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)

Lonewolf_50 14th Oct 2015 15:48


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 9147054)
Possibly something along the lines of 'if that guy controlling us did not have access to a gun my family and I could probably get away' and no doubt that's what they thought 250 years or so ago ��

A singularly inane post, based solely in axe grinding. You could raise your game a bit, SFFP, as you have shown better material in the past.

Good thing this fellow didn't have a gun, or maybe it would have ended in tears. Wait, it did.


DALLAS - Police say a former Texas A&M football star killed a jogger with a machete, and admitted to choosing the victim randomly, reports CBS DFW.
Thomas Johnson, 21, has been charged with murder in the Monday morning death of the jogger, who police were still unable identify Tuesday morning.
Police say after Johnson killed the victim, who was running without identification along the tree-lined White Rock Creek Trail in Dallas, Johnson walked to a nearby equestrian center and called 911.

It was unclear whether he confessed to the dispatcher over the phone. The victim is described as a white male who could be in his mid 20's or 30's.

On Monday, Johnson allegedly told police he was angry about his situation in life.
"He stated he was put out of his home. I don't know for how long," said
Deputy Chief Rob Sherwin.
So, Mister Johnson has taken the ultimate "attitude" and decided "I am mad at the world, time to kill some random white dude."

By the way, where's the outrage?
Where is the attorney general?
:mad:
White lives matter.
On the other hand, he did call 911, so he's not completely hopeless.

KenV 14th Oct 2015 17:39


Possibly something along the lines of 'if that guy controlling us did not have access to a gun my family and I could probably get away' and no doubt that's what they thought 250 years or so ago
What an exceedingly ignorant statement. Guns did not enable slave ownership. Anti-gun laws most certainly did. And guns most certainly helped curtail/eliminate slave ownership.

747 jock 14th Oct 2015 17:52


What an exceedingly ignorant statement. Guns did not enable slave ownership. Anti-gun laws most certainly did
How exactly did anti-gun laws help enable the slave trade 300 years ago? as I'm pretty sure that there were no such laws in place in Africa around that time.

Seldomfitforpurpose 14th Oct 2015 18:36


Originally Posted by KenV (Post 9147729)
What an exceedingly ignorant statement. Guns did not enable slave ownership. Anti-gun laws most certainly did. And guns most certainly helped curtail/eliminate slave ownership.

Are you saying that the slavers did not posses guns? Are you saying that US slave owners did not posses guns?

Have you really thought this one through?

Lonewolf_50 14th Oct 2015 19:59


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 9147773)
Are you saying that the slavers did not posses guns?

No, I think he is referring to the fact that slavery was ended here at the point of a bayonet, and at the business end of a barrel of a gun. That is often called "the Civil War" here .... but you'll play your games because that's all you choose to do.

Seldomfitforpurpose 14th Oct 2015 20:36


Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 (Post 9147831)
No, I think he is referring to the fact that slavery was ended here at the point of a bayonet, and at the business end of a barrel of a gun. That is often called "the Civil War" here .... but you'll play your games because that's all you choose to do.

Umm, did we read the same post ???

SASless 15th Oct 2015 02:20


Discussing history, however bad that history, isn't a bad thing if it helps people learn from the mistakes of the time.
We don't seem to learn of the mistakes of our Time....Obama got re-elected didn't he?

Gertrude the Wombat 15th Oct 2015 10:28


America is quite content with its domestic homicide [and accident and suicide] levels as long as it can retain its insecure need for and love of Guns
I think that's the conclusion that most of us have reached, yes - there isn't, in fact, a problem.

KenV 15th Oct 2015 13:01


Are you saying that the slavers did not posses guns? Are you saying that US slave owners did not posses guns?

Have you really thought this one through?
With due respect, have YOU thought this through?

A slave in 19th century America had a value of about 40,000 in today's dollars. It would be exceedingly foolish to shoot that kind of investment. You might not understand that, but the slaves certainly did. Guns were useless to keep slaves in line. Whips, canes, staves, chains and other corporal punishment devices that did no permanent damage were what were used to keep slaves in line (Before anyone goes ape shite about such abusive measures on US plantations, these were the same devices and the same techniques used by the Royal Navy to keep "impressed sailors" in line on their ships. Those were brutal times and ignoring that fact is stoopid.)

Now try actually thinking for a moment. What is among the greatest fears of any slave owner or slave owning society? Armed slaves. It is why in every slave owning society slaves are forbidden from owning or possessing weapons. Want to stop slavery? Arm the slaves.

And finally, what do you imagine freed the slaves in America? The Emancipation Proclamation? The 13th amendment? You'd be wrong both times. Sure, those documents freed them in theory and on paper. But what freed the slaves in fact and in reality was large armies (and navies) of well armed men.

The best and most sure way of preventing any populace from enslavement is to arm that populace. That is EXACTLY why the 2nd amendment exists. It is the one absolute sure way to prevent enslavement from any oppressor, including one's own government. The American populace understands that. And that is why repealing the 2nd amendment is so extremely unlikely.

Seldomfitforpurpose 15th Oct 2015 13:12

Makes you wonder how the vast majority of the western world have managed to remain free without all those guns?

KenV 15th Oct 2015 13:21


America is quite content with its domestic homicide levels as long as it can retain its insecure need for and love of Guns
That's absurd. There is a constant hue and cry in America about homicide levels and all violent crime. And there are constant attempts to restrict gun sales, gun access, gun ownership, etc etc in a (misguided) effort to reduce homicides and violent crime. But all those gun restrictions come at a very steep price that the majority of the American electorate will not tolerate. Why? It has very little or nothing to do with "its insecure need for and love of Guns" and everything to do with Americans' deep seated mistrust of government.

Americans have a love-hate relationship with government. Yes, Americans want government to do our dirty work for us, like law enforcement and the military. But at the same time Americans distrust the power they grant to government that enables government to do that dirty work, because Americans know that very power can be, and fear it will be, turned against them. And that is why the 2nd amendment exists. It's the final and ultimate insurance policy. Kinda like a nuke: you hope and pray it never comes to that. But still, you make sure it's there and ready for use, just in case, so government never even considers turning its power against the people.

KenV 15th Oct 2015 13:28


Makes you wonder how the vast majority of the western world have managed to remain free without all those guns?
Yet another exceedingly ignorant and short sighted statement. Europe has seen the rise of Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Italy, Communism in Russia, and various forms of totalitarian socialism in several nations, all within the past several decades, with some now still under such regimes. And all required an unarmed populace.

Hempy 15th Oct 2015 13:35

KenV, so to paraphrase for you,


KenV 15th Oct 2015 13:41


KenV, so to paraphrase for you,
Not the way I would have said it, but nevertheless a lot of truth there. And that truth really bothers some of the self declared "more civilized" folk overseas as well as here in America.

Hempy 15th Oct 2015 13:53

The full interview is interesting



I'd love to know his PPRuNe username!

KenV 15th Oct 2015 13:58


How exactly did anti-gun laws help enable the slave trade 300 years ago? as I'm pretty sure that there were no such laws in place in Africa around that time.
Do you guys really think things through before posting? This not a discussion about "the slave trade 300 years ago" when guns were both exceedingly expensive and relatively rare. It is about slavery in the mid to late 19th century and more specifically to slavery in the southern states of the USA. The early gun control laws in the southern states were directed toward one end: control and oppression of the black man. The greatest fear of any oppressor is the arming of the target of his oppression.

Seldomfitforpurpose 15th Oct 2015 14:13


Originally Posted by KenV (Post 9148582)
Yet another exceedingly ignorant and short sighted statement. Europe has seen the rise of Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Italy, Communism in Russia, and various forms of totalitarian socialism in several nations, all within the past several decades, with some now still under such regimes. And all required an unarmed populace.

Not seeing a 'rise in slavery' in your list there, could it be that despite not having guns none of us are being enslaved 👍

Now if you really want to open your mind try wondering why the 3 ism's you refer to are allowed to be, so to speak.............

Hempy 15th Oct 2015 14:14


Seldomfitforpurpose 15th Oct 2015 14:15


Originally Posted by KenV (Post 9148611)
Do you guys really think things through before posting? This not a discussion about "the slave trade 300 years ago" when guns were both exceedingly expensive and relatively rare. It is about slavery in the mid to late 19th century and more specifically to slavery in the southern states of the USA. The early gun control laws in the southern states were directed toward one end: control and oppression of the black man. The greatest fear of any oppressor is the arming of the target of his oppression.

So if I hear what you are suggesting then the way to keep the slaves in check was to keep them unarmed and their owners armed..................

Mr Chips 15th Oct 2015 14:31


So if I hear what you are suggesting then the way to keep the slaves in check was to keep them unarmed and their owners armed..................
So if I hear what you are suggesting then the way to keep the slaves free is to allow everyone guns......
:ok:

KenV 15th Oct 2015 14:55


So if I hear what you are suggesting then the way to keep the slaves in check was to keep them unarmed and their owners armed..................
You read poorly. What I have stated (not suggested) repeatedly is that "the way to keep the slaves in check was to keep them unarmed......"

And the best way to prevent that is to prohibit any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

Notice the wording there. The constitution does NOT grant the right to keep and bear arms. The right already exists. The constitution prohibits the government from infringing on that right.

KenV 15th Oct 2015 15:07


Not seeing a 'rise in slavery' in your list there, could it be that despite not having guns none of us are being enslaved
Typical tactic. You changed the argument. Your original argument was:

Makes you wonder how the vast majority of the western world have managed to remain free without all those guns?

One does NOT need to be enslaved to lose one's freedom. The 2nd amendment prevents loss of freedom. Sure, that includes slavery, but it is NOT exclusive to slavery. Political and economic freedom are just as important, perhaps more so.

chuks 15th Oct 2015 16:21

Just as important as keeping weapons out of their hands was denying slaves education, so that it was highly illegal to teach them to read and write.

I think you guys need to focus on more than just the gun itself in this argument, as has already been pointed out; it's more to do with a society as a whole, I think.

Anyway, this is one hell of a hamsterwheel, just whirling 'round and 'round until the Mods put it out of its misery yet again, with nothing really achieved in the pages and pages of rather pointless and acrimonious exchanges.

GoodTimes 15th Oct 2015 16:33

This sums it up for myself and a lot of other Americans...



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-F_zfoDqI

Hempy 15th Oct 2015 16:51


Seldomfitforpurpose 15th Oct 2015 18:40


Originally Posted by KenV (Post 9148677)
Typical tactic. You changed the argument. Your original argument was:

Makes you wonder how the vast majority of the western world have managed to remain free without all those guns?

One does NOT need to be enslaved to lose one's freedom. The 2nd amendment prevents loss of freedom. Sure, that includes slavery, but it is NOT exclusive to slavery. Political and economic freedom are just as important, perhaps more so.

I have political freedom to vote as I please and I have economic freedom to spend as I please and have never in my 58 years needed a gun to guarantee that.

In fact I am no different to over 50% of US households in that like me they do not need a gun to be free, in fact over 50% of US households have occupants who go about their daily lives 24/7/52 without ever needing a gun, does kinda make you wonder how they manage that eh :ok:

KenV 15th Oct 2015 21:36


I have political freedom to vote as I please and I have economic freedom to spend as I please and have never in my 58 years needed a gun to guarantee that.

In fact I am no different to over 50% of US households in that like me they do not need a gun to be free, in fact over 50% of US households have occupants who go about their daily lives 24/7/52 without ever needing a gun, does kinda make you wonder how they manage that eh :ok:
Yet another ignorant narrow visioned statement. This isn't about just you, or about "50% of US households" this year or this decade. It is about the entire USA over its entire past and future history and its government. Even if only 10% to 20% of the nation is armed, the entire nation is protected from the government attempting to overstep its bounds. Consider that only a very very very tiny percentage of US citizens have access to nukes. Yet the entire nation is protected from any power tempted to use nukes against the nation.

And BTW, this last statement blithely ignored my original point which you attempted to sidestep with your fixation on slavery. As a reminder, Europe has seen the rise of Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Italy, Communism in Russia, and various forms of totalitarian socialism in several nations, all within the past several decades, with some now still under such regimes. And all required an unarmed populace.

Seldomfitforpurpose 15th Oct 2015 21:54


Originally Posted by KenV (Post 9149026)
Yet another ignorant narrow visioned statement. This isn't about just you, or about "50% of US households" this year or this decade. It is about the entire USA over its entire past and future history and its government. Even if only 10% to 20% of the nation is armed, the entire nation is protected from the government attempting to overstep its bounds.
Which suggests to me that 80% to 90% of your fellow citizens don't reckon they need to fear their government, now there's a thought for you..
Consider that only a very very very tiny percentage of US citizens have access to nukes. Yet the entire nation is protected from any power tempted to use nukes against the nation.

And BTW, this last statement blithely ignored my original point which you attempted to sidestep with your fixation on slavery. As a reminder, Europe has seen the rise of Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Italy, Communism in Russia, and various forms of totalitarian socialism in several nations, all within the past several decades, with some now still under such regimes. And all required an unarmed populace.

What you missed was the suggestion that the rise in the ism's you suggest come about because of the very freedoms you think can only be obtained via an armed citizenship........

KenV 15th Oct 2015 22:25


What you missed was the suggestion that the rise in the ism's you suggest come about because of the very freedoms you think can only be obtained via an armed citizenship........
You read funny. I did not state nor remotely claim that an armed citizenship can "obtain" freedoms, much less that only an armed citizenship can obtain freedoms. I will repeat one more time: an armed citizenship is the ultimate insurance policy against a government oppressing its people. EVERY one of the isms resulted in oppressive governments, and in every case, such oppressive governments first required an unarmed populace.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was 16th Oct 2015 00:52


Even if only 10% to 20% of the nation is armed, the entire nation is protected from the government attempting to overstep its bounds.
Funny thing is though, in all the images I've seen of the anti-war demonstrations of the 70's, involving 10's if not 100's of thousands of your citizens telling your government that they considered it was overstepping it's bounds, none of them appeared to be armed, or seemed to think there was a need to be so. Gandhi freed a country without using guns.

KenV 16th Oct 2015 02:14


Funny thing is though, in all the images I've seen of the anti-war demonstrations of the 70's, involving 10's if not 100's of thousands of your citizens telling your government that they considered it was overstepping it's bounds, none of them appeared to be armed, or seemed to think there was a need to be so.
Interesting interpretation. You actually view the anti Vietnam war protests of the 60s as anti-government protests. Wow. So let me clarify. By the government "overstepping its bounds" I mean the government engaging in activities directed against it's electorate in violation of the Constitution. Clear enough? And in case it escaped the reader, there was nothing remotely unconstitutional about the Vietnam war.

And BTW, why do you guys keep changing my argument? I never stated nor remotely suggested that firearms are necessary to make a people "free" or even to keep a people free. I DID say that an armed populace is the ultimate insurance policy to keep a people free. There are certainly some national populations who trust their politicians to maintain their freedoms despite the population being unarmed. The UK is an example of such. You are welcome to put that kind of faith in your politicians, but I remind you, which government was it that George Washington AND Mahatma Ghandi "freed" their respective nations from? You trust your government not to deny you your rights (excuse me, government granted freedoms - you have no enumerated rights) while that same government denied those freedoms to countless others, some as recently as the 1990s. That's your choice, and you are welcome to it. Americans have no such trust in our government or any other government, and have made a different choice. And that is part of our nature. No one, especially Brits, are going to change that.

We love you guys like brothers. But PLEASE don't try to turn us into you. It ain't gonna happen.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was 16th Oct 2015 03:55

The protesters were letting the government know they didn't like what it was doing, so yes they were anti-government policies (which is what it all boils down to in the end), but didn't need weapons to back them up.


There are certainly some national populations who trust their politicians to maintain their freedoms despite the population being unarmed.
You mean, like practically every other national population on the planet? Lucky you guys live in such a safe place then.:ugh:

layman 16th Oct 2015 05:33

Genuine query
 
Just wondering if I've missing something here.

Leaving aside what I would regard as 'external' (government to government) conflicts (with the Mexicans / Spanish / WW1 etc) ...

Are the "only" times the US populace used weapons to gain / maintain their freedoms during the War of Independence and the US Civil War?

thanks
layman

Seldomfitforpurpose 16th Oct 2015 06:43


Originally Posted by KenV (Post 9149167)
So let me clarify. By the government "overstepping its bounds" I mean the government engaging in activities directed against it's electorate in violation of the Constitution.

There was a deathly, but very unsurprising silence from the 'well armed militia' when they took away your slaves and your booze 👍

chuks 16th Oct 2015 07:58

"There was a deathly, but very unsurprising silence from the 'well armed militia' when they took away your slaves and your booze 👍 (sic)"

Yes, well, aside from the thunder of cannon, the rattle of musket fire, the screams of the wounded ... a few minor details such as those, our Civil War was a rather quiet affair, during which, yes, the slaves were declared free from the South. Anyway, they were not "our" slaves but "their" slaves; as previously noted here, "our" slaves were left in a state of slavery during the Civil War.

That war did not quite work out the way that the Founding Fathers intended, I think, since the best of the "well armed militia[s]" were to be found fighting on the side of the rebellious South, along with most of the best Army officers of that time, towering figures such as Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jonathan Jackson, both top graduates of West Point. The best Union warriors were a drunk, Ulysses Simpson Grant, and a madman, William Tecumseh Sherman.

Instead of that 2nd Amendment proving "necessary to the security of a free state" it proved to be an active threat to the security of the Union, due to some of those militias that it fostered.

There was a certain amount of gunfire associated with Prohibition, but when the general populace could still find a drink, assisted by gun-wielding gangsters, there was no need for them to rise and shoot it out with the authorities.

All in all, SFFP, it would seem that you really have no grasp of the historical facts re: the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps you should stick to the history you know, assuming that you do know any.

Pinky the pilot 16th Oct 2015 10:36


but when the general populace could still find a drink, assisted by gun-wielding gangsters, there was no need for them to rise and shoot it out with the authorities.
According to the book 'The Untouchables' written by Eliot Ness, most of the shoot outs of the time were the gangsters fighting it out amongst themselves! :ooh:

At least that is the impression I got reading the copy of the book in my possession. :oh:

Seldomfitforpurpose 16th Oct 2015 10:52


Originally Posted by chuks (Post 9149340)
Yes, well, aside from the thunder of cannon, the rattle of musket fire, the screams of the wounded ... so in the first instance a well armed militia got its head handed to itself by a better armed militia....imagine that eh :E

To quote Jim Jeffries 'You are gonna bring guns to a drone fight, hows that gonna work out' :p:p:p

As regards prohibition you make my point quite succinctly :ok:

chuks 16th Oct 2015 11:39

I did what?
 
SFFP, the trouble in the Civil War started with regular troops, not with militias, but those Southern irregulars, "militiamen" of a sort, were a lot of trouble to deal with. Where in that do you see a "deathly silence" from them, what you posted? They made quite a racket, fighting to keep their slaves.

You had a point there for me to make for you, SFFP, in what you wrote about Prohibition? What point was that, then?

My point is that you often really do not have a clue when it comes to what you are talking about here, completely missing the extreme armed resistance to Abolition and all, what we call our Civil War, for instance. "Deathly silence," uh-huh ....

Pinky, I think we are both on the same page when it comes to things such as the Saint Valentine's Day massacre, that those were "gun-wielding gangsters" who supplied the illegal booze, yes ....

Seldomfitforpurpose 16th Oct 2015 12:20


Originally Posted by chuks (Post 9149555)
SFFP, the trouble in the Civil War started with regular troops, not with militias, but those Southern irregulars, "militiamen" of a sort, were a lot of trouble to deal with. Where in that do you see a "deathly silence" from them, what you posted? They made quite a racket, fighting to keep their slaves. Regular troops or well regulated militia, getting very confusing now?

You had a point there for me to make for you, SFFP, in what you wrote about Prohibition? What point was that, then?

Did any regular troops or even well regulated militia take up arms against the removal of their booze :confused:

KenV 16th Oct 2015 12:53


You mean, like practically every other national population on the planet? Lucky you guys live in such a safe place then.:ugh:
Wow, its hard to get through to you guys. And once again you are attempting (and failing) to change the argument. The 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with "safety" (or hunting, or sport, etc)

These are the facts:
1. The vast majority of nations on our planet have an unarmed populace.
2. In MOST places an unarmed populace was imposed by an oppressive government that requires an unarmed populace to remain in power.
3. In SOME places the freedoms of the unarmed populace have been preserved but are not guaranteed and can be lifted at any time. The UK is one such place.
4. The US Constitution enumerates certain rights and prohibits infringement of those rights by government. The right of the people to be armed guarantees that the government cannot (and indeed never even attempts to) infringe on the other rights enumerated in the Constitution. This is not rocket science and yet you guys cannot (more likely, will not) grok it.

The UK populace (presumably, but I have my doubts) likes the arrangement described in #3, where no rights are guaranteed, rights can be lifted at any time, and indeed have been lifted as recently as the 1990s. You are welcome to your arrangement, which requires a LOT of (misplaced) trust in your politicians. We love you guys like brothers, but please don't try to impose your arrangement on us. It ain't gonna happen. The majority of Americans do NOT trust our government, and likely never will. Indeed, most Americans are of the opinion that any government will naturally work toward becoming like #2 above. That is the nature of government. And for that reason we have the 2nd amendment and likely always will. And yes, we pay a price for that, but we see that as a long term overall good trade. Some of you guys call that "sick". You are welcome to that opinion. But it isn't going to change our mistrust of government and isn't going to result in repeal of the 2nd amendment. Get over it already.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.