| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Anti Gun Adds, are they fair?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Anti Gun Adds, are they fair?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 05:49
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Captain, the firing at Kent State was neither organized nor disciplined. It was haphazard. Had it been otherwise, there would have been far more than four dead. Yes, those who fired felt that they were in the right, but their justification had more to do with self-defense and the belief that shots had been fired and they were under attack. Troops who are acting under orders don't need to justify their acts.

All U.S. military take an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, "foreign and domestic". Kent State is an example where there were no 'enemies' except in the minds of some untrained and poorly disciplined National Guardsmen.
 
A few panicky, ill trained young men who made some bad decisions. Yes, likely the case. But pulling back a little, and taking a broader view, I think we can still see situations where a military intervention in state affairs is quite possible.
 
The Ohio National Guard showed up on  a university campus, with live ammunition, to counter young students protesting what was, rather undisputedly, events that were worth protesting. The intent, no doubt, was not to shoot anybody, but certainly the capability was there. We already have a slightly surreal atmosphere here- university students saying they are against violence, met by a government using violence. The military was used to enforce a certain paradigm, with lethality if absolutely necessary; a paradigm that changed within a few years, with the beliefs of the protesting students going mainstream. The possibility of another split between the goals of authority and the populace occuring again is certainly there.
 
And really, this was nothing new. Military forces were called in again and again to counter what the state considered wrongdoing. But the concept of wrongdoing has changed over the years. The formation of trade unions, demonstrations in favour of collective bargining, and strikes to back such demands, were once considered wrongdoing, and put those so engaged in danger of catching a bullet. As late as the 1930's, protestors peacefully making demands (ironically enough military veterans seeking pension benefits) were faced with machine gun fire in Washingion.
 
Times, and sentiments change. The political pendulum is swinging to the right again, and it may be that the concept of wrongdoing may shift again. And if it does, the military may again be called on to enforce a certain viewpoint.
 
As the Japanese say: the nail that sticks up is the one that gets hammered down. And doubly so for very tight-knit groups such as the military, where group identification is strong. This means that many, most, are likely to follow orders from the top, even if they may be self-serving or malicious. To say that those that rise to the top of power could not have those attributes would be truly straining credibility. They have, and it could be worse in the future. We have already seen some rather astounding pronouncements from the right wing of the Republican Party, and their fellow travellers. A few years down the road, they may be giving orders, to protect, of course, something worthwhile, the constitution, law and order, etc. But will it really be that? In recent times, who has stuck their neck out, and gone against the grain? Vietnam, Iraq- the "March of Folly" as historian Magaret McMillan put it -has continued on, with a chain of command intact.
 
You have said that the military takes an oath to defend the constitution, even against those within. Yet this is a broad subject, and open to a lot of interpretation, even by those well versed in the subject. And certainly many are not. I remember seeing a sign from a Tea Party demonstration that read: Don't mess with my Medicare! We don't want socialized medicine! We may laugh, but in fact we are in an age where many feel a disconnect from knowledge and academia. About half the population don't vote in US federal elections; the figure is only a little better in Canada. If research is to be believed, many, perhaps most, never read another book after leaving school. Many, to most, depending on the juristiction, believe in magic and mysticism, including angels, demons, and gods. Many of these are the people that would find themselves in a future military chain of command, in some dicey situation as punted here in this thread, and weighing whether they knew enough to disobey their superiors, and indeed the head of state.
 
With enough spin, and enough credibility, the enemy could be anyone. Rock throwing university students, communist agitators, striking miners.....a president that is secretly a socialist and a muslim? Perhaps the enemy would be a president who violated the constitution; who was in disagreement with the aspirations of the eighteenth century rural farmers who wrote it. Although it would be difficult to say exactly, most likely, except for those whose self-interest lay with a simplistic answer.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 10:17
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

On the issue of a coup, Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here is required reading.
 
On the gun issue, I agree with lirelou.
 
Good lord, Gcle dusting off Sinclair Lewis' satire from 1935 as a reflection of the possible rather than a product of the well-oiled New Deal media blitz [and a Huey Long character being the evil in the works] as propaganda against its opponents. That the book was itself dramatized as a Federal Theater project is interesting all on its own. One thing though, you seem to be aware that this little memory from the politics of the 1930s U.S. is now enjoying a new vogue among those "running scared" with respect to the Tea Partiers and "grass roots" politics.
 
Needs remembering that Huey Long was a Democrat, and Buzz Windrip is elected on a platform to the left of FDR, who, IIRC, is appointed an ambassador by the new administration. The threat of tyranny doesn't only come from the right.
 
However the main point I wanted to make remains that the most likely way a dictatorship could arise in the US is by the action of a popularly elected President. Same thing goes for most countries of course.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 14:14
Well, Graham, the phantom is populism which has always been the threat to structured government and within an American milieu had always been the element associated with the Democratic Party. One could say that it was the "wild card" taken from the Democratic deck by a wily Nixon as he called for his own new deal with the Southern Strategy! Sinclair Lewis as an "enlightened socialist" (read as elitist)  most certainly shared FDR's disdain for emotive politics and understood the dangers rhetoric posed to planned "reform" utilizing the language of popular concern, specially when the promised results where short in surfacing. Strangely enough, one could make the claim that "dictatorships" arise within the confines of the US all of the time at the local level of government. "Boss" politics is often dictatorship writ small, and if you follow that sense one can easily project a Democratic president such as FDR as capo di tutti capi... 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 15:18
In re GCLE's:  "However the main point I wanted to make remains that the most likely way a dictatorship could arise in the US is by the action of a popularly elected President. Same thing goes for most countries of course."

Excellent point, and certainly descriptive of Chile under Allende. A populist Leftist president elected with just under a third of the vote, whose policies over the next two years split the country into two highly mobilized factions, resulting in a military coup by what was then the least politically involved Latin American army, ushering in a right wing dictatorship to head of one by the left. One can see echoes of that on the American right these days, but the left seems too fractured to raise the spectre of 'socialism' except among the unlettered.

Captain Vee: A well reasoned response. Of course, I hardly agree with your " rather undisputedly" blather (of course, I was all for military action into Cambodia), but what remains clear is that the students did have a right to peacefully protest. As a veteran of some protests myself, I can assure that not all students show up with pacific intentions, and the more 'politically committed', in my day the Marxist-Leninists, bring their own shock troops who are quite prepared to trigger violence for their own purposes. Be that as it may, any violence by the military in a civil disturbance situation is supposed to be both tightly controlled and under the discipline of orders, and that was not the case at Kent State.  

Edited by lirelou - 20 Apr 2011 at 15:30
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 15:41

Correction lirelou, the leftists won by a landslide in 1970, the vote was split between Radomiro Tomic and Salvador Allende who both had practically the same platform and both won  63% of the vote which is why the Congress chose Allende for president.

Was he a dictator? I can't really judge but from what I read all his policies passed through constitutional means and had widespread support. He is more of a Chavez than a Castro.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 16:50
Al Jass, what you mean is: The Left and Center Left won by a landslide, as you count two of the contesting parties as a whole, i.e. lumping the Christian Democrats in with a coalition that include the MIR. As for their platforms being 'nearly identical', what happened over the next two year split Chilean politics into two alliances which competed in the Congressional elections of March 1973, which gave Allende's opponents in CODE 87 deputies and 30 Senators to Allende's UP representation of 63 deputies and 19 senators. Hardly a vote of confidence for Allende's policies.

Was he a dictator? He never really got the chance. But it was a palpable fear that he was headed that way, and other disagreements with Allende's policies, that gave CODE their majority in Congress.


Edited by lirelou - 20 Apr 2011 at 16:54
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
King
King

Most Glorious Leader of Muzhnopia

Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 5213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 20:47
What is unfair about the ad? It just reminds people that automatic weapons are killing machines.

I thought that the forum has tons of cynical realistic people here. Denying that automatic weapons are killing machines is Orwellian.

By the way, that brained damaged Brady was the man who took a bullet for Reagan. Literally. And it pretty much ruined his life, so he has this biased worldview on how bad is giving access to killing machines(guns) to everyone.

In any case, in the U.S., the gun lobby and its customers won. It is harder for me to buy decongestants or scientific supplies than it is for me to buy assault weapons! Yay!

In a saner U.S. society, guns would be heavily regulated, keeping them out from minors, convicted felons, mentally ill people. And we would have tracking systems to make sure that that would be the case. People who keep getting their guns stolen should lose the privilege of owning them. The famous "lawful citizen" should be the most vocal supporter for gun regulation.

But thanks to the NRA, we don't have those sensible laws. Instead the NRA and the even more crackpot rival organization are going to push the laws so that every American can buy any weapons they wish to have.


The second amendment is a big failure. It guarantees no real civic rights. It does guarantee the right to participate in the gun hobby . It is not a guarantee against tyranny, although it is effective in making people think it is. No group of amateurs can fight against the U.S. Army, the FBI, or specially trained SWAT teams, something that the current events in Libya is making very clear (without NATO, Gaddafi probably would have won already).

So all what the rest of us who do believe in sane gun regulation have left is to point out how those killing machines, guns, are used to kill people and are used in murder sprees.




Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 21:54
I have always looked upon the 2nd Amendment of the U. S. Constitution as the litmus that tests the true commitment of an individual to the construct conveniently called strict interpretation. The oft-cited conclusion of the text for the most part always ignores the sense of meaning behind the Federal proscription:
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 
Keep in mind the historical milieu that produced this wording and the nature of the federalism under debate that generated the first ten amendments to the original document produced at Philadelphia in 1787. No one would argue that the above was formulated as a constriction of the national government with respect to the powers reserved to the individual States and such was always the traditional interpretation asserted by what came to be known as the "State's Rights" folk. That is the people were protected insofar as their armaments were held in connection with organized and defined State militas, and within this sphere the national government could not innovate. How quickly people forget that even the Civil War was fought by state militias and not by some superior national command structure. Now everyone knows that "industrialization" in the mid-19th century gave us the revolver, but what is often forgotten is that the introduction of this weapon also gave rise to local legislation at both the municipal and state levels that only under the loosest form of interpretation can not be considered as "gun control laws". Hugo, writing above, is essentially correct in his tirade against the fringe but incorrect in assuming that such is the true conservative position. Naturally, the changes in interpretational flow generated by the application of the "Bill of Rights" to the individual states that began in the early 20th century has had its consequences.
 
For those of you interested in pursuit of background here is a link to the case law:
 
 
...In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the state of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing the arrest, without warrant, of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the second and fourth amendments to the constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and, even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321; The Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 552; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U.S. 131, 8 Sup. Ct. 21.
 
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535
 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 22:11
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

And I think you'l find it exceedingly more difficult to kill me with a bow, knife, poision or your bare hands. If this wasn't true, then why would you want guns? You can also kill a rabbit with a bow, knife, poision or your bare hands.


A broadhead could kill you with one arrow, cyanide will end your life in under 2 minutes and a knife only takes three stabs to the chest/ heart area. Its stupid to say you could "kill a bunny" with that. I could shoot you with a water gun with cyanide in it and before you make it to your car you'll be dead.


Edited by Joe - 20 Apr 2011 at 22:11
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 23:30
Let me put that in perspective if people don't understand guns. I think they are a little afraid and my point being that many other weapons can kill just as easily or more. I could make a cyanide gas weapon and put it in a ventilation system and if it flows right a lot of people will die, a bow could kill you with one shot and a knife needs no explanation but the main point being with a gun with ten rounds YOU CAN KILL like ten people in under a few seconds. Though what the hell is wrong with people acting like it happens a lot. Yeah people die all the time, but I saw a picture from Africa recently from the 2000s with a couple of dead people from bows and throwing spears quote unquote "ancient weaponry". One guy actually had an arrow all the way through his head like those dumb things that people wear.  
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 23:37
Geeze Joe just about anything kills. Even an ounce of water up the nose during sleep. The brewhaha is all political in this thread. In reality though pick your poison and as a society that is the question.To outlaw water or guns. You get my drift.
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2011 at 23:38
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Geeze Joe just about anything kills. Even an ounce of water up the nose during sleep. The brewhaha is all political in this thread. In reality though pick your poison and as a society that is the question.To outlaw water or guns. You get my drift.

That is my position anything can kill so why ban it? or be anti guns? I guess its basically just anything can kill and grow up.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 02:41
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The US army in the way it is formed, trained and organised is completely different than that of the South American armies. To put it bluntly, no matter how high the rank of the officer is his power extremely limited except in pure military affairs and he always has a civilian boss above him who has the final say.
 
 
In South America and to a large extent the rest of the world the top brass of the army are a class of their own both socially and politically. The army has a much higher degree of autonomy to run its own affairs than the US army has and civilian control is extremely limited. If I am not mistaken the only civilians in the Chilean MoD are probably the defense minister and his own secretary.
 
Al-Jassas
 
You may enjoy this account of the Cuban missile crisis, one segment of which described the tense standoff between President Kennedy and some of his generals, notably Curtis LeMay, who saw him as a naive and weak leader who could be brushed aside without too much trouble, allowing more "pragmatic" elements to get their way (in this case by bombing the hell out of Cuba, and possibly the Soviet Union as well).
 
 
Could these things happen in the US? You bet they could. How, for example, would the military react if a more radical member of the tea party was elected- Sarah Palin, or similar- and then started giving orders that would soon lead to disaster, due to either philosophical hubris, inexperience of the world, or a combination of both?
 
Here is the thing. What was LeMay's rank, how many people he commanded, how far was his authority and how many other generals were willing to follow him. And what about the 1000 plus living generals of WWII, how many of those supported him?
 
Le May was just a clogg in a giant machine that was much bigger than him while Pinoches and his Latin American buddies were members of an exclusive gentlemans club that had no civilian membership or oversight.
 
 
 
Al-Jassas
 
I would have to refer back to the book to get LeMay's rank, but certainly he was at, or close to, the top of the pyriamid of the defense department.
 
As for his authority, and how many might support actions that might be on the outer edge of legality, I think that is a complex question. Human psychology tends to circle the wagons in times of crisis, and to look to strong leaders, and to follow orders that would be examined much more fastidiously in calmer times. We have certainly seen evidence of this in the past. Only a decade after these events, president Nixon was in a deep funk over his impending Watergate humiliation, and acting, according to sources at the time, somewhat erratically. Another general, Alexander Haig, issued a directive under his own authority to refer any odd or potentially dangerous orders received from the president though him before acting upon them. Already a modest diversion of power, and only for the sake of a scandal.
 
How much support a potential usurper of power would need I think depends a lot on the circumstances of the event, the individuals own power and standing, the quality of spin put out, and ultimately, how many could be persuaded, or cowed, into support.
 
As for the military being completely different from Latin America, I'm not so sure. There is a different tradition in North America, but still the military is still a very close-knit group. Even here in Canada, there is a certain amount of "gentleman's club" as far as the military is concerned. It is an institution with a long history, and firmly entrenched traditions. If there were to be any group in society that would challenge government, it would likely be the military.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7842
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 03:30
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

And I think you'l find it exceedingly more difficult to kill me with a bow, knife, poision or your bare hands. If this wasn't true, then why would you want guns? You can also kill a rabbit with a bow, knife, poision or your bare hands.


A broadhead could kill you with one arrow, cyanide will end your life in under 2 minutes and a knife only takes three stabs to the chest/ heart area. Its stupid to say you could "kill a bunny" with that. I could shoot you with a water gun with cyanide in it and before you make it to your car you'll be dead.
Quote Let me put that in perspective if people don't understand guns. I think they are a little afraid and my point being that many other weapons can kill just as easily or more. I could make a cyanide gas weapon and put it in a ventilation system and if it flows right a lot of people will die, a bow could kill you with one shot and a knife needs no explanation but the main point being with a gun with ten rounds YOU CAN KILL like ten people in under a few seconds. Though what the hell is wrong with people acting like it happens a lot. Yeah people die all the time, but I saw a picture from Africa recently from the 2000s with a couple of dead people from bows and throwing spears quote unquote "ancient weaponry". One guy actually had an arrow all the way through his head like those dumb things that people wear.  
You're letting political propaganda lead you into a ridiculous position.
You have your water pistol full of cyanide and I'll have an assault rifle. Let's dual.
Who do you think would win?
 
If these weapons are so effective why aren't you hunting with them? If bows are so good why doesn't the military use them? If you can kill with a bow what do you need a gun for?
 
You CAN kill with a lot of things, but it is MUCH HARDER. If you want to kill me with a knife you have to over power me first, if you want to kill me with a bow you'd better hit the first time 'cause you don't have a second shot, and if you want to kill me with cyanide you'd better think up someway of making me drink it. With none of these weapons can you go on a shopping mall shooting.
 
I like Malaysia's logic. A gun is a killing machine, the only reason to own a gun is to kill, killing is illegal, therefore possessing a gun is intent to commit murder.
[On the other hand I also like Afghanistan/Pakistan's logic. A gun is a killing machine. We frequently need to kill people*. If we buy guns the enemy will cut the supply lines. Therefore we make our own guns]
 
*eg. Indians, Russians, Americans, the Taliban, the Bukhti, etc, etc


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 21 Apr 2011 at 03:33
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
King
King

Most Glorious Leader of Muzhnopia

Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 5213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 04:34
Dear Dr.

I never claimed that that is the conservative position. You identified it as such. Moreover, although it is most commonly associated with the right, there are plenty of liberals who love their guns as well.

Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
King
King

Most Glorious Leader of Muzhnopia

Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 5213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 04:41
Joe,

First, no one is banning any guns. The NRA and their gun nuts have won.

But let's not kid ourselves: automatic weapons are efficient killing machines designed to kill a lot of people in a very short period of time.

If we can regulate bath salts, that some losers are using to get high, we should be able to regulate something that could tragically kill dozens of people.

It has nothing to do with politics but with common sense on one hand and lack of common sense due to a sick love of the firearms on the other. Again, people who like firearms and understand them should know how bad they can be. Actually, they do know; they just pretend that cloths pins are as lethal as AK 47 in these kinds of discussions.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 05:41
Captain Vee, in re your:  "As for the military being completely different from Latin America, I'm not so sure."

Traditionally, most militaries in Latin America have viewed themselves as guarantors of the state, which in the modern period has translated to guarantors of the Constitution (the document that produced the state). Indeed, it was in response to this that the Chilean Army acted. While the second part of that sounds similar to the U.S. Armed Forces, a major difference exists between the two. A retired U.S. officer is merely that. He may enjoy the occasional use of his military title, and receive retirement benefits paid by the state, but once he is out the door, he is a civilian with a military past. Latin American (and Spanish and French) officers view themselves as a members of a military class or caste. Retirement does not change that. This self-identity is felt in politics, where former members of the military keep a finger in both their party, and in military circles. To the credit of many Latin militaries, they are not always on the right. The military in both Peru and Bolivia supported populist revolutions in the 50s, and the Panamanian Defense Forces were key to obtaining the Panama Canal Treaty that returned control of the Canal Zone to Panama. But the point is that most have intervened in political affairs when they saw the survival of the nation-state threatened. Perhaps the United States has the advantage of a document that had survived 235 years of testing but any real coup by the U.S. military is likely to remain the stuff of novels for some time to come. As for the origins of that corporate Latin military vision, many presume that its roots lie in the Spanish Army. But in fact, those roots generally hail back to the post-independence wars where the Army was the only institution that could return peace and order to the nation, and guarantee its existence as a sovereign state, rather than as a province of its neighbor.

How does this relate to gun ownership? Peripheral, I'll admit. But I noted that while the U.S. Army tends to travel about without weapons within the U.S., or with empty weapons while on parade or guard duty, Latin Armies don't. Carrying a loaded weapons is common among officers and NCOs, even when traveling in mufti, and troops on guard duty are always have rounds in their magazines. 


Edited by lirelou - 21 Apr 2011 at 05:49
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 17:03
Actually some military forces use specialized crossbow pistols and regular crossbows as alternatives to silenced pistols.
Originally posted by hugoestr hugoestr wrote:

Joe,

First, no one is banning any guns. The NRA and their gun nuts have won.

But let's not kid ourselves: automatic weapons are efficient killing machines designed to kill a lot of people in a very short period of time.

If we can regulate bath salts, that some losers are using to get high, we should be able to regulate something that could tragically kill dozens of people.

It has nothing to do with politics but with common sense on one hand and lack of common sense due to a sick love of the firearms on the other. Again, people who like firearms and understand them should know how bad they can be. Actually, they do know; they just pretend that cloths pins are as lethal as AK 47 in these kinds of discussions.


What I'm saying is that YES occasionally people go crazy and shoot up a mall or a school but those are FAR and in between and not reason enough to ban guns or machine guns. Though point being I could be a cyanide gas bomb and put it in a ventilation system and kill practically thousands and just walk out. Thats a million times more deadly than any crazy f**k with a machine gun cyanide gas is so dangerous its unbelievable. Its what the Nazis used in their gas chambers zyklon B is just cyanide and zyklon B is a trade name. So its so effective at mass killing its practically boundless.


Edited by Joe - 21 Apr 2011 at 17:06
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 18:17
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

You're letting political propaganda lead you into a ridiculous position.
You have your water pistol full of cyanide and I'll have an assault rifle. Let's dual.
Who do you think would win?
 and if you want to kill me with cyanide you'd better think up someway of making me drink it.


I don't need to make you drink it I just have to get it on your skin. I could walk up to you in a bar with a beer full of cyanide and dump it on you act like its a mistake buy you a drink we make a amends I walk out and leave and you fall over dead and everybody in the bar assumes "He had to much to drink."
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 18:42
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

Actually some military forces use specialized crossbow pistols and regular crossbows as alternatives to silenced pistols.
Originally posted by hugoestr hugoestr wrote:

Joe,

First, no one is banning any guns. The NRA and their gun nuts have won.

But let's not kid ourselves: automatic weapons are efficient killing machines designed to kill a lot of people in a very short period of time.

If we can regulate bath salts, that some losers are using to get high, we should be able to regulate something that could tragically kill dozens of people.

It has nothing to do with politics but with common sense on one hand and lack of common sense due to a sick love of the firearms on the other. Again, people who like firearms and understand them should know how bad they can be. Actually, they do know; they just pretend that cloths pins are as lethal as AK 47 in these kinds of discussions.


What I'm saying is that YES occasionally people go crazy and shoot up a mall or a school but those are FAR and in between and not reason enough to ban guns or machine guns. Though point being I could be a cyanide gas bomb and put it in a ventilation system and kill practically thousands and just walk out. Thats a million times more deadly than any crazy f**k with a machine gun cyanide gas is so dangerous its unbelievable. Its what the Nazis used in their gas chambers zyklon B is just cyanide and zyklon B is a trade name. So its so effective at mass killing its practically boundless.
 
With the result that possession and use of cyanide is usually very carefully controlled, just as guns should be. Carrying offensive weapons of any sort is regulated in the UK, and only legal in a limited number of situations.
 
I don't really see your point.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
King
King

Most Glorious Leader of Muzhnopia

Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 5213
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 19:39
Joe,

U.S. guns are not going to be banned. On this issue, there is bipartisan consensus.

So we must have human sacrifices, literally, human sacrifices, in the name of firearm hobbyists having the right to own what are essentially toys. Those young people killed in Columbine and in Virginia Tech are the real price of gun "freedom." Sacrificial lambs to appease the 2nd Amendment God and its followers.

You can make an argument about the value of the hunting hobby or target shooting hobby, but you don't really have that with automatic weapons. There is no real skill or artistry when using them. They are exclusively mass murder machines. Why shouldn't these be banned?
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 21:52
GCLE my point being that a lot of weapons can cause extreme devestation and its riduclous to solely look at guns at the bad gguys
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 22:04
I dont need to see politicians and other assholes in tv talking about guns like they are the devil or something that is annoying as hell and kind of degrading to weaponry. Martial skill is an important part of society and ALWAYS has been but martial skill to people is ideas ranging from boxing or aikido to sword fighting or a gunslinger.

Think if you met a guy who know all of the Japanese sword martial arts like Battōjutse, Iaido, Iaijutsu, Kenjutsu, and Shinkendo



Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2011 at 22:15
The political issue now does revolve around a steady effort by "gun nuts" through slick propaganda to assault the gun laws that do exist under the false premise that the 2nd Amendment enjoins any such legislation. Such action has no precedent at law and no truly conservative Federal judiciary would entertain such quackery--but, nevertheless some do, and in total disregard of existing and long standing precedents.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4517
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2011 at 00:34
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:


How does this relate to gun ownership? Peripheral, I'll admit. But I noted that while the U.S. Army tends to travel about without weapons within the U.S., or with empty weapons while on parade or guard duty, Latin Armies don't. Carrying a loaded weapons is common among officers and NCOs, even when traveling in mufti, and troops on guard duty are always have rounds in their magazines. 


Indeed, the shootings at Fort Hood ought to be a stark reminder of that fact. How soon some forget.

As for anti-gun ads being unfair, well, that is just politics. No different than the unfair pro-gun advertisement claiming liberals are working for US enemies in disarming the country.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2011 at 03:01
Joe, in re your remark: "Actually some military forces use specialized crossbow pistols and regular crossbows as alternatives to silenced pistols."

Regarding U.S. Special Operations Forces, my experience has been that such have always been relegated to training. Indeed, it is realistic training with such weapons that exposes their shortcomings and makes firearms the weapon of choice for 'double tapping'.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2011 at 03:59
Perhaps no one is interested in actually addressing the question and instead more preoccupied with the romance of the gun as an image of male potency. If one want to apply the fairness "doctrine" with respect to advocacy revolving around a political question, then there is but one answer: Yes.  Now, if one changes the question and inquires the same of the media campaign maintained for the past thirty years by the NRA, then the response is No simply upon the basis of hyperbole stressing the potential of some sort of conspiratorial scenario that translates gun control into the "death of liberty".
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2011 at 04:27
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Perhaps no one is interested in actually addressing the question and instead more preoccupied with the romance of the gun as an image of male potency. If one want to apply the fairness "doctrine" with respect to advocacy revolving around a political question, then there is but one answer: Yes.  Now, if one changes the question and inquires the same of the media campaign maintained for the past thirty years by the NRA, then the response is No simply upon the basis of hyperbole stressing the potential of some sort of conspiratorial scenario that translates gun control into the "death of liberty".
 
Indeed. It is a myth to believe that freedom comes from deregulation, and the granting of whatever individual action takes one's fancy. True freedom comes from a respect for the individual coupled with and enlightened social contract. In other words, your not going to get much, if you are not willing to give something in return.
 
One may be free to drive one's car in whatever manner desired, but if everyone did, how free would they then be on the road?
 
If everyone is packing a gun, then no one is really free, in the sense of feeling reasonably secure and able to go where one wants without the threat of mayhem hanging over them.
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2011 at 04:56
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Captain Vee, in re your:  "As for the military being completely different from Latin America, I'm not so sure."

Traditionally, most militaries in Latin America have viewed themselves as guarantors of the state, which in the modern period has translated to guarantors of the Constitution (the document that produced the state). Indeed, it was in response to this that the Chilean Army acted. While the second part of that sounds similar to the U.S. Armed Forces, a major difference exists between the two. A retired U.S. officer is merely that. He may enjoy the occasional use of his military title, and receive retirement benefits paid by the state, but once he is out the door, he is a civilian with a military past. Latin American (and Spanish and French) officers view themselves as a members of a military class or caste. Retirement does not change that. This self-identity is felt in politics, where former members of the military keep a finger in both their party, and in military circles. To the credit of many Latin militaries, they are not always on the right. The military in both Peru and Bolivia supported populist revolutions in the 50s, and the Panamanian Defense Forces were key to obtaining the Panama Canal Treaty that returned control of the Canal Zone to Panama. But the point is that most have intervened in political affairs when they saw the survival of the nation-state threatened. Perhaps the United States has the advantage of a document that had survived 235 years of testing but any real coup by the U.S. military is likely to remain the stuff of novels for some time to come. As for the origins of that corporate Latin military vision, many presume that its roots lie in the Spanish Army. But in fact, those roots generally hail back to the post-independence wars where the Army was the only institution that could return peace and order to the nation, and guarantee its existence as a sovereign state, rather than as a province of its neighbor.

How does this relate to gun ownership? Peripheral, I'll admit. But I noted that while the U.S. Army tends to travel about without weapons within the U.S., or with empty weapons while on parade or guard duty, Latin Armies don't. Carrying a loaded weapons is common among officers and NCOs, even when traveling in mufti, and troops on guard duty are always have rounds in their magazines. 
 
Not much disagreement with your re Latin America, but my point was just that group behavior is something that has common threads accross humanity, and that in extraordinary circumstances, equally extraordinary behavior may ensue. 
 
In the case of a crisis where some may feel they have to take action to save some core aspect of society, there are many who would feel, and in fact be, pretty much powerless to effect change. It is unlikely that the local Shriner's Club, or the Association of Professional Dental Technicians, would plan a coup d'etat in some perceived national emergency. In many societies the military has executed these sort of things though, for the very pragmatic reason that they are the only group that has the structure, both physically and psychologically, and the weapons to successfully carry out such a plan.
 
For whatever reasons, and this would likely take up another thread, Latin America has lurged from instability to desperation through history, at least until very recently. And so it is not surprising that the one element in those countries that has had a chance at affecting stability has been employed again and again. If the US were to undergo a period of unrest and chaos in the future, and the military intervened, we would no doubt eventually  be talking about the "tradition" of the army, or marines, of entangling themselves in the politics of the country.
 
So far this hasn't been the case, but I think it is insufficient to write too much off to culture, and not acknowledge that stability has also played a role in sparing the fortunate the social experiment of group behavior under traumatic circumstance.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2011 at 10:46
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

GCLE my point being that a lot of weapons can cause extreme devestation and its riduclous to solely look at guns at the bad gguys
 
Agreed. But no-one's arguing that only guns should be controlled. Even pet Dobermanns are regulated. There's no reason why guns should be specially proected, which is the case now. The Second amendment doesn't just refer to guns but to any kind of arms. Yet in most states carrying or drawing a sword in public is illegal.
 
So why the defence of guns?


Edited by gcle2003 - 22 Apr 2011 at 10:49
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.