RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban

RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

UncleNasty -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 1:33:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: UncleNasty How about the Tianamin Square debacle. Could that have happened with universal gun ownership? Are you honestly claiming that some handguns and rifles in the hands of those protesters would have stopped the columns of armored vehicles that assaulted the square? When you have an armed government and an unarmed citizenry the government can do, and as history has shown us repeatedly, will do whatever they want, mostly with little to no effective resistance. There are more examples of this than I care to list here. If you've managed to have missed them all.... Well, I don't what to say about that. One weapon, or several weapons, of small calibre would have had little impact on a column of tanks, so I make no claims, honest or otherwise, in that regard. I expect though that if you asked the people in the square that day (I think actually it was days), or the general populace of China, if they would prefer to have weapons and be able to protect themselves from a tyranical and oppressive government that they would largely answer yes. Uncle Nasty

Thadius -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 1:37:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UncleNasty I expect though that if you asked the people in the square that day (I think actually it was days), or the general populace of China, if they would prefer to have weapons and be able to protect themselves from a tyranical and oppressive government that they would largely answer yes. Uncle Nasty It is quite possible that if the citizens had been armed, that there wouldn't have been the demonstration. This of course is speculation on my part, but definitely something to think about.

Zensee -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 1:45:02 PM)
Seems to me an angry mob of citizens, waving domestic firearms at a government protected by a professional army is a recipe for a bloodbath. (Even throwing rocks at tanks can get kids killed in some parts of the world...) And any way, isn't the mere contemplation of any act of violence, in an attempt to coerce the government, an act of terror now, and subject to extreme sanction? I'm sorry but the romantic notion of the people of the USA, rising up with their deer rifles and 38 specials, to cast out an oppressive government, cannot be taken seriously. Z.

UncleNasty -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 1:53:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: UncleNasty Do you suppose the South African government could have maitained apartheid if gun ownership had been universal? How about the Tianamin Square debacle. Could that have happened with universal gun ownership? On the other hand there is a fair amount of gun ownership in the US and still the citizens let themselves get pushed around quite a bit. Uncle Nasty Under Your hypotheticals the South African Government while maintaining aparthied somehow allows blacks to have guns in which to overthrow aparthied...Then we have Tianaman Square where You would have us picture the young man staring down the tank with what ...a bazooka...would the world have been so moved if he had one...Personally the courage demonstrated by the one young man in that quintsential photograph, is Tianaman Square...put a gun in his hands and the message isn't as moving or telling ... Your comments seem to me to be particularly selfish and arrogant. The message you're ultimately referring to, and lauding, is the deaths of the people on site that day. Those people made a conscious choice to protest, and perhaps die in the process, in order that their voices be heard. I have little doubt they would have used weapons to express themselves, to make their voices heard, to try to affect the changes they were so committed to. Because of the oppressive government that controlled them, AND HAD CONFISCATED AND OUTLAWED PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GUNS, they had nothing but potential photo ops to offer as a defense of their lives. Your selfish reward for those human beings deaths is a "moving" poster on your wall. Your poster - thier lives. That doesn't seem equitable to me. I'm sure it doesn't seem equitable to them either. Uncle Nasty

DomKen -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 1:56:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UncleNasty quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: UncleNasty How about the Tianamin Square debacle. Could that have happened with universal gun ownership? Are you honestly claiming that some handguns and rifles in the hands of those protesters would have stopped the columns of armored vehicles that assaulted the square? When you have an armed government and an unarmed citizenry the government can do, and as history has shown us repeatedly, will do whatever they want, mostly with little to no effective resistance. There are more examples of this than I care to list here. If you've managed to have missed them all.... Well, I don't what to say about that. One weapon, or several weapons, of small calibre would have had little impact on a column of tanks, so I make no claims, honest or otherwise, in that regard. I expect though that if you asked the people in the square that day (I think actually it was days), or the general populace of China, if they would prefer to have weapons and be able to protect themselves from a tyranical and oppressive government that they would largely answer yes. Uncle Nasty That is one of the most astonishly dumb things I've read here in a long time. Consider this very carefully. the Chinese government was willing to turn the army on its own people. The People's Army, what China calls its army, did not refuse to slaughter civilians but went to it with gusto. There's no evidence that any troops mutinied and refused to kill their own people. Even if every civilian in China owned a modern civilian firearm with plenty of ammunition that outcome would have been identical beyond more civilians getting slaughtered. Deer rifles and shotguns do not stop APC's and tanks. A squad of even moderately well trained and motivated troops is going to defeat many times their own numbers of civilians with little or no training and no organized units or higher command structure to allow the use of tactics. Guns in the hands of every American will not guarantee our freedoms and thinking that is so is silly. What keeps us free from a tyrranical government is that our military cannot be relied upon to slaughter peaceful protesters simply because the POTUS gave that order.

Slavehandsome -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 2:16:23 PM)
Its important that those people we pay taxes to, to maintain the idea of gun ownership as a viable right to being a US taxpayer. Everybody here is talking about Tianamen Square, like its some isolated event. Waco Texas, a shining star of the Clinton administration, is just another example of how any government will slaughter innocent civilians if they decide to. Scalar technology was outlawed by the U.N. in the 1970s, and supposedly prevents any country from using revved-up nature as a weapon of mass destruction, yet look at what's happening these days. Since the end of the Cold War, nobody is here to challenge the emergent winner and single global dominant superpower on this issue. Instead of debating this thread, perhaps it might be easier to debate Democrats vs. Republicans, or talk about how nothing is getting cheaper. Maybe we'd make some progress there. LOL

DomKen -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 2:36:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome Waco Texas, a shining star of the Clinton administration, is just another example of how any government will slaughter innocent civilians if they decide to. The facts of the Waco case are quite different than you make them out to be. The Marshalls were fired upon when trying to serve the warrant. When the tear gas was safely introduced into the buildings the cult leadership set the fires that killed most of their people and shot anyone who tried to flee. In short despite a propoganda campaign aimed at gullible fools the facts remain, the US government did not slaughter anyone at Waco and clearly took many steps to preserve as many lives as possible.

jlf1961 -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 2:45:18 PM)
Okay, lets look at a hypothetical popular uprising in china after Tianamin square. Everyone is pointing at the tanks and saying, 'It would have been a massacre.' There are many ways of dealing with tanks, the czechs did a very good job with Soviet tanks when the soviets rolled in and put a Communist leader in power. You see, a few malatov coctails will make the inside of a tank very uncomfortable. Plus, there is one thing that the Chicom tanks had in common with the T34 and T54 soviet tanks they were copied from.... very small ports with ballastic glass in them. This makes it hard to see. So to deal with that problem the tankers would normally operate with these ports open so they can see what is going on. So PFC WanChang is driving his tank with viewport open so he can see where he is going, reb runs out from between two buildings and tosses a malatov cocktail at said tank. With those viewports open, the burning gasoline gets inside the tank, and with in seconds the tank crew BAILS OUT. If you waited and let them pass you then tossed four of five malatovs on the back deck, things got interesting, since diesel needs something to ignite it, and flaming gas would do a very good job in that respect, tank fuel catches fire and you have crispy fried tank crew. There isnt a tank around that cant be stopped with some simple little measure, which is why tanks usually operate with infantry. Of course if you can pin down the ground pounders, taking out the turtles (tanks) is a simple matter, and can be accomplished with malatov cocktails, industrial explosives, or even shoving heavy steel bars into the bogie wheels, which will cause the thing to throw a tread. Armor is not invincible. All you need to be is crazy enough to put your balls on the line to take it out. Of course, it is still legal for private citizens in china to use bows to hunt and fish, and the VC did a lot of damage with bows against ground pounders.

MissIsis -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 2:45:42 PM)
You know, I could never see myself owning a gun. But I love our country & respect the right of individuals to be able to protect them. I don't see how the justices could have come down with any other decision, nor would I expect them too. On most issues, I consider myself a liberal, but that really has nothing to do with my opinions. As much as I am personally terrified of guns, I think this decision was a win for the American people. Most people here seem to be commenting on just a few of the incidents in fairly recent times that have been politically volatile. There are so many others that history seems to have forgotten. Incidents where people were gathered up by governments & sent away from their homes. It happened in Nova Scotia, shortly after the government decided to take away the firearms of the farmers. The men were gathered under threat of having their lands taken away. Wives & children were separated from their husbands. Families were split up as they were put on ships & sent away. There was one incident during that time when a ship taking these people to France started to sink. The captain & his crew locked the people on board & got themselves out of harms way, while the entire ship sank. Our forefathers lived in a time when they had to fight the English government in order for us to become a free nation. They saw the importance of the right to bear arms. And in our lifetimes, unfortunately, we have heard it happen over & over again in other countries, like China, & Africa, & during WW2. How many children have had to die during mass murders from crazies walking into our schools? These people know the damage they can do before law enforcement comes on the scene. They are sane enough to know that the principals & the teachers & others in the school will not be able to stop them because they are not allowed to carry a weapon. I know full well, how many innocent children are being shot to death in the streets of Chicago, & other places. Most reasonable people that may be in a position to stop the bloodshed are rendered incapacitated by their lack of a weapon because their right to bear arms is threatened. Is it possible if people know there are people carrying weapons that could stop their violence, that maybe they would think 2ce about taking a life that isn't there own, if there is such a danger of theirs being placed in jeapardy? I don't know. These are questions that may have no clear cut answer. All I do know is that the constitution guarantees us, as citizens, the right to bear arms. We may not always like the consequences, but I do believe the men, (and the women, who's counsel they may have listened to,) loved our country enough to provide all in its power for us to protect it, & us, as it's citizens.

DomKen -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 3:16:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Okay, lets look at a hypothetical popular uprising in china after Tianamin square. Everyone is pointing at the tanks and saying, 'It would have been a massacre.' Are you claiming it wouldn't have been? Molotov's worked against early WWII tanks because they didn't have much in the way of environmental controls and were designed to be operated with hatches open. The Type 69 (Chinese made improved T-54), the film of the lone man slowing the tank column clearly shows the distinctive gap between the first and second road wheels, has NBC warfare systems including their own limited air supply. This would mean that a tank company might lose one tank and then the slaughter would continue with the tankls buttoned up. Immobilizing a tank is ineffective unless you have some way of destroying it so running up and throwing crowbars into the road wheels will just result in a fixed strongpoint for the tankers until they can regain control of the area and get out and put the tread back on or get an engineering vehicle up to tow it back to the rear area. It should be taken into acccount that photos from the attack on the square quite clearly shows Chinese APC's covered with flames indicative of being hit by at least one molotov. Shockingly the square was still taken. Believing that no tank designer since 1940 has taken into account the possibility of urban irregulars throwing flaming liquid at tanks is laughable. Forgeting that modern tanks usually have at least two machineguns, one coaxial with the main gun and on on the bow, that can be fired from within the tank is difficult to understand.

Slavehandsome -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 3:27:41 PM)
Dom Ken, You're mistaken. The reason that the front door is missing from their home in Waco, is because the FBI took it and classified it so that it can't be used as evidence that Delta Force fired into the home. Furthermore, the military-grade CS gas (not tear gas as you wrote) was not "safely introduced into the building", anymore than the atomic bomb was "safely introduced" into the town of Hiroshima. The Clinton White House had to approve the deployment of Delta Force, which is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. Nixon also authorized the deployment of the U.S. Army to "safely introduce" artillery into a second story apartment where some Black Panthers were holed up. As for the fires, Delta Force took a survey to determine what the best way to burn the building would be. It was determined that to rip holes in the front, side and rear of the home would provide the most rapid spread should there be a fire. Suddenly the next day, there was a fire. If you want to study how that fire started, find some video of the tanks circling the building and you'll find some truth. Please don't proliferate a government message that the government agents acted morally, civilly, legally and with the American taxpayers best interests at heart. Heart.....hmph.

MmeGigs -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 3:36:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Just at the parts that were untrue. Like the Kellerman hoax, and your earlier claim that 'the people' in the 2nd amendment only means the government of the states, not individuals. I have no idea what the Kellerman hoax is, and googling it only turned up references to works of fiction. When I made the claim about "the people", I was right. That was the law of the land at the time that I posted, and had been for many years. It just changed yesterday. If you actually read what I posted, you would have seen that I didn't come down against the decision. I'm not sure how I feel about it yet - I see some good things and some bad things about it. I understood the DC ban but I didn't agree with it. I'm all for strict standards where they make sense, but I'm fundamentally opposed to outright bans on stuff that's legal in another context. I was neither surprised nor dismayed that it was overturned. I was pleased that they made clear that there will still be legal restrictions on gun ownership. That should go without saying - all of our rights are subject to restrictions - but considering the adamant stand of some pro-gun folks it is good that they were explicit about this. Which restrictions will stand and which will fall will be duked out in the courts. I was rather dismayed that the majority decision reached into issues not raised by the case before them, but not terribly surprised considering that it came from Scalia - I think he's an angry and cynical man. This could have been an unequivocal decision with a clear majority, it could have provided some guidance to lower courts in future decision making, but instead it has really just muddied things up and pretty much begs for all kinds of challenges. As I said, it's going to be a great time to be a lawyer with 2nd Amendment cred. The pro-gun and anti-gun folks are going to be rabidly searching for test cases and our appellate courts are going to be jammed at a time when they're seeing their resources diminish. It may ultimately be a good thing for the courts, budget-wise. They'll have an easier time making the case that they need more money when elected officials are getting loads of complaints about unseemly delays in getting cases heard. I'm willing to wait and see how it all shakes out before forming a final opinion about this decision. I'm really pretty bemused by the pro-gun folks who think that this is the final word on the subject and don't realize what a limited and fragile victory this is. They should talk to NARAL.

DomKen -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 3:43:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome Dom Ken, You're mistaken. The reason that the front door is missing from their home in Waco, is because the FBI took it and classified it so that it can't be used as evidence that Delta Force fired into the home. Furthermore, the military-grade CS gas (not tear gas as you wrote) was not "safely introduced into the building", anymore than the atomic bomb was "safely introduced" into the town of Hiroshima. The Clinton White House had to approve the deployment of Delta Force, which is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. Nixon also authorized the deployment of the U.S. Army to "safely introduce" artillery into a second story apartment where some Black Panthers were holed up. As for the fires, Delta Force took a survey to determine what the best way to burn the building would be. It was determined that to rip holes in the front, side and rear of the home would provide the most rapid spread should there be a fire. Suddenly the next day, there was a fire. If you want to study how that fire started, find some video of the tanks circling the building and you'll find some truth. Please don't proliferate a government message that the government agents acted morally, civilly, legally and with the American taxpayers best interests at heart. Heart.....hmph. So you've seen that piece of crap movie with the lies. I'm feeling lazy so I'll just post a link to the last time I had to explain all this: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1082065

Thadius -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 3:46:55 PM)
I suppose you would point to Ruby Ridge, as another fine use of tax dollars and a well executed plan. Just making conversation.

DomKen -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 4:00:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius I suppose you would point to Ruby Ridge, as another fine use of tax dollars and a well executed plan. Just making conversation. You would suppose incorrectly. I've read a lot about the case and while locking up Randy Weaver and other violent racist thugs is an unmitigated good thing the government should not use an informant to entice anyone to break the law and then use that fact to coerce that person to become an informant. However Weaver did miss a court date which always results in an arrest warrant being issued. It is unfortunate that there was some sort of miscommunication over what the actual court date was but ultimately if the US Marshalls show up with a warrant for your arrest and you and your heavily armed friend and family retreat into a defensible position you are eventually going to be arrested and you family and friend are at risk only because of your actions.

Thadius -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 4:06:47 PM)
Isn't that exactly how the government had gained information on the Waco compound? Using an infomant? I would point you to a much more recent raid, that occured without the masses being slaughtered (even if I do have some questions about the legality of it). Law enforcement agents are trained professionals, and thus should be able to maintain some semblence of contol on their trigger fingers, especially knowing that there are other people (children and women) in the vicinity.

DomAviator -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 4:08:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Slavehandsome The Clinton White House had to approve the deployment of Delta Force, which is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. Nixon also authorized the deployment of the U.S. Army to "safely introduce" artillery into a second story apartment where some Black Panthers were holed up. As for the fires, Delta Force took a survey to determine what the best way to burn the building would be. It was determined that to rip holes in the front, side and rear of the home would provide the most rapid spread should there be a fire. Suddenly the next day, there was a fire. If you want to study how that fire started, find some video of the tanks circling the building and you'll find some truth. Please don't proliferate a government message that the government agents acted morally, civilly, legally and with the American taxpayers best interests at heart. Heart.....hmph. The bolded statement above is inaccurate. I am no fan of Clinton by any means, but Special Forces Operational Detatchment Delta is NOT covered by the Posse Comitatus act. Delta, along with the US Navy Seals DEVGRU unit are "anti-terrorist" units. It could be very easily argued that an armed seige by an organized group resisting Federal Authority are involved in an insurrection or terrorist activities against the lawful govt. There is NOTHING wrong with firing artillery at the Black Panthers as they are a domestic terror organization. There is nothing wrong with sending Delta to take out a seiged force that has essentially ceceeded from the Union. That is what the military is for, to act as the muscle of the govt and to protect and defend the Constitution. The constitution does not say you can hole yourself up armed to the teeth in a compound, ignore lawful orders to surrender, and shoot federal agents serving a warrant. Delta supressed an insurrection by an armed organized group denying Federal authority, it did not act as a private police force. Frankly, I was in the service at the time that happened and I would have cheerfully gone up and bombed the building flat if ordered to... I cant stomach clinton but this one he was right about.

jlf1961 -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 4:21:25 PM)
I wonder what the anti gun lobby would do if they discovered that you can buy a working full size replica of a civil war cannon for just over $2500.00 Oh, wait, you cant conceal a cannon under your coat......

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 4:28:56 PM)
Shit, there are so many much cooler things to do with two and a half grand than to buy a stupid gun replica rofl! Talk about blowing money up in smoke :-).

Thadius -> RE: Supreme Court strikes down handgun ban (6/27/2008 4:32:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Shit, there are so many much cooler things to do with two and a half grand than to buy a stupid gun replica rofl! Talk about blowing money up in smoke :-). Not really, because the replica firing gatling guns, cost $6000. http://www.circlekb.com/page/CKCG/CTGY/gatling [8D]

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02