Jump to content


Null



Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?


Recommended Posts





  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I had a conversation with my dad a couple of years ago before he passed of brain cancer.  We were talking about old times and how much things have changed.  I have been teaching in the Texas public sc

Sure, let's copy Chicago's gun control laws.  They are among the stiffest in the country and are really working well.  NOT!

No, there's still popcorn, thanks to our well armed farmers and the well armed hunters and other well armed city folk that will be helping the farmers protect the food supply. I suppose the farmers wi

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

I hope you don't think so.

 

I don't think the Constitution or other founding documents are perfect by any means and when viewed with a modern lens, certain aspects maybe should be reviewed.  The founding fathers did not fathom the world we now live in.

For example, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" literally meant white men only when the document was written.  The founders had no intention for women or minorities to vote/have equal rights and this had to be updated.

As far as the 2A, the document calls for people to bear arms for the purpose of a "well regulated militia".  Please tell me what militia would have a chance against an invading army, foreign or domestic, in today's world.  I'll wait.

Back in 1789, I get it because militias actually had a purpose and stood a chance.  Today the written words of the law are outdated.

Edited by Brad_ATX
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I don't think the Constitution or other founding documents are perfect by any means and when viewed with a modern lens, certain aspects maybe should be reviewed.  The founding fathers did not fathom the world we now live in.

For example, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" literally meant white men only when the document was written.  The founders had no intention for women or minorities to vote/have equal rights and this had to be updated.

As far as the 2A, the document calls for people to bear arms for the purpose of a "well regulated militia".  Please tell me what militia would have a chance against an invading army, foreign or domestic, in today's world.  I'll wait.

Back in 1789, I get it because militias actually had a purpose and stood a chance.  Today the written words of the law are outdated.

So do you think we need a new Constitution?

  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

So do you think we need a new Constitution?

Completely new?  No.

Should we use modern sensibilities when discussing and applying the Constitution?  Yes.

Just because an amendment is there doesn't mean it's permanent and can't be reviewed (see 18 and 21 with regards to alcohol).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Completely new?  No.

Should we use modern sensibilities when discussing and applying the Constitution?  Yes.

Just because an amendment is there doesn't mean it's permanent and can't be reviewed (see 18 and 21 with regards to alcohol).

I tend to agree but I'm afraid the way the country is now so polarized if you start tinkering/interpreting one part of it the whole thing soon begins to unravel.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

I don't think the Constitution or other founding documents are perfect by any means and when viewed with a modern lens, certain aspects maybe should be reviewed.  The founding fathers did not fathom the world we now live in.

For example, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" literally meant white men only when the document was written.  The founders had no intention for women or minorities to vote/have equal rights and this had to be updated.

As far as the 2A, the document calls for people to bear arms for the purpose of a "well regulated militia".  Please tell me what militia would have a chance against an invading army, foreign or domestic, in today's world.  I'll wait.

Back in 1789, I get it because militias actually had a purpose and stood a chance.  Today the written words of the law are outdated.

No need to wait, I'll tell you now. No militia, no individual gun owner has any chance, but that's not the point. The point is this: There are now an estimated 320 million guns in the hands of an estimated 125 million households in the United States. I don't have to beat them, but I'm pretty sure between me, my wife, daughter and grand daughter, (all hold permits to carry) we can take out one, two if lucky. Some families will fail to get one, some will get three or four, but one is a good average. The combined armies of the world cannot accept 125 million casualties. That's the beauty of the 2nd amendment in modern times.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Mikey said:

No need to wait, I'll tell you now. No militia, no individual gun owner has any chance, but that's not the point. The point is this: There are now an estimated 320 million guns in the hands of an estimated 125 million households in the United States. I don't have to beat them, but I'm pretty sure between me, my wife, daughter and grand daughter, (all hold permits to carry) we can take out one, two if lucky. Some families will fail to get one, some will get three or four, but one is a good average. The combined armies of the world cannot accept 125 million casualties. That's the beauty of the 2nd amendment in modern times.

I'm sorry, but that's naive.  You're discounting their likely superior marksmanship, definite superior tactical ability, gear (including bulletproof wear), and potential to use other weapons/mechanisms (say tear gas, grenades, or long distance weapons) that would hinder your trigger finger quite useless.

Lets look at maybe the best example in modern times: ISIS.  ISIS is a glorified militia.  There's no real military.  As of March, the U.S. has lost 59 soldiers in the fight against ISIS.  Only 13 of those were KIA.  On the grand scale, that's not a lot.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/03/30/loss-us-service-member-syria-ends-deadliest-month-isis-fight.html

Look, just because I have a bat in my hand doesn't mean I can hit a Clayton Kershaw fastball.  And the likelihood is that you, your wife, daughter, granddaughter, and the vast majority of 125 million other folks couldn't either.

Edited by Brad_ATX
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I'm sorry, but that's naive.  You're discounting their likely superior marksmanship, definite superior tactical ability, gear (including bulletproof wear), and potential to use other weapons/mechanisms (say tear gas, grenades, or long distance weapons) that would hinder your trigger finger quite useless.

Look, just because I have a bat in my hand doesn't mean I can hit a Clayton Kershaw fastball.  And the likelihood is that you, your wife, daughter, granddaughter, and the vast majority of 125 million other folks couldn't either.

Gotta agree with Mikey on this.  You pay any attention to what house to house warfare is like ?   

If American's want to defend their country, they can do it and not sure where you live, but any foreign army trying to take the area  within 300 mile radius of my hometown would have their hands full.....people with guns who know how to use them, , mountains and people willing to fight for their country.  JMO.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AU64 said:

Gotta agree with Mikey on this.  You pay any attention to what house to house warfare is like ?   

If American's want to defend their country, they can do it and not sure where you live, but any foreign army trying to take the area  within 300 mile radius of my hometown would have their hands full.....people with guns who know how to use them, , mountains and people willing to fight for their country.  JMO.

Just edited my post.  Read the added info.  Not like we're familiar with the Middle East, but our military sure knows how to handle itself there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Just edited my post.  Read the added info.  Not like we're familiar with the Middle East, but our military sure knows how to handle itself there.

against mostly unarmed civilians....pretty easy to bust the door down on someone's home when you are pretty sure nobody has a gun inside.

BUT....this is all academic anyway......nothing is going to change about the 2nd amendment and no way the government can collect up all the guns out there ...but just saying that the amendment still has a purpose. ....of intimidation if nothing else. 

  • Like 2
  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AU64 said:

against mostly unarmed civilians....pretty easy to bust the door down on someone's home when you are pretty sure nobody has a gun inside.

BUT....this is all academic anyway......nothing is going to change about the 2nd amendment and no way the government can collect up all the guns out there ...but just saying that the amendment still has a purpose. ....of intimidation if nothing else. 

Don't be so sure.  Look how long it took to provide people of color equal rights, or how long it took for women to gain the right to vote.

 

 

Edited by homersapien
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2018 at 9:28 AM, AU64 said:

Gotta agree with Mikey on this.  You pay any attention to what house to house warfare is like ?   

If American's want to defend their country, they can do it and not sure where you live, but any foreign army trying to take the area  within 300 mile radius of my hometown would have their hands full.....people with guns who know how to use them, , mountains and people willing to fight for their country.  JMO.

 

If you are still in the house, planning to make your stand there, you have lost the fight already.  Flashbangs and tear gas say hello.

That said, if a foreign army has reached the point (on US soil) where they have time and resources to bother with you and your band of suicidal guerillas, then the following are now true:

1.  The United States military is no longer providing meaningful opposition, so the invader has won the war.

2.  Power, cellular communications, and telephone lines are all out.  Railways and major highways are likely useless as well.

3.  The local grocery stores have long since been empty.

4.  People that did not die in the humanitarian catastrophe that is the United States civilian population without power, cell phones, and grocery stores are fighting each other over what remains.  Food, gasoline, and water are things that Americans started killing each other over, while the militaries were fighting each other.  The United States is The Walking Dead, minus the zombies.

The foreign army can lay siege to your 300-mile radius at will.  They have the infrastructure for resupply indefinitely, but you do not.  They can pacify you with artillery, airstrikes, and starvation from positions of safety.  If they grow impatient, they can reduce every structure in that 300-mile radius to a pile of rubble, and then move on.  A fleet of drones and helicopters can pick off any survivors with impunity.  A civilian's ability to fight any modern military is directly related to how much they do not want to kill you, and what they wish to capture intact.

In reality, most of the people still alive will be so traumatized by the horrors they have witnessed (plenty of which came from their own people), and motivated by the basic instinct of needing to eat, that they will be happy to disarm and surrender.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Strychnine said:

 

If you are still in the house, planning to make your stand there, you have lost the fight already.  Flashbangs and tear gas say hello.

That said, if a foreign army has reached the point (on US soil) where they have time and resources to bother with you and your band of suicidal guerillas, then the following are now true:

1.  The United States military is no longer providing meaningful opposition, so the invader has won the war.

2.  Power, cellular communications, and telephone lines are all out.  Railways and major highways are likely useless as well.

3.  The local grocery stores have long since been empty.

4.  People that did not die in the humanitarian catastrophe that is the United States civilian population without power, cell phones, and grocery stores are fighting each other over what remains.  Food, gasoline, and water are things that Americans started killing each other over, while the militaries were fighting each other.  The United States is The Walking Dead, minus the zombies.

The foreign army can lay siege to your 300-mile radius at will.  They have the infrastructure for resupply indefinitely, but you do not.  They can pacify you with artillery, airstrikes, and starvation from positions of safety.  If they grow impatient, they can reduce every structure in that 300-mile radius to a pile of rubble, and then move on.  A fleet of drones and helicopters can pick off any survivors with impunity.  A civilian's ability to fight any modern military is directly related to how much they do not want to kill you, and what they wish to capture intact.

In reality, most of the people still alive will be so traumatized by the horrors they have witnessed (plenty of which came from their own people), and motivated by the basic instinct of needing to eat, that they will be happy to disarm and surrender.

So you didn’t see “Red Dawn “ apparently? ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

If you are still in the house, planning to make your stand there, you have lost the fight already.  Flashbangs and tear gas say hello.

That said, if a foreign army has reached the point (on US soil) where they have time and resources to bother with you and your band of suicidal guerillas, then the following are now true:

1.  The United States military is no longer providing meaningful opposition, so the invader has won the war.

2.  Power, cellular communications, and telephone lines are all out.  Railways and major highways are likely useless as well.

3.  The local grocery stores have long since been empty.

4.  People that did not die in the humanitarian catastrophe that is the United States civilian population without power, cell phones, and grocery stores are fighting each other over what remains.  Food, gasoline, and water are things that Americans started killing each other over, while the militaries were fighting each other.  The United States is The Walking Dead, minus the zombies.

The foreign army can lay siege to your 300-mile radius at will.  They have the infrastructure for resupply indefinitely, but you do not.  They can pacify you with artillery, airstrikes, and starvation from positions of safety.  If they grow impatient, they can reduce every structure in that 300-mile radius to a pile of rubble, and then move on.  A fleet of drones and helicopters can pick off any survivors with impunity.  A civilian's ability to fight any modern military is directly related to how much they do not want to kill you, and what they wish to capture intact.

In reality, most of the people still alive will be so traumatized by the horrors they have witnessed (plenty of which came from their own people), and motivated by the basic instinct of needing to eat, that they will be happy to disarm and surrender.

That's a possible scenario if the force is a foreign invader. Entirely different if the U.S. Gov't or some arm of it is trying to impose some Nazi-like "cleansing" on the U.S. population. Highly unlikely, but so is a foreign army on the ground in this country. In any case, 320 million guns in the hands of private citizens is something that would have to be schemed around. An individual would a very small problem. 320 million is a whole bunch of small problems.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, alexava said:

Plus I thought our right to bear arms was to overtake our own government? Now we are insurgents! 

 

Overthrowing our own government is even less realistic.  If the government ever gets so tyrannical that a sizeable portion of the populace is willing to take up arms against it, the military, acting on behalf of someone else in the government, is likely to have already deposed that government before my neighbors and I arrive in DC.  That is also likely to occur with minimal bloodshed.  The populace definitely is not getting anywhere near overthrowing our government, as long as the military is on their side.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mikey said:

That's a possible scenario if the force is a foreign invader. Entirely different if the U.S. Gov't or some arm of it is trying to impose some Nazi-like "cleansing" on the U.S. population. Highly unlikely, but so is a foreign army on the ground in this country. In any case, 320 million guns in the hands of private citizens is something that would have to be schemed around. An individual would a very small problem. 320 million is a whole bunch of small problems.

 

The historical classic siege tactics are sufficient whether the military is foreign or domestic.  Cut the power, cut the communication networks, and block the roads.  All of those small problems need food and water.  There are not many towns in this country that are capable of sustaining themselves, if there are even any at all.  I would wager that within no more than two weeks 99% of the civilian population would be willing to do whatever got them access to a sandwich, shower, television, and Facebook.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mikey said:

That's a possible scenario if the force is a foreign invader. Entirely different if the U.S. Gov't or some arm of it is trying to impose some Nazi-like "cleansing" on the U.S. population. Highly unlikely, but so is a foreign army on the ground in this country. In any case, 320 million guns in the hands of private citizens is something that would have to be schemed around. An individual would a very small problem. 320 million is a whole bunch of small problems.

Yes, because all 320 million of you are going to 1) remain intact and 2) play for the same team. 

A well-supported, national buyback program would knock that number way down. Most people just using common sense would knock it down even further than that. The rest would be "schemed around" pretty easily.

320 million guns isn't a bunch of small problems for the government. It's a stupid, unnecessary health crisis for the governed. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strychnine said:

 

The historical classic siege tactics are sufficient whether the military is foreign or domestic.  Cut the power, cut the communication networks, and block the roads.  All of those small problems need food and water.  There are not many towns in this country that are capable of sustaining themselves, if there are even any at all.  I would wager that within no more than two weeks 99% of the civilian population would be willing to do whatever got them access to a sandwich, shower, television, and Facebook.

I think we would do better than that. To besiege a town is one thing,  besieging a nation is something entirely different. There are tens of tens of thousands of food storage facilities in the U.S. Under such circumstances farmers would share, as long as their livestock and produce lasted. Whoever "they" are, they cannot block rivers, lakes and streams from providing water. Life as we know it would disappear, at least for a time but I think we'd do better than most nations in similar circumstances. Thanks in part to plenty of guns and ammunition in the hands of the populace.

Hopefully, we will never know which one of us is correct.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Yes, because all 320 million of you are going to 1) remain intact and 2) play for the same team. 

A well-supported, national buyback program would knock that number way down. Most people just using common sense would knock it down even further than that. The rest would be "schemed around" pretty easily.

320 million guns isn't a bunch of small problems for the government. It's a stupid, unnecessary health crisis for the governed. 

I disagree 100%. Since facepalms are somewhat rude, I didn't give this post one of those.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...