Extreme liberals and guns ...

[natedogg]

All the radical leftists who compare Bush to Hitler and fear some kind of right-wing coup or right-wing takeover of our civil liberties should be changing their positions on state-enforced confiscation of guns right about now.

The one way to guarantee that Bush and his cronies never round you up and put you in a camp is to go out and buy a gun today. It's your civic duty!

What's one of the first things Hitler did to solidify power? Confiscate all the guns from the public.

What did the Japanese Samurai lords do when they felt their power base was slipping at the hands of an armed populace? Why, they confiscated all the guns.

Your hatred of gun ownership and your desire to see them all banned (you know who you are) will only hasten your doom at the hands of a vicious right wing regime that wants to send you off to "re=education" centers.

natedogg

[nothumb]

Hi natedogg,

You make a good point. It's a paradox in my life (and I just wrote a long post about it in NVG) - I'd rather live in a society with fewer guns, but I feel increasingly more inclined to own one given the way things are going.

However, my acknowledgement of this thread does not mean I accept the label of a 'liberal.' Extreme, maybe, but liberal... never! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

NT

[wacki]

NVG?

[wacki]

BTW, nothumb,

I'm glad you see the importance of the Right to bear Arms and why it was in the bill of rights. I don't think it will get so bad that civilians will need guns, but it's not a right you want to go away non the less. People, especially when in groups, change fast.

[nothumb]

Well, I don't necessarily read the Constitution that way, so don't jump to any conclusions. If you read my presidential platform a while back, it included forcing all gun owners to join a well-regulated militia. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

In all seriousness, I think the right to bear arms and a fascination/obsession with guns are two different things. Our country is afflicted with the latter. I understand why people would want to have a gun (I don't, for the moment) but I think we have built this myth that carrying them around in public, in our cars, etc somehow makes us safer. This is not true in the vast majority of areas. This country has a serious, debilitating problem with gun crime. Look at how much it costs a year in hospital bills and insurance premiums - many, many times more than 'frivolous lawsuits' or other superficial concerns. For every gun fatality in this country (remember, over 40k every year) there are several non-fatal shootings (I forget the exact ratio now) that lead to thousands of dollars in medical costs. Not to mention the fact that people getting snuffed day in and day out is not the sign of a civilized country.

Personally, I can see why people want guns. I would prefer they own shotguns and rifles, not handguns, and that they think of them as a last line of defense or a method of procuring food - the purpose they served at the time our Constitution was written - and not as sporting equipment, essential personal accessories, collectors items or extensions of their very souls. But you can't dictate taste or desire.

NT

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
In all seriousness, I think the right to bear arms and a fascination/obsession with guns are two different things. Our country is afflicted with the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think "most" gun owners have a fanatical obsession with guns, but instead see it as an inherent constitutional right and valid tool for self-protection should dire circumstances arise. Painting the country's populace as being "afflicted" is an opinion (and an incorrect one IMO) although of course some individuals are true nuts (which goes for many other things besides gun too).

[ QUOTE ]
I understand why people would want to have a gun (I don't, for the moment) but I think we have built this myth that carrying them around in public, in our cars, etc somehow makes us safer. This is not true in the vast majority of areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

It always amazes me how anti-gun folks spout such statements as if they were received wisdom. I think the above statement of yours is simply wrong.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
I accept the label of a 'liberal.' Extreme, maybe, but liberal... never!

[/ QUOTE ]

nothumb, I would never presume to call you an extreme liberal!

Just don't call me a precocious 18 year old anymore... . haha!

On a more serious note, you do realize that all these folks you mention who should have guns (sportsmen, collectors, citizens who think it makes them safe) are NOT the ones committing the crimes with guns, right?

natedogg

[nef]

Not quite 40,000 as far as I can tell,unless there was a large spike last year or two. This includes accidents,homicide, suicide and "legal interventions." Note that the trend is downward even though both population and gun ownership are trending upward.

Consider washington DC, almost all guns including sporting guns and ammo, have been outlawed there since 1976, yet it has very high murder and crime rates.

Washington Post Article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60034-2004Sep29.html)


1981 34050
1982 32957
1983 31099
1984 31331
1985 31566
1986 33373
1987 32895
1988 33989
1989 34776
1990 37155
1991 38317
1992 37776
1993 39595
1994 38505
1995 35957
1996 34040
1997 32436
1998 30708
1999 27726
2000 27657

You can use the query tool to come up with statistics.
Statistics, CDC (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html)

[lastchance]

I think the Second Amendment is stupid right now. Of course, you should always be afraid of a right or left wing takeover, but I do not see the use in having handguns, or shotguns here.

You could win a war with guns back in 1776, but right now, to win, IMHO, you need automatic rifles, and RPGs (to blow up tanks and helicopters), both of which I believe are illegal, correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, according to my reading of the Second Amendment, one should allow automatic rifles and RPGs to be legal to defend our basic civil rights against government trying to take over. I believe this is moronic.

[wacki]

I would like to see an army try and control over 365 million people who all have a rifle and are willing to use guerilla tactics. I don't think it could be done. The could kill everyone, but not control them.

[lastchance]

Control vs being dead? You know, I don't see a lot of upside in that, especially when all it takes is for a knife to kill yourself. Lot better ways to do suicide, IMHO, than with rifles and guerilla tactics. You're not trying to kill yourself when you fight oppresive government. You're trying to win.

[wacki]

All I'm saying is that I doubt you can control a population that has rifles and wants to be free even if you have tanks.


"You're trying to win."

That should be obvious. I was just covering all the possible scenerios.

[sam h]

I think a right-wing coup highly, highly unlikely.

But were it to occur, it would certainly do so with the complicity of the armed forces. Good luck with that pistol of yours against them.

[lastchance]

Back to my original point:

1. The point of the second Amendment is to allow the common man to forcibly defend himself against oppressive government trying to take his rights away.

2. To defend yourself against oppressive government successfully in this day and age requires Machine Guns and RPGs.

Therefore, the Second Amendment gives people the right to buy and own RPGs and Machine Guns.

3. The thing that the Second Amendment allows one to do (buy and own RPGs and Machine Guns) is much more dangerous than the thing the second Amendment was intended to protect against (an oppresive government).

Therefore, the Second Amendment should be nullified.

Your argument was that you disagreed with my second premise, wacki. Do you think we can win against the US army using the guns that the police uses? I think we need more.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think we can win against the US army using the guns that the police uses? I think we need more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Win like they did in afghanistan against the russians with just guns, no. With or without the Assault weapons ban, you could of bought an M16 or SKS. That is more than enough firepower for bullets. Next, you would need RPG's, Law's, or TNT and a copper plate to penetrate armor. Explosives are easy enough to make if you know what you are doing, and copper is everywhere. The civilians could still produce a mighty big sting and make it very costly for anyone who was trying to oppress.

Now, if another country decided to smuggle in weapons like the US did in Afghanistan, and the citizins were willing to die for their freedom, then yes I think the US civilians could prevail. It would be a meatgrinder, but I think they could prevail.

The point is, if the government tried to turn on the 80 million gun owners in America, it would be very costly to do so. I'm not saying it will ever happen, and I hope it never happens, but you never know. The last time it happened to an industrialized nation in Europe was 50 years ago. That's not that long ago. Besides there are plenty of other ways the world can go to hell. Asteroids, reversal of the earths poles, are just a couple and we are long overdue for both.

Do I think we will "need" a gun in our lifetime, no. But do I think they should be banned, absolutely not. I don't own a handgun, and I never will. But I have no problem owning a shotgun, rifle, or even an assault weapon. I use guns for sport. I shoot clay pigeons and paper targets on occasion. That is one right I don't want to go away.

If you want to stop all the gun violence get rid of the war on drugs. The only people that thing is helping is the cartels and the dealers pocket books.

[Chris Alger]

Just once I'd like to see some gun nut actually point out any bill or even any article by any "extreme liberal" that actually calls for the confiscation of guns.

This whole argument is vaguely circular. The only "right" gun nuts care about are the rights to have their guns. As long as they get to keep their guns, the other rights can go in the bin without a peep from these self-described "rights defenders."

[superleeds]

So various bunches of unorganised, untrained and undisciplined guntoting civilians are going to take on the might of the US armed forces (which Bush and Co would have).

Good luck.

[sameoldsht]

Don't encourage Liberals to buy a gun - they will only hurt themselves.

[lastchance]

You make a very good point.

Essentially, will banning guns actually decrease murder and crime overall? I don't know, and I can't refute anything you say on the matter.

However, if we assume banning guns decreases murder rate and crime substantially, I feel that we should repeal the Second Amendment and ban guns. As much as guns are cool, and they are good for sport, I don't feel that's worth putting people's lives in danger, if that's what we're doing by having guns legal. I also feel that we will save more lives than will be hurt against an oppressive government.

There are plenty of ways the world can go to hell, but we should try to play the percentages and decrease the chance the world will go to hell.

At the very least, I suggest this idea. If you are going to buy a gun, you should be held to a very high psychological standard to make sure that you do not endanger anyone. If you have a short temper, if you are paranoid, then you should probably not have a gun, and there's not a huge check against this right now.

Again, I feel people's lives are much more endangered by a maniac with a gun then an oppressive government trying to take away our civil rights. But, who knows, just my 2 cents.

[MMMMMM]

There is another point you may not have considered, Lastchance, and that is the grand deterrent effect.

If the citizenry is widely armed it should give serious pause to anyone or any clique thinking of trying to control the populace by force. However an unarmed populace is a much more appealing target.

[wacki]

The percentage arguement of lives saved/lives lost by banning guns is difficult to counter using statistics. So, I will only quote Patrick Henry.

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

That is why I'm proud to be an American. There are tons of things that have a high chance to kill you, cars, tobacco, guns, alcohol, I could go on and on. None of these are banned. Why aren't they banned? Because this is America, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else, that's why. So I say give me liberty, or give me death.

[vulturesrow]

Actually there are studies that show that in areas where concealed carry is allowed there is a significant decrease in the rate of violent crime. It makes sense if you think about it. Criminals prey on the weak. If they know a person has a chance of being armed, they are going to look for weaker prey. I also happen to agree with you in that an armed populace could resist governmental oppression if it ever came to that.

[wacki]

I didn't know that about handguns. So I might have to reverse my opinion on them. I always thought they were too dangerous.

Also, I've always wondered that the reason countries in Europe with mandatory service are safer, is because every male over 18 has an assault rifle. Discipline probably plays a part too, but I can't help but think knowing every man in the country has an assault rifle is a deterrent to criminals.

[EVIL]

I think some posters here may be too quick to discount the general population's ability to defend itself against the US government and its military. The following essay I found on the internet argues that it would not be as difficult as one might think.

************************************************** *********

ARMED REVOLUTION POSSIBLE AND NOT SO DIFFICULT
By Bill Bridgewater

The only "newsies" that I have ever met that I didn't believe wasted oxygen by breathing were Dickey Chappell and Bernie Fall, both of whom were killed in Viet Nam because they believed that you couldn't report battles in the field from a bar in Saigon.

It is not easy to admit that a newsie stopped me cold the other day in the middle of one of their silly interviews. He had asked me to enumerate the reasons that I believed to be valid to support the private ownership of firearms.

We did not disagree over personal protection; he even admitted that hunting is legal in every state. But, when I stated that I believed that the founding fathers intended that we be armed against the possibility of our own central government overstepping its bounds, he quite bluntly asked me if I thought that an armed American citizenry had a snowball's chance in hell in an uprising against our own federal government.

Now, when was the last time you put some really serious thought into that proposition? Not counting the slaughter of the American Indians, we have not seen a serious effort to pit Americans against Americans since the end of the War Between the States that ended 130 years ago.

Is there even a shred of possibility that an armed citizenry could succeed against the strongest military power on Earth today?

Perhaps we should review the years 1960-1975 again. The United States blindly stuck its oar in the muddied waters of Viet Nam very shortly after the French got their heads handed to them on a platter and were invited not to be a colonial power in Viet Nam any more.

Finally, we found ourselves in the position of guaranteeing the survival of an independent South Viet Nam when the Northern part of the country made it clear that they were interested in reuniting the country under their particular brand of socialism.

For a decade and a half, we changed the leadership of South Viet Nam quite regularly; increased the pressure on the Johnson thumbscrews; bombed, quit, bombed, quit, ad infinitum; quantified the war; and finally turned it into an electronic war. At home we kept telling the citizens that we were just about to win decisively and elected another president to drive crazy with this goofy little war.

Finally the president declared that all was over and the troops could come home.

But they did not return home in triumph with the bugles blaring. They came home with their tails between their legs just like every other defeated army in the history of the world. And the reason that they did so, my friends, was that the world's most powerful nation got its backside severely whipped by a small, backward, agrarian nation who started the war against us with an assortment of ancient bolt-action rifles, no lines of support, no manufacturing base, and no infrastructure that the country absolutely depended upon.

It is not a joke that they made sandals from cut-up truck tires - it's the truth. They fought the only kind of war they could hope to fight and win successfully - a guerrilla war.

They had two good models: the American colonies against the British in our war for independence, and the American Indian wars, where the value of slash-and-run against a superior foe was escalated to a fine art by the world's finest light cavalry.

Twice the North Vietnamese allowed themselves to be suckered into main force set-piece battles, and they got cut into ribbons for doing it. Otherwise, they stuck to General Giap's plan of guerrilla warfare to the finish.

The North finally *did* get to mass their troops and tanks during their final sweep to victory into Saigon.

Why did this happen? Why did the world's most powerful nation get its teeth kicked in and sent home in disgrace? Because we forgot our very own origins! We forgot that we were the ones who hid behind logs, berms, and bushes and shot British troops and their mercenaries as *targets of opportunity* while denying our opponents a target of any kind.

We used the skills of the mountain and plains Indians against an Army that was trained in only one form of combat. We refused to engage in the British methods of combat until we had superior forces and the odds were highly in our favor.

General Vo Nuyen Giap did exactly the same thing against us in the 1960s and 1970s while we used our superior firepower and technology to create ten million deaf monkeys and water buffalo. We defoliated tens of thousands of acres of jungle forest to prove that Giap's troops weren't there. We constructed every kind of trap known to mankind to capture and destroy divisions of enemy troops where there weren't any.

We very patiently fought a European theater-type of warfare against a steadfast foe who fought a completely different kind of war that simply made our complex weapons systems useless. By inflexibly insisting on doing it our way, we lost the whole shooting match to a man who played it his way and won.

Meanwhile, on the exact opposite side of the globe, another shooting match was gearing up that pitted the second most powerful nation in the world against an enemy whose armament consisted of ancient bolt-action rifles, who had no lines of support, no manufacturing base and no infrastructure that the nation depended upon.

Though the Russians were determined that *they* would not be sent home with their tails between their legs, the Afghans were paying particular attention to those tactics that had worked so well for General Giap against the American forces. Even with the advantage of being able to totally ignore world opinion and to essentially ignore the opinions of its own citizens, Russia followed us down the long winding trail to disgrace by doing exactly what we had done in Viet Nam.

High-ranking politicians (some of them in uniform), with absolutely no idea what was going on in the day-to-day conduct of both wars, made stupid decisions and then stuck by them despite advice to the contrary from both American and Russian on-scene commanders.

The Russian methods of combat - mass maneuver and firepower - that were developed against Napoleon and Hitler proved no more successful than our methods against an aggressively waged guerrilla war.

Both major enemies failed to fight the enemy that they faced. Both, in fact, fought an historical enemy who was not present on the field of battle. Both of these superior armies truly believed that superior strength and technical abilities would win the day. Both major armies believed that time was on their side and was working against their foe. Both were totally wrong because they underestimated the growing dislike of the supposedly neutral or "friendly" indigenous forces whose cities, villages, towns and homes were being destroyed by the ongoing flow of large-scale battles by the two major armies.

Whatever the levels of dispute between the Vietnamese, the American forces eventually became the common enemy simply because of the massive damage they were doing in behalf of the south. Exactly the same thing transpired in Afghanistan. The Russians became the common enemy and went home in defeat.

Our armed forces used everything in our weapons inventory in our effort to win except nuclear devices. So did the Russians. They even used some chemical weapons that we didn't try.

What does all this have to do with the question the newsy asked me? Everything.

A revolution could be waged against the current American government far easier than you might imagine without careful examination. Consider:

* The sheer numbers of firearms of all kinds in the hands of the American public would have made the American commanders in Viet Nam quake in their boots. We're not talking junk equipment here, either. The average deer hunter with a .270 or .308 could give a platoon of regular troops more grief than they want. There was a special on the tube recently about military armaments on sale in the black market (including Stingers).

* The population base from which revolutionaries could be recruited is *massive* - 250 million.

* There are literally millions of well-trained men who served as officers and NCOs who learned face-to-face how guerrilla warfare works. They haven't forgotten it, either.

* There are millions of young men out there with military training and experience with weapons of every conceivable kind, who would make top-quality guerrilla troops.

* Every one of the 100 counties in the state of North Carolina could field at least one full company that would be formidable in capability. If one assumes that North Carolina is no more capable than other states, that could amount to 180 divisions. These potential rebel troops would be fast-moving light infantry, with the capability of melting into the general population when necessary.

American military leaders would be in the position of having an inventory of high-tech weapons that they would be dependent upon your son or nephew to use against you. There would be no enemy states in which you could say that any weapon could be used against the rebels. They would be from each and every state and major city.

By the same token, there would be no sanctuary for the federal troops anywhere in the land. No matter where stationed, they would be subject to attack and harassment. The infrastructure on which the federal government depends would be rather easily disrupted by those who live there. Airfields and major lines of communications could be shut down and kept down for days at a time. Disruption of supplies to major bases and to centers of government would be simple. You don't have to cut them off, just keep them hungry.

The federal government would be denied the use of all their major weaponry because they would still "own" the cities and villages. How do you justify bombing your own city just because there is a rebel company in it? One bombing would be the biggest recruiting drive ever for the rebel forces.

Now just how powerful do those 12 Army divisions and those three Marine divisions really look to you? Just how scary is the Air Force against America? What will the Navy do, shell all coastal cities? I don't think so.

One of these days a truly charismatic individual is going to walk out of the heartland of America and point out that the Declaration of Independence has never been repealed and that it *requires* all citizens to rise up against an oppressive government. With the current attitude toward our government and the people who populate it, a massive groundswell of support for throwing the current crop to the dogs and starting over again might not be so difficult.

As for the *ability* of the American citizens to successfully wage a guerrilla war on their own government, the likes of which this world has never seen nor contemplated before, I am absolutely convinced that it could be done, and a lot more swiftly than many might believe possible. How many highly-capable long-range snipers can your county put together?

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
So various bunches of unorganised, untrained and undisciplined guntoting civilians are going to take on the might of the US armed forces (which Bush and Co would have).

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to be working pretty well in Iraq.

[wacki]

Ya,urban warfare levels the playing ground. We have all of the tanks and technology, but we are still having problems. Right now we are getting a 20:1 kill ratio, but that doesn't mean squat if the 20 million Iraqi's don't want us there.

Considering that, our casualty rate is actually very low. I know that sounds messed up, but it's true.

[TorontoCFE]

That may be the case were the military to be the aggressor and the general population united against it but that's almost certain to never happen. Likewise, were the civilains and the military to get into conflict, there would not be 300 million resistors. There would be an active core of resistors and a core of people who diehardedly support the government and then hundreds of millions of bystanders unwilling or unable to act either way.

IMHO the US failed to achieve total success in Vietnam and Iraq simply becuase they are outsiders - there is no significant aid from the population. No matter how strong the outsider is, without a meaningful level of support from the general population, you can't get a significant level of victory.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Just once I'd like to see some gun nut actually point out any bill or even any article by any "extreme liberal" that actually calls for the confiscation of guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

The NRA position is that laws that restrict gun ownership opens the door to more laws that restrict guns. Their position is that it's a slippery slope.

Similar to abortion law politics. Show me one abortion nut that can actually point out a law that will categorically outlaw all abortions. Yet the pro choice faction fights partial birth abortion and the Laci Peterson law tooth and nail.