Gun laws in USA??

[OEP]

Oh good lord there's some interesting posting on this thread, I'm hoping most of it is tongue in cheek.

[David]

[Wokko]

You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the USA and its mindset. Unlike Australia which always remained a dominion of the British Empire, the USA was born in revolution and the basis of that revolution is that the people will always be powerful enough to overthrow the Government.

Self defence, hunting, gun accidents, murders are all incidental to the ability of an armed populace to resist tyranny. If people think that Trump is 'literally Hitler' as the twitterati like to exclaim then surely the people must have the right to stop the USA ever becoming the equivalent of the USSR or Nazi Germany. Think of how powerful the US is now, now imagine it under the total control of a tyrant. Most Australians have no clue about America and simply don't have the mindset of individual freedom. We roll over and show our bellies to Government at every turn in exchange for some perceived safety.

[pietillidie]

^How far does the caricature of the self-sufficient revolutionary really get you, house-by-house as opposed to in your mind's eye?

[Wokko]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Government_tyranny

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was concerned about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is "a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved ... Is it possible ... that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? Or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?"[116] Noah Webster similarly argued:

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[12][117]
George Mason also argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England's efforts "to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them ... by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[12][118]

Writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in a list of basic "human rights", which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[119]

Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

Henry, Patrick (1788). Speech on the Federal Constitution. Virginia Ratifying Convention. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined

[David]

Wokko, the US has the largest defence budget in the world ��larger than the next seven countries combined, apparently. That includes state-of-the-art weaponry, drones, tanks, nerve gas (yep), $�$%^%%$ robot soldiers, traditional bombs, nuclear warheads ... you name it. It doesn't need a tenth of that arsenal, or a hundredth of it, to crush any attempted internal uprising. Do you think that a tyrannical leader would hesitate to turn a sufficient amount of that military might inwards in the event of an attempted coup d'etat? It would squash any organised militia like so many ants, whether or not military-grade guns are permitted on the open market.

I'm not even debating the merit of the idea here: I understand and even respect the intent of the Second Amendment, as outlined above. It was, as you say, a revolutionary idea. It is also as dead as a doornail. As such, it's a ludicrous justification for permitting the populace to have access to lethal weapons.

If you were a US citizen and genuinely wanted to keep the American government accountable to the population at large, here's a proposal that you'll hate but one that I'm not even kidding about: vote in a peacenik socialist like Bernie Sanders on a platform of dismantling the US's bloated defence budget, and hope that he ruthlessly slashes the country's military stockpile. Then, and only then, might the idea of a government that's accountable to its people (on pain of armed uprising) actually re-enter something approaching the realm of plausibility. Tell me why I'm wrong.

[Wokko]

You do realise that the American Revolution itself was a bunch of farmers with muskets against the largest military in the world.

The US with all its power barely put down an insurgency in Iraq, has failed to do so in Afghanistan and lost an insurgency war in Vietnam. They couldn't simply carpet bomb cities or nuke anything when the enemy is living among them. It doesn't matter how large, well funded or technologically superior a government force is when facing an insurgency or revolution. Every single US citizen could be an enemy combatant. They could shoot police or soldiers in the middle of cities and disappear. A conventional army; tanks, bombers, artillery could do very little. And that's not taking into account those soldiers and LEOs who would back the rebels.

[Wokko]

I�d also ask you, should people just give up and hunker down when faced with tyranny? Isn�t there an obligation to fight back?

[pietillidie]

^Unfortunately, 'tyranny' is a shapeshifter; one of its best tricks is to fool entire groups of people into sacrificing themselves and others on its behalf.

[watt price tully]

The red coats are comin'

Paul Revere is on his way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84L7wRSg2Vk&list=RD84L7wRSg2Vk&index=1

[David]

[think positive]

[David]

Returning to my Syria analogy above, here�s what the intent of the 2nd Amendment actually looks like when put into practice against a regime with modern military-grade weaponry. A long and often melancholy read, but a very relevant one in this context:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/12/10/syrias-last-bastion-of-freedom

[think positive]

Very long very sad, what kind of government drops chemical weapons on its own people? The cruelty in this story, it�s like the Hitler stories, but with worse capabilities. Man no wonder some of them lose it, every single refugee needs a very good mental analysis for sure. David Koresh comes to mind, so many $�$%^%%$ looneys. Makes me wonder if and municipalities at all have tried guns free?

[Wokko]

There's no conclusive evidence that Assad used gas on his own people, in fact many of the attacks were suspicious in that they occurred when Assad was winning and were used to try and galvanise an international response against him. The guy isn't an idiot, why gas civilians and bring down the hammer of the USA or Nato when you're winning anyway?

https://www.newsweek.com/wheres-evidence-assad-used-sarin-gas-his-people-810123

There have been many unsuccessful revolutions, it doesn't mean the causes aren't worthy or that ensuring the population has a fighting chance is a bad thing. The Kurds have been highly successful in carving out their own territory from Syria and Iraq because they've been willing to fight and given the capability to do so by the USA.