[jr2]

Your words.  Get them out of my mouth.  I said "Depending on the circumstances"... I DID NOT SAY whenever the heck I feel like it, and you are claiming that a search of a US citizen by his/her government, without a warrant, isn't oppression and tyranny?  I don't suppose you would be among the crowd that feels we are committing heineous crimes against humanity when we interrogate a poor Islamic fanatic who just wants to wipe Israel and America off the face of the Earth?  (Notice said fanatic is an enemy combatant, not a law-abiding citizen of the United States!)

Your phrasing, "depending on the circumstances", just seemed a little ambiguous given the subject matter. While I would agree that a government that sanctions search-and-seizures or arbitrary imprisonment without warrant does qualify as tyranny, it's still a long way from prompting the citizenry into an armed insurgency against the government. By that time, it's too late, silly. We're talking about a nation that holds itself as a pillar of freedom, democracy and all that nice stuff, and yet the threat of horrible oppression remains strong enough to warrant an armed population? Come again?!  Without the right to bear arms, what's to stop them?  Power-hungry people stop at nothing.  Little 'accidents' take care of those who would stand against them, and when they gain power, they abuse it.  Given enough time, it would happen.  You think that such people don't exist?  That they would not do anything to gain and keep their power?

The second half of your response here is off-topic, and has no bearing on this discussion.  Except that, if it is true (that you think this way), then you are illogical.

personal insults... compensating, are we?

Not an insult, just a vain attempt at humour (see the appropriate Family Guy eppy for the reference). Although if you choose to take it as such, I can't be held accountable.  OK, well, you do need to realize that not 100% of people that post on the Internet watch Family Guy.  And even if they have seen some episodes, or parts of episodes, (like I have), they might not have watched the same ones you have.  That seemed like a childish insult... and I still don't know what to make of it.

You are a disgrace. OK, that's over the top.  But you get my sentiment.  American patriotism in the face of internal and or external tyranny will never be outdated for the forseeable future.  And, just a note, we will probably be stuck hauling the rest of the world out of their messes for the forseeable future, too.

Ignoring the United States' supposed charge of "hauling the rest of the world out of their messes" for a moment, let's stay on the issue here: You are claiming that the US population needs to remain armed to offset tyranny and oppression from foreign and domestic evils. Yes. By holding this to be accurate, you are claiming that the US Government is liable to oppress its citizenry in the future, It is quite possible, yes.  There are laws in place to protect freedom, but tyrants do not abide by laws. and that the US military is incapable of defending the nation from an international threat. Soldiers are citizens, and most are patriots, I think.  Maybe in your country they hire mercenaries?  (Ha-ha, there's a little bit of humor for you.)  You seem like a reasonably nationalistic lad, so would you care to rephrase your answer?

And I am not saying that each individual American is a law unto themselves, so don't even start.  When the government arbitrarily sets aside the very laws set to up to govern its interactions with its people, then that government is abusing its power.

I never argued to the contrary. There can be no doubt that a government that violates its duty is guilty of abusing the power bestowed upon it by the people. What I am arguing is that the threat of this occurring within the US is not nearly enough to warrant dissemination of arms amongst the population.  And you would suggest, in the event of an in-flight emergency, that overhead compartments would release arms to the citizens???  I said it before, it's a little too late then.  In short, it's just plain asinine to use the threat of 'oppression from the government' as a reason for people to keep their guns.  Only if you have complete faith in your government.  Your government will supply all your need.  While you are screaming on the phone for help, I'm on the phone, and helping myself / my family... or risking my neck to help you.    Although someone did post about using old computer keyboards in self-defence earlier.  *shrugs* If you wanna try that, it's fine by me.  Oh, and if your government turns on you, it's all over.  Who are you gonna call?  1-800-HLP-ME-US? If our government were ever foolish enough to turn on us, it would soon turn again.. like I mentioned before, our soldiers are citizens.

I don't suppose you would be among the crowd that feels we are committing heineous crimes against humanity when we interrogate a poor Islamic fanatic who just wants to wipe Israel and America off the face of the Earth?  (Notice said fanatic is an enemy combatant, not a law-abiding citizen of the United States!)

As terrible as this may sound, there are moments when I think that somethnig like that wouldn't be such a bad thing for the world...

You are right, that does sound terrible.  Name one reason that the US didn't conquer the world in 1945.  I'm waiting.

And, just a note, we will probably be stuck hauling the rest of the world out of their messes for the forseeable future, too.

Selling weapons to all sides of a conflict and inciting them is a going to GUARANTEE that you do...  Hmm.  And I thought it was French, German, and Russian weapons we were finding in Iraq...

As terrible as this may sound, there are moments when I think that somethnig like that wouldn't be such a bad thing for the world...

I kind of agree...

That does it.

* jr2 reaches for sodium chloride

[Snail]

I'd like some salt on my fries.

[jr2]

But instead I'll pour it on your head!

[Snail]

And? What happens?

[jr2]

* Snail shrivels up and melts.

[Snail]

Why? I don't get it.

I never get jokes.

[TrashMan]

Without the right to bear arms, what's to stop them?  Power-hungry people stop at nothing.  Little 'accidents' take care of those who would stand against them, and when they gain power, they abuse it.  Given enough time, it would happen.  You think that such people don't exist?  That they would not do anything to gain and keep their power?

Aren't you americans free-loving people? Don't your soldiers pledge themselves to the people? If the people would revolt, do you really think your own soldiers would move against you? Do you really think and goverment like that would get the support it needs?

You are right, that does sound terrible.  Name one reason that the US didn't conquer the world in 1945.  I'm waiting.

You weren't crazy enough to try somethings as stupid like that?

Selling weapons to all sides of a conflict and inciting them is a going to GUARANTEE that you do...

Hmm.  And I thought it was French, German, and Russian weapons we were finding in Iraq...

I was refering to weapons sold to Isreal, Palestina, Siria and the rest of the world...

[Snail]

You are right, that does sound terrible.  Name one reason that the US didn't conquer the world in 1945.  I'm waiting.

More war? Hooray! God bless America!

[Mefustae]

Blah

It's actually really hard to get a bearing on where you're coming from. On one hand, you display the mannerisms and beliefs of a stalwart right-wing ****cock, and yet at the same time you display staggering distrust of the government of a whiny left-wing armchair-scholar. Curious, indeed.

Anyway, to be succinct: Governments don't change overnight, they change over a period of years. Moreso, any shift towards "oppression and tyranny" could only occur with the support of the citizenry, so no amount of firearms is going to make a lick of difference when anyone who would use them has either fled the country or openly supports the new regime. But that's neither here nor there, since such an idea is baseless and absurd to begin with.

The argument of firearms acting as "protection" from government oppression is outdated and just plain flimsy at best. There are better arguments out there, and I suggest you use them rather than trying to fall back on anti-government rhetoric and convoluted reasoning. Seriously man, you're starting to sound like some sort of conspiracy nutter.

[Mika]

I think I'll also participate in here to comment one thing, namely that the human kind is evolved enough so there is no need to carry guns around. That's the kind of things they said in 1930s, also in here. And what did we find, our dear neighbor is coming back "home" by force. In the aftermaths, one of the reasons this place didn't succumb to a Warsaw pact nation was exactly the civil disobedience when people were supposed to disarm but instead of doing that they hid the weapons. When this was discovered, it is said to have influenced the decision makers in Kreml enough to leave us alone - for a moment at least.

I see the problem in US is not actually the guns, but the intolerance between different ethnic groups and different people. I think that is the root of Virginia shootings also. However, I do agree that some sort of legal background tracking system and lessons about using the weapon are needed to make an effective deterrent. But Americans can carry guns for all I care. They have done so in the past and did manage along quite well. Why not now? And regarding democracy, I find it more democratic that you can carry guns whenever the hell you want. In general, there should be nothing to fear from a guy who is carrying a gun, especially visibly.

Besides, here you actually have an American (jr2) who is actually questioning the wisdom of the government and seems to be ready to topple it if necessary. Now the only thing needed is a mandatory military service for US. That will surely make the general population think if the war is really worth it. I actually would also recommend the military service to all Europeans also. The equivalent for that would be a year exchange trip to the Svalbard archipelago (If anyone wondered, both of them require person to learn the use of a gun but for different reasons). But I really have to stop before I start babbling about the stupidity of banning the land mines and all the related stuff.

Mika

[jr2]

Well, I suppose a clarification is in order:  I am not a conspiracy nut.  And, I don't think that if all guns were banned in the US, we'd have tyranny overnight... it'd probably catch my children or grandchildren (if I ever get married and have any ).  Also, if a policeman/woman showed up at my door without a warrant and asked me if they could have a look around, I'd be like "Hey sure, no probs - how can I help". 

I was referring to police forcing their way in, which in current circumstances, is unimaginable.  If they bust open the door and say they have a warrant, I'll take their word for it and let them do whatever they want.  I was more referring to a hypothetical situation where 10 or 15 years after a steady grabbing of power by corrupt ppl (hard to imagine, yes, but I think possible if they covered up sufficiently) and searches / seizures without warrant became the norm. 

No police officer in the US is going to go searching a house without a warrant.  It's stupid.. you'll end up either getting your pants sued off and loosing your job (likely) or shot (less likely, but still possible).  Most law-abiding citizens will be glad to assist an officer of the law.  (Me included.)  I was being extremely hypothetical in my response to Mefustae.  When I wrote that the 2nd amendment was to prevent illegal search and/or seizure, I meant that it is a long-term deterrent from the government ever getting any ideas. 

I thought Mefustae was referring to a situation where I was being targeted by an illegal search / seizure, but somehow inferred that such was the norm for the situation he was referring to.  I suppose you meant a one-time incident, Mefustae?  In that case, I would sue the pants off of them... and they wouldn't find anything, anyways, besides downloads of stuff I already own...

I think I'll also participate in here to comment one thing, namely that the human kind is evolved enough so there is no need to carry guns around. That's the kind of things they said in 1930s, also in here. And what did we find, our dear neighbor is coming back "home" by force. In the aftermaths, one of the reasons this place didn't succumb to a Warsaw pact nation was exactly the civil disobedience when people were supposed to disarm but instead of doing that they hid the weapons. When this was discovered, it is said to have influenced the decision makers in Kreml enough to leave us alone - for a moment at least.

Good points

I see the problem in US is not actually the guns, but the intolerance between different ethnic groups and different people. I think that is the root of Virginia shootings also. Hmm... and ignoring the warning signs displayed in the people before they commit these crimes...  However, I do agree that some sort of legal background tracking system and lessons about using the weapon are needed to make an effective deterrent. Sounds good to me... you need a license to drive a car  But Americans can carry guns for all I care. They have done so in the past and did manage along quite well. Why not now? Yeah... I don't get it.  Oh, right, I forgot... according to the others, the US is the root of all evil.  Should've left them to the Axis and then nuked them 10 yrs later when they tried to take us over.  (being sarcastic... and besides, Nuke would've loved it.  And regarding democracy, I find it more democratic that you can carry guns whenever the hell you want. In general, there should be nothing to fear from a guy who is carrying a gun, especially visibly.
Exactly

Besides, here you actually have an American (jr2) who is actually questioning the wisdom of the government and seems to be ready to topple it if necessary. Only if said government has become twisted and is flagrantly violating my rights.    Now the only thing needed is a mandatory military service for US. That will surely make the general population think if the war is really worth it. Umm, huh?  I'm not against mandatory military service, with exemptions for ppl who have religious issues (I don't, but some do).  I wasn't suggesting we overthrow the government we have now.  I was referring to if things ever got that bad.  Mefustae, rly, tell someone else they have a small weiner, and feed them your lofty attitude (if you don't have one, I'm sorry, it appeared to me that you did... although that seemed to change in your response to my long response)... you obviously got me pretty ticked, I appear to have made ppl think I am a revolutionary.  I actually would also recommend the military service to all Europeans also. Ooo, yeah... then maybe they'd make some sense when referring to certain situations, at least hopefully.  The equivalent for that would be a year exchange trip to the Svalbard archipelago (If anyone wondered, both of them require person to learn the use of a gun but for different reasons). But I really have to stop before I start babbling about the stupidity of banning the land mines and all the related stuff.  Uh, whatever...

Mika

Without the right to bear arms, what's to stop them?  Power-hungry people stop at nothing.  Little 'accidents' take care of those who would stand against them, and when they gain power, they abuse it.  Given enough time, it would happen.  You think that such people don't exist?  That they would not do anything to gain and keep their power?

Aren't you americans free-loving people? Don't your soldiers pledge themselves to the people? Yeah, to the constitution ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic...

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

If the people would revolt, do you really think your own soldiers would move against you? Do you really think and goverment like that would get the support it needs?  Didn't I already address this?  Yes, I did.  See my previous answer.

You are right, that does sound terrible.  Name one reason that the US didn't conquer the world in 1945.  I'm waiting.

You weren't crazy enough to try somethings as stupid like that?   Because we didn't want to.  Period.  We certainly had the capability, if we were that type of nation.  The nuclear club at that time consisted of one member.

Selling weapons to all sides of a conflict and inciting them is a going to GUARANTEE that you do...

Hmm.  And I thought it was French, German, and Russian weapons we were finding in Iraq...

I was refering to weapons sold to Isreal, Palestina, Siria and the rest of the world...  Israel is the only democratic bastion of freedom in the Middle East.  Go to Israel, and express that you are of the opinion that the Israeli government is stupid, and are all butchers.  Say that you hate their God, and that He is bloodthirsty and evil.  Now, go to any neighboring country (surprise, you can!! you are still alive and free).  Say that the government is a bloodthirsty bunch of terrorists, and that Allah is an evil god of destruction.  Now go to the nex-- oh, I'm sorry, you can't... you are dead or being tortured in prison, depending on your luck and which country you picked.

So, I have no problems with us selling weapons to Israel, whose neighbors have all expressed in their native languages to their people that they wish to take Israel off the face of the map, and have for the most part said so (and sometimes attempted it) since Israel became a nation.  Now, I am not aware that we sold weapons to Palestine and Syria... unless you mean indirectly through humanitarian aide, or arms that were supposedly for their police forces to keep law and order (yeah, right... whichever one of us believed that needs their head examined and a transfer to secretarial work!)  Do you know of a good source that says different?

You are right, that does sound terrible.  Name one reason that the US didn't conquer the world in 1945.  I'm waiting.

More war? Hooray! God bless America!

What?  You obviously didn't read all of what I've posted, or you don't understand it.

* jr2 puts on steel toed boots and taps them threateningly

* Snail retreats into his titanium reinforced shell and sniggers

[TrashMan]

Aren't you americans free-loving people? Don't your soldiers pledge themselves to the people? Yeah, to the constitution ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic...

You're saying your own soldier would consider the populace the enemy???

If the people would revolt, do you really think your own soldiers would move against you? Do you really think and goverment like that would get the support it needs?  Didn't I already address this?  Yes, I did.  See my previous answer.

So you truly belive your friends in the military would turn against you? Against their own people? How many soldiers in the US have friends, or various (extended) family members that are civilians? If the people are to revolt, you they would move against htem?
Your lack of faith in your fellow man, in the people that are supposed to protect you ...is disturbing.

You weren't crazy enough to try somethings as stupid like that?   Because we didn't want to.  Period.  We certainly had the capability, if we were that type of nation.  The nuclear club at that time consisted of one member.

And you really think you could have? How naive!
If you tried something like that the whole world would unite against you and chrush you.. You didn't have nearly enough nukes to conquer the whole world back then, and even if you had it would still be hte end of the US..what would happen if every muinority in the US revolted? If ALL armies in the world headed to US? If Canada and Mexico invaded you? Would you use nukes on your own soil?

Israel is the only democratic bastion of freedom in the Middle East.  Go to Israel, and express that you are of the opinion that the Israeli government is stupid, and are all butchers.  Say that you hate their God, and that He is bloodthirsty and evil.  Now, go to any neighboring country (surprise, you can!! you are still alive and free).  Say that the government is a bloodthirsty bunch of terrorists, and that Allah is an evil god of destruction.  Now go to the nex-- oh, I'm sorry, you can't... you are dead or being tortured in prison, depending on your luck and which country you picked.

Bastion od freedom and democracy.. ...right.. Gotta watch out for those buldozers...
I'd probably dissaper and never be heard off again...

So, I have no problems with us selling weapons to Israel, whose neighbors have all expressed in their native languages to their people that they wish to take Israel off the face of the map, and have for the most part said so (and sometimes attempted it) since Israel became a nation.  Now, I am not aware that we sold weapons to Palestine and Syria... unless you mean indirectly through humanitarian aide, or arms that were supposedly for their police forces to keep law and order (yeah, right... whichever one of us believed that needs their head examined and a transfer to secretarial work!)  Do you know of a good source that says different?[/color]

Don't you read newspapers?

[jr2]

@TrashMan:  Somehow you have turned what I meant on its head.  I meant, that in defense of the Constitution, the soldier would protect the populace.

[TrashMan]

So what's the problem then? If you are certain that your soldiers would protect you even from your own government, why guns?

[Mars]

The funny thing about that was after the guy had killed himself, armed cops and SWAT teams were still showing up.


Americans are friggin stupid.

a. I understand the sentiment, however if Americans are all that stupid why do you care that 37 of them ate it exactly?

b. The second largest school shooting in Columbine High School, here in Colorado, was commited by two people; our officers are generally trained to assume that there's more than one person in these cases.

I don't suppose you would be among the crowd that feels we are committing heineous crimes against humanity when we interrogate a poor Islamic fanatic who just wants to wipe Israel and America off the face of the Earth?  (Notice said fanatic is an enemy combatant, not a law-abiding citizen of the United States!)

As terrible as this may sound, there are moments when I think that somethnig like that wouldn't be such a bad thing for the world...

And this makes you better than them how? Behind every stupid country there are many innocent people. Take North Korea for example. Granted they're all brainwashed, but I think you'll agree that the world couldn't just nuke them all; it's not their fault. And yet this is the treatment you suggest for aproximently 5% of the worlds population.

[TrashMan]

This makes me far, far better than them...I'm not actually doing anything, nor activly hating anyone.

[karajorma]

Passive hate is still hate though.

Your defence is simply that you're better cause you're lazy.

[TrashMan]

Nope..no real hate here...only temporary aggrivation whenever the said countries do something stupid. .. unfortunately, this happens quite often.

Oh, and I do not advocate the destruction of the coutries in the literal sense (kill populace)...but somethimes I wouldn't mind at all if they fell apart by themselves

[Mika]

A couple of things, I believe I read about a survey in US Army Corps in which there were questions like: In which situations would you be ready to engage your own people? Or like: What would be the prequisite for you to use lethal / non-lethal force against your own people? Well I didn't serve in US and I actually have never visited US so don't ask me about the authenticity of that survey. But I suppose there are certain situations where army can be called to assist the civilian officials.

I see the weapon stuff in US has gone through quite an evolution, first it was to form any kind of army. Second when the gun was considered a self defense and also a necessity (Wild(?) West). I see that it is because of the structural change in society during the criminal waves when the guns became a symbol of outlaws, while normal people moving to sub-urbs found out they have no need for gun. Now, the fire weapon has a negative taint in it because of the criminality or because of the role in Virginia tech shootings. And people are buying (or are guided to buy) guns for self-defense. But a constitutional right is a constitutional right. And if a majority of people don't want to change the constitution there is pretty much nothing that can be done. Besides you can also face a possibile of mutiny of army. It is good that the civilians have also some guns in reserve if things start to go really bad.

Oh jr2, I never thought you would be a conspiracy nut. But saying certain things might help to gain respect in the eyes of Europeans, yes no? Besides, I would advice to take a good look in the doings of your current administration now. Certain recent laws are quite strange indeed. Not necessarily alarming, but still strange (this is not to say that our own recent laws would be flawless, far from it if you ask me). Now if we could get a US support for making us an exception in the land mine treaty... bah, but I suppose it will not happen due to the some really stupid and wanton usage of them in some other places of the globe. And talk about EU and Amnesty pressuring us to give them up here! They should be sued of criminal negligence, is all I can say! Why did I brought it up here? Because I see a strange parallel between US guns and the land mine treaty, which is international - but here we don't get US support. But I'm interested to see where this discussion heads next.

Mika

[TrashMan]

Missuse of power? Hell, we can write a whole library of big fat tomes about that.