guns

[Calandale]

Why even ban all guns? That just seems to be going from one ridiculous extreme to another.

Because, it's not the edge case 'assault rifles' that account for the majority of gun deaths.

Those are just the most spectacular instances. Are we okay with the overall scourge of gun
violence, but just want to be spared the marquee events?

[Jack]

I believe DirtDawg when he says that he would not give up his guns without a fight.

Where did he say that?

[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.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Why even ban all guns? That just seems to be going from one ridiculous extreme to another.

Because, it's not the edge case 'assault rifles' that account for the majority of gun deaths.

Those are just the most spectacular instances. Are we okay with the overall scourge of gun
violence, but just want to be spared the marquee events?

Australia's gun laws have been quite effective. A private citizen can basically own a bolt action rifle, not sure if the size of the magazine is restricted.

Guns are available on the black market, I was just reading that a pistol generally costs $10K to $20K. The penalties for being in possession of a banned firearm are pretty severe, so they tend not to be carried or used very often.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

I believe DirtDawg when he says that he would not give up his guns without a fight.

Where did he say that?

DirtDawg, if you are reading this, can you please confirm how you and your gun-owning friends would react if the government tried to take your guns away?

Can't be arsed going back through hundreds of posts unless I have to.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

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

Pedant

I doubt very much whether all branches of military and law enforcement would support the federal government using force against US citizens. There would be division and potential violence akin to a civil war. Obviously gun banning advocates won't take up arms against gun nuts.

[Jack]

DirtDawg, if you are reading this, can you please confirm how you and your gun-owning friends would react if the government tried to take your guns away?

Can't be arsed going back through hundreds of posts unless I have to.

It's right here is this discussion.

If they knock on my door and insist that I give up my Class III weaponry, I will probably comply. I am too old to start a "from my cold dead fingers" war with the Department Of Justice and ALL that that might imply.

[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?

[DirtDawg]

There are factions inside this FREE country of ours, even within our own midst who would change this, if they could. Pretty sure those types are mostly treasonous at heart.
One point we might continue to argue is just exactly how non-American and traitorous are these people within our own midst trying to undermine the foundation of this country.

It is up to each AND every single one of us as Patriotic Americans to continue to ensure that this tragedy never occurs within these sanctioned borders as it already has all across most of the globe.

The question is, "what is gained and what is lost?"

The loss should be an easily quantifiable number of deaths by firearms each year - as a maximum.

The gain? Hunting rights? Some fantasy of armed insurrection? Nay - rather it's the ability
to provoke embarrassing showdowns, where the govt, only because it's unwilling to go
full tyranny, is restrained.

This is where we are.

So? Can we not look either forward or backward to times when we weren't having as many mass shootings?

Or, is the gun company profit so damned important?

Our troubles are tough and we will deal with them, in our own way.

Of course. Take lessons from the past to improve the future. It usually helps.

Pretty sure most of those companies are quite secure, especially the ones who make explosives.

[DirtDawg]

DirtDawg, if you are reading this, can you please confirm how you and your gun-owning friends would react if the government tried to take your guns away?

Can't be arsed going back through hundreds of posts unless I have to.

It's right here is this discussion.

If they knock on my door and insist that I give up my Class III weaponry, I will probably comply. I am too old to start a "from my cold dead fingers" war with the Department Of Justice and ALL that that might imply.

Actually the fight is already on. It is a fight of the pens to determine distribution of the swords at this point.
But to reiterate, I will not get shot by a SWAT team if the war of pens goes bad and they insist I give up my Class III weaponry.

I can only speak for myself, though.

[DirtDawg]

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

Pedant

I doubt very much whether all branches of military and law enforcement would support the federal government using force against US citizens. There would be division and potential violence akin to a civil war. Obviously gun banning advocates won't take up arms against gun nuts.

You could possibly correct. In the many cases mentioned here, I can not believe that All OF THOSE "TANKS,"  as someone called the mechanized divisions, would be pointed toward the civilians standing up for our constitution.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

DirtDawg, if you are reading this, can you please confirm how you and your gun-owning friends would react if the government tried to take your guns away?

Can't be arsed going back through hundreds of posts unless I have to.

It's right here is this discussion.

If they knock on my door and insist that I give up my Class III weaponry, I will probably comply. I am too old to start a "from my cold dead fingers" war with the Department Of Justice and ALL that that might imply.

He has stated differently in other threads. Maybe just rhetorical. I will try to find it.

[DirtDawg]

DirtDawg, if you are reading this, can you please confirm how you and your gun-owning friends would react if the government tried to take your guns away?

Can't be arsed going back through hundreds of posts unless I have to.

It's right here is this discussion.

If they knock on my door and insist that I give up my Class III weaponry, I will probably comply. I am too old to start a "from my cold dead fingers" war with the Department Of Justice and ALL that that might imply.

He has stated differently in other threads. Maybe just rhetorical. I will try to find it.

When I was younger, I had a different mindset. It is and was not rhetoric, but merely the progress of maturing. When I was still young and strong I felt differently about a great number of things, then children came and dad stuff began to influence my thinking, many things were not as clear as before.  I even set myself up as an organ donor - many things changed in my mind during the twelve years I have been a member of this site.

Fighting to the death to defend my family? I am still there and I have enough in and about me to give myself AND my family a substantial edge in that fight.

Going up against the police or any other government agency (outside of a courtroom) has never been a part of my mindset.

I do think that many could and and such groups would give the government forces fits, but I have never been a part of any cult like that. I HAVE stated that such anarchy can and will likely happen.

You are possibly confusing what I say will happen with what I have said that I will do.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

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.

[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.