Author Topic: Gun Control: US and Global II  (Read 21509 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 49,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,133
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #25 on: March 21, 2019, 19:10:22 »
Just a technical comment. The above provisions appear vague and uncertain insofar as when you are dealing with a detachable magazine, does the detachable magazine in excess of the limits have to be present with the rifle for the rifle to be illegal or does the mere existence somewhere in the world of such a magazine make the weapon illegal?

In Canada the magazine itself is regulated. Firearms are regulated specifically on the inherent characteristics of the firearm and not the characteristics of a magazine that might be attached to it. It's little things like this that keep lawyers employed. My guess is this law will be amended when there is time for reflection.

 :cheers:

Hi FJAG, read about that, apparently they didn't previously regulate the magazines. You could have the rifle with a small magazine, but as soon as you bought the larger magazine, the rifle was reclassified as an MSSA. Kind of dumb, and I think that's a loophole they are looking to close. Apparently they expected the person that had the previous A class license to reapply and get the E class license to have an MSSA if they wanted to buy an accessory that would change the category of the weapon system.  Kind of unmanageable, but guess it will become a moot point.

Offline Bread Guy

  • Bread Baker & Info Curator (still learning @ both)
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 455,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,958
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2019, 19:37:26 »
It's not based on logic, it's being seen to be "doing something"
:nod:
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2019, 20:04:51 »
Then again



 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 364,446
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,482
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #28 on: March 21, 2019, 20:13:32 »
Here's a question.

Ar15s have been around since the 60s. Magazine fed high capacity guns have been around from the 30s (Thompson).

It seems like in most mass shootings there's AR15s and pistols and such present but the amount of fatalities seem low (with upmost respect to the dead) considering the shooters are using these high capacity, high power, military grade, *buzz word* guns.

But now and then you get a shooting with the same kind of firearms with a considerably larger body count like in this shooting.

What, if anything, is the reason for that?  If it was the guns and magazines wouldn't we logically see more shootings with higher body counts? Is it a matter of most shooters giving up for lack of a better description more quickly? Someones pissed off at everyone at work and they want to go in and hurt them and once they hurt a few people the shock of the situation kicks in and it's over?

Does police reaction time place a crucial role?

The fact people are crammed in to close quarters where they can't escape?

Apparently this guy thought about the shooting and planned it for 2 years. I'm not sure what if any training he had (or picked up). Is the body count so high here because he was absolutely committed to what he was doing and (I'm guessing) remained relatively calm throughout?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 175,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,998
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #29 on: March 21, 2019, 23:03:18 »
I read something about this a few months back, but cannot remember the source.

The jist of it, IIRC, was that the 5.56mm round is not all that lethal (all things being equal). The article went on to explain that most mass shooters are not super methodical (thankfully)  and move on once a victim is down.

This guy in NZ seems to have been more than exceptionally motivated to cause as much death as possible.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2019, 23:59:24 »
I read something about this a few months back, but cannot remember the source.

The jist of it, IIRC, was that the 5.56mm round is not all that lethal (all things being equal). The article went on to explain that most mass shooters are not super methodical (thankfully)  and move on once a victim is down.

This guy in NZ seems to have been more than exceptionally motivated to cause as much death as possible.

There has been much debate on this subject for some time. Here's one paper that discusses the issue of the effectiveness/lethality of the 5.56 round during CQB and why there may be conflicting reports on the round.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a519801.pdf

Don't forget that the mil spec 5.56mm round is not identical to the .233 Remington round. See here for one article on the subject:

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/5-56-vs-223/

Note especially that while milspec 5.56 ammo is all solid core which depends on velocity and yaw to make its wound effects, civilian .233 ammo may also be softpoint which expands/fragments on contact.

In summary, without knowing all of the factors and conditions and the type of ammo used in any particular case it becomes difficult to explain one situation's differentiation from another.

This is getting to be a morbid subject.

 :not-again:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Bread Guy

  • Bread Baker & Info Curator (still learning @ both)
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 455,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,958
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #31 on: March 22, 2019, 06:21:43 »
Just splitting off the gun law debate because of its specificity and details to leave the "Analysis" thread for the broader political discussion.

Milnet.ca Staff
« Last Edit: March 22, 2019, 07:02:59 by milnews.ca »
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,560
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #32 on: March 24, 2019, 15:11:33 »
Much of the bulk commercial ball is built using the cheapest components they can get and still perform well. So it may not be optimized for terminal damage to the target, just to get there. 

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 364,446
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,482
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2019, 22:29:36 »
Essentially if you own a rifle or shotgun capable of holding more than 5 rounds turn it into the police.



It sounds like people are registering some pretty powerful weapons on the online forums including pocket nukes and plasma rifles lol
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline reveng

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 69,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,714
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2019, 23:14:59 »
No guns? No problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmxK_pBaG4E

Time to go back to basics, folks! Just do the basics really well.


Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #35 on: April 05, 2019, 16:59:26 »
By now we're all aware of US Cities who are refusing to cooperate with US Federal Immigration authorities when it comes to enforcing immigration laws creating so-called "Sanctuary Cities".

Currently there is a growing move amongst County Sheriffs to form "Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties" wherein they are going to refuse to give effect to their State Legislatures' gun control legislation. See here:

Quote
Hundreds Of Counties Vowed To Be ‘Second Amendment Sanctuaries’ Since Parkland
“As a law enforcement officer, I have discretion to use the laws that I want to. That’s my decision. I’m not going to enforce that particular law.”
04/05/2019 By Matt Vasilogambros

There are “sanctuary cities” that refuse to assist federal immigration enforcement. Now, there are “sanctuary counties” that refuse to enforce new gun control laws.

Rural, conservative communities are pushing back against state legislatures that have been approving new firearm restrictions at a rapid rate since the February 2018 massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida. More than 200 counties across nine states have vowed not to enforce new state measures that restrict gun access, and 132 have declared themselves to be Second Amendment “sanctuaries,” borrowing a term at the center of the immigration debate, according to a Stateline analysis.

For gun rights supporters, it’s a defiant rebuff to state leaders they believe are attacking their communities’ gun heritage and way of life. So far, county leaders have not translated their rhetoric into action by, for example, defying a “red-flag” court order to confiscate guns from a person deemed to be dangerous to himself or others. ...

See rest of article here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/counties-second-amendment-sanctuaries-parkland_b_5ca35e88e4b035e30b062801

There is a difference in the two concepts in that there is a constitutional division between States powers and Federal powers in the US and States do not have to opt into assisting the Federal authorities in their lawful duties while counties are the creatures of State governments and as such it's agents.

Interestingly enough, Chapter VI Article 3 of the US Constitution provides that:

Quote
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

All states amend this to include their several constitutions and other provisions as well.

Some states are dealing with the broad issue, such as Florida re "Sanctuary Cities".

Quote
Florida may send a big message to sanctuary cities
Elina Shirazi By Elina Shirazi | Fox News

MIAMI — Florida has one of the largest illegal immigrant populations in the country and its new governor wants to make sure they don't have protection from local authorities.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is pushing for a ban on sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Several bills making their way through the state legislature would effectively make it against the law for police departments to refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials. If a law enforcement official refuses, they could be fined or fired. ...

See rest here:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-may-send-a-big-message-to-sanctuary-cities

The police have historically had discretion in how to deal with perceived offences. Not every minor infraction needs to be dealt with a charge. Such discretion had, however, been roped in when circumstances indicated that enforcement was too lax or mores changed; such as in domestic dispute situations.

The question is, at what point does the willful disobedience of a county official against his/her elected representatives' laws (even if in line with the desires of the local community) does it move from mere civil disobedience to open revolt? At what point does it impair the overall respect for the rule of law?

 :worms:
« Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 18:14:09 by FJAG »
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7995.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 283,562
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,683
    • Army.ca
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #36 on: April 05, 2019, 18:10:22 »
I'll leave sancturary citites alone. There is not a single good thing about them I find right or acceptable.

In the same token, I wont really address gun sanctuary.

I will give an opinion though on gun control.

If it ever becomes a full court press, to remove all guns or force gun owners into laws like ours, there will be a civil war.

Canadians might roll over to political pressure and disarm, but Americans won't.

You can take that to the bank.

America was born in blood and they have very long memories. The vast majority believe that when the government says you don't need guns, that's exactly the time you'll need them.

The Afghans, for centuries, have turned back well equipped invaders, with guns that they hammered out of scrap metal, while sitting cross legged in the dirt. A perfectly functioning AK47 can be made from a square shovel. Black powder and gun cotton can be made in your garage with common chemicals. Lead can be had from old batteries. If Afghans can do it with rudimentary tools. An industrialized nation's citizens can turn them out by the thousands in basements and garages, if they wish.

As with everywhere, you can outlaw them, but you'll never get rid of them, nor will you ever stop their manufacture. Not by private citizens.

With the idea that government is breaking the law, by going against the 2nd Amendment, those people will ignore government and it's laws as illegitimate.

Just as both types of sanctuary cities are doing right now.

Just my  :2c:
« Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 18:14:13 by Fishbone Jones »
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline quadrapiper

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 396
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #37 on: April 05, 2019, 23:04:38 »
If it ever becomes a full court press, to remove all guns or force gun owners into laws like ours, there will be a civil war.
The delta between "civilian" and "military" armament has spread somewhat since their last nasty internal debate, and the facilities and expertise for producing purely military armament have grown more complex, and, I think, fewer. The only reason the militia movement, Bundy, and similar belligerent, well-armed (for civvies) individuals are still alive is that the US federal government has treated them as a kid-gloves law-enforcement problem, rather than as e.g. an armed insurgency.

I'm not sure "civil war" is a reasonable description for what would happen if the gloves ever properly came off.

Offline quadrapiper

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 396
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #38 on: April 05, 2019, 23:11:59 »
With the idea that government is breaking the law, by going against the 2nd Amendment, those people will ignore government and it's laws as illegitimate.
Noting that the founders were on occasion cryptic, there's that "well regulated militia" aspect: while that might very well even require the existence of some volunteer force of armed citizens, the current arrangement of massively armed individuals doesn't seem in accordance with the text.

A federal government could do any number of things within that interpretation and not consider itself in violation; perhaps even see it as upholding the full concept of that amendment.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #39 on: April 05, 2019, 23:34:11 »
The current state of the law re the Second Amendment comes from the USSC case of District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). It includes a provision at pp 54-56 which is summarized in the headnote as follows:

Quote
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7995.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 283,562
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,683
    • Army.ca
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #40 on: April 06, 2019, 00:08:30 »
I did not mean actually breaking the 2nd, but that'll be interpretation of owners. In their eyes the government would be wrong. It doesnt matter. You're bothing missing the point. It is not the legal interpretation that's in question. The 2nd will be argued back and forth. It will make no difference. Forget it. It's not part of the equation.

If they come for the guns legalities won't matter. People will not give up their freedom, 2nd amendment or not. And millions will see gun confiscation as the first step to the loss of that. 'Don't Tread on Me' isn't a cheap slogan down there. For millions in the US, it has deep meaning

Like I say, even if by some miracle of epic proportions, they do get them all, it would only be a very temporary situation. I would hazard a guess and say they would be built even while being confiscated.

And we're not talking a few crackpots like Bundy. The delta isnt as far apart as you think. An AK-47 is arguably one of the best assault rifles ever made. Read what I wrote above about making those. Heck, in a pinch an expediant smg can be made out of 2 feet of square or round tubing and basic hand tools in a few hours. Lots of stuff can be done with 3d printers and table top CNC mills which are everywhere. The programs are already out there with the knowledge and lots and lots that know how to use it. You can't confiscate everything.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2019, 00:30:12 by Fishbone Jones »
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #41 on: April 06, 2019, 01:17:08 »
I did not mean actually breaking the 2nd, but that'll be interpretation of owners. In their eyes the government would be wrong. It doesnt matter. You're bothing missing the point. It is not the legal interpretation that's in question. The 2nd will be argued back and forth. It will make no difference. Forget it. It's not part of the equation.

Actually FJ we're not missing the point at all. We get the point exactly and you are hitting the nail on the head. That's why I thought I'd throw out this topic to see what the wider aspect of these phenomena are. Is the US reaching a point where people will only obey those laws that they want to, and even more critical, will police forces enforce only those laws that they want to or think that their constituents want them to enforce?

Both of these issues (immigration and Second Amendment) are ones that are based largely (but not exclusively) on an urban/rural split. Considering that 2/3 of the US population favors some forms of gun control or stricter gun laws, its probable that the urban population of Atlanta favors it the same as their brothers in New York City while their respective state's rural communities are less disposed that way. That brings about an interesting problem for probably most states in how to balance the expectations of their respective urban/rural populations/voters.

I don't ever see any US state government wanting to "confiscate" all their citizens' firearms (that's just an NRA fairy tale scenario) so I doubt that there will ever be that mass uprising. There will, however, be continuing conflicts over such things as background checks, felon possession, open carries, protective orders, Sovereign Citizens etc., where case by case enforcement will be necessary. It's these more limited cases which will test the system.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 314,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,218
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #42 on: April 06, 2019, 01:57:29 »
I don't ever see any US state government wanting to "confiscate" all their citizens' firearms

Because every homesteader might need to mobilize at a 'Minute's Notice' to defend themselves against the rapacious legions of George III, right? ;)

It's comforting to know that Northern Ireland isn't the only part of the English speaking world that is lost in the 80s.... the 1780s....
“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 330,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,828
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #43 on: April 06, 2019, 08:40:42 »
The delta between "civilian" and "military" armament has spread somewhat since their last nasty internal debate, and the facilities and expertise for producing purely military armament have grown more complex, and, I think, fewer. The only reason the militia movement, Bundy, and similar belligerent, well-armed (for civvies) individuals are still alive is that the US federal government has treated them as a kid-gloves law-enforcement problem, rather than as e.g. an armed insurgency.

I'm not sure "civil war" is a reasonable description for what would happen if the gloves ever properly came off.

You’re wrong, and FJ is right.

Pushback against widespread gun confiscation would not be on the order of the sorts of armed insurgencies we see overseas where real belligerents number in maybe the tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions of Americans would actively resist efforts to confiscate firearms, and there would not be a clear division where the police and military play ball and the citizenry do not. Many police and military would have nothing to do with participating in gun confiscations and would be part of actively resisting.

Sending police or soldiers in to confiscate firearms on a wide scale would be committing many, many of them to their deaths. Every single home could potentially develop into an armed standoff. Normally police have the benefit in such cases of containment and minimal external threats, but you can bet that if widespread gun confiscation were attempted, guys on perimeter would sometimes find themselves attacked from outside the perimeter.

Some resistance would be organized; much more would be spontaneous and impromptu, and there are enough heavily armed and bat-crap crazy anti government types that the death toll would be huge. A lot of them are good shots. How many Waco standoffs - or for that matter Dallas shootings - are you ready for every single day? How willing are you to have the already strained relationship between police and the public totally shattered, and for no police to be available to do regular duties?

Widespread gun confiscation in the US is a total non-starter. The genie is way too out of the bottle.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2019, 09:44:05 by Brihard »
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 104,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,584
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #44 on: April 06, 2019, 11:36:43 »
>Is the US reaching a point where people will only obey those laws that they want to, and even more critical, will police forces enforce only those laws that they want to or think that their constituents want them to enforce?

Both problems already exist, there and here, just not highlighted by issues as incendiary as illegal immigration and firearm control.  People disobey (ignore) unjust laws (their perception), particularly laws that infringe on such fundamental rights as life/security, freedom of expression, property, and in general "pursuit of happiness".  Police are intelligent and discreet enough to avoid enforcing laws in places where it is unreasonable or impractical to do so.

These two sides of the coin have a long history; what is new is the publicity each incident receives, which stokes the fires of indignation among whoever objects (whether to a law, or the law's enforcement).
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,064
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #45 on: April 06, 2019, 12:10:29 »
>Is the US reaching a point where people will only obey those laws that they want to, and even more critical, will police forces enforce only those laws that they want to or think that their constituents want them to enforce?

....  Police are intelligent and discreet enough to avoid enforcing laws in places where it is unreasonable or impractical to do so.

...


Caledonia?

Funny that.  Caledonia is an alternate name for Scotland. And much of the US antipathy to standing armies and confiscation of weapons finds, in my opinion, its origins among Anglo-Scots Borderers, Huguenots and Palatines that were disarmed by their governments, violently suppressed by standing armies, often dragoons, used as police, and evicted from their lands. 

The exiles found themselves forced into foreign military service or into plantations amid hostile populations for the benefit of the governments that suppressed them.

It is suggested that people find themselves stuck in the past.  I suggest consideration of this from Colin P on his Facebook page.



My comment to him still stands.

"And we're still here."



"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7995.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 283,562
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,683
    • Army.ca
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #46 on: April 06, 2019, 12:17:15 »
Caledonia?
Funny that.  Caledonia is an alternate name for Scotland.

That Caledonia. I thought you may have been talking about the one in Ontario. People forcefully thrown off their legally acquired and paid for land for government expediency and to suppress rebellion.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,064
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #47 on: April 06, 2019, 13:16:30 »
I was.

It reminded me of the other Caledonia and its role in creating a 2nd Amendment culture.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 364,446
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,482
Re: Gun Control: US and Global II
« Reply #48 on: April 06, 2019, 13:32:25 »
Quote from: Brihard


Sending police or soldiers in to confiscate firearms on a wide scale would be committing many, many of them to their deaths. Every single home could potentially develop into an armed standoff. Normally police have the benefit in such cases of containment and minimal external threats, but you can bet that if widespread gun confiscation were attempted, guys on perimeter would sometimes find themselves attacked from outside the perimeter.

Some resistance would be organized; much more would be spontaneous and impromptu, and there are enough heavily armed and bat-crap crazy anti government types that the death toll would be huge. A lot of them are good shots. How many Waco standoffs - or for that matter Dallas shootings - are you ready for every single day? How willing are you to have the already strained relationship between police and the public totally shattered, and for no police to be available to do regular duties?


Great post.

I think it's important when looking at this issue to keep ego out of the equation.  One side thinks the police and military would roll up on American citizens and kick everyone's ***. The other side thinks these militia groups would send the law enforcement running with their tail between their legs.

The truth is exactly what Brihard says, the genie is way too out of the bottle. There's an estimated 400 million guns in the US, an estimated 120 guns per 100 people. A lot of them are willing to die for their right to own them. Law enforcement AND civilians would fill up body bags.

Another great point, when all the police are tied up in shootouts confiscating 400 million guns who's dealing with traffic accidents, stolen bikes, domestic assaults, Facebook threats? 
What happens when the military gets called in and a charismatic battalion commander says he didn't sign up to fight Americans, and his soldiers agree,then decide to support "the people"?

Widespread gun confiscation in the US is a total non-starter for sure.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 303,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,604
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/