Australians Have A Warning For Americans

[JoeyB]

 Anyone who would attack a school so protected must, by definition, be psychotic. 

Anyone who would attack a school at all must be psychotic. For that matter, anyone who attacks a theater, a politcal event, a military installation, or even a post office must be psychotic. 

 

So, we get back to the real problem.

[tomhorn]

I do not know much about law or US law, but is it not usually the case that a referendum is required for a change in a constitution, thus making it always democratic, and not just up to elected politicians?

 

The United States of America is a Democratic Republic, not a democracy. 

The majority are women so I doubt that would even be brought up. And no one wants to return to slavery.

But the answer is Yes, the politicians  can do that. Then, all the uprisings aside, the Supreme Court would rule on those laws. Their own precedence dictates how they'd rule. 

 

But, for argument's sake, let's say they did somehow make slavery legal. Then you would see, right up front and personal, just how the 2nd Amendment would serve. There would be an armed uprising, insurgency, armed conflict for certain.

And THAT is why the 2nd Amendment is in place.  The government would no longer be serving all the People, and warrant being "thrown off" and a new government made by the victors. 

 

So at least we agree on something ....

[KB]

Joey right now there are powerful gun lobby groups in America putting the legal teams together to attack any and every slightest suggestion of gun control to come from the Biden talks, they are not even waiting to assess what the findings are.

 

It is also a ridiculous notion to point out this could happen again in some other country, of course it can and most likely will, the whole point of this discussion is that the USA is in a complete league of it's own when it comes to gun deaths.

 

And the gun owners seem to be split into 3 groups 1. Just don't touch my guns 2. Don't ask me I vote for NRA 3. Put it into the to hard basket.

 

 

Ken 

[txcollector]

The NRA has called for off-duty police in schools. While not a perfect solution, it would likely deter most, if not all, of the loonies who commit these types of crimes.

 

I find these kinds of proposals very disingenuous. First most NRA backers are staunch conservatives that feel they somehow need guns to protect themselves against the government (right, like having some guns at home would be a deterrent against the armed forces) so the idea of having state funded armed guards everywhere goes against their paranoid need for guns. Second they are the first ones to propose cuts for on-duty police officers and other important public safety expenditures. Saying now they will somehow support spending more government money on off-duty police is  really a stretch. 

[freddy333]

Freddy that's a joke surly....do you really believe the only way to fix this is NRA's lets turn this place into Beirut policy?

Ken

 

No, not the only way &, possibly, not the best way. But it is the most realistically effective option I have heard to date. It is like putting the National Guard on the southern border to block aliens from sneaking into the US illegally (an act, by the way, which is punishable by jail in Mexico). Not the best option, perhaps, but it is the most realistically effective 1 that I have heard.

 

 

 

Anyone who would attack a school at all must be psychotic. For that matter, anyone who attacks a theater, a politcal event, a military installation, or even a post office must be psychotic. 

 

Actually, according to law enforcement, it is usually very angry individuals who commit mass shootings. And they generally go after what are termed 'soft' targets - locations where the perpetrator expects little or no armed opposition. As I said, when faced with a choice between a soft & hard target, you would have to be insane to go after the hard target.

[freddy333]

 

I am a life-long democrat & not an NRA member, so I cannot say.

 

 

 

Second they are the first ones to propose cuts for on-duty police officers and other important public safety expenditures. Saying now they will somehow support spending more government money on off-duty police is  really a stretch. 

 

Can you quote a source where conservatives are the 'first ones to propose cuts for on-duty police offiers'?

With all due respect, in an age where the US is leveraging the government faster than the EU is deleveraging, you have to cut back somewhere.

[JoeyB]

Joey right now there are powerful gun lobby groups in America putting the legal teams together to attack any and every slightest suggestion of gun control to come from the Biden talks, they are not even waiting to assess what the findings are.

 

It is also a ridiculous notion to point out this could happen again in some other country, of course it can and most likely will, the whole point of this discussion is that the USA is in a complete league of it's own when it comes to gun deaths.

 

And the gun owners seem to be split into 3 groups 1. Just don't touch my guns 2. Don't ask me I vote for NRA 3. Put it into the to hard basket.

 

 

Ken 

Ken,

Don't get caught up in the media bites. Gun lobbies can be as powerful as they like, and as loud as they want, that's part of our law. The opposition can be just as loud and just as powerful. That too is our law. 

Right now The People, to the tune of over 65% favor banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines. And that includes members of the NRA.  The political/Law fight must take place, and our method of government will win out. 

 

When it is suggested that the U.S. ban all firearms as other nations have, then it's a viable comparison and not a "ridiculous notion" at all. Banning firearms has not stopped the violence anywhere. 

 

I disagree on the 3 groups. It is substantially more complicated than that, and it is based as much or more on geography as anything. The rural areas of the U.S. are far and away in opposition to any restrictions of firearms. The cities in the North want a full firearm ban. The cities in the South are only a bit more diverse, most leaning towards conceal/carry laws because their numbers show it works. 

 

The bottom line is that sane people armed to the teeth don't go off shooting up crowds of people. Crazy people do. That is where the problem is. And that will not be addressed because no one wants to spend the money. 

[maxman]

[JoeyB]

First most NRA backers are staunch conservatives that feel they somehow need guns to protect themselves against the government (right, like having some guns at home would be a deterrent against the armed forces)

Yes, it is. Make no mistake, an armed citizenry is a deterrent against a tyrannical  government. 

so the idea of having state funded armed guards everywhere goes against their paranoid need for guns. Second they are the first ones to propose cuts for on-duty police officers and other important public safety expenditures. Saying now they will somehow support spending more government money on off-duty police is  really a stretch. 

That is very true, as Republican/conservatives just proved in the last election. 

 

However, back when I was in high school, 1964 - 1968, we had two armed Chicago Policemen assigned full time to our school. All Chicago Public high schools did. 

[JoeyB]

Actually, according to law enforcement, it is usually very angry individuals who commit mass shootings. And they generally go after what are termed 'soft' targets - locations where the perpetrator expects little or no armed opposition. As I said, when faced with a choice between a soft & hard target, you would have to be insane to go after the hard target.

Ever see an Army officer with more than 30 years of service get "angry"? And not only armed and proficient, but with a command under him that would devastate. 

 

"Angry" happens to most everyone, most every day. What an individual does due to that anger determines if they are nuts or not. 

[txcollector]

 Syria anyone? Besides if another Civil War happens in this day and age the US armed forces would quickly decide the victorious side NOT the tiny percentage of trained armed citizens in this country. Do not fool yourself.

 

Yes, it is. Make no mistake, an armed citizenry is a deterrent against a tyrannical  government. 

[KB]

 

Um Mike you do not see the problem with that pic?

 

Ken

[freddy333]

The bottom line is that sane people armed to the teeth don't go off shooting up crowds of people. Crazy people do. That is where the problem is. And that will not be addressed because no one wants to spend the money. 

 

Well, no one wants to address that fact because it is not politically fashionable.

[KB]

I'm not aware of which countries have banned all guns, most certainly Australia has no such ban.

 

Ken

[KB]

Umm Freddy....

 

 

 

Actually, according to law enforcement, it is usually very angry individuals who commit mass shootings. And they generally go after what are termed 'soft' targets - locations where the perpetrator expects little or no armed opposition.

 

 

Ken

[kbh]

The bottom line is that sane people armed to the teeth don't go off shooting up crowds of people.

 

 

No, but apparently sometimes their children do.  Ooops!

[JoeyB]

 Syria anyone? Besides if another Civil War happens in this day and age the US armed forces would quickly decide the victorious side NOT the tiny percentage of trained armed citizens in this country. Do not fool yourself.

I completely disagree. 

As I said earlier, insurgencies have a habit of winning. We won our independence as a "Nation of farmers", as Cornwallis called us, against the most powerful military of the time. Today look at Syria. Who is winning? Look at Libya, Egypt.  

Ask any battle experienced soldier who they'd rather face, a uniformed army or an insurgency, and they'll tell you a uniformed force every time.

 

U.S. Armed Forces are Americans too.  Depending on the reasons for an insurgency the U.S. military today would be split. And given the makeup of today's U.S. Military it would be split favoring the minority side. Look at what General Colin Powell said just today, and in the last couple of days. Retired generals have a following. Don't fool yourself. It would be bloody. But right would defeat might. 

[JoeyB]

Well, no one wants to address that fact because it is not politically fashionable.

I think it's more the money end of it. The costs of mental health care would be astronomical. 

[JoeyB]

No, but apparently sometimes their children do.  Ooops!

Yep. We have no knowledge yet that would help us determine who will go nuts in the next minute from now. 

(But if I drop that damn little screw again....grrrr)

[txcollector]

I completely disagree. 

As I said earlier, insurgencies have a habit of winning. We won our independence as a "Nation of farmers", as Cornwallis called us, against the most powerful military of the time. Today look at Syria. Who is winning? Look at Libya, Egypt.  

Ask any battle experienced soldier who they'd rather face, a uniformed army or an insurgency, and they'll tell you a uniformed force every time.

 

U.S. Armed Forces are Americans too.  Depending on the reasons for an insurgency the U.S. military today would be split. And given the makeup of today's U.S. Military it would be split favoring the minority side. Look at what General Colin Powell said just today, and in the last couple of days. Retired generals have a following. Don't fool yourself. It would be bloody. But right would defeat might. 

 

Libya was mostly NATO. Egypt was based on the army taking sides against the Mubarak regime. Syria is still a slaughter being held by Russia and China interests in the arms trade with Assad (in fact most of those conflicts are driven partially by the need for profit of defense contractors).  Besides there's always some financial interest with all those insurgences and some gun lobby providing armaments to both sides (central Africa, middle east, north Africa, you name it.). So even if there were a total ban/confiscation of guns in this country (which won't happen) you can be sure guns will find their way into people's hands.

 

The actual power of a few doomsday folks with powerful guns is negligent. If guys with guns believe that's not the case more power to them but 18th century examples of warfare are not really applicable today. 

[JoeyB]

Libya was mostly NATO. Egypt was based on the army taking sides against the Mubarak regime. Syria is still a slaughter being held by Russia and China interests in the arms trade with Assad (in fact most of those conflicts are driven partially by the need for profit of defense contractors).  Besides there's always some financial interest with all those insurgences and some gun lobby providing armaments to both sides (central Africa, middle east, north Africa, you name it.). So even if there were a total ban/confiscation of guns in this country (which won't happen) you can be sure guns will find their way into people's hands.

Yep, and like France with us. Just about every insurgency gets outside help once they show they can win. Doesn't change the results. 

The actual power of a few doomsday folks with powerful guns is negligent. If guys with guns believe that's not the case more power to them but 18th century examples of warfare are not really applicable today. 

18th century warfare, like that of Alexander the Great, the Romans, Persians, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Sherman, et  al, are quite applicable today. That's why our military teaches and studies them. Nations with the latest 'toys' have lost. It's not the weapons, but how they are deployed. 

[Ronin]

Late to the debate, but a few "observations".

 

 

The NRA has called for off-duty police in schools. While not a perfect solution, it would likely deter most, if not all, of the loonies who commit these types of crimes. Anyone who would attack a school so protected must, by definition, be psychotic. And, with the current laws in America dealing with psychotics (who have not yet killed or harmed anyone), the government does not appear to be motivated to do anything beyond trying to find more politically fashionable words to describe the insane.

 

IMHO, this will add little value.  Any "calculating" psycotic(s) (think Columbine), would simply: 1.)  Learn the rounds the security guard makes around the school, allowing for an attack when the armed officer is furthest from the target zone.  2.)  Kill the armed guard first. 

 

 

The United States of America is a Democratic Republic, not a democracy. 

The majority are women so I doubt that would even be brought up. And no one wants to return to slavery.

But the answer is Yes, the politicians  can do that. Then, all the uprisings aside, the Supreme Court would rule on those laws. Their own precedence dictates how they'd rule. 

 

But, for argument's sake, let's say they did somehow make slavery legal. Then you would see, right up front and personal, just how the 2nd Amendment would serve. There would be an armed uprising, insurgency, armed conflict for certain.

And THAT is why the 2nd Amendment is in place.  The government would no longer be serving all the People, and warrant being "thrown off" and a new government made by the victors. 

 

Ok.  Correct me if I am wrong but, the 2nd amendment reads:  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.

 

Breaking it down.  The "Militia" is to protect the "State" aka The USA from "outside" threats.  Given elected majority, the Militia is NOT about overthrowing the a/current elected US Government.  That would be punishable as Treason under Article III, Section 3.  (In 1791 when the 2nd Amed was penned this could have been the British, French, etc. NOT George Washington because you didn't like his wooden teeth).   

 

Also, in 1791 the prevailing weapons technology was; Muscat, Bayonnet, and Cannon's.  That said, I say you can own as many Muscats, Bayonnets, and hell- all the 1791 era Cannon's you can store.  Restricting AK's, AR's, and high capacity magazines are NOT in conflict.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Ronin

[KB]

No one has mentioned yet why they would overthrow a democratically elected government instead of voting them out.

 

Unless of course we are talking about a minority who believe they the majority are wrong.

 

This is not Syria, Egypt or medieval France we are talking about here.

 

 

Ken

[txcollector]

Yep, and like France with us. Just about every insurgency gets outside help once they show they can win. Doesn't change the results. 

18th century warfare, like that of Alexander the Great, the Romans, Persians, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Sherman, et  al, are quite applicable today. That's why our military teaches and studies them. Nations with the latest 'toys' have lost. It's not the weapons, but how they are deployed. 

 

all fun conversation but still doesn't explain 1) why do we need high capacity magazines and assault rifles on the streets 2) why can't we have reasonable regulations like background checks (stopping the absurd that goes on in gun shows), safety requirements (safes, training, etc.) and registries that can help law enforcement to trace stolen guns?

[KB]

all fun conversation but still doesn't explain 1) why do we need high capacity magazines and assault rifles on the streets 2) why can't we have reasonable regulations like background checks (stopping the absurd that goes on in gun shows), safety requirements (safes, training, etc.) and registries that can help law enforcement to trace stolen guns?

 

This is why I put up that Huffington Post link, regardless of the medias political leaning It does state the NRA are opposed to the above regulations, that they in fact want nothing that would impede anyone (even ex crims) from walking into a gun shop and buying what they want....is this true or not?

 

 

Ken