Obama: executive action to expand background checks
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-12-2015, 07:16 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(12-12-2015 12:37 PM)Ace Wrote:  citizens with guns taking on an actual military... the results are rather obvious
they'll just be rushing to their deaths, brute strength is nothing in the wake of a regimented military

Yeah those stupid civilians....

None of them have 30 or more years of weapon training, or have served in combat.....

...
They dismantle the military types when they're through with them.... Can't have that training in the civilian flock, right??????


No

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2015, 07:21 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(13-12-2015 06:16 AM)Ace Wrote:  
(12-12-2015 08:22 PM)yakherder Wrote:  Not as obvious as the untrained would assume. And brute strength has been obsolete for at least a few hundred years, if not more. That goes for both conventional forces or armed citizens fighting a guerrilla style war. It's hard to expand beyond that without a context, however, so if you'd like to give me a hypothetical scenario I'd love to get all tactical and expand on it. I'm a nerd for that kind of shit. Or if you're not actually interested in the topic, and just said what most people who are unfamiliar with military and paramilitary tactics believe and agree with by default without actually having the applicable knowledge to think critically on this particular topic, by all means feel free to just ignore me Tongue

I am interested in the topic

and here's the hypothetical yet likely possible scenario
conservative right wing nuts start a revolt again and decides to fight the US govt again, the US military goes after em to get them again

About to head out for the day. I'll add a nice, nerdy reply this evening.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2015, 09:32 PM (This post was last modified: 13-12-2015 09:35 PM by yakherder.)
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(13-12-2015 06:16 AM)Ace Wrote:  
(12-12-2015 08:22 PM)yakherder Wrote:  Not as obvious as the untrained would assume. And brute strength has been obsolete for at least a few hundred years, if not more. That goes for both conventional forces or armed citizens fighting a guerrilla style war. It's hard to expand beyond that without a context, however, so if you'd like to give me a hypothetical scenario I'd love to get all tactical and expand on it. I'm a nerd for that kind of shit. Or if you're not actually interested in the topic, and just said what most people who are unfamiliar with military and paramilitary tactics believe and agree with by default without actually having the applicable knowledge to think critically on this particular topic, by all means feel free to just ignore me Tongue

I am interested in the topic

and here's the hypothetical yet likely possible scenario
conservative right wing nuts start a revolt again and decides to fight the US govt again, the US military goes after em to get them again

Okay I actually got around to reading this now that I'm back. You say "again". What are you talking about exactly?

And most of the U.S. military, combat arms in particular, are right wing themselves. Your hypothetical scenario needs a bit more detail for it to be useful in any conversation with an actual point beyond conservatives are stupid because they're stupid. War, whether civil or against a foreign enemy, is a highly dynamic thing. But if that's what you want to go with, sure.

In my example scenario, the right wing nuts are in fact the military. They and their civilian right wing counterparts decide they're tired of everyone else's bullshit and initiate a coup. There is no fight, because their liberal opposition is largely unarmed in the civilian world and lacks representation in the military, law enforcement, and other armed government forces. Game over.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2015, 10:11 PM (This post was last modified: 13-12-2015 10:14 PM by epronovost.)
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(13-12-2015 09:32 PM)yakherder Wrote:  
(13-12-2015 06:16 AM)Ace Wrote:  I am interested in the topic

and here's the hypothetical yet likely possible scenario
conservative right wing nuts start a revolt again and decides to fight the US govt again, the US military goes after em to get them again

Okay I actually got around to reading this now that I'm back. You say "again". What are you talking about exactly?

And most of the U.S. military, combat arms in particular, are right wing themselves. Your hypothetical scenario needs a bit more detail for it to be useful in any conversation with an actual point beyond conservatives are stupid because they're stupid. War, whether civil or against a foreign enemy, is a highly dynamic thing. But if that's what you want to go with, sure.

In my example scenario, the right wing nuts are in fact the military. They and their civilian right wing counterparts decide they're tired of everyone else's bullshit and initiate a coup. There is no fight, because their liberal opposition is largely unarmed in the civilian world and lacks representation in the military, law enforcement, and other armed government forces. Game over.

The concecrated expression for your very plausible scenario is: «This is how democracy dies.». The other varient is: «This is how revolution dies.». In all cases of revolution, the support of the army and police force (or at least of a significant portion of it) is always necessary. The American revolution, the idealised revolution for North American libertarian, would have been a complete failure without the support of the already armed and blooded militia, experimented officers who made their class during the French and Indian War, the support of some Natives tribe and the French navy. The fact that this was a colonial revolution and not a national one is also an important distinction. This was also a time before heavy artillery, tanks, aircrafts, drones, weapons of mass destruction and mass communication. Now, a successful violent revolution not supported by the army and police forces would be a greater miracle than walking on water.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2015, 10:21 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(13-12-2015 10:11 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(13-12-2015 09:32 PM)yakherder Wrote:  Okay I actually got around to reading this now that I'm back. You say "again". What are you talking about exactly?

And most of the U.S. military, combat arms in particular, are right wing themselves. Your hypothetical scenario needs a bit more detail for it to be useful in any conversation with an actual point beyond conservatives are stupid because they're stupid. War, whether civil or against a foreign enemy, is a highly dynamic thing. But if that's what you want to go with, sure.

In my example scenario, the right wing nuts are in fact the military. They and their civilian right wing counterparts decide they're tired of everyone else's bullshit and initiate a coup. There is no fight, because their liberal opposition is largely unarmed in the civilian world and lacks representation in the military, law enforcement, and other armed government forces. Game over.

The concecrated expression for your very plausible scenario is: «This is how democracy dies.». The other varient is: «This is how revolution dies.». In all cases of revolution, the support of the army and police force is always necessary. The American revolution, the idealised revolution for North American libertarian, would have been a complete failure without the support and the already armed and blooded militia, experimented officers who made their class during the French and Indian War, the support of some Natives tribe and the French navy. This was also a time before heavy artillery, tanks, aircrafts, drones, weapons of mass destruction and mass communication. Now, a successful violent revolution not supported by the army and police forces would be a greater miracle than walking on water.

The actions of the military area always going to be part of the equation simply because they exist and are armed and willing to fight, and are likely to fracture right alongside any theoretical civilian fracturing. Armed non-military forces, as prospective guerrilla combatants, will also be part of the equation as a force that works from the bottom up rather than from the top down, allowing to to circumvent one of a conventional army's greatest weaknesses.

Like I said, war is dynamic in any context. There is no scenario in which all armed government forces would be fighting all armed civilians. I was merely trying to answer an irrational hypothetical scenario as rationally as possible. In any case, armed combatants of any type would choose sides and have the opportunity to influence the outcome.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
13-12-2015, 10:30 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(12-12-2015 05:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I get that line of reasoning, and I don't like it; it's as if the founding fathers and their intent should never be questioned.

It's not that the founding father's intent shouldn't be questioned. It's that we shouldn't allow the government to ignore their intent without due process. Regardless of which side of the gun debate you fall on we shouldn't let the government ignore the second amendment anymore than we should let them ignore the first or the twenty seventh.

I'm a gun owner, and I don't object to the concept of universal background checks as long as it is done properly. I'm not sure about the legality of implementing such a regulation via executive order. If the president wants to go there the legality of his actions will be determined in the courts. That's fine with me. That's how the system is supposed to work.

What I don't want to see is the elimination of private sales. If the government wants to implement universal background checks they need include provisions within the regulations that allow a unlicensed individual to transfer a gun to another unlicensed individual. I don't care if they require FFL holders or local law enforcement to perform the background check service for a fee on a private sale as long as they include a method to do it without first transferring the gun to a third party.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-12-2015, 11:05 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
For those of you interested in historicity of the 2nd ammendment and its current anachronistic place in today’s society Saul Cornell is a good read, I found a short synopsis of his book A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America

Excerpt:
"According to this civic conception, the "original understanding … guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia" (p. 2). The civic model thus linked arms-bearing with citizenship by creating a particular constitutional right distinct from common-law rights of self-defense and dependent on the individual's right and duty to participate in the militia. Viewed in light of this civic theory, the aim of the Second Amendment was "protecting the militia against the danger of being disarmed by the government" rather than "protecting individual citizens' right of personal self-defense" (p. 4).”

https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=12864

"A Well-Regulated Militia not only restores the lost meaning of the original Second Amendment, but it provides a clear historical road map that charts how we have arrived at our current impasse over guns. For anyone interested in understanding the great American gun debate, this is a must read.”

Winner of the Langum Prize in American Legal History/Legal Biography

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195147863

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2015, 12:09 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(13-12-2015 10:30 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  If the government wants to implement universal background checks they need include provisions within the regulations that allow a unlicensed individual to transfer a gun to another unlicensed individual.

Is it unreasonable to require all gun owners to be licenced?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2015, 12:24 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(13-12-2015 10:30 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  What I don't want to see is the elimination of private sales. If the government wants to implement universal background checks they need include provisions within the regulations that allow a unlicensed individual to transfer a gun to another unlicensed individual. I don't care if they require FFL holders or local law enforcement to perform the background check service for a fee on a private sale as long as they include a method to do it without first transferring the gun to a third party.

Treat it like a car, just make it part of the registration process.

Transferring the ownership of a car requires that the new owner register the vehicle in their name. Do the same for firearms, and have that point of contact with the government be where they also perform the background check. Transferring a car requires the use of a notary, maybe they could be co-opted for this role as well? Maybe it's something gun-shops could also be setup to handle as well?

I don't think that registration, background checks, or liability insurance are 'undue burdens' on the Second Amendment; any more so than I think libel laws or truth in advertising regulations are 'undue burdens' on the freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment. No right is absolute, they all have limits; and those boundaries are going to be tested and adjusted as needed, as indeed they should be with changes in society.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
14-12-2015, 07:10 AM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(14-12-2015 12:09 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(13-12-2015 10:30 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  If the government wants to implement universal background checks they need include provisions within the regulations that allow a unlicensed individual to transfer a gun to another unlicensed individual.

Is it unreasonable to require all gun owners to be licenced?

I don't think it is unreasonable for all firearms owners to be licensed as long as the license is shall issue if the person meets the requirements. But having an Illinois FOID card does not allow a seller to access the NICS database to perform a check on a potential buyer. NICS can only be accessed by the government or someone with a FFL which is the type of license I was referring to.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: