guns

[Calandale]

Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.

That tyranny might well lead to a coup. A civil war could still be the outcome - just not the nascent
fantasy of people with hand arms thinking they could face down tanks.

I'm trying to envision a civil war in which one side apposes guns. Will the anti-gun hypocrites take up arms to fight against their pro-gun neighbors, or will the pro-gun people simply gun down their unarmed fellow citizens for having the gall to not have a gun?

The side 'opposing' guns would be the ones in control of the government.
They'd count on the military to follow orders, and might find it less willing to seize guns than
thought, after a contentious decision.

It still seems we're talking about an uprising, insurrection, a rebellion; that isn't a civil war.

Are you completely lacking in imagination?

If there's a coup, and the army splits, what the fuck do you want to call it?

Can I imagine a bunch of melodramatic things I don't really believe would happen? Yes. Though the reality seems to be, over 99% of the population appears to value not being in jail. First we're only talking about a third of population. Thinking the extreme vast majority would simply comply. Of those who would be willing to be a criminal to keep a gun, the vast majority of those would try to hide them. Yes, there is an extremist fringe who would actually fight, but they would likely be sneaky about it, rather than the stereotypical image of Billy Bob vs. a tank while screeching about his cold dead hands. There would potentially be small pockets of civil unrest and/or terroristic acts toward the government, but extremist's numbers aren't large enough to create the level of upheaval being implied. Yes it would create problems, but really don't think the government, the military, or society would suddenly burst into flames.

Ok, so you're just being ridiculous, and shifting the goal. The premise was a coup, and now you're
claiming that's impossible.

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but discussion with you is pointless if you claim something
based upon a premise, and then start attacking the premise to defend your ridiculous conclusion.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Can I imagine a whole lot of chaos and violence if someone tries to ban guns outright in the US? Absolutely.

It is the climate of fear that someone will ban private ownership of guns that is keeping the NRA and the gun manufacturers in the powerful and influential position they are in now. Take that off the table and you might get somewhere.

That was never even on the table here, without anything like the sort of gun culture you guys have.

[Jack]

Cries of potential civil war are histrionic blabber. Only one third of US households have guns, and the fact is most gun owners are law abiding citizens who would turn over their weapons if they had to. It boils down to what Calandale said, the current force of opposition means the government would have to turn tyrannical to make it happen. Do believe there is a fringe in the US who would rise up against a tyrannical government. It wouldn't pit the general population against each other.

That tyranny might well lead to a coup. A civil war could still be the outcome - just not the nascent
fantasy of people with hand arms thinking they could face down tanks.

I'm trying to envision a civil war in which one side apposes guns. Will the anti-gun hypocrites take up arms to fight against their pro-gun neighbors, or will the pro-gun people simply gun down their unarmed fellow citizens for having the gall to not have a gun?

The side 'opposing' guns would be the ones in control of the government.
They'd count on the military to follow orders, and might find it less willing to seize guns than
thought, after a contentious decision.

It still seems we're talking about an uprising, insurrection, a rebellion; that isn't a civil war.

Are you completely lacking in imagination?

If there's a coup, and the army splits, what the fuck do you want to call it?

Can I imagine a bunch of melodramatic things I don't really believe would happen? Yes. Though the reality seems to be, over 99% of the population appears to value not being in jail. First we're only talking about a third of population. Thinking the extreme vast majority would simply comply. Of those who would be willing to be a criminal to keep a gun, the vast majority of those would try to hide them. Yes, there is an extremist fringe who would actually fight, but they would likely be sneaky about it, rather than the stereotypical image of Billy Bob vs. a tank while screeching about his cold dead hands. There would potentially be small pockets of civil unrest and/or terroristic acts toward the government, but extremist's numbers aren't large enough to create the level of upheaval being implied. Yes it would create problems, but really don't think the government, the military, or society would suddenly burst into flames.

Ok, so you're just being ridiculous, and shifting the goal. The premise was a coup, and now you're
claiming that's impossible.

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but discussion with you is pointless if you claim something
based upon a premise, and then start attacking the premise to defend your ridiculous conclusion.

Not claiming it's impossible, but rather unlikely for exactly the reasons previously stated. The premise of a coup was based on the circumstance of needing military to forcibly seize guns from the public. Don't think there would be a great need for force, and similar to the public, the ones unwilling to follow orders would be passively non compliant, and the few who might aggress wouldn't be a strong enough force to upend the entire system.

[DirtDawg]

Can I imagine a whole lot of chaos and violence if someone tries to ban guns outright in the US? Absolutely.

It is the climate of fear that someone will ban private ownership of guns that is keeping the NRA and the gun manufacturers in the powerful and influential position they are in now. Take that off the table and you might get somewhere.

That was never even on the table here, without anything like the sort of gun culture you guys have.

Already posted this and it may be where some of your misinterpretations of me emanate.
This is not actually me.

[DirtDawg]

DD I disagree with a lot of what you say but I do believe that you are no embellished of the truth. I must have misread one of your posts and apologies if I've misrepresented you here.

No need for apologies, pal. Text is one of the many non-specific means of communication attempts and for now, that is all that you and I have with which to work.
I will make an effort to be more clear as I try to go forward.

You and I are both skilled in writing one thing while influencing another interpretation. I think this issue is too important to be so playful, though.

Our Second Amendment rights are under attack in this age and we must be watchful. I have tried to be very clear about this and My position should be quite clear. Those trying to undermine the very establishment and foundation of this country are in a questionable position in my view. I question their loyalties, outright.

The strongest legal weapon we have is our vote. Keeping the Senate under control of patriots who are willing to defend the Constitution is by all measures a win, win, win for the future of America.
Two years from now, another election cycle ensues and we will have to discuss this again, possibly. My stance will not change.

[Calandale]

Not claiming it's impossible, but rather unlikely for exactly the reasons previously stated. The premise of a coup was based on the circumstance of needing military to forcibly seize guns from the public. Don't think there would be a great need for force, and similar to the public, the ones unwilling to follow orders would be passively non compliant, and the few who might aggress wouldn't be a strong enough force to upend the entire system.

In case you didn't get the message - I'm done with your waffling.

[Jack]

Not claiming it's impossible, but rather unlikely for exactly the reasons previously stated. The premise of a coup was based on the circumstance of needing military to forcibly seize guns from the public. Don't think there would be a great need for force, and similar to the public, the ones unwilling to follow orders would be passively non compliant, and the few who might aggress wouldn't be a strong enough force to upend the entire system.

In case you didn't get the message - I'm done with your waffling.

Waffling how? Have I said something inconsistent, or do you mean my speaking without purpose? If it's the latter then you're doing it too. This conversation has devolved into daydreaming about something that simply isn't going to happen by either stretch of our imaginations. If you want to stop though, that's fine. Want to know what I really think would happen if the federal government attempted to issue a ban on guns? A big bunch of nothing. Even the Brady act was declared unconstitutional before the NCIS even became live, and while it was allowed to stand, it would be as valuable as toilet paper without the legislature of individual states which echo it. If real change is to happen, it can only happen at the state level, because the federal government simply doesn't have that level of authority. Are you just looking for someone to agree with you? Fine. The only way the federal government could ever implement a gun ban would be to declare all out war against the states. It would rip everything to shit, and that's why it will never happen, because they would only succeed in destroying themselves. See how boring that was?

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

The point is that there are approx 100 million gun owners in the US (correct me if I am wrong). You are making an assumption that all but a tiny % of those gun owners will refuse to give up their weapons, despite the fact that a large % of those gun owners say that they will not give up their weapons.

There are basically 2 assumptions that one can make. One is that talk of refusing to give up weapons is almost entirely bluster and that gun owners will back down when the time comes and meekly hand over their weapons. The other assumption is that they mostly mean what they say. And, of course, there is an enormous grey area between those assumptions.

Your starting assumption is different to mine. Simples. There is no point discussing further.

[Jack]

The point is that there are approx 100 million gun owners in the US (correct me if I am wrong). You are making an assumption that all but a tiny % of those gun owners will refuse to give up their weapons, despite the fact that a large % of those gun owners say that they will not give up their weapons.

There are basically 2 assumptions that one can make. One is that talk of refusing to give up weapons is almost entirely bluster and that gun owners will back down when the time comes and meekly hand over their weapons. The other assumption is that they mostly mean what they say. And, of course, there is an enormous grey area between those assumptions.

Your starting assumption is different to mine. Simples. There is no point discussing further.

Thinking what I said was a tiny percent of people would use them in defiance. It's also easy for one to say they wont do something they know they wont have to do, but most people do obey the laws even if they view them as unjust. Though you do make a good point that even a small percent of people in the US is still a lot of people. It's estimated that three percent of the adult population own half of the guns, so even a passive disobedience by a small percentage could still mean an enormous amount of guns might could stay in the populace anyway.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

The thing is that most people obey the law, but that is to a large extent because they see the law as just and fair. The laws that people obey are not ones that they have repeatedly committed themselves to opposing until death.

The fact that most people obey laws that say "don't throw rocks off overpasses" or "don't murder people", IMO, has little bearing on whether they will obey a law that they see as unfair, unjust, unconstitutional, and a threat to their liberty and potentially their lives.

We get back to the starting assumptions.

[Jack]

The thing is that most people obey the law, but that is to a large extent because they see the law as just and fair. The laws that people obey are not ones that they have repeatedly committed themselves to opposing until death.

The fact that most people obey laws that say "don't throw rocks off overpasses" or "don't murder people", IMO, has little bearing on whether they will obey a law that they see as unfair, unjust, unconstitutional, and a threat to their liberty and potentially their lives.

We get back to the starting assumptions.

My assumptions are based in the bias of life experience. Lived the majority of my life is some serious redneck territory and have known more many more men who are game hunters than those who aren't. there's not a single one who I believe would do anything more than fight for a longer bow season. Maybe it's just because I've never known a nutter who would turn terrorist over such a principle, It's hard to assume there really that many out there.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

The thing is that most people obey the law, but that is to a large extent because they see the law as just and fair. The laws that people obey are not ones that they have repeatedly committed themselves to opposing until death.

The fact that most people obey laws that say "don't throw rocks off overpasses" or "don't murder people", IMO, has little bearing on whether they will obey a law that they see as unfair, unjust, unconstitutional, and a threat to their liberty and potentially their lives.

We get back to the starting assumptions.

My assumptions are based in the bias of life experience. Lived the majority of my life is some serious redneck territory and have known more many more men who are game hunters than those who aren't. there's not a single one who I believe would do anything more than fight for a longer bow season. Maybe it's just because I've never known a nutter who would turn terrorist FREEDOM FIGHTER over such a principle, It's hard to assume there really that many out there.

FYP

[Jack]

[Gopher Gary]

Jack implied toilet paper isn't valuable. 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Jack implied toilet paper isn't valuable. 

Do you have a problem with poop sticking to your fur?