Bloods, Crips, “Sovereigns”, “militias”, and other hate groups are far more a threat at home than ISIL. Most of them also have plenty of weapons, but every time there’s another horror, they go out and buy more!
The second amendment was not a suicide pact written into the Constitution by the founding fathers. It was a concession made to the slave states, that their militias or slave patrols could operate in the north. “That a well regulated militia would not be infringed.” The fear was that slaves could escape to the north if the militias weren’t given the freedom to recapture them.The second amendment does not make much sense if it’s about the ownership of firearms. In the 1700’s, everybody owned a firearm or you didn’t eat. Try to picture life at the time of the revolution, the laws were not made in a vacuum, slavery was the economy of the south.…………………….
“Slave patrols first began in South Carolina in 1704 and spread throughout the thirteen colonies, lasting well beyond the American Revolution. As the population of black slaves boomed, especially with the invention of the cotton gin, so did the fear of slave resistance and uprisings. Its development began when other means of slave control failed to instill slave control and obedience. Their biggest concern were slaves on the plantations since that is where slave populations were highest.” ……………https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_patrol
^As regards the time of the American Revolution: Firearms were not universally owned. Due to the scarcity, proposals were made to arm the revolutionary army with pikes and/or bows. Gun ownership became much more common after the US Civil War.
^ Most people at the time of the American Revolution got their food the same way they do today — from farms. Back in those days, the majority of the population was engaged in farming.
Data on use of violent vs non-violent resistance :“Gun advocates fancy themselves champions of the Constitution. They misunderstand and abuse the Second Amendment” — SEAN ILLING…“Armed individuals or even organized militias cannot defeat the United States government militarily. This ought to be obvious on its face, given the state’s overwhelming advantage in terms of resources and capabilities. Gather all the AR-15s you like. If Uncle Sam decides to detain you, he will – eventually. Having a few guns will complicate things, but it won’t negate the power asymmetry.”…
“Scholars have tested these theories and the evidence is clear: Whether it’s liberation movements, secessionist campaigns, insurrectionist or anti-regime struggles, nonviolence resistance succeeds relative to violent resistance. In 2011, Erica Chenoweth, a professor of International Studies at the University of Denver, and Maria J. Stephan, a senior policy fellow at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), published a comparative study of 323 violent and nonviolent resistance campaigns between 1900 and 2006. What they discovered aligns perfectly with Sharp’s pluralistic conception of power: “nonviolent resistance campaigns were nearly twice as likely to achieve full or or partial success as their violent counterparts” (7). And this holds across regime types and in various regions of the world.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if Congress could have a conversation that is at least as reasonable as what appears on these comics and actually do something other than stimulate more gun sales.
“However if Gandhi tried that against the Nazis in India he would have been eliminated as they would be hauled away to death camps or shot on the spot..”I think the study was done based the size of the resistance … effectively millions of virtual Gandhis would work.
I need an assault rifle to defend myself, my family and my country. By allowing children to shoot their friends, get stolen and used in a crime or my own family member can use it for a mass shooting. I need a weapon of war to shoot at varmints, how else should a bloodthirsty savage take care of rabbits and moles?I need a bigger clip because I’m a delusional survivalist, and a gun will save me. I need an assault weapon because I’m a military fetishist with tiny hands. The only way I will feel secure is to have a big gun.We don’t need background checks, waiting periods or lists. NRA, insecure small men and terrorists will always get guns so why stop them? People will always go through red lights, so why have them?
Stop glorifying them on TV and movies, like they did away with cigarettes. Have gun training in civics class, if it is your right to own a gun, the US should provide safety training and a base line understanding for all citizens. If we were like the Wild West, less people would have a pistol on their hip, and no one would wear them into town. We did away with duels a long time ago, maybe we should bring that back. If the First amendment doesn’t do it, go to the Second. Of course, if you can’t talk out your issues, and the duel was not conclusive, you’ll have to provide lodging for some troops.
I read a short story that postulated that very event. And yes, Gandhi was shot. Then there was A. E. Van Vogt’s The World of Null-A, in which an unarmed populace achieved victory over a well-armed invader, but as far as I could tell, it was only because the underlying (invading) civilization had laws about genocide. Not total barbarians, IOW.That point about it only working if your adversaries are not total barbarians is why I don’t expect non-violent resistance to work in the U.S.
feverjrArcheological research in the ‘70s showed the Gabbler lies for what they were. Slaves had shotguns (not muskets or rifles) to supplement massa’s meager food ration, particularly the protein component. They were also paid, in hopes they would save it and buy their freedom when too old to be productive. So much for kindly massa taking care of aged slaves. (The Gabblers were a couple who had – and in a sense still have – censorship power over Texas, and thus the rest of the nation, textbooks, reflecting a fascist view of history and society.).ScullyUFOEven with effective tremor, I can load my flintlock in 45 seconds. In my prime, I could do it in 30. A trained militia could maintain sustained volley fire at the 45 rate, although tactics of the time usually used the volley first, followed by individual fire..Night-Gaunt49It is not just the “well-regulated” part they hate, it is also Article II, Section 2 that puts the National Guard (what they claim to be the actually abandoned militia), under the president’s Commander in Chief powers (which constitutionally apply only to the army, the navy, and militia when nationalized, and not to the entire country.
A reasonable compromise, to me, would be pre-qualification to purchase a firearm. Once you have your firearms permit you can walk into the gun store and buy without any wait. What problem could the NRA or any responsible gun owner have with that ?
“I would like to see that study.”http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820PUB DATE: August 2011ISBN: 9780231156837320 pagesFORMAT: Paperback
“However if Gandhi tried that against the Nazis in India he would have been eliminated as they would be hauled away to death camps or shot on the spot.. It only works if your adversaries are not total barbarians. The British were not, the Germans were at that time.”The difference was the Nazis tightly controlled their press. The British elites would have gladly squashed Gandhi like a beetle, but reports of the atrocities in the British press turned public opinion in the UK against the government policies. The same thing happened to us with Vietnam. Another lesson: a press that is free to be critical (even when totally unjustified) is a better bulwark of freedom than guns. No government can last long if popular sentiment has turned utterly against it. Yes, I’m aware of North Korea. I can’t think of anyplace else where a government is taking such extreme measures to suppress information & I think their days are numbered in the low double digits at best.
“How it differs from other semi-automatics is that the round is made to tumble inside the body meaning there is a small entry wound, lots of organ damage and a large exit wound making it fairly worthless for hunting.”Let me make some people happy here, who I usually antagonize. The AR-15 is a rifle. The chief characteristic of a rifle is grooves that impart a spin on the bullet, stabilizing it & improving it’s accuracy & firing distance. The AR-15 bullet do not tumble.There are soft & hollow pointed bullets that are designed to mushroom and/or tumble on impact. Those kinds of rounds are designed for lethal use, whether against humans or animals.There are a lot of hunting rifles that use the same rounds as an AR-15 type gun, but they are designed with longer barrels for greater accuracy & only fire 4 or 5 rounds, at most. They are bolt action, meaning the rate of fire is much slower. They are in most cases only suitable for hunting smaller game. Larger bore rifles are preferred for hunting larger game such as deer.The AR-15 is the perfect weapon for putting several rounds into a target at what is for hunting standards, very close range. It excels at putting rounds a group of targets at very close range. The AR-15 is a variant of a military weapon that is designed to take out groups of enemy soldiers. As a hunting weapon or home defense weapon, it’s poorly suited. I suspect I’ve antagonized some people after all. I’ve seen convincing arguments for AR-15s being ideal for eliminating infestations of pack animal type infestations. I’m happy to agree that people who are dealing with such situations should be able to get the tools they need. The reality is that AR-15s are a big moneymaker for the gun industry. Far more lucrative than shotguns, bolt action rifles or revolvers.
Night-Gaunt49Hitlerjungend troops were not exclusively on the Eastern front. US, British, Canadian, as well as occupied countries’ guerilla troops, faced them from 1944 onward.
OmqR-IV.0 almost 8 years ago
Ohoh…I foresee a battle on semantics looming on this thread. "Assault weapon” vs. "assault rifle”. Ah well, not my concern.
Dtroutma almost 8 years ago
Bloods, Crips, “Sovereigns”, “militias”, and other hate groups are far more a threat at home than ISIL. Most of them also have plenty of weapons, but every time there’s another horror, they go out and buy more!
feverjr Premium Member almost 8 years ago
The second amendment was not a suicide pact written into the Constitution by the founding fathers. It was a concession made to the slave states, that their militias or slave patrols could operate in the north. “That a well regulated militia would not be infringed.” The fear was that slaves could escape to the north if the militias weren’t given the freedom to recapture them.The second amendment does not make much sense if it’s about the ownership of firearms. In the 1700’s, everybody owned a firearm or you didn’t eat. Try to picture life at the time of the revolution, the laws were not made in a vacuum, slavery was the economy of the south.…………………….
“Slave patrols first began in South Carolina in 1704 and spread throughout the thirteen colonies, lasting well beyond the American Revolution. As the population of black slaves boomed, especially with the invention of the cotton gin, so did the fear of slave resistance and uprisings. Its development began when other means of slave control failed to instill slave control and obedience. Their biggest concern were slaves on the plantations since that is where slave populations were highest.” ……………https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_patrol
feverjr Premium Member almost 8 years ago
Love the “wait-a-second” amendment…
Happy Two Shoes almost 8 years ago
The GOP gave both of those guys their jobs.
piobaire almost 8 years ago
^As regards the time of the American Revolution: Firearms were not universally owned. Due to the scarcity, proposals were made to arm the revolutionary army with pikes and/or bows. Gun ownership became much more common after the US Civil War.
piobaire almost 8 years ago
^ Most people at the time of the American Revolution got their food the same way they do today — from farms. Back in those days, the majority of the population was engaged in farming.
superposition almost 8 years ago
Data on use of violent vs non-violent resistance :“Gun advocates fancy themselves champions of the Constitution. They misunderstand and abuse the Second Amendment” — SEAN ILLING…“Armed individuals or even organized militias cannot defeat the United States government militarily. This ought to be obvious on its face, given the state’s overwhelming advantage in terms of resources and capabilities. Gather all the AR-15s you like. If Uncle Sam decides to detain you, he will – eventually. Having a few guns will complicate things, but it won’t negate the power asymmetry.”…
“Scholars have tested these theories and the evidence is clear: Whether it’s liberation movements, secessionist campaigns, insurrectionist or anti-regime struggles, nonviolence resistance succeeds relative to violent resistance. In 2011, Erica Chenoweth, a professor of International Studies at the University of Denver, and Maria J. Stephan, a senior policy fellow at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), published a comparative study of 323 violent and nonviolent resistance campaigns between 1900 and 2006. What they discovered aligns perfectly with Sharp’s pluralistic conception of power: “nonviolent resistance campaigns were nearly twice as likely to achieve full or or partial success as their violent counterparts” (7). And this holds across regime types and in various regions of the world.”
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/20/the_militia_myth_why_an_armed_citizenry_isnt_the_best_defense_against_state_tyranny/
WestNYC Premium Member almost 8 years ago
How about a repeal of the 2nd amendment and a scaling down of the first amendment to make hate speech a crime ?
Theodore E. Lind Premium Member almost 8 years ago
Wouldn’t it be nice if Congress could have a conversation that is at least as reasonable as what appears on these comics and actually do something other than stimulate more gun sales.
Darsan54 Premium Member almost 8 years ago
Love the NRA! Just another terrorist organization.
kaffekup almost 8 years ago
Not “Make that two.” But“Make that 2,000.”“Yes, sir, will you be taking them or do you want us to ship them?”
superposition almost 8 years ago
“However if Gandhi tried that against the Nazis in India he would have been eliminated as they would be hauled away to death camps or shot on the spot..”I think the study was done based the size of the resistance … effectively millions of virtual Gandhis would work.
magicwalnut Premium Member almost 8 years ago
um…total barbarians…are you speaking of congress or the NRA?
Mr. Blawt almost 8 years ago
I need an assault rifle to defend myself, my family and my country. By allowing children to shoot their friends, get stolen and used in a crime or my own family member can use it for a mass shooting. I need a weapon of war to shoot at varmints, how else should a bloodthirsty savage take care of rabbits and moles?I need a bigger clip because I’m a delusional survivalist, and a gun will save me. I need an assault weapon because I’m a military fetishist with tiny hands. The only way I will feel secure is to have a big gun.We don’t need background checks, waiting periods or lists. NRA, insecure small men and terrorists will always get guns so why stop them? People will always go through red lights, so why have them?
Mr. Blawt almost 8 years ago
Stop glorifying them on TV and movies, like they did away with cigarettes. Have gun training in civics class, if it is your right to own a gun, the US should provide safety training and a base line understanding for all citizens. If we were like the Wild West, less people would have a pistol on their hip, and no one would wear them into town. We did away with duels a long time ago, maybe we should bring that back. If the First amendment doesn’t do it, go to the Second. Of course, if you can’t talk out your issues, and the duel was not conclusive, you’ll have to provide lodging for some troops.
Cerabooge almost 8 years ago
I read a short story that postulated that very event. And yes, Gandhi was shot. Then there was A. E. Van Vogt’s The World of Null-A, in which an unarmed populace achieved victory over a well-armed invader, but as far as I could tell, it was only because the underlying (invading) civilization had laws about genocide. Not total barbarians, IOW.That point about it only working if your adversaries are not total barbarians is why I don’t expect non-violent resistance to work in the U.S.
hippogriff almost 8 years ago
feverjrArcheological research in the ‘70s showed the Gabbler lies for what they were. Slaves had shotguns (not muskets or rifles) to supplement massa’s meager food ration, particularly the protein component. They were also paid, in hopes they would save it and buy their freedom when too old to be productive. So much for kindly massa taking care of aged slaves. (The Gabblers were a couple who had – and in a sense still have – censorship power over Texas, and thus the rest of the nation, textbooks, reflecting a fascist view of history and society.).ScullyUFOEven with effective tremor, I can load my flintlock in 45 seconds. In my prime, I could do it in 30. A trained militia could maintain sustained volley fire at the 45 rate, although tactics of the time usually used the volley first, followed by individual fire..Night-Gaunt49It is not just the “well-regulated” part they hate, it is also Article II, Section 2 that puts the National Guard (what they claim to be the actually abandoned militia), under the president’s Commander in Chief powers (which constitutionally apply only to the army, the navy, and militia when nationalized, and not to the entire country.
Addled Brain almost 8 years ago
A reasonable compromise, to me, would be pre-qualification to purchase a firearm. Once you have your firearms permit you can walk into the gun store and buy without any wait. What problem could the NRA or any responsible gun owner have with that ?
superposition almost 8 years ago
“I would like to see that study.”http://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820PUB DATE: August 2011ISBN: 9780231156837320 pagesFORMAT: Paperback
echoraven almost 8 years ago
…an inconvenient truth: No NRA in Paris, nor in Kenya.
Uncle Joe Premium Member almost 8 years ago
“However if Gandhi tried that against the Nazis in India he would have been eliminated as they would be hauled away to death camps or shot on the spot.. It only works if your adversaries are not total barbarians. The British were not, the Germans were at that time.”The difference was the Nazis tightly controlled their press. The British elites would have gladly squashed Gandhi like a beetle, but reports of the atrocities in the British press turned public opinion in the UK against the government policies. The same thing happened to us with Vietnam. Another lesson: a press that is free to be critical (even when totally unjustified) is a better bulwark of freedom than guns. No government can last long if popular sentiment has turned utterly against it. Yes, I’m aware of North Korea. I can’t think of anyplace else where a government is taking such extreme measures to suppress information & I think their days are numbered in the low double digits at best.
Uncle Joe Premium Member almost 8 years ago
“No toy guns, every child taught not only how to use a gun and take care of it but the moral imperative connected to it. "I’ve heard that before.
Uncle Joe Premium Member almost 8 years ago
“How it differs from other semi-automatics is that the round is made to tumble inside the body meaning there is a small entry wound, lots of organ damage and a large exit wound making it fairly worthless for hunting.”Let me make some people happy here, who I usually antagonize. The AR-15 is a rifle. The chief characteristic of a rifle is grooves that impart a spin on the bullet, stabilizing it & improving it’s accuracy & firing distance. The AR-15 bullet do not tumble.There are soft & hollow pointed bullets that are designed to mushroom and/or tumble on impact. Those kinds of rounds are designed for lethal use, whether against humans or animals.There are a lot of hunting rifles that use the same rounds as an AR-15 type gun, but they are designed with longer barrels for greater accuracy & only fire 4 or 5 rounds, at most. They are bolt action, meaning the rate of fire is much slower. They are in most cases only suitable for hunting smaller game. Larger bore rifles are preferred for hunting larger game such as deer.The AR-15 is the perfect weapon for putting several rounds into a target at what is for hunting standards, very close range. It excels at putting rounds a group of targets at very close range. The AR-15 is a variant of a military weapon that is designed to take out groups of enemy soldiers. As a hunting weapon or home defense weapon, it’s poorly suited. I suspect I’ve antagonized some people after all. I’ve seen convincing arguments for AR-15s being ideal for eliminating infestations of pack animal type infestations. I’m happy to agree that people who are dealing with such situations should be able to get the tools they need. The reality is that AR-15s are a big moneymaker for the gun industry. Far more lucrative than shotguns, bolt action rifles or revolvers.
hippogriff almost 8 years ago
Night-Gaunt49Hitlerjungend troops were not exclusively on the Eastern front. US, British, Canadian, as well as occupied countries’ guerilla troops, faced them from 1944 onward.