Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

The only situation they would have locked us into is a situation where we have to try very hard to disarm the people and make way for tyranny.

And they would all be crying if they saw the US today. So yeah, let's not worry about what they'd want.

Also, the bill of rights was added before the constitution was ratified, it was written in the way it was to make it distinct and impossible to sidestep, for the states that wanted it outlined like that before ratifying the constitution. It was understood by all, but they wanted it down on paper, signed and official, so NO one could take it away.

The second amendment can be amended by a new amendment, but it says that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". A further amendment does not change the fact that we have that right, it can simply say that the government will infringe our right. Which is how the framers intended it.

It's okay to amend the constitution, but you can't get around the manner in which amendments are added. It will leave the second amendment for all to see, and all to seethe over. You can't just remove one, you must ADD one to nullify it.

A big part of why myself, and I think many, oppose gun control is because it requires ignoring part of the constitution (because people are sane enough that they won't amend it in the manner that I mentioned, couldn't get it ratified) it suddenly means the whole thing can be ignored. If one of the fundamental rights in the bill of rights can be suspended, well why not suspend habeus corpus next? well, we're slowly working on that one.... Why not freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? We're working on that one too. Just like we've been chipping away at what we consider "safe" as arms. Yeah, it says we can bear arms, but we don't feel like people should bear some arms................ It's part of a gradual assault on the solidarity and meaningfulness of the constitution.

So when the unwinnable wars on drugs and terrorism come to a head, eleminating the rights to freedom from search and seizure, and the right to habeus corupus, and the gun control initiative comes to a head, eliminating the right to legally own the guns to resist..... it's very easy to push any resistance movement or party into the role of an illegal paramilitary group, instead of a legitimate political party.

No, it's not happening today. But after 40 years of war on drugs and guns, things are looking pretty bleak for the next 40 years.

 

Those who are defenseless are the easiest prey. Prosecution of your attacker after you've been assaulted or murdered is not defense, but only retribution.

 

That it appears you put more thought into my ridiculous throwaway answer than my serious one is what amuses me.

 

In most of the world it it is the job of the military to protect the people from tyranny of the rulers-

A key point in the Egyptian uprising-

"But the critical moment came on the evening of 30 January when, it is now clear, Mubarak ordered the Egyptian Third Army to crush the demonstrators in Tahrir Square with their tanks after flying F-16 fighter bombers at low level over the protesters.

Many of the senior tank commanders could be seen tearing off their headsets – over which they had received the fatal orders – to use their mobile phones. They were, it now transpires, calling their own military families for advice. Fathers who had spent their lives serving the Egyptian army told their sons to disobey, that they must never kill their own people."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-as-mubarak-clings-on-what-now-for-egypt-2211287.html

China had to bring in troops from the other side of the country (a rival region) during the Tiananmen Square Uprising because the local troops would not follow orders.

 

Interesting.

Here's a list of some Military Dictatorships since the 1800's

Africa

Algeria (1965–1978; 1992–1994)
Benin (1963–1964; 1965–1968; 1969–1970; 1972–1975)
Burkina Faso (1966–1977; 1980–1991)
Burundi (1966–1974; 1976–1979; 1987–1992)
Central African Republic (1966–1976; 1981–1987; 2003–2005)
Chad (1975–1979; 1982–1989)
Comoros (1999–2002)
Democratic Republic of the Congo (1965–1967)
Republic of the Congo (1968–1969; 1977–1979)
Cote d'Ivoire (1999–2000)
Egypt (1952–1978; 2011-present)
Equatorial Guinea (1979–1987)
Ethiopia (1974–1987)
The Gambia (1994–1996)
Ghana (1966–1969; 1972–1979; 1981–1993)
Guinea (1984–1990; 2008–2010)
Guinea-Bissau (1980–1984)
Lesotho (1986–1993)
Liberia (1980–1984)
Libya (1969–1979)
Madagascar (1972–1976)
Mali (1968–1979)
Mauritania (1978–1991; 2005–2007; 2008–2009)
Niger (1974–1989; 2010–2011)
Nigeria (1966–1979; 1983–1989; 1993–1999)
Rwanda (1973–1975)
Sierra Leone (1967–1968; 1992–1996; 1997–1998)
Somalia (1969–1976; local militia rule since 1991)
Sudan (1958–1964; 1969–1971; 1985-1986; 1989–1993)
Togo (1967–1979)
Uganda (1971–1979; 1985–1986)

The Americas

Argentina (1930–1932; 1943–1946; 1955–1958; 1966–1973; 1976–1983)
Bolivia (1828–1848; 1861–1871; 1876–1880; 1930–1931; 1936–1943; 1951–1952; 1964–1966; 1969–1979; 1980–1982)
Brazil (1889–1894; 1964–1985)
Chile (1924–1925; 1927–1931; 1973–1990)
Colombia (1855–1857; 1953–1958)
Costa Rica (1863–1866; 1868–1876; 1877–1882; 1917–1919; 1948–1949)
Cuba (1933–1940; 1952–1959)
Dominican Republic (1930–1961)
Ecuador (1876–1883; 1937–1938; 1963–1966; 1972–1979)
El Salvador (1885–1911; 1931–1980)
Guatemala (1944–1945; 1957–1958; 1963–1966; 1970–1986)
Haiti (1950–1956; 1986–1990, 1991–1994)
Honduras (1903–1907; 1956–1957; 1963–1971; 1972–1982)
Mexico (1876–1880; 1884–1911)
Nicaragua (1936–1956; 1967-1979)
Panama (1968–1989)
Paraguay (1940–1948; 1954–1993)
Peru (1838–1872; 1876–1879; 1886–1895; 1914–1915; 1930–1931; 1933–1939; 1948–1950; 1962–1963; 1968–1980)
Suriname (1980–1988)
Uruguay (1876–1879; 1973–1985)
Venezuela (1847–1858; 1908–1935; 1948–1958)

Asia-Pacific

Bangladesh (1975–1981; 1982–1986)
Burma (Myanmar) (1958–1960, 1962–2011)
Cambodia (1966–1967; 1969–1975)
Republic of China (1928–1975; local militia rule 1912–1928)
Fiji (1987; 2000; 2006–present)
Indonesia (1966–1998)
Iran (1921–1925)
Iraq (1933–1935; 1937–1938; 1949–1950; 1952–1953; 1958–1979)
Japan (1932–1945)
North Korea (1994–present)
South Korea (1961–1963, 1980–1981)
Laos (1959–1960)
Pakistan (1958–1971; 1977–1988; 1999–2007)
Syria (1951–1954; 1963–1972)
Thailand (1933–1945; 1946–1973; 1976–1988; 1991–1992; 2006–2008)
Turkey (1921–1925; 1960–1973; 1980–1989)
South Vietnam (1963–1975)
North Yemen (1962–1978)

Europe

Bulgaria (1881–1883; 1934–1935; 1944–1946)
France (1870–1871; 1940–1944)
Greece (1922–1926; 1936–1941; 1967–1974)
Hungary (1944–1945)
Poland (1926–1935; 1981–1983)
Portugal (1917–1919; 1926–1933)
Romania (1940–1945)
Spain (1923–1930)

Just "protecting the people from tyranny of the rulers" I guess.

 

"When people are afraid of their government-there's tyranny. When the government is afraid of their people -there's liberty" T. Jefferson,I think.

 

This says it very succinctly

 

I found the quote and it was indeed Thomas Jefferson:
"A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!"

 

guns don't kill people, husbands that come home early from work kill people.

 

Thanks for gettin' that one right--I was close.

 

Hey, when that happens, it's great.

But then you can look at the US, and see that that's not the case. We frequently have people shot WITHOUT rioting by police and military, such as during law enforcement perpetrated home invasions under the guise of the war on drugs, or just because they feel like it.

And we frequently have out of control police shooting at rioters or other similar situations.

It's USUALLY not this bad anymore, but I shouldn't have to remind many here of kent state and similar events.

Some places people join the army to protect their country. In the US rabid neo-nazi's join the army to kill some sand niggers. If you tell them to shoot someone, they will, and if you tell them not to, they may still anyway.

 

If they want my guns that bad they can have them....from the business end first...

I paid for my guns with FRNs. There ain't nuttin free in this life...if they want my guns they can pay for them. That will be TEN MILLION each for my favorite guns. TEN MILLION in GOLD or SILVER or GAS or MILITARY HARDWARE; some type of COMMODITIES of actual worth not this funny money that everyone is packing around now.

 

Oh yea-I'm not saying the military looks for democracy-and not all dictators are bad. Most of the world does not really have a concept of Democracy in their history. It has really been a western concept-even the study of it does not have a great history in most of the world. Most of the great works of Democracy are not even available in most languages-I know that as of 5 years ago The Federalist Papers were not available to most of the world in their native languages.

Oh yea I'm not disagreeing with you. Most people have no idea what Kent State was-there is a gym built on that field now.

But our Military has had certain times when it did the right thing.

 

Well, you said; "In most of the world it it is the job of the military to protect the people from tyranny of the rulers" and I was just pointing out that that statement seems a little naive considering how often the military takes over and then rules with an rules with an iron hand.

 

Can anyone here put in a LINK to Obama.com or to any Pro Obama website that can absolutely show the FACT that Obama wants to outlaw guns?

It doesn't exist. It's all right wing B.S. Horse Poo Poo!

I believe in witches, ghosts, fling saucers, Atlantis, and fairies, but I don't believe that Obama wants to get rid of gun. There is absolutely no political percentage for him to want to. He voted in Health care, got rid of "Don't ask don't" is decreasing troops in July. What political advantage would is serve him to play directly into the hands of the republicans with a dead horse issue like gun control? It's a rumor, people.

 

Olderwaterbrother that is a very long list but just looking at the bit on the Americas it’s clear that many of these military regimes were in place due to the active or covert support of the US government.
I’ve just finished – Red Heat: Conspiracy, Murder and the Cold War in the Caribbean by Alex von Tunzelmann

"The secret war in the Caribbean destroyed any hope of freedom and democracy in Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic," she writes. "It toppled democracies. It supported dictators. It licensed those dictators' worst excesses. It financed terrorism. It set up death squads. It turned Cuba communist, and kept it communist for half a century. It did massive and permanent damage to the international reputation of the United States. It nearly triggered a nuclear holocaust."

It only concentrates on three on your list but is very instructive.

 

I like the quote, it seems like an early example of that mentality based in fear and threat. To me good governance should be about cooperation and consensus, about working toward what is best for all of the governed.

The other thing is that many people that come to these forums seem to be afraid of the US government.

But the question I’ve asked many times – is the US political establishment afraid of ‘the people’?

It seem to me not, they have successfully purge America of opposing thought and manipulated many into supporting views that keep them in power or even give them more power.

 

It's just another republican scarecrow accusation Lie. People will believe anything that they hear now-a-days.

 

I can make no actual claim here, this is pure speculation, but:

I think in many cases, the difference may be a lack of a clear military top gun.

If you have a council who work under the president or similar leader, and they all choose to overthrow him, though they still each only hold a seat in a military council, it's a lot harder for things to get out of hand than if you have ONE guy who gives the orders, taking orders from the president.

Of course, it also depends on the local social structure, like having strong families, which could prevent or turn a military coup, and could effect the outcome. If people have dozens of close family members living on the block they grew up on, and dozens or hundreds of blood ties that they know of in the country, it COULD make it a lot less likely that they'd take orders to drive their tank through some random residential neighborhood. And if you have a tank column of these guys, they just might turn it around and shoot at the guy telling them to in the first place.

This could be ignorance on my part, but I think stalin was pretty much alone by the time he got involved in the revolution..... I think hitlers family made fun of his shitty art..... and the more people in charge UNDER the top guy, and the more latitude and people their council has as a whole but less latitude they individually have, the more likely they are to step in.

I know this reads like shit, sorry. Hopefully it gets the idea across.

 

They should outlaw ALL guns everywhere, used by both the government and private citizens. But of course that's not going to happen :sad:.

Just to pitch in on this actual argument, I think Americans make too much of a big deal out of this. I know that if guns were legalized here in Northern Ireland, there would be blood running through the streets. The whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is right, but a lack of guns certainly makes it harder to kill.

But American's have had their guns for too long to outlaw them now.