United States & Gun Control discussion.

Downtown “Funky Stuff” Malone🍆 said:
To think that our already over reaching, corrupt political class wouldn’t/couldn’t start to erode our rights when we give up the one that protects the rights we have is absurd. All in the name of what they think is best for us?

Complacency Is a killer.
Click to expand...
Can you explain what you mean when you say that the right to bear arms protects the rest of the constitution? I know what you mean in theory, but what about practice?

What realistic scenario would be a trigger for you to take up arms agains the American government?

Complacency does kill. But I don’t have an asteroid shelter- that’s not me being complacent about an asteroid strike, that’s me being reasonable about the likelihood of that event happening and living my life accordingly.

I guess I’d ask the same question to you-do you think, in the context of today’s environment, that the 2nd amendment could ever be repealed and that the government would actually try to disarm American citizens? If yes, why?
 
just a thought....can you imagine if the federal government did repeal the 2nd admendment...I could envision some states legalizing firearms by state law....kinda like the marijuana thing.
 
Kraut783 said:
just a thought....can you imagine if the federal government did repeal the 2nd admendment...I could envision some states legalizing firearms by state law....kinda like the marijuana thing.
Click to expand...
I agree with that; I won't pretend to be super smart on that sort of thing, but that's the beauty of states rights.
 
amlove21 said:
@ThunderHorse - is it a logical, real possibility (for you) that the government of the United States of America can/will disarm 300 million Americans?

If yes; do you also believe that militias of American citizens will need to overthrow that government?

What do you feel the likelihood of that event would be? Say, ‘very likely’? Or ‘not likely, but possible’?
Click to expand...

As we get more and more divided I have no clue. I would see the current Armed forces recalling troops to post and locking down. Not a coup, but I don't think you could mobilize a division today to deploy and attack Americans.

This is not the Whiskey Rebellion or Nullification Crisis or 1861.

But I'd say not likely, but possible.
 
amlove21 said:
Can you explain what you mean when you say that the right to bear arms protects the rest of the constitution? I know what you mean in theory, but what about practice?

What realistic scenario would be a trigger for you to take up arms agains the American government?

Complacency does kill. But I don’t have an asteroid shelter- that’s not me being complacent about an asteroid strike, that’s me being reasonable about the likelihood of that event happening and living my life accordingly.

I guess I’d ask the same question to you-do you think, in the context of today’s environment, that the 2nd amendment could ever be repealed and that the government would actually try to disarm American citizens? If yes, why?
Click to expand...

A civilian buddy of mine, knowing of my military career, asked me this question yesterday;

Would you or any of your fellow soldiers ever follow orders to confiscate guns from citizens or would we take up arms against or fight American citizens? Interesting...how would you respond to this?
 
ThunderHorse said:
As we get more and more divided I have no clue. I would see the current Armed forces recalling troops to post and locking down. Not a coup, but I don't think you could mobilize a division today to deploy and attack Americans.

This is not the Whiskey Rebellion or Nullification Crisis or 1861.

But I'd say not likely, but possible.
Click to expand...
Ok, that's fair. I just can't get to a place where I can reasonably believe it's a viable concern today.

I don't think that there is any sort of scenario that would lead to the federal government mandating the repeal of the 2nd, then directing the Armed Forces to disarm Americans under (presumably) the threat of imprisonment or death, and then militias of Americans organizing to fight the government. I would actually be way more apt to hear an argument of something like, "Americans should be able to own whatever guns they want so that, in the event of a sovereign power invading American soil, every citizen can mount a response and protect our way of life."

When the 2nd was written, however, tyrannical rule and the need for well-ordered militias were primary concerns for our young nation.
 
Topkick said:
A civilian buddy of mine, knowing of my military career, asked me this question yesterday;

Would you or any of your fellow soldiers ever follow orders to confiscate guns from citizens or would we take up arms against or fight American citizens? Interesting...how would you respond to this?
Click to expand...
Crap, Top... I don't know.

If we just fast forward to the decision point for thought experiment's sake (passing all the things leading up to the actual question)... I don't think I would be able to use military force against other American citizens here in America.

That being said, I don't know what my actual response would be. I assume I would have plenty of company, but when I came up with my firm, "I'm not following that order" I assume I would be spending some time in a detention facility.

Or a firing squad, depending on what kind of crazy post-apocalyptic scenario we are talking about.
 
NavyBuyer said:
Luckily I don't think it will ever come to this. But, if the law changed, 99% of the military would follow orders. We are still a country of laws after all.
Click to expand...
I think this specific topic is so hard to keep in reality just by it's nature- but I don't know if 99% of the military would be cool with getting into firefights in their hometowns. I would like to think we find a way to avoid that sort of thing, at all costs.

Look at the board here, and this discussion. The overwhelming theme has been, "resisting a tyrannical government at all costs, even if it means fighting". I think a government telling the military to disarm Americans feels pretty "tyrannical" and wouldn't be met with 99% compliance.
 
NavyBuyer said:
Luckily I don't think it will ever come to this. But, if the law changed, 99% of the military would follow orders. We are still a country of laws after all.
Click to expand...

I think a majority might follow orders for self survival, but I am not sure about 99 percent. To me, it defeats the purpose of serving to defend the people of the country and our way of life.
 
Should I still be in and the Fed Gov had ordered me and my men to take up arms against citizens, I'd be with @amlove21 in that stockade. I'm with Top- defense of the people and their way of life is what's being served, not the orders of those over me.

This would represent a major disconnect between the people of the US and it's government that I would want no part of in making worse.

$.02
 
amlove21 said:
Ok, that's fair. I just can't get to a place where I can reasonably believe it's a viable concern today.

I don't think that there is any sort of scenario that would lead to the federal government mandating the repeal of the 2nd, then directing the Armed Forces to disarm Americans under (presumably) the threat of imprisonment or death, and then militias of Americans organizing to fight the government. I would actually be way more apt to hear an argument of something like, "Americans should be able to own whatever guns they want so that, in the event of a sovereign power invading American soil, every citizen can mount a response and protect our way of life."

When the 2nd was written, however, tyrannical rule and the need for well-ordered militias were primary concerns for our young nation.
Click to expand...
No matter what people may think, there will forever be a need for the people of the US to remain armed.
 
amlove21 said:
I am firmly on the side of ‘don’t tell me what I can and can’t buy’. Now, when people start folding their tin foil hats, saying the government could become tyrannical and enslave the people so they need armor piercing rounds meant to defeat body armor that our police officers wear, silencers, bump stocks to make their weapons fully automatic, NVGs... there has to be some line where we can at least have the conversation. When you put yourself in the camp of ‘don’t restrict it at all, as a matter of fact, I want less restriction than we have neow’, you’re forced to accept certain 2nd and 3rd order effects.

I would certainly like to restrict the ability of terror cells to train and equip themselves better than the federal agencies meant to prevent them from doing so. I’m pretty sure the founders didn’t have the vision to foresee American citizens purchasing assault weapons legally with the intent to commit the mass murder of other Americans; but that’s the world we live in now.
Click to expand...

I think my best response for the above is something I typed a while ago.
United States & Gun Control discussion.
 
99% was a figure of speech. I'm willing to bet however that it would still be in the 90% though. There are a lot of tough guys behind a keyboard, too. I don't mean that as a shot at any one particular person on here, only that until you get put into a situation like that you never know how you will react. Two weeks ago those four deputies in Florida who say by outside during the shooting all probably have a different story they would say about being involved in an active shooter situation.
 

Similar threads

Devildoc
House discussing citizen-only voting bill...
Replies
19
Views
381
The Quartermaster
The Quartermaster
Marauder06
1911 Questions--Barrel and Slide Swap
Replies
14
Views
768
Diamondback 2/2
Diamondback 2/2
R.Caerbannog
Distortion of History
2
Replies
32
Views
567
R.Caerbannog
R.Caerbannog
Dame
F Around and Find Out
Replies
2
Views
477
Chopstick
Chopstick
AWP
Computer Help
Replies
4
Views
90
RackMaster
RackMaster
Back
Top