Sorry for jumping in on your conversation, 1480, I just wanted to offer my concurrence that proper certification should be an obvious requisite for possesion of a firearm in public, despite my extremely pro-gun position. As long as individuals have a choice as to where they obtain their weapons certification (as specified by a state minimum standard for accuracy and weapons safety knowledge) I have no problem with such a requirement (other than the state knowing who has guns, but that's just some extreme-right paranoia I have)

I realize that issues concerning firearms legislation must be of great concern to lawbringers like yourself (and I think you said as much earlier, lots of posts in this thread) so I have a very healthy admiration for a policeman who can appreciate the viewpoint of the gun-owning populace. It shows a healthy respect for the law rather than a conditional respect for it.

I understand that assault weapons, and more importantly, the types of ammunition they fire, is something that could be of immediate interest to you. My particular stance on the issue is that criminals will obtain these weapons and ammunition anyway, so the law-abiding public should have access as well, but I admit that it is a complicated issue when law enforcement officials' live may be put in more jepoardy.

Apologies for truncating your statement, all in the interests of avoiding a text wall as much as I can, since I do tend to ramble a bit.

While you are quite correct in your assumption that the fighting prowess and equiptment of the U.S. military (or almost any modern, professional military force for that matter) would far outmatch that of the civilian populace, I believe that you are selling the fighting ability of the private sector woefully short.

There are a great number of wounded servicemembers from our most recent conflict that would heartily disagree with that asumption. One of the great strengths of an insuregency is its' ability to blend in with a populace that the state needs the support of. Sure, you could use an airstrike to destroy their town, but that isn't going to help with public opinion at all.

This statement causes me to wonder whether you have ever actually obtained proficiency with a firearm. It certainly seems to indicate that you have never seen combat. I'm not trying to make a personal attack or anything, because what you're saying seems to be common sense, but have you ever seen what happens to squad cohesion and combat control when someone's head suddenly explodes for no apparent reason, followed by the sound of a gunshot that could have come from anywhere in a 180 degree arc?

I won't bother mentioning the demoralizing effects of using military force against one's own countrymen, since I assume we're looking at the example of hardcore government loyalists, but as much fun as it is to imagine a redneck yokel with a bottle of moonshine and shotgun, the truth is alot different. A trained riflemen, operating in an insurgent capacity, especially if they have the homefield advantage, can be devestating to units as large as a squad.
You discount the potency of a civilian fighter far too easily, and the difficulties in dealing with such a problem.
Countless examples? Yes, there are examples of revolutions succeeding without an armed populace, and even without much bloodshed, but I'd prefer to hedge my bets. A lot more examples exsist where the populace fought, and if we should ever become one again, I'd like to have a weapon, please.

Furthermore, you completely discount the importance of the right to bear arms as a symbol of autonomy and freedom. This may seem minor, but it might be interesting to note the strict gun-restriction protocols enforced by nearly every (couldn't be bothered to look them all up) modern totalitarian regime. For over 70 years, people in the Soviet Union suffered under the communist regime. Millions were sent to the gulags or executed, the figures vary widely because of innaccurate and/or classified Soviet record-keeping, but all the figures are catastrophic. The average Soviet citizen's living standard was a joke compared to anyone approaching even the lower middle class in the U.S., and yet such a regime persisted for 7 decades. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't suffer that for even one decade if I could help it, because my country is supposed to be based upon the ideals of liberty and autonomy. My right to own a firearm is one of the foundations upon which that ideal is built.


That's an insightful viewpoint, and one on which, for now, we must agree to disagree. While you are totally correct, imo, that the internet and technology are increasingly powerful forces in our lives. But, for the time being, I see the electronic world as being entirely too large and too unregulated to control with any degree of effectiveness. I tend to view the internet as the last truly free society on earth, and in many ways it is, other than an ironically slavish adherence to certain basic electronic functions. Still, you're right about what a powerful force it might become should it ever be tamed.

As if there were a significant voting block whose only value is gun ownership? Bush had a lot of relatively conservative platforms, and conservatives tend to favor pro-gun legislation. None of that is surprising.
On the other hand, you are completely right about oppressive regimes sneaking up on people, which is all the more reason to deny the erosion of our rights, especially our right to own firearms.

I am a law-abiding citizen (minus the occasional delay in paying my vehicle registration tax). I require a weapon to defend myself and others when proper law enforcement agencies are not present, my life is my own responsibility. Should the day ever come when our government casts aside the inviolable laws, dedicated to the preservation of liberty, that our nation's founders set forth, I will be ready.
The maintenance of Freedom from tyranny is, by it's very nature, the responsibility of the people, not of the state. Like my right to vote, I will never surrender my right to to bear arms, for however little difference it may make in the whole, it is my voice, and no one has the right to take it from me.

And to add a bit to your most excellent post LCpl, a lot of those "Rednecks" (a racially insulting term BTW) that Bewolf mentions are military veterans themselves. We are no strangers to military tactics or training...

USLC: nice to see ya back, and a very poignant piece you wrote.

I'll add my own thoughts to those of my eloquent friend:

I don't know about your military, but some years ago I was privileged to talk to a former Soviet officer who had immigrated to the 'States. We were talking about the movie Red Dawn, which depicted a Communist invasion of the US, and he commented that the truth is that the one thing they dreaded was an order to do just that. The reason? "We all knew that 'everybody' in America owned a gun, and they all knew how to use them."


What you're missing is that a good number of those 'Rednecks' are also former military, and haven't forgotten what they've learned. Also consider that a lot of current military people have the brains to choose a different side, and many would do so.

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun." -Mao Zedong

Yes, it's true that what happened in Germany seventy-five years ago could happen here - or anywhere - as well. That is exactly what our founders recognized when they put the ideas in place that guide our country. The very first step in taking over is to convince the people that they should give up anything - not just guns - for the "greater good".

I used to work with a retired police officer, and here in Utah, he said, sometimes they operated with the knowledge that if they needed backup in a hurry there was a good chance there would be an armed citizen handy with the knowledge and the courage to lend a hand.

This lady knows her stuff on the 2nd ammendment, and isn't afraid to tell the elected officials what she thinks.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...537893819675&p

I like this part ... as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Yep, Obama is going for global domination. Seems to me we will soon be turning turning your country into a battlefield with our assault weapons. :p