Gun confiscation in America?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I don't agree with John in that - I think the outcome was quite fixed. The Vietnamese didn't want to be a colony. They fought off the French, and then the US. They wanted it enough to fight against tremendous disadvantage, and suffered greatly for decades. The outcome was inevitable.

Only if you take the political climate into consideration. Without that, the widespread use of chemical, biological and nuclear warfare would have resulted in a different outcome. Once you have killed the majority of the population, there wouldn't be much fight left.

I am assuming you agree the US military has the ability to do so?

The US military could kill virtually everyone on earth if it wanted to. But it's retarded to worry about such what-ifs. There's no upside to do so, just as there's no upside to nuking Vietnam to glass - what's the point of the victory? And what's the downside. Pretty clean imbalance there. Not a practical end game.

The US did drop more munitions then used in all of WWII, a global war, and it did use Agent Orange on a wide scale basis. Are you seriously suggesting that it would do the same in California or Texas? Or that it would be willing to kill the majority of citizens?

Have you got a remotely viable argument to make?

[kelpdiver 2]

so Rosa Parks should have given up her seat?

[SkyDekker 1,138]

Quote

The US military could kill virtually everyone on earth if it wanted to. But it's retarded to worry about such what-ifs. There's no upside to do so, just as there's no upside to nuking Vietnam to glass - what's the point of the victory? And what's the downside. Pretty clean imbalance there. Not a practical end game.

You are right, it isn't a practical end game. But then, this whole discussion and thread was not about anything practical to begin with, so the discussion would be termed hypothetical. (this also answers your last snide comment in your post).

What is also not a pratical or even remotely probably action, is the American Government doing something that necessitates an armed response from the US population. Which brings us back to the original question, now that once again it is established that the original intent of the 2nd Amendmend is no longer valid, what should be done.

Quote

The US did drop more munitions then used in all of WWII, a global war, and it did use Agent Orange on a wide scale basis. Are you seriously suggesting that it would do the same in California or Texas? Or that it would be willing to kill the majority of citizens?

I think it is pretty clear I never suggested the US government would or should, just that it has the ability, which you have already agreed to.

[Skwrl 56]

Rosa Parks engaged in civil disobedience. This is a part that most people don't understand - what she did was in violation of the law at that time. She broke the law. Now, it was an unjust law, for sure, but it drew attention to the fact that it was an unjust law. That's what civil disobedience is - a knowing violation of a law perceived to be unjust. That doesn't magically make the law go away.

Park's case actually wasn't the one that was brought to strike down the Alabama ordinances, by the way... On November 13, 1956, the Supremes outlawed racial segregation on buses operating within the individual states, deeming it unconstitutional. Until it did so, however, the Alabama statute was valid.

So, in short, it's a good thing (in my opinion) that she didn't give up her seat. But that's not what struck down the law.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

If the American population should own guns for a different reason, that should be spelled out in a new amendment.

We have better things to do then 'fix' one of the few clauses of the constitution that includes an explanatory clause.

You mean the one with the funny comma placement that has been debated for decades? Yeah, um, no reason to clarify that!

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Heller clarified it. Funny, the Brady annual report even cited it as a victory!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Rosa Parks engaged in civil disobedience. This is a part that most people don't understand - what she did was in violation of the law at that time. She broke the law. Now, it was an unjust law, for sure, but it drew attention to the fact that it was an unjust law. That's what civil disobedience is - a knowing violation of a law perceived to be unjust. That doesn't magically make the law go away.

Yes, we're talking about civil disobedience. I was responding to your statement: "It does NOT mean that people can ignore laws that they believe are unconstitutional."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The US military could kill virtually everyone on earth if it wanted to. But it's retarded to worry about such what-ifs. There's no upside to do so, just as there's no upside to nuking Vietnam to glass - what's the point of the victory? And what's the downside. Pretty clean imbalance there. Not a practical end game.

You are right, it isn't a practical end game. But then, this whole discussion and thread was not about anything practical to begin with, so the discussion would be termed hypothetical. (this also answers your last snide comment in your post).

What is also not a pratical or even remotely probably action, is the American Government doing something that necessitates an armed response from the US population. Which brings us back to the original question, now that once again it is established that the original intent of the 2nd Amendmend is no longer valid, what should be done.

You haven't shown in any way why it is not valid.

The guns are the reason why there is only the remotest of chances that the US government would take action warranting a response. It is one of the longest standing governments in the world, and since it was formed many other nations where you would think it not possible to happen, the government has done horrible things to its people. Some as recently as the past 2 decades.

Take away the guns and the freedoms in the BoRs and it becomes pretty easy to oppress your people.

[quade 3]

Quote

Heller clarified it.

Heh, if you think that is the end of the discussion, you're fooling yourself.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This time, the tables would be reversed - there's a LOT more civilian gun owners than there are military/police.

For a small scale uprising, let's say some Texas militia decides to revolt, how many days do you think they'd last? Seriously. 30? They wouldn't have control of the air at all. If they were holed up at their "training facility" the government would simply surround them. Eventually, somebody inside their compound would start shooting and at that point it would be over and trust me, the US government would not lose.

The only way a "revolt" could possibly work would be if it were nation-wide, but even then I think the US Government ultimately still has the upper hand.

Your assuming the Millitary would follow a corrupt goverment.

You are assuming that it is not the military running the show after another terrorist attack.... that has Gen Tommy Franks and his buddies salivating at the thought.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Heller clarified it.

Heh, if you think that is the end of the discussion, you're fooling yourself.

It had been nearly 70 years since the prior decision, and the Court is generally reluctant to recover the same ground in any hurry.

but certainly there may be some followup clarifications as certain locales don't get the message. The NRA lawyers are going to have a golden few years suing for and collecting court costs. (San Francisco already had to pay up on its law that was unconstitutional even before Heller)

[kallend 1,643]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This time, the tables would be reversed - there's a LOT more civilian gun owners than there are military/police.

For a small scale uprising, let's say some Texas militia decides to revolt, how many days do you think they'd last? Seriously. 30? They wouldn't have control of the air at all. If they were holed up at their "training facility" the government would simply surround them. Eventually, somebody inside their compound would start shooting and at that point it would be over and trust me, the US government would not lose.

The only way a "revolt" could possibly work would be if it were nation-wide, but even then I think the US Government ultimately still has the upper hand.

Your assuming the Millitary would follow a corrupt goverment.

Whoever would have thought that the proud German military high command would follow a psychotic corporal.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The questions remains. If the 2nd Amendmend is no longer able achieve what it was intended to do, what should be done with it?

Since the presumptive basis of your question is invalid to start with, the follow-up question from that is also invalid.

Nothing has rendered the 2nd Amendment ineffective.

If you want to revoke it, call for a Constitutional Convention. Good luck.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Likewise, on the instant topic, Americans would also have no long-term
>tolerance of a government that attacks it's own people, and the citizens
>would take back the government to return it to its constitutional roots.
>And our system is structured so that this does not even have to happen
>with force of arms. The mere threat of such is enough to restrain
>government from going too far.

Actually, your vote is the mechanism by which you can "tale back" the government. That's the good news. The bad news is that if everyone disagrees with you, then even your vote may not be enough to force the government to do what you want. If at that point you attempt to use force of arms to obtain the changes you want, you will be stopped - for a democracy cannot survive if armed gangs can impose their will on the rest.

Re: vote. That's why I said "our system is structured so that this does not even have to happen."

If the revolt is just a small armed gang using force, then it deserves to be defeated. That's why I said in another message that the movement must be "widespread".

Sheesh, I wish you guys would keep up. I'm tired of having to say everything twice.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

so Rosa Parks should have given up her seat?

Darn right. And MLK shouldn't have made that march without a proper permit.
Damn lawbreakers!
Who the heck did they think they were protesting unjust laws in order to eliminate them?
If everyone that is discriminated against did this, then where in the heck would we be?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Heller clarified it.

Heh, if you think that is the end of the discussion, you're fooling yourself.

You can say that about anything. But as it stands now, that's the meaning, even if you don't like it.

And the coming Chicago v. McDonald case will strengthen that decision and make it apply to all the states too.

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

This time, the tables would be reversed - there's a LOT more civilian gun owners than there are military/police.

For a small scale uprising, let's say some Texas militia decides to revolt, how many days do you think they'd last? Seriously. 30? They wouldn't have control of the air at all. If they were holed up at their "training facility" the government would simply surround them. Eventually, somebody inside their compound would start shooting and at that point it would be over and trust me, the US government would not lose.

The only way a "revolt" could possibly work would be if it were nation-wide, but even then I think the US Government ultimately still has the upper hand.

Your assuming the Millitary would follow a corrupt goverment.

Whoever would have thought that the proud German military high command would follow a psychotic corporal.

Which is exactly why we have the 2nd amendment and many of us would never obey an order to surrender our weapons.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

Quote

And the coming Chicago v. McDonald case will strengthen that decision and make it apply to all the states too.

That's assuming the court decides in favor of the 2nd (which I both think and hope that they will do).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,425]

>The mere threat of such is enough to restrain
>government from going too far.

>That's why I said "our system is structured so that this does not even
>have to happen."

Agreed. Which is how we keep the government from going "too far." Claiming that the threat of violence is what's restraining them is silly.

[SkyDekker 1,138]

Quote

Since the presumptive basis of your question is invalid to start with, the follow-up question from that is also invalid.

You yourself in an earlier post above agreed that it is not invalid. However, since this is all a hypothetical discussion anyways. Let's say we agree that the presumptive basis is true. Are you even willing to have that conversation?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Since the presumptive basis of your question is invalid to start with, the follow-up question from that is also invalid.

You yourself in an earlier post above agreed that it is not invalid.

Incorrect. You may have presumed I did, and if so, you presumed wrong.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I don't think you understand the concept. Let me give an example.
Say the Federal Government passed a law that banned publication of any material unless it had been reviewed and approved for publication by a representative of the government. That law is obviously in direct violation to the Bill of Rights.

Any kind of material? Everywhere? Should drug makers exercise their free speech rights and print anything on their drug labels, or do you support government takeover which requires FDA approval of content of such labels?

Quote

Citizens have no duty to obey that law regardless of whether the SCOTUS has had a chance to look it over.

Could you please point out the legal framework which supports this statement, where it would say that if I consider some law to be unconstitutional, I have no duty to obey it, and cannot be penalized for that?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not that you'd understand, but:
"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." - Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison

This doesn't change what I said. By law only the Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether the law is repugnant to the Constitution or not. If you think it is, follow the procedure to have it struck down as everyone else is doing. Failure to follow this procedure and just ignoring the law because you think it's repugnant will make you a criminal.

You can ask those who refused to pay income tax because they thought the law was unconstitutional. I bet they have some valuable experience to share.

I don't think you understand the concept. Let me give an example.
Say the Federal Government passed a law that banned publication of any material unless it had been reviewed and approved for publication by a representative of the government. That law is obviously in direct violation to the Bill of Rights. Citizens have no duty to obey that law regardless of whether the SCOTUS has had a chance to look it over.

Good luck with that. You *MIGHT* win in several years, but for teh mean time you're fucked. Shall we look at Loving v Virgiania? The D's were tried and convicted, sentenced to 1 year with the option to voluntarily be deported from Virginia for 25 years, they did and went to DC and appealled. It took 9 years for teh SCOTUS to fix that. Your model is idealistic and unrealistic.

And your assertion that Heller could be instantly overturned isn't unrealistic?

Edited for clarity. Heller could be overturned easily. I'm not saying it will be and I hope it isn't, but it recently passed by a 5-4, so it is hardly engraved stare decisis.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>Regardless, I don't see another Branch Davidian scenario working
>out *near* as well for the gov't if a second act were to ever come about.

Oh, I think it would work out even better for the government. As soon as they saw a threat it would become a "terrorist threat" and they'd be justified in whatever force they used - and they'd all be lauded as heroes.

Why do you think it wouldn't work out as well?

Because, up until the shooting started, the Davidians trusted the Feds - I don't see that situation repeating itself.

I saw the Davidians as people who were always paranoid of the gov.

[Gene03 0]

Quote

Watching the attached videos is optional.

But I really can't see how guns could be confiscated in America without some serious blood being shed on all sides. I mean seriously, are guns that much of a problem where you want the Feds going around disarming the populous?

Americans and their Guns #1
Americans and their Guns #2
Americans and their Guns #3

Fuck your guns.

The local grocery store is the weak link.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)