Right to bear arms

[wil]

The US military imposes itself around the world. Some claim peace keeper, others claim tyrant, colonizer, empire builder. We user "manifest destiny" a God given right to slaughter natives and Bison sea to shining sea with our godgiven inallieanble right to shoot out of train windows for amusement.

Does any other country feel that all their citizens should be allowed to own enough weapons to arm a small invasion force...
And that such is ordained by G!d?

 

[moralorel]

I know of none. If we allowed citizens to arm themselves enough to repel an invasion force, then how will dictatorships spread?

 

[UvS]

When I lived in the States, I always went armed (legally.) Remember the old adage, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Remember too, the police are not required to respond to any 911 call or protect you against harm the state did not create. (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 1989; Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 2005). Nor is this right-wing nuttiness. As leftist police reform "activists" are fond of pointing out, the job of the police is to maintain the status quo, not protect the peons.

According to some estimates, it would take decades (maybe more than a century) for gun confiscation to work...IF that is, there were no gun-smuggling. Ban guns tomorrow and I can think of a half-dozen countries that'd flood what used to be U.S. borders with small arms and ammo.

Interestingly, were it not for a couple of demographics, the U.S. homicide rate would be roughly on a par with Belgium. Proof, one fancies, that it does not pay for a country to betray its heritage culture and demographic.

Lastly, aren't you just a little embarrassed to come whinging to the state, "Protect me!" I am. Why? My ancestors were. Never snub a good example.

 

[moralorel]

When I lived in the States, I always went armed (legally.) Remember the old adage, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Remember too, the police are not required to respond to any 911 call or protect you against harm the state did not create. (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 1989; Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 2005). Nor is this right-wing nuttiness. As leftist police reform "activists" are fond of pointing out, the job of the police is to maintain the status quo, not protect the peons.

According to some estimates, it would take decades (maybe more than a century) for gun confiscation to work...IF that is, there were no gun-smuggling. Ban guns tomorrow and I can think of a half-dozen countries that'd flood what used to be U.S. borders with small arms and ammo.

Interestingly, were it not for a couple of demographics, the U.S. homicide rate would be roughly on a par with Belgium. Proof, one fancies, that it does not pay for a country to betray its heritage culture and demographic.

Lastly, aren't you just a little embarrassed to come whinging to the state, "Protect me!" I am. Why? My ancestors were. Never snub a good example.

I have a friend who doesn't believe citizens should own guns. She said you can just call the police if there is an intruder or a danger to your house. I told her about an incident at work where a man threatened to go to his house and bring back a gun and shoot me. He lived a couple minutes away. It took the police 45 minutes to get to my workplace! Thankfully the guy had stayed home and thought twice about what he was going to do. But if he had acted on his original intent, I'd probably be dead.

Anyway a few years later this same friend was posting on Facebook about how scared she was. BLM riots were happening a couple blocks from her house and buildings were on fire. She asked for advice. I told her to call the police. She said that the police told her she "was on her own". So I told her to go get her gun. She doesn't talk to me anymore for some reason. Weird. Oh, she survived the night.

 

[Thomas]

Interestingly, were it not for a couple of demographics, the U.S. homicide rate would be roughly on a par with Belgium.

Evidence for that?

 

[RJM]

If we allowed citizens to arm themselves enough to repel an invasion force, then how will dictatorships spread?

Most dictatorships depend on secret police and fear, imo

That is why in third-world African states a president has to hang onto power at all costs. It's not like the USA where he gets a bodyguard for life when he leaves office. In Africa a deposed president is lucky to keep his life. So the ruler has to sweeten his generals, to keep them on his side.

The man who has the loyalty of the armed forces is the one who controls the state, anywhere. It is only when the generals turn against a dictator that he has to go. Can you imagine the generals turning against Korea Kim? However one might begin to imagine them turning against Putin?

 

[RJM]

The idea of a citizen militia taking on the US Army doesn't fly, imo. Private citizens don't need military assault weapons to defend against criminals. Side arms are adequate for the purpose. Home invaders and street muggers don't carry machine guns.

 

[wil]

In a "civilization" the "need" to own a gun is a lack of confidence, a lack of compassion, or punishment envy thing in my opinion.

It's my opinion, I realize others may vary. I was raised in a gun owning hunting household and continued hunting into my early 30s. There is no "need" for me to hunt or own a gun unless I feel some inate need to dominate someone or something.

If I was rural in a uncivilized nation, I would not have the same views.

 

[moralorel]

Most dictatorships depend on secret police and fear, imo

That is why in third-world African states a president has to hang onto power at all costs. It's not like the USA where he gets a bodyguard for life when he leaves office. In Africa a deposed president is lucky to keep his life. So the ruler has to sweeten his generals, to keep them on his side.

The man who has the loyalty of the armed forces is the one who controls the state, anywhere. It is only when the generals turn against a dictator that he has to go. Can you imagine the generals turning against Korea Kim? However one might begin to imagine them turning against Putin?

Yes, they do. But fear and police are neutralized when the citizens are armed and can resist them. It's a very easy concept to understand and it works at the most basic level. For example, when I was a kid I was constantly bullied. So I hit the weight room. The bullies were afraid of me, so they left me alone. Dictators understand this. So you will notice that the same politicians who keep pushing for the disarming of their citizens are the exact same politicians who were shutting down small businesses, trying to force the Covid vaccine, passing laws that made it easier to track your bank accounts, keep trying to make government bigger, keep raising taxes and making new taxes, etc. It's not a coincidence. I think we talked about it on here before, but the first time politicians pushed hard for gun control laws (in the U.S.) was because black people were arming themselves against corrupt cops. The cops were afraid of them, so politicians passed laws against open carry so that way the police could go back to harassing black people. The most honest politician is one who is afraid of his/her citizens.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..So you will notice that the same politicians who keep pushing for the disarming of their citizens are the exact same politicians who were shutting down small businesses, trying to force the Covid vaccine, passing laws that made it easier to track your bank accounts..

Hmm .. I don't see the necessity of personalizing the debate.
There is clearly a problem, if people living in cities do not feel safe, and think that
arming themselves is the answer.
That is not the hallmark of civilization .. it is its destruction.

..the first time politicians pushed hard for gun control laws (in the U.S.) was because black people were arming themselves against corrupt cops..

Are you sure? .. Mass unemployment & ensuing violence happened earlier in the 20th. century too.

 

[RJM]

But fear and police are neutralized when the citizens are armed and can resist them

I think oppressive states that control the military and security apparatus are not neutralized by citizen assault rifles. The US military aren't afraid of citizen rifles. In the end you get a David Koresh standoff situation that can only end one way.

I think citizen firearms are for citizens to defend themselves against street muggers, home invaders and liquor store robbers. A shotgun under the counter. No need for citizen militias with military assault rifles. It is these type of weapons that are most commonly used in school shootings and so on, imo. Why do citizens demand to own them?

black people were arming themselves against corrupt cops. The cops were afraid of them

Citizens who confront the police with firearms? By the time it's reached that stage it's going to take more than guns to solve the problem?

 

[moralorel]

Hmm .. I don't see the necessity of personalizing the debate.
There is clearly a problem, if people living in cities do not feel safe, and think that
arming themselves is the answer.
That is not the hallmark of civilization .. it is its destruction.


Are you sure? .. Mass unemployment & ensuing violence happened earlier in the 20th. century too.

Personalizing? I'm making a logical point. If someone wants to take away your right to bear arms, first look at them and figure out their personal motive. Do you notice that they are trying to take away many other rights as well? You're most likely dealing with a tyrannical entity.

That being said, I'm not saying guns are the answer. Fear is the answer. Do criminals fear the consequences they will face if they commit a crime? No? Then they will commit that crime, including hurting another human. If government entities are doing their job correctly, then people won't feel the need to arm themselves. But if they don't do their job properly.... or prove that they are the enemy... then people start to arm themselves.

And yes, I am quite sure. My attached article is about how California tried using their old gun laws as a way to support their new gun laws. But there is a problem. They are ALL racist gun laws. They acknowledged this, but still used these laws to justify stricter gun laws. Gun control in the U.S. was being used to disarm anyone who wasn't white. It wasn't being used to make the country safe. Never was and still isn't.

If we must rely on 'history and tradition' to assess gun laws, does racist history count?

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on modern gun laws, California cited precedents involving enslaved people and other minorities in defending background checks.

www.latimes.com

 

[moralorel]

I think oppressive states that control the military and security apparatus are not neutralized by citizen assault rifles. The US military aren't afraid of citizen rifles. In the end you get a David Koresh standoff situation that can only end one way.

I think citizen firearms are for citizens to defend themselves against street muggers, home invaders and liquor store robbers. A shotgun under the counter. No need for citizen militias with military assault rifles. It is these type of weapons that are most commonly used in school shootings and so on, imo. Why do citizens demand to own them?

Citizens who confront the police with firearms? By the time it's reached that stage it's going to take more than guns to solve the problem?

That's what you think, but you're making a few false assumptions... and some contradictions.

1. Coming from a military family, I can tell you that the military is definitely afraid of civilians who are armed. But as you claim, they are armed with military assault rifles. If your claim is true, which it's not, then the military should be afraid. Many Americans have AR-15s. These are NOT military assault rifles... they aren't even assault rifles. Americans are NOT allowed to own military assault rifles.

2. The United States was not founded with the belief that its citizens could only be armed for self-defense against burglars. Many of our citizens used their family rifles in the war to gain independence. Our nation didn't start caring about gun control until they realized that Native Americans and African Americans would have the right to bear arms if they became citizens. So gun control began "for our safety".
Shotgun under the counter? A shotgun is an awful weapon for self-defense unless you don't mind killing innocent bystanders... or don't feel the need to be able to hit your target efficiently.

3. The most common gun used in shootings is a handgun. My country gives tons of attention to mass murderers and wonders why so many copycats pop up. Citizens demand to own handguns for protection and recreation. They are the most basic form of firearm. Our country also resists giving up our guns because we see what happens in other countries. Look at Australia. They took school children out of the schools and vaccinated them without parental permission. They arrested anyone who resisted and also resisted anyone who was outside at the wrong time during the pandemic and charged them with outrageous fines. How could they get away with this? Because they recently disarmed their citizens. Their citizens couldn't fight back.

4. Citizens who confront police with firearms? You have it backwards. Armed police come to a harass a colored citizen. They notice that they are armed. They back off. The African American citizens of California were sick of corrupt cops harassing them. So they carried guns openly. They didn't care about the white people who had guns. They complained about black people having guns. So our government started passing gun control laws to stop this from happening. A corrupt government has no power if its police are afraid of its citizens.

 

[moralorel]

Here is the situation I mentioned about why open carry laws started. Black people were sick of being lynched so they started carrying guns. Republicans and Democrats came together for gun control but did nothing to stop the violence against blacks, violence often coming from corrupt police.

"More radical voices, including Malcolm X and leading members of the Black Panthers, believed that “nonviolence” was a lie that would only put more African-Americans at risk. Charles C.W. Cooke, online editor of the National Review, told MTV News, “America had a tyranny in it. It was just not perpetrated against white people. America had a tyranny in the South, and people were lynched. It was institutionalized, organized violence.” Better to be armed and able to defend oneself than to give up one’s rights, the thinking went."

"On May 2, 1967, a group of Black Panthers took to the steps of the California Legislature carrying revolvers, shotguns, and pistols and read a statement saying, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late.” In a direct response to the incident, Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act, banning the open carry of loaded weapons, barely two months later. Guns were “a ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will,” he said

 

[RJM]

Ok. But my question is why people demand to have the sort of rifles that are only designed for killing people. Shotguns, pistols and revolvers are adequate for self protection.

It is the repeater type rifles that are mostly used in school shootings and similar incidents. The army and security apparatus is not going to be defeated by citizen militias armed with rifles.

What's the reason to have them? Are they all preparing for a post-apocalyptic Mad Max world?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Personalizing? I'm making a logical point. If someone wants to take away your right to bear arms, first look at them and figure out their personal motive. Do you notice that they are trying to take away many other rights as well? You're most likely dealing with a tyrannical entity..

I don't see it like that.
I see that it depends on what is going on in society, whether it is necessary to carry weapons.

Clearly, the US is a big country .. what is right for one state, would not necessarily be
right for another.

Gun control in the U.S. was being used to disarm anyone who wasn't white. It wasn't being used to make the country safe. Never was and still isn't..

A nation will not change, until it's people change.

 

[wil]

The citizenry of the US does not have the capability to fight the feds...not even the states...nor many local jurisdictions. Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan brought back many amored humvees and attack vehicles which are now part of the fleets in your local national guards, state city and county law enforcement departments.

 

[moralorel]

I don't see it like that.
I see that it depends on what is going on in society, whether it is necessary to carry weapons.

Clearly, the US is a big country .. what is right for one state, would not necessarily be
right for another.


A nation will not change, until it's people change.

I definitely agree that the people need to change. We never fix our problems, we just shift blame. Irrational incidents, such as mass shootings, always result in people coming up with irrational solutions. Gun control is often the irrational solution. But let me give you a different example.

In my state a little girl was reported missing. The next day she was found raped and beat to death. In the United States we have what we call an Amber Alert. If a child is missing and the police know who has taken them, an alert will go out to everyone's cell phone and will be go out on the news. But nobody knew who took her at the time. So no Amber Alert was sent out. So the citizens of my state got together and pushed for legislation to require Amber Alerts for ANY child that is missing no matter how much information was available. The problem is that Amber Alerts will be very frequent and most people will disregard them because of how numerous they will be. And there is one other big issue. The girl was already dead when she was reported missing. But to this day people claim we could've saved her life if an Amber Alert went out. They don't care that their irrational response could hurt more children than it will help. That is how gun control works. We don't want to change, so we just blame guns. Oh, and that girl? Almost 200 tips came in on who her assailant was. 200 people accurately gave a tip on who they thought assaulted her. But nobody stepped in to stop the incident from happening.

I have personally interviewed parents who had children at the Columbine school during that shooting. These parents told me how they keep warning others about the warning signs of children who might commit a mass shooting. They are ignored. Not one of these parents blamed guns. But they told me that nobody wants to listen to their advice. Everyone just makes the massacre a political message and focuses on guns. Until we heal from these massacres and can bond together as a society and be remotely decent to each other, these mass shootings will keep happening.

 

[moralorel]

The citizenry of the US does not have the capability to fight the feds...not even the states...nor many local jurisdictions. Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan brought back many amored humvees and attack vehicles which are now part of the fleets in your local national guards, state city and county law enforcement departments.

You are definitely wrong there. I have been told by many experts around the world that Americans eat breakfast every morning with a plate of bacon, a bottle of whiskey, a pack of cigarettes, an assault rifle by their side, and a Bible on their laps. So everyone is afraid of us, including the Feds.

And I don't even like bacon. That's probably the most offensive thing I've said on here.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Irrational incidents, such as mass shootings, always result in people coming up with irrational solutions. Gun control is often the irrational solution..

You might not agree with it, but I don't know how it can be deemed irrational.
..but then, I live in the UK, where the number of guns in circulation is tightly controlled.

As you probably know, only a small number of police officers are armed in the UK.
eg. serious crime squad or terrorist related

..I have personally interviewed parents who had children at the Columbine school during that shooting. These parents told me how they keep warning others about the warning signs of children who might commit a mass shooting. They are ignored. Not one of these parents blamed guns. But they told me that nobody wants to listen to their advice..

It is not a question of whether "guns are to blame" .. it is a question of statistics.
It is not unreasonable to think that crimes involving guns is likely to increase with the number in circulation, I would have thought.