[QUOTE=ilikecorn;49232378]Sorry to take so long to respond.
A lot of things are indeed not "too hard" but are more like "extremely unlikely to pass" or "extremely unlikely to be implemented to fullest extent"
Things are somewhat stupid when it comes to cooperation between the states themselves, and between states and the federal government, and between state and federal agencies. All of these things that look (on paper) like they should work perfectly together often times devolve into dick measuring contests and then things don't get done.
Add to this the fact that you'd have to implement some extremely severe changes to our medical privacy laws (if you wanted to add MH checks), and you'd have to implement changes in documentation policies across HUNDREDS of thousands of separate medical systems. It's a pretty hefty load you'd be pitching onto our healthcare system, and a lot of people wouldn't be cool with the government asking your doctor about your medical history. Again, it's not "too hard" its just "extremely unlikely to pass"[/QUOTE]
The largest problem with most of these is that they disproportionately affect law abiding, sane people over criminals. Most regulations literally only affect people who follow the law to begin with, they have no reach beyond that. They do nothing to keep the cheap disposable guns from entering circulation and do nothing to discourage people from private-selling to people they don't know.
[QUOTE=Apache249;49232382]Right, because all of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors wouldn't hesitate to slaughter their own family and friends at a moment's notice.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly the point.
To insinuate that the government could ever in any situation, regardless of gun ownership, become some tyrannical ruler that just wants to enslave every US citizen is a worrying sign of clinical dissociation.
That sort of "us vs them" mentality that people have with the government is so unhealthy and is what's rotting away at this country.
[QUOTE=Apache249;49232382]Right, because all of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors wouldn't hesitate to slaughter their own family and friends at a moment's notice.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure many wouldn't, but the power of authority is incredibly compelling, and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989"]it wouldn't be the first time a government has massacred its people[/URL]. Obviously we're a [I]long way[/I] off from that, but this entire scenario is assuming of course that the government has somehow become tyrannical enough for armed revolt to be [I]necessary,[/I] right?
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;49232369]Any links?[/QUOTE]
No links but apparently the fbi head said it during the press conference
[QUOTE=Apache249;49232382]Right, because all of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors wouldn't hesitate to slaughter their own family and friends at a moment's notice.[/QUOTE]
history has proven this to be the case
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49232401]That's exactly the point.
To insinuate that the government could ever in any situation, regardless of gun ownership, become some tyrannical ruler that just wants to enslave every US citizen is a worrying sign of clinical dissociation.
That sort of "us vs them" mentality that people have with the government is so unhealthy and is what's rotting away at this country.[/QUOTE]
People have an us vs them mentality with the federal government, not our armed forces.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49232343]The military has A-10s and drones and laser guided bombs and miniguns and hundreds of thousands of well trained and equipped soldiers.
There are reasons for the second amendment to exists, but "to stop a tyrannical government" is completely irrelevant at this point, the government can do anything they want and no amount of gun owners rising up against them would be able to do anything.
That argument is just being paranoid to an unhealthy degree.[/QUOTE]
This meme again. It's becoming the new "Why didn't they shoot him in the leg?" considering how much it gets spouted out.
Even assuming that 80% of the Armed forces don't defect in said scenario:
Occupation would require that there are soldiers, MPs, police, etc. on the ground. Tanks can't patrol street corners, drones can't kick in doors, that kind of idea. These are all things that need a human to do. That's where the rifle or handgun comes in. Sounds cooky, but in the event that the government is using tanks, A-10s (which will probably be out of service by the time this happens), all of those people would be more than valid targets by any militia/insurgency/etc. You don't need overwhelming force and tactical superiority to beat a force much, MUCH larger than yours. Goat herders with rusty AKs and SKSs and bombs made in a cave fought off the Soviet Union, and then, made the occupation by the US so unpopular in the eyes of the people that we decided to pull out. It's literal disinformation to try and it's impossible.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49232401]To insinuate that the government could ever in any situation, regardless of gun ownership, become some tyrannical ruler that just wants to enslave every US citizen is a worrying sign of clinical dissociation.
[/QUOTE]
No one is saying the scenario is likely. It's not. Whether that's because of guns or not, well, it's irrelevant. I don't think it's unreasonable to say having an armed populace would be enough to stave off any real dystopian stuff, but that's up to you.
What most people are saying is that the "tradeoffs" of having the right to bear arms are worth having a way to dispose of a tyrannical government. It allows people to defend themselves in a way that is reliable, available to you when you need it, and requires a smallish amount of training to get used to. It also guarantees that if the government somehow DOES get to that state, we have a way to to start the fight against it.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49232408]People have an us vs them mentality with the federal government, not our armed forces.[/QUOTE]
Which is a problem.
The government is trying to ensure that all its citizens can go to the hospital if they have medical problems: "Obummer is trying to take over the country!"
The government trying to make sure that all citizens can get married: "The jews are taking over and legalizing gay marriage to make our children weak!"
To insinuate that the government has some plot to enslave the people is like saying Bush did 9/11 or the moon landing was a hoax or Obama is a reptilian Kenyan Muslim.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49232401]That's exactly the point.
To insinuate that the government could ever in any situation, regardless of gun ownership, become some tyrannical ruler that just wants to enslave every US citizen is a worrying sign of clinical dissociation.
That sort of "us vs them" mentality that people have with the government is so unhealthy and is what's rotting away at this country.[/QUOTE]
it's happened before
you can't just throw out a random mental disorder and say a specific opinion is a sign of it like that either. I could say your post is a worrying sign of being retarded and it would be just as valid
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49232343]The military has A-10s and drones and laser guided bombs and miniguns and hundreds of thousands of well trained and equipped soldiers.
There are reasons for the second amendment to exists, but "to stop a tyrannical government" is completely irrelevant at this point, the government can do anything they want and no amount of gun owners rising up against them would be able to do anything.
That argument is just being paranoid to an unhealthy degree.[/QUOTE]
I never knew the national guard had that kind of hardware, seeing as how the US military can't be deployed within the US. And it's funny that you say the government "can do anything they want", because that's the type of situation that the people who wrote the constitution DIDN'T want to happen.
But seriously, thinking anything like confiscation or amending the second amendment would not result in a full blown civil war is delusional. There are plenty of well armed citizens out there who already have a large distrust in the government. It's like throwing a stick of dynomite into a fire and expecting it not to explode.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49232408]People have an us vs them mentality with the federal government, not our armed forces.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, like I said there's a huge overlap between military and gun owners. They'd probably be the first to revolt.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49232404]I'm sure many wouldn't, but the power of authority is incredibly compelling, and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989"]it wouldn't be the first time a government has massacred its people[/URL]. Obviously we're a [I]long way[/I] off from that, but this entire scenario is assuming of course that the government has somehow become tyrannical enough for armed revolt to be [I]necessary,[/I] right?[/QUOTE]
The culture of the US is so vastly different in it's current state that'd it be hard to believe in a similar event occuring in this country i m o.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49232414]Which is a problem.[/QUOTE]
That's your opinion. The right to own firearms is an important one because it means the federal government has not yet decided it's a threat to the way they want to run the country. If that changes, it's an indicator that worse is coming.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;49232405]No links but apparently the fbi head said it during the press conference[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.wptz.com/national/urgent-california-redlands-police-activity/36765586[/url]
I did find this, but doesn't say anything that can connect it to this.
Why is mental health always brought up every time a gun debate is started? Yeah, mentally unstable people getting their hands on guns is a problem, but I'm ready to wager (without looking up statistics) that they're involved in a relatively small percentage of gun crime. The bigger problem is probably criminals just being criminals, and also normal people who happen to have access to guns snapping and shooting someone on impulse. Mental health does need more attention, but solving that problem is not the panacea for gun crime that it's often touted to be.
[QUOTE=butre;49232371]the government back then had warships and cannons but we managed to fuck the brits up pretty good with our little muskets[/QUOTE]
*And French support that gave us warships, cannons, muskets, and soldiers.
[QUOTE=KillRay;49232397]i dunno. in a time where the military is all unmanned, completely, requiring no human interaction i could see this
but im pretty sure it would take a lot to convince the entire US military and all it's individually minded units to turn their guns upon their home country without cause[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this. People forget that we too have our own opinions and beliefs. The Federal Government would never realistically be able to turn the US Military on the civilian populace.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49232428]Why is mental health always brought up every time a gun debate is started? Yeah, mentally unstable people getting their hands on guns is a problem, but I'm ready to wager (without looking up statistics) that they're involved in a relatively small percentage of gun crime. The bigger problem is probably criminals just being criminals, and also normal people who happen to have access to guns snapping and shooting someone on impulse. Mental health does need more attention, but solving that problem is not the panacea for gun crime that it's often touted to be.[/QUOTE]
Mental health goes deeper than crazy or not crazy. Many shooters exhibited signs of sociopathy/psychopathy or even just that they were near the breaking point from stress/bullying/whatever that should have been noticed and treated but weren't because we have next to no mental health care system.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49232428]Why is mental health always brought up every time a gun debate is started? Yeah, mentally unstable people getting their hands on guns is a problem, but I'm ready to wager (without looking up statistics) that they're involved in a relatively small percentage of gun crime. The bigger problem is probably criminals just being criminals, and also normal people who happen to have access to guns snapping and shooting someone on impulse. Mental health does need more attention, but solving that problem is not the panacea for gun crime that it's often touted to be.[/QUOTE]
Because some states with hold mental health information in the name of privacy when it comes to weapons background checks. If they didn't, that information could get to the government and they could deny more potential gunmen. I believe this is the reason why Adam Lanza in Conneticutt couldn't legally purchase a gun and stole his mothers, who had legally purchased guns.
[QUOTE=Apache249;49232382]Right, because all of the soldiers, Marines, airmen, and sailors wouldn't hesitate to slaughter their own family and friends at a moment's notice.[/QUOTE]
Which is why that's a hell of a lot better anti-tyranny measure than the second amendment is right now.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;49232442]If the U.S. was having a revolt, you can bet someone, somewhere would fund the "rebels"[/QUOTE]
Which is great, but then you have a bunch of inexperienced and under-equipped 'rebels' rather than having a local militia force ready to go in the event of, well, anything. This of course can be good or bad but the American people have time and time again agreed that it's better to have and not need than need and not have.
[QUOTE=axelord157;49232429]*And French support that gave us warships, cannons, muskets, and soldiers.[/QUOTE]
Who's to say we couldn't get foreign (or even domestic) support today?
[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;49232425][url]http://www.wptz.com/national/urgent-california-redlands-police-activity/36765586[/url]
I did find this, but doesn't say anything that can connect it to this.[/QUOTE]
Uhh
[Quote]Authorities are serving a search warrant that is linked to the mass shooting in San Bernardino, according to Carl Baker, spokesman for the Redlands Police Department.[/quote]
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49232414]Which is a problem.
The government is trying to ensure that all its citizens can go to the hospital if they have medical problems: "Obummer is trying to take over the country!"
The government trying to make sure that all citizens can get married: "The jews are taking over and legalizing gay marriage to make our children weak!"
To insinuate that the government has some plot to enslave the people is like saying Bush did 9/11 or the moon landing was a hoax or Obama is a reptilian Kenyan Muslim.[/QUOTE]
Jesus Christ. These are two things that I support wholeheartedly but it's disgusting to know people like you are on my side, trying to misrepresent anyone who disagrees with what you have to say is incredibly telling about your mindset. It's just showing that you have a need to feel superior to anyone who has the audacity to see things differently than you.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;49232454]Uhh[/QUOTE]
Brainfart, I mean nothing shooting or shit like that connected
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;49232404]I'm sure many wouldn't, but the power of authority is incredibly compelling, and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989"]it wouldn't be the first time a government has massacred its people[/URL]. Obviously we're a [I]long way[/I] off from that, but this entire scenario is assuming of course that the government has somehow become tyrannical enough for armed revolt to be [I]necessary,[/I] right?[/QUOTE]
You'd be a fool to entertain the idea that in this day and age U.S. service-members would turn on their own countrymen, there would have to be some sort of dystopian orwellian future for that to be possible.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;49232458]Jesus Christ. These are two things that I support wholeheartedly but it's disgusting to know people like you are on my side, trying to misrepresent anyone who disagrees with what you have to say is incredibly telling about your mindset. It's just showing that you have a need to feel superior to anyone who has the audacity to see things differently than you.[/QUOTE]
I don't think calling people who say the government is planning to enslave the American people detached from reality is misrepresenting.
According to the Reddit Live link they've both circled a house and began raiding an apartment.
Probably the same building just terminology errors.
[QUOTE=evilweazel;49232458]Jesus Christ. These are two things that I support wholeheartedly but it's disgusting to know people like you are on my side, trying to misrepresent anyone who disagrees with what you have to say is incredibly telling about your mindset. It's just showing that you have a need to feel superior to anyone who has the audacity to see things differently than you.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? He's not trying to interpret somebodies point, he's trying to make his own.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;49232436]Mental health goes deeper than crazy or not crazy. Many shooters exhibited signs of sociopathy/psychopathy or even just that they were near the breaking point from stress/bullying/whatever that should have been noticed and treated but weren't because we have next to no mental health care system.[/QUOTE]
I found a [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/"]review article[/url] that says that most gun crime, and indeed violent crime in general, is not linked to any form of mental illness.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;49232440]Because some states with hold mental health information in the name of privacy when it comes to weapons background checks. If they didn't, that information could get to the government and they could deny more potential gunmen. I believe this is the reason why Adam Lanza in Conneticutt couldn't legally purchase a gun and stole his mothers, who had legally purchased guns.[/QUOTE]
You missed my point. My point is that mental health is not as big of an issue when it comes to gun crime in the first place.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
