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

[stanc]

Playing games with semantics will not change the facts.

On that we agree. And the facts are that the Syrian military is not fighting for Russia, and the rebels are not fighting for the United States.

Therefore, by definition, the belligerents are not proxies of Russia and the United States. So it is factually incorrect to call it a "proxy war."

[stanc]

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.

No, for me it's not the message, it's the man. Trump's message -- although often rambling and incoherent when he's not reading a speech written for him -- is not bad.

The problem is that Trump is telling his supporters what they want to hear, and they actually believe he has their best interests at heart. The trouble is, Trump has a long history of doing what's best only for Donald Trump.

Remember, this is a guy who, when it was to his gain:

- Was a registered Democrat for many years.
- Was friend and financial supporter of Bill Clinton.
- Thought Hillary was the best Secretary of State ever.
- Supported the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
- Criticized American companies that outsource manufacturing to other countries, yet he and his daughter outsource manufacture of their clothing lines to other countries.
- Complained that foreign workers are stealing American jobs, even though he hires foreign workers for his resorts.

Trump has a seemingly neurotic need to be seen as a "winner." (He pats himself on the back so often that I'm surprised his arm isn't permanently in a sling.)

I guarantee you he won't pursue the repeal of any federal gun laws because he knows that's a losing proposition, and he can't stand to be a loser at anything.

[phishfood]

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.

No, the salient point is that a poorly armed (relative to their opponent) insurgent group is not necessarily doomed to failure.

[montana]

No, for me it's not the message, it's the man. Trump's message -- although often rambling and incoherent when he's not reading a speech written for him -- is not bad.

The problem is that Trump is telling his supporters what they want to hear, and they actually believe he has their best interests at heart. The trouble is, Trump has a long history of doing what's best only for Donald Trump.

Remember, this is a guy who, when it was to his gain:

- Was a registered Democrat for many years.
- Was friend and financial supporter of Bill Clinton.
- Thought Hillary was the best Secretary of State ever.
- Supported the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
- Criticized American companies that outsource manufacturing to other countries, yet he and his daughter outsource manufacture of their clothing lines to other countries.
- Complained that foreign workers are stealing American jobs, even though he hires foreign workers for his resorts.

Trump has a seemingly neurotic need to be seen as a "winner." (He pats himself on the back so often that I'm surprised his arm isn't permanently in a sling.)

I guarantee you he won't pursue the repeal of any federal gun laws because he knows that's a losing proposition, and he can't stand to be a loser at anything.

Stan, it is not uncommon for a businessman to play nice with both sides of the political arena if they wish to succeed, especially in New York. It is what a person does and not what they say that matters in the end. Trumps Judicial appointments seem to be very pro gun and are the key factor that will make or break our gun rights. Reagan, "who is loved by conservatives" supported the assault rifle ban after he left office. Bush senior started the ban on foreign "so called non sporting rifles", and his son stated he would sign the assault weapon ban if it made it to his desk. The alternative was the Hilda beast which left no doubt where we would be today with our gun rights. To worship, be memorized, in love with, etc with any elected personality is nuts to begin with and says more about the individual giving the mindless obedience than the elected official. Trumps next supreme court pick is already making the left become more un-hindged LOL. https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/06/30...270%20days

[JASmith]

This 2nd Amendment discussion is moving into the more general political world and that will surely lead to a flame war with this thread being locked.

Nonetheless, I will say this about the current administration: We will not have a real feeling for how effective it is until at least the mid-term elections. My own take on the history I have lived through tells me that being-elected is not a real indicator of value — the power of incumbency is indeed rather strong

We won’t know how good or bad this administration is until about 20 years down the road and we see the President’s legacy in the light of future events.

In the meantime - Take the political wailing out of this forum and discuss in a more appropriate venue.

Please support and vote for the politicians you believe in or hope will move things in a good direction..

[stanc]

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.

No, the salient point is that a poorly armed (relative to their opponent) insurgent group is not necessarily doomed to failure.

That may be the point that you deem important, but the original question was about whether a population armed with rifles and pistols posed enough of a threat to deter a government from tyrannical actions. The Afghan/Soviet experience shows it is not.

For that matter, even the Founding Fathers' experience demonstrates that a population so armed is insufficient to deter tyranny. Colonial Americans were also well armed, and even had organized militias, but that still failed to deter tyrannical behavior by the British.

The concept is a fiction. History proves that.

[JASmith]

‘Sorry Stan — the Russians left because the occupation cost too much. Wide-spread firearms ownership, coupled with geography and a bit of assistance from outside were the root causes.

And yes, a well-armed populace does not prevent errors of judgement but can make them very costly examples.

[stanc]

Trumps Judicial appointments seem to be very pro gun and are the key factor that will make or break our gun rights.

I disagree. The courts -- even when dominated by conservative judges -- have allowed nearly all gun laws to stand, despite the fact that all such laws "infringe" on the RKBA.
Appointing pro-gun judges is certainly good, but it's basically passive, defensive in nature. At best, the courts can only be depended on to prevent further erosion of 2A rights.

To go on the offensive and try to restore 2A rights will require legislative action, and there is no chance of Congress doing that on their own.
They will need to be pushed hard by the President, who has shown not even the tiniest bit of interest in actively trying to restore gun rights.

[montana]

That may be the point that you deem important, but the original question was about whether a population armed with rifles and pistols posed enough of a threat to deter a government from tyrannical actions. The Afghan/Soviet experience shows it is not.

For that matter, even the Founding Fathers' experience demonstrates that a population so armed is insufficient to deter tyranny. Colonial Americans were also well armed, and even had organized militias, but that still failed to deter tyrannical behavior by the British.

The concept is a fiction. History proves that.

You are not wrong about preventing all tyrannical behavior, but being armed is better than being un-armed. Muggers, rapist, thugs of all kind rarely target big, well armed individuals who can fight back. The risk would be too high for the gain. Predators always target the weakest and most vulnerable. Governments are no different. Why do you think the democide, "which occurred in the last century" began with gun confiscation? With privately held arms there is hope, without arms, people are at the total mercy of the few with the guns. If you have been paying attention to the last two mass shootings, shot guns and a revolver were used by the criminal killers but we haven't been hearing the rhetoric to ban shotguns and revolvers like we did with the AR-15. This is because the AR-15 type rifle is more vulnerable to eradication compared to the others at this time because of the ignorance of the AR-15 with the non shooting masses. If AR type rifles are banned then it will be handguns, then shot guns and so forth. The anti's always do it piecemeal until the 2nd Amend. is completely neutered. Forcing people to depend on a governmental system makes them totally vulnerable to that same system. This is why I agree %100 with this statement:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Owning antiquated arms with draconian regulations does not deter government aggression.

[stanc]

You are not wrong about preventing all tyrannical behavior, but being armed is better than being un-armed. Muggers, rapist, thugs of all kind rarely target big, well armed individuals who can fight back. The risk would be too high for the gain. Predators always target the weakest and most vulnerable. Governments are no different. Why do you think the democide, "which occurred in the last century" began with gun confiscation? With privately held arms there is hope, without arms, people are at the total mercy of the few with the guns. If you have been paying attention to the last two mass shootings, shot guns and a revolver were used by the criminal killers but we haven't been hearing the rhetoric to ban shotguns and revolvers like we did with the AR-15. This is because the AR-15 type rifle is more vulnerable to eradication compared to the others at this time because of the ignorance of the AR-15 with the non shooting masses. If AR type rifles are banned then it will be handguns, then shot guns and so forth. The anti's always do it piecemeal until the 2nd Amend. is completely neutered. Forcing people to depend on a governmental system makes them totally vulnerable to that same system.

I completely agree.

[montana]

I disagree. The courts -- even when dominated by conservative judges -- have allowed nearly all gun laws to stand, despite the fact that all such laws "infringe" on the RKBA.
Appointing pro-gun judges is certainly good, but it's basically passive, defensive in nature. At best, the courts can only be depended on to prevent further erosion of 2A rights.

To go on the offensive and try to restore 2A rights will require legislative action, and there is no chance of Congress doing that on their own.
They will need to be pushed hard by the President, who has shown not even the tiniest bit of interest in actively trying to restore gun rights.

This may be a first on the forum where we both completely agree with each other. Until next time

[JASmith]

This may be a first on the forum where we both completely agree with each other. Until next time

Concur!

[stanc]

This may be a first on the forum where we both completely agree with each other. Until next time

Well, how about that. Miracles really do happen!

[phishfood]

No, that's not why.

When the country was founded, there was a small standing army. Both private citizens and government forces had the exact same types of guns: Muzzleloading muskets, rifles, and pistols.

Today there is a very large standing army. Private citizens (with few exceptions) are still limited to having rifles and pistols, while government forces have rifles, pistols, machine guns, self-propelled artillery, main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, guided missiles, attack helicopters, jet fighters, bombers, etc, etc.

In the 18th Century, an armed citizenry posed a credible counterbalance to an equally armed government.

In the 21st Century, the disparity in force is so great that, IMO, the original concept is no longer adequate in and of itself to be an effective counter to a government becoming tyrannical.

As all can see from the above, your post that I originally quoted, you were trying to make the point that a modern army cannot be resisted ( provide a credible counterbalance) by an armed populace. I disagree, and provided modern day examples of lightly armed insurgents doing just that. Your argument was invalid.

I don't expect you to admit it, but that doesn't change the fact that our right to have firearms provides a final, and pretty effective, measure for us to protect ourselves from our government.

[stanc]

As all can see from the above, your post that I originally quoted, you were trying to make the point that a modern army cannot be resisted ( provide a credible counterbalance) by an armed populace. I disagree, and provided modern day examples of lightly armed insurgents doing just that. Your argument was invalid.

Wrong. I never said that an armed populace would be unable to resist a modern army.
I'm saying an armed populace does not deter invasion or oppression by a modern army.

I don't expect you to admit it, but that doesn't change the fact that our right to have firearms provides a final, and pretty effective, measure for us to protect ourselves from our government.

I won't admit it, because history doesn't support it.
The Afghans had firearms, but that didn't protect them from invasion by the Soviets.
The Colonials had firearms, but that didn't deter oppression by the British.
The Pennsylvania farmers and distillers who took part in the Whiskey Rebellion had firearms, but that didn't stop George Washington from leading the militia against them.

Having firearms would certainly enable the people to fight back, but history shows that the possession of rifles and pistols does not by itself deter government use of force.

[JASmith]

There are no gaurantees, especially with deterrence.

Nonetheless, an armed population ups the costs of tyranny and so reduces the likelihood pf success.

for phishfood and others — one needs to pay close attention to what Stan writes or you will surely fall victim to his verbal traps. For example, the use of the word deter. We respond to the insinuation and rebut the points he uses to support his position, only to find that he claims he meant the strict definition of the term rather than more nuanced “make the tyranny very costly”.

Every one of the arguments he cites below are examples of miscalculations on the part of the major power and support the argument that “deterrence doesn't work. One the other hand EVERY ONE OF THEM are examples of a successful repulsion of the occupier by an armed population.

The exception is the Whiskey rebelion — which is a poor example of resistance to a tyrannical act.

Wrong. I never said that an armed populace would be unable to resist a modern army.
I'm saying an armed populace does not deter invasion or oppression by a modern army.


I won't admit it, because history doesn't support it.
The Afghans had firearms, but that didn't protect them from invasion by the Soviets.
The Colonials had firearms, but that didn't deter oppression by the British.
The Pennsylvania farmers and distillers who took part in the Whiskey Rebellion had firearms, but that didn't stop George Washington from leading the militia against them.

Having firearms would certainly enable the people to fight back, but history shows that the possession of rifles and pistols does not by itself deter government use of force.

Now, ask yourselves — what are Stan’s real objectives in these discussions? Do they serve the forum and his fellow posters in a way that makes us better? The answer will help decide whether to put him on your personal ignore list or continue the discussions.

For me, I learn a lot from the rebuttals to Stan’s provocative claims but no so much from his own writing. For now, I will continue to follow the discussions and comment when it seems appropriate even though the claims and insinuations about the value of the 2nd Amendement are infuriating.

[grayfox]

The AR15 and the Glock, along with Beretta, M&P, etc 9mm's, are the insurance policy for the common person. Every time there is a gun-control style scare, a "We're gonna get the guns" moment, people rush out and buy them like hotcakes. I can't imagine that everyone doing that has a huge desire to become a marksman just at that time coincidentally, although that would be fine... no, this is a real-life manifestation of folks getting their insurance policies against... well, government tyranny. I think that is precisely the interpretation that we see every time something like this happens. And it is precisely these people's interpretation of the 2A!!!

Main thing about insurance policies, you don't want to have to use it, but you get it just in case. Insurance is not intended to prevent that disaster you're buying it for, but to either mitigate or compensate for it or lessen its effects on you. Hence I'm not so interested in whether, academically, the 2A or an armed populace is to completely deter aggression or a tyrannical takeover... I'd be willing to bet that the common interpretation is that it goes a long way to prevent it, gives the would-be dictators lonngggg pause before they try something... but in cases where they do try such a takeover, an armed citizenry can wreak some pretty devastating consequences.

That plus the internal will to take those steps when needed. King George found that out. Hitler and Hirohito, yes and Bin Laden and several others as well. (By the way Hitler and Mussolini were elite leftist/Statist heroes!)

Now if somebody really is against this freedom they can give up all of their arms and rely totally on the State to give them something if an when It deigns to...

But as for me and my house, I will INVOKE my insurance policy(ies) if ever such an event comes to pass.
Stan you can choose otherwise that's your prerogative.
But this is my stand.

[stanc]

for phishfood and others — one needs to pay close attention to what Stan writes or you will surely fall victim to his verbal traps. For example, the use of the word deter. We respond to the insinuation and rebut the points he uses to support his position, only to find that he claims he meant the strict definition of the term rather than more nuanced “make the tyranny very costly”.

To you, using the dictionary definition of words is a "verbal trap"???

Ladies and gentlemen, it looks like we have just crossed over into...

[JASmith]

Once again, we see a word taken out of context to obfuscate the point and try to appear the owner of superior intellect but not engage in a truly give and take discussion.

That is why I learn far more from the reasoned responses to his trolling than his statements by themselves.

[stanc]

The AR15 and the Glock, along with Beretta, M&P, etc 9mm's, are the insurance policy for the common person. Every time there is a gun-control style scare, a "We're gonna get the guns" moment, people rush out and buy them like hotcakes. I can't imagine that everyone doing that has a huge desire to become a marksman just at that time coincidentally, although that would be fine... no, this is a real-life manifestation of folks getting their insurance policies against... well, government tyranny. I think that is precisely the interpretation that we see every time something like this happens.

I think that's the wrong interpretation. IMO, they're not stocking up for "the revolution." They're just buying something they desire because they fear it might not be available later.

Main thing about insurance policies, you don't want to have to use it, but you get it just in case. Insurance is not intended to prevent that disaster you're buying it for, but to either mitigate or compensate for it or lessen its effects on you. Hence I'm not so interested in whether, academically, the 2A or an armed populace is to completely deter aggression or a tyrannical takeover... I'd be willing to bet that the common interpretation is that it goes a long way to prevent it, gives the would-be dictators lonngggg pause before they try something...

I agree, that does appear to be the common interpretation. But, it looks like more of a myth, than a truth.

...but in cases where they do try such a takeover, an armed citizenry can wreak some pretty devastating consequences.

That takes us back to my original observation. When both the citizenry and military were armed with single-shot muzzleloaders, the citizens had the same destruction potential as the military.

Today there is no such "balance of power." The best weapons available to most citizens are semi-auto rifles, while the military arsenal is several orders of magnitude greater in destructive force.

The consequences of such a lopsided matchup would be devastating, to be sure, but not for the military.

That plus the internal will to take those steps when needed. King George found that out. Hitler and Hirohito, yes and Bin Laden and several others as well.

King George was defeated by organized military forces, not armed citizenry. Same for Hitler, Hirohito, and bin Laden.

Now if somebody really is against this freedom they can give up all of their arms and rely totally on the State to give them something if an when It deigns to...

But as for me and my house, I will INVOKE my insurance policy(ies) if ever such an event comes to pass.
Stan you can choose otherwise that's your prerogative.

Meh. I'll be dead of natural causes long before such an event comes to pass.