either, Australia comes first!
(compared to US citizens, Australians are pretty much agnostics too so that "God stuff" doesn't mean much either).

During the early days/years of WWII, the Australian 6th, 7th and 9th Divisions fought in North Africa, Syria, Greece and Crete while the 8th Division was based in Singapore and Malaysia.

The Japanese descended through South-East Asia with very little opposition.
In "Fortress Singapore", the British and Australians only had 1/5 of the AA guns they identified as being needed, few aircraft or large guns and the British Navy had "run away" to hide on the East African coast rather than risk encountering the Japanese Navy (when they finally did something, the Japanese easily sunk the HMS Repulse and Prince of Wales).

Despite being poorly armed, the British insisted that Singapore be defended.
Singapore was quickly surrendered by the British when the Japanese arrived and all the Commonwealth forces went to Japanese prison camps - I don't need to tell anyone how that turned out.
The Japanese were surprised at how quickly Singapore was surrendered and how many prisoners they now had.
The ENTIRE 8th Division was forced to surrender rather than allowing them to withdraw earlier when it was patently obvious to everyone that they would not be able to stop the Japanese in poorly-armed Singapore.

The only Australian troops left to face the Japanese were Militia Battalions who were essentially part-timers and poorly armed since most of the armament went with the regular army.

Australia's Prime Minister, John Curtain, insisted that the Australian army be allowed to return to Australia to defend against the Japanese threat which infuriated Winston Churchill.
The British position at the time was to defeat Germany first, then deal with the Japanese - if Australia fell, then that was just a casualty of war.
Naturally this didn't sit well with Australians.

Eventually Churchill agreed to allow the Australian 7th Division, based in the Middle East, to return to Australia since the Vichy-French had surrendered there but the 9th Division was to remain in North Africa until Rommel had been defeated.
The 6th Division at this time was scattered after the German parachute assault on Crete and German invasion of Greece.

While returning to Australia, without telling Australia, Churchill ordered the 7th Division's ships be re-routed to Burma because the Japanese were moving into Burma.
This was ludicrous because the troops would have arrived in Burma weeks before any armament would reach them.
When John Curtain found out, he was livid and demanded that the ships sail to Australia (it's never been documented but I suspect Curtain would have encouraged the Australians to commandeer the ships if Churchill had refused).
About the time that the ships would have arrived in Burma, the Japanese had taken control of Burma so Australia would have lost the 7th Division too if they'd been in Burma.

The 7th Division were sent to Papua New Guinea where, along with the Militia Battalions, they halted the advance of the Japanese on the Kokoda Track, defeated them at Milne Bay, and evicted them from their fortresses in Gona, Buna and Sanananda.
Without the arrival of the 7th Division, the Japanese would have seized Port Moresby and Milne Bay and taken control of all of Papua New Guinea, a prime base for an attack on Australia.

The 6th and 9th Divisions eventually returned to Australia where they fought the Japanese in Papua New Guinea, Borneo, Tarakan, Brunei and Labuan..

My Grandpa was a tank driver in the 9th Cavalry Regiment in North Africa and was retrained and fought as a Commando against the Japanese.
Like most Australians at the time, he never forgave the British for their position on Australia in WWII, not allowing them to return home immediately to face the Japanese and because his brother was in the 8th Division (he survived the Japanese prison camps).

Since WWII, Australia's military is governed by Australia's interests FIRST, regardless of what the oath states or what the UK wants.
Australia's prime ally is actually the USA since geographically we have more interests in common than with the UK (and we're indebted to the US Navy, the Battle of the Coral Sea ensured that the Japanese would not be able to mount subsequent campaigns ever again in Papua New Guinea or against Australia).

Sorry for the rant, you quoted what are effectively "empty words" in your argument, I thought if I gave you some facts you'd see why the Australian oath words don't mean much.

sixshooter

iTrader: (12)

The school resource officer (Broward County Sheriff's deputy) hid outside instead of going in and confronting the shooter. Unarmed teachers were shielding children with their bodies while the deputy hid just outside. The sheriff of Broward County said that it makes him sick that the deputy did not follow procedure and engage the killer in an attempt to protect people and save lives. In the face of being disciplined and fired the deputy has retired and is going to be getting his full pension.

We don't need to protect ourselves from harm. We just need to call the police and wait patiently for them to arrive and save us. What a wonderful argument.

In America, the government serves us at our pleasure and our direction. The members of the government are not to be above us but rather as servants to us as our representatives to do our bidding. It is to be government of the people for the people and by the people. One of the largest problems with government right now is it has swollen and grown into an unwieldy size. It has grown out of its original purpose and scope outlined by our own laws and needs to be restricted back to its original provisions within the Constitution.

The real way to stop bad people from killing children in schools with guns is to make it illegal to kill children. In fact they should make it illegal to carry guns on school property at all. By making it illegal to kill children or to carry guns on school property we will effectively make it impossible for bad people to come on school grounds and kill children with guns. The answer seems so simple.

While we are at it we should make it illegal to kill other adults, rape women, sell and use narcotics, commit prostitution, and molest children. Then we wouldn't have to worry about any of those things ever again. After that we will make it illegal for people to own guns and those will just go away also. Poof.

If we outlawed any sort of weaponry at all from knives to screwdrivers to guns to razor blades and set up metal detectors everywhere and searched all of our citizenry regularly throughout the day to prevent access to such contraband then we would all be just as safe as any man is in prison, the safest place in the country.

Monk

iTrader: (3)

I don't remember who I previously discussed this with (Sam probably?), and I've never heard it mentioned by any politician, but I like the idea of a license to purchase.
In essence, someone who wants to purchase a firearm goes through the basic process of obtaining a concealed carry permit (fingerprinting, background check) and is issued a photo ID with a unique identification number.
The ID is valid for 5 years and a new background check must be passed to renew.
This would solve the "universal background check" issue, and make it easier for private sellers to know if they are selling to a lawful buyer.
Before the transaction is completed, the ID number is entered into an ATF database and a simple go/ no-go message is sent.
The ID can be revoked using the same criteria as we use today to bar certain individuals from purchasing firearms.
I would also be willing to add provisions for revocation based on psychiatric evaluation, providing the process to appeal is as simple as a clean evaluation from a licensed psychiatrist and perhaps the signature of the local sheriff (Sorry California, but you're all screwed anyway).
As a bonus, the ID can be used as a concealed carry permit in states that allow reciprocity, and it allows for the purchase of items such as suppressors.
Obviously it's not a perfect plan, but it makes more sense than a blanket ban.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

we all should just drink some chocolate milk and everything will be okay.

Erat

iTrader: (5)

Obama answers that. ^


But I do agree.

Also, when 9/11 happened we had US Marshalls in all the airports. On airplanes. Metal detectors, x-ray scanners, LOTS of TSA in terminals. We heightened our security almost overnight.

​​​​​​I want to know why we don't so this in our schools. One way in and out, detectors, clear backpacks, paid well trained and armed guards who will do whatever it takes.

It's clear we aren't going to get rid of the guns, or put a law into place that will fix the problem.(see war on drugs) It is clear we can't stop crazy from being part of society. The least we can do is make sure it's not in our schools.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

the TSA doesn't actually increase security though...

if we just make the AR-15 less lethal than the M-16, then we'll be okay.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

and now for some words:

TurboTim

iTrader: (9)

Those 1911's tho

rleete

iTrader: (21)

Braineack, what is the source of that? I'd like to repost.

dleavitt

iTrader: (1)

Same.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

sorry, it was Ben Shapiro.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27491...nd-ben-shapiro