My compromise for gun control

Sorry, it's labeled "Reply". It quotes the post and provides a link. Bottom right.

 

Sure, of course you have the right to stand up for yourselves, and I expect nothing less. I'm just not expecting you to win against the government's own machine of violence (=police/military), who generally speaking will always be better trained, funded and equipped against any ragtag revolutionary militias. Historically, any revolution where the military won't change sides, and back up the revolutionaries, is destined to fail. Private gun ownership does very little to change this fact.

 

Now there's some terms I ain't heard in quite a while. Right up there with "Here come da fuzz!"
And I always wondered where that one (fuzz) came from....

 

It's because cops back then had crew cuts and no facial hair. And looked like Hitler Youth!

 

Um....ok. Probably didn't help that I got confused as to whom I was replying to, either. My inability to carry on a conversation with more than one person is showing. You oughta' see this in person. I get so confused by the chaos that I shut down and walk away for a while there, too. Can't stand the "background noise".

 

I dunno man. The trained experts of the USA government military couldn’t conquer the cave dwelling militias of Afghanistan. Nor could they defeat the Vietnamese rice farmers during ‘Nam

 

It really is a over-used term

Most of the time, it seems like these so-called mental illnesses are self-diagnosed.

But when someone else declares these people “mentally ill” they get butt-hurt and take it as an insult.

 

Wasn't their own country or people. Completely different situations. It's not like these folks were on their own either. A bogus comparison.

 

How is it a bogus comparison when the US military, with all the powerful guns, bombs, and other weapons of mass destruction. Can’t even defeat a bunch of villagers with inferior weapons?

People keep saying if the US government waged war against their citizens, the citizens would have no chance. However the citizens provide the government with the material and manpower resources to be what it is.Not every soldier will follow orders to strike their own people, which is what happened during the Egyptian revolution

 

I specified what makes it quite obviously a completely different situation. It's on the other of the freakin worlds. Those 'villagers' are part of an international terrorist organisation. In the case of Nam they got backed up by other powerful nations. They even got the superior gun there (as the standard american army one would jam). Really man....

 

Indeed, nearly every nation that has turned on their own citizens has come to ruin, some faster than others. The US has weapons systems and tactics for international conflicts, but one on our own soil would spiral out of control quickly. Like Washington and every prison in the US the illusion of security and control is exposed for the lie that it is. The only reason Americans are not at war with the government right now is because Americans themselves really don't want war. In any form.

What I do believe though is that control would be restored as politicians and other governmental power figure are assassinated. One thing we have plenty of in the US is fanatics who will sacrifice themselves to kill someone they have grown accustomed to hating. Even if that hate was coached! The US is too big and too integrated for the sort of war we had in the 19th century. Most of the conflicts will be cold war styled. Nukes won't be a factor, but drones probably will. And while all of that is going on, dedicated kids with keyboards and others with ice picks will be surgically reshaping the power structure behind the scenes.

Absolutely correct, same as Korea; proxy wars. The US wasn't fighting poppy or rice farmers, they were fighting China/North Korea and the Soviets. To "win" the US would have to resort to REAL tactics instead of this "shoot a few times and see if they'll negotiate" nonsense. War has lost some of it's large scale horror because of political posturing. This has happened before of course. Conflicts are far away and out of daily life for most people, so the impact is weirdly negligible.

But if the Soviets had used nukes in Afghanistan, they'd probably still be there. Cleaning up after a Pyrrhic victory.

 

In Vietnam none of the US soldiers wanted to be there in the first place. My dad was a draftee who would occasionally talk about his experience in country, if he had enough to drink first. All any of them wanted was to live long enough to get back home. The people they were fighting, on the other hand, were home. The Vietnamese had a reason to fight.

And why does anyone think that gun control would be any more successful than the war on drugs? If there were a way to keep any weapon out the hands of those liable to get violent then that would be great. I doubt it's possible though, at least not without violating every civil rights law on the books.

 

It's about restricting the legal options for unfit people to limit gun violence and accidents with legally bought guns. Through sensible gun regulation. It doesn't have to be anything like the war on drugs, which on itself could likely have had more success if it was 'waged' differently instead of using a rigorous approach that resembles a blatant war against something.

 

So the weird tail is called the Wakhan Corridor. It was setup as a separation between British India and Russia when they were competing over control of land in Asia.

 

As already pointed out by others, Viet Nam and Afghanistan are different, because those weren't brother-against-brother civil wars insofar as you Americans are concerned. The Viet Cong and the Afghan mujahedin, from their perspective, were fighting against foreign invaders. They were motivated and had both popular support, and a definite home field advantage, as both countries feature some of the hardest terrain in the world to fight in. The thick jungles in Viet Nam, and the mountains and deserts in Afghanistan. And the fighters knew how to take advantage of these.

In particular, Viet Cong was also supported by China and the Soviet Union, which supplied the Cong with weapons and training. Most US aircrafts during that war were downed with Russian anti-air weapons. Soviet intelligence frequently warned the Vietnamese about upcoming US bombing raids, which enabled Viet Cong troops to move out of the way in time.

So you see, it wasn't just a bunch of rice farmers out there, those rice farmers had some very powerful and competent friends, and more importantly, homes to defend from people whom they saw as nothing more than intruders. If, however, you folks start fighting against each other, not only is the rebelling side breaking their own country's laws, said laws can be used to enable and justify a massive, lawful retaliation against them. And no one would come to help them, as no country on Earth would want to risk the US government's wrath, if they would side with US domestic terrorists. So the rebels' only hope would be for the military to switch sides, and things would have to get PRET-TY bad, before I see a situation where your boys in green, and the top brass in particular, would abandon their loyalty to their democratically elected leaders, and turn their guns against them. At the very least, you as a nation would not be unified about such a decision.

 

Mac

But as I have explained this doesn’t seem like a compromise

So far you have wanted to have enforced evaluations of everyone then you have backed off on that in favour of free mental health exams that anyone can take but don’t have to. But that really waters down the supposed ‘compromise’ by taking away the reassurance that people that have ‘mental’ problems would be weeded out from been allowed to own a gun.

But how do you find that out, it seems to me that if it is after the fact it is probably too late.

It seems to me that 30% of people are making a consumers choice which has little value to society as a whole and can even be shown to be actual detrimental on it? So why shouldn’t they accept the responsibilities that go with choosing to have a gun and be subject to the mandatory checks you suggested?

Isn’t the burden on them (who want lethal weapons that can easily kill people) to show everyone else that they are responsible people who will not use such guns to hurt others.

And if that was refused doesn’t that beg the question of why, of what do they have to hide?

I mean if someone puts forward as the only or major reason for wanting a gun is so that if they so desire they can murder other US citizens that they might see as their political opponents, is that likely to make others feel comfortable with their gun ownership?

 

Well in the UK we have a system by which if someone drives irresponsibly such as speeding or jumping lights they have to attend classes to learn about road safety they can also get points on their licence for other offences those points can be high and if you get too many points your licence is taken away.

I think you could have another system for gun ownership – first there would be the tests to gain a licence – and after a points system low points would result in a mandatory safety course if you were found armed and drunk or leaving a gun around unsecured and for high points instant bans for say using a gun in a threating manner or for injuring someone by accident. You then you would get into the criminal use of guns which of course would result in a ban.

Thing is that I’ve been in many places of work were there were rules and regulations about responsible and irresponsible behaviour were there would be consequences for acting in an irresponsible way. Most of those things are just common sense. I mean if someone comes into the office drunk, shouting racist abuse at fellow workers and trying to grope the women do you have to ask yourself if that is irresponsible behaviour or not?

 

And workers provide companies with the manpower to be what it is – but US history has repeatedly shown that companies have used gun owners and government forces to violently put down strikers when workers have tried to get better pay and conditions.

Look up the Lattimer and Columbine Mine massacres.

My point (as with the lynching of black people mentioned earlier) is that gun owners have often shown themselves to be the suppressors rather than the one suppressed, of been the ones using their guns against progressive social movements.

 

Sorry but the gun lobbyists seems to have gone off at a tangent speculating over whether gun owners could overthrow the government – but that seem to be ignoring the more important question of -

When would they begin this insurrection?

As I keep asking when would gun owners begin killing those they see as their political opponents and who do they see as their political opponents at the moment?