Obama’s Gun Ban List Is Out

[JediPhreaK]

I won't try to read everything everyone posts it would take too long.

I absolutely believe in the right to bear arms (own guns) that is laid forth by the 2nd Ammendment. I do think that there needs to be a better registry for guns etc especially for anything more than a handgun. Harsh penalties should be imposed upon anyone who does not properly store or handle guns.

I think the penalty for owning / posessing an illegal gun should be severe. I don't own any guns but I feel safe in the knowledege that attempting to invade the United States would be sheer and utter stupidity.

I wouldn't mind also in order to own more than a simple hand gun you had to be part of a registered Milita that is registered with the state etc.

[Mr-Jigsaw]

They were in their home country, and the US soldiers found themselves in, to them, quite hostile environments such as jungle.

Much of the U.S. is wilderness, and much forest of that. Plus, there are many urban areas. And any soldier knows that urban environments are the most perilous to fight in.

Also, they never tried to beat the US army, or to paraphrase that kill every GI and thus "defeat" you, they just wanted to piss you off enough to make you leave. The US military wouldnt leave the US, they would demonstrate their power to the extend that would demoralize any insurgency by any means necessary (if they really were that interested in power) because they wouldnt have anywhere to fall back to.

But as I've said before, many soldiers wouldn't have the will to fight against their own countrymen, and I assume a good number would rebel themselves. (Don't just say the right to bear arms isn't needed then, because if none of the populace had any weapons to begin with, the entire situation is changed considerably) And I'd give a better chance of a U.S militia force winning such a battle than the Iraqi insurgency has anyhow.

They were fighting an invader; something you can alienise, something foreign - you would be fighting your own government, other americans.

Humans are more than willing to fight against their brothers. You could easily alienate your oppressors by creating a situation of oppressors v. citizens.

And finally: which country do you think it would be easier to smuggle the weaponry need for an insurgency into: the iraq/vietnam or the us?

The United States has WAAAAAAY more borderland and the like than either of those nations. If someone wanted to smuggle something in, they could, and they do. In fact, I believe it to be the exact opposite of what you said. There are simply way too many entrances to be covered, not to mention all the room to hide stuff once they get it in.

[Dionysos]

They were in their home country, and the US soldiers found themselves in, to them, quite hostile environments such as jungle.

Much of the U.S. is wilderness, and much forest of that. Plus, there are many urban areas. And any soldier knows that urban environments are the most perilous to fight in.

How often does the average citizen live in the wilderness? Is the wilderness part of their everyday life or something they are used to? I agree on the urban environments though.

Also, they never tried to beat the US army, or to paraphrase that kill every GI and thus "defeat" you, they just wanted to piss you off enough to make you leave. The US military wouldnt leave the US, they would demonstrate their power to the extend that would demoralize any insurgency by any means necessary (if they really were that interested in power) because they wouldnt have anywhere to fall back to.

But as I've said before, many soldiers wouldn't have the will to fight against their own countrymen, and I assume a good number would rebel themselves. (Don't just say the right to bear arms isn't needed then, because if none of the populace had any weapons to begin with, the entire situation is changed considerably) And I'd give a better chance of a U.S militia force winning such a battle than the Iraqi insurgency has anyhow.

You do realise that Iraqis have been living with war, in a country that still bears the scars of the war with the USSR, in a country where the standard of living is a lot lower and living generally a lot harder? It's a bad comparison and a bit silly, but it gets my point across: do you know why the Sardauka (sp?) where trained on a planet that was basically hell to live on?

The insurgency is doing so well because they have a lot of experienced, are hardened by their life and history and really pissed off at an enemy they hate partly as part of their religion. Soldiers follow orders, even if that's a sad truth. I think it would be interesting (note Im not at all for a civil war in the US, just academically interesting) to see how many US soldiers would turn against their superiors, but considering theyll have been prepared by propaganda and brainwashing.

They were fighting an invader; something you can alienise, something foreign - you would be fighting your own government, other americans.

Humans are more than willing to fight against their brothers. You could easily alienate your oppressors by creating a situation of oppressors v. citizens.

I still doubt it would be the same as the righteous scorn you would feel against an infidel or foreign invader with moral values far different from your own.

And finally: which country do you think it would be easier to smuggle the weaponry need for an insurgency into: the iraq/vietnam or the us?

The United States has WAAAAAAY more borderland and the like than either of those nations. If someone wanted to smuggle something in, they could, and they do. In fact, I believe it to be the exact opposite of what you said. There are simply way too many entrances to be covered, not to mention all the room to hide stuff once they get it in.

I'' admit the US is big. But you have to remember that the borders of Iraq are so insecure that Taliban *forces* can move about more or less freely in some places, not to mention arms and weapons traffic.

Look, my whole point is you cant compare the citizens or even militia of the US (the question here is whom they would side with) and therefor their ability to combat a professionally trained military force with the Iraqi or Vietcong insurgencies. Yes, controlling the populace might be hard, but it's VERY doubtful they would enforce military control of the US as they would in for instance Iraq. The population would be prepared, not just by propaganda, but by new laws and regulations, over a long period of time. The prospect of fighting the army is ludicrus (imo), simply because it would only be used if success were more or less guaranteed. If they *knew* the soldiers would follow orders, if they *knew* there wouldn't be a huge uprising.

Obviously this is all my speculation, but I feel its founded on more than yours Take switzerland. There, everyone has to regularily train in the military and achieve a certain degree of marksmanship (nothing short of good either) or they will be punished. I'm just saying you have to look at backgrounds and conditions. I think debating this is fun


EDIT: I like guns, it's fun shooting them. I'm also for tight regulation, psychological as well as weapons training. I just think that the argument of defending yourself against the government is silly, because only if almost everyone stormed the capital would a population be able to overthrow a government, and then they pretty much don't need guns because of the sheer numbers required already.

The problems caused by guns are mostly due to flaws in society, which are the main problem to be solved anyways.

[Chipmunk]

So you want to keep the guns in case the government turns on you? Wow lets just hope they don't take away your foil hats too.

I agree with the rights to own weapons, simply because some people enjoy shooting them as a leisure activity yet the argument that it's self defence is silly. Say a burglar has a gun and you want guns to protect yourself. Why give him a reason to shoot you?

[Mr-Jigsaw]

Say a burglar has a gun and you want guns to protect yourself. Why give him a reason to shoot you?

Because I will shoot faster. And I'm not complacent to parasitism.

You do realise that Iraqis have been living with war, in a country that still bears the scars of the war with the USSR,

Are you, by any chance, thinking of Afghanistan? Or did you mean to say Iran? Because the Afghan Mujahadeen fought the Soviets, and the Iraqis fought the Iranians.

It's a bad comparison and a bit silly, but it gets my point across: do you know why the Sardauka (sp?) where trained on a planet that was basically hell to live on?

Yes, that was a good book. However, I'm not ready to base my real life opinions upon the universe of a science fiction novel, despite how good it was. As a counterpoint to this, I should remind you of Osama bin Laden. He was the son of a wealthy Saudi Arabian. However, he want ahead and became one of the Mujahadeen fighters and eventually a terrorist leader. And he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

how many US soldiers would turn against their superiors, but considering theyll have been prepared by propaganda and brainwashing.

Yeah, no. They haven't been brainwashed by military propaganda. These are people just like you and me, only they chose to fight. You don't need to be a mindless killing machine to be a good soldier. You should know that even some Navy SEAls are great family men. Really, I wouldn't make this up, and I know this for a fact.

I still doubt it would be the same as the righteous scorn you would feel against an infidel or foreign invader with moral values far different from your own.

It could be enough. Those "moral values far different than your own" would be very useful in such a conflict. The differences could be exacerbated by propaganda or government policy. Pretty much any civil war will prove the fact that people will find a way to fight against their kin.

The population would be prepared, not just by propaganda, but by new laws and regulations, over a long period of time.

However, the government would be discouraged from even thinking about these kinds of things given the second amendment. I see the right to bear arms also as a way to up the bargaining power on the part of the people. Without such widespread gun ownership, the government could be more brazen in their legislation, as there would be no potential way(other than voting, but complacency is still very widespread) for the citizenry to check the actions of government.

Obviously this is all my speculation, but I feel its founded on more than yours

I like how you you followed your slight with a smiley to lessen any potential for me to feel indignant. Trust me, I've put a lot of thought into this. I've studied a lot of history and done everything necessary to learn all the facts.

So you want to keep the guns in case the government turns on you? Wow lets just hope they don't take away your foil hats too.

Funny, I've never considered myself a conspiracy theorist. Rather, I'm a realist. And I've seen way too many acts of disregard for human life and rights throughout history for me to allow government its free reign. That's why it needs checks. That doesn't make me a crazy conspiracy theorist, it makes me cognizant and prepared.

[Dionysos]

Are you, by any chance, thinking of Afghanistan? Or did you mean to say Iran? Because the Afghan Mujahadeen fought the Soviets, and the Iraqis fought the Iranians.

Yeah sry, embarrassing mistake to make, I mixed up the insurgencies. Point remains, pretty much.

It's a bad comparison and a bit silly, but it gets my point across: do you know why the Sardauka (sp?) where trained on a planet that was basically hell to live on?

Yes, that was a good book. However, I'm not ready to base my real life opinions upon the universe of a science fiction novel, despite how good it was. As a counterpoint to this, I should remind you of Osama bin Laden. He was the son of a wealthy Saudi Arabian. However, he want ahead and became one of the Mujahadeen fighters and eventually a terrorist leader. And he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Point is, he is a leader, not a soldier or a representative of the average Taliban/Iraqi insurgent. Mentality is influenced by the way of life, and sorry but western society is becoming pretty decadent and lazy. Not to mention physical perfomance. I don't know how it would fare, but people down there are more accustomed to suffering I would presume.

how many US soldiers would turn against their superiors, but considering theyll have been prepared by propaganda and brainwashing.

Yeah, no. They haven't been brainwashed by military propaganda. These are people just like you and me, only they chose to fight. You don't need to be a mindless killing machine to be a good soldier. You should know that even some Navy SEAls are great family men. Really, I wouldn't make this up, and I know this for a fact.

I won't debate this, as I know military people myself that are okay (apart from the occasional ptsd). Thing is; in a conflict like this, they would be brainwashed, if just by the general society. Add to that the stupidity of masses and you're go. They might still not go for it, but I would certainly not want to rule it out, especially if only part of the military is used.

I still doubt it would be the same as the righteous scorn you would feel against an infidel or foreign invader with moral values far different from your own.

It could be enough. Those "moral values far different than your own" would be very useful in such a conflict. The differences could be exacerbated by propaganda or government policy. Pretty much any civil war will prove the fact that people will find a way to fight against their kin.

True enough, if the will and mentality are there for an uprising. I hope it would still be there if it were to happen in the US.

The population would be prepared, not just by propaganda, but by new laws and regulations, over a long period of time.

However, the government would be discouraged from even thinking about these kinds of things given the second amendment. I see the right to bear arms also as a way to up the bargaining power on the part of the people. Without such widespread gun ownership, the government could be more brazen in their legislation, as there would be no potential way(other than voting, but complacency is still very widespread) for the citizenry to check the actions of government.

Masses are more important than how widespread guns are. I'm unsure, but this got me interested in how governments have been overthrown through history, by what means etc, I'll have to check that up in concrete "numbers". I do have the impression that most were due to mentality and masses, but I could be wrong. Lot of empirical data missing here. I'd welcome examples of governments that couldn't have been overthrown if the masses didn't already own guns, and I mean people, average citizens, no colonies.

The government usually prepares the people for new restricting legislation. As a prime example I see the war on terror. At that point, gun argument goes moot because the people don't care/don't notice and it's already too late.

Obviously this is all my speculation, but I feel its founded on more than yours

I like how you you followed your slight with a smiley to lessen any potential for me to feel indignant. Trust me, I've put a lot of thought into this. I've studied a lot of history and done everything necessary to learn all the facts.

Then I guess it's all down to interpretation and point of view. I actually hope for your prognosis and effect of gun ownership, as it would be ideal, and as I said I like guns. Seeing how easy people are manipulated by their governments though (and I'm talking about the masses, there are always people who see it coming), I doubt it would be used, and seeing the state of our consumerist society I doubt the average Joe would do a good insurgent.

So you want to keep the guns in case the government turns on you? Wow lets just hope they don't take away your foil hats too.

Funny, I've never considered myself a conspiracy theorist. Rather, I'm a realist. And I've seen way too many acts of disregard for human life and rights throughout history for me to allow government its free reign. That's why it needs checks. That doesn't make me a crazy conspiracy theorist, it makes me cognizant and prepared.

It needs checks. It needs them more now than for quite some time, both in the US and in Europe. The thing is that a dictatorship is usually introduced slowly, and well. If it comes to a civil war that is so drastic as to shake up the masses, I don't think guns will matter that much because of the sheer masses rallying. If it doesn't come as a civil war, the insurgency or rather the minority that will form the opposition will be dealt with relatively easy.

A lot of countries simply seem to "slip" into totalitarian or police states.


EDIT: Oh and just to clarify, I do think guns would make a difference. I just don't think I would put my trust in them, and certainly not without proper regulation/at a huge price. If 90% of the people can't handle a gun (just as an example) it would be daft to allow most people to handle them. Regulations are in order, but you should be able to own pretty much alot except heavy duty war hardware after passing the right tests.

EDIT2: Actually, now that I have thought a little about this, banning guns because of massacres would just occlude the underlying problems of society even more, probably resulting in even worse symptoms.

[MayheM]

Point is, he is a leader, not a soldier or a representative of the average Taliban/Iraqi insurgent. Mentality is influenced by the way of life, and sorry but western society is becoming pretty decadent and lazy. Not to mention physical perfomance. I don't know how it would fare, but people down there are more accustomed to suffering I would presume.

You know you are right and Obama wants to make it even easier for people to be lazy by giving my hard earned money to people who dont work for it. But this is about gun control and bans and such. I have to say Jigsaw has is pretty spot on. I am not a conspiracy theorist either, but if you look at the way government is growing and how governemnt is now overstepping the boundaries set by our founding fathers, then look at these gun bans. The timing is odd. Government is growing and growing and grabbing more power. (firing a the CEO of GM is not in the limits of the office of president) I dont care if he deserved it or not (I think he did to be clear, I jsut dont feel the president has the right to do that) So all of this power if being snached up and then power is being taken from us the people. Damn they are even talking about releasing some of the GITMO detainies into the states. Then giving them rights. These are people who planned and carried out attacks against this country and they want to give them rights, but then take away our right to own guns. There is something really whong with the way this country is going!