Im just addressing the hypotheticals. I wouldnt be obliged to follow an illegal order. All I say to the rest of your post though is "1861". If I were alive during that era, i would have been in the Union in a heart beat (if they allowed me).imortal wrote:
Wow. How many people here see it as a fight with the rightous gun owners in one corner, and the military in the other when they face off? What about people in the military who ARE gun owners? What would the military do if they were told to illegally attack citizens in the US? What would you, as a soldier do, if you are given an illegal order. What would your commanders passing down the orders do?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
apparently you guys that think that gun owners could take out the government must also think the the iraqi insurgency has beaten us militarily.
What if the National Guard were called up, and told to fire into crowds that contian people they may actually know?
If things progressed to that point, what would become of the military? What would those people, or individual units do? Soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen. They are not automatons. They see and think. Personally, I think that units would experience mass desertions if it ever came to that point. Or entire units not following orders, or just standing down.
The fight is not gun owners against the goverment. That is too narrow of a view. Perhaps it comes down to situations. Just having the guns out in the public makes it too difficult to try to establish a police state because of the losses that they police or establishing agency would suffer, thus forcing the military to... back to the situation above.
To me, a move by the government to ban guns is a sign that the government no longer trusts the people. That it views the public as something to rule over instead of the body it gets it power from.
i have access to a rifle that is accurate out to 2500 yards.Gawwad wrote:
I'm pretty sure they'd defend such strategic locations as military airbases pretty well, don't you thinkParker wrote:
they gotta land sometime.
i also have access to a bunch of people with guns and pickup trucks.......im sure SOME diversion could be created long enough to put down some planes.
and thats not even including the TNT, black powder, fertilizer etc. that could be used to help.
how do you judge responsibility?imortal wrote:
I, first and formost, believe in RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. It is amazing how many people fail to see that word.
past actions.usmarine wrote:
how do you judge responsibility?imortal wrote:
I, first and formost, believe in RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. It is amazing how many people fail to see that word.
So if they never got caught they are deemed responsible?Parker wrote:
past actions.usmarine wrote:
how do you judge responsibility?imortal wrote:
I, first and formost, believe in RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. It is amazing how many people fail to see that word.
yep.usmarine wrote:
So if they never got caught they are deemed responsible?Parker wrote:
past actions.usmarine wrote:
how do you judge responsibility?
at least thats what the rules say now.
how do you judge irresponsibility? That question goes both ways...usmarine wrote:
how do you judge responsibility?
...and I stated before that a civil war would likely be a result. The situations today would not make the breaks as easy as last time, however.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Im just addressing the hypotheticals. I wouldnt be obliged to follow an illegal order. All I say to the rest of your post though is "1861". If I were alive during that era, i would have been in the Union in a heart beat (if they allowed me).imortal wrote:
Wow. How many people here see it as a fight with the rightous gun owners in one corner, and the military in the other when they face off? What about people in the military who ARE gun owners? What would the military do if they were told to illegally attack citizens in the US? What would you, as a soldier do, if you are given an illegal order. What would your commanders passing down the orders do?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
apparently you guys that think that gun owners could take out the government must also think the the iraqi insurgency has beaten us militarily.
What if the National Guard were called up, and told to fire into crowds that contian people they may actually know?
If things progressed to that point, what would become of the military? What would those people, or individual units do? Soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen. They are not automatons. They see and think. Personally, I think that units would experience mass desertions if it ever came to that point. Or entire units not following orders, or just standing down.
The fight is not gun owners against the goverment. That is too narrow of a view. Perhaps it comes down to situations. Just having the guns out in the public makes it too difficult to try to establish a police state because of the losses that they police or establishing agency would suffer, thus forcing the military to... back to the situation above.
To me, a move by the government to ban guns is a sign that the government no longer trusts the people. That it views the public as something to rule over instead of the body it gets it power from.
Oh, and I am not so sure on which side I would have chosen back then; the history is invariably written by the victor, and a lot of details have been muddied about the issues that cause the break.
I know it does. hence my point.SenorToenails wrote:
how do you judge irresponsibility? That question goes both ways...usmarine wrote:
how do you judge responsibility?
What point? I'm not trying to be dense here, but I really don't see what that was getting at.usmarine wrote:
I know it does. hence my point.
they should store their planes better in that case, we store them here in 'nuclear proof' bunkers, well at least they can take TNT for sure...Parker wrote:
i have access to a rifle that is accurate out to 2500 yards.Gawwad wrote:
I'm pretty sure they'd defend such strategic locations as military airbases pretty well, don't you thinkParker wrote:
they gotta land sometime.
i also have access to a bunch of people with guns and pickup trucks.......im sure SOME diversion could be created long enough to put down some planes.
and thats not even including the TNT, black powder, fertilizer etc. that could be used to help.
then you would need to shoot them down while taking off/landing...
But i dunno how well protected US bases in the USA are.
how can you judge who can be a responsible gun owner and who cannot? clearly gun dealers do not know.SenorToenails wrote:
What point? I'm not trying to be dense here, but I really don't see what that was getting at.usmarine wrote:
I know it does. hence my point.
Again parker, if it simply came to civilians vs. government/military as if it was two entirely different nations, I'm certain that the government would just carpet bomb every city. Good luck shooting down that.Parker wrote:
i have access to a rifle that is accurate out to 2500 yards.Gawwad wrote:
I'm pretty sure they'd defend such strategic locations as military airbases pretty well, don't you thinkParker wrote:
they gotta land sometime.
i also have access to a bunch of people with guns and pickup trucks.......im sure SOME diversion could be created long enough to put down some planes.
and thats not even including the TNT, black powder, fertilizer etc. that could be used to help.
At least several million tons of it. :-p^*AlphA*^ wrote:
they should store their planes better in that case, we store them here in 'nuclear proof' bunkers, well at least they can take TNT for sure...
Responsibility is the converse to Freedoms obverse. Like Power and Duty.usmarine wrote:
how do you judge responsibility?imortal wrote:
I, first and formost, believe in RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. It is amazing how many people fail to see that word.
Not responsibiity as in 'holding to blame.' I am talking about responsibility as a 'proper and wise use.' Yes, it is a moral judgement.
I am not being responsible if I go into my yard and fire rounds into the air indsescriminantly.
I am not being responsible if I leave my firearms out where my 4 year old son can play with them.
I am not being responsible if I use the presense of my gun to intimidate someone during an argument.
I am not being responsible if I use judgement altering substances while armed.
I am not being responsible if I fail to follow the 10 rules of firearm safety.
Does that clear it up for you?
That's why it is a right that can be lost, as opposed to a privilege that must be gained. It was done this way by design.usmarine wrote:
how can you judge who can be a responsible gun owner and who cannot? clearly gun dealers do not know.
oh, im sure its really locked down, and im sure they keep the planes in those bunkers....but there can only be so many people at one base.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
they should store their planes better in that case, we store them here in 'nuclear proof' bunkers, well at least they can take TNT for sure...Parker wrote:
i have access to a rifle that is accurate out to 2500 yards.Gawwad wrote:
I'm pretty sure they'd defend such strategic locations as military airbases pretty well, don't you think
i also have access to a bunch of people with guns and pickup trucks.......im sure SOME diversion could be created long enough to put down some planes.
and thats not even including the TNT, black powder, fertilizer etc. that could be used to help.
then you would need to shoot them down while taking off/landing...
But i dunno how well protected US bases in the USA are.
we have the ability, so there is no reason why we couldnt breach the defenses.
pipe bombs on any perimeter will make people move or die.
i mean, dont get me wrong, we would get our asses killed on a daily basis, but i dont think its impossible to accomplish.
unless america is one giant gun free zone... then u have to get guns from over seas... and thats alittle harder.IRONCHEF wrote:
The guns, they get on buses, they get on trains, they hitchhike..from Ohio, from Pennsylvania, from Kentucky..and they secretly enter DC and put themselves into the hands of innocent bad guys, and make the badguys shoot innocent people.
Duh, don't you understand? The Bradys have been telling us this for years!! The guns find ways into gun free zones! They must be stopped!!
does anyone else find it ironic that the most conservative, gun-loving people also have a strong disdain for the government?
and again, hurri, if they destroy everything, they wont have anything. they would have polluted smoking land, and a bunch of dead bodies to deal with.HurricaИe wrote:
Again parker, if it simply came to civilians vs. government/military as if it was two entirely different nations, I'm certain that the government would just carpet bomb every city. Good luck shooting down that.Parker wrote:
i have access to a rifle that is accurate out to 2500 yards.Gawwad wrote:
I'm pretty sure they'd defend such strategic locations as military airbases pretty well, don't you think
i also have access to a bunch of people with guns and pickup trucks.......im sure SOME diversion could be created long enough to put down some planes.
and thats not even including the TNT, black powder, fertilizer etc. that could be used to help.
Or Mexico. Obviously it's not hard to sneak across.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
unless america is one giant gun free zone... then u have to get guns from over seas... and thats alittle harder.
...unfortunately, it is difficult to judge that part. So, when the question arises of which way to judge or abridge, we must, as Americans, default on the side of freedoms. When in doubt, we still allow them to own a firearm.usmarine wrote:
how can you judge who can be a responsible gun owner and who cannot? clearly gun dealers do not know.SenorToenails wrote:
What point? I'm not trying to be dense here, but I really don't see what that was getting at.usmarine wrote:
I know it does. hence my point.
Because the entire point is to not allow the goverment to restrict us. The firearms dealers are businessmen who just want to make a sale. The problem lies in the culture. Why is firearm safety and marksmanship not taught in school? That is where I think it belongs.
well it should have to be gained IMO.SenorToenails wrote:
That's why it is a right that can be lost, as opposed to a privilege that must be gained. It was done this way by design.usmarine wrote:
how can you judge who can be a responsible gun owner and who cannot? clearly gun dealers do not know.
true... but i have never understood why america doesnt just put more security on its border (apart from wanting all the cheap labour from mexico)SenorToenails wrote:
Or Mexico. Obviously it's not hard to sneak across.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
unless america is one giant gun free zone... then u have to get guns from over seas... and thats alittle harder.
dope.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
true... but i have never understood why america doesnt just put more security on its border (apart from wanting all the cheap labour from mexico)SenorToenails wrote:
Or Mexico. Obviously it's not hard to sneak across.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
unless america is one giant gun free zone... then u have to get guns from over seas... and thats alittle harder.