# The 2nd amendment does not give people the right to bear arms.



## rkunsaw (Dec 26, 2014)

The 2nd amendment does  not give people the right to bear arms. It reaffirms and protects a right that already existed. 


The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms or to have arms) is the people's right to have their own arms for their defense as described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs and others.[1] In countries with an English common law tradition, a long standin...g common law right to keep and bear arms has long been recognized, as pre-existing in common law, prior even to the existence of written national constitutions.[2] In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is also an enumerated right specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions[3] such that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a right to bear these same arms both for personal protection and for use in a militia


----------



## rt3 (Dec 26, 2014)

good thing they have an edit, I read your post and started some stuff,

In addition ammendments were/are considered God given unalienable Rights put down on paper to protect them


----------



## rkunsaw (Dec 26, 2014)

rt3 said:


> good thing they have an edit, I read your post and started some stuff,
> 
> In addition ammendments were/are considered God given unalienable Rights



Glad you edited. I was getting ready to rebuke your reply. :lol:


----------



## Blaze Duskdreamer (Dec 26, 2014)

Well, there is that bit about the militia the pro-gun people either purposely ignore or blow off with claims that the language has changed.  Your point is probably why they felt the need to include it at all and qualify in order to form a militia.  That aside, it matters not -- as it certainly doesn't prohibit the people from owning guns.  However, I think it's great that it neither expressly gives every citizen the right nor prohibits them so we can have a sane middle road in which we require permits and can bar convicted criminals or those not mentally competent (i.e., the insane) and also limit fire power.   I think it safe to say that if it did give everyone an unfettered right to bear arms, we'd need a Constitutional amendment given the firepower we now have that our founding fathers couldn't have possibly imagined.  No innocent, law-abiding citizen needs an Uzi or a shoulder missile.


----------



## rt3 (Dec 26, 2014)

Actually there were several working machine gun models prior to the 1600s, and rockets existed in early Greek times. Currently the ownership of both is not only legal but very popular. I invite you to the MAcine gun shoot at Tenessee the rockets are a bit different requiring a class 10 lic. (I think it is) in any event a guy here in town has one, which he lets people shoot although it is expensive. Nobody needs 3 airplanes, or 4 homes either. Sane  and innocent are legal terms  which require definitions very few are going to agree and when used by the lay public is nothing but an opinion.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 26, 2014)

Blaze Duskdreamer said:


> No innocent, law-abiding citizen needs an Uzi or a shoulder missile.



It doesn't matter if they need them IMO, if they want an Uzi, they should be able to purchase and own one.  They may be a collector, they may just want it for fun, or they just may want it because they want it.  They shouldn't need to give any excuses, reasons or explanations.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 26, 2014)

That's where we differ. Over here if you want a gun you need a very good reason why you should be trusted with one or you can't have what you want. And you need a licence.


----------



## rkunsaw (Dec 27, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> That's where we differ. Over here if you want a gun you need a very good reason why you should be trusted with one or you can't have what you want. And you need a licence.



The right to bear arms existed over here and over there every since there were people. Over here we have recognized and protected those rights with our constitution. Over there those rights have been taken away. There is nothing to prevent the government from taking away more rights( or giving more rights) at the whim of the current ones in power. ( don't hold your breath on the giving more rights part)

That is where our countries differ.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 27, 2014)

The right to bear arms over here originally meant that an initiated warrior could own spears, boomerangs and a nulla nulla, as well as a woman to carry them for him. Sensibly, we did not enshrine these rights in our constitution.


----------



## rkunsaw (Dec 27, 2014)

All animals (including humans) Have an inherent right to protect them selves by whatever means available to them. Some protect themselves by hiding or running away. Others protect themselves by fighting back.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 27, 2014)

Why does the "well regulated" part always go unmentioned.   The 2nd ammendment provides for a "well regulated Militia"...   so while giving everyone the right to bear  arms... it also gives the right of the government to regulate them..  Right? 

Here's the original text as passed by Congress




> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## rkunsaw (Dec 27, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Why does the "well regulated" part always go unmentioned.   The 2nd ammendment provides for a "well regulated Militia"...   so while giving everyone the right to bear  arms... it also gives the right of the government to regulate them..  Right?
> 
> Here's the original text as passed by Congress



Don't forget the "shall not be infringed" part.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 27, 2014)

rkunsaw said:


> Don't forget the "shall not be infringed" part.



Of course... the right to own a gun is not to be infringed upon... but the Militia can be regulated...  Right?   So shouldn't you all be attending Militia meetings.. or some sort of boot camp or something?


----------



## rt3 (Dec 27, 2014)

Actually the laws for owning a firearm in the U.S. are far more strict than owning a car. I wish it was as easy
auto doesn't require a form 4733 FBI background check and in some states along waiting period 
can always buy more than 1 car a month, some states have 30 day waiting periods
can't sell it to someone you know is a criminal ,  car Doesn't matter if a criminal
Age difference you drive in most states is 4-5 years younger than allowed for gun ownership 
you can have a car with unlimited horsepower, but as you read with some of these posts, they want magazine restriction

the big difference is the medical aspect. If you have had a major medical episode, it usually requires a docs ok to get lic.
renewal for auto. Usually not the case with guns. This will be a major issue as the spin people continue to make the term gun violence a medical issue.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 27, 2014)

Soo..... since we adhere so tightly to the Constitution...

*mi·li·tia*

_noun_ \mə-ˈli-shə\: a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers

*Full Definition of MILITIA*

*1*
_a_ *:*  a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
_b_ *:*  a body of citizens organized for military service

*2*
*:*  the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

I would expect that ALL gun owners have been subjected to intense Military training.. and are all able bodied and Male AND will be called into military serviced BY LAW  should the need arise?   Right?   Everyone ready to pack up and GO?   lol!!


----------



## Don M. (Dec 27, 2014)

I think the primary objective behind the 2nd Amendment was to allow the average citizen the ability to protect themselves from a Corrupted Government.  Given the trend in recent decades for our government to be increasingly taken over by the wealthy 1%er's, and the major corporate/banking interests, and their Lobbies, Joe and Jane Average are becoming less relevant with every passing election.  With the continued erosion of our Middle Class, the day may come when we are a nation of the Elite minority, and the Peasant Majority.  This situation already exists in many nations where the people have no means of exerting influence, other than marching in the streets.  

The wisdom of the 2nd Amendment could be all that stands between the bulk of our people...and a life of subservience....in the future.  

The time to begin to be Really Concerned will be if the government ever tries to initiate a massive registration of all legal gun owners.  Confiscation would be the next step.


----------



## rt3 (Dec 27, 2014)

God I love liberal humor QS. You can expect anything you want, whether it happens that way, who knows. Since you don't get out much this is the way it works. Across the U.S. there are 1000 of shooting ranges. Gun clubs like the International Pistol Shooters Confederation, 3 gun international, machine gun clubs etc. a loose affiliation putting on shooting competitions. A small match would be at least 50 and a large several thousands. They may bring motor homes or stay in near by hotels, bringing in lots of tourist dollars so the local communities welcome with open arms., usually the latest antigun freak stuff is rehashed, everybody makes a joke or more. Generally everyone brings there kids, who are taught fundamental firearms safety, about the 2nd and why gun laws don't work. About 35 % of the competitors are women who shot in their own class, which real bs because they shoot better than a lot of the men, and move faster. Usually the total number present are more female. Booze is not allowed or any other type of non medical drugs.
Some of participants are ex or current police or military but those people have their own matches, and they aren't very good and rarely win. Usually the prize tables are large and some shooters make a living this way. Noting like football etc.
what your describing above is called the draft and was done away with. And you thought gun shows were a problem.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 27, 2014)

Don M. said:


> I think the primary objective behind the 2nd Amendment was to allow the average citizen the ability to protect themselves from a Corrupted Government..



Ahh... *YOU THINK*..... that means that is YOUR interpretation..  But the Constitution does NOT say everyone can own guns to protect themselves... It calls for a "Well Regulated Militia"...  SO by the definition of Militia.. you should be going to training camps and be ready to pick up your gun and join a Military like squadron..  Right?   I mean that's what the constitution says..  Unless of course you want to admit that you are picking and choosing the words you want to follow and interpret.


----------



## rt3 (Dec 27, 2014)

That would depend on the agenda who the leaders etc. and yes I will pick them, and well I guess that would certainly depend on their stance (history) on constitutional issues (not a guess how resolved people who won't defend themselves are, they won't be there). What so strange about that it has always been that way.
back to some fun stuff. Usually by the end of the matches everybody has sour grapes about their guns and the trading and selling starts - 4733 forms here. Usually a basic game gun runs about 2-3k some as high as 10 k. Bet those get locked up.
all states in the us have gun colleges, some states have world wide ties, and some states have quite a few. I guess this is a type of boot camp, all one does is concentrate on firearms procedures. Women make up about 40% of the enrollment. Gun site in Arizonia (gotta love the name) is probably the best known. The latest are country club shooting ranges, leather seats, fireplaces, dinner, one right in DC I think. It seems that the ladies felt the others were just too dirty. Lol


----------



## rt3 (Dec 27, 2014)

SCOTUS in Heller does say everyone can
reaffirmed in recent Appeals decision that denial of gun to mental institution graduate violated his 2nd
DC anti-carry laws held unconstitutional by Fed. Judge directed Dc's to redraft

Chicagos anti carry laws held unconstitutional by different district Fed. Judge chicago ordered to redraft

whats in your wallet?


----------



## Don M. (Dec 27, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Ahh... *YOU THINK*..... that means that is YOUR interpretation..  But the Constitution does NOT say everyone can own guns to protect themselves... It calls for a "Well Regulated Militia"...  SO by the definition of Militia.. you should be going to training camps and be ready to pick up your gun and join a Military like squadron..  Right?   I mean that's what the constitution says..  Unless of course you want to admit that you are picking and choosing the words you want to follow and interpret.



Yes, that is what I think...and I feel entitled to my opinion, as do you.  However, if you are all hung up on your interpretation of One Word, "militia", I would suggest you are not looking at the broader picture.  Militia can be interpreted in many ways.  Millions of people have had extensive firearms training via the military, and they would form a good cadre of "troops", were it ever necessary.  We live way out in the country, and a couple of times a year, several of the neighbors come over for an afternoon.  I have a big meadow below the house, with a heavily wooded ridge about 150' high to act as a backstop, where we set up targets at various ranges, and have a friendly little contest with our rifles.  Afterwards we have a big outdoor meal, and enjoy the evening.  Technically, we could become a "militia".  

Our local weekly police reports usually consist of a few traffic stops, a couple of barking dogs irritating some neighbor at night, and occasionally a petty theft.  Contrast that with most cities, where it hardly makes the news unless there is a shooting with multiple victims.  The thugs know that were they to try to ply their trade out here, they would probably be greeted with the business end of a deer rifle.  I hope I am never put in a situation where I need to defend myself, but were it ever to occur, I would rather it be the thug going down, than me.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 27, 2014)

Don M. said:


> Yes, that is what I think...and I feel entitled to my opinion, as do you.  However, if you are all hung up on your interpretation of One Word, "militia", I would suggest you are not looking at the broader picture.  Militia can be interpreted in many ways.  Millions of people have had extensive firearms training via the military, and they would form a good cadre of "troops", were it ever necessary.  We live way out in the country, and a couple of times a year, several of the neighbors come over for an afternoon.  I have a big meadow below the house, with a heavily wooded ridge about 150' high to act as a backstop, where we set up targets at various ranges, and have a friendly little contest with our rifles.  Afterwards we have a big outdoor meal, and enjoy the evening.  Technically, we could become a "militia".
> 
> Our local weekly police reports usually consist of a few traffic stops, a couple of barking dogs irritating some neighbor at night, and occasionally a petty theft.  Contrast that with most cities, where it hardly makes the news unless there is a shooting with multiple victims.  The thugs know that were they to try to ply their trade out here, they would probably be greeted with the business end of a deer rifle.  I hope I am never put in a situation where I need to defend myself, but were it ever to occur, I would rather it be the thug going down, than me.



So what you are saying is that you are in favor of regulating gun ownership to only those that have had or are willing to go through extensive firearms training likely through the Military?  AND that it would be a good idea for these people to go a few times a year to practice their firearms skills...  Remember... the word REGULATED appears in the Constitution.   So who BUT the government or the Military to REGULATE this training..  Or oversee it..to make sure it is done correctly and that the proper skills are used..     Are you in favor of this?  Because how in the world would anyone KNOW if you have the proper skills to form a "well regulated Militia"  unless it is observed.... How does anyone know you and your friends don't just get together to goof around, have a few beers and shoot at things?  OR if you can even hit what you are shooting at?


----------



## rt3 (Dec 27, 2014)

That all you got QS. Have you read these court decisions?  Civilian use of firearms is completly different than military or police and mostly for self defense. If you would like I can have one of these colleges get in touch so you can more informed about the topic.


----------



## Don M. (Dec 27, 2014)

You Obviously have No experience with firearms.  I can guarantee you that No One who engages in our activities has any Beers until well after the days contests have ended, and all the weapons are unloaded and safely put away.  Our "group" routinely hits the targets, and usually very close to the center.  My personal best shot was a few years ago when I brought down a bull Elk on my cousins ranch in Wyoming at a distance of over 700 yards....with one shot.  Any sensible gun owner learns how to use his/her weapon, and practices regularly at a local range, etc.  The one's who get in trouble are those who buy a pistol, and stick it in the bedroom nightstand and never make the effort to learn how to use it and safeguard it.  

Insofar as "regulating" by the government is concerned....if the government "regulates" firearms as well as they "regulate" everything else, we are in Deep Doo Doo.


----------



## SifuPhil (Dec 27, 2014)

Street / home defense use of a firearm is a very different thing than target or big-game hunting, however. Totally different scenario and associated emotional / physiological problems are involved when your opponent is firing back at you, or is within the magical "21 feet" rule. 

One of the better teachers of defensive gunning is Massad Ayoob - I'm sure Don M. and rt3 have heard of him, if not read his stuff or seen his videos.


----------



## Blaze Duskdreamer (Dec 27, 2014)

Don M. said:


> I think the primary objective behind the 2nd Amendment was to allow the average citizen the ability to protect themselves from a Corrupted Government.  Given the trend in recent decades for our government to be increasingly taken over by the wealthy 1%er's, and the major corporate/banking interests, and their Lobbies, Joe and Jane Average are becoming less relevant with every passing election.  With the continued erosion of our Middle Class, the day may come when we are a nation of the Elite minority, and the Peasant Majority.  This situation already exists in many nations where the people have no means of exerting influence, other than marching in the streets.
> 
> The wisdom of the 2nd Amendment could be all that stands between the bulk of our people...and a life of subservience....in the future.
> 
> The time to begin to be Really Concerned will be if the government ever tries to initiate a massive registration of all legal gun owners.  Confiscation would be the next step.



Don't get me wrong.  I'm all for having a gun.  But I always find this argument the most laughable of all.  Do you really think if our government grows oppressive, you and your buddies are going to be able to match the fire power of the US government?  Koresh thought that too.  Owning a gun will protect you from crooks.  I have one for such protection and wouldn't be without it -- great equalizer and all that.  But, please, don't be in denial that it will in any way, shape or form be effective against an oppressive government in today's worlds.  We're dealing with more than the red coats now and, face it, the US is basically the bully of the world.  We're not going to take them on and win.

Oh, and have you looked around you lately?  If you don't think we're already there with the wealthy minority oppressing the not so wealthy majority, you are deaf, dumb and blind.  Just ask Sam Walton's heirs.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 27, 2014)

Don M. said:


> You Obviously have No experience with firearms.  I can guarantee you that No One who engages in our activities has any Beers until well after the days contests have ended, and all the weapons are unloaded and safely put away.  Our "group" routinely hits the targets, and usually very close to the center.  My personal best shot was a few years ago when I brought down a bull Elk on my cousins ranch in Wyoming at a distance of over 700 yards....with one shot.  Any sensible gun owner learns how to use his/her weapon, and practices regularly at a local range, etc.  The one's who get in trouble are those who buy a pistol, and stick it in the bedroom nightstand and never make the effort to learn how to use it and safeguard it.
> 
> 
> Insofar as "regulating" by the government is concerned....if the government "regulates" firearms as well as they "regulate" everything else, we are in Deep Doo Doo.



No... I don't claim to have experience with firearms.. and I think it commendable that YOUR group of gun buddies know how to handle their guns safely.. and wouldn't DREAM of having a few drinks along with  the fun...  However, can you guarantee that every little group of gun buddies do the same?  You are giving me a ton of personal anecdotes... BUT... what you and your friends do in no way guarantees that ALL gun owners are as conciencious..  Hence...  I think regulation wouldn't be a bad thing...  I mean... in order to have the "Well REGULATED Militias that our Constitution calls for..  Don't you?  If not the Government then WHO?  The NRA??   Seriously... they used to represent gun owners and promote gun safety, but now they get their funding from the gun and ammo manufacturers.. ALL they want to do is make sure these folks continue to make money..  So this "well regulated" part is the one part of the Constitution you choose to ignore?  How do you get to do that?


----------



## rt3 (Dec 27, 2014)

We ignore it the same way that you are ignoring the Heller ruling.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 27, 2014)

Blaze Duskdreamer said:


> Don't get me wrong.  I'm all for having a gun.  But I always find this argument the most laughable of all.  Do you really think if our government grows oppressive, you and your buddies are going to be able to match the fire power of the US government?  Koresh thought that too.  Owning a gun will protect you from crooks.  I have one for such protection and wouldn't be without it -- great equalizer and all that.  But, please, don't be in denial that it will in any way, shape or form be effective against an oppressive government in today's worlds.  We're dealing with more than the red coats now and, face it, the US is basically the bully of the world.  We're not going to take them on and win.



My mind conjures up a pickup truck with guys with rifles and shotguns facing a Hellcat with heat seeking missles..  So much for self defense against our oppressive government.


----------



## rt3 (Dec 27, 2014)

The mores sophisticated the system, the easier it is to take down


----------



## Denise1952 (Dec 27, 2014)

Don M. said:


> I think the primary objective behind the 2nd Amendment was to allow the average citizen the ability to protect themselves from a Corrupted Government.  Given the trend in recent decades for our government to be increasingly taken over by the wealthy 1%er's, and the major corporate/banking interests, and their Lobbies, Joe and Jane Average are becoming less relevant with every passing election.  With the continued erosion of our Middle Class, the day may come when we are a nation of the Elite minority, and the Peasant Majority.  This situation already exists in many nations where the people have no means of exerting influence, other than marching in the streets.
> 
> The wisdom of the 2nd Amendment could be all that stands between the bulk of our people...and a life of subservience....in the future.
> 
> The time to begin to be Really Concerned will be if the government ever tries to initiate a massive registration of all legal gun owners.  Confiscation would be the next step.



I'm glad I didn't post on this earlier, you did a MUCH better job Don, I am with you.  It was the government "for" the people, and is changing into the "government for the government".  We best hold onto the rights we have.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 27, 2014)

nwlady said:


> I'm glad I didn't post on this earlier, you did a MUCH better job Don, I am with you.  It was the government "for" the people, and is changing into the "government for the government".  We best hold onto the rights we have.



And if the entire force of the US Military was used to quell an uprising?  Would the "people" have a chance?  I think this is foolish talk.. what good would your gun rights be in that instance?


----------



## BobF (Dec 27, 2014)

It would be a big help if our elections could be taken from the Republicans and Democrats and turned into only single votes by unfettered folks.   Nothing in our Constitution about Republicans and Democrats and over the years parties would come and go.   But not in the last 100 years or so.   It is supposed to be the sum of the votes of the people that should make up our government and the way we wish to go.   Not at all the responsibility of any political party, no matter which policies they really want.   They can advertise and preach, but it is still the people that should make the final decision.


----------



## rt3 (Dec 27, 2014)

Entire force won't be there, most are my next door neighbor nationguards. Our kids play together. Who knows what would happen when he is gone. Now you know why Nanci Pelosi and Diane Feinstein hate 50 cal. Sniper rifles and they aren't even talking about wide band width white noise jammers.


----------



## Denise1952 (Dec 27, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> And if the entire force of the US Military was used to quell an uprising?  Would the "people" have a chance?  I think this is foolish talk.. what good would your gun rights be in that instance?



You really know little of history (His Story) because you don't even know how "much" of our military would follow a government say, similar to Hitlers or other dictators.


----------



## BobF (Dec 27, 2014)

One example of a government that allows all to have guns and they have little in the form of crime and such.     Compared to the US and lots of other countries.  Think of Switzerland and how they live today and have lived for hundreds of years.   They have always kept up with the weapons, arrows to guns, and what ever comes next.   The US could be just a successful as the Swiss if we all just followed the Constitution and stopped all this political nonsense that is becoming our problem.   It is pretty obvious that we do not have very education of the younger folks on things about honesty, fairness, punishment for failing to do what is expected of our people.   Why is that?    We can have a freer society than what we have now if proper training is given.   Apparently the Swiss do have some sort of society that behaves and want to take care of themselves and their neighbors.


----------



## Denise1952 (Dec 27, 2014)

Good info Bob.  It's really a no-brainer but those with so-called brains are being allowed to call some shots.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 27, 2014)

nwlady said:


> You really know little of history (His Story) because you don't even know how "much" of our military would follow a government say, similar to Hitlers or other dictators.



Oh I know more than you give me credit for..     You talk of the 1% taking over.. THAT I agree with.. they are.. and they are doing it by buying the government little by little.. through the conservative courts willing to make rulings as ridiculous as Citizen's United.   Since 60% of the budget goes to the Military, do you REALLY think the Military would join the populace?   OR would it side with those paying their salary and keeping them working?   Think about it.   Generals would ensure the Military defends the Government...

What sort of "Revolution" do you foresee?   Do you really believe enough of the populace would get off their collective asses to take up arms?  OR would it more likely be a few hundred good ole boys in trucks storming some military base.. or the Capital building.. and quickly meeting their Maker.  The whole thing in nonsense...    The ONLY way change will happen will be for people to STOP voting against their own interests and get rid of the people allowing the greedy 1% to take all the candy.


----------



## Denise1952 (Dec 27, 2014)

You underestimate me, and others. Look beyond what you would do and see what others "have" done.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 27, 2014)

I'd be more concerned with protecting my family and property in the case of a national disaster, like the grid going down either from a solar flare or attack.  If people can't access their money, can't put gas in their cars, can't buy any food or water from the stores, then things will get ugly.  I'd worry more about having guns and ammo just for protection from the criminal element, who will steal, vandalize, etc. to take anything you may have for themselves...rather than the government taking over.  

Just localized disasters like Katrina, or the floods in Colorado, created a field day for the criminals, breaking into cars, homes, and stealing everything they could.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 27, 2014)

nwlady said:


> You underestimate me, and others. Look beyond what you would do and see what others "have" done.



One thing I WOULDN'T do.... and that would to be stupid enough to take up arms against the US Military.   Our government would never be overturned by force.  It would have to be at the ballot box..


----------



## Denise1952 (Dec 27, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> I'd be more concerned with protecting my family and property in the case of a national disaster, like the grid going down either from a solar flare or attack.  If people can't access their money, can't put gas in their cars, can't buy any food or water from the stores, then things will get ugly.  I'd worry more about having guns and ammo just for protection from the criminal element, who will steal, vandalize, etc. to take anything you may have for themselves...rather than the government taking over.
> 
> Just localized disasters like Katrina, or the floods in Colorado, created a field day for the criminals, breaking into cars, homes, and stealing everything they could.



I agree, and that's a possibility as well as lots of other possibilities.  The main thing I think of is to have a way to defend myself, and loved ones/friends if something should open the door to attacks.  There is always a chance of collateral damage, or misuse of our defenses but what is the alternative?  Have zero defenses.  I do think some folks think that if the law-abiding don't have access to weapons, we will be better off.  I really don't get that way of thinking.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 27, 2014)

As someone here previously said, I think we all have the right to protect ourselves from harm.  I, for one, wouldn't want to just cower in a corner somewhere hoping for the best.


----------



## SifuPhil (Dec 27, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> I'd be more concerned with protecting my family and property in the case of a national disaster, like the grid going down either from a solar flare or attack.  If people can't access their money, can't put gas in their cars, can't buy any food or water from the stores, then things will get ugly.  I'd worry more about having guns and ammo just for protection from the criminal element, who will steal, vandalize, etc. to take anything you may have for themselves...rather than the government taking over.
> 
> Just localized disasters like Katrina, or the floods in Colorado, created a field day for the criminals, breaking into cars, homes, and stealing everything they could.



Totally agree. That's a much more likely scenario, as has been demonstrated time and again throughout our history.



			
				QuickSilver said:
			
		

> Our government would never be overturned by force.  It would have to be at the ballot box..



Do you actually believe that you could overthrow a system by religiously following the rules it has set out for you? Do you not think that they would be more than willing to abrogate whatever responsibility they had for "playing fair"? 

That government _counts_ on having people like that, the ones that will lay down and roll over, instead of the ones that would fight _outside_ the system.


----------



## Denise1952 (Dec 27, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> One thing I WOULDN'T do.... and that would to be stupid enough to take up arms against the US Military.   Our government would never be overturned by force.  It would have to be at the ballot box..



I think it's clear what you would do and wouldn't.


----------



## Denise1952 (Dec 27, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Totally agree. That's a much more likely scenario, as has been demonstrated time and again throughout our history.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OMG, DITTO Phil, they do count on that.   And when "rolling over" doesn't do them any good anymore, they are looking for those "outsiders" to hide behind


----------



## rt3 (Dec 27, 2014)

The biggest political mistake a politician could make would be to use Fed. Troops against US citizens on US soil. Given the outdoor nature of many military and their sworn duty to the constitution you really think they would follow some general? Besides most of them are NRA members.  About the time any federal action such as you are describing happened it would be all over the Internet, unless the system was shutdown by hackers and blamed on guess who? 
Any seabreeze is correct, it's the looters that are the problem not the protesters. the federal government needs the backing of pro gun people to cover there back.
Currently there at least 50,000 people in Conn. And Maryland that stand in violation of not registering "assault rifles". In Colorado there is at least 500,000 in violation of not registering their high capacity magazines. Where's the fed troops QS?
the reason is because the fed will have to go up assist local law enforcement and who have already sent letters to Obama telling they would not enforce these laws. If this was happening in the states which specifically prohibit violations of the constitution the feds would be arrested. Aren't any of the previous posts sinking in?


----------



## Don M. (Dec 27, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> I'd be more concerned with protecting my family and property in the case of a national disaster, like the grid going down either from a solar flare or attack.  If people can't access their money, can't put gas in their cars, can't buy any food or water from the stores, then things will get ugly.  I'd worry more about having guns and ammo just for protection from the criminal element, who will steal, vandalize, etc. to take anything you may have for themselves...rather than the government taking over.
> 
> Just localized disasters like Katrina, or the floods in Colorado, created a field day for the criminals, breaking into cars, homes, and stealing everything they could.




THAT is the most likely danger the average citizen faces in this day and age.  Open warfare is rapidly becoming Obsolete, and a far more likely scenario would be a "computer" hack of our electrical grid...for example.  The recent Sony episode shows just how creative these cybercriminals can be.  A localized power outage, that lasts for more than a few hours, can be a real hassle for those affected.  Just imagine how devastating a nation wide loss of power would be.  Recently there was a report of some agency testing a "hack" of an electrical power generator by causing a rapid reversal of the polarity in the power being generated.  It literally tore the generator apart.  There have been numerous reports about the vulnerability of our electrical grid to a major hacking, and how the entire grid could quickly become overloaded and collapse for an extended period of time.  I'm sure such reports have not gone unnoticed by rouge nations like N. Korea and Iran....or, even China and Russia.  

Were the nation ever to go "dark" for more than a few hours, our society would quickly begin to collapse.  The thugs would begin to loot and stores would quickly be emptied of anything worthwhile.  Food would begin to spoil within a day or two, water would be unavailable without the electric pumps, gas stations would be inoperable...in short, virtually everything we take for granted would be gone.  In such an environment, Anarchy would take over within a matter of days, and no amount of police/national guards, etc., would be able to do anything about it.  Humans would be just a fine line away from reverting back to their savage survival instincts.  

Were such a scenario ever to occur, the Bleeding Heart, Anti-Gun crowd would be begging for someone with a gun and ammo to take them in and protect them from the chaos.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 27, 2014)

Don M. said:


> THAT is the most likely danger the average citizen faces in this day and age.  Open warfare is rapidly becoming Obsolete, and a far more likely scenario would be a "computer" hack of our electrical grid...for example.  The recent Sony episode shows just how creative these cybercriminals can be.  A localized power outage, that lasts for more than a few hours, can be a real hassle for those affected.  Just imagine how devastating a nation wide loss of power would be.  Recently there was a report of some agency testing a "hack" of an electrical power generator by causing a rapid reversal of the polarity in the power being generated.  It literally tore the generator apart.  There have been numerous reports about the vulnerability of our electrical grid to a major hacking, and how the entire grid could quickly become overloaded and collapse for an extended period of time.  I'm sure such reports have not gone unnoticed by rouge nations like N. Korea and Iran....or, even China and Russia.



They've talked a lot about the poor condition of the grid and how it has not been maintained at all or prepared for any event, on the Coast radio show with George Noory.  He's making some attempts to change that...http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/end-is-near-radio-star-launches-emp-warning/


----------



## Don M. (Dec 27, 2014)

Our entire Infrastructure is in sore need of repair/rebuild.  I don't think there has been a major dam built since the days of the Great Depression.  Most of our highways and bridges were built 50+ years ago, as part of the Interstate Highway projects.  Our electrical grid is a patchwork of overhead power lines and poles that are quickly approaching their end of life....a major storm system Always knocks out power to large numbers of people.  As these hackers and rogue nations increase their skills, and continue to blame the US for all their own shortcomings, the possibility of them targeting our grid continues to increase.  

If our government really wanted to help shore up our Middle Class, and reduce the levels of poverty, it would have ongoing programs that devoted billions of tax dollars, yearly, to maintaining and upgrading our Infrastructure, and putting large numbers of people to work in good paying jobs....instead of just letting them vegetate on food stamps.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 28, 2014)

I agree... and that's what I have been talking about.  So wouldn't it make sense to vote for the Party that wants to have a spending bill to repair our infrastructure..  Obama put out a Jobs Bill a few years ago..It included huge work on our infrastructure..    Boehner refused to even bring it to the floor..  Why?

http://www.americanjobsact.com/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/politics/senate-bring-jobs-home-bill-blocked/

http://peoplesworld.org/obama-urges-congress-to-act-on-job-creating-infrastructure-bill/

So this again puzzles me... WHY do folks continue to vote against their own interest?   Improving our infrastructure would not only benefit all of us with regard to safety and protection, it would create millions of jobs.  GOOD JOBS... not minimum wage jobs..  but living wage jobs.  WHY was it not passed?  It appears that one party is more concerned with President Obama failing than it is in improving the lives of Americans.

Maybe... just maybe, with more people working and their lives improved... you wouldn't have to worry so much about marauding bands of looters taking your stuff.  You wouldn't have to keep an arsenal and dig a moat around you culdesac?  lol!!


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 28, 2014)

nwlady said:


> I think it's clear what you would do and wouldn't.



No... it's quite obvious you haven't got a clue...


----------



## BobF (Dec 28, 2014)

What do you mean Boehner refused to even bring it to the floor.   I just read the posted article and it seems that the election was against the article.   It looks to me that the vote killed the bill.   And Boehner did object to the bill for the following reasons.

Biden knocks GOP over outsourcing

 In a letter to senators  this week, the Chamber of Commerce called the bill "misguided" and said  it "would hamper American worldwide companies' competitiveness, increase  complexity in the Internal Revenue Code, and threaten economic growth."
................................

Sounds good to me, and it is a good business judgement rather than just a political, sounds good, idea.


----------



## Don M. (Dec 28, 2014)

The Americanjobsact never garnered much support because the "Stimulus" program of 2009 left such a sour taste in the mouths of Congress, AND the American public, that subsequent attempts at providing jobs fell flat.  Remember all the "Shovel Ready" jobs that Obama was touting in 2009???...most of those jobs were a figment of Obama's imagination.  There is still a web site up, at "Recovery.org", that tracks where these billions of dollars of Stimulus money really went, and it is an Insult to the American taxpayers.  The Few jobs that Were created cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each, when broken down to the overall expenditures.  About the Only positive impact the Stimulus had was that is reduced the number of Public Employee jobs that might have been eliminated.  The bulk of these funds padded the already overflowing wallets of the wealthy.  

So long as we have a government dedicated to serving the needs of the upper 1%, our Middle Class will continue to decline.  Neither the Republicans, NOR the Democrats, are showing any real support for the vast majority of our people, No matter what kind of spin they put on their positions.  The Only politician who has spoken up in support of our working people is Elizabeth Warren, and the members of her own Party are lining up to debunk her positions.  There is some grass roots effort to try to get her to run for President in 2016, but her strongest opposition is coming from the Hillary Clinton camp....which will continue to support this growing Disparity of Wealth we are seeing.  

Our two political parties are BOTH failing miserably in their concern for the majority of our working people.

BTW....the site to see where the Stimulus money has gone is http://www.recovery.gov/arra/Pages/default.aspx.  You can search by State, etc., and see just how little these billions have really accomplished.

In my State, Missouri, almost 5 billion dollars was awarded....and 719 jobs were created...do the Math.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 28, 2014)

Kind of wondering HOW anyone expects the country to improve our infrastructure WITHOUT spending any money though..  Not possible.. 

With regard to BOTH parties...  When people talk about one being as bad as the other, they are promoting a false equivalency..  This is certainly NOT true.  I agree about Warren.. I think she has a great future and may very well be what this country needs... BUT the three party system will not work in our form of government..  It never has because we are set up with a majority rules way of governing.   With three parties, that would be impossible and someone could prevail with as little as 34% of the vote... Hardly democratic. 

  That said..  Warren and Sanders and Brown are members of the PROGRESSIVE branch of the Deomocratic Party.   Just as the Teaparty is the goofy branch of the Republican party.   The Progressives will NOT have a chance of being elected unless they work through the established power and structure of the Democratic party. Just as the Teabaggers had to use the GOP to win.


----------



## Don M. (Dec 28, 2014)

True...it is going to cost money to rebuild our Infrastructure.  BUT, as the Stimulus program clearly shows, giving the Government control is a Total Farce.  How many Shovel Ready jobs paid over a half million dollars???  Such a program did wonders for this country in the years following the Great Depression, with programs like the WPA....but Now, political corruption supersedes the needs of the people.

Those who still believe the Democratic Party is the party of the working man are living in a dream world.  Go to Opensecrets.org, and see where these politicians get their campaign funding from.  The same wealthy special interests who lavish millions on the Republicans are becoming equally generous to the Democrats.  That way, no matter which Party is in power, the Elite are well protected.  The Supreme Court passage of Citizens United has given the Green Light to total corruption of our political process.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 28, 2014)

Don M. said:


> True...it is going to cost money to rebuild our Infrastructure.  BUT, as the Stimulus program clearly shows, giving the Government control is a Total Farce.  How many Shovel Ready jobs paid over a half million dollars???  Such a program did wonders for this country in the years following the Great Depression, with programs like the WPA....but Now, political corruption supersedes the needs of the people.
> 
> Those who still believe the Democratic Party is the party of the working man are living in a dream world.  Go to Opensecrets.org, and see where these politicians get their campaign funding from.  The same wealthy special interests who lavish millions on the Republicans are becoming equally generous to the Democrats.  That way, no matter which Party is in power, the Elite are well protected.  The Supreme Court passage of Citizens United has given the Green Light to total corruption of our political process.




Tell me... what was the vote tally for the Citizens United Ruling?   hmm?   5 judges appointed by a Republican president voted FOR it... and the 4 appointed by a Democratic President AGAINST..   Seems pretty clear to me..  

Citizens United must NOT be left to stand.  There is a better chance of getting rid of it through a Constitutional ammendment with a Democratic congress than there would be with a Republican one.   Look how have put through Bills to start the process only to be stalled by the GOP.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...ns-block-constitutional-amendment-on-campaign


----------



## rt3 (Dec 28, 2014)

Cartoon mentalities of holding a fort are always worth a laugh or two. First rule of SWAT is to isolate and cut of communications. Works both ways. Talking about a military that lost in Vietnam and Afgan, against a bunch of people who couldn't even shoot, but excell in gorilla warfare . 
Large infrastructure projects require large capital investments in equipment not usually held by the contractors that would be helped the most to say nothing of right to work laws that would block a decent wage schedule. Again the 1% get all the monies. Only one political party in US -   The property party. Allows large amounts of wealth to disappear. Only difference between Demos and Rep. Is who gets to control the purse strings the conduit to this group.


----------



## rt3 (Dec 28, 2014)

Ironically citizens United also protect the ILA of the NRA


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 28, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Maybe... just maybe, with more people working and their lives improved... you wouldn't have to worry so much about marauding bands of looters taking your stuff.  You wouldn't have to keep an arsenal and dig a moat around you culdesac?  lol!!



Realistically, although many of us hopefully will never have to deal with an real emergency disaster situation, having a few guns accessible may be a matter of life or death for the family.  I don't need an arsenal, and many gun owners are not of that mentality.  The moat business, which you've said in the past, is just a very childish and disrespectful comment, IMO.  I respect your right to have nothing to do with guns, and that's a good thing that people who are fearful of them or unsure of how to handle them, stay far away from them.  Hopefully, if you ever need to protect yourself, the police or government will assist you and your family in a timely manner.

Anyone who has ever lived in a city where a major snowstorm crippled motorized travel, stopped deliveries and food supplies to grocery stores, gas deliveries to gas stations, interfered with electrical power for heat, etc. for even up to a week,  would know that the mindset of people changes greatly when store shelves are empty.  It's every man for themselves, and that would intensify greatly during a real disaster like the electrical power grid going down throughout the United States, and that would be in every neighborhood, regardless of the wealth of the residents.

I don't care how much money, or how good of a job you have, that will mean nothing if you can't spend it.  Rich people don't even think of stocking their pantry with some extra canned or dry goods, or bottled water, in case they need to take care of themselves for several months or longer.  They don't care about having some extra wood for the fireplace on hand, just in case in the dead of winter, there is no utility services available to heat their homes.

Those are likely the first people to try to take from others to save themselves, as they've never been without, are spoiled, and don't know how to handle it.  All I'm saying, is if there is ever a situation, and I'm hoping there never is one, where some people are hopping my backyard fence to steal my firewood, or breaking my windows to take my food and water, I will not be the victim.  I'm in my 60s, have had access to a loaded gun in my home all my adult life, and thankfully have never had cause to use it....but I wouldn't want to be without it.


----------



## Blaze Duskdreamer (Dec 28, 2014)

rt3 said:


> The mores sophisticated the system, the easier it is to take down



lol -- I kind of doubt that.  Disorganized would not triumph over organized.  Ask yourself this question, which criminals do better?  Organized crime or petty crooks?



BobF said:


> It would be a big help if our elections could be taken from the Republicans and Democrats and turned into only single votes by unfettered folks.   Nothing in our Constitution about Republicans and Democrats and over the years parties would come and go.   But not in the last 100 years or so.   It is supposed to be the sum of the votes of the people that should make up our government and the way we wish to go.   Not at all the responsibility of any political party, no matter which policies they really want.   They can advertise and preach, but it is still the people that should make the final decision.



This I couldn't agree more with you on.  We should do away with "parties" altogether and vote for the candidate.  The two party system has become a largely laughable one-party system that disguises the fact with "liberal" and "conservative" masks.



nwlady said:


> You really know little of history (His Story) because you don't even know how "much" of our military would follow a government say, similar to Hitlers or other dictators.



The very history you refer to shows that they would.  Please, if the government ordered it 80% would cave and send their fellows to the camps.  Most people would save their own hide before anyone else's.  I'm a big fan of The Hunger Games and I wish I couldn't see that happening here but I can.  I tell my family up front that I'd pull a Mags.  You know this already if you're familiar with the trilogy but if your'e not [*SPOILER*], Mags is the old woman who sacrifices herself so the young can live to get away and fight another day.  She runs into the poison fog.  I would do that in whatever form so my daughter and grandson wouldn't get killed trying to get my crippled ass out with them.  Well, okay, maybe I'd have to limp or crawl into the poison fog or open gunfire but you get the drift... 



SeaBreeze said:


> I'd be more concerned with protecting my family and property in the case of a national disaster, like the grid going down either from a solar flare or attack.  If people can't access their money, can't put gas in their cars, can't buy any food or water from the stores, then things will get ugly.  I'd worry more about having guns and ammo just for protection from the criminal element, who will steal, vandalize, etc. to take anything you may have for themselves...rather than the government taking over.
> 
> Just localized disasters like Katrina, or the floods in Colorado, created a field day for the criminals, breaking into cars, homes, and stealing everything they could.



Exactly.  Though I can protect myself against two or three, maybe even half a dozen or slightly more, but I do not kid myself that I can even protect myself against 50, unless they were incredibly stupid about how they attacked my house.  We can't count on their being incredibly stupid.



nwlady said:


> I agree, and that's a possibility as well as lots of other possibilities.  The main thing I think of is to have a way to defend myself, and loved ones/friends if something should open the door to attacks.  There is always a chance of collateral damage, or misuse of our defenses but what is the alternative?  Have zero defenses.  I do think some folks think that if the law-abiding don't have access to weapons, we will be better off.  I really don't get that way of thinking.



I don't think that but I don't think we can protect ourselves from the US government if they stopped hiding behind the curtain of their propaganda and out and out decreed a totalitarian government.  Doesn't mean I would go down without a fight.  I wouldn't but I'd most likely go down fighting.



SifuPhil said:


> Totally agree. That's a much more likely scenario, as has been demonstrated time and again throughout our history.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True.  But, still, good luck taking on the United States government.



rt3 said:


> The biggest political mistake a politician could make would be to use Fed. Troops against US citizens on US soil. Given the outdoor nature of many military and their sworn duty to the constitution you really think they would follow some general? Besides most of them are NRA members.  About the time any federal action such as you are describing happened it would be all over the Internet, unless the system was shutdown by hackers and blamed on guess who?
> Any seabreeze is correct, it's the looters that are the problem not the protesters. the federal government needs the backing of pro gun people to cover there back.
> Currently there at least 50,000 people in Conn. And Maryland that stand in violation of not registering "assault rifles". In Colorado there is at least 500,000 in violation of not registering their high capacity magazines. Where's the fed troops QS?
> the reason is because the fed will have to go up assist local law enforcement and who have already sent letters to Obama telling they would not enforce these laws. If this was happening in the states which specifically prohibit violations of the constitution the feds would be arrested. Aren't any of the previous posts sinking in?



If the Fed government reaches the point it goes totalitarian, they won't care about votes/political image.  You have more faith in the members of the military and local law enforcement than I do.  Anyone can bluster about what they'll do but the only thing that counts is when it's time to put their money where their mouth is if they'll follow through.  I think it'd be like Nazi Germany all over again.  The majority would just follow orders and the minority that didn't would either quickly be taken prisoner or shot.  Your law enforcement officers writing letters saying they wouldn't enforce those orders are going to find federal agents in their jurisdictions seeing that they do.  They're going to be looking at what Tevye's constable friend from Fiddler on the Roof was:  an official looking at you going do you like these Christ-killers with the subtle threat of being locked up with them.  How many of these brave letter-writers are going to remain brave when they find themselves breaking out in a cold sweat at the subtle threat of what will happen to them if they go through with protecting those innocents.  Look at Abu Ghraib.  I'm sure you'll argue that it would be different against fellow Americans but to that all I can say is you have more faith in them than I do and I, frankly, hope your faith isn't misplaced and my skepticism is.



Don M. said:


> Our entire Infrastructure is in sore need of repair/rebuild.  I don't think there has been a major dam built since the days of the Great Depression.  Most of our highways and bridges were built 50+ years ago, as part of the Interstate Highway projects.  Our electrical grid is a patchwork of overhead power lines and poles that are quickly approaching their end of life....a major storm system Always knocks out power to large numbers of people.  As these hackers and rogue nations increase their skills, and continue to blame the US for all their own shortcomings, the possibility of them targeting our grid continues to increase.
> 
> If our government really wanted to help shore up our Middle Class, and reduce the levels of poverty, it would have ongoing programs that devoted billions of tax dollars, yearly, to maintaining and upgrading our Infrastructure, and putting large numbers of people to work in good paying jobs....instead of just letting them vegetate on food stamps.



Again, couldn't agree with you more.  Every winter (not so far this winter but it's been mild) there's people without power for a week or more and I sit there glad it's not me and wonder how they keep from freezing to death.  Either lucky enough to have a private generator or they get out of the black-out area and stay with friends or family or rent a room elsewhere.  If the blackout was too massive for that, it'd be utter chaos.  It's scary to think about how little we're protected against such a scenario and really stupid that we aren't.



rt3 said:


> Cartoon mentalities of holding a fort are always worth a laugh or two. First rule of SWAT is to isolate and cut of communications. Works both ways. Talking about a military that lost in Vietnam and Afgan, against a bunch of people who couldn't even shoot, but excell in gorilla warfare .
> Large infrastructure projects require large capital investments in equipment not usually held by the contractors that would be helped the most to say nothing of right to work laws that would block a decent wage schedule. Again the 1% get all the monies. Only one political party in US -   The property party. Allows large amounts of wealth to disappear. Only difference between Demos and Rep. Is who gets to control the purse strings the conduit to this group.



You delude yourself if you think your average citizen with a gun is any smarter.  Who do you think made up that military that lost in Nam and Aghan?  I agree with you on the party.  There is no real difference between the Dems and Repugs.



SeaBreeze said:


> Realistically, although many of us hopefully will never have to deal with an real emergency disaster situation, having a few guns accessible may be a matter of life or death for the family.  I don't need an arsenal, and many gun owners are not of that mentality.  The moat business, which you've said in the past, is just a very childish and disrespectful comment, IMO.  I respect your right to have nothing to do with guns, and that's a good thing that people who are fearful of them or unsure of how to handle them, stay far away from them.  Hopefully, if you ever need to protect yourself, the police or government will assist you and your family in a timely manner.
> 
> Anyone who has ever lived in a city where a major snowstorm crippled motorized travel, stopped deliveries and food supplies to grocery stores, gas deliveries to gas stations, interfered with electrical power for heat, etc. for even up to a week,  would know that the mindset of people changes greatly when store shelves are empty.  It's every man for themselves, and that would intensify greatly during a real disaster like the electrical power grid going down throughout the United States, and that would be in every neighborhood, regardless of the wealth of the residents.
> 
> ...



So true but again when it comes down to anarchy and everyone warring over these things, I don't delude myself that I can defend either myself or my stores of canned/dry good, bottle waters and medical supplies against 50 people invading.  No, not even with an Uzi.  Well, maybe the first 50 if I had an Uzi but they're just going to keep coming and you tire or your ammunition runs out, etc.  No way you can hold off the masses forever.  They're not just going to lie down and die for you in the street.

Frankly, I hope I never live to see such an apocalypse.  I wish I was sure I wasn't going to.  I'm not.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 28, 2014)

I've been following this thread with my jaw open in disbelief. 
I cannot understand the American paranoia about your federal government.

Our governments may prove to be inept or clumsy but no-one believes they are ever out to enslave the people of Australia.
We question their values and criticise their performance but we know that we can throw them out whenever the people have had enough of them.

No-one is preparing for any apocalypse because it is unimaginable. 

Currently we are  remembering Cyclone Tracey that 40 years ago wiped out 80% of Darwin and killed 66 people at Christmas. It was our federal government that appointed a military man (a major general) to head a civilian operation to evacuate the people to cities around the country then rebuild the city. The government, the airlines and the general population all came together to support the evacuees. This is how every natural disaster is handled, with more or less efficiency, but always with national co-operation between government and people. No-one walls themselves off in an armed fortress ready to repel attackers because the people who come are coming to help. It's always been that way.

In Darwin there was a couple of instances of looting and dogs that survived the cyclone had to be shot, but nothing like what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Looters over here don't murder and rape, they just steal whatever they come across and they are universally despised. 

I can't help wondering whether the problems of America have their roots in the kind of society that you have allowed to develop rather than the systems of governance that you rely on. Or is it a mixture of both? The first rule of problem solving is not to rush to an obvious solution that you would like to implement but to carefully examine the problem itself, define it and the determine both the causes and the possible solutions. Open minded thinking is essential.

For every complex problem there is always a simple solution that is totally wrong.

Footnote : Here is an account of looting in Darwin



> Anti-Looting Duty: On Saturday 28 December 1974, Constable 1/c Bob Latter, along with three NT Detectives, went to Millner St in Darwin. There they found 3 cars packed with goods looted from destroyed homes and shops. The final haul of confiscated goods was huge and included, amongst other things …24 rolls toilet paper; 12pkts razor blades; 12 nappies; 10 striped tea towels; 10 tins of crab meat; 8 folding chairs; 8 pair nylon socks; 6 floor matts; 6 pairs of blue jeans; 5 bath towels; 5 mixing bowls; 4 teddy bears; 3 size 14 dresses; 3 lace table cloths; 3 pink brunch coats; 2pkts glazed fruit; 1 cake plate; 1 radio cassette; 1 purple bedspread; 1 Sharp calculator; 1 fishing net; 1 coffee set; 1 aluminium boat; 1 esky; 1 tool box and 1 pair long trousers.
> 
> Several men were arrested for stealing these items. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated case of looting in days following Cyclone Tracy. Police officers assigned to anti-looting duty were kept continuously busy.
> 
> More here, but nothing that would justify shooting anyone: http://mypolice.qld.gov.au/museum/2...clone-tracy-the-queensland-police-contingent/


----------



## rt3 (Dec 28, 2014)

The more electronics that are used the easier it is to knockout, team work doesn't always translate into tactical supriority. have you ever been involved with this stuff or just blowing air? Doesn't matter if the average guy with a gun is smarter just there at the right time. Much better than the average guy with no gun. Large assault forces are best handled with chemicals. Sodium hypochlorite and strong acid (phosgene) as an example.
federal agents in local jurisdictions has already been tried. that was Obama and Bloomberg plan in trying to buy the Colorado legislation by giving federal agents the same authority as sheriffs etc. 
Rich people have sanctuary and escape plans, most have their own security people. Uzi are for inside work. Were do you get this kaka?


----------



## rt3 (Dec 28, 2014)

Anybody here been to war college?


----------



## rt3 (Dec 28, 2014)

hmmm (finger shaking) shame on you hmmm (hands on hips) jeeeeeeeez h


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 28, 2014)

rt3 said:


> hmmm (finger shaking) shame on you hmmm (hands on hips) jeeeeeeeez h



Are you talking to me?
If so, my response is take a good look at the rest of the world and then at the problems that you are describing.

Either the problems are highly exaggerated, even imaginary, and there is a lot of frothing going on or American society is suffering from some unique social malaise that needs the whole nation to come together to deal with it.


----------



## Jackie22 (Dec 28, 2014)

"I can't help wondering whether the problems of America have their roots in the kind of society that you have allowed to develop rather than the systems of governance that you rely on. Or is it a mixture of both? The first rule of problem solving is not to rush to an obvious solution that you would like to implement but to carefully examine the problem itself, define it and the determine both the causes and the possible solutions. Open minded thinking is essential."


IMHO....the answer is in your first sentence.  Don't paint us all with the same brush though, there are still people that do not believe the government is the 'big bad buggie man' out to get us at every turn.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 28, 2014)

Jackie22 said:


> "I can't help wondering whether the problems of America have their roots in the kind of society that you have allowed to develop rather than the systems of governance that you rely on. Or is it a mixture of both? The first rule of problem solving is not to rush to an obvious solution that you would like to implement but to carefully examine the problem itself, define it and the determine both the causes and the possible solutions. Open minded thinking is essential."
> 
> 
> IMHO....the answer is in your first sentence.  Don't paint us all with the same brush though, there are still people that do not believe the government is the 'big bad buggie man' out to get us at every turn.



That is my feeling as well  Jackie...  I also don't think the government is out to get us...  AND I think those that do are a little loonie toons..  I don't understand where that comes from... but to me it's just bat $hit crazy talk..    geez... get out the tin foil and make yourself a nice hat..


----------



## BobF (Dec 28, 2014)

When you see a government that is doing all it can on its own, no Congress, no votes, plenty of wrong moves so far, it does make some worry a lot.   I think in two years we will have a new government and some new people involved.   Whether a Democrat or Republican or a good mix, we will have many new folks in place and I would expect a lot of the current activities would get revised or tossed and new ways of thinking be in place.   This current government has gone from 60% applauding in its first couple years to the most recent score of about 60% now wanting it to stop and start doing right things for a change.

I am ready for 2 years from now and all the changes that may be offered to us.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 28, 2014)

Obama doing well in the polls...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-...reagan-in-public-opinion-polls_b_6383892.html


----------



## BobF (Dec 28, 2014)

Wow, almost up to 50%.    A lot better than as low as 35% a while back and still a lot lower than his original high of around 60%.

Trouble with these polls is the group polling, only good for a few days or weeks maybe.

As I remember this poll is from a group definitely always favoring the liberal, or Obama, side of the discussions.   If I were too look through other polls I might be able to find some higher or some lower.   It matters not to matter right now as Obama is not going to be running again.   He is definitely down from his earlier ratings and likely not to do much better.   We still don't know who is likely to replace him from either party.   Those disclosures might also change how well Obama is liked.   We might hear, from either side, this one will do much better than Obama ever did.    Maybe even both sides will make that claim.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Dec 28, 2014)

Well, you mentioned Bob that the current gov went from 60% applauding to 60% wanting it to stop.  Since I figured that was from some poll, I posted about this one.  I never take online polls, and very rarely will agree to take on on the phone during an election cycle, so I know what polls are about.  The Republicans have the ones they put out with the goal of favoring their candidates, and the Dems do the same.  From all I've seen and heard, Obama is more well "liked" than Dubya was.


----------



## BobF (Dec 29, 2014)

Depends on who you use for your polls.    In the poll you used it is known that they often favor the liberals over others.   Right now it does not matter as Obama is on his way out, no matter what.   Just as in Bush's term, many got upset with him for having courage to wage two wars while trying to find those that had made major attacks on the US in NYC, Washington DC, and failed attack that crashed in Pennsylvania.   He did not create millions of dollars of unnecessary debt up to nearly 20 billion dollars that we have today.   His debt with 2 wars in progress ended up in the 7 trillion area which is similar to the number Clinton got down to while Republicans were helping him to keep a good popularity.   Which is a lot more than this country needed to get along, let alone this miserable medical system that is still not completely implemented.   You can believe the polls you want as I and others will believe in polls we think are better or less biased.

Here is a poll that I like better than the one you used.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

In the first paragraph there is a link that will take you to a daily record of results for Obama.   It gives a daily result for the polls results.   Watch the numbers go up and down by day.   There are other links to opinion on this post.   Interesting to see the first numbers where Obama is down by -15% and the difference between the strongly support 24% and strongly disagree 38%.   The total approve and total disapprove seem to match the numbers you posted, 48% approve and 51% disapprove.


----------



## rt3 (Dec 29, 2014)

More finger shaking 
Huffer (huffington post) isn't very reliable currently trying to blame NRA for ny cops being shot, which gets back to the original post.
Street / home defense use of a firearm is a very different thing than target or big-game hunting, however. Totally different scenario and associated emotional / physiological problems are involved when your opponent is firing back at you, or is within the magical "21 feet" rule. 

One of the better teachers of defensive gunning is Massad Ayoob - I'm sure Don M. and rt3 have heard of him, if not read his stuff or seen his videos.

This person is an expert witness and testifies in many court cases that involves stand your ground and  castle doctrine. He helped established the 21 ft. Rule of personal space. Ayoob also runs a gun college in the east, ex FBI I think, swell respected in the legal environment.


----------



## Blaze Duskdreamer (Dec 29, 2014)

rt3 said:


> Anybody here been to war college?



Oh, please, the average gun-toting Joe hasn't been to war college.  Stop expecting experts trying to defend against an errant government.  It ain't going to happen.  It's going to be chaos and you know what those Joe Smoes in the street are going to say to the braggard wanting to take charge because he's been to "war college"?  Up yours.  Who died and made you boss?



Dame Warrigal said:


> Are you talking to me?
> If so, my response is take a good look at the rest of the world and then at the problems that you are describing.
> 
> Either the problems are highly exaggerated, even imaginary, and there is a lot of frothing going on or American society is suffering from some unique social malaise that needs the whole nation to come together to deal with it.



Unfortunately, most of us don't trust our government and with good reason.  Maybe I should move to Australia.  I have given thought to emigrating but when I go to check the requirements on what other countries will take for immigrants, yours included, they only want people with special talents etc.  Basically, they don't want ugly Americans and I don't blame them one bit.  We've made a mess of our country and they don't want us to make a mess of theirs.



SeaBreeze said:


> Obama doing well in the polls...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-...reagan-in-public-opinion-polls_b_6383892.html



How in the hell?  Never mind, it's Huffington.  Besides Bob answered it completely.



QuickSilver said:


> That is my feeling as well  Jackie...  I also don't think the government is out to get us...  AND I think those that do are a little loonie toons..  I don't understand where that comes from... but to me it's just bat $hit crazy talk..    geez... get out the tin foil and make yourself a nice hat..



You know calling people bat shit crazy and looney toons because they don't agree with you is pretty low.  Do you feel as free as you were in the '70's?  Because I sure don't and I'm living in the same area I was then so it isn't a difference between states.  Maybe us bat shit loons are just a tad more observant and aware of what's going on than you.  Maybe we're not burying our head in the sand.  But one thing's for sure, we're not as free as we were 35 years ago.  Neither my daughter nor my grandson can comprehend how free I was then and I find that scary.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 29, 2014)

> You know calling people bat shit crazy and looney toons because they don't agree with you is pretty low.  Do you feel as free as you were in the '70's?  Because I sure don't and I'm living in the same area I was then so it isn't a difference between states.  Maybe us bat shit loons are just a tad more observant and aware of what's going on than you.  Maybe we're not burying our head in the sand.  But one thing's for sure, we're not as free as we were 35 years ago.  Neither my daughter nor my grandson can comprehend how free I was then and I find that scary.



Nope...  I feel just as free as the 70's... and in many ways much more so..   Don't know what "RIGHTS" you have lost.. that I didn't... would you care to elaborate on which rights have been taken away from you ?  And be specific please... none of that "I don't feel" crap...   Give the specific rights you have lost.


----------



## Denise1952 (Dec 29, 2014)




----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 29, 2014)

nwlady said:


>




Put the popcorn away.....  Odds are she can't come up with a thing...  lol!!  Just like every other "My RIGHT'S ARE BEING TAKEN!!" enthusiast..  when pressed... they got nothin'


----------



## rt3 (Dec 29, 2014)

Sunset (blaze) the question asks if anyone has been there, not if someone else has been there, I haven't. I'm the ordinary guy with the gun! You haven't stayed current. The stuff I talked about is all over the web has been for 15 years. I was hoping to get some feedback from an operator. There is a whole bunch of us regular guys. Actually we are more free. Remember Kent state, felony charges for weed possession. oh please up yours, sounds like a Quote from a Robin Williams Peter Pan movie.


----------



## rt3 (Dec 29, 2014)

Some rights have been taken away, they deal the banking industry, and some that  were lost in certain international agreements, specifically to into effect towards the end of the year. Most apply to specific groups of people, or groups of people doing specific things.


----------



## Denise1952 (Dec 30, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Put the popcorn away.....  Odds are she can't come up with a thing...  lol!!  Just like every other "My RIGHT'S ARE BEING TAKEN!!" enthusiast..  when pressed... they got nothin'



I'll keep my popcorn and eat it too thank you.  You wouldn't be trying to take my right away would youlayful:nthego:


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 30, 2014)

nwlady said:


> I'll keep my popcorn and eat it too thank you.  You wouldn't be trying to take my right away would youlayful:nthego:



Oh Heavens no.....


----------



## SifuPhil (Dec 30, 2014)

My right to ingest marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. as I see fit ... it was legal back at the beginning of the 20th century, but now I will be arrested if I use them. That right has been taken away.

My right to protect myself ... I was arrested for defending myself against 3 perps. That right has been taken away.

My right to travel unimpeded ... I have to submit to sobriety check-points. That right has been taken away.

My right to be proud of my race ... if I express that pride I am called racist. That right has been taken away.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 30, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> My right to ingest marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. as I see fit ... it was legal back at the beginning of the 20th century, but now I will be arrested if I use them. That right has been taken away.
> 
> My right to protect myself ... I was arrested for defending myself against 3 perps. That right has been taken away.
> 
> ...



Oh my.....   how awful for you...   None seem like anything but protecting others.................from YOU..  lol!!


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 30, 2014)

Well, I for one am not too worried about taking on the US Army.  What I AM worried about is being sure I have a way to protect myself against some hoodlum breaking into my house in the middle of the night (or any other time for that matter).  If, God forbid, that should ever happen, I'll sure be grateful for the 2nd Amendment and my .38.   Until somebody can absolutely assure me that gun control restrictions will keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys (ha ha), I'll keep mine, and I'll keep it loaded.


----------



## SifuPhil (Dec 30, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Oh my.....   how awful for you...   None seem like anything but protecting others.................from YOU..  lol!!



Well, you asked for examples and I gave them. I guess that either you're not serious about wanting to know about it, or you're just sticking your fingers in your ears while singing "LA-LA-LA-LA" ...


----------



## Denise1952 (Dec 30, 2014)

Butterfly said:


> Well, I for one am not too worried about taking on the US Army.  What I AM worried about is being sure I have a way to protect myself against some hoodlum breaking into my house in the middle of the night (or any other time for that matter).  If, God forbid, that should ever happen, I'll sure be grateful for the 2nd Amendment and my .38.   Until somebody can absolutely assure me that gun control restrictions will keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys (ha ha), I'll keep mine, and I'll keep it loaded.



Right on Butterfly!!  I am so with you!!


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 30, 2014)

SifuPhil said:


> Well, you asked for examples and I gave them. I guess that either you're not serious about wanting to know about it, or you're just sticking your fingers in your ears while singing "LA-LA-LA-LA" ...




Yeah.... you gave examples... and NONE of them are good..  lol!!!  Can you find any of them in the Constitution...

  Do you have the RIGHT to drive stoned and kill someone? 

   Who says you cannot be proud of your race..??   Just because someone does not agree with you does NOT mean your rights are taken away..

Somehow I don't think we are getting the FULL story on your "self defense" issue either..

In essence... You have lost nothing..  Just the right to break the law..and be proud of it..


----------



## SifuPhil (Dec 30, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Yeah.... you gave examples... and NONE of them are good..  lol!!!  Can you find any of them in the Constitution...



Yes, I can. The right to defend myself falls under the right to bear arms - the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in a level of violence, called *reasonable force* or *defensive force*, for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of *deadly force*.



> Do you have the RIGHT to drive stoned and kill someone?



I didn't say that I drove stoned. That's _your_ assumption - a very poor one, at that.



> Who says you cannot be proud of your race..??   Just because someone does not agree with you does NOT mean your rights are taken away..



Yes, my right of free speech is taken from me when I am denied the ability to speak my mind in a public venue. 



> Somehow I don't think we are getting the FULL story on your "self defense" issue either..



No, of course not, because I'm the kind of guy that goes around beating up three other guys at a time ... it's sort of a hobby.



> In essence... You have lost nothing..  Just the right to break the law..and be proud of it..



In actuality I have lost many of the rights that are guaranteed me in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.


----------



## QuickSilver (Dec 30, 2014)

None of those rights have been violated....  Go ahead and stand on any street corner and preach white supremacy..  You have that right... BUT the folks also have the right to disagree..   As I said..  You don't lose your right because people disagree with you..  You are free to say what you wish. 

Psssss poor examples...  of your HUGE loss of rights... and a load of BULL shiite.


----------



## Denise1952 (Dec 30, 2014)

Do you even realize how bad these types of statements make "you" look?  You aren't making anyone else here look bad, or wrong.  You must be a terribly unhappy person, but I wish you would look in a mirror and give the credit for that to the one who deserves it, not the neat folks on this forum.


----------



## Blaze Duskdreamer (Dec 30, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Nope...  I feel just as free as the 70's... and in many ways much more so..   Don't know what "RIGHTS" you have lost.. that I didn't... would you care to elaborate on which rights have been taken away from you ?  And be specific please... none of that "I don't feel" crap...   Give the specific rights you have lost.



You have obviously not read the Patriot Act.  There ain't nothing more unpatriotic than that piece of crap.  Or perhaps you have a memory blank of when the librarians refused to cooperate with the government's demand to track library patrons searches and turn them over to the government?

Here's a good article on actual people who had their rights violated by the Patriot Act:  https://consortiumnews.com/2011/11/01/a-decade-of-patriot-act-abuses/

When was the last time you've flown across country?  Um, flat out, right there.  TSA's did not exist in the '70's and you could board a plane with toothpaste or shampoo or freaking baby formula in a bottle for your infant then.

How about some of the things -- including gun ownership -- that are hotly debated in this forum?

How about being forced to buy health insurance?  How about being forced onto Medicare primary instead of continuing my previous health insurance which was way better and indeed now is secondary and picks up thousands of dollars on my behalf every year that Medicare just does not cover?  

Been threatened with arrest for yelling watch it at some asshole backing up into your grandbaby in a store?  I have.  Never would have happened 30 years ago.  Speaking from experience.

As has been stated above, better not defend yourself, especially if you're white and the person you're defending yourself against ain't.

High school kids getting kicked out of school for carrying Midol to school like I did in the '70's.  Thank God I went to high school in the '70's when a teen girl could still do something about her cramps without getting called up on the carpet for being a druggie.

A doctor labelled me drug seeking for asking for a script -- a script he gave me -- for my arthritis pain.  Other docs have heard how careful I am with this drug and laughed at the notion and given me the script with no trepidation for the one narcotic pain killer that works, also helps with my IBS and hasn't sent me to the hospital in reaction.  They cannot write any refills on it.  Has to be a fresh script every time.  I've been taking this script about 4 years now, 4 years since this asshole labeled me drug seeking and gave me the stench of an addict.  Some addict, 30 pills lasts me 6 months or more when I'm in chronic pain daily.  Other doctors think I'm overly careful.  As someone who came of age in the '70's and never even drank or smoke pot, this angers me but I can't seem to get this ridiculous accusation removed.  This asshole wouldn't have gotten away with that crap in the '70's.  Reporting him to the Health Department would have had him answering to the authorities but now I have to sue and to sue I have to show financial harm done to me.

An 18yo could legally drink in the '70's.  Now they must be 21.  Of course, said 18yo can still be drafted, indeed males (how's that for sexism) must register for the draft upon turning 18 -- happy birthday young American son but don't you dare have a beer to celebrate it, can vote and get married and if arrested is handled as an adult, can enter a contract, but they can't drink.  God forbid, they have a beer.

I think that's start enough.  We aren't as free.  Point blank.


----------



## SifuPhil (Dec 30, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Go ahead and stand on any street corner and preach white supremacy..  You have that right...



I said pride in my race, not racial supremacy. Check your reading comprehension, please. 



> You are free to say what you wish.



Really? I can stand on a soapbox and curse and threaten the President? 



> Psssss poor examples...  of your HUGE loss of rights... and a load of BULL shiite.



I rarely use this term, but here you go ...

Whatever.


----------

