10 Dead in Santa Fe, Texas, School Shooting. Student shooter in custody.

[Sean C]

Originally Posted by Platapus

It would be nice if things worked like that, but they don't always do.

One can't take policy that may have worked in one country, one culture,, one people, one location, and under one set of circumstances and expect it to apply equally to a different country, culture, people, location and circumstances.

There needs to be a solution that works with the American country, culture, people, locations, and our set of circumstances. What that solution is, is currently unknown. I know what my opinions are of the solution but then so does everyone else have their opinions.

It will not be an easy problem to solve and that is, of course, assuming that the problem can be solved. With an apology to Samuel Johnson, not all problems have acceptable solutions.

I hear a lot of comparisons to this or that country. But I'm not sure if people are keeping in mind that the U.S. is the same size and has about half the population of all of Europe. We are also very likely the most diverse nation on the planet ... and unfortunately one of the most divided.


I too have my opinions about what the root causes of the problem are. But, you know what they say about opinions.


Regardless, the guns in the U.S. aren't going anywhere anytime soon. There are almost enough guns here for every man, woman and child to have one. And no matter what law is passed, many ordinary citizens will refuse to turn in their guns. After all, private gun ownership is one of the founding principles of this nation. And for good reason. I sometimes hear people say things like "Do you really think the American people could successfully fight against the most powerful military in the world if it came to that?" Well, I suppose those people weren't paying attention in history class.



Then there's the people who you wouldn't want owning guns in the first place ...

[THE_MASK]

Originally Posted by August

What country would that be?

Iran .

[Highbury]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel B.

After all, private gun ownership is one of the founding principles of this nation. And for good reason. I sometimes hear people say things like "Do you really think the American people could successfully fight against the most powerful military in the world if it came to that?" Well, I suppose those people weren't paying attention in history class.

I paid attention in history class, and I seem to recall that it was people with muskets and cannon fighting against people with muskets and cannon.

In the modern world it stacks up a bit more like this:



I am not making any stance on the US gun laws here, just refuting any pretext that people with semi-automatic weapons could actually rise up against the US Military today.

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Highbury

I paid attention in history class

refuting any pretext that people with semi-automatic weapons could actually rise up against the US Military today.

You must have missed some more recent history

...and you have to ask yourself which part of the U.S. population do most of those volunteers come from? ...and would they fire on their own kind? Probably why so much ammo was bought for the organizations within the deep state under Obama. Not that the military isn't sort of a deep state unto itself. The rest of the civilized world who are mostly free because of U.S. involvement really can't understand. You've got someone to fall back on when tyrants strike. Now the "other" side in the USA has been trying to turn our kids into Europeans for the last four decades. They've been doing a pretty good job of it, but I think you'll have to wait til the boomers are all buried at least before the guns are confiscated. Losing the greatest generation has been truly terrible for the USA. It's like most of the common sense walked out the door never to return.

[Sailor Steve]

Not to mention the fact that the "U.S. Government" as portrayed in the lower picture is not going to come to anyone's house to try to take their guns, or anything else.

@em2nought: I like your picture. I was there, on behalf of that same "U.S. Government." The same would also be true of the Afghanis, or the French Resistance, or any other "civilian" who has taken on an entire government and made them think twice about what they were doing.

[Highbury]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not to mention the fact that the "U.S. Government" as portrayed in the lower picture is not going to come to anyone's house to try to take their guns, or anything else.

Well then as long as you are all happy I am too. I know my kids will survive school.

[THE_MASK]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not to mention the fact that the "U.S. Government" as portrayed in the lower picture is not going to come to anyone's house to try to take their guns, or anything else.

@em2nought: I like your picture. I was there, on behalf of that same "U.S. Government." The same would also be true of the Afghanis, or the French Resistance, or any other "civilian" who has taken on an entire government and made them think twice about what they were doing.

It doesnt work like that here in Oz . There was a gun amnesty and buy back . After the amnesty ended it became an offence to posses prohibited guns . If police in there normal operations found prohibited guns then they would prosecute . Nonsense if you think the authorities would raid houses looking for guns . Just silly .

[vienna]

Originally Posted by sober

It doesnt work like that here in Oz . There was a gun amnesty and buy back . After the amnesty ended it became an offence to posses prohibited guns . If police in there normal operations found prohibited guns then they would prosecute . Nonsense if you think the authorities would raid houses looking for guns . Just silly .

I find that specifics and logistics tend to derail the whole "They're gonna take our guns!!" hysteria. I still have not found anyone spouting the NRA party line who can tell me exactly how the government is going to accomplish a mass confiscation of guns in this country. To be effective or have any success, it would require a near simultaneous action across the entire nation with the attendant logistical planning, manning and support and would require a level of secrecy far beyond the means of the government; I mean, if you can't hide Trump eats cheeseburgers in the bathroom from the press and the public, how would they ever be able to conceal the planning, organization, and execution of a mass confiscation? Anyone out there able to supply a plausible scenario?...


...Class, class...Bueller?...




















<O>

[Platapus]

I would like to offer up two recent case studies -- Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of how effective well motivated citizens can be while equipped with simple firearms when against a powerful military such as the US.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

I find that specifics and logistics tend to derail the whole "They're gonna take our guns!!" hysteria. I still have not found anyone spouting the NRA party line who can tell me exactly how the government is going to accomplish a mass confiscation of guns in this country. To be effective or have any success, it would require a near simultaneous action across the entire nation with the attendant logistical planning, manning and support and would require a level of secrecy far beyond the means of the government; I mean, if you can't hide Trump eats cheeseburgers in the bathroom from the press and the public, how would they ever be able to conceal the planning, organization, and execution of a mass confiscation? Anyone out there able to supply a plausible scenario?...


...Class, class...Bueller?...

I'm going to suggest that it won't be done like that. That doesn't mean it won't be done.

Here in Canada for example smoking cigarettes is practically outlawed. You can smoke but the Government has made it very hard and embarrassing if you do. Tobacco products cannot be displayed in stores, pharmacies cannot sell tobacco products, you can't smoke near the entrance of a public building, in a restaurant or bar etc. These draconian measures (if you're a smoker) did not happen over night. It took a while and there was lots of push back. And the Gov't is not done. None of it would have happened if it was attempted all at once.

And that in my opinion would be the plan if you want to do anything similar. Small steps over a long period of time.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

I'm going to suggest that it won't be done like that. That doesn't mean it won't be done.

Here in Canada for example smoking cigarettes is practically outlawed. You can smoke but the Government has made it very hard and embarrassing if you do. Tobacco products cannot be displayed in stores, pharmacies cannot sell tobacco products, you can't smoke near the entrance of a public building, in a restaurant or bar etc. These draconian measures (if you're a smoker) did not happen over night. It took a while and there was lots of push back. And the Gov't is not done. None of it would have happened if it was attempted all at once.

And that in my opinion would be the plan if you want to do anything similar. Small steps over a long period of time.

Huge (or, if you prefer, "Yuuuge!!") difference is the rigt to bear arms is in the US Constitution and any actual effort to fully implement a full confiscation would be a Federal criminal act and even an attempt to do a "dirbs and drabs" approach would be so time consuming, expensive and telegraphed as to be useless; the court challenges as the 'process' played out alone would tie up every thing for so long the sun would probably extinguish before all the guns were collected. And any thought of an abolishing of the 2nd Amendment is a non-starter: the 2nd is part of the Bill Of Rights, a vital portion of the Constitution so sacrosanct as to be beyond touch...


Now, I am basing this on the presumption cigarette smoking is not guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution as a specific fundamental right, but I could be wrong: Canadians are such strange creatures...


...polite, yet strange...












<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

And any thought of an abolishing of the 2nd Amendment is a non-starter: the 2nd is part of the Bill Of Rights, a vital portion of the Constitution so sacrosanct as to be beyond touch...

I'm not suggesting that the 2nd Amendment be abolished and I don't think the gun control lobby is either. Anything can be controlled by an authoritarian Gov't. Your right to bear arms might be severely restricted by your ability to buy a gun or ammo. I think that for gun rights people in the US this is their big concern.

Now, I am basing this on the presumption cigarette smoking is not guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution as a specific fundamental right, but I could be wrong

No there isn't but there is no law preventing people from smoking either. Yet the habit is slowly being restricted with the specific aim of ending it completely.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

I'm not suggesting that the 2nd Amendment be abolished and I don't think the gun control lobby is either. Anything can be controlled by an authoritarian Gov't. Your right to bear arms might be severely restricted by your ability to buy a gun or ammo. I think that for gun rights people in the US this is their big concern.

...

..and I didn't say you made such a suggestion nor did I mean to imply the gun lobby condoned an abolishing; what I was saying is the 2nd, as part of the Bill Of Rights is so much a part of the American fabric as to be beyond touch, making the arguments and claims about massive governmental seizure of guns pure fantasy and seems to be only a ruse by the NRA, gun manufacturers, and certain political interests to keep up a dwindling membership and political base. And the idea of a totalitarian government ever holding sway in the US is equally as far-fetched; with a free press, social media, and other means, the ability for any party, group or individual to achieve a totalitarian hold on the government is pretty impossible; even Trump, who seems to have "banana republic" tendencies can't get away with anything with all the coverage and analysis of his actions. The truth is its not the 2nd that is the best defense of America: it is the First Amendment since without the free flow of information, the chance of something like a repeal of the 2nd would very much greatly increase; knowing what the government is up to is the best defense against the government accruing too much power; if they are 'going to come for your guns', it will only succeed because you won't know they're coming...


There is a reason the First Amendment is in that lofty position: the Founding Fathers knew what was most important to preserve all that followed in the document - the ability of Americans to keep an eye on the workings of their leaders, the right to voice their concerns, and the protections of the free flow of information and ideas. Tyranny and oppression only thrive in the dark vacuum of silence and deception...


















<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

..and I didn't say you made such a suggestion nor did I mean to imply the gun lobby condoned an abolishing; what I was saying is the 2nd, as part of the Bill Of Rights is so much a part of the American fabric as to be beyond touch, making the arguments and claims about massive governmental seizure of guns pure fantasy and seems to be only a ruse by the NRA, gun manufacturers, and certain political interests to keep up a dwindling membership and political base.

Again I'm going to 'politely' suggest that it won't be done that way and that is their concern. And that I understand why they would have that concern.

And the idea of a totalitarian government ever holding sway in the US is equally as far-fetched; with a free press, social media, and other means, the ability for any party, group or individual to achieve a totalitarian hold on the government is pretty impossible;

I probably gave the wrong impression there. I didn't mean to suggest that a 'totalitarian government' would ever take control in the US. Sorry for that impression. On the other hand I am suggesting that a legitimate government, duly elected can act in an 'authoritarian' manner. It happens all the time. Examples of that are currently unfolding but that is another story in another thread.

The truth is its not the 2nd that is the best defense of America: it is the First Amendment since without the free flow of information, the chance of something like a repeal of the 2nd would very much greatly increase;

Again, I am going to suggest that those who don't respect the freedom of expression are not going to attempt to repeal or even amend the 1st Amendment. There are other means to restrict the rights of others whom you disagree with. Again there are lots of examples but none more obvious than what is going on at college campuses in the US and here in Canada. If you don't like what your opponent is saying you get him barred from speaking by accusing him of hate speech, misogyny, racism or any other sin and effectively bypass the 1st Amendment. These decisions are made arbitrarily by like minded people with a political agenda. And in some cases they are getting away with it. The people who are doing this are the lawyers , bureaucrats, bean-counters and politicians of the future. Won't that be something to look forward to.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Highbury

Well then as long as you are all happy I am too. I know my kids will survive school.

I didn't say I was happy. I only addressed one point.

Originally Posted by sober

Nonsense if you think the authorities would raid houses looking for guns . Just silly .

I never said the government wouldn't try to take guns away here. I was addressing the picture as posted. The point of the picture was that a man with a gun stands no chance against the Navy or the Air Force. My point was that the government isn't likely to send the Navy or the Air Force to attack my neighborhood. That is why I praised em2nought's picture. We sent the might of the US Air Force and Navy against the Vietnamese. Guess who won?