PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

BOING 23rd Oct 2014 15:04

OFSO
Take a look at post #23.
:)

con-pilot 23rd Oct 2014 15:58


Con-pilot ----- if you're getting bored with popcorn you could try this:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...90_634x286.jpg

OH GOD!

Now you've put me off chocolate for the rest of my life. :{

GrumpyOldFart 23rd Oct 2014 16:04


Churchill was still a bastard in every sense of the word.

Yes. But thank God he was our bastard.



But his mother was American !!

So it's true, then. They really did win the war. :E

BOING 23rd Oct 2014 16:28

Churchill was one of the few non-American politicians allowed to address Congress. In his speech he mentioned that his father was English and his mother American.

Then he added, to laughter, that if things had been the other way around he would be addressing Congress as a member not as a guest.

BenThere 23rd Oct 2014 18:45

I hold Churchill on my single digit list of the world's greats. He was right when he was in the wilderness, and was ready to step up when his time came. He led. And he prevailed.

The transition from Churchill to Atlee was the real debacle.

goudie 23rd Oct 2014 19:28


The transition from Churchill to Atlee was the real debacle.
How true
The post war years were bad enough, add to that the Atlee government and they just compounded the misery. I'm certain GB would have been a better place had Churchill been returned to Government.
The Tories aren't perfect by any means but successive Labour Governments never improved anything when
they were in power.

7x7 23rd Oct 2014 21:10

I read a really well done "alternative history" book set in 1953 England where Churchill got rolled in May 1940 and Britain sued for peace with the Germans, (which amounted to surrender in all but name). The author used all the main players in British politics, with most, including Beaverbrooke, actively and willingly joining in the 'Quisling' pro-German government. Churchill ended up going underground and leading the Resistance. It was quite well done - but I can't recall the author (Colin someone?) or the title. The main events of the book occur during the major smog that occurred in 1953.

megan 24th Oct 2014 03:19

From PTT

While this was at least a possibility in the days of Washington there is no way it can reasonably be considered anything other than suicide to do so now, rendering the argument as obsolete as the musket.
BenThere

You'd be amazed what 30 million armed citizens could achieve
PTT, a small battle perhaps, but when they get their dander up they tend to do something about it.

Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great film as well.

PTT 24th Oct 2014 04:47

Thanks, megan, I wasn't aware of that piece of history. I think the balance of power has shifted somewhat since then though. 100+ deputies is not the same foe as UAVs and, ultimately, nuclear weapons, so I still find the argument hollow.

Again, I hope it never comes down to it and wish you the best of luck if it does.

BOING 24th Oct 2014 05:43

PTT

I think you are getting carried away. Do you really think that the US would use, literally, weapons of mass destruction in a revolt? Nothing like wiping out a city of millions of people to quell an insurrection by asking your troops to incinerate their families and relatives back home in order to get at a couple of hundred revolutionaries. Never going to happen.

Now, the US does have a quantity of riot control systems including microwave emitters, sound and light generators and the usual riot gases. All they have to do is find someone to use them. I assure you that military and law enforcement personnel I am acquainted with would not be volunteering. They may take part in putting down protests that they see as relatively small unlawful rioting events with arson and property damage but when the population moves en-masse they will not be at work. One of the reasons for this is that they are as PO'ed with the people in power as anyone else.

By the way, in case you have not noticed the wind at our latitudes blows West to East. If nukes explode in the US you had better save some of those thoughts of good luck for yourself.

.

PTT 24th Oct 2014 06:23

BOING, like I said already, I can think of several scenarios where people sat in a bunker could be convinced, through disinformation, to do so and believe that they are acting in good faith.

I agree with you that the riot control gear would be next to useless, and for the reasons you state.

Ad for "getting carried away", I think it's those who think that there will be an armed uprising in the US and they therefore need their guns for it who are getting carried away.

That's not to suggest I think your guns should be taken away. It's merely that I don't see that particular justification as plausible. As the chap in the video in the OP said, there's only one justification: we want them. That's a perfectly reasonable justification to me.

BOING 24th Oct 2014 07:30

PTT

Actually, as far as liberty is concerned the value of the existence of firearms in the US is not that they would assure victory in a revolution as much as that they would make any quick victory by an oppressor very expensive and less likely. An oppressive government would like to use its available force to secure its ends with no opposition and then quietly impose the classic totalitarian state. In the US there would be enough armed opposition that the government would be forced into conflict which would almost certainly escalate the situation and turn it into a civil war. This would be a very risky undertaking.

In the US, as many military personnel are proud to affirm, they promised in their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States not the desires of any political group. This is somewhat similar to accepting a Commission in the UK military in that your oath of loyalty is to the Monarch, not to the government. In my time if a crisis had occurred between the Queen and an over-reaching Prime Minister I know where my loyalty would have been. Members of the American military tend to feel the same way.

.

bcgallacher 24th Oct 2014 08:59

People posting about armed insurrection in the USA seem to have lost touch with reality - you have a functioning system to get rid of bad government in place . Electing some sort of tyrant is unlikely - the American electorate is not that stupid.Looking around the world at this time many countries have resorted to armed uprising - it really has been a roaring success in Libya,Iraq,Syria and other places. Once you start removing elected governments with the gun that is the end of any kind of democracy - that will be the way all changes of government will take place.Why do you think that all gun owners will embrace the same philosophy? As in other countries the armed rabble would be killing each other.

darkroomsource 24th Oct 2014 09:33

BCG
Even in the USA it's not inconceivable for the government to be "taken over" by some form of dictatorship. Look at the Csar positions within the President's control. They do not report to congress, are able to basically write their own laws, have a certain level of immunity within the court system, and could, if mis-used become the Gestapo of the US.
Not that I'm saying anyone would take advantage of that. Oh no. (sarcasm)

ExXB 24th Oct 2014 09:35


the American electorate is not that stupid.
According to the NYT the Republican party, and some Democrats, in Congress are demanding the ban of all flights between the US and the three Ebola endemic counties in W. Africa. According to polls 3/4 of Americans support such a ban.

The only fly in the ointment, there are NO direct flights between the US and the three countries.

I wouldn't be so certain about your statement.

ExXB 24th Oct 2014 09:39


Originally Posted by darkroomsource (Post 8711683)
BCG
Even in the USA it's not inconceivable for the government to be "taken over" by some form of dictatorship. Look at the Csar positions within the President's control. They do not report to congress, are able to basically write their own laws, have a certain level of immunity within the court system, and could, if mis-used become the Gestapo of the US.
Not that I'm saying anyone would take advantage of that. Oh no. (sarcasm)

They may not report to Congress, but they are funded by it. No money, no Czar. Good-old US cheques and balances, pardon the pun.

Oh, would Obama need a Czar if the Senators had approved (or denied) a Surgeon General?


It has been nearly a year since Vivek Murthy was nominated by President Obama to serve as the next Surgeon General, but thanks in large part to the gun lobby and their Republican allies in the Senate, there has yet to be any movement on his confirmation.
*Link back to topic, I apologise.

bcgallacher 24th Oct 2014 10:28

Exxb - I certainly must have over estimated the intelligence of the American political class. Small wonder that you shoot each other in such huge numbers if these are the kind of people who own guns!

darkroomsource 24th Oct 2014 10:57

I'm not so sure the Csars require funding from the congress. I'd have to do some research to find out for sure.
And I really have a hard time believing that 200+ Csars are needed now.
Reagan had 1. Before him, there were none. Why are they needed now?

ExXB 24th Oct 2014 11:23

You don't have to look far:


During the Obama administration, Congress has failed to provide the necessary funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS is the database checked during gun purchases to ensure individuals with criminal records & mental illness aren't allowed to purchase guns.
NICS was adopted into law by both houses and signed by the President, but failing to fund the law they have allowed felons and mentally challenged individual to have easy access to guns.

Some interesting reading here: Cambridge Journals Online - American Political Science Review - Abstract - Limitation Riders and Congressional Influence over Bureaucratic Policy Decisions

And here: Understanding Elected Offices - For Dummies

darkroomsource 24th Oct 2014 11:50

I'm not following you ExxB.
The NICS was written and passed by congress, then the president signed it, then it wasn't funded by the congress. Nothing to do with a Czar there, as far as I can see.

Meanwhile, there's a "drug czar" who can take control over just about any law enforcement agency at any time, in the name of fighting the war on drugs.

(I'm NOT saying anything about drugs, just about the position having a level of control that requires no funding from congress, unless congress were to cease funding the military, but then this czar can go into any state or local authority and direct them to perform an operation on his/her say-so)

rgbrock1 24th Oct 2014 12:43

The minor point Mr. PTT seems to have overlooked is the amount of Veterans in this country. Many of whom are combat vets. Most of whom, the ones I've spoken with anyway, are not only disgusted with the current path the U.S. is on but we very gladly see to it that things are changed as soon as possible.

Now if there was an insurrection within the U.S. I would wager that the vast majority of Veterans would side on the rest of the American people. Now some of our police departments my think they're Billy Bad Asses but those same bad asses have never had the "privilege" of going up against a well-trained combat Veteran.

I hope it never comes to that and I hope the American people wake up soon and realize that the current state of affairs is not what our Founders had in mind when they created our Republic.

MagnusP 24th Oct 2014 13:20

Not USA-specific, but someone said to me today "People that want anything to do with guns should be SHOT". In all seriousness. :ugh:

PTT 24th Oct 2014 13:32

BOING - it's a fair point that it does make oppression more difficult insofar as it removes the monopoly on violence from the state. Far from impossible, though, when the state has control of information. Without delving into conspiracy theories here it's not too hard to think of, say, Waco, as a potential threat to the state which is first discredited and then removed. Piecemeal efforts such as this can be blanket suppression rather than open warfare.
Yes, we're into hypotheticals here. I think we differ in that I can see ways for the state to effectively nullify any mass required for the firearms the people have to be of any use, whereas you don't see that as possible.

rgbrock1 - you make the same point as BOING's last paragraph about combat veterans. I don't think it makes a difference: experience is a truly wonderful thing for an individual to have, and effective leaders will certainly help a lot, but without effective and coordinated C2 it's still just a militia with pop-guns (regardless of the size of the pop) against a real military force. You overestimate your chances, I suspect, and greatly underestimate the ruling classes of your country if you think this hasn't been planned for.

BOING 24th Oct 2014 16:10

PTT
The lines have been blurred recently (which is one of the trends we need to watch carefully) but the use of military personnel for duty inside the US is specifically controlled.


The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law (18 U.S.C. 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the state laws.
As simply understood the use of military personnel for law enforcement inside the US is illegal. What we actually see is a bunch of politicians and people who would sell their soul for another ten minutes of safety from the dreaded "terrorists". The problem is who defines a terrorist and what constitutes a terrorist act. Unfortunately, presently, a terrorist is anyone the various US government departments decides is one.


.


.

con-pilot 24th Oct 2014 16:32


Unfortunately, presently, a terrorist is anyone the various US government departments decides is one.

Not really, at least not now during the Obama Administration. Only if the Administration declares one a terrorist or an act of violence a terrorist act, is it considered such.

It took the Obama Administration (President Obama) 24 hours to agree with the Canadian PM that what happened in Canada was in fact a terrorist attack.

The beheading of a woman in Moore, Oklahoma by a Jihadist Muslim is considered an act of work place violence by the Obama Administration.

Then of course there is the infamous Fort Hood incident.

PTT 24th Oct 2014 16:54

BOING - yep, I'm aware of that. Of course, the US (or any national) government never breaks laws, does it? ;)

BOING 24th Oct 2014 17:36

PTT
Which, of course, leads us back in a circle to the justification and intent of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

QED

.

rgbrock1 24th Oct 2014 18:17

PTT wrote:


you make the same point as BOING's last paragraph about combat veterans. I don't think it makes a difference: experience is a truly wonderful thing for an individual to have, and effective leaders will certainly help a lot, but without effective and coordinated C2 it's still just a militia with pop-guns (regardless of the size of the pop) against a real military force
You're obviously not well-versed in the C2, and many aspects, of American "militia" groups. :ok: Some are State-supported, others are not.

rgbrock1 24th Oct 2014 18:19

BOING:

The justification and intent of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? I think one fellow of yore, oh he of Shadwell, Virgina, summed it up rather succinctly:

http://rlv.zcache.com/thomas_jeffers..._8byvr_512.jpg

John Hill 24th Oct 2014 18:53

Somewhere along the line words like 'militia' and 'regulated' have been cast aside as inconvenient.

PTT 24th Oct 2014 19:11

BOING - except that it won't work when they are breaking those laws.

rgbrock1 - if they thought you were a threat do you really think that you'd still have all those guns and that C2 infrastructure?

con-pilot 24th Oct 2014 19:13

Ever hear of the United States Supreme Court John?

They disagree with you. So if you don't terribly mind, I'll take their word on this subject rather than yours.

PTT 24th Oct 2014 19:14

Student opens fire at Washington state high school - report | Reuters

Sad.

John Hill 24th Oct 2014 20:00

Con-pilot. the US Supreme Court amended the sacred Amendment? How could that be?

Dushan 24th Oct 2014 20:33


Originally Posted by John Hill (Post 8712464)
Con-pilot. the US Supreme Court amended the sacred Amendment? How could that be?

They did? When? How? Please fill us in on the details.

Lonewolf_50 24th Oct 2014 20:34


Originally Posted by John Hill (Post 8712464)
Con-pilot. the US Supreme Court amended the sacred Amendment? How could that be?

What are you talking about?

Dushan 24th Oct 2014 20:36

LW, I think he read it in the same place he read about the start of the Korean war.

con-pilot 24th Oct 2014 21:48


Con-pilot. the US Supreme Court amended the sacred Amendment? How could that be?
Really, do tell, take as long as you like, I'll wait.

So please show me, in exact detail, just how the Supreme Court changed the wording of the Second Amendment?



I'll go get more popcorn, as this is going to take him some time. :p

Dushan 24th Oct 2014 22:39

Con, by the time he comes back with an answer, that makes sense, you will start to like Brussels Sprouts.

Seldomfitforpurpose 24th Oct 2014 22:45

I'm no genius but the extremely funny guy in the video seemed to suggest that the clue is in the word 'amendment' :ok:


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:16.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.