The latest threat to gun rights: Arizona senator Lori Klein

[The Anvil]

If you guys think that your military would not turn on it's own citizens, you just have to look at Libya.  True, it is run by a d!psh!t dictator.  But, if the military will still back a butthead like him, you don't think they would back your president.  Did you not have a previous civil, did you not learn from the past.  The military will do as they are told, even if the gov't has to lie through their teeth.  That is true with any country out there.

This is why I put "determined" in my first post relating to this. I don't think you'd ever have a unified U.S. military against it's citizenry. It would be fractured and far less effective because of it. Some may fall in line with a would-be dictator, but I think most would not.

[musclehead]

If you really think that the citizens of America could prevent a determined U.S. Military from subjugating them in a heartbeat then you're delusional.

This has happened before.  It began in 1775 and ended with those citizens driving back and defeating the most powerful military in the world, namely the British military.

I know. Bad example. For one thing once on land the British enjoyed very little technological superiority to Colonial forces. In fact it was effectively none.  That gulf is now so vast as to be unfathomable. What little technology we posses would be quickly destroyed, captured or just plain SHUT OFF.

The average American was also at least familiar with the concept of being an "outdoorsman" (not what passes for it today either) and I'd venture that the majority of Americans were at least familiar with how to fight. Many were experienced in fighting Indian wars. These people comprised our army. The same battle hardened one that (in this fanciful scenario) is now our enemy.

The British were also fighting on unfamiliar terrain in an expeditionary fashion. That would not be the case here. And don't even get me started on logistics like non-standardized ammo and where to replenish, fuel, feeding the resistance and their families etc.

I can also tell you that it would be made doubly difficult by not only government sympathizers among the populace but also by internal power struggles for leadership. We'd be TOAST. That's why we'd better hope that we never have a robot army willing to follow orders without conscience or question.

But I say all of this with a deep, deep respect for our military. My fellow average American? Well let's just say I've lost some faith in them over time.

the Brits did have several tactical advantages, in most cases more men and more ammo.
the battle of Groton Heights CN is one example, the Americans out gunned and out manned retreated to Fort Griswold where they ran out of ammo and tried to repulse the British with pike and bayonets. they were over ran and eventually slaughtered.

this was British soil at the time, there were garrisons of Brits living here.

I know what you mean about 'on land' they did have a very, very powerful navy...

[bscrive]

Sorry, the British SAS are the best soldiers in the world, US Navy Seals rank #2.

[RoadKill]

Sorry, the British SAS are the best soldiers in the world, US Navy Seals rank #2.

Hey !! Look every body...we found some one more out of touch with reality than The Anvil himself !!                     

[The Anvil]

Sorry, the British SAS are the best soldiers in the world, US Navy Seals rank #2.

Uh, no.  

If you want facts the truth is that they're both the best of the best and about equal. But the SAS didn't kill Bin Laden.  

[bscrive]

Sorry, the British SAS are the best soldiers in the world, US Navy Seals rank #2.

Hey !! Look every body...we found some one more out of touch with reality than The Anvil himself !!                     

Hey look everybody we have someone who is not in touch with reality.  I guess the sun revolves around the US as well, it doesn't it just looks that way because you are so close to Canada.

[RoadKill]

Sorry, the British SAS are the best soldiers in the world, US Navy Seals rank #2.

Hey !! Look every body...we found some one more out of touch with reality than The Anvil himself !!                     

Hey look everybody we have someone who is not in touch with reality.  I guess the sun revolves around the US as well, it doesn't it just looks that way because you are so close to Canada.

must be the Queens shadow that makes it so cold up there !     

[The Anvil]

Oh and the Russian Pennant is pretty hardcore too AND they're ruthless in a way that makes Americans uncomfortable.

[bscrive]

Sorry, the British SAS are the best soldiers in the world, US Navy Seals rank #2.

Uh, no.  

If you want facts the truth is that they're both the best of the best and about equal. But the SAS didn't kill Bin Laden.  

They also didn't arm and train him in the 80's either.

[bscrive]

Here is the list. The Russians are 10th. 

http://listverse.com/2010/01/11/top-10-badasses-of-the-worlds-special-forces/

I have to say that the US is no slouch.  We Canadians don't have much of an army.  Don't really need them, people give you space when big brother is armed to the teeth.

[Trynt]

You can lose a privalage like driving or fishing.

But owning a Firearm is my GOd Given Right, says so in our Constitution.

Supreme Court upheld this time and time again, Like I need them to translate for me..

So if you think it's privalage then your dead wrong.

You can lose your rights by being a law breaking felon or if you are not mentally fit, which includes abusing your wife.

But that is about it.

It is our Right not a privalage to be bandied about with.

If it can be taken away for any reason then it is in effect a PRIVILEGE and it is just that. It is not like an individually guaranteed right like due process. It is a right for the collective people, (i.e. an entity separate from official government). It is never individually guaranteed and as common sense dictates, there are just some people who shouldn't have them.

And if you point a loaded gun at someone because you think "it's cute" then you've declared yourself not mentally fit. You've also broken laws and as such, may in fact forfeit your privilege if found guilty.

If automobiles had existed back when the BoR was written there may very well have wound up being an amendment that guaranteed the people the right to operate motor vehicles on public roads. There isn't one but f you behave in accordance with the law and can demonstrate basic aptitude it is for all practical purposes a right. But if you do not then it becomes a privilege.

For years the Left has been seeking to define firearm ownership as a privilege but, DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, both recent (2008 & 2010)US Supreme Court rulings confirm the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" is protected by the Second Amendment. Short of a felony conviction or proof of mental incompetence a right normally remains intact. No right is absolute. If for example, you murder someone in Texas your right to life may be revoked.

A carry permit is generally considered (excluding Ted Nugent) to be a privilege , which in this case should probably be revoked.  The woman is a moron.

Regarding the effectiveness of an armed civilian uprising, no one argues that firearms could withstand a full-on assault of F16s, tanks, and atomic bombs.  While the use of military force against the civilian population may "fly" in Syria, in this country, at this point in time, it would be unacceptable.  Consider the uproar caused the Waco and Ruby Ridge. Even in Egypt the military refused to slaughter civilians.

[The Anvil]

Sorry, the British SAS are the best soldiers in the world, US Navy Seals rank #2.

Uh, no.  

If you want facts the truth is that they're both the best of the best and about equal. But the SAS didn't kill Bin Laden.  

They also didn't arm and train him in the 80's either.

Ouch man, ouch. 

[BudMan]

... what keeps this from becoming a military dictatorship is the military, their code of honor and their mission. Their own unwillingness to participate is what prevents you from going from citizen to subject.
[/quote]

As a retired officer I thank you for your confidence in the honor and dedication of my brothers in arms and I hope you are always comfortable knowing that the American Military will always be under civilian control and we would all die before turning on our own people. However, I think you need to realize that even if in some nightmare it MIGHT happen, the numbers would never allow it.  Compared to the number of arms that the entire populace of this country could bring to bear on an enemy, it is simply overwhelming.  You give me enough time, dedicated warriors, and nothing more than shotguns and deer riffles and I will take out a tank.

[tank_post142]

take a look at what the air and army national guard did in Detroit.  i served with guys that slaughtered civilians every night during the riots and had no problems with it at all. one officer ran over a pair of looters with an m-8 and then backed over them to make sure it was done right.

[RoadKill]

take a look at what the air and army national guard did in Detroit.  i served with guys that slaughtered civilians every night during the riots and had no problems with it at all. one officer ran over a pair of looters with an m-8 and then backed over them to make sure it was done right.

I am not sure what you speak of...maybe due to my age. When did this happen and what action did you take in it's wake?

[tank_post142]

1967 hundreds went "missing" i was 6 at the time but stood on Gratiot north of detroit my job was to reload shotguns for our fathers blocking the road so it stayed in the city and didn't come to the suburbs. later i joined the guard and met these men.
 the official report says 43 dead 1189 injured. when the 82nd airborne showed up they went on a 3 day shooting spree.

[RoadKill]

take a look at what the air and army national guard did in Detroit.  i served with guys that slaughtered civilians every night during the riots and had no problems with it at all. one officer ran over a pair of looters with an m-8 and then backed over them to make sure it was done right.

I'm still reading and trying to decipher the spin... both sides seem to agree that racism and police brutality started it. Do you think the servicemen you refer to were just doing as they were told or were they just racists with armor?   Sad days in US history regardless 

[tank_post142]

i was only following orders!
the officer i knew was black

[The Anvil]

If you really think that the citizens of America could prevent a determined U.S. Military from subjugating them in a heartbeat then you're delusional.

This has happened before.  It began in 1775 and ended with those citizens driving back and defeating the most powerful military in the world, namely the British military.

I know. Bad example. For one thing once on land the British enjoyed very little technological superiority to Colonial forces. In fact it was effectively none.  That gulf is now so vast as to be unfathomable. What little technology we posses would be quickly destroyed, captured or just plain SHUT OFF.

The average American was also at least familiar with the concept of being an "outdoorsman" (not what passes for it today either) and I'd venture that the majority of Americans were at least familiar with how to fight. Many were experienced in fighting Indian wars. These people comprised our army. The same battle hardened one that (in this fanciful scenario) is now our enemy.

The British were also fighting on unfamiliar terrain in an expeditionary fashion. That would not be the case here. And don't even get me started on logistics like non-standardized ammo and where to replenish, fuel, feeding the resistance and their families etc.

I can also tell you that it would be made doubly difficult by not only government sympathizers among the populace but also by internal power struggles for leadership. We'd be TOAST. That's why we'd better hope that we never have a robot army willing to follow orders without conscience or question.

But I say all of this with a deep, deep respect for our military. My fellow average American? Well let's just say I've lost some faith in them over time.

the Brits did have several tactical advantages, in most cases more men and more ammo.
the battle of Groton Heights CN is one example, the Americans out gunned and out manned retreated to Fort Griswold where they ran out of ammo and tried to repulse the British with pike and bayonets. they were over ran and eventually slaughtered.

this was British soil at the time, there were garrisons of Brits living here.

I know what you mean about 'on land' they did have a very, very powerful navy...

Well the Brits had a considerable tactical advantage in some respects, but I said "technological". In terms of weapons technology they had pretty much the same stuff we did.

On the seas it wasn't even a fight.

For that matter, much as some of us (myself included) like to rip on them, the French helped us out quite a bit.

[RoadKill]

i was only following orders!
the officer i knew was black

 WOW      Most of the military I know would step in and even use force on civilians to stop looting and protect property/ keep the order. However they all state that in a large revolution scenario they would train the people to fight.   I hope your experience is an exception  

[RoadKill]

If you really think that the citizens of America could prevent a determined U.S. Military from subjugating them in a heartbeat then you're delusional.

This has happened before.  It began in 1775 and ended with those citizens driving back and defeating the most powerful military in the world, namely the British military.

I know. Bad example. For one thing once on land the British enjoyed very little technological superiority to Colonial forces. In fact it was effectively none.  That gulf is now so vast as to be unfathomable. What little technology we posses would be quickly destroyed, captured or just plain SHUT OFF.

The average American was also at least familiar with the concept of being an "outdoorsman" (not what passes for it today either) and I'd venture that the majority of Americans were at least familiar with how to fight. Many were experienced in fighting Indian wars. These people comprised our army. The same battle hardened one that (in this fanciful scenario) is now our enemy.

The British were also fighting on unfamiliar terrain in an expeditionary fashion. That would not be the case here. And don't even get me started on logistics like non-standardized ammo and where to replenish, fuel, feeding the resistance and their families etc.

I can also tell you that it would be made doubly difficult by not only government sympathizers among the populace but also by internal power struggles for leadership. We'd be TOAST. That's why we'd better hope that we never have a robot army willing to follow orders without conscience or question.

But I say all of this with a deep, deep respect for our military. My fellow average American? Well let's just say I've lost some faith in them over time.

the Brits did have several tactical advantages, in most cases more men and more ammo.
the battle of Groton Heights CN is one example, the Americans out gunned and out manned retreated to Fort Griswold where they ran out of ammo and tried to repulse the British with pike and bayonets. they were over ran and eventually slaughtered.

this was British soil at the time, there were garrisons of Brits living here.

I know what you mean about 'on land' they did have a very, very powerful navy...

Well the Brits had a considerable tactical advantage in some respects, but I said "technological". In terms of weapons technology they had pretty much the same stuff we did.

On the seas it wasn't even a fight.

For that matter, much as some of us (myself included) like to rip on them, the French helped us out quite a bit.

And we helped the french in return,  do you know why the streets in Paris are lined with trees ? 'cause the Germans like to march in the shade !   

[MP]

If it can be taken away for any reason then it is in effect a PRIVILEGE and it is just that. It is not like an individually guaranteed right like due process. It is a right for the collective people, (i.e. an entity separate from official government). It is never individually guaranteed and as common sense dictates, there are just some people who shouldn't have them.


Well, I guess you and your lib friends will have to take that up with the Supreme Court, because they ruled last year that it is an Individual Right, not a collective right.

All the rights in the Bill of rights are individual rights.  It means nothing for a govt to give itself rights.

MP

[musclehead]

If you really think that the citizens of America could prevent a determined U.S. Military from subjugating them in a heartbeat then you're delusional.

This has happened before.  It began in 1775 and ended with those citizens driving back and defeating the most powerful military in the world, namely the British military.

I know. Bad example. For one thing once on land the British enjoyed very little technological superiority to Colonial forces. In fact it was effectively none.  That gulf is now so vast as to be unfathomable. What little technology we posses would be quickly destroyed, captured or just plain SHUT OFF.

The average American was also at least familiar with the concept of being an "outdoorsman" (not what passes for it today either) and I'd venture that the majority of Americans were at least familiar with how to fight. Many were experienced in fighting Indian wars. These people comprised our army. The same battle hardened one that (in this fanciful scenario) is now our enemy.

The British were also fighting on unfamiliar terrain in an expeditionary fashion. That would not be the case here. And don't even get me started on logistics like non-standardized ammo and where to replenish, fuel, feeding the resistance and their families etc.

I can also tell you that it would be made doubly difficult by not only government sympathizers among the populace but also by internal power struggles for leadership. We'd be TOAST. That's why we'd better hope that we never have a robot army willing to follow orders without conscience or question.

But I say all of this with a deep, deep respect for our military. My fellow average American? Well let's just say I've lost some faith in them over time.

the Brits did have several tactical advantages, in most cases more men and more ammo.
the battle of Groton Heights CN is one example, the Americans out gunned and out manned retreated to Fort Griswold where they ran out of ammo and tried to repulse the British with pike and bayonets. they were over ran and eventually slaughtered.

this was British soil at the time, there were garrisons of Brits living here.

I know what you mean about 'on land' they did have a very, very powerful navy...

Well the Brits had a considerable tactical advantage in some respects, but I said "technological". In terms of weapons technology they had pretty much the same stuff we did.

On the seas it wasn't even a fight.

For that matter, much as some of us (myself included) like to rip on them, the French helped us out quite a bit.

'how's your french toast?'  'smelly and ungrateful'  American Dad .....

[Robert]

To point a loaded weapon at someone is stupid. But in this case it was done more for pride than threatening and poorly showing what a laser site will do. It was not done as a threat with no one even considering that was the purpose of the demonstration. A far cry from being in a situation when you display a firearm as a threat.

Ruelas was writing about the freshman lawmaker's controversial move of carrying her pistol into the Statehouse just two days after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat from Tucson, was shot in the head while at a "Congress on Your Corner" event in January.

Richard Ruelas writes that Klein said "Oh it's so cute," before aiming the pistol square at his chest so he could see the red laser sight beam appear on his body.

"I just didn't have my hand on the trigger," Klein told the reporter,

Ruelas says he didn't realize the gun was loaded until later in the interview, and that their exchange was friendly and amicable. Their exchange was recorded on tape, which the paper says backs up Ruelas' reporting of the incident.