quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

No, we want to keep private ownership of guns because of the simple fact that 200+ years ago we learned a lesson about a tyrannical government and what it will do to basic human rights.

The government is already tyrannical .....

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

No, we want to keep private ownership of guns because of the simple fact that 200+ years ago we learned a lesson about a tyrannical government and what it will do to basic human rights.

The government is already tyrannical .....

If, as you claim, your government is "already tyrannical", then it automatically follows that your 2nd Amendment rights have not succeeded in preventing, or protecting citizens from, a tyrannical government.

As there doesn't appear to be any prospect of the "already tyrannical" US Govt succumbing to a popular revolt by armed citizens on the horizon, then it would appear that your 2nd Amendment rights inasmuch as they were there to prevent tyranny, or provide a means enabling citizens to remove a tyrannical government, have turned out to be a complete dud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It would be short. "The People" wouldn't stand a chance in a real war vs. the U.S. Military.

Yeah, I know, in your fantasy, the military joins your cause. Good luck with that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

As there doesn't appear to be any prospect of the "already tyrannical" US Govt succumbing to a popular revolt by armed citizens on the horizon, then it would appear that your 2nd Amendment rights inasmuch as they were there to prevent tyranny, or provide a means enabling citizens to remove a tyrannical government, have turned out to be a complete dud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Nope. Wrong again.

But I'm glad you're an ACLU supporter.

And again, it's common knowledge, even NRA acknowledged history, that the NRA took a sharp turn in 1977, come to be known as "The Cincinnati Revolution" -- the name of which should clarify that this was NOT the historical NRA anymore.

In fact, Karl Frederick, NRA President in 1934, during congressional NFA hearings (the National Firearms Act of 1934 - NFA - became the first federal gun-control law passed in the U.S.) testified "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses." The NRA supported the NFA along with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which together created a system to federally license gun dealers and established restrictions on particular categories and classes of firearms.

They didn't dance and whine and shout about the 2nd Amendment -- they understood the need for sensible laws and regulations that in fact help protect that right for all citizens (vs. the criminals and nutcases).

After 1977, the organization expanded its membership by focusing heavily on political issues and forming coalitions with conservative politicians, most of them Republicans. Hence the "conservative" label associated with today's NRA nuttiness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Contemporary_history

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

As there doesn't appear to be any prospect of the "already tyrannical" US Govt succumbing to a popular revolt by armed citizens on the horizon, then it would appear that your 2nd Amendment rights inasmuch as they were there to prevent tyranny, or provide a means enabling citizens to remove a tyrannical government, have turned out to be a complete dud.

Aha - but one day there'll be that last straw on the camel's back, then ... BOOM! Millions of American gunsters will rise up against the government. In an instant they will see through all the decades of right wing propaganda that has successfully convinced them so far that it's one or other group at the bottom - homosexuals, Mexicans, immigrants, black gangstas, the poor, etc, etc, etc - that's been oppressing them, and realise that it's actually the rich and powerful, after all. In the *very next instant* they'll all join together in one cohesive force. As all un-egotistical people, *entirely devoid of any pompous self-righteousness*, they'll each realise the natural leadership qualities of one person amongst them and, as inherently socially-inclined people, will readily work together. Moreover, already fighting-fit - because American gunsters are noted for exercising rigorously and keeping that lard of their bellies - they'll soon become a disciplined force like none other. Without delay, they'll take out the US military, with all its fighter jets, tanks, artillery and not to mention those drones, in a way that's never been managed by the slack, lazy, overfed slobs (with their cossetted third world lives) that have made up all the African and Middle-Eastern groups the American Military has fought to date.

I'm sorry, but I've had that sarcasm building up in my system for ages now - it was *going* to explode at some point. But, really - I mean - have you *ever* seen anything more ludicrous on this forum than this thing of silly old American gunster dinosaurs and their noble Second Amendment ideas of 'Oh yes, we can fight the Oppressive American State'? And considering some of the stiff competition we see here on this forum in terms of utterly stupid and inane views, that's quite an achievement. It's leagues beyond ridiculous.

quote:


Please tell me how the might of your military was able to successfully retain The British Empire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


Please tell me how the might of your military was able to successfully retain The British Empire.

Why? Will ancient history make you feel in some way better about the 2nd Amendment and your chances of taking on the American Military now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


Please tell me how the might of your military was able to successfully retain The British Empire.

Why? Will ancient history make you feel in some way better about the 2nd Amendment and your chances of taking on the American Military now?

If you'd prefer something more recent, please tell me how the might of your military was immediately successful in Iraq and Afghanistan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

You have again mentioned "sensible laws and regulations". What, in your eyes, are "sensible laws and regulations" and how do they differ from the existing laws and regulations surrounding the legal purchase of firearms?

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

You have again mentioned "sensible laws and regulations". What, in your eyes, are "sensible laws and regulations" and how do they differ from the existing laws and regulations surrounding the legal purchase of firearms?

He's (Musicmystery) been asked this same question several times on other threads but he hasn't ever given a straight answer. At least we know where the Brits and Ausies on this board along with some of our own politicians here at home stand, bans on an entire class of firearms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
He's (Musicmystery) been asked this same question several times on other threads but he hasn't ever given a straight answer. At least we know where the Brits and Ausies on this board along with some of our own politicians here at home stand, bans on an entire class of firearms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Nope. Wrong again.

But I'm glad you're an ACLU supporter.

And again, it's common knowledge, even NRA acknowledged history, that the NRA took a sharp turn in 1977, come to be known as "The Cincinnati Revolution" -- the name of which should clarify that this was NOT the historical NRA anymore.

In fact, Karl Frederick, NRA President in 1934, during congressional NFA hearings (the National Firearms Act of 1934 - NFA - became the first federal gun-control law passed in the U.S.) testified "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. ... I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses." The NRA supported the NFA along with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which together created a system to federally license gun dealers and established restrictions on particular categories and classes of firearms.

They didn't dance and whine and shout about the 2nd Amendment -- they understood the need for sensible laws and regulations that in fact help protect that right for all citizens (vs. the criminals and nutcases).

After 1977, the organization expanded its membership by focusing heavily on political issues and forming coalitions with conservative politicians, most of them Republicans. Hence the "conservative" label associated with today's NRA nuttiness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Contemporary_history

I am familiar with the history of the NRA but thank you for continuing to copy and paste from Wikipedia.

You appear to dodge or ignore questions asking for something substantial or concrete with "Nope, wrong again"-style responses. You have again mentioned "sensible laws and regulations". What, in your eyes, are "sensible laws and regulations" and how do they differ from the existing laws and regulations surrounding the legal purchase of firearms? When one uses subjective words like "sensible", views are left open to interpretation. For instance, I believe a sensible gun law is to end the tax stamp and government involvement required to purchase a suppressor (aka "silencer") or short-barreled rifle. I believe it is sensible to pursue action against would-be firearm purchasers found to be lying on their ATF-4473 form(s). I believe it is sensible to encourage concealed carry laws and end so-called "gun-free zones" because one should be able to defend against "criminals and nutcases".

As you thanked me for my involvement in the ACLU yet not the SAF or NRA, it would seem that you do not support the entirety of the Bill of Rights. Which rights specifically do you support? Do you believe eliminating a single right (or multiple rights) would affect other rights?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
I'm not interested and don't care, ifmaz. My country doesn't have a 2nd Amendment and there's no talk here of how our citizens might, hypothetically, fight the British Military. We don't have that lunatic debate here. It's too absurd for me to contemplate, frankly.

However, the issue of civilians taking on the US government *does* seem to be a big thing for some of you in the USA. So, perhaps you could tell me how, for instance, all you American gunsters will take on the American military and win? What would be your strategy against the American Military's vastly superior arms, for instance?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
As for your taunts, once again, I don't attend every argument I'm invited to. That's because I'm able to pick and choose, vs. simply react to others all day long. I don't suppose you know what that difference is like. I hope you learn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53



Your bullshit increases each time you post. Part of the good friday agreement was that all so called "political prisoners" thats terrorists to most people, were freed. It has also escaped your deluded attention that just as in the US back in 1776, many of those in Northern Ireland wish to stay in the UK.

Seriously? Most of the colonists wanted to stay with Great Britain?

And you say I am full of shit?

Man, the Brits have a unique way with bullshit.

The bullshit that the majority of colonists wanted to stay with Great Britain...

Have you even looked at the demographics of Norther Ireland lately? Here's a hint.

Your ignorance of facts indicates either a failing in the British education system, or a personal blindness to history. My personal ties to Northern Ireland is a hell of a lot closer historically than most, as is my knowledge of restrictions within "Crown" colonies of the 17th and 18th century. Its kind of nice to come from a family of educated people that had a habit of writing down everything, such as reasons for coming to the Americas in the first place.

Give you a hint, though, my Catholic ancestors weren't from continental Europe and the patron Saint is a guy named Patrick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
He's (Musicmystery) been asked this same question several times on other threads but he hasn't ever given a straight answer. At least we know where the Brits and Ausies on this board along with some of our own politicians here at home stand, bans on an entire class of firearms.

I have no doubt that you have the posts readily to hand which show that all we Brits and Aussies demonstrate our unanimous view on that, lovmuffin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
I'm not interested and don't care, ifmaz. My country doesn't have a 2nd Amendment and there's no talk here of how our citizens might, hypothetically, fight the British Military. We don't have that lunatic debate here. It's too absurd for me to contemplate, frankly.

However, the issue of civilians taking on the US government *does* seem to be a big thing for some of you in the USA. So, perhaps you could tell me how, for instance, all you American gunsters will take on the American military and win? What would be your strategy against the American Military's vastly superior arms, for instance?

It wasn't absurd for a vast majority of The British Empire to contemplate. Is it absurd in the context of Syria?

My point is militaries traditionally do not fare well against guerilla-style warfare. In a hypothetical second civil war in the US we would likely see not only 2nd Amendment supporters rise up against the most likely scenario, a police state, but many other supporters as well (perhaps ironically armed by those 2nd Amendment supporters). Skirmishes would begin locally with rebels/insurgents/insurrectionists against local police forces before the national guard would, or even could, enter the picture. If even a subset of the military enters, how useful would the air force or navy actually be domestically, especially in the context of guerilla warfare? Furthermore, do you honestly believe the military would use nuclear weaponry against its own citizens? Can you imagine the fallout (pun intended) from such an act?