patrick.net

bob2356 says

I was actually an NRA member back when (early 70's) the NRA represented gun owners instead of gun manufacturers. Did you know the NRA lobbied for gun control laws starting in the 1920's. Did you know the NRA actually supported and helped set up the Gun Control Act of 1968 which licensed gun dealers and put restrictions on classes of firearms. That the NRA of gun owners, like me at the time, believed in people showing they were responsible people deserving to be gun owners before being able to buy a gun? Apparently not.

The NRA since the takeover of haron carter, a vigilante shooter like zimmernan who changed his name to hide it, has been nothing but a lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers and dealers who lobby bitterly against any law that will restrict unlimited gun advertising or sales. In order to do that they have created an entire new meaning for the second amendment. Its' sad how many people like you are dupes honestly believing the very carefully planned propaganda campaign about the second amendment put out by for the gun industry to make huge profits at the expense of the entire society.

The NRA’s fabricated view of the Second Amendment was ridiculed by former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger—a very conservative judge appointed by President Richard Nixon—in a PBS Newshour interview in 1991, where he called it “one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Bob, you should start a thread with this post so it does not get lost. I own a gun myself, and you summarized my stance on the issue clearly.

1) Iraq was one of the most heavily armed Nations per capita in the world, and that prevented neither tyranny under Saddam nor the US invasion and subsequent occupation.
2) We later gathered their guns and outlawed the buying and selling of guns in Iraq, because the gangs, thugs and ne'er-do-wells were killing citizens, and posed a danger to coalition troops. It would seem as though we didn't believe that more guns would make citizens, law enforcement or the military safer.

CL says

1) Iraq was one of the most heavily armed Nations per capita in the world, and that prevented neither tyranny under Saddam nor the US invasion and subsequent occupation.

2) We later gathered their guns and outlawed the buying and selling of guns in Iraq, because the gangs, thugs and ne'er-do-wells were killing citizens, and posed a danger to coalition troops. It would seem as though we didn't believe that more guns would make citizens, law enforcement or the military safer.

You also have the exact opposite as examples, heavily armed nations or states where there is no gun "problem". You can have a perfectly "safe" country where citizens are all disarmed but the government can reign in terror with its armed forces, plenty of examples of that too. I think looking at guns for the overall safety of a nation is not useful, they were not meant to keep a nation safe or safer, but to give weaker and poorer individuals the right of self-defense and - per constitution - to protect against the tyranny of government. I would say that a nation armed to the teeth is as imbalanced as a nation without guns (knifes make excellent arms too), of course one can question whether the US has already too many guns - but I don't think though that this will address the root of the issues, it would be more like addressing the symptoms (which sometimes can be necessary as well).

tr6 says

Bob, you should start a thread with this post so it does not get lost. I own a gun myself, and you summarized my stance on the issue clearly.

Why bother? The NRA/gun manufacturers brainwashing propaganda is to pervasive that pretty much every gun owner today believes the second amendment means unlimited gun ownership and manufacturing with no restrictions of any kind. Pandora's box has been opened and the law of unintended consequences is in full swing. The cycle of violence is only going to grow and grow.

mell says

knifes make excellent arms too

I've heard this before, but have there been any examples of knives protecting against the "tyranny" of a Government with advanced weaponry? Or at all?

Knives cannot kill 50 people in an outing since you need to be so close. It would seem as though technology has allowed any disgruntled or religiously conflicted latent homosexual to go on a pogrom, and be more successful than ever before in history.

bob2356 says

The NRA/gun manufacturers brainwashing propaganda is to pervasive

They don't have to work that hard to fleece the generic Trump voter, who believes climate research is an elaborate hoax ("hurrr, durr ... drool ... durr").

Paddle faster - I hear banjos.

CL says

I've heard this before, but have there been any examples of knives protecting against the "tyranny" of a Government with advanced weaponry? Or at all?

A knife is about as effective as the rifle at this point in what a group of civilian marksman would face. A motivated US tyrannical army/government wins without much of a fight. It looks like this:

www.youtube.com/embed/YDvugsSjI6s

That enemy will not be beaten by force of arms. (where "that enemy" refers to said tyrannical gov.)

Rew says

A knife is about as effective as the rifle at this point in what a group of civilian marksman would face. A motivated US tyrannical army/government wins without much of a fight.

But quigly said we need concealed carry to protect our rights. It isn't true? We aren't going to have an army of people pulling out their concealed carry pistols and blowing away tanks, jet bombers, cruise missiles, drones, and heavy artillery?

http://new.www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-nra-meeting_us_576160aae4b09c926cfda93d?section=

He's not the brightest bulb in the room, no wonder he got snowed by this unconstitutional proposed law. Due process would be entirely disposed of by simple bureaucratic expedient, making the whims of government employees able to remove life and property from citizens without any court action. This is a clear violation of the constitution but it's couched in such a way that low information idiots will be taken in by an "obvious" improvement to national security.

Quigley says

He's not the brightest bulb in the room

Then there is the harm it will do to Trump’s reputation of supposedly being immune to lobbying and special interest. But did he have any choice, truly? No one in Congress wants to talk with him or even acknowledge him so he had to plead to the real lawmakers for the GOP. If he can somehow get this concession from the industry lobby will he get cooperation from the Democrats on immigration change? Trump’s tactics are becoming more and more short term as he runs around putting out fires. What will be the reaction of the Congressmen who took the NRA’s 4 million bucks?

A knife is about as effective as the rifle at this point in what a group of civilian marksman would face. A motivated US tyrannical army/government wins without much of a fight. It looks like this:

If victory can be achieved this fast/easy, WTF are we still doing in Afghanistan and why are we forced to go back to Iraq?

Rew says

A knife is about as effective as the rifle at this point in what a group of civilian marksman would face. A motivated US tyrannical army/government wins without much of a fight. It looks like this:

Where I have I heard arguments about Infrared Scopes, TV Guided Bombs, Helicopter Gunships, Strategic Hamlets, etc. making defeat of a guerrilla force all but guaranteed before?

Don't even have to go that far back.

www.youtube.com/embed/6yYwxty930g
www.youtube.com/embed/84udsqqJr30
www.youtube.com/embed/T9-oNPNRCM8

The truth is the opposite: Guerilla Warfare is more effective than ever before.

Trump wants to meet with NRA to talk about taking away right to purchase guns for those on no-fly list and FBI lists. Champion of the 2nd amendment no more. Looks like a Democrat now.

thunderlips11 says

Where I have I heard arguments about Infrared Scopes, TV Guided Bombs, Helicopter Gunships, Strategic Hamlets, etc. making defeat of a guerrilla force all but guaranteed before?

You think Vietnam was lost because we were defeated on the battlefield? 58K deaths to over 440K? We "lost" because the resolve game was lost, especially on the home front. The NVA/VC didn't win because they had AKs.

Heavens. It's worse than one could imagine!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-oreilly-takes-stunning-stance-154449244.html

Rew says

You think Vietnam was lost because we were defeated on the battlefield? 58K deaths to over 440K? We "lost" because the resolve game was lost, especially on the home front. The NVA/VC didn't win because they had AKs.

It doesn't matter whether you smash the Enemy's armies, take his capital, take the king hostage, bankrupt him, or simply wear down his will to resist or continue to impose force: Not Winning is Not Winning.

thunderlips11 says

smash the Enemy's armies, take his capital, take the king hostage, bankrupt him, or simply wear down his will to resist

That's right, and a gun wasn't required in all those instances. My argument exactly. Cheers.

neplusultra57 says

Heavens. It's worse than one could imagine!

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-oreilly-takes-stunning-stance-154449244.html

www.youtube.com/embed/66hfGaAVloU

O'Reilly dodges the questions, but it's a great dialogue. 4 minute mark gets to the meat of it. 5 minutes talks specific policy.

Here is Trump today ...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1fbaa805037f4aca860529f3e83dc364/trump-discuss-terrorism-watch-list-no-fly-ban-nra

Compare that with title of OP. (tee-hee!)

Australia as a standard. Dan8267 O’Reilly.

neplusultra57 says

Australia as a standard. Dan8267 O’Reilly.

Too right mate.
Country might actually be shifting here. I'm not going to hold my breath, but in my opinion ABOUT F'ING TIME!

Rew says

That's right, and a gun wasn't required in all those instances. My argument exactly. Cheers.

We were defeated many times by the NVA/VC on the battlefield. This is one of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ong_Thanh

Here is another.
http://www.historynet.com/ia-drang-where-battlefield-losses-convinced-ho-giap-and-mcnamara-the-u-s-could-never-win.htm

None of these victories - all of which contributed to US Public exhaustion, was accomplished with AKs and Mortars against 155mm Arty, F-105s, Huey Gunships, IR Scopes, TV Guided Bombs, etc..

All the cruise missiles in the world didn't stop Sunnis from sniping at Americans or planting IEDs in Iraq.

You have to take US Claims with a big grain of salt because US Army MBA Manager-Generals had a "Management by Target" Body Count system. One arm might be counted as a dead VC by the artillery, infantry, and air support each.

Liberals blaming guns as always. And if he used pressure cookers like the Tsarnaev assholes, would they be banning pressure cookers too? Liberal minds repel reality when it doesn't match their ideology...

thunderlips11 says

We were defeated many times by the NVA/VC on the battlefield. This is one of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ong_Thanh

Two companies against an ambush from a dug in regiment in heavy jungle? You are kidding right? Duh, I wonder how that would turn out? I can't imagine why the US lost that engagement.

thunderlips11 says

Here is another.

http://www.historynet.com/ia-drang-where-battlefield-losses-convinced-ho-giap-and-mcnamara-the-u-s-could-never-win.htm

None of these victories - all of which contributed to US Public exhaustion, was accomplished with AKs and Mortars against 155mm Arty, F-105s, Huey Gunships, IR Scopes, TV Guided Bombs, etc..

Too bad you didn't actually read the article. The battle of the Ia Drang was a decisive american victory. Over twice as many nva troops as american troops resulted in the nva being driven back into cambodia with anywhere from 5 to 10 times the casualties. Hal Moore's battalion held off 2 full regiments at lz x-ray for 2 days. Americans were shocked at the number of casualties, but this was the first large scale engagement of the war. For the size of the battle the casualties were not large at all. The reporters were clueless about the scale of the fight or the results. They only knew there were a lot of casualties and reported it as a disaster.

What the Ia Drang valley did was to change nva tactics to large scale close in fighting where air strikes and heavy artillary were much less effective.

America never had a strategy in Vietnam or Iraq and the results were totally predictable. I wrote an op/ed in USA today jan 2003 months before invading Iraq detailing exactly what the problems were and what the results would be. Giap got it correct “We thought that the Americans must have a strategy. We did. We had a strategy of people’s war. You had tactics, and it takes very decisive tactics to win a strategic victory….If we could defeat your tactics—your helicopters—then we could defeat your strategy. Our goal was to win the war.” No one to this day knows what America's strategy in Vietnam or Iraq was.

Are you suggesting that a bunch of yahoos with hand guns and semi auto assault rifles across the US will be able to engage in large scale close in jungle fighting against the US military and defeat them at some point? Hahahaha.

Ironman says

Also, please tell us how many of the current LEO and active military will be willing to fight against their fellow Americans.

Now I know for a fact that NJ gun laws are a joke if they issued a nutjob like you a gun permit. Since you know so much about the subject feel free to enlighten us about how many will fight against their fellow americans. Make sure to document your well researched unimpeachable sources of this information. Just like all the rest of the documentation (zero) you have provided over the years for your nonsense babble. Hahahahahaha.

So they shit on an atomic schedule....what's the problem?

finehoe says

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.

Cons always conveniently ignore those two words.