Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Off Topic Chat. (MOD NOTE post# 3949 and post#5279)

1205206208210211216

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,193 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    This automatically begs the question if in the US they would sell a firearm to a blind man? Given the fact that he can't see his target, and owning and bearing shall not be infringed, he can buy a firearm, and fire without knowing where to fire to..... You can imagine the result.



  • Registered Users Posts: 549 ✭✭✭Munsterlad102


    Yes, I know of a case where a blind man got a concealed carry permit and a firearm in Massachusetts. Quite a feat considering that MA is very restrictive.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,193 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    The ironic and ugly question would be, if a blind man gets a firearm, what or whom is he going to shoot at? And firearms are meant for shooting......



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,932 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    You do know that blind folks' hearing improves or is already more acute to compensate in many cases for their blindness?

    Seems this blind guy can shoot better than some people with sight.🤣 And he seems to have the self defence shooting side of it sorted out too.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/04/us/national-news-briefs-blind-man-gets-permit-for-concealed-weapon.html

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 549 ✭✭✭Munsterlad102


    Again tinytobe, there’s two separate points there, one for a well regulated militia and one for people’s rights. Obviously the two other commas are for punctuation, otherwise it wouldn’t make sense. Commas have multiple functions, one of them being a substitute for the word “and”. At the end of the day, your interpretation completely ignores the phrase “shall not be infringed” and is hence, a fundamentally flawed opinion.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 549 ✭✭✭Munsterlad102


    That’s exactly what I thought, but in Massachusetts, a state that banned AR-15s and Glocks outright, the local police thought it prudent to issue such a license. But I can’t imagine he’s much of a sharp shooter.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,932 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Maybe they figured him to be an especially vulnerable person because of his handicap and issued it? If he passed whatever requirements to pass,they wouldn't have any good reason to refuse him either.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,932 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    On somthing completely different.Found this in the RTE archives...How stun guns and crossbows became illegal and licensed in Ireland...

    The GRA were behind this no doubt...

    https://www.rte.ie/archives/collections/news/21274936-gra-want-weapons-control/

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,193 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    It wouldn't surprise me if somebody in the US would offer target practice sessions for blind people owning firearms. Maybe there is a national blind people firearms association in the country? If not, I am sure it's an aaaawesome business idea........



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    They'd have as much chance of hitting the target as I would.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 549 ✭✭✭Munsterlad102


    Was having a bit of technical difficulty earlier so I’m not sure if you saw my other response so I’ll copy it here for you.

    Again tinytobe, there’s two separate points there, one for a well regulated militia and one for people’s rights. Obviously the two other commas are for punctuation, otherwise it wouldn’t make sense. Commas have multiple functions, one of them being a substitute for the word “and”. At the end of the day, your interpretation completely ignores the phrase “shall not be infringed” and is hence, a fundamentally flawed opinion.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    You do know there is target shooting for the visually impaired, and blind? They use an audible "tone system" in lieu of sight.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,193 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    The US is the country of unlimited possibilities.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 28,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cass


    Its used the world around. Paralympics being the biggest example.

    Forum Charter - Useful Information - Photo thread: Hardware - Ranges by County - Hunting Laws/Important threads - Upcoming Events - RFDs by County

    If you see a problem post use the report post function. Click on the three dots on the post, select "FLAG" & let a Moderator deal with it.

    Moderators - Cass otmmyboy2 , CatMod - Shamboc , Admins - Beasty , mickeroo



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,932 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    And not without it's share of faults and ridiculous laws too.

    ESP with its adult age malarkey.Brought home to me when I couldn't get a beer in a bar at 18, where I was used to drinking beer since I was 12 in Germany, where it's considered a foodstuff,[since 14th century]not an alcoholic beverage.Or going out with some US marines on my 25th birthday to a lap dancing club,at Oceanside,CA and all these 19 or 20-year-old Marines having to borrow their older fellow grunts military ID and names and quickly memorising their social security numbers to get in to have a beer.

    These were lads fresh back from Somalia who had been literally 4 days before in combat bringing peace and superior firepower to Somalia[9months before the Blackhawk down incident] driving around in million-dollar hardware and operating full auto stuff.

    But couldn't get a beer, buy a lottery ticket, or go look at some scantily clad single moms on stage, or purchase or own a personal handgun in California!!! It can be a strange place alright.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,921 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Im not sure those country examples hold up. Irish people had firearms in 1916, we lost. We final succeeded in 1931, there was no change in our ability to defend ourselves over those 5 years.

    American succeeded in 1770s, we failed in 1798 under the same conditions. There are multiple examples. But they are all examples of the government rebelling against a foreign power. Not citizens against their government.

    The chances of US citizens overthrowing the government is zero. People have formed militias, if they acted on it they are wiped out effortlessly. Historically the 2nd A didn’t help those who were persecuted. It hasn’t stopped home invasions, murders, community violence. It’s not going to either.

    Nor do they need to prove any of those things do happen to justify their firearms. They have firearms as it’s their right. Simple as that as it stands.



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,921 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    It doesn’t need to have the word “and”. Even as a single sentence it say the right to arms should not be infringed. That right is what gives them the option to form a militia. But there’s nothing that says they must do so to avail of that right.

    In order for it to actually say that, you’d need to add a few more words to that effect



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,193 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    Yes, but still there are different laws and regulations around gun ownership in the US, such as state by state, and as far as I know, even within California, it's regulated often county by county. Also even a debate or any regulation on "open carry" vs "concealed cary" would be an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. Thus any regulation is a form of infringement, also if it's in the 2nd amendment, it would have to be a federal law, not a state law.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,932 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    The chances of US citizens overthrowing the government is zero. People have formed militias, if they acted on it they are wiped out effortlessly.

    Considering that the amount of armed US citizens who are just hunters alone outnumber the biggest standing army of the world, being in manpower the Chinese army by 2to 1...Umm...how about NO?

    This is actually one of the US govts biggest fears,an armed insurrection by civilians.It has been war-gamed numerous times in the Pentagon,and every time they have tried it under different scenarios, it comes up for the Govt "YOU LOSE! GAME OVER!.Even with possibly up to 75% of the US Armed forces refusing to act against civilians in such a situation as they would consider it going against the Oath of Allegiance. By and large, these militias or groupings claiming to be such are of all political hues and skin colours and creeds have one thing in common, the signal for them to start kicking off is an attempt by the US govt to enact nationwide gun confiscation.


    Historically the 2nd A didn’t help those who were persecuted. It hasn’t stopped home invasions, murders, community violence. It’s not going to either.

    Ahem...ever hear of the battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1946? Where the 2A and the militia was actually put into practical use? Or a more up to date event was in the LA riots in 1992 and the phenomena of the "Rooftop Koreans"? Both practical examples of "unorganised militias" using the 2A

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWMj-mFUDGA


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz-Chm4d188

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,932 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Over 20 thousand Federal,state,local and town ordinances worth of laws. Maybe trying to enforce them first before trying to make more would be a solution?

    The 2nd is a constitutional RIGHT, not a Federal law! Which BTW any State can follow or reject what DC demands as it sees fit in its own regional assembly. The States mostly follow them is more because of financial carrots and sticks than any concern of loss of freedoms to the citizenry.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 38,921 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    That's incorrect. The constitution is federal, or more specifically it sets the boundaries of federal law. It's up to each state to interpret the constitution in state laws. There is nothing in American law that states all laws/regulations pertaining to the constitution have to be federal. Regardless, your point was about a militia needing to be regulated, trained etc. Ho does any of the above apply. As I pointed out, the ability to form a militia needs to be an option, nowhere does it say that militia membership is a requirement to obtain a right.

    And yes, there are laws who, what, how of firearms. Those are decided by each state as being in acceptable. If you are arguing that they infringe the 2A, then the solution would be less regulation not more. A complete free for all. Which seems contrary to your point.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,193 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    Apparently, it can be down to the county as well, not to the state to interpret the law. I would find it hard to believe that in a city line San Francisco, I can walk around in the street with a military assault rifle, however in Bakersfield, that's probably entirely possible. Also this alone suggests that the 2nd amendment is up for interpretation.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 1,392 Mod ✭✭✭✭otmmyboy2


    That aspect entirely depends on whether the state(which supersedes counties and towns) preempts any local firearms laws, which many states do, meaning the lowest level of disarmament laws would be the state in that case, not county/city/town.


    Also, by the strictest interpretation of the 2A there should be no infringements on firearms, hence the ongoing lawsuits in California, New York, PA, Illinois etc being supported by the FPC, 2AF, etc trying to get such infringements removed as unconstitutional, and many have been successful, even in California.


    Also, "military assault rifle" is a made up term which means nothing, either you mean an "assault rifle" which would be a fully automatic intermediate caliber firearm (generally not available in the US unless you are military/police/a manufacturer or dealer of such/ have a large(20k+) amount of cash available and are willing to go through the ATF's tax stamp process to possess one that was registered pre-1986(IIRC).

    Alternatively you mean a normal modern rifle which the media labels as "assault" to scare uninformed people into thinking they are the problem.

    On the San Fran/Bakersfield point, if a county has a population with less than 200,000 people then with a CCW you can open carry.

    https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/ca-gun-laws/


    A major caveat to the above however - A person may also open carry if he or she "reasonably believes that any person or the property of any person is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property."

    Hence if there is a riot for example, because California, and you have a business that you are worried about getting broken into/destroyed/burned down/etc then that court ruling above(Peruta v San Diego 2016) would allow you to open carry in that circumstance.


    Of course if you are a hunter then there are certain exceptions to the above for the purpose of hunting which I won't go into.

    Never forget, the end goal is zero firearms of any type.

    S.I. No. 187/1972 - Firearms (Temporary Custody) Order - Firearms seized

    S.I. No. 21/2008 - Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 - Firearm types restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 - Firearms banned & grandfathered

    S.I. No. 420/2019 - Magazine ban, ammo storage & transport restricted

    Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 - 2023 Firearm Ban (retroactive to 8 years prior)



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,921 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Manpower? That hasn't been the deciding factor in a few millennia. Those millions of hunters, include many who are not physically fit, those who are elderly, and a tirade of other issues. Not to mention the total mismatch in firepower. But the biggest issue, a total lack of organisation, hierarchy, strategy or communication. Literally the most important aspect of every military in thousands of years.

    How about no? lol. The irony of that reference being a terrorist who was completely out of touch with power and scale.

    This is actually one of the US govts biggest fears,an armed insurrection by civilians. It has been war-gamed numerous times in the Pentagon,and every time they have tried it under different scenarios, it comes up for the Govt "YOU LOSE! GAME OVER!

    Of course they have. There is literally annual conference about wargaming various scenarios. They've also wargamed a Gen Z dark web based attack. And a internal coordinated drone strike by a guerrilla terrorist faction. These are training exercises for military leaders, not predictions.

    I'd love to see where you got that is says "it comes up for the Govt "YOU LOSE! GAME OVER!". Isn't that actually the 1980s movie WarGames?

    Even with possibly up to 75% of the US Armed forces refusing to act against civilians in such a situation as they would consider it going against the Oath of Allegiance. By and large, these militias or groupings claiming to be such are of all political hues and skin colours and creeds have one thing in common, the signal for them to start kicking off is an attempt by the US govt to enact nationwide gun confiscation.

    Doesn't the oath Allegiance contain the pledge to fight when they order you to (ie this is the basis for conscription in major wars). Obviously many people would resign n a civil war on moral grounds. But you'd also have to consider that applies to both sides. Most people, when faced with shooting fellow citizens who are simply doing their job will not. An all out civil war is rarely a case of "the people" verses "the government". It's not a Star Wars movie. These things rip the entire country down the middle. Also the idea that that would unite all political hues and skin colours is fantasy. It would unite some, but for others, it would be the opportunity to hard others.

    An actually insurrection, will be small and uncoordinated. It would be trivial to crush. It difficultly would actually be not accepting it as an insurrection and trying to end it without great loss - which they obvious would try to do, and would be quite hard.

    Ahem...ever hear of the battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1946? Where the 2A and the militia was actually put into practical use? Or a more up to date event was in the LA riots in 1992 and the phenomena of the "Rooftop Koreans"? Both practical examples of "unorganised militias" using the 2A

    Two valid examples. As would be incidents where somebody defended themselves individually. On the other side of the balance is thousands upon thousands of cases of violence. I couldn't possibly list them all, and I don't think I need to list any. We all know many examples. The net effect is clearly an increase not a reduction.



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,921 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    Well, of course it is open to interpretation, as is any constitution. That's kind of the point of a constitution. To give guidance and set limits for governance and legislation. Quoting the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court;

    “The Constitution as the fundamental law of the State, must be accepted, interpreted and construed according to the words which are used; and these words, where the meaning is plain and unambiguous, must be give their literal meaning."

    But the constitution says that the RTBA shall not be infringed, it doesn't say or imply that there should never be any law to regulate firearms.

    I agree with that definition of assault rifle, it's the one the military uses. I'm not sure if Military assault rifle is a misnomer in itself. There are other legal definitions too, really that discussion is just semantics though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,932 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Manpower? That hasn't been the deciding factor in a few millennia. Those millions of hunters, include many who are not physically fit, those who are elderly, and a tirade of other issues. Not to mention the total mismatch in firepower. But the biggest issue, a total lack of organisation, hierarchy, strategy or communication. Literally the most important aspect of every military in thousands of years.

    You have heard of Asymmetric warfare and leaderless resistance? I doubt very much that Americans would tolerate drone strikes on Beverly Hills 90210 for very long,or having a B52 squadron Arclighting half of Montanna! IOW the US technology is negated by the fact they couldn't use it on their own country.Now ,unless you are going to go Rep Swallwell[D} idea of nuking gun owners. which might be a bit overkill.Haven't we learned very much from Vietnam and Afghanistan where the worlds most advanced army had its ass handed to it by a bunch of rice farmers and illiterate goat herders? The same country that has a tradition of being armed and literally has had generations to prepare in its civilian population for such an event?Since the late 1940s with the fear of Communist invasions to the present day? Cmon Man! The average American hunter has better equipment these days than the average Russian squaddie in Ukraine.Dont think just because the average MSM of an American gun owner is some overweight git with an AR 15.you forgot that now America has more Ex military personnel in its population than any other nation, many who have excellent special forces training for guerrilla units,and have still fresh combat experience. Even Yamato and the Soviets recognised that to invade the US mainland would be utter Hell,as you will find a rifle behind every blade of grass.


    I'd love to see where you got that is says "it comes up for the Govt "YOU LOSE! GAME OVER!". Isn't that actually the 1980s movie WarGames?

    Yeah it is! So what??? Focus in trival...Much? The point is whether it is a prediction and you consistently lose even in predictions,that might be telling you something is wrong?


    Doesn't the oath Allegiance contain the pledge to fight when they order you to (ie this is the basis for conscription in major wars).

    I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."


    That I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;

    Is the bit that gives the biggest problem.As a gun confiscation order would be contrary to the Constitution, and as a soldier you have no legal right or recourse to follow an immoral or unjust law when you know it is so." Just following orders" didn't work too well in Nurenberg,or in Yougoslavia or for a 21-year-old Sgt in Bucha, Ukraine recently. Also, bearing arms for the US is also a question,as it should only apply when there is a declaration of war by or on the US,and not for policing actions globally.

    I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law

    Another insidious one is because of the "Federalisation and militarisation" of l law enforcement iE Federal agencies being given authority to aquire military equipment or resources and possibly personnel,contrary to the Posse Comitatus act to serve in a law enforcement role. The use of the Texas national guard engineering tanks at the Waco siege is a glaring example


    Obviously many people would resign n a civil war on moral grounds. But you'd also have to consider that applies to both sides. Most people, when faced with shooting fellow citizens who are simply doing their job will not. An all out civil war is rarely a case of "the people" verses "the government". It's not a Star Wars movie. These things rip the entire country down the middle.

    Also the idea that that would unite all political hues and skin colours is fantasy. It would unite some, but for others, it would be the opportunity to hard others.

    I doubt very much that ANTIFA would be shaking hands with the Aryan Brotherhood or that Nation of Islam would be buddying up with the Jewish Defence League to go stick it to "Da man in Washington!"🤣🤣 if that happened..I meant that it is a common fear or signal for all these diverse groups to kick it off with the Govt forces in their own way if the man is coming to take their guns. They would be shooting at each other just as much at the Feds.

    Also,I would seriously doubt that many people would resign their comfy govt jobs and power because they had to shoot a "few gun nuts". Waco and Ruby Ridge are fine examples.We even had one local commander of Waco applying for the head of the BATF under Biden's blessing recently.The same man posed beside the burnt remains of the victims of his organisation's ghastly botched handling of a church burning.Do you honestly think a thug like that wouldn't think twice of shooting his fellow Americans because he doesn't think they need an AR15? When you have people like that in govt, THEN you need TWO AR15's

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,932 ✭✭✭✭Grizzly 45


    Well, you wouldn't be walking about Dianne Feinstein's and Nancy Pelosi's constituency of SanFransisco with a "military assault rifle" in the 1st place.As an assault rifle is a Full auto select fire capable rifle, California is not a Class 3 state.IOW you can't own any of the following there. Select fire, silencers, sawn-off shotguns or rifles,or destructive devices,and no one will even sell you to a California address. Or even start the paperwork.

    Also at that level they are town ordinances,not state laws.So they are null and void the moment you leave the towns or county's limits.Also they are very changeable by the citizens themselves if you run for local mayor or sheriff, which anyone can do over there,on that ticket of repealing or adding laws to your cause.

    "If you want to keep someone away from your house, Just fire the shotgun through the door."

    Vice President [and former lawyer] Joe Biden Field& Stream Magazine interview Feb 2013 "



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    The chances of US citizens overthrowing the government is zero. People have formed militias, if they acted on it they are wiped out effortlessly.

    If they were to face off against each other in a big field like in the 1300's, then yes, the US citizens wouldn't last long. But that aint the way such a war would be fought nowadays. It would be guerilla warfare or something akin to that.

    If the US had a million citizens well armed, committed and intent on striking at the Government, the Government would be in trouble. Now imagine a tyrannical government in the US that had maybe 30 million (less than 10% of the population) angry citizens willing to fire pot shots at the military, law enforcement, the DMV, any Government employees etc., the Government would be in a heap of trouble. As was mentioned earlier, look how the Afghans brought the US and Soviet military to heel.

    If the Afghans were unarmed, they would have had no hope against the might of the two most powerful military powers in the world. Same in America. Unarmed = no hope. Armed = some hope.



  • Registered Users Posts: 38,921 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    You have heard of Asymmetric warfare and leaderless resistance? I doubt very much that Americans would tolerate drone strikes on Beverly Hills 90210 for very long,or having a B52 squadron Arclighting half of Montanna! IOW the US technology is negated by the fact they couldn't use it on their own country.

    You think US technological superiority is isolated to Bombs, rules and drones? This is pretty misinformed tbh. They are have better everything, comms, systems, structure, vehicles, facilities etc.

    Haven't we learned very much from Vietnam and Afghanistan where the worlds most advanced army had its ass handed to it by a bunch of rice farmers and illiterate goat herders? The same country that has a tradition of being armed and literally has had generations to prepare in its civilian population for such an event?Since the late 1940s with the fear of Communist invasions to the present day? Cmon Man! The average American hunter has better equipment these days than the average Russian squaddie in Ukraine.Dont think just because the average MSM of an American gun owner is some overweight git with an AR 15.you forgot that now America has more Ex military personnel in its population than any other nation, many who have excellent special forces training for guerrilla units,and have still fresh combat experience. Even Yamato and the Soviets recognised that to invade the US mainland would be utter Hell,as you will find a rifle behind every blade of grass.

    I agree with all of that. But its doesn't counter anything I said. The US is extremely well armed, many are overweight gits with AR15 and can barely more, but many are highly trained current or former military, police etc. If they were to unite agaisnt a single power, say a foreign invasion as your example. They would absolutely be a modern viet cong. If they all simultaneously rebelled it would be an uncontrollable force. But that is an incredibly difficult task to coordinate and pull off. Which is what I said it has zero chance of happening.

    Just because something is possible, does not mean it has probably to any degree.

    Yeah it is! So what??? Focus in trival...Much? The point is whether it is a prediction and you consistently lose even in predictions,that might be telling you something is wrong?

    My point was that it is not true and it comes from a movie.

    Have there been wargames where they lose, sure. Are these realistic, probably not. Have they also been many many wargames where the rebellion is crushed, also yes. Saying they they lose every time or close to every time is absurd.

    That I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;

    Is the bit that gives the biggest problem.As a gun confiscation order would be contrary to the Constitution, and as a soldier you have no legal right or recourse to follow an immoral or unjust law when you know it is so." Just following orders" didn't work too well in Nurenberg,or in Yougoslavia or for a 21-year-old Sgt in Bucha, Ukraine recently. Also, bearing arms for the US is also a question,as it should only apply when there is a declaration of war by or on the US,and not for policing actions globally.

    I completely see your point, but as I pointed out it does both ways. The above overs and order to cease arms. Which I didn't actually mention btw. We were speaking of a rebellion, and if there was a rebellion of the scale you are talking about, ie millions of people, then the US would absolutely declare a state of emergency and a civil war. So the whole country is caught between the various oaths they have kept. As soon as somebody is in open war with the United States, their allegiance isn't worth piss. Some of the US armed forces would side with the side who thinks creating a militia is the highest right. The other side would put allegiance to the US higher. It would split. We have literally seen this in our own country with the last 100 years.

    I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law

    Another insidious one is because of the "Federalisation and militarisation" of l law enforcement iE Federal agencies being given authority to aquire military equipment or resources and possibly personnel,contrary to the Posse Comitatus act to serve in a law enforcement role. The use of the Texas national guard engineering tanks at the Waco siege is a glaring example

    I took that line of the constitution to refer to the lines of civilian support during way. ie People aiding the country by working in factories making weapons, clothes, rations, etc etc. This as a huge of part of warfare in 1700-1960s. Sell so now, but still applies to a degree. I don't follow the jump to the Posse Comitatus act from there.

    But as you mention it, Posse Comitatus act applied to the Army*, not to the National guard or the FBI etc. The national guard is state based, not federal. But I don't think it would apply to a civil war in either case.

    (*Since then the Air Force was added, and DoD follows that policy for Navy, Marines, etc. although they are not named)

    I doubt very much that ANTIFA would be shaking hands with the Aryan Brotherhood or that Nation of Islam would be buddying up with the Jewish Defence League to go stick it to "Da man in Washington!"🤣🤣 if that happened..I meant that it is a common fear or signal for all these diverse groups to kick it off with the Govt forces in their own way if the man is coming to take their guns. They would be shooting at each other just as much at the Feds.

    That's precisely my point. If a civil war did happen, there would be such a power grab, that they would go at each other just as quickly. Using your LA Riots example. Citizens were attacking and killing citizens. People go feral pretty quickly given the opportunity. A bit of snow and we raid the bread and toilet roll.

    Also,I would seriously doubt that many people would resign their comfy govt jobs and power because they had to shoot a "few gun nuts". Waco and Ruby Ridge are fine examples.We even had one local commander of Waco applying for the head of the BATF under Biden's blessing recently.The same man posed beside the burnt remains of the victims of his organisation's ghastly botched handling of a church burning.Do you honestly think a thug like that wouldn't think twice of shooting his fellow Americans because he doesn't think they need an AR15? When you have people like that in govt, THEN you need TWO AR15's

    They wouldn't think twice about shooting a terrorist "gun nut". Nor should they. But shooting civilians who haven't broken any laws or harmed anyone is a different story.

    Not sure who you refer to in as the ATF thug. Waco was definitely botched. The FBI was heavy handed, and covered t up. Some innocent people were killed. Mainly naïve followers who were brainwashed the the religious cult and knew no different.

    But let's be really clear that David Koresh was a serial child rapist, who broke the law, and initiated the siege by refuse a lawful search warrant, a warrant that would have uncovered his illegal stockpile of arms. I think anyone holding up David Koresh as a victim of tyranny might need to think about it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 38,921 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    If there was 30million people armed against the government. Yes, the government would have absolutely no hope. 30million is a staggering number. The it's "only 10%" is beyond misleading. For a comparison of scale, there is a myth that only 3% of the country fought against the British in the American Revolution, now that not accurate it was more like 10%+. But it shows that a 10% scale is all out warfare.

    There is absolutely no hope that 30million would be fighting. Which is why I said it has 0% chance. I'm talking about the change of it happening, not their chance of success.



Advertisement