"What Scares Elitists? Civilians Own 70 Times More Guns Than U.S. Police and Military Combined"

A couple things. It's the police who refer to you and I as civilians, as if they are somehow not. It's police that for the last 20 years or so have pushed an us vs them attitude towards police work. I'm not saying I blame them, but as a liberal elitist, I heartily agree that police officers are civilians and part of the community and their jobs are done better and safer when that is the attitude and posture everyone adopts.

As for the government being scared of all those guns, you aren't really thinking it through. Most Americans who own guns don't have a desire to destroy the US government. And the US military doesn't rely on small arms entirely anyway, they have big arms.

I fail to see how pointing out that gun ownership is nothing but a massive commercial venture that uses the 2nd amendment to make it into something mythical makes a point here. If one person owns 20 guns, well they have only have 2 hands. So I'm not sure what makes you think those other 18 or 19 guns, depending on the type, matter much.

 

Of course there is! What are you talking about?

If you're just being disingenuous by trying to push some idiotic argument such as "the Constitution doesn't mention airplanes", ,please don't waste our time. It's doesn't mention AR15s either.

Ok. I see that you really are being disingenuous. This is not meant as some type of "gun reform" that will solve all gun-related problems. This has one purpose: stop the legal sale of weapons to suspected terrorists and psychopaths.

I had already clarified this to prevent dishonest posting. Not that it should need to be clarified to any poster who is honest and/or possesses an IQ over 80

 

Funny how right wingers condemn foreign government military assault on their citizenry but applaud when it happens in the USA:

 

You;d then agree there's no real reason to limit the number of guns a person can buy/own.
Correct?

 

You have no natural right to commandeer a seat on an airplane, a privately held asset. You have no natural right to drive a car on public roads unless you meet the safety requirements the public has put in place.

Trying to claim otherwise is just nonsense.

You *do* have a natural right to travel. But that natural right is dependent on you exercising the right yourself, i.e. using your own two feet or your own private property. When you are forced to put a burden on someone else in order to travel then it is no longer a natural right.

An airline can ban you from using them for travel and the government cannot legally interfere.

The Constitution *does* mention "arms". And an AR-15 *is* an arm. Trying to claim otherwise is nonsense.

 

Who cares that "Civilians Own 70 Times More Guns Than U.S. Police and Military Combined".

Not the LEO or the Military. Why? They have the jets, missiles, satellites, ray guns, Marvin the Martian, Jack Reacher, and me. Civilians don't stand a chance.

 

The only weapon better protected by the Constitution than the AR15 is the M16/M4.

 

What are you talking about? What does it mean that a law is "unenforceable". Of course it's enforceable!

That's insane!

Same way you enforce any felony law: people who are found guilty of violating it go to jail!


Federally licensed firearm dealers have a store front, operating from a fixed location, and a documented inventory of what firearms they have on hand that can be searched at any time by the ATF. Their wrongdoing can actually be found out.

So what? You actually think that if a weapon is used in a terrorist act the FBI won't figure out who the seller was? And do you really really believe that anybody is going to sell a firearm to a stranger not knowing if they're a psychopath who might use it to go out in a shooting spree? Just because they were too lazy to go online, or the the local library, to check the guy's background?

You really have no idea how society works, do you?

Because in Europe you can go from one country to another without even a passport. Amazing that you didn't know this!

What is this "point of no return" you speak of?

In the last 10 years (2007-2016) 379 people have died in mass murders in our country (rate increasing every year). If we could have stopped just 10%, that would have saved 38 lives.

Citing a law is not the same as citing the law that would prove the point you unsuccessfully tried to make (that what I am proposing has been tried before). Because it hasn't been tried, and there is no such law. It was proposed and defeated by Republicans (not exactly the same, but close enough). Thus proving my one and only point: Republicans have decided that it's Ok for Psychopaths and suspected terrorists to purchase guns.

End of story.

It doesn't "add" anything because it is the discussion. You obviously can't add anything to that discussion. So you're just wasting everybody's time.

Thanks for trying, though.

 

What a reasonable person knows is reasonable, others believe are encroachments to their right to be unreasonable. Got it!

 

That's hilarious. Because all I did was quote you verbatim. I didn't even make an attempt to interpret what you wrote (because it seemed so obvious to me). Funny part is that you interpreted exactly the way I (and anybody) would.

 

Your quote of what I said didn't prove anything that you claimed!

upside: "We already do this. It's called the justice system. Judges are either elected or are appointed by elected officials that can be held accountable."

golem: "Ok. So now you contradict yourself. (Before: "They should *not* be able to be abrogated based on the whim of a nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrat") In any case, my intention was to show that the argument was nonsense and irrelevant in this discussion. Here you made it easier for me."

Bureaucrats are hired, not elected or appointed by someone that is elected.

Like I said, your reading comprehension is atrocious. You see what you want to see, not what is written!

 

Was such claimed otherwise?

Which could not realistically be used in the united states to any degree of effectiveness. There is too much risk of collateral damage to the supposedly vulnerable infrastructure.

 

The original Militia Act had this provision: "That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."

In other words all musket were to be of a standard caliber. This was to lessen the logistical nightmare of resupplying the militia in the field. Today that would be a rifle of caliber 5.56mm, the same as the M16/M4 - which makes the AR-15 a perfect militia rifle!

 

AR15: Because the next revolution won't be fought with muskets

 

It will be fought with improvised explosive devices used to take down power substations, power transmission lines, bridges, and overpasses!

The military travels on its stomach and on its resupply even today. Disrupt that resupply and the military crumbles away. It might take a while but it *will* happen.

 

There is another story here- relevant but getting very low publicity. Since Trump was elected, gun sales have plunged. For many manufacturers, 15-25% drop in sales. This is all guns, however the AR market (what the spooks like to call assault weapons) are down more than others, and prices for them are at a 7-year low. I have a friend who owns a company doing specialized gun ceramic finishes on a commercial scale, and he tells me that several of his contracts are not being renewed for lack of sales. He is expecting to have to lay off help soon if something doesn't come up.

Why the drop? Lots of speculation. Might be because fewer people believe their own government is out of control and creating threats to their freedom. Some oddball thing like that.
When people feel the threat is lowered, it's OK to lighten the defense readiness.

So far, I haven't seen a squeak, let alone a headline saying "Gun sales drop as Trump is elected". But that is exactly when the slowdown came along. No anti-gun groups even acknowledging it let alone giving any credit to the connection with Trump. You can bet that if the level of gun sales had risen as much as it has fallen, the media would be plastered wall to wall with hate messages about it. Funny how that kind of people only see what they want to see. It's no wonder they are confused and unhappy.

 

Might be because we do not have a President that immediately demands more gun control -- like banning 'assault weapons' - every time enough people of the right skin color are killed in a shooting.

-Love- the low prices on ARs -- thanks Hillary!

 

There is a constitutional right to travel. However there is no constitutional right to travel by motor vehicle, be it by airplane or by car. You are free to walk wherever you wish, whenever you wish, but to operate a motor vehicle, or be provided transportation by one, it requires complying with government requirements for such a privilege to be legal to you. That is why government can compel an individual to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle on a public road, because it is a privilege provided to yourself at their mere whim.

And as it has been explained before, due process is required for such in order to be legal. One cannot simply be automatically reclassified as a prohibited individual in the manner in which you are proposing, as it is a violation of their constitutional rights. The sixth amendment states explicitly that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law. Trying to sidestep such a requirement in the manner being proposed would never pass constitutional muster. Either try them in court, or leave them alone.

 

Pray tell how does one go about actually enforcing such a requirement? How is it determined if it is not being complied with?

Again, pray tell how is the requirement enforced? How would authorities be able to actually determine if someone was refusing to comply with the requirement? What is the methodology that would be utilized?

It is not what is thought, rather it is what is known to be fact.

Is has already been documented as happening, even where background check requirements exist for private sales.

{QUOTE]Just because they were too lazy to go online, or the the local library, to check the guy's background?[/QUOTE]

None of which would reveal if an individual was included on the terrorist watch list, the no-fly list, or was accused of being a psychopath but had not been adjudicated as mentally defective.

It is indeed known how society works. And how it works is not pretty. Nothing but widespread criminality where individuals will sell their morals, and their souls, in the name of making a few extra dollars.

What relevance does the above have to do with the fact that the united states possesses more firearms than any other nation?

The saturation level of firearms in the united states. There are literally more firearms than individuals in the united states, and that number is growing by tens of thousands daily.

How many firearms are procured in a buy back operation? A few hundred? A thousand at the very best? This is all undone within the course of one hour. Nearly two thousand firearms are being purchased each hour in the united states. By this time tomorrow, at least forty one thousand more will have been purchased, and entered into private circulation and ownership.

The key word being IF. But mass shootings cannot be stopped, nor can they even be predicted. Every mass shooter in recent history has been able to purchase their firearms legally, because they possessed no disqualifying records of any sort. No suspicion of terrorist activity, no felony convictions, no mental adjudications, nothing whatsoever.

Show how the law cited for the state of California does not require a background check to be performed on all private firearm transactions.

Because it violates the basis of due process, and would never survive constitutional muster. It would be struck down, meaning there would be no point in even trying to pass it. Comparatively speaking, it would be no different than sticking your hand into an open fire, despite knowing full well that it will horribly injure you.

It is your interpretation of the story, and it is heavily flawed.

 

The left has tried everything they can think of to get guns away from citizens, and thank heavens they have failed. The left cannot make slaves out the the masses that own guns.

 

______
You just keep thinking that way.... If one or two own 20 guns that means those willing to fight without weapons are supplied.

 

Not necessarily. Since you all won't let anyone register or create a database for these guns, how are the unarmed willing to fight, and fight what I dare ask though I'm sure I know the answer, how is anyone suppose to know where they are? Am I supposed to go door to door and survey my neighbors to find the stash for when it's needed? Or should I just realize that taking up arms against some government threat is nothing more than a plot line from a bad first person shooter...?

 

The implication that guns are a protected consumer item because if the government does something one doesn't like, they can abolish it. That's the argument I've heard made many a time, hence my implication.

Collateral damage is entirely acceptable in war. And this idea that the government would play nice and into the hands of people with guns is silly. If someone is going to come kill a group of armed whatevers, they aren't going to put themselves at risk to save the cheap asphalt road nearby. If so, they are stupid.

 

The image from Kent State didn't go over too well from the start.

Antifa terrorist caught beating a police officer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Federal agent Jim Goldman (Assistant District Director, Investigations - Miami District INS) retrieves Elián from his relatives' home in Miami. This photo won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News.[19]

​

 

It is not the asphalt road that is at issue, but rather overpasses, electrical relay systems, and a number of other key features required to keep the infrastructure up and running.