Really? Last time I checked for someone to say the holocaust didn’t happen is a crime there. I can say anything I want here in the US, as long as it isnt a threat or w/e
It’s not against the law in Australia or New Zealand to say that the Holocaust didn’t happen- not that anyone takes Holocaust Deniers seriously anyway.
Oh, and New Zealand has a really high percentage of gun owners, too. 
Heh. Do you suppose that is correlated with gun ownership or…something else?
Word.
First, as Doors rightly stated, it’s a right I am allowed to exercise.
I believe that the protection of the constitution is 4th on the list of things that I am charging my weapon ownership with protecting, 1 is my family, 2 is my job 3 is my home and belongings 4 is the constitution, and I will explain what I mean:
The fact that I own a gun means that it is, for today, a legal activity. History, I think will see the overall population of gun owners as it sees those in the media, as defenders of the rights granted to us by this document which draws power from our collective existance as a nation. The government does not give us power or freedom, we lend our power and our freedom to the government.
I am not in a militia, nor do I believe they truly exist in America.
Yes. I believe I (we) do have a chance. The truth is that the American military is, as evidenced in our current conflicts, poor at fighting a disconnected seemingly unorganized enemy. The military tends to fight in a box, when you change the structure of the box so dramatically, as they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a major learning curve. As it stands, there are 1,436,642 members in active duty add another 848,056 for reservists and you have a total of 2,284,698 members of the military add 836,787 cops from all ranks, locales and agencies and you have 3,121,485 men and women ready to stand and defend the government.
That’s roughly 1% of the population overall and not all of them, in fact few of them are currently on American soil, we’ll take 15% out of that which is 468,222. . Remove another 5% for unfitness for duty, injury, disibility etc. That removes 156,074 leaving 2,497,189 soldiers and cops.
If estimates are correct, there are between 40 and 80 million gun owners in America who own between 190 and 300 million guns.
For the sake of argument, let’s say there are 60 million gun owners, even if 10 percent of the gun owners took up their arms against the the US military, that means the military will be outmanned 2/1. Let’s say that each of gun owner has two guns a piece, all on American Soil, that’s 120 million guns which hold, on average 10 rounds per, that’s 1.2billion rounds of ammunition that stands ready at any given time to defend this country from any enemy, foreign or domestic.
That draws pretty stark lines and makes all sorts of assumptions but on the point of units alone, the US military is outgunned by the US citizenry. This of course makes no allowances for a quantity v. quality discussion.
With all that, I think that we are fortunate that our founders saw fit to include protections such as these in our founding documents. I think we would be at great risk without guns in our culture, not because of some impending black helicopter invasion, but because of our position as the last of the world superpowers, we remain at risk. Keeping a population armed prevents, through the sheer act of posession, aggressors at bay, at least to some extent.
Yep. I own no guns. When I was 18 I fired a step uncle’s hunting rifle at some cans once. Never felt the desire to own one. What would I do with it? I don’t like hunting do to guilt (which really makes me feel like a hypocrite for eating meat) and I can shoot targets with a bow as many times as I want for practically free (assuming I can find the arrows that miss).
Well people who’d voluntarily follow that code prolly aren’t the people you’re worried about having guns.
I agree that gun obsession is about alot more then the Bill of Rights, but most things are. I’ve noticed an unfortunate tendency for people to run to the Constitution when it supports their side, but try to ignore it when it doesn’t.
Liberals support every right except the Second Amendment while Conservatives ignore them, except guns that’s their sacred right. Not Free Speech, Freedom of Religion, and power over your own body. It’s guns for them. Guns are part of that Conservative utopia of yesteryear (that never was) dontcha know.
Different modes of thinking I guess. I suppose Libertarians follow the Constitution closely but they have their own sets of scary shit that shouldn’t never be put into law. So I side with Liberals on almost all issues but guns, In my opinion; the Conservatives are right for the wrong reasons on that.
If I was seriously in trouble with the law I would much rather be in any of those countries than in the USA. Only in the hands of the American government would I be at risk of being denied access to the legal justice system and the due process of the law, of being tortured, of being disappeared into the Gulagtanamo. And I have not seen gun owners fighting in any way against the trampling of the Constitution by the Government, not even speaking against it.
argh hit enter too soon
Renee to answer what I quoted. Thanks:)
On the national guard shooting. I honestly don’t know, but I think if degenerated to actual combat between government forces and citizen resistance (not a minor out burst at a riot) there would be quiet a few rethinking their position, but who knows? It’d be a different country then we know now for that to happen.
I forgot which thread I was in and posted this over here.
This isn’t snark; I’m seriously curious, and want to know, why people in distant countries are so interested in Americans and their guns.
Yeah. No shit. This should be in the pit for the most part. Americans and their guns. Like it’s something to be ashamed of.:rolleyes:
It’s not just America’s gun policies that interest me, it’s the world’s.
South Africa has tightened up it’s gun laws with strict but understandable requirements and prohibitions. The South African Firearms Control Act recognises our rights as citizens to “security of the person”, but it also accepts the argument that “the increased availibility and abuse of firearms and ammunition has contributed significantly to the high levels of violent crime in our society”.
This particular Act gives ordinary citizens the right to own and carry for self defence, with restrictions (such as one handgun or shotgun only). It then goes further to allow for various other categories of ownership, such as restricted self defence, occasional hunting and sports shooting, dedicated hunting and sports shooting etc etc. For each firearm one requires a licence, but more importantly, one needs a “Competency Certificate” before one can obtain any category of licence.
And more to my point, the Act requires the State appointed Registrar of Firearms to, amongst many other things, “conduct research into firearms policies”. Ostensibly this would include existing policies in other countries. And it’s for this reason I’m curious.
MYOB.
I think an armed minority is still in trouble if the government wants to get them. Waco showed what can happen.
I hope this is a whoosh. If not, then here’s my response. As someone whose vested interest could be influenced by foreign policy, my questions and curiosity are a genuine attempt to track and understand the ebb and flow of gun policies worldwide. It is not intended to be a criticism of American gun policy. Apologies if that wasn’t clear in my previous posts.
Not an accurate comparison. The Waco Wackos had no idea anyone was coming to get them until ATF’s “Operation Showboat” showed up at their compound, guns drawn, jackbooted heel drawn back to kick in their door.
You statement presupposes that anyone who might ostensibly “take up arms” against an oppressive/tyrannical gov’t. run-amok is just going to hang out a “Proud Member of the Militia (Local 149)” sign, and then just sit around waiting for the napalm to come raining down.
And I have little doubt that, if it were necessary to take down, say, “His Imperial Majesty of these Royal States of America, King George I,” thousands of gun owners would die sitting around with their thumb up their asses talking big, right until the MOAB landed.
But combat and protracted warfare have a certain Darwinian logic; the knuckleheads and uber-patriotic can go die valiantly throwing themselves, strapped to the nines with C-4, under the treads of tanks.
The smart guerilla simply plans to (and carries out) covert assassination; disruption of public utilities and services; elimination of civilian infrastructure/cadre; etc.
Like the N. Vietnamese did in the 1960s, and the Iraqi Insurgents have done (badly) since 2003. And in spite of the fact that the Iraqi’s have done guerilla warfare badly, they’ve stymied us for 5 years in a country half-again the area of Texas, with the same population.
Muiltiply that roughly by 9 for “area to control,” and 10 for “poulation to subdue” in the U.S.A.
Blowing up tanks and shooting down airplanes is only one of several ways to go about winning a war. Given the disparity of forces between J. Avergae Citizen with an AR-15 and, say, the 1st Cavalry Division, the smart guerilla stands up and sings the “We Love King George” Song, waving the flag of The Royal States of America with a smile on his face.
And then goes home and figures out how to kill the Mayor and Mayoral Staff, as well as the Chief-of-Police, local Aldermen, Federal Bureaucrats, etc., etc.,.
H.I.M. King George I may have the will to “stay the course” and keep his loyal troops standing around on streetcorners in Everytown, U.S.A. But look at the recruitment/retention problems the U.S. Armed Forces are currently having now with Iraq going on. And that’s with an all-volunteer force. Do you think H.I.M. King George I will have an all-volunteer force?
Yep. That kind of war is prosecuted more with IED’s or a .38 snubby screwed into the target’s ear than it is by cammo-clad wingnuts with AR-15’s.
It can’t be emphasized enough that the proper targets for the true insurgent are politicians, bureaucrats, cops, and other civilian government functionaries. Pop an occupying soldier when you can do it and get away with it, but they are strictly “bonus points.”
Ukranian nationalists under the leadership of Stepan Bandera knew this and prosecuted their campaigns against the Poles and Russians rather successfully. What we must learn from their example, however, is that large organizations are vulnerable to infiltration and informers. The wise guerilla, therefore, operates alone or as part of a tiny, independent cell.
The whole idea that “you couldn’t defeat the modern military” is nothing but a pointless distraction. We don’t have to defeat them. We don’t even need to engage them. The people who will need to be targeted won’t be riding around in armored fighting vehicles, piloting fighter jets, or the like. They’ll be driving to work in a sedan. They’ll be wearing business suits. They’ll be living in houses in the suburbs.
Who cares if we can’t defeat the army in the field? When the government is the problem, it is the government you target.
No. Not a constitutional protection, anyway. If there were, the Union troops could not have fought the Confederates, who from the Union p.o.v. were still Americans even while in rebellion. But there is the Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in reaction to Reconstruction, which limits the federal government’s power to use the military for law enforcement.
:rolleyes: False. That’s like saying those who sought to repeal the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) were against the Constitution and those who sought to preserve it were defending the Constitution.
Look at places like the UK and Japan, where private firearms ownership is illegal in almost all circumstances. The government is armed, the people are not. The people in those countries are no less free than you. Of course they can’t resist the state – but neither can you, armed or unarmed. Those countries are very good, very safe, and very free places to live. At the other extreme you have countries like Iraq where the people are heavily armed and the government ineffectual. That is a failed state, and not a place anyone should want to live. No one is free, no one is safe.
Your right to bear arms does not matter – or, at any rate, it matters neither more nor less than your freedom to collect stamps. The drafters of the Second Amendment assumed it would, but they were wrong. Guns are fine for hunting, but they do not make you any more of a free man. Under conditions of modern military technology, you are no greater threat to the state armed than unarmed. You are not really much greater a threat to criminals armed than unarmed. They’ll just rip off your house in the daytime when everyone’s gone; as for the kind of criminals who carry guns themselves, you’re always better off handing over your wallet than getting into a gunfight, even a two-sided one. You are more dangerous armed than unarmed to your own family and neighbors. That’s how it is.
I do not endorse any particular program of gun control, but we really do not need the Second Amendment. We would be better off if it were repealed, making gun control an ordinary political-legislative issue with no constitutional protections involved. Then various jurisdictions could experiment with gun control on a trial-and-error basis, like with everything else. The Red States would do very little experimenting at all. I would not expect much more federal legislation than we’ve already got – there’s just no political consensus for it, even with the current composition of Congress.
So then you wind up with the sort of society where only the military, police, secret service, and FBI have guns. Oh, and criminals. That’s not the sort of society I want to live in.