The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

[drunkenbeagle]

I didn't think the president could issue an executive order overturning an amendment.

The president can issue an executive order for whatever he wants, but for it to hold up in court, it needs to be related to the execution of an existing law. Of course, those courts are run by judges appointed by presidents...

 

[cmill]

Nope. If we've gotten to the point where my former colleagues are attacking American citizens, I've been gone for a while.

That's a pretty unrealistic idea of how this would go down. People wouldn't be sitting calmly in their homes, waiting for the 21st century SS to come take their weapons away. Any sort of move to take away our guns would almost certainly quickly cause large numbers of Americans, especially down here in the South, to form highly organized and very well armed militias. The SS wouldn't be going door to door to take away weapons, they'd be going against small armies. That's why this will never happen. Even the gun phobics in D.C. know that trying to actually take away guns would result in a new American civil war. And even lefty pinkos like myself would be on the secessionist side. I can put up with quite a lot. But I can't put up with the loss of the one thing that protects all other freedoms.

Both of you are right. We all know nothing like this could ever happen, so what exactly are we arguing about? The whole "Derrr gunna take muh gunzzz" thing is just ridiculous. It's a running joke about how Obama has done more for gun sales than the NRA ever could. Thats what bothers me more than anything. The same people who think that theres going to be a round up of guns are the same people voting. There are far more serious things im concerned with.

I looked in to getting a class III permit, but found out that you give the ATF permission to search your house at any time. That was enough for me to nope out. This all comes down to freedoms vs perceived freedoms. Yes, I have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle complete with a suppressor, but I dont have the right to have it without someone coming into my house and checking things out. I can't even send a damn email without it going through a monitoring network checking for key words.

That all bothers me more than the threat of someone telling me I cant carry more than ten rounds at one time.

 

[Qutch]

Hypothetical question:

If it came down to police banging on doors, snatching up guns, who would actually give it to them "bullets first?"

Theres plenty of bravado about guns and freedom, but when it comes right down to it, exactly how strongly do you feel?

cmill has a point. This is all just big talk. Chest-thumping.

A population too passive to demand truth from its press and its government, too passive to oppose the NDAA and the Patriot Act, too passive to oppose warrantless wire-taps and National Security Letters, too passive to demand accountability for the ruinous wild-goose-chase we were sent on in Iraq, too passive to demand accountability for the Big Banks' orchestration of the financial meltdown and their own taxpayer funded bailout.............that's not a population that's going to shoot it out with the Police or the Army.

Face it. This citizenry wouldn't have the courage to shoot it out with the Girl Scouts if they sent them to take away the guns.
.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Of course not. But that doesn't stop the Alex Jones style windbags from pretending that he will anyway.

Given that only two executive orders have ever been blocked by the courts, the odds of success are pretty good. With the speed that the courts move at, it is likely legislation would change making it moot before it came to that.

 

[Cheyenne]

I can do all that also, (I am still a redneck,) But I'm not fooling myself into thinking that I need my FNH FS2000 in order to do it.

Neither do I. And this is the problem. The question of NEED doesn't have anything to do with anything. The question is that ownership is currently RIGHT... if you so desire. So why do you feel that you (and everyone else) need not have that right anymore? Or do you not feel that way?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

A population too passive to demand truth from its press and its government, too passive to oppose the NDAA and the Patriot Act, too passive to oppose warrantless wire-taps and National Security Letters, too passive to demand accountability for the ruinous wild-goose-chase we were sent on in Iraq, too passive to demand accountability for the Big Banks' orchestration of the financial meltdown and their own taxpayer funded bailout.............that's not a population that's going to shoot it out with the Police or the Army.

Face it. This citizenry wouldn't have the courage to shoot it out with the Girl Scouts if they sent them to take away the guns.
.

Most of the people who would take up arms in the event of gun confiscation are people who don't care about the things you mention, because they agree with them. That's sad, but it's true. They only care about the rights that directly affect them right now, not the rights that are being violated for other people, or might be violated for them in the future. They're too short sighted for that. But once someone from the government wants to come take their guns away, their attitude will be much different, and they'll suddenly care. Don't make the mistake of believing that a guy who doesn't care about the Patriot Act won't care about his gun being taken away. Very different story.

 

[cmill]

Neither do I. And this is the problem. The question of NEED doesn't have anything to do with anything. The question is that ownership is currently RIGHT... if you so desire. So why do you feel that you (and everyone else) need not have that right anymore? Or do you not feel that way?

I completely think its a right we should have. Like I said, I love my assault rifles. It just almost feels like this whole thing is fabricated to distract us from real issues. Guns are never a problem until someone goes and does something stupid. Never mind the fact that all these people have some serious mental issues, but no one wants to adress that problem.

*Most* gun advocates are also strongly opposed to government health care. These are the people that say, well of course we should have guns, but crazies shouldn't have them. Then they say that a psych test for a gun is an invasion of privacy.

So, what it comes down to is that you want guns, blame gun violence on mental illness, dont't want a government system of providing mental health care, but expect everything to work out fine.

 

[The Fez]

I hope there are a lot of people in the military that feel this way...

All the hype and craziness about this debate is conjecture. It really comes down to just this: Which way will the military go?

It appears to be a common belief among a lot of people that the military will mindlessly Blitzkrieg the cities and countryside of the Unites States if given the order to do so. I simply don't see that happening. Military members are not robots. They are Americans. They are people. They are us. I wouldn't fly over my old neighborhood clearing my crew to mow down anyone they see with a gun. I don't think Hacker15e, or bunk22, or MikeD, or ///AMG would either. Even if the brass gives the order, it has to be executed, and I believe they'll have their own insurrection to worry about in that case.

 

[cmill]

Most of the people who would take up arms in the event of gun confiscation are people who don't care about the things you mention, because they agree with them. That's sad, but it's true. They only care about the rights that directly affect them right now, not the rights that are being violated for other people, or might be violated for them in the future. They're too short sighted for that. But once someone from the government wants to come take their guns away, their attitude will be much different, and they'll suddenly care. Don't make the mistake of believing that a guy who doesn't care about the Patriot Act won't care about his gun being taken away. Very different story.

That's literally retarded. Not what you said; what you said is true. It's just retarded that people act like that.

I care much more about government censorship and the free flow of information than I do my guns. Theres a reason why communist governments ban books, blocks web pages. The pen is mightier than the sword, and yes theres a penis joke in there.

 

[Qutch]

All the hype and craziness about this debate is conjecture. It really comes down to just this: Which way will the military go?

.........Even if the brass gives the order, it has to be executed, and I believe they'll have their own insurrection to worry about in that case.

Yes. If they had tried to revoke our freedoms overnight, there might be shock and a backlash. But it's all being done slowly, with plenty of "terrorism" and media hype thrown in to soften up the population. If they do it correctly, the population will be begging them to revoke more freedoms, which it seems that many citizens already are.

 

[cmill]

All the hype and craziness about this debate is conjecture. It really comes down to just this: Which way will the military go?

It appears to be a common belief among a lot of people that the military will mindlessly Blitzkrieg the cities and countryside of the Unites States if given the order to do so. I simply don't see that happening. Military members are not robots. They are Americans. They are people. They are us. I wouldn't fly over my old neighborhood clearing my crew to mow down anyone they see with a gun. I don't think Hacker15e, or bunk22, or MikeD, or ///AMG would either. Even if the brass gives the order, it has to be executed, and I believe they'll have their own insurrection to worry about in that case.

That didn't stop the guy from shooting a missile at an american citizen.

"We need you to kill this person in the name of national security."

"Well, if its in the name of national security..."

 

[WacoFan]

The fact that the holder of the second highest office in the land, whatever his proclivity to run his mouth is, stated that Executive Orders could potentially be used is troubling. Whether or not it could be done, whether or not it would be done, simply uttering that statement as the VP of the USA is troubling.

 

[WacoFan]

cmill has a point. This is all just big talk. Chest-thumping.

A population too passive to demand truth from its press and its government, too passive to oppose the NDAA and the Patriot Act, too passive to oppose warrantless wire-taps and National Security Letters, too passive to demand accountability for the ruinous wild-goose-chase we were sent on in Iraq, too passive to demand accountability for the Big Banks' orchestration of the financial meltdown and their own taxpayer funded bailout.............that's not a population that's going to shoot it out with the Police or the Army.

Face it. This citizenry wouldn't have the courage to shoot it out with the Girl Scouts if they sent them to take away the guns.
.

True...but I'd eat a few brownies.

Hey, wait - Chris Hanson's at the door! Wonder what he wants?

 

[WacoFan]

All the hype and craziness about this debate is conjecture. It really comes down to just this: Which way will the military go?

It appears to be a common belief among a lot of people that the military will mindlessly Blitzkrieg the cities and countryside of the Unites States if given the order to do so. I simply don't see that happening. Military members are not robots. They are Americans. They are people. They are us. I wouldn't fly over my old neighborhood clearing my crew to mow down anyone they see with a gun. I don't think Hacker15e, or bunk22, or MikeD, or ///AMG would either. Even if the brass gives the order, it has to be executed, and I believe they'll have their own insurrection to worry about in that case.

Look to the enlistment numbers. For over-simplicity look at numbers of the current force that enlisted from (not currently listed as a resident of, but enlisted from) the red states. I'm sure that there are a fair amount of enlistees from those states. Figure that they were raised with more "red state" values, and then assume that a large percentage of those would "defect".

 

[cmill]

The fact that the holder of the second highest office in the land, whatever his proclivity to run his mouth is, stated that Executive Orders could potentially be used is troubling. Whether or not it could be done, whether or not it would be done, simply uttering that statement as the VP of the USA is troubling.

The problem is that people assume that the VP congress, or even the POTUS are smart people. A guy I worked with had a saying. "The boss is an ass hole, but the bigger ass hole is the guy working for him."

Congressional approval ratings are dismal, but people re-elect the same guys over and over. So who's the dumber? The guy in office or the people electing him?

 

[Hacker15e]

That and Obama can't issue an executive order overturning an amendment.

About the only "Executive Order" that the POTUS would realistically be able to give in this situation would be altering the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA to put a certain type of firearm (ergo 'assault weapons') on the NFA registry. That couldn't be done in a vacuum -- it would have to be done with some other Congressional actions (like the Feinstein bill).

 

[WacoFan]

OK....here's my thing. One of the great GREAT ass kickings in modern history was the Six Day War. A premeditated war - Israel had actionable intel that Egypt, Syria and others would attack, so they attacked first. Wiped out everyone.

What we need is a preemptive war. They are clearly going to take our guns. We need to strike first. Meeting at my house tonight, 7:00pm. Be there or be square.

 

[Hacker15e]

All the hype and craziness about this debate is conjecture. It really comes down to just this: Which way will the military go?

It appears to be a common belief among a lot of people that the military will mindlessly Blitzkrieg the cities and countryside of the Unites States if given the order to do so. I simply don't see that happening. Military members are not robots. They are Americans. They are people. They are us.

There are a lot of non-thinkers amongst the ranks. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would not have the moral courage to evaluate an 'illegal order' against their oath to the Constitution, and then deliberately disobey the order. Most military folks would probably go with whatever their Commanders chose, because they are conditioned to think that their leadership is right and we've seen instances where folks who called orders unconstitutional were given The People's Elbow in return (like Lt Watada with his OIF orders).

It is the mid-level managers -- the Captains to Colonels and senior NCOs -- who would really determine what would happen. Whichever way they went, the majority of their people would go. That's where the 'civil disobedience' would really start. I know a lot of O-3s, O-4s, and O-5s who would be able to draw a line and say 'no' if ridiculous orders like that were to come from higher up.

 

[Qutch]

OK....here's my thing. One of the great GREAT ass kickings in modern history was the Six Day War. A premeditated war - Israel had actionable intel that Egypt, Syria and others would attack, so they attacked first. Wiped out everyone.

What we need is a preemptive war. They are clearly going to take our guns. We need to strike first. Meeting at my house tonight, 7:00pm. Be there or be square.

Better yet, let's all meet back here and complain some more. Start another thread. They've gone too far this time. Who's with me?!

 

[ComplexHiAv8r]

Face it. This citizenry wouldn't have the courage to shoot it out with the Girl Scouts if they sent them to take away the guns.
.

Will they be bringing my order of thin mints when they come? I'd gladly give up my gun for some thin mints, frozen please.