Gun laws do they work (1 Viewer)

[Dick7Access]

Wait on Dick.

You said that the government would turn their guns against the people.

What I said about the "American Revolution" was the exact opposite where the people turned against the Government.

You can't change your stance from one post to the next.

[FONT=&quot]You misunderstood me, I probable didn’t articulate well. Let me try again. I will underline all my comments to separate them from Yours.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]First I was replying to this post:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Originally Posted by RainLover [/FONT][FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How can you posibily think that your brothers and sisters of the us armed forces would shoot their own.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The same way that Hitler’s soldiers did.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

But if they did what makes you think that a rabble of idiots are going to beat them.

You must be certifable to believe that rot.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]My answer to that was the same way the patriots did.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That’s why I said read about the American Revolution.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You came back with:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This war was started by the American people not the government of the time.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
The Government was of course the non-democratic government of Great Britton. The people of America won the war and started one of the first democratically elected governments of the world.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now it is debatable who fired the first shot but I won’t debate the point as it doesn’t make any difference as without guns they would not have been able overthrow the British. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I will abide by the laws of the land. The law of the land right now is the constitution. The constitution right now says I have a right to have a gun. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So your idea that you one day may be called upon to save the world will just not happen. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Whoa, Where did I say I want to save the world? In fact I am not too crazy what my government has done in some parts of the world. Did you get me confuse with some other post?[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you are truly worried then turn your thoughts to the war you are currently having within your own country where foreigners are slowly but surely working on ways to use your own laws against yourself in order to take control.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You are right on there, no debate, but let me add that by keeping the constitution intact is what I see as fighting the war on the home front.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Dick7Access]

That is not my understanding.

One is where the people declare war on the Government. (This happened against the British)

The other is the American troops turning their guns on the American people which is what Dick wants to defend against. (I don't believe this would ever happen because you have a thing called elections. This is your way of changing a government, not guns.

That's true, but look at all the laws our duly eleted Obama has broken, look how many of his campaign promises he has broken and our duly elected congress does nothing as he takes more and more power away from congress. Both parties!

 

[RainLover]

That's true, but look at all the laws our duly eleted Obama has broken, look how many of his campaign promises he has broken and our duly elected congress does nothing as he takes more and more power away from congress. Both parties!

I don't know enough about American politics to comment except to say that all politicians will do anything to get into power and then to stay there. They don't care about breaking a promise or two.

There is really only one point where I do not understand your position.

Do you honestly believe that one day the American Government or more specifically the President would order the troops to march against the law abiding citizens of American. (I am leaving out situations such as disasters where the troops go in to protect life and property against looters etc.)

And if that is the case you believe that because you and others like you own guns to defend yourselves against such an event that you could win against such an action.

Please tell me that this is not how you are thinking.

 

[Libre]

I would have expected more logical thought and better arguments in a forum for programmers.

I don't know enough about American politics to comment except to say that all politicians will do anything to get into power and then to stay there. They don't care about breaking a promise or two.

Like anyone else.
We're ALL politicians, in our own affairs and dealings. All people, that is. From the beginning of time. I think that about covers it. There are some who are professional politicians - like our President and our Congress. They get paid for it - that's the only difference.

There is really only one point where I do not understand your position.

Do you honestly believe that one day the American Government or more specifically the President would order the troops to march against the law abiding citizens of American. (I am leaving out situations such as disasters where the troops go in to protect life and property against looters etc.)

So you're saying this is not just very unlikely, but actually impossible? And your support for your argument is that it hasn't happened before (to your knowledge, you might have added).
So your argument is something like:
It's never happened (to your knowledge).
Therefore, it can't happen.

Impeccable logic.

And if that is the case you believe that because you and others like you own guns to defend yourselves against such an event that you could win against such an action.

Dick7 doesn't think he could win, but that doesn't mean he's just lying down and giving up. Right Dick7?

One other thing - the American Revolution is an excellent example of Dick7's position. Why quibble about who actually fired first or who attacked whom? It's an example of the citizen's defeating an oppressive government because - and only because - they were armed.
Right Dick7?

By the way, I mostly agree with greater gun control so don't think I'm polishing up old Betsy here to go out a-shootin'.

 

[Dick7Access]

I don't know enough about American politics to comment except to say that all politicians will do anything to get into power and then to stay there. They don't care about breaking a promise or two.

There is really only one point where I do not understand your position.

Do you honestly believe that one day the American Government or more specifically the President would order the troops to march against the law abiding citizens of American. (I am leaving out situations such as disasters where the troops go in to protect life and property against looters etc.)

And if that is the case you believe that because you and others like you own guns to defend yourselves against such an event that you could win against such an action.

Please tell me that this is not how you are thinking.

[FONT=&quot]I don’t think it is probable, but it is possible. In fact Obama said that he wanted a civilian military just as strong as the regular military. Sounds like the SS to me. I want my guns for home protection, and because I have that right under the laws of the land. Secondly I strongly believe that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will make the shooting situation worse. There are so many illegal guns in the world, let alone the USA that the criminal will still be able to get their guns in fact maybe more so. My government can’t control drugs from coming in to the USA what would make me think they could control guns coming in from Mexico. Many times with gun buy backs, the guns are back on the street in no time. I could be wrong about this but I think I remember it happening down under. Just like drugs that are confiscated, many times are back on the street. Look at Chicago they already have 3 murders this year, do you really think the perpetrators bought their guns legally. The cities with the highest crime rates are also the cities with the strongest gun laws.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Rain: And if that is the case you believe that because you and others like you own guns to defend yourselves against such an event that you could win against such an action.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Again I don’t think it will come to that, at least not in my life time, but if it did, would it matter if we gun nuts could win. Not for me I would rather be dead that live under tyranny.[/FONT]

 

[Dick7Access]

I would have expected more logical thought and better arguments in a forum for programmers.

Oops! I miss that above line. 'for programmers." programmers like most things in life are relative. On this forum I am a Winnie, in my circle I am the expert, Its a nice ego trip one in a while. 22 years ago my boss in the Navy said go over to building 12 you are going to computer school. I said I don't know anything about computers. He said that's why you are going to school. Of course computers are contagious, and also hazardous to my financial health. Contagious just like this debating, I really need to get off for a while and work on my next road trip. Anybody on this forum live near Vidor or Beaumont, TX, Lord willing that's where I am going in March,
Dick S.

 

[RainLover]

Libra this is not your usual standard. I would have expected better from you.

Like anyone else.
We're ALL politicians, in our own affairs and dealings. All people, that is. From the beginning of time. I think that about covers it. There are some who are professional politicians - like our President and our Congress. They get paid for it - that's the only difference.

The discussion is about politicians. I don’t understand what you are attempting to add to the discussion here.

So you're saying this is not just very unlikely, but actually impossible? And your support for your argument is that it hasn't happened before (to your knowledge, you might have added).
So your argument is something like:
It's never happened (to your knowledge).
Therefore, it can't happen.

Impeccable logic.

I am not saying anything. I was seeking a clearer understanding of Dick’s point of view. You have changed the whole context of the question.

Dick7 doesn't think he could win, but that doesn't mean he's just lying down and giving up. Right Dick7?

I realise that there are people with grandiose ideas, but I would not even think that Dick is one of those. So I would agree with the underlying principal.

One other thing - the American Revolution is an excellent example of Dick7's position. Why quibble about who actually fired first or who attacked whom? It's an example of the citizen's defeating an oppressive government because - and only because - they were armed.
Right Dick7?

We are not quibbling about who shot first. I attempted to separate two different situations. One is the people against the Government and the other is the Government against the people.

To Quote Dick in Post # 725 “I don’t think it is probable, but it is possible”
I would have to say that most things are.
But is this justification for so many to have such powerful weapons.

As I have stated before I do not understand your form of Government enough.

I would think however that before things fall into a situation where the President orders an attack against the people that there would be an election which would elect a different President.

Failing that I would like to know if there is some form of safety, that should the President give the order then he would be removed by either the Military or the Houses of Government. Surely someone should know the answer to that question.

I know I could certainly answer it if it was about the Australian Constitution.

 

[Dick7Access]

Libra this is not your usual standard. I would have expected better from you.


The discussion is about politicians. I don’t understand what you are attempting to add to the discussion here.

I am not saying anything. I was seeking a clearer understanding of Dick’s point of view. You have changed the whole context of the question.


I realise that there are people with grandiose ideas, but I would not even think that Dick is one of those. So I would agree with the underlying principal.


We are not quibbling about who shot first. I attempted to separate two different situations. One is the people against the Government and the other is the Government against the people.

To Quote Dick in Post # 725 “I don’t think it is probable, but it is possible”
I would have to say that most things are.
But is this justification for so many to have such powerful weapons.

As I have stated before I do not understand your form of Government enough.

I would think however that before things fall into a situation where the President orders an attack against the people that there would be an election which would elect a different President.

Failing that I would like to know if there is some form of safety, that should the President give the order then he would be removed by either the Military or the Houses of Government. Surely someone should know the answer to that question.

I know I could certainly answer it if it was about the Australian Constitution.

[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
Our government is supposed to be checks and balances, but right now it is not working properly. Our congress is supposed to be two side. Democrats and Republicans, however right now we have so many republicans that have democrat thinking that they side with the Democrats. They are called Rino's, Republican in name only. The problem is these people were voted in by low information voters. Some don't even get there information from liberal media, they get it from entertainment shows. When John Kerry was running for president I was taking to a man in laundry mat, he said he was voting for Kerry because he was a General and was a war hero. This man did not know number one that Kerry was in the Navy and we do not have generals Navy, at least in the 22 years I was in. Second a little self-inflected flesh wound doesn’t make one a hero. He did not know anything about his voting record. As long as we have people like that voting we are in big trouble. We have Supreme Court Justus(sic) that were sworn in to protect th Constitution then go around the world saying don’t go by our constitution it is not very good. We are in big trouble.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[RainLover]

Dick

This is harder than hearding Cats.

You quoted my whole post. Why I have no idea.

I asked a question about a safety net to prevent the President from ordering the troops against the people.

You responded by saying that there are idiots in America who know nothing but still have the right to vote.

I guess you have proven yourself to be correct.

 

[Dick7Access]

Dick

This is harder than hearding Cats.

You quoted my whole post. Why I have no idea.

I asked a question about a safety net to prevent the President from ordering the troops against the people.

You responded by saying that there are idiots in America who know nothing but still have the right to vote.

I guess you have proven yourself to be correct.

we must be on a separate street

 

[Adam Caramon]

Our government is supposed to be checks and balances, but right now it is not working properly. Our congress is supposed to be two side. Democrats and Republicans, however right now we have so many republicans that have democrat thinking that they side with the Democrats.

Wow. No, our government is not supposed to be two sides. Our government is supposed to be made up of duly elected officials. If all Democrats are legally elected and 0 Republicans, than that is exactly what is "supposed to be".

Checks and balances refers to the three different branches of government: Executive, Legislative, Judicial.

They are called Rino's, Republican in name only. The problem is these people were voted in by low information voters.

We've had this discussion before. Republicans tend to be less informed than Democrats.

When John Kerry was running for president I was taking to a man in laundry mat, he said he was voting for Kerry because he was a General and was a war hero.

Dick, the average American is not very informed. Its not that they're stupid, but they don't care about politics enough to actually educate them self. This is why politicians spend so much money on television ads - they work. These type of people then spread their lack of information to others through word of mouth, email, and posting on Access World Forums.

 

[Adam Caramon]

So your argument is something like:
It's never happened (to your knowledge).
Therefore, it can't happen.

I think its something more along the lines of "Why should government set policy based on something that has never happened before and is not at all likely to happen?"

Aliens have never invaded the earth before, but it is definitely possible. However, we don't all go around wearing tin foil hats just in case.

The bottom line is that gun people really want their guns, and they will make whatever justification necessary to hold on to them. There is no study or research that could be conducted to convince these people that taking semi-automatic rifles off the street is a good idea. Their position on guns isn't a knowledge-based decision, its a feeling-based decision.

Dick7 doesn't think he could win, but that doesn't mean he's just lying down and giving up. Right Dick7?

The US government operates drones thousands of miles away from the US that covertly cross various national borders and then kill individuals. If the US government wanted to kill Dick, they'd be able to do so regardless of his having guns or not.

One other thing - the American Revolution is an excellent example of Dick7's position.

How so? The British had muskets, the Americans had muskets.

The US government has stealth fighters, tanks, bunker-busting bombs, precision missiles, and Dick has an RV and a handgun?

By the way, I mostly agree with greater gun control so don't think I'm polishing up old Betsy here to go out a-shootin'.

I think you felt bad because Dick was struggling to make a coherent point so you thought you'd jump in on his side

 

[dan-cat]

Impeccable logic.

I think TV evangelists use the same reasoning as you do to coerce money out of people. I'll stick to what is likely thank you.

Dick7 doesn't think he could win, but that doesn't mean he's just lying down and giving up. Right Dick7?

In the meantime people are killing children, NOW, with these weapons that might, just ever so maybe might be used in a revolutionary war.

One other thing - the American Revolution is an excellent example of Dick7's position. Why quibble about who actually fired first or who attacked whom? It's an example of the citizen's defeating an oppressive government because - and only because - they were armed.
Right Dick7?

Further back on this thread I gave many examples of oppressive regimes being overthrown without a militia. It included the entire Eastern Bloc. All ignored. Contemporary examples don't sit well with the 2nd Amendment.

By the way, I mostly agree with greater gun control so don't think I'm polishing up old Betsy here to go out a-shootin'.

I also posted a link to a vid with Ted Nugent. In it he gives a clear indication of his desire to actually use the gun in anger. The sick thing is that there are those who actually want anarchy so they'll get the "I told you so" pleasure as well as cart-blanch to use their weapons.

A forum moderator on these boards no less started calling me an idiot etc because I would not arm myself. There is an underlying malice to many gun carriers. There are those who convince themselves they are more powerful because they carry weapons and there are those who just follow their argument through fear.

You talk about Dick not giving up. He already has. To fear.

 

[Libre]

Libra this is not your usual standard. I would have expected better from you.

Really? I thought it was pretty good, myself.

The discussion is about politicians. I don’t understand what you are attempting to add to the discussion here.

The discussion is about gun control, and myriad other topics that have been thrown into the mix. You made a remark about “American politicians”, and stated that they will do anything to get into power and break promises to stay there. While this statement is largely true, it’s misleading because, as I pointed out, American politicians are not a separate and distinct class of people in this regard. That is what I added to the discussion. I rectified a misleading statement that you made.

I am not saying anything. I was seeking a clearer understanding of Dick’s point of view. You have changed the whole context of the question.

If you need a clearer understanding of Dick’s point of view, then you have not made any effort to understand him at all because his point of view is as plain as could be.

We are not quibbling about who shot first. I attempted to separate two different situations. One is the people against the Government and the other is the Government against the people.

You challenged Dick to think of a case where armed citizenry prevailed against an attacking government. He cited the American Revolutionary War and you don’t accept his example, charging Dick with changing the terms of the question. I replied that his example was perfectly appropriate and I still think so. Whether it’s the government against the people or the people against the government is just silly hair splitting.

Failing that I would like to know if there is some form of safety, that should the President give the order then he would be removed by either the Military or the Houses of Government. Surely someone should know the answer to that question.

On the one hand you say that this event is so preposterously unlikely, that it makes no sense to make provisions for it just in case, and on the other hand, you state with surety that the US Constitution must certainly provide for such an event – which it has been said in this thread is about as likely as an alien invasion from space. So why not also ask what the law provides in the case of an alien invasion?

Further back on this thread I gave many examples of oppressive regimes being overthrown without a militia. It included the entire Eastern Bloc. All ignored. Contemporary examples don't sit well with the 2nd Amendment.

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

 

[RainLover]

Really? I thought it was pretty good, myself.

On the one hand you say that this event is so preposterously unlikely, that it makes no sense to make provisions for it just in case, and on the other hand, you state with surety that the US Constitution must certainly provide for such an event – which it has been said in this thread is about as likely as an alien invasion from space. So why not also ask what the law provides in the case of an alien invasion?

Libre

Self praise is no recommendation.

I am happy to debate with you and others but I do object when you MISQUOTE me.

You have misquoted me here.

"On the one hand you say that this event is so preposterously unlikely, that it makes no sense to make provisions for it just in case, and on the other hand, you state with surety that the US Constitution must certainly provide for such an event"

What I did ask, because I do not know, was that I wanted to know if there was any safety net that could remove the power from the president to stop him from sending the US troops against American citizens. You would have to go back and check my exact question.

However you want to talk about an Alien invasion.

Is there no one out there who knows enough about the American Constitution to answer my question.

Obviously you have no idea so why don't you simply admit the fact and talk about things you do know.

Can we stick to the truth as best as we know it. It makes for a more enlightened debate.

I will reply to your other statements separately.

 

[Dick7Access]

Wow. No, our government is not supposed to be two sides. Our government is supposed to be made up of duly elected officials. If all Democrats are legally elected and 0 Republicans, than that is exactly what is "supposed to be".

Checks and balances refers to the three different branches of government: Executive, Legislative, Judicial.

Yes you are absolutely right. I ran my thoughts together. Yes the checks and balances are the three branches; I know that, I should have ended that thought there. What I should have said is that the three branches are not working properly because none of the three branches act for the good of the country but their own self-interest.
The second thought is that the two parties are of one ilk. Now if that is the will of the people so be it, but my persuasion is certainly not well represented. The will of the majority, however is still up for grabs. Thanks for correcting me. I think maybe I need to stop posting late at night when I am tired. In fact I need to get back to more constructive areas of my life, but it’s still fun posting.

 

[Dick7Access]

We've had this discussion before. Republicans tend to be less informed than Democrats.

I can't prove it but i think each side is running neck and neck as far as uninformed.



Dick, the average American is not very informed. Its not that they're stupid, but they don't care about politics enough to actually educate them self. This is why politicians spend so much money on television ads - they work. These type of people then spread their lack of information to others through word of mouth, email, and posting on Access World Forums.

So true, and I have to admit that when I was raising a family and working three jobs and going to college at night, I wasn't very well informed. In fact I actually voted for, for, for, I am not going to tell you, it's too embarrassing.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Is there no one out there who knows enough about the American Constitution to answer my question.

I'm not an expert on the constitution, but the president is the Commander in Chief and all of the military reports to him. Each branch of the military has rules that it must follow, and again while I am no expert, I am pretty sure there are safeguards in these rules about firing on American citizens with exceptions for self defense or other extraordinary situations.

After the president issued such an order, congress could act to impeach the president immediately. If congress was able to muster enough votes to do so, then the president is removed from office and the vice president becomes the new president.

President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for inappropriate behavior in the Oval Office. President Nixon would have been impeached because of Watergate, but resigned instead.

Something tells me that if a president ordered the military to attack American citizens, that impeaching him would be a fairly expedited process.

 

[RainLover]

I'm not an expert on the constitution, but the president is the Commander in Chief and all of the military reports to him. Each branch of the military has rules that it must follow, and again while I am no expert, I am pretty sure there are safeguards in these rules about firing on American citizens with exceptions for self defense or other extraordinary situations.

After the president issued such an order, congress could act to impeach the president immediately. If congress was able to muster enough votes to do so, then the president is removed from office and the vice president becomes the new president.

President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for inappropriate behavior in the Oval Office. President Nixon would have been impeached because of Watergate, but resigned instead.

Something tells me that if a president ordered the military to attack American citizens, that impeaching him would be a fairly expedited process.

Adam

Thank you so very much for the explanation. It is particularly interesting that part where the troops are not allowed to fire on their own citizens.

If that is truly the case then there is your safety net.

 

[Libre]

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?