The "want to be" gun confiscators would have a daunting job ahead of them

[montana]

In Afghanistan, the US military is trying to quell an insurgency while keeping collateral damage to a minimum, not behaving like a brutal tyrant and unleashing its full might. A better model of the force disparity that I mentioned is the Syrian civil war, where the military uses pretty much every type of weapon in its arsenal, without regard for how much death and destruction is inflicted on the populace..

Once again you are being disingenuous Stan. Syria is a proxy war between the US and Russia where neither of the host players live. If every weapon in the arsenal were used, all nations would be a dead radioactive waste land. Even tyrant and patriot alike wish to survive. John Adams opinion is proving to be prophetic.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_adams_391045

However, neither of those conflicts are examples of private ownership of firearms preventing the government turning tyrannical..

Nobody can claim victory in those conflicts either and so the battles continue. Having a military hasn't prevent wars between nations either so what is your point ? Yet nations continue to fund military's as a means to discourage other nations from attaching them. The point of military's and The 2nd Amend. is to deter, not necessarily prevent. https://www.skylighters.org/quotations/quots6.html

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I did not mean that a populace armed only with rifles and pistols would be unable to mount significant resistance to an oppressive government. I meant that it might not provide enough deterrence value to keep the government from becoming tyrannical in the first place..

So you are admitting an armed population possibly could deter governments from becoming tyrannical?

If the US government were to become a tyranny, I think it would likely happen with the unwitting assistance of the American people. Say, something along the line of the German model of the 1930s, when the population enthusiastically embraced a strong, charismatic leader who promised to make Germany great again...

What "want to be leader" didn't claim to make the nation better if they were trying to gain power? Charismatic leader is subjective to who is listening. Obama would be a perfect example of charismatic leader to the ill informed. I never saw it,"scratching my head in confusion" but to many he was like a new messiah with zero reasoning to back it. Yea, even writing that made me a little queasy lol.

[JASmith]

P.S. If you're going to quote me, kindly don't change the text so it's different than I wrote.

I said "make Germany great again." I did not say "make Germany (America?) great again."

I simply made clear what we were apparently meant to think --

Also, the folks acting like Nazis and Fascists and hysterically demanding the disarmament of the American public are not claiming the goal of making America great again.

[stanc]

I simply made clear what we were apparently meant to think --

No, you changed the meaning to what you wanted it to mean.

[stanc]

Once again you are being disingenuous Stan. Syria is a proxy war between the US and Russia where neither of the host players live.

That's nonsense. Syria is a civil war mainly between Syrian government forces and dissidents. The Syrian military is not fighting for Russia, and the rebels are not fighting for the USA.

The point of...The 2nd Amend. is to deter, not necessarily prevent.

deter
dəˈtər/
verb

discourage (someone) from doing something, typically by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.

prevent the occurrence of.

So you are admitting an armed population possibly could deter governments from becoming tyrannical?

:confused: I never disputed it. I said only that the massive combat power now available to the federal government may make a rifle-armed citizenry less of a deterrent than when both the government and the people had muzzleloading, single-shot muskets.

What "want to be leader" didn't claim to make the nation better if they were trying to gain power? Charismatic leader is subjective to who is listening. Obama would be a perfect example of charismatic leader to the ill informed. I never saw it,"scratching my head in confusion" but to many he was like a new messiah...

My sentiments exactly in regard to Trump and his supporters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lygq9_agwL8

[JASmith]

No, you changed the meaning to what you wanted it to mean.

To the contrary — your post of Melania’s picture coupled with other comments in this and other threads about our current administration make your meaning obvious.

[JASmith]

Be careful of the overt political commentary — there are too many troll-like comments in this thread.

They do not lead to a reasoned conclusion, but instead draw out more inflammatory rebuttals.

[stanc]

To the contrary — your post of Melania’s picture coupled with other comments in this and other threads about our current administration make your meaning obvious.

As I said...

[bj139]

Trump is restoring freedoms taken away from the American people by Obama.

You could use that to judge who is the tyrant.

[stanc]

Trump is restoring freedoms taken away from the American people by Obama.

You could use that to judge who is the tyrant.

Exactly what freedoms is Trump restoring? I haven't seen him do anything at all about restoring 2A rights. Not even a tweet calling for repeal of gun laws.

[JASmith]

Exactly what freedoms is Trump restoring? I haven't seen him do anything at all about restoring 2A rights. Not even a tweet calling for repeal of gun laws.

His appointments of judges who actually respect and follow the constitution vice legislate from the bench goes a long way to restoring a bunch of freedoms, including infringements on the right to bear arms.

[stanc]

His appointments of judges who actually respect and follow the constitution vice legislate from the bench goes a long way to restoring a bunch of freedoms, including infringements on the right to bear arms.

LOL. When has even a conservative court ruled a federal gun law unconstitutional?

The 1934 NFA is a clear infringement on the 2A, yet is still in effect. And enforced.

Ditto for the 1968 GCA, the 1986 machine gun ban, etc, etc.

[montana]

That's nonsense. Syria is a civil war mainly between Syrian government forces and dissidents. The Syrian military is not fighting for Russia, and the rebels are not fighting for the USA.

If not for Russian intervention, Assad would have had the same fate as Gaddafi. If not for the US and friends supplying the rebels with tons of arms, who knows? No Stan this has been a proxy war whether for good or bad.

deter
dəˈtər/
verb

discourage (someone) from doing something, typically by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.

prevent the occurrence of.

Kind of my point

:confused: I never disputed it. I said only that the massive combat power now available to the federal government may make a rifle-armed citizenry less of a deterrent than when both the government and the people had muzzleloading, single-shot muskets.

I agree and is why it is imperative we push back against any more neutering of our gun rights. Kind of the point gun rights supporters are making on this forum.

My sentiments exactly in regard to Trump and his supporters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lygq9_agwL8

The same for Obama:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I4Jsf9IwoQ I guess the memorizing effect depends on the message, not necessarily the person giving it LOL. To argue the political differences will only infuriate Gene and that is not wise to do.

[phishfood]

In Afghanistan, the US military is trying to quell an insurgency while keeping collateral damage to a minimum, not behaving like a brutal tyrant and unleashing its full might.

So that is why the Russians succeeded in Afghanistan in the '80's?

[1075 tech]

Connecticut citizens are resisting.
https://www.newsmax.com/thewire/connecti...id/552558/

Another funny fact. LE may be resisting an unconstitutional law.
http://www.callthecops.net/connecticut-h...tate-list/

If they don't even know how many are in the state, then how could they possibly have a list of who did not register a weapon not known to exist? Unless they are using the 4473.

Truthfully, I'm a little surprised by the estimated 15% compliance. Here in NY, compliance with registration was estimated at around 4%, with the majority of those being LE.

As far as confiscation goes, that idea was put forward prior to passing the unSAFE ACT.

[JASmith]

LOL. When has even a conservative court ruled a federal gun law unconstitutional?

The 1934 NFA is a clear infringement on the 2A, yet is still in effect. And enforced.

Ditto for the 1968 GCA, the 1986 machine gun ban, etc, etc.

For one, my comment applied to the Bill of Rights across the board.

Second, the Heller ruling is a well-known case but your qualification 'Federal' leaves it out of your comment.

Yes, the fine points of debate are often abused by those seeking to appear always to be superior and right.

[stanc]

For one, my comment applied to the Bill of Rights across the board.

Be that as it may, you specifically cited "infringements on the right to bear arms" as a freedom which Trump's judiciary appointments would help restore.

Second, the Heller ruling is a well-known case but your qualification 'Federal' leaves it out of your comment.

Yup.

Yes, the fine points of debate are often abused by those seeking to appear always to be superior and right.

LOL

[stanc]

So that is why the Russians succeeded in Afghanistan in the '80's?

You're focusing on the wrong aspect of the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. The salient point is not that they eventually withdrew, but that the widespread ownership by Afghans of rifles and other small arms did not deter the Russkis from invading in the first place.

[JASmith]

That's nonsense. Syria is a civil war mainly between Syrian government forces and dissidents. The Syrian military is not fighting for Russia, and the rebels are not fighting for the USA...

Proxy wars are commonplace and the indigenous participants rarely are fight for the distant superpowers.

For example, the Vietnamese fighting for their own territory and the ideals. The USA and the Russians/Chinese were merely supporting the locals for their own reasons. Indeed, the Russians and Chinese were better able to stay in the proxy mode than we were.

Montana is right.

[stanc]

Proxy wars are commonplace and the indigenous participants rarely are fight for the distant superpowers.

For example, the Vietnamese fighting for their own territory and the ideals. The USA and the Russians/Chinese were merely supporting the locals for their own reasons. Indeed, the Russians and Chinese were better able to stay in the proxy mode than we were.

Montana is right.

That makes absolutely no sense. A proxy is one who acts for someone else.

How can it be a "proxy" war when the belligerents are fighting for themselves, not the USA, Russia, or any other country???

[JASmith]

Playing games with semantics will not change the facts.