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)

KenV 16th Oct 2015 13:01


Did any regular troops or even well regulated militia take up arms against the removal of their booze :confused:
Wow. You never let facts get in the way of your clueless ramblings, do you? The facts are:
1. The 2nd amendment prevents the government from violating the constitution.
2. The constitution NEVER made alcohol consumption a right.
3. Prohibition was passed as a Constitutional amendment, so enforcing it was not a Constitutional violation.

KenV 16th Oct 2015 13:10


Are the "only" times the US populace used weapons to gain / maintain their freedoms during the War of Independence and the US Civil War?
Not at all.

In the post directly above yours (#2713) the clueless rambled on about the Vietnam protests. Those protests were often vehemently anti-government, and sometimes violent. AND they (the protests, not the violence) were protected by the Constitution. The 2nd amendment ensured that the government did not violate the Constitution to suppress those protests. So in that sense the US populace's mere possession of weapons (as opposed to their use) maintained their freedoms.

chuks 16th Oct 2015 13:10

Southern folklore often features tales of bootleggers shooting it out with "revenuers," those sent to enforce Federal law against illegally distilling booze.

That's about it, though, aside from the Whiskey Rebellion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

Does that count, SFFP? I suppose so, which makes me wonder why you had to ask, instead of just looking that up, given the way you like to lecture us on American history here.

KenV 16th Oct 2015 13:19


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.
More clueless ramblings. What allowed those protests to happen in the first place? The 1st Amendment!!! What prevented the federal government from cracking down and stopping those protests from happening? The 2nd amendment! Any attempt by the government to violate the constitution in suppressing those protests could be met by armed resistance. And because it COULD be, the federal government never even made the attempt.

Seldomfitforpurpose 16th Oct 2015 14:22


Originally Posted by chuks (Post 9149634)
Southern folklore often features tales of bootleggers shooting it out with "revenuers," those sent to enforce Federal law against illegally distilling booze.

So the bootleggers were the 'well regulated militia'? Surely as bootleggers they were mere criminals engaged in criminal activity? Are you suggesting the 'well regulated militia' are nowt but a bunch of crooks?

Seldomfitforpurpose 16th Oct 2015 14:27


Originally Posted by KenV (Post 9149627)
3. Prohibition was passed as a Constitutional amendment, so enforcing it was not a Constitutional violation.

Was it the action of a tyrannical government?

obgraham 16th Oct 2015 15:37

The 18th amendment was passed under the procedures of the Constitution. Passed both houses of Congress, and 3/4 of the States.

Nothing tyrannical at all.

Turned out to be something the People didn't like. Hence the 21st. All according to procedure, and nothing to do with guns.

You lot are making a ridiculous argument.

Seldomfitforpurpose 16th Oct 2015 15:48


Originally Posted by obgraham (Post 9149778)
The 18th amendment was passed under the procedures of the Constitution. Passed both houses of Congress, and 3/4 of the States.

Nothing tyrannical at all.

Turned out to be something the People didn't like. Hence the 21st. All according to procedure, and nothing to do with guns.

You lot are making a ridiculous argument.

Sounds pretty tyrannical, imposing something on the people that they did not want.........

KenV 16th Oct 2015 15:50


So the bootleggers were the 'well regulated militia'? Surely as bootleggers they were mere criminals engaged in criminal activity? Are you suggesting the 'well regulated militia' are nowt but a bunch of crooks? Was it the action of a tyrannical government? Sounds pretty tyrannical, imposing something on the people that they did not want.........
SffP, you've stopped having a discussion and turned into a troll. I shan't be feeding you any longer.

Ancient Observer 16th Oct 2015 16:06

This thread reminds me of the best ever routing instruction.

"I would not start from here"

Zapatas Blood 16th Oct 2015 16:25

Ken,

“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.”

So just to confirm your position thus: Washington will NEVER infringe on the rights of American citizens because half of you have small weapons?

Ken, have you ever heard of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government? Have you explored the ramifications of NSPD-51?

The Federal Government can remove your rights in a heartbeat and you will only have “freedoms” as long as you continue to be compliant non-critical consumers.

Seldomfitforpurpose 16th Oct 2015 16:53

Seldomfitforpurpose is taking some time off to come up with new questions rather than asking the same ones over and over again, just because he does not like the answers.

chuks 16th Oct 2015 18:08

Yes, and difficult people too .... Why don't you do some background reading in American history instead of peppering us with ignorant questions while posing as if you already know the answers, SFFP?

KenV 16th Oct 2015 19:45


Ken, have you ever heard of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government? Have you explored the ramifications of NSPD-51?
Yes, yes, and yes.


The Federal Government can remove your rights in a heartbeat and you will only have “freedoms” as long as you continue to be compliant non-critical consumers.
You are welcome to hold that opinion. Mine differs. I refer specifically to NSPD-51 paragraphs 2e, 3, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6, and 20. Like most Americans I have a distrust of government, but not to the point of paranoia. By way of example, I also do not believe that having a gold fringed flag on the premises establishes martial law on those premises or makes those premises a "foreign enclave".

Dynasty Trash Hauler 16th Oct 2015 19:52

Ken,

You appear to assume that any removal of so called freedoms in our country will be obvious, a knock on the door by the police asking you to stop wearing nikes.

That’s not how it will happen. Its not how it is already happening.

Take a look at emplyment law in the US. Americans are some of the lowest paid workers in the developed world with some of the poorest labor protections and pro business employment laws in the world.

Employees in America have already lost a lot of freedoms and given them to the CEO’s, the banksters, big pharma, big oil.

A huge number of people work 2 and 3 jobs to make ends meet.

I once thought America was the ducks nuts, best place on earth. Then thanks to CH11 I left and worked and lived in Asia, Australia and then Europe for the balance of my career.

And I now realize that we Americans have taken it up the kazoo and been manipulated by money and greed and power. We have crap education, crap health care, crap jobs and way too much crime. Did guns prevent this????

I seriously want to know what freedoms you and I enjoy that an Australian doesn’t, or a Canadian doesn’t or a French person . . . . . . . .

KenV 16th Oct 2015 20:05


I seriously want to know what freedoms you and I enjoy that an Australian doesn’t, or a Canadian doesn’t or a French person . . . . . .
Americans enjoy the freedoms of every right enumerated in the Constitution which prohibits the government from infringing those rights. The citizens in the nations you listed only have those rights which its current politicians deign to bestow on the populace. Those politicians can (and routinely do) infringe on those rights. The two most obvious are the 1st amendment right to free speech and the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. None of the citizens of the nations you listed have either of those rights. There is lots more.

BTW, given the topic of this thread it amazes me that you did not realize that the right to keep and bear arms is a very very rare right that none of the folks in the nations you mention enjoys.

chuks 16th Oct 2015 20:50

He has a point, you know!
 
The 2nd Amendment is a very fine thing if you are either in the gun trade or else focused on owning, using and carrying guns relatively unrestricted.

On the other hand, there are things that an American takes for granted that are quite restrictive in terms of everyday life. Then the gun usually does not come into it in a big way.

For just one everyday example, here in Germany one drives on a country road at about 65 mph (limit 100 kmh/62 mph). In the States, the same road would probably be limited to 35 or 45, since the usual skill level of the American driver is lower and the roads are often in much poorer condition, with that compensated for by requiring low speeds.

Out on the Autobahn there's often only a recommended top speed of 130 kmh, about 80 mph, but if your car can do 155 mph, then so can you! That's okay, but don't try loitering in the passing lane or overtaking on the right, American-style; driving that way will get you a ticket.

The average German gets a lot more time off per year, something like 5 or 6 weeks. Working-class people often can get three weeks off in the summer, so that it's not unusual to hear of a tour of Italy or France, or a trip all the way up to the North Cape in Norway and back. Even wealthy people in the States might have trouble arranging what a normal German worker can afford.

When you have a child, the mother has the right to some paid time off to look after it, and if the mother wants to take a year or two off without pay, she has the right to have her job back later.

Taxes are high, up to 50%, but if your child qualifies, going into higher education means paying just the basic costs of food and accommodation. My daughter just graduated from a top dental school, debt-free. I think someone in the States would probably be looking at the low six figures of student debt in the same situation. (This is one reason why health-care costs in the States are insanely high, so high that German insurers won't cover you for more than a short stay there without you buying extra cover.)

Manual trades here are both well-taught and well-respected, so that when you need a plumber, a painter, or a gardener, you can expect a real professional to do the work to a high standard. Not always, of course, but usually. In the States any schmo can go into business.

Basically, it's so that the right to keep and bear arms can seem rather trivial to a citizen of the European Union, since he's usually, well, more comfortable! Of course a lot of that modern European comfort was once paid for by American blood and treasure, a fact that often goes overlooked today, but it can still seem that the average Yank is not living so very well as all that, no matter how many arms he is allowed to keep and bear. We come across as a bit primitive, really.

I have seen both sides of this, and I think I understand both sides, so that I also understand why there is so darn little understanding by one side of the other side, particularly when so many people here choose to just go all hoity-toity and negative about the way Americans choose to go about their business, especially when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. There's no real wish to understand us; instead it's all this BS about our "national sickness" or whatever, forgetting that hordes of straight-shooting, rude and crude Yanks were a very good thing not so long ago.

malcolm380 16th Oct 2015 20:52

....and funnily enough, none of those Nations mentioned "enjoys" the level of guns deaths per capita that the USA does. I've lived in the USA for a number of years now, previously in the UK and Canada, and long periods in France and Italy.... of all those places, nowhere actually feels less free than the USA.

Gertrude the Wombat 16th Oct 2015 22:13


by accepting huge numbers of immigrants
Yes, on a visit to Japan a couple of years ago my delegation had their ageing population problem explained to us by the Japanese.

We said yes, we had the same in Europe, although to a lesser degree. And we had a solution, which was to import young workers, and this was called "immigration".

Dead silence from the Japanese, followed by a change of subject.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was 16th Oct 2015 22:42

Kenny, you'd better come up with another put down besides "clueless". It's wearing a bit thin. Especially since you usually appropriate those same "clueless" comments and use them as facts to back up your own spurious conclusions.

The Sultan 1st Nov 2015 15:59

Colorado Shooting 10-31
 
As no news agency is blasting the airwaves with the name of the murderer of 3 in Colorado Springs after 24 hours. Anyone want to take a bet that the shooter was not Muslim, an immigrant, or black? Probably have his name from his NRA card.

The Sultan

Mostly Harmless 1st Nov 2015 19:43

Hi KenV. I am coming in late to this conversation but I see a small issue with a couple of things you said here.


Not at all.

In the post directly above yours (#2713) the clueless rambled on about the Vietnam protests. Those protests were often vehemently anti-government, and sometimes violent. AND they (the protests, not the violence) were protected by the Constitution. The 2nd amendment ensured that the government did not violate the Constitution to suppress those protests. So in that sense the US populace's mere possession of weapons (as opposed to their use) maintained their freedoms.
What about Kent State? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings


The citizens in the nations you listed only have those rights which its current politicians deign to bestow on the populace. Those politicians can (and routinely do) infringe on those rights. The two most obvious are the 1st amendment right to free speech... None of the citizens of the nations you listed have either of those rights. There is lots more.
That's not entirely true either. Freedom of expression is in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectio..._of_expression

con-pilot 1st Nov 2015 20:14

Hang on a minute, I need to go outside and see if the grass is still growing. :hmm:

Gertrude the Wombat 1st Nov 2015 20:43

Me Sir! Me Sir! Please Sir! I know that one!

The problem there was "not enough guns". If the students had been properly armed they'd have been able to defend themselves.

chuks 2nd Nov 2015 09:28

Hands up, please, anyone who did not see that answer coming, along with where it was going to come from.

If you put Kent State into context, we had the Nixon Administration, mostly using its VP, Spiro Agnew, speaking lines provided by William Safire, drawing lines between "us" (the Silent Majority), and "them" (unwashed, un-American hippy scum, all high on drugs), when those Guardsmen thought they were doing what their President wanted them to, what in fact he did want them to do, on behalf of "us," as clearly shown by the tone of the official remarks after those unarmed students had been shot.

That was 45 years ago, so that Kent State might not be applicable to the current state of affairs in the States, not that outsiders might understand that.

Mostly Harmless 2nd Nov 2015 12:55

Perhaps not well asked on my part...

Kent State is just one event, a big one, where the deterrent factor of a well armed populace did not have any effect on the actions of the authorities that day. There are many smaller more current events that are causing a great deal of social unrest in the last few years I could also use, such as the South Carolina shooting of a man running away from a police officer. The threat of a well armed public had no bearing on the officers actions. I just don't see the deterrent factor that was referred in effect.

In fact, a bunch of well armed and organized citizens do not pose much of a deterrent to a heavily armed authority with tanks, artillery, rockets, helicopters and jets... not to mention the satellite and intelligence gathering networks the government has at it's disposal.

Lonewolf_50 2nd Nov 2015 14:04


Originally Posted by Mostly Harmless (Post 9166144)
Perhaps not well asked on my part...

Yeah. That's about the size of it.

obgraham 2nd Nov 2015 14:12


Originally Posted by Mostly Harmless (Post 9166144)
In fact, a bunch of well armed and organized citizens do not pose much of a deterrent to a heavily armed authority with tanks, artillery, rockets, helicopters and jets... not to mention the satellite and intelligence gathering networks the government has at it's disposal.

Well considering that such a "rebellion" has not happened in a developed country under the circumstances we are discussing, your statement is just your opinion and nothing more.

My opinion is different: given the history of Kent State and its aftermath, I suspect that military people would likely not follow orders to regularly fire on their own people, though surely incidents would occur.

And should there be such clashes, the ability of regular armed citizens to create havoc among said military, despite their "rockets, helicopters and jets" should not be underestimated. A few raggy looking fellows in far-off countries were pretty successful at this, and organized and educated citizens would fare much better, as they clearly understood their opponents.

FakePilot 2nd Nov 2015 15:10

One thing I'd like to point out is during the argument of "How can you fight against tanks and bombers?" the common rebuttal is "but Iraq and Afghanistan". In the case of Iraq at least, the other guys were well supplied with new guns and worse cutting edge antitank weapons. So that's not really a good example.

obgraham 2nd Nov 2015 18:29

So Fakepilot, do you really think that tank crews and bomber crews would regularly attack their own people?

I rather think that if somehow the US military were to get involved in supressing US citizens, it would be more like Kent State, possibly on a larger scale: rifles, etc. And believe me the citizens would shoot back. It would not be tidy for either side.

FakePilot 2nd Nov 2015 20:31

obgraham,

I'm just talking about pro-gun nutters using the excuse that people armed with small arms were able to tackle the US military. Not really.

However the overall point still stands. 2nd amendment allows you to have and bear weapons to fight whoever needs it. In my mind that protection should extend to electronic warfare devices too.

Lonewolf_50 2nd Nov 2015 21:28


Originally Posted by FakePilot (Post 9166655)
obgraham,

I'm just talking about pro-gun nutters using the excuse that people armed with small arms were able to tackle the US military. Not really.

Most officers are familiar with the Posse Comitatus act, and might be able to recognize an illegal order when they saw one.

Unlike a lot of banana republics, the military is not the prime agency for civil issues: the cops are.

The Sultan 3rd Nov 2015 17:21

Colorado Shooting
 
I was right it turns out to be a cauc gun nut. Worse is some one saw him before the shootings brandishing an AR-15. 9-11 said nothing could be done because of open carry. Three more dead to add to the NRA's collection.

If he had been non-Lilly white he would have been blown away in a second even if it turned out he was carrying a stick.

The Sultan

FakePilot 3rd Nov 2015 19:29


Three more dead to add to the NRA's collection.
I don't think you really believe this.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was 3rd Nov 2015 19:54


That was 45 years ago, so that Kent State might not be applicable to the current state of affairs in the States
But Laws based on something that happened 250 years ago still are?

Lonewolf_50 3rd Nov 2015 20:21


Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was (Post 9167941)
But Laws based on something that happened 250 years ago still are?

Rights, not laws, and I really wish more of you furriners would grasp that.
@Fake Pilot
If you wander over to Rotorheads, you'll find that same kind of trolling that you are seeing in that example by the same handle.

Gertrude the Wombat 3rd Nov 2015 21:21


Rights, not laws, and I really wish more of you furriners would grasp that.
"Rights" are whatever a society, from time to time and place to place, decides they are.

The "from time to time" bit suggests that they can change - and they do, eg Americans now have the right not to be a slave, which they didn't have not that long ago.

The "from place to place" bit suggests that they're not the same everywhere -and they aren't, eg Americans don't have the right not to be tortured by their government, but many people in other countries do.

747 jock 4th Nov 2015 00:08


eg Americans now have the right not to be a slave, which they didn't have not that long ago.
When were any American people slaves?

Mostly Harmless 4th Nov 2015 13:35


Lonewolf_50
Yeah. That's about the size of it.
More than a bit dickish in your response.


your statement is just your opinion and nothing more.
You are correct... it is just opinion. Exactly like your statement. Hopefully none of us will ever find out who is correct and who is not.


I suspect that military people would likely not follow orders to regularly fire on their own people, though surely incidents would occur.
I've long held the this same belief. That when ordered to fire on family and neighbours, that the soldiers would not obey that order. Again, I hope we never get to test that theory.


So Fakepilot, do you really think that tank crews and bomber crews would regularly attack their own people?
Sadly, they do in many nations around the world. Even the US had a civil war... had there been tanks and bombers at the time, they would have been used. It was a war.


... using the excuse that people armed with small arms were able to tackle the US military. Not really.
I agree with you there.


In my mind that protection should extend to electronic warfare devices too.
That's an interesting thought and one that should see some open conversation.

Hempy 4th Nov 2015 16:13

I guess things must be pretty rough when the civil police have a medal called the "Combat Cross" :eek:

Birmingham police reconsider officer's medal after dash cam video released | AL.com


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:34.


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