America's "gun problem"

[cannabineer]

Been reading through some of the back and forth. I'll add .02. I believe people have a right to be free. I believe people have a right to defend themselves. They have a right to protect themselves and their family. This defense/protection is against any person/entity that threatens or attempts to harm or deprive them of their freedom, life, property. I'm stating people have these rights, birth rights if you will, and they are unalienable. If this premise is accepted, that we a have a birth right to life, freedom, and possessions, than who or what has the right to deprive another of their ability to defend and protect their self and family? For what reason?
We as society do deny people the ability to exercise these rights. Violent felons who've demonstrated they abuse the right and use it to do harm, they get incarcerated.
I'm asking this in regards to people who aren't criminals nor psychologically unfit.
I'm curious to hear a legitimate argument that espouses denying someone the ability to defend them self.

I cannot offer a legitimate one, but i will present the usual one. "The state" and "public safety". cn

 

[ArcticGranite]

That all seems reasonable. There are many real dangers in this world that can be quickly minimized by brandishing a gun. Having a gun and thinking you can overthrow the U.S. government with it is childish. Tyranny is rampant in our government but a couple rogue gangs of angry middle aged white guys isn't going to change anything. When I hear from someone that they have guns to defend themselves from out of control government I know that I have stumbled upon a fool. A fool with a gun makes me nervous. An angry fool with a gun is much worse.

I live in a town with 2 large military bases. I served active duty too. I interact with GI's daily. I ask them what their views are on Posse Comitatus. I remind them of their oath to protect and defend. And I ask them their view about orders to disarm citizens and martial law. They look torn and hollow. I think that's the line that can't be crossed. Citizens are going to retain their right and their arms. Come what may from legislation, I do not see a disarmament of US citizens by either a "buy back", laws, or confiscation. I'd say if we as a country reach that point where our own government is attempting to disarm the citizenry we are in civil war.

 

[TroncoChe]

I agree it does change things, but not always for the better m8. You could have just killed some guys brother, and now, he wants to kill you, with or without the gun.

I spent 13 months stationed in Kandahar, Afghanistan with the US Army. I promise you, bullets flying does not stop someone from doing harm, it only feeds them adrenaline, especially in the heat of the moment. Adrenaline+ Chaos = Massacre in my exp.

Depends on who's eye's you are seeing it from. If you break into someone's house or invade someone's land, then they have a right to defend it. It has nothing to do with adrenaline, and everything to do with protecting your land, property and freedom.

 

[PathofTime420]

We may possible be heading to a US Civil War a lot sooner than most probably think. The Government is considering using its infamous financial terrorism. They go to war with you financially. Just like we are at economic war with Iran, because of the economic restrictions we have placed on them without the consent of the UN.

That is what they are thinking of doing to the states that have gone "astray" from the War on Drugs. Financially making them get back in line ( war against its own people). A 40+ year war against its own people is living proof the Government does not respect the people.

 

[ArcticGranite]

That all seems reasonable. There are many real dangers in this world that can be quickly minimized by brandishing a gun. Having a gun and thinking you can overthrow the U.S. government with it is childish. Tyranny is rampant in our government but a couple rogue gangs of angry middle aged white guys isn't going to change anything. When I hear from someone that they have guns to defend themselves from out of control government I know that I have stumbled upon a fool. A fool with a gun makes me nervous. An angry fool with a gun is much worse.

I really don't see a "coup" happening. That said I can envision forms of civil disobedience becoming more prevalent. Occupy, recording LEO's, bucking TSA at checkpoints, maybe some tax protest etc.

 

[PathofTime420]

Depends on who's eye's you are seeing it from. If you break into someone's house or invade someone's land, then they have a right to defend it. It has nothing to do with adrenaline, and everything to do with protecting your land, property and freedom.

Federally speaking you are incorrect. Federally speaking you have the right to call the authorities to protect you. Federally speaking you are not permitted to use violence under ANY circumstances.

Secondly, You might want to reread back a ways and get more of a grip on the discussion at hand. Your post doesn't logically sound right no offense. We were speaking about a "hypothetical" situation that had nothing to do with defending yourself, but with a gun being able to "protect you" or make a positive impact in a chaotic tragedy.

 

[ArcticGranite]

I agree it does change things, but not always for the better m8. You could have just killed some guys brother, and now, he wants to kill you, with or without the gun.

I spent 13 months stationed in Kandahar, Afghanistan with the US Army. I promise you, bullets flying does not stop someone from doing harm, it only feeds them adrenaline, especially in the heat of the moment. Adrenaline+ Chaos = Massacre in my exp.

Thanks for serving. Glad you're home. Saw Restrepo. Sweet baby Jesus!

 

[sgt john]

I'm thinking there isn't going to be no overthrowing the US government, nor any foreign invasing.
Gun control should be for personal defense only, and I believe there should be some control on how many, and what types..
Know a few guys, who just have gone way overboard and own well over a hundred weapons and have thousands of rounds for them.
Both middle age white guys, and both don't even hunt..

 

[cannabineer]

The USSR devastated Afghanistan's infrastructure and economy, but they never secured the terrain. That is the basic value of the raider/footsoldier: deny the enemy the terrain. The Sovs with their Mi-24s had to operate from heavily-defended forward bases, and ops in the surrounding unconquered countryside were the sort of meat-grinder of attrition of which we got a smaller taste in the Sandbox.

And in Viet Nam we had the NV government hard against the ropes twice iirc. We could have won that one, but a major factor was MacNamara trying to deliver an indisutialized war to Johnson: cheap, efficient, no wasted effort. Well that unwillingness to "waste effort" cost us a lot. I recommend watching "The Fog od War" ... it shows just how bad the intel vacuum can get even for a rich, well-instrumented nation at incomplete war. And there are no more total wars, not since WWII. The Bomb and related weapons have made us all more careful at the highest level, and most of me hopes this trend will continue. cn

 

[TroncoChe]

Federally speaking you are incorrect. Federally speaking you have the right to call the authorities to protect you. Federally speaking you are not permitted to use violence under ANY circumstances.

Secondly, You might want to reread back a ways and get more of a grip on the discussion at hand. Your post doesn't logically sound right no offense. We were speaking about a "hypothetical" situation that had nothing to do with defending yourself, but with a gun being able to "protect you" or make a positive impact in a chaotic tragedy.

Show me where "federally speaking" we can't defend ourselves. Is defending and "protect you" not the same thing?

 

[CC Dobbs]

CC, there are two wars to consider here, if ever an armed conflict arose between the standing military and popular insurgents. The first is the physical war. The insurgents would take an awful pasting at first, but the survivors would be the sort of smart tough bastard that handed us our helmets in the wars DD mentioned.

The other war though is the moral war. Ironically, by killing citizens, each gain on the physical side for the army would be a moral loss. We lost the moral war in 'Nam and Iraq (the second time around), which is why we walked away.

But our and our old rivals' (the USSR) experience in Afghanistan should show that even the most modern of weapons can meet their master in a determined guerilla insurgent at home on bad terrain. cn

My response was aimed at the assertion that overthrowing our government with the weapons available would be succeed. It seems unlikely that our government would allow sufficient resources to be gathered in order to depose it. If conflict arose our government would squash it quickly and completely. We are fat sheep and we are very unlikely to muster enough discontent to do anything effective.

It seems that we walked away from Iraq and Vietnam because we got a lot of what we came for and we would experience diminishing returns on our investment if we stayed any longer. I believe we entered both wars for political reasons and we got out for economic ones. I'm not sure that morality plays a big part in any war.

The Afghanis have been successfully defending their land for centuries and have a culture built around that ability. The USSR could have enslaved the afghanis if they brought all of their weapons to the party but they were going bankrupt and had other more serious problems at home. We do not have the history of defending our land in the same way that the afghanis do. We stole it from way underarmed natives and haven't had to do much to defend since then. The concept of us rising up to take back our country from the current government is ludicrous. Where would we plug in our x.Box

 

[PathofTime420]

Thx for kind wordz m8! Proudly retired from the 2-14th Infantry--10th Mountain Division--Ft. Drum, NY. 11 Bang Bang Baby

Most of my time in Afghanistan was spent training the Afghan National Army. I saw very little actual combat. What combat I did see was mostly close combat. Daily they would lob motar's and rpg's at our FOB. Daily they would have random small arms fire that came very close. Sometimes it seemed they were toying with us, not really wanting to kill, but cause terror.

Outside of that we played a very background role to them. They would lead foot patrols, they would make all the choices, and we only intervened when we thought they were going to lose control, which was about every single day.

The whole aurora to Islamic culture is kinda like saying " Ahh don't worry about that bomb on your head m8, allah is with you"....In my opinion, they just don't give a fek anymore. Most would rather be dead than live in a occupied state. Its more of a pride over common sense thing sadly.

 

[rooky1985]

How about reclassify semi automatics as a class 3 firearm, contingent upon states lifting their individual firearm regulations. All i see happening is a ban on the production and nothing more, this is still america and the constitution still holds value. The last ban was lifted with time as this one will follow, firearms were never the problem. There will always be mental health issues so this all falls back on the individual gun owner to maintain a responsible amount of control over their firearms. A buy back is in effect in a few places already, I believe this will help with guns that are unnecessarily lying around. In my state I can shoot an intruder I just need to make sure they are facing me when i do so and I would not hessitate.

 

[CC Dobbs]

Good Perspective m8! If every the people arouse to overthrow the Government and they turned the military on its own people, it would be a sad day for American Citizens. No different than what the poor souls of Syria are currently going through. The Free Syrian Army ( collected everyday citizens turned commando) are being slaughtered.

Remember, the Military does not listen and get its orders from the people. Regardless of how much they are "here for us" , they answer to a Chief Commander, and they all have one job...." To defend the Constitution against ALL ENEMIES...Foreign and DOMESTIC......

**Afghani's will sell the story that they beat the Russians, but numbers don't lie. The USSR completely crumbled all of Afghanistan. From Infanstructure to the Economy. The USSR didn't expect that strong of a resistance, but they won the numbers game by a large margin!

I spent over a year Stationed in Kandahar, Afghanistan with the US Army 10th Mtn. Division. They afghani's are still telling folklore that they stomped us. They still sell the stories that they ruined USSR.

They did actually beat the USSR. In a few years we will be gone and the Afghanis will still be there. They have always won. They have been winning for centuries.

 

[PathofTime420]

Show me where "federally speaking" we can't defend ourselves. Is defending and "protect you" not the same thing?

By "federally speaking" I mean by the legislation set forth by the Federal Government. If someone was to break into your house, and you wait for him to get into your house and you open fire on him, or in the direction of him, because you feel that you have the right to defend yourself with a gun from all enemies ....let me know how that works out eh

Shooting someone, regardless of the "reasons why"....is a violent act of assult....Irregardless of the conditions and circumstances. Whether they choose to or not to prosecute you is a whooolllee different story.

They will charge him with felony burglary (state level) and they will charge you with felony(attempted if ya miss) violent assault(federal level) with a deadly weapon.

Federal law is very much different than state law. The fed's could even hand the case down to the state level and let them do what they will with it.

Finding laws and legislation is a occupation m8. It takes a long time, and much money to research, and comprehend state and federal law. I wish it was as easy as " show me". It should be, but sadly that is not the world we live in. I recommend you call a lawyer, or pay me, and maybe I can help you

 

[rooky1985]

They did actually beat the USSR. In a few years we will be gone and the Afghanis will still be there. They have always won. They have been winning for centuries.

Afghanis never win nor will they win our military forces are the best in the world, have some pride. We loose 1 to their 100 so please explain how that is a loss for us, THE ONLY REASON THEY ARE STILL THERE IS BECAUSE WE ALLOW IT!!!!

 

[cannabineer]

How about reclassify semi automatics as a class 3 firearm, contingent upon states lifting their individual firearm regulations. All i see happening is a ban on the production and nothing more, this is still america and the constitution still holds value. The last ban was lifted with time as this one will follow, firearms were never the problem. There will always be mental health issues so this all falls back on the individual gun owner to maintain a responsible amount of control over their firearms. A buy back is in effect in a few places already, I believe this will help with guns that are unnecessarily lying around. In my state I can shoot an intruder I just need to make sure they are facing me when i do so and I would not hessitate.

How about no? I think the class 3 thing is a bad idea because it transfers entirely too much power to a corruptible agency. There should be a simple class F, "firearm", to cover all from a .22 Short to anything non-mechanized infantry can carry. The 2nd Amendment would correspond to class F. cn

 

[PathofTime420]

They did actually beat the USSR. In a few years we will be gone and the Afghanis will still be there. They have always won. They have been winning for centuries.

Only because of the fact the the USSR fell. Economically afghanistan still has not recovered from their Invasion. But what I was meaning is that the Russians killed more Afghani's than they killed Russians. Technically, the Coalition forces are not at war with the Afghani population, rather their radical cousins and brothers

 

[rooky1985]

By "federally speaking" I mean by the legislation set forth by the Federal Government. If someone was to break into your house, and you wait for him to get into your house and you open fire on him, or in the direction of him, because you feel that you have the right to defend yourself with a gun from all enemies ....let me know how that works out eh

Shooting someone, regardless of the "reasons why"....is a violent act of assult....Irregardless of the conditions and circumstances. Whether they choose to or not to prosecute you is a whooolllee different story.

They will charge him with felony burglary (state level) and they will charge you with felony(attempted if ya miss) violent assault(federal level) with a deadly weapon.

Federal law is very much different than state law. The fed's could even hand the case down to the state level and let them do what they will with it.

Finding laws and legislation is a occupation m8. It takes a long time, and much money to research, and comprehend state and federal law. I wish it was as easy as " show me". It should be, but sadly that is not the world we live in. I recommend you call a lawyer, or pay me, and maybe I can help you

I think you may be mistaken by Law if you feel that someone is threatening your life or someone elses you have the right to protect yourself with deadly force. I have my CCW license and this is exactly how you are trained in the course, you always have the right to defend your life.

 

[PathofTime420]

Afghanis never win nor will they win our military forces are the best in the world, have some pride. We loose 1 to their 100 so please explain how that is a loss for us, THE ONLY REASON THEY ARE STILL THERE IS BECAUSE WE ALLOW IT!!!!

Its always a loss for the sad people of Afghanistan. They are a occupied mess since their beginnings. Its sad, very sad. Hard to imagine the average US citizen having the capacity to endure what the average Afghani does !