[nonhuman]

Probably the most bare-bones argument in favor of guns, at least under the framework of the US Constitution, is that an armed populace provides the final check against government power. Gun control proponents always counter that, given the capabilities of a modern military, that is no longer a valid argument.

I invite those people to take a look at the recent and ongoing events in the Middle East, in particular Libya. In Libya, Qaddafi employed helicopter gunships and snipers against his own people to surpress the rebellion. He failed. Those same rebels are managing to put up quite a fight, even going so far as to seize military stores and improvise new weapons platforms (such as the ubiquitously pictured rocket launchers mounted in the backs of Toyota pickups).

Superior weaponry does not always mean success. The Libyan rebels have not yet achieved their goals, but they have demonstrated, clearly, that they are willing and able to put up a fight even against a (relatively) modern military.

I would posit that this is pretty incontrovertible evidence that the 2nd amendment is still valid, and that the right to bear arms does represent our last-ditch safeguard of our liberties. The aid those rebels have received from international forces (regardless of whether or not the US is acting legitimately in our role there) further justifies this. And I would always hope that the nature of our government and military is such that US soldiers would be more hesitant to fire on their fellow citizens than the soldiers of a deranged dictator such as Qaddafi.

[The Final Dakar]

Isn't Libya getting a healthy dose of NATO intervention to help even the playing field?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Isn't Libya getting a healthy dose of NATO intervention to help even the playing field?

Is that relevant? If there was a rebellion within the US that the international community viewed as legitimate, don't you think they would help us as well? Further, the international community tends only to get involved after the rebellion/movement has proved itself both serious and legitimate. This usually means they have to be able to at least put up a fight. A disarmed populace is less likely to get the recognition of the international community.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Isn't Libya getting a healthy dose of NATO intervention to help even the playing field?

And wasn't the supposed impending "massacre" of civilians in Benghazi by the Libyan military used as a justification for the NATO intervention? The United States is literally flooded with literally millions of guns in the hands of civilians. I find it truly odd with this obsession that some of our good friends on the right have with the Second Amendment when it is not in jeopardy by any stretch of the imagination. And for the OP to use the Libyan example as a counter to gun-control arguments is strange to say the least since even Stevie Wonder can see that it proves the relative ineffectiveness of civilian arms against a modern military.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Is that relevant? If there was a rebellion within the US that the international community viewed as legitimate, don't you think they would help us as well? Further, the international community tends only to get involved after the rebellion/movement has proved itself both serious and legitimate. This usually means they have to be able to at least put up a fight. A disarmed populace is less likely to get the recognition of the international community.

Of course it's relevant. When militaries fought with swords then a civilian population armed with swords had some semblance of a chance. The same when militaries had muskets and the civilian population had muskets. The difference wasn't one of firepower but one of training. But today when a modern military has tanks and gunships and machine guns and missiles and rocket-propelled grenades ... there's a very distinct difference in firepower between that and a handgun or even a semi-automatic rifle.

This really should be as obvious as the sun rising in the east.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Is that relevant?

If it's the difference between having a chance and being massacred, then yes, I would say it's hugely relevant.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

If there was a rebellion within the US that the international community viewed as legitimate, don't you think they would help us as well?

That's a big if, so I'll throw one out too. If the US reaches a point where it's willing to violently quell an uprising from its citizens, what's to stop it from warning off international intervention with the threat of nuclear reprisal?

I have to think it's much easier decision to chip in when you've got the US military on your side, rather than opposing you.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Further, the international community tends only to get involved after the rebellion/movement has proved itself both serious and legitimate. This usually means they have to be able to at least put up a fight. A disarmed populace is less likely to get the recognition of the international community.

I can agree with that.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The United States is literally flooded with literally millions of guns in the hands of civilians.

Try hundreds of millions of guns, owned by many tens of millions of citizens. I read somewhere recently that about 80 -90 million Americans own approximately 250 million weapons.

I find it truly odd with this obsession that some of our good friends on the right have with the Second Amendment when it is not in jeopardy by any stretch of the imagination.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to what Hillary Clinton and President Obama have been pushing under the radar; the approval and ratification of a U. N. Arms control treaty which would ban all private gun ownership in all U. N. member countries. I'm not saying that's going to happen overnight, as many in both houses are gun friendly, and most states now have some type of concealed carry, or even open carry, laws, and private gun ownership is at all time highs, but that doesn't mean they're going to give up,

And for the OP to use the Libyan example as a counter to gun-control arguments is strange to say the least since even Stevie Wonder can see that it proves the relative ineffectiveness of civilian arms against a modern military.

OAW

If they come for my guns, they'll have to take them out of my cold, dead hands, and you can take that to the bank. The U. S. has somewhere around a couple of million armed forces, including law enforcement. I would suspect they'd have a hard time arresting 350 million people.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And wasn't the supposed impending "massacre" of civilians in Benghazi by the Libyan military used as a justification for the NATO intervention? The United States is literally flooded with literally millions of guns in the hands of civilians. I find it truly odd with this obsession that some of our good friends on the right have with the Second Amendment when it is not in jeopardy by any stretch of the imagination. And for the OP to use the Libyan example as a counter to gun-control arguments is strange to say the least since even Stevie Wonder can see that it proves the relative ineffectiveness of civilian arms against a modern military.

OAW

Yes, and the Libyan rebellion is still going on. We have definitive proof that an untrained, lesser-armed populace is capable of waging a war of rebellion against a better-armed, better-trained military force.

That is my one and only point here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Of course it's relevant. When militaries fought with swords then a civilian population armed with swords had some semblance of a chance. The same when militaries had muskets and the civilian population had muskets. The difference wasn't one of firepower but one of training. But today when a modern military has tanks and gunships and machine guns and missiles and rocket-propelled grenades ... there's a very distinct difference in firepower between that and a handgun or even a semi-automatic rifle.

This really should be as obvious as the sun rising in the east.

And yet you got your asses handed to you by a bunch of civilians in Mogadishu not so long back.
Obvious, no?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

If they come for my guns, they'll have to take them out of my cold, dead hands, and you can take that to the bank. The U. S. has somewhere around a couple of million armed forces, including law enforcement. I would suspect they'd have a hard time arresting 350 million people.

Damned right. They can have mine when I'm out of bullets, and that's a f**k-ton of ammo. My sheriff has seen my gun safes and ammo bins, he said there's no way in hell he'd ever consider entering my home or sending in deputies, without an invite.

To me, there will always be a protected right to own firearms, and I don't give a damn what any politician has to say about it. If they want to start a war over it, I'm fine with that.

[Big Mac]

I love the spirit of this thread.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Damned right. They can have mine when I'm out of bullets, and that's a f**k-ton of ammo. My sheriff has seen my gun safes and ammo bins, he said there's no way in hell he'd ever consider entering my home or sending in deputies, without an invite.

To me, there will always be a protected right to own firearms, and I don't give a damn what any politician has to say about it. If they want to start a war over it, I'm fine with that.

So is any government agency even talking about trying to "take your guns"? Let alone actually doing it? And I'm not directing this towards you personally just ... in general to the Second Amendment crowd. It seems like a whole lot of anger and paranoia over a non-existent threat to me. Sort of like all this silly anti-Sharia Law legislation being passed in state legislatures controlled by conservatives lately.

OAW

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So is any government agency even talking about trying to "take your guns"? Let alone actually doing it? And I'm not directing this towards you personally just ... in general to the Second Amendment crowd. It seems like a whole lot of anger and paranoia over a non-existent threat to me. Sort of like all this silly anti-Sharia Law legislation being passed in state legislatures controlled by conservatives lately.

OAW

Exactly. Remember after Obama took office, when there was an Ammo shortage because everyone assumed that Obama would immediately crack down on Ammo sales, so there was a run on Ammo? The Obama administration is not interested in taking away anyone's guns., but it seems the gun lobby gets more popular whenever they can generate a boogeyman to fear.

I'll go a step further and state that the Democratic party will never really push hard on gun control on the Federal level. Their base may want it, but whenever Democrats get a majority, they don't get it by running Left, they get it by running to the Center, and getting Blue Dogs elected in conservative-leaning areas. So, even when Democrats get a majority, they will never be a majority that supports hard gun control.

So, stop being so paranoid! If things ever get so bad that we need an armed rebellion, go for it. Until then, please shut up about it, because you're not helping.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So is any government agency even talking about trying to "take your guns"? Let alone actually doing it? And I'm not directing this towards you personally just ... in general to the Second Amendment crowd. It seems like a whole lot of anger and paranoia over a non-existent threat to me. Sort of like all this silly anti-Sharia Law legislation being passed in state legislatures controlled by conservatives lately.

OAW

Yes.

My city government has done so successfully since the mid 80s. That was overturned by the SCOTUS, and the goverment's response was an insistence they can rewrite the law to get it back to exactly where it was.

Just to be clear, I personally think it's reasonable for large cities to regulate easily concealable weapons.

Something I'm less okay with is that as a resident of Illinois, I have to register with the State Police to exercise my constitutional right to defend my home.


Edit: I almost forgot. Our AG wanted to publically release a list of all the people who have registered. ****ing nice.

[subego]

More OT, I think the thread's premise has been shown to be true many times a day, every day, since 2003.

[OAW]

Subego,

I'd be interested in a link describing what you are talking about. Specifically, local legislation where the government was confiscating existing firearms .... not legislation regulating the purchase of firearms.

OAW

[subego]

Confiscate? How's about throw your ass in jail.

It was illegal to possess a handgun in the city for more than two decades unless it was registered before the ban. Full stop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

That's the decision which overturned it.


Edit: I'm pretty sure it was the same in D.C. before Heller.

[nonhuman]

While it's technically legal to own a gun in DC, it is currently impossible to legally buy one. In the time-honored tradition of obeyed the letter, but not the spirit, of laws you disagree with, our wonderful city government saw fit to license one and only one gun shop in the entire District of Columbia. That one gun shop is currently closed, and has been for a while, for some reason or another. Until they open again, it is impossible to buy a gun in this city. In order to bring in a gun purchased elsewhere (such as neighboring Virginia or Maryland, you have to go through that same, single, licensed shop in order to register your gun(s) here.

Fun, eh?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

Confiscate? How's about throw your ass in jail.

It was illegal to possess a handgun in the city for more than two decades unless it was registered before the ban. Full stop.

McDonald v. Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's the decision which overturned it.


Edit: I'm pretty sure it was the same in D.C. before Heller.

You may want to fix your link in your post. You have an extra period in there. I took a look at that article. Sounds like the Chicago legislation was going way too far. Personally I'm pretty center-right when it comes to gun control legislation. I'm against laws that ban handguns, shotguns, or rifles on an outright or de facto basis. I support laws that require background checks to prevent felons and mentally disturbed people from purchasing weapons. I think registration laws are pretty pointless. I support laws that ban the sale and possession of high capacity magazine clips. You really can't convince me that someone needs a 30 round clip to go hunting Bambi. And if you are hunting Bambi with a semi-automatic rifle well then that's a "bitch ass" move in and of itself. Man the hell up and use a single-shot or better yet a bow and arrow! I think a few 10-15 round magazine clips would enable someone to defend their home or business quite nicely ... while preventing nutcases like Jared Loughner from mowing down dozens of people in seconds with a 30 round magazine clip. I'm against civilians owning machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, etc. I'm against open carry laws ... outside of hunting or wilderness areas. That simply has no place in urban environments ... this isn't the Wild West. I'm pretty ambivalent about conceal carry laws though I'd say I lean against it outside of direct threat or stalker type situations. I do support people being able to keep a weapon in their vehicle though. But anyway ... I digress.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

So is any government agency even talking about trying to "take your guns"? Let alone actually doing it? And I'm not directing this towards you personally just ... in general to the Second Amendment crowd. It seems like a whole lot of anger and paranoia over a non-existent threat to me. Sort of like all this silly anti-Sharia Law legislation being passed in state legislatures controlled by conservatives lately.

OAW

I guess you missed this earlier:

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You obviously haven't been paying attention to what Hillary Clinton and President Obama have been pushing under the radar; the approval and ratification of a U. N. Arms control treaty which would ban all private gun ownership in all U. N. member countries. I'm not saying that's going to happen overnight, as many in both houses are gun friendly, and most states now have some type of concealed carry, or even open carry, laws, and private gun ownership is at all time highs, but that doesn't mean they're going to give up,

I'm not angry or paranoid. I'm just saying that no government agency is going to take my guns, regardless of what laws they choose to pass. I won't budge on this.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You obviously haven't been paying attention to what Hillary Clinton and President Obama have been pushing under the radar; the approval and ratification of a U. N. Arms control treaty which would ban all private gun ownership in all U. N. member countries. I'm not saying that's going to happen overnight, as many in both houses are gun friendly, and most states now have some type of concealed carry, or even open carry, laws, and private gun ownership is at all time highs, but that doesn't mean they're going to give up

You're not talking about this, are you? I don't think it means what you think it means..

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I guess you missed this earlier:

Originally Posted by OldManMac

You obviously haven't been paying attention to what Hillary Clinton and President Obama have been pushing under the radar; the approval and ratification of a U. N. Arms control treaty which would ban all private gun ownership in all U. N. member countries. I'm not saying that's going to happen overnight, as many in both houses are gun friendly, and most states now have some type of concealed carry, or even open carry, laws, and private gun ownership is at all time highs, but that doesn't mean they're going to give up,

I'm not angry or paranoid. I'm just saying that no government agency is going to take my guns, regardless of what laws they choose to pass. I won't budge on this.

I'll let OldManMac confirm this or not .... but as I read his post it was dripping with sarcasm. There is a treaty being discussed at the UN regarding small arms. However, it is seeking to curtail the illegal international trade in small arms. Each UN member nation is allowed to regular the domestic trade in small arms according to its own laws. A provision insisted upon by .... you guessed it .... Sec. Hillary Clinton. You guys are really getting your panties all up in a wad to the point that it's impeding your ability to utilize simple common sense on this issue. Again ... the US alone is flooded with hundreds of millions of firearms in the hands of its civilian population. The government attempting to confiscate all those weapons would be a colossal undertaking with absolutely no chance of success whatsoever. And on top of that it's not even being discussed. I tell you when you give the right-wing blogosphere a rope those guys want to be a cowboy! So prone to taking a little bit of information and running off the deep end with it.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'll let OldManMac confirm this or not .... but as I read his post it was dripping with sarcasm. There is a treaty being discussed at the UN regarding small arms. However, it is seeking to curtail the illegal international trade in small arms. Each UN member nation is allowed to regular the domestic trade in small arms according to its own laws. A provision insisted upon by .... you guessed it .... Sec. Hillary Clinton. You guys are really getting your panties all up in a wad to the point that it's impeding your ability to utilize simple common sense on this issue. Again ... the US alone is flooded with hundreds of millions of firearms in the hands of its civilian population. The government attempting to confiscate all those weapons would be a colossal undertaking with absolutely no chance of success whatsoever. And on top of that it's not even being discussed. I tell you when you give the right-wing blogosphere a rope those guys want to be a cowboy! So prone to taking a little bit of information and running off the deep end with it.

OAW

I was just saying they will not infringe on my right to keep and bare arms. You decided to tell me that I was "angry", and that the issue "impedes my common sense". You're being a dick. No wonder I almost never post in the PL any longer.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'll let OldManMac confirm this or not .... but as I read his post it was dripping with sarcasm. There is a treaty being discussed at the UN regarding small arms. However, it is seeking to curtail the illegal international trade in small arms. Each UN member nation is allowed to regular the domestic trade in small arms according to its own laws. A provision insisted upon by .... you guessed it .... Sec. Hillary Clinton. You guys are really getting your panties all up in a wad to the point that it's impeding your ability to utilize simple common sense on this issue. Again ... the US alone is flooded with hundreds of millions of firearms in the hands of its civilian population. The government attempting to confiscate all those weapons would be a colossal undertaking with absolutely no chance of success whatsoever. And on top of that it's not even being discussed. I tell you when you give the right-wing blogosphere a rope those guys want to be a cowboy! So prone to taking a little bit of information and running off the deep end with it.

OAW

I was not being sarcastic, and I'd like to see where Hillary Clinton agreed to let member nations regulate their own trade; she is as anti-gun as one can be, as is President Obama! As I also said, the chances of it happening are slim, as there are so many guns and gun owners in America. In the current political climate, however, where millions of gullible people are voting in shysters who have no interest in helping the people who voted them in, but rather helping themselves to a bigger piece of the pie, it's not a stretch to say that almost anything can happen.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You may want to fix your link in your post.

Whoops! Thanks! I was trying to scrape off the Wiki Mobile crust and missed a gribblie.

As to the rest, we're pretty much par except for the large clips.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And yet you got your asses handed to you by a bunch of civilians in Mogadishu not so long back.
Obvious, no?

Not obvious. Had the rules of engagement not prohibited application of enough manpower and force, there would have been few American casualties, and Mogadishu would probably now feature a large bare space where buildings had been. Poor pre-planning was a major problem there, but there were plenty of assets available to "take care" of the thousands of pseudo-civilians and hundreds of armed militiamen surrounding a couple dozen Americans in the middle of a congested urban street.

Poor analogy, Doofy. Considering that the example of Kadafhi (is there really an English spelling for his name?) being used explicitly excludes the possibility of "rules of engagement" by the military forces involved.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Hillary Clinton ... is as anti-gun as one can be, as is President Obama!

I disagree with this statement. Although Hillary has made some "think-of-the-children" style comments in the past about gun control, I hardly consider her "as anti-gun as one can be". Still, if she were President, you'd have cause for worry: but I don't think this President is going there. If you search Google for Gun Control, all you see are "hit pieces" (pun intended) canning Obama the most anti-gun President in History based on what he might do in the future. His voting record as a legislator supports some gun control positions, but as President, Obama simply won't go there, because he knows he needs the support of conservative Democrats who own guns.

OK, so I did the Google search to confirm, and it came up with this fresh news article:
[http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...-control-push]

So, here is a new rule instituted by the BATF which is opposed by the NRA. Does that make Obama the most anti-gun President in history?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Not obvious. Had the rules of engagement not prohibited application of enough manpower and force, there would have been few American casualties, and Mogadishu would probably now feature a large bare space where buildings had been. Poor pre-planning was a major problem there, but there were plenty of assets available to "take care" of the thousands of pseudo-civilians and hundreds of armed militiamen surrounding a couple dozen Americans in the middle of a congested urban street.

Poor analogy, Doofy.

Not really.
If your troops are the heroes everyone says they are, then their having to fight their own countrymen would generate internal rules of engagement.
If they're not (and would turn on you at the command of some useless politician), then you've got no business supporting them.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Gun control proponents always counter that, given the capabilities of a modern military, that is no longer a valid argument.

They lack an understanding of the situation I'd say. Perhaps they never took a history class.

[BadKosh]

So the UN gun ban would make it impossible to buy guns not made in the US? How many billions did that UN study cost?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Not obvious. Had the rules of engagement not prohibited application of enough manpower and force, there would have been few American casualties, and Mogadishu would probably now feature a large bare space where buildings had been. Poor pre-planning was a major problem there, but there were plenty of assets available to "take care" of the thousands of pseudo-civilians and hundreds of armed militiamen surrounding a couple dozen Americans in the middle of a congested urban street.

Poor analogy, Doofy. Considering that the example of Kadafhi (is there really an English spelling for his name?) being used explicitly excludes the possibility of "rules of engagement" by the military forces involved.

Don't you have RoE because there are parts of what you engage that are worth saving? If there's nothing worth saving (i.e. no RoE) why in God's blazes are you fighting for it?

OTOH, @Doofy, it should be mentioned that in Mogadishu, the Army made two massive mistakes. They assumed their Blackhawks were invulnerable to what weapons were available (which was true up to that point), and they had a man down before the first shot was fired.

I should also mention as far as the Army considers things, Mogadishu didn't turn out that bad. Almost everyone who went out got back. Those who didn't (with the exception of one) were killed instantly, which means there was only one wounded person they failed to evac. The two special forces guys who went down knowingly volunteered for a suicide mission.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

OTOH, @Doofy, it should be mentioned that in Mogadishu, the Army made two massive mistakes. They assumed their Blackhawks were invulnerable to what weapons were available

In the absence of further evidence, we should also assume this to be the case in any armed conflict involving your military.
(Who're currently being held up by a bunch of blokes in beards and Toyota pickups).

Originally Posted by subego 

I should also mention as far as the Army considers things, Mogadishu didn't turn out that bad.

Yes, it's a lovely place. No problems there at all.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I was just saying they will not infringe on my right to keep and bare arms. You decided to tell me that I was "angry", and that the issue "impedes my common sense". You're being a dick. No wonder I almost never post in the PL any longer.

No you were NOT just saying that. If you were you would have simply made that statement and left it at that. What you ACTUALLY DID was quote OldManMac's post and co-signed on it. And since this is a debate forum after all .... I simply rebutted that assertion. So if that makes me a "dick" in your opinion then fine ... whatever.

You know on second thought ... since black guys are supposed to be packing in the "dick" department ... how about I be an even bigger one?

I stand by my comment that you guys are getting all worked up over a non-existent "threat" to your right to keep and bear arms. First of all there is this ....

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty," although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement and the treaty has never been ruled unconstitutional.

Reid v. Covert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now the last time I checked the Second Amendment was still part of the US Constitution. So NO TREATY, with the UN or otherwise, is able to "ban all private gun ownership" in the United States. Period. Dot. End of sentence.

Second, it is a misrepresentation of the highest order to claim that Sec. Clinton and President Obama have been "pushing" this treaty at the UN. The only thing that has happened is that the Obama Administration has reversed Bush Administration policy and agreed to DISCUSS the treaty:

The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade | Reuters

Sec. Clinton insisting that the negotiations essentially give any nation (namely the United States) VETO POWER over any agreement is a far cry from "pushing" for this treaty. It is designed to allow the US Government ... the largest exporter of small arms in the world ... to appear to be cooperative in curbing illegal small arms exportation while virtually guaranteeing that any agreement won't significantly impact this very lucrative market. Oh and did I mention that the article was from Oct. 2009? Nearly two years later and still no agreement ... just continued jaw-jacking at the UN. Doesn't seem really "pushy" to me.

Furthermore, it would be helpful to actually be informed about what this treaty ... which again doesn't even exist yet .... is all about before getting all "over my dead body" over it. From the article cited above ...

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

See those words "import", "export", "transfer" and "governments"? This treaty is about putting international controls on the small arms trade between nations. Again, it's designed to prevent such weapons from getting into the hands of terrorist groups, narco-traffickers, and dictators. It has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with civilian firearms purchases within the US. Let alone private gun ownership bans or firearm confiscation. So just take a deep breath and relax. No one is coming to take your guns .... or mine either. No worries mon ....

Of course, little things like facts certainly don't stop the wingnuts from exploiting this for political gain and a little fundraising ....

Rand Paul Email Touts False Gun Conspiracy About U.N. Treaty That Doesn’t Exist | ThinkProgress

And just in case you are one to dismiss a Think Progress article out of hand because it's left-wing blog, here's a pro-gun site that's also saying that you can dispense with the conspiracy theories ....

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty is Not A Gun-Grabbing Conspiracy | The Truth About Guns

Originally Posted by OldManMac

I was not being sarcastic,

I stand corrected.

Please forgive my assumption, but given some of your other posts in the forum I simply did not figure you for one to buy into all of this.

Originally Posted by OldManMac

and I'd like to see where Hillary Clinton agreed to let member nations regulate their own trade;

See my comments above.

Originally Posted by OldManMac

she is as anti-gun as one can be, as is President Obama!

I suppose that depends on how you define "anti-gun". Again, I've yet to see the Obama Administration push any major gun control legislation. Let alone anything remotely approaching private gun ownership bans or confiscations. But the ammunition dealers sure made a killing during the early days of the Obama Administration off the paranoia of the "Obama is going to take my guns and ammo!" crowd. Suckers!

But I suppose it's not all their fault. Especially with the NRA sending out mailers blatantly lying about Obama's positions and intentions in this arena:

A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition.

The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.

Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."

The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan." Said an NRA spokesman: "We believe our facts."

Perhaps so, but believing something doesn't make it so. And we find the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama's record to come up with a bogus "plan."

NRA Targets Obama | FactCheck.org

Originally Posted by OldManMac

As I also said, the chances of it happening are slim, as there are so many guns and gun owners in America.

Exactly! Confiscating hundreds of millions of guns in the US would be a colossal undertaking. The resources required ... financially and in manpower .... simply don't exist to do it. Even if they did it's way too easy to circumvent this supposed "National Firearm Confiscation Day". Assuming the government successfully put down the riots in the streets that would surely ensue ... when the "Firearm Retrieval Agent" comes knocking at my door what's to stop me from handing him some old BS piece ... while my real heat is stashed off premises? Not a damned thing!!

It appears someone took umbrage to my "common sense" comment earlier when it comes to all this. So I'll try a different tack while reiterating the same point which you are making here. There is "probability" .... and there is extremely remote, snowball's chance in hell "possibility". Taking a step back to cogitate on the difference with regard to this issue might alleviate some of the consternation.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

In the absence of further evidence, we should also assume this to be the case in any armed conflict involving your military.
(Who're currently being held up by a bunch of blokes in beards and Toyota pickups).

Which goes back to what I said about RoE. If leveling a place is the proper tactic, there's nothing there worth fighting over in the first place.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes, it's a lovely place. No problems there at all.

I was talking about that particular mission.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I was talking about that particular mission.

I wasn't.

[subego]

That mission is the only part of the operation which I think could be termed a "civilian ass-handing".

[Waragainstsleep]

Wouldn't it be sensible to ban people with criminal records from keeping guns?

[subego]

I believe that is already the case with felons.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I believe that is already the case with felons.

Ayup. I don't think it should be the case with all felons, but anyone who has been convicted of a violent felony shouldn't be allowed to purchase them.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

That mission is the only part of the operation which I think could be termed a "civilian ass-handing".

Yes, the whole operation was a success and Somalia is now a haven of peace and tranquility.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes, the whole operation was a success and Somalia is now a haven of peace and tranquility.

Infantry take and hold ground. Was there an instance in Somalia where they were instructed to do so and failed?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by subego 

Something I'm less okay with is that as a resident of Illinois, I have to register with the State Police to exercise my constitutional right to defend my home.

Yeah. And I have to register to with the State Police just to exercise my constitutional right to vote.

Now Republicans want to make it harder for us to vote by requiring IDs and even a written test.

I say my gun is my ID to vote.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Not really.
If your troops are the heroes everyone says they are, then their having to fight their own countrymen would generate internal rules of engagement.
If they're not (and would turn on you at the command of some useless politician), then you've got no business supporting them.

What you're talking about is different from RoE. You're talking about the way a citizen-army would react to a citizen uprising. This is actually core to the concept that a popular rebellion would be difficult to suppress. Further, American Soldiers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not some figurehead or political leader, so if the citizens rose up with a grievance against the government for a real or imagined Constitutional cause, the military would be pretty difficult to use against them. Mass resignations, insurrection, etc.

The RoE in Mogadishu were overly broad and based on the idea that even in the warlords' neighborhoods there were "innocents," which was preposterous-only their trusted supporters were allowed in the "comfortable" areas of town.

Originally Posted by subego 

Don't you have RoE because there are parts of what you engage that are worth saving? If there's nothing worth saving (i.e. no RoE) why in God's blazes are you fighting for it?

OTOH, @Doofy, it should be mentioned that in Mogadishu, the Army made two massive mistakes. They assumed their Blackhawks were invulnerable to what weapons were available (which was true up to that point), and they had a man down before the first shot was fired.

I should also mention as far as the Army considers things, Mogadishu didn't turn out that bad. Almost everyone who went out got back. Those who didn't (with the exception of one) were killed instantly, which means there was only one wounded person they failed to evac. The two special forces guys who went down knowingly volunteered for a suicide mission.

As I noted above, the RoE in Mogadishu were too broad. Outside of the city, there were people who needed defending, but not IN the downtown area itself.

Nobody had flown into a city that was armed to the teeth in Blackhawks, let alone into one that was almost entirely hostile. Strategically, Mogadishu was a failure, but tactically, it was a trove of learning experiences. It's sad that really good Soldiers died for a poor cause, but the rescuers died for their comrades, which was not a poor cause to them.

On topic, the 2nd Amendment is among other things a curb on governmental power. Nowhere else do the citizens have the codified right to arm themselves for any purpose. Our government has always run with this as a counterbalanace to "supreme authority" of government.

[Waragainstsleep]

How about a required minimum IQ score for gun ownership? That should reduce ownership substantially, reduce gun crime a bit/a lot while still maintaining the spirit of the 2nd amendment as its described here.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

How about a required minimum IQ score for gun ownership? That should reduce ownership substantially, reduce gun crime a bit/a lot while still maintaining the spirit of the 2nd amendment as its described here.

Assuming that ANY rule/law/prerequisite for legal gun ownership will in any way prevent the majority of illegal gun use is plainly silly. The vast majority of firearms used illegally are not "legally owned" to start with. Guns recovered in criminal investigations tend to have been stolen from a legitimate buyer and to have changed hands (illegally) several times.

It is not particularly "quick and easy" to purchase any firearm in Texas, where we do not have a number of hoops to jump through. In places like New York and California, it is extremely difficult for a law abiding citizen to purchase any firearm, yet you'll notice that the Great States of New York and California, for all their restrictive laws keeping law abiding citizens from buying guns, have relatively high rates of criminal use of firearms... And please note that when Florida's concealed carry law went into effect, instead of having the carnage in the streets as predicted by anti-gun ownership pundits, crime went down. Similarly in Texas, when it became legal to carry concealed firearms (with a license that is not particularly "easy" to get, I should add), criminal acts such as assault and muggings dropped rather precipitously.

I think everyone should be educated on what firearms are, what they do, and the risks involved in their use-and even in having them around. People who know little about firearms are dangerous when they are around firearms, much the same way that someone who is fascinated by, yet completely uninformed about chainsaws would be very dangerous left unsupervised with a chainsaw. Education is the key to avoiding many of today's problems, from teen pregnancy to childhood obesity to credit disasters. Education is also extremely important in preventing such disasters as "child finds loaded gun, accidentally kills best friend" and "man kills self while cleaning 'unloaded' gun."

I believe that a person who takes the serious responsibility of gun ownership to heart, and who is an otherwise responsible and thoughtful person, is a much better risk for gun ownership than someone who can pass some arbitrary IQ test. On the other hand, anyone with a history of poor judgment in serious decisions, such as driving while impaired, no matter what his or her IQ, is a very poor risk for gun ownership, don't you think?

[Waragainstsleep]

I wasn't suggesting for a second that the IQ test should be the only criteria, merely an additional one.

[ghporter]

Pick any criteria that sounds reasonable and feasible, and I can give you at least two ways it can be abused to arbitrarily deny firearms ownership to any individual for political or other nefarious reason. The State of Illinois has tolerated Chicago driving state gun laws, California has tolerated LA driving theirs, and you can look at a lot of states and see "big city problems pushing state-wide restrictions". The few "reasonable" restrictions that have withstood court challenges have to do with criminal history-and there are some very bright criminals out there (see the history of our latest financial meltdown for some examples-not the big shots, but the quiet guys at convinced banks that their "clients'" loan applications were kosher when the quiet guys had doctored them, etc).

Criteria that do not allow arbitrary denial of rights to arbitrary individuals are tough, but then, what are the criteria to be allowed to vote? At least 18 years of age and still breathing (with the latter sometimes waived in certain locales). Sure, stupid people will do stupid things with guns, but they do stupid things with knives, cars, flammable liquids, alcohol, etc., often to the detriment of others. On the other hand, specific criteria for when someone is no longer legally allowed to drive due to intoxication have had an insufficient effect on the drunk driver-inflicted carnage.

[ironknee]

rebel against America?

what would you call yourselves?

isn't this--by logic--anti-America?

[Shaddim]

Some would say that "America" hasn't been America for a long time.

[ironknee]

hmmm so is America, America right now?

if not, why? please show your work

and, are we Americans tonight?