Obama changes (insert) amendment???

[Tanasi]

Small tangent, to all sides here: It's spelled "guerrilla." Gorilla warfare is when apes start throwing rocks at each other.

Guerrilla warfare by US citizens against the US government is possible, but unlikely at this point. For people to get pissed off enough to turn to open warfare against the government, they have to be directly threatened in some way by the government, or feel that they are. As long as most people have their cake and circuses (read: Facebook and American Idol), they're going to be too comfortable to risk everything in overt opposition to the government. We're a long way from that, yet.

To put it another way: Guerrillas need a Cause to fight for. There's no Cause right now - nothing big enough to scare people into giving up their trailers and apartments and go "underground."

Please forgive that bit of ignorance. I agree with you for the most part. I wouldn't expect those on the dole to give up their ride except for those looking for a better life and will accept the risk. I also agree that currently there isn't a cause nor a leader to fight for. At this time despite the election I do not see a need for revolution. Obama is effectively checked for the next two years.

I'm always amused by the fact that so many people assume that if the government got out of control and the people chose to rise up that every single member of the military would side with the government; as if everybody in the various branches of military were just cogs in a great machine.

I'm not even going to address the 1st vs 2nd Amendment argument beyond to say it's ridiculous. I'll get on board when something that makes sense is brought to the table.

^-.-^

Don't address what you can't refute.

Stalin, Mao, as well as Hitler, burned books and other "offensive" materials as a form of censorship. Think about it, what better way to squelch opposition than to take away their "voice?" Can't have those dangerous ideas going against the state now, can we?

You see the danger in those ideas and that makes me see some more hope in the world. I must admit that it saddens me for those that don't, maybe willful ignorance?

a) Stamp Duty was (and Is, in the UK, incidentally) on official documents- it's the rough equivalent of a fee to notarize a document.
b) Stamp Duty censored nothing, since the stamped paper was sold blank
c) it was to raise revenue. Funnily enough, it actually came along with a tax CUT, not rise- it's just the taxes before were never enforced; now they would be. (HMMM, sounds like the Repblicans today- cut taxes, enforce the tax laws harder) Note that the Boston tea party, cited as one of the forerunnners of the American revolution? Was done by smugglers irritated at the competition from cheaper legit tea.

In short, there is NO comparison between restricting Gun ownership and restricting the right to free Speech. A Gun has only one purpose- to kill. Speech can have several purposes.

OK I missed it on the stamp act. Were not Thomas Paine's pamphlets not dangerous then why was English looking to capture him??? Don't you think those ideas espoused in those pamphlets were revolutionary???
Actually there is direct comparisons. Guns like speech can have multiple uses killing is one. No firearm that I own as far as I know has ever been used to kill someone. A few have been used to kill some critters, other have been used to poke holes in paper, others have been used to break flying clay targets heck I even have a clinker gun whose purpose was to remove jams at a limestone tipple.
If speech is so benign then why does China restrict and censor speech??? Why iis the internet retricted in so many countries including China???

[Panacea]

The rub lies in the word reasonable. What you may find reasonable I may not but even then I'm still having to surrender some of my rights to appease others.

The Bill of Rights doesn't exist to promote a state of anarchy. We don't have our rights completely without fetters, because all rights stop at my nose. The laws we have must counter balance the needs of individuals. If you're expecting them to be perfect, or satisfy everyone, you are kidding yourself.

So tell me what useful purpose did the "assault" weapons ban serve??? Except for some hardcore anti-gun folks almost all agree is was failure at best. I can tell you for a fact that law didn't ban the first "assault weapon.

The ban had limits because it didn't affect guns already in circulation. It primarily prevented the manufacture of new ones. The problem with its expiration is, as soon as that happened new assault weapons flooded the streets, bought up by straw buyers who sell them to the Mexican cartels.

The CDC did study the ban and found insufficient evidence to say what the ban was doing one way or the other. But we know gun violence in Mexico is driven by American made guns.

Also since when did "need" become a condition of a right??? It if going to be applied to one right then perhaps it can be applied to others for example: A woman doesn't need to have an abortion unless of course her life is in danger.

Here's the difference. An exception for the life of the mother is a life saving exception. Guns don't do anything but take lives.

I agree that the UN treaty most likely wouldn't pass the senate. IMO just bringing something like that before the senate should be grounds for a trial for treason. Our ambassador to the UN shouldn't even be participating.

It is not treason to negotiate with other countries about issues that affect their national interest. American made guns are a concern to them, and they have every right to be concerned. Most other countries don't have our 2nd amendment rights, and our guns are arming their criminals (Mexico) and terrorists worldwide. They have a right to ask us to cool it. It is in our national interest to listen and negotiate on good faith on this issue because giving them something they want, they give us something we want. Good old give and take.

Since the ban doesn't affect gun possession within our borders, I don't see why on earth you would equate this to treason. That's emotional hyperbole and it just pulls the rug out from all your arguments.

Some states if not all still have Home Guard which is the modern equivalent. I was part of it for 20 years after having retired from the USA. The Home Guard role is to step in when the National Guard is otherwise occupied. For example we were put on call-up when my state's largest NG unit was sent Iraq.

What state was this in? I'm not familiar with it. But if it's a state sponsored militia, it does not affect my argument.

You evidentially think the second paragraph is reasonable, now apply similar requirements to the first amendment. Yep just as soon as you pass this background check, demonstrate your reading and comprehension skills and of course the 10 day cooling off period this book will be yours. Don't forget you annual book case inspection is coming up and we don't want to see any books, magazines, newspapers or internet capable devices unsecured like last time.
FYI the annual bookcase inspection "fee" has been increased so please have $500 cash available for the inspector. That's reasonable, No???

Evidently, not evidentially.

You are making an apples vs oranges argument. Books don't kill people. Guns do.

So tell me why other than money did the British push the stamp act on all printed material??? I think it was to censor what was published.

Tanasi, you need a serious refresher in American History. The Stamp Act had nothing to do with censorship. It had to do with raising money to pay for the French and Indian Wars, Queen Anne's War, and other conflicts in the years leading up to the American Revolution.

The British could (and did) censor publications with other laws, including lese majesty and sedition.

Were not the words and ideas in Thomas Paine's pamphlets Common Sense and The American Crisis not inspiring and revolutionary???

Sure they were. And they were treasonous. If we'd lost the Revolution Paine could and would have been hanged legally for it.

John Adams said "Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.” Those words, those beautiful words spelled out danger to King George because it inspired the common man to risk his life, liberty and scared honor to be free.
If books are dangerous then why were so many burned by Stalin and Mao??? I don't think it was to keep warm.

John Adams was not that much of a fan of Thomas Paine and thought he went too far. He also said, "so democratical, without any restraint or even an attempt at any equilibrium or counter poise, that it must produce confusion and every evil work." Other Founders agree.

First of all do not discount a gorilla war. It was used effectively in Afghanistan, Viet Nam and here in the USA.

Again, you need a refresher in history. Guerrilla wars usually fail. The only reason we won the Revolution is because France finally came in to help us. We lost Viet Nam because public support evaporated. Militarily, the Viet Cong weren't getting anywhere. The Taliban lost in Afghanistan, and the only reason they may come back is because we are leaving, and the government there is corrupt. If Karzai had been kicked out and someone not corrupt were running the show, the Taliban wouldn't have a chance.

I was a combatant in RVN while we the military wasn't defeated, we also weren't allowed to fight as we wanted to.

You just proved the point I made above.

Don't discount the common man and woman. Tens of millions of us have military experience and 10s of thousands of us have direct combat experience.

The same thing was true in 1861-64. The South lost.

If there was a military coup I don't the military as a whole would come out in defense of the government but in defense of the people.

First of all, a coup in this country is highly unlikely. It would violate the very traditions of our military and require an extensive conspiracy between the general officers to succeed. Otherwise, the rest of the military would just move in and kick ass.

A foreign army invades???

Now we're really going far afield.

If we were invaded by a foriegn force, and our military couldn't handle it, most people would fold like laundry. Even with all the guns out there, too few people know how to use them properly and would not have the will to fight.

Civilians owning their own weapons is a big deal. You're assuming that the civilians will rise in opposition to the federal government. What if they rise against a city or state??? In my AO returning WWII veterans using personal and National Guard rifles rose in opposition to their county government in enforce a fair and legitimate election. They rose when the state and federal government refused to intervene. They surrounded the sheriff, his deputies and corrupt politicians in the jail house and pounded on them until they gave up. It was called the Battle of Athens.

Yes, I'm familiar with it. It hasn't happened happened since. It was a one time affair. Could it happen? Maybe. Would it happen? Unlikely.

[Panacea]

At this time despite the election I do not see a need for revolution. Obama is effectively checked for the next two years.

If you think the Republicans in Congress will be able to stop legislation from being enacted, you are kidding yourself. They will do a deal with Obama, just like Newt did a deal with Clinton.

They have to: they have to deal with the fiscal cliff. Obama is done playing games, and has no incentive to cave to Boehner again. He can and will call Boehner's bluff and let the sequestration take effect unless Boehner agrees to tax increases for the rich.

[Mytical]

If you think the Republicans in Congress will be able to stop legislation from being enacted, you are kidding yourself. They will do a deal with Obama, just like Newt did a deal with Clinton.

They have to: they have to deal with the fiscal cliff. Obama is done playing games, and has no incentive to cave to Boehner again. He can and will call Boehner's bluff and let the sequestration take effect unless Boehner agrees to tax increases for the rich.

Because if he doesn't, at this time, everybody will know it is the Republicans stonewalling. If Boehner does agree to the tax increase (because he has no choice) and something goes wrong, they can point the fingers at the Democrats..who will pretty take decades to recover from it. Has everything to lose and everything to gain.

[s_stabeler]

OK I missed it on the stamp act. Were not Thomas Paine's pamphlets not dangerous then why was English looking to capture him??? Don't you think those ideas espoused in those pamphlets were revolutionary???
Actually there is direct comparisons. Guns like speech can have multiple uses killing is one. No firearm that I own as far as I know has ever been used to kill someone. A few have been used to kill some critters, other have been used to poke holes in paper, others have been used to break flying clay targets heck I even have a clinker gun whose purpose was to remove jams at a limestone tipple.
If speech is so benign then why does China restrict and censor speech??? Why iis the internet retricted in so many countries including China???

1) the english at the time were functionally an absolute monarchy, and said absolute monarch was, in fact, insane.No, thye DIDN'T need to capture paine, but George III demanded it. At he time, parliament was dominated by the nobles ( it isn't really until the early 20th century that the House of Commons was both truly representative and held dominance over the House of lords. At the time of the American revolution, the typical MP was a younger son of the local nobility.) As for the ideas espoused, they were revolutionary, sure, but ultimately not actually particularly dangerous. they basically amounted to 4 statements: 1. the UK was ignoring the concerns of the Americans (probably true) 2. The UK could not effectively rule America remotely due to the length of time a letter took to cross the Atlantic ( probably also true) 3. the only way to resolve the issue was to gain independence ( probably not true, although probably the onyl realistic option. i'll go into more detail later.) 4. why on earth was the smaller country in control of the larger (something of a point, i suppose, but somewhat irrelevant)

Now, I want to address the point of why i think American independence need not have been inevitable. had the UK offered autonomy to America (like most colonies had, appoint a governor general with the queen's authority and let the colony sort out it's own internal messes) then I imagine that much of the problem would sort itself out.

Second, guns and killing. First, I said killing, not killing people. ( I will admit I implied it somewhat) My point is that a gun is DESIGNED to kill, and is optimized solely for that task. the guns used to shoot at clay targets? are merely being used in a safe manner (I happen to believe clay pigeon shooting should be legal, but it doesn't take away from the fact the gun is designed to kill) Second, Ive not heard of clinker guns, but i wasn't advocating banning guns, I was advocating restricting them. In the UK, air rifles are legal under a certain power ( Ive occasionally enjoyed shooting one off myself) and require a firearms license above; it's far from a total ban, it's merely checking to see the people who buy guns aren't the kind of people to go off on a rampage.

As for China, they've fallen into a similar fallacy to what you have: it's not the speech that is dangerous, it's the government's reaction to said speech. If serious dissent is handled by actually looking at the demands and seeing if they are reasonable, then it is harmless. If you ignore them...

[wolfie]

As for China, they've fallen into a similar fallacy to what you have: it's not the speech that is dangerous, it's the government's reaction to said speech. If serious dissent is handled by actually looking at the demands and seeing if they are reasonable, then it is harmless. If you ignore them...

The big problem is that governments don't realize that serious dissent is like steam escaping from the safety valve on a boiler. You can look for, and address, the cause, or (as too many governments, whether acknowledged totalitarians like China, or alleged democracies like Canada in the G20 incident) are prone to do, you can tie down the safety valve in order to stop the steam from escaping.

[s_stabeler]

The big problem is that governments don't realize that serious dissent is like steam escaping from the safety valve on a boiler. You can look for, and address, the cause, or (as too many governments, whether acknowledged totalitarians like China, or alleged democracies like Canada in the G20 incident) are prone to do, you can tie down the safety valve in order to stop the steam from escaping.

exactly. it isn't the speech that is dangerous, it's the feeling of being ignored. the phrase "the straw that broke the camel's back" is appropriate here. Individually, speech is harmless. When it ignored, people resent being ignored ("treated like second-class citizens") and got angry; it's that anger that is dangerous, not the speech itself.

[HYHYBT]

Backing up a couple of pages... If the problem is in the word "reasonable," then what limits WOULD you consider to be reasonable?

[AmbrosiaWriter]

Backing up a couple of pages... If the problem is in the word "reasonable," then what limits WOULD you consider to be reasonable?

Well for one, not letting someone with a history of aggressive violence getting their hands on one.

If someone has a proven and recorded history of choosing violence as their first response to any problem in their life, they should not be given a gun.

[Tanasi]

Oh wow, I have so much I would like to say about this that currently time doesn't permit a response.
In a nutshell any restrictions beyond what is currently required by the BATFE and the state of TN is in my opinion unreasonable.

Oh man I have so many things going through my head about this.... This might take several posts before I can get (or remember) the majority expressed.

Later I have critters to feed.

[AccountingDrone]

First of all do not discount a gorilla war. It was used effectively in Afghanistan, Viet Nam and here in the USA. I was a combatant in RVN while we the military wasn't defeated, we also weren't allowed to fight as we wanted to. The VC bleed us enough until the politicians back home knuckled under. During our revolution the southern strategy was almost entirely gorilla war with the Battle of Kings Mountain being one of the biggest battles in the south. I had several family members there.
Don't discount the common man and woman. Tens of millions of us have military experience and 10s of thousands of us have direct combat experience. We know how to kick ass and lots of us have done so. Do not discount equipment in the civilian realm. While lots of it came from the military market lots of it is as good as or better than military versions. I've used both military and civilian "night" vision, the civilian is better. I don't have clue as to what a silicone bullet is but I'd seriously doubt it would penetrate tank armor. That being said a tank can easily be disabled without destroying it and it's not that difficult. If it can't move then a molotov cocktail is a very effective weapon.
Yes the military has bigger weapons in some cases better. Guess what we also know how to use them and what weapons we have now we have lots more that we can use to acquire bigger and better weapons. I don't think atomic weapons would be used after all there's no safe place to be on that battle field and not to mention it's civilians that build them.
If there was a military coup I don't the military as a whole would come out in defense of the government but in defense of the people. After all we're their family, they come from us. A foreign army invades??? They'll have us all to deal with. Guess what we can use their weapons just as well.
Civilians owning their own weapons is a big deal. You're assuming that the civilians will rise in opposition to the federal government. What if they rise against a city or state??? In my AO returning WWII veterans using personal and National Guard rifles rose in opposition to their county government in enforce a fair and legitimate election. They rose when the state and federal government refused to intervene. They surrounded the sheriff, his deputies and corrupt politicians in the jail house and pounded on them until they gave up. It was called the Battle of Athens.

And as with Vietnam, if I were a rebel, I would blend in to the local population wonderfully well, after all I have lived in this part of CT for 20 years, and been in this country for 46 of my 51 years. I can also shoot small arms or long arms competently, and if troops were garrisoned here I can state categorically that before I vanished as best I could, any men in my house would be dead before I left.

[Duelist925]

And as with Vietnam, if I were a rebel, I would blend in to the local population wonderfully well, after all I have lived in this part of CT for 20 years, and been in this country for 46 of my 51 years. I can also shoot small arms or long arms competently, and if troops were garrisoned here I can state categorically that before I vanished as best I could, any men in my house would be dead before I left.

A: troop garrisoning is about as likely to happen anytime soon as Jormangundar awakening and devouring all life.

B: "blending in" means jack shit during an attack, wether you're starting it or not. if you were a rebel, you would be wiped out--even if YOU had all the military training that whatever forces sent into your area have, unless everyone in your group does, your group is, eventually, dead. Probably from the first wave. Because damn if military training ain't good at making guys work together for the purpose of killing "rebels".

C: Drone strikes. Facial recognition software. DMV records. Criminal records. That is all.

D: "Competantly", again, means jack shit compared to military trained marksmen. I can shoot pretty damn decently when I'm of a mind to, and the worst army cadet who passes muster is better than me.

E: If you DID, in the extremely likely circumstances that troops were stationed in your home, kill one or more of them in their sleep (and I doubt they'd just pop off in an area where "rebels" were known--they'd have a guard who would catch you in the act after the first kill, at best) but if you DID manage to kill them all: Welcome to a manhunt. Target: You.

[AccountingDrone]

A: troop garrisoning is about as likely to happen anytime soon as Jormangundar awakening and devouring all life.

B: "blending in" means jack shit during an attack, wether you're starting it or not. if you were a rebel, you would be wiped out--even if YOU had all the military training that whatever forces sent into your area have, unless everyone in your group does, your group is, eventually, dead. Probably from the first wave. Because damn if military training ain't good at making guys work together for the purpose of killing "rebels".

C: Drone strikes. Facial recognition software. DMV records. Criminal records. That is all.

D: "Competantly", again, means jack shit compared to military trained marksmen. I can shoot pretty damn decently when I'm of a mind to, and the worst army cadet who passes muster is better than me.

E: If you DID, in the extremely likely circumstances that troops were stationed in your home, kill one or more of them in their sleep (and I doubt they'd just pop off in an area where "rebels" were known--they'd have a guard who would catch you in the act after the first kill, at best) but if you DID manage to kill them all: Welcome to a manhunt. Target: You.

LOL, I am dead fairly soon anyway, I need a fair amount of medication that I would probably not have access to in the first place, guestimate of 3 months unmedicated if not sooner.

And I doubt that you shoot as much in a year as I do - I shoot weekly both handgun and long arm. I find it relaxing, a great way of destressing. I will not claim to be a competitive shooter as I have no particular interest in competing, but military hubby says that I qualify sharpshooter easily. He for years did rangemaster for his division in qual shoots.

And never underestimate people. Might I point out Finland v. Soviet Union in the Winter War? People on an individual level can be *nasty*.
Roza Shanina
Tanya Barazmina
Nina Lobkovskaya
Lyudmila Pavlichenko
Ziba Ganiyeva
Marie Ljalkova-Lastoveca
[sorry for the lack of diacritical marks on the funny letters, my keyboard doesn't do european... ]
And lest we forget the female tank crews of the soviet union, one representational one - Mariya Oktyabraskaya.

A word of advice, *don't* piss off a woman. We are more dangerous and vicious than men if pressed. Historically women have taken part in all forms of combat both known and covertly. We have been pirates, bandits, line combat troops and guerilla fighters. We have been spies, we have been innocent bystanders that have rendered aid. Piss me off, you *will* regret it. I am not a pacifist by any means, though I prefer to live peacefully - I will defend what I see as me and mine.

[Tanasi]

What do I find "reasonable"??? As I previously stated I think much beyond what my state and what the BATFE currently requires is unreasonable.

I think it's reasonable to forbid all felons from touching, handling and using a firearm or ammunition.

I think it's reasonable to bar a judicially declared wack-a-doodles from touching, handling and using a firearm or ammunition. There should be an appeal process and a expiration date on declaration. The wack-a-doodle in question must be told why and advised of the appeals process. The accuser must present evidence as to their concerns of actions or utterances (taped copy or multiple witnesses.)

I think it's reasonable for any law-abiding citizen to own any non-NFA firearm the wish and can afford.

I think it's reasonable for any law-abiding citizen to own any NFA firearms they wish and can afford providing the NFA-34 rules and laws are followed.

I think it's reasonable for any law-abiding citizen to buy any firearm they are legally allowed to own and afford in any state. Currently I can buy any long gun in any state but I have to have handguns transfered to an FFL dealer in my state before I can take procession.

I think it's reasonable the uniformity of laws would be required within a state, meaning that the state and only the state can make laws regarding firearms, their use and wearing there of. For example in my county and city we have what's referred to as a Greenway. It's a pathway that winds though out the city and county (70+miles) that is for hiking, walking and biking. The problem for the citizen is the county allows for carry in the county section and city does not, to further the problem the Greenway is one big connected conglomeration and isn't marked as to what is city and county. The citizen that carries could unknowingly and unintentionally break the law. Now you think why would someone need to carry on a Greenway??? The Greenway is also a highway for local and transient bums, they have and do accost citizens. One lady used her carry gun to fight off two bums that were trying to attack her.

I think it's reasonable for the BATFE to write and publish some guidelines for states to consider in regards to carry permits.

I think it's reasonable for a citizen should be able to expect the ability to travel from state to state to state with firearms in their pocession and not fear harassment from LEOs when no laws have been intentionally broken. For example I'm traveling to some place in yankeeland and my path takes me through DC. I stop to fill my gas tank in DC, without intending to do so I have broken some IMO unreasonable DC gun laws.

I think it's reasonable for someone that has a carry permit and carry permit to be daily smacked upside the head if they're caught by LEOs in an intoxicated state in addition to whatever else the judge sentences them. Even most gun owners think other owners that do stupid things should be punished.

That's all for now, I gotta go as it's go home time.

[wolfie]

I can also shoot small arms or long arms competently,

A technical issue - long arms (rifles, shotguns, and in some cases, machine guns) ARE "small arms". The "breaking point" between "small arms" and heavy weapons (such as artillery) falls somewhere between .50 caliber and 20 mm.

What do I find "reasonable"??? As I previously stated I think much beyond what my state and what the BATFE currently requires is unreasonable.

I think it's reasonable to forbid all felons from touching, handling and using a firearm or ammunition.

I think it's reasonable to bar a judicially declared wack-a-doodles from touching, handling and using a firearm or ammunition. There should be an appeal process and a expiration date on declaration. The wack-a-doodle in question must be told why and advised of the appeals process. The accuser must present evidence as to their concerns of actions or utterances (taped copy or multiple witnesses.)

For example I'm traveling to some place in yankeeland and my path takes me through DC. I stop to fill my gas tank in DC, without intending to do so I have broken some IMO unreasonable DC gun laws.

Instead of "misdemeanors OK, felons permanent ban", I'd say that the distinction should be made between violent and non-violent offenses. For example, someone convicted of common assault (involved in a bar fight) as a misdemeanor would be a greater risk than someone who hacked into a database and stole thousands of credit card numbers. After all, which of these people, if they got their hands on a firearm, would be more likely to use it for illegal purposes - someone who committed a misdemeanor involving violence, or someone who committed a non-violent felony?

As for your example of filling up in DC, by your own arguments that should get you banned from owning guns - anyone who would go THROUGH DC, instead of going around it on the beltway, when they're "just passing through", is a wack-a-doodle. There are enough gas stations just off I95 both north and south of the beltway that you'd have no need to make a stop in the city. On the other hand, if you were "taking in the sights" at national monuments in the city, that wouldn't be a simple case of "just passing through".