Summations Only

Apparently the loonies fearing an Obama-military takeover of the country have never been commissioned in the officer corps. They do not understand the power of The Oath. The duty was beat into our heads and branded on our hearts constantly. The Oath was not to our superior officers, or to the Commander-In-Chief, or to the Office of the President or to the people, not even to the nation.In command training the Nuremberg defense was a constant topic of discussion and rejection. To act out the bizarre scenario these fanatical fascists fear would require the elimination of a large part of the civilian leadership in the pentagon, more than few of the Joint Chiefs and their staffs along with thousands of generals, admirals, colonels and captains along every chain of command in the military. If the same discussions I had way back then are still held today among the shavetails then I can assure you the corps of lieutenants and ensigns will not be standing idly by while this treason is committed against the Constitution of the United States.And if you think the officer corps would be hard to get over, you have never met a career E-7.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Uh no, those numbers represented people, not "guns". Not necessarily. The only differences is that the government either knew they were not armed, or didn't know who, or how many of them, were armed. It's a big connection, the difference between the government fearing/respecting the people, or the government not being afraid of the people. To most Americans who don't think very hard. A lot of Americans thought, 35? years ago, that smoking restrictions meant no smoking on airline flights of 2 hours or less. They know how incrementalism works. They've seen victories for gun control, and a constant appetite by gun control advocates for more and more. And you're telling me you don't think that's the goal of the Democrat party today?

Seriously, you're saying that no matter how much written history is correlated. you'll never believe it if you don't want to?

It may be written, marc, but it's not history.

I was expecting to see a "summary only" requirement by this time, and I wouldn't mind that, but this phase is still fun, for me anyway, for all my frantic opponents, I'm not so sure. If the government decided on a complete Hiroshima style destruction from the air, it's true that an armed citizenry wouldn't have much of a chance. But a government probably wouldn't want to destroy that much of its own nation's property.But ground warfare, the automatic weapons, the bazookas, the tanks, the military wouldn't have a chance, unless they had a significant percentage of the population on their side. If they didn't, they'd have a little problem when they exhausted their immediate supply of ammo, or maybe got just a little bit hungry. The general public could outlast them with 6 guns, when it came to long-term survival. Hundreds of millions of 6 guns is better than thousands of tanks and bazookas. But that's not a likely scenario, what's more likely is your next question. At this time, it's not so much the actual event, it's an anticipation of it by the government. Did you notice how some governors, mayors, congressmen etc were a little nervous, seemed to have a genuine desire to address problems with some police officer actions, during the riots of Ferguson and Baltimore? Do you think they'd have been that nervous, if it were a CRIME for any citizen to legally possess a gun? They probably would. If it were a crime for any citizen to possess a gun, they'd probably call out the National Guard, then smile and go to bed and check out how things went the next day. Make the government think really hard before they do something so careless to make an armed populace so angry. Again, you probably noticed how nervous government reps were during Ferguson and Baltimore. They can make for themselves a determination of just what the National Guard is trying to do, "restore order", or just follow orders from self serving politicians and bureaucrats.

Yeah, when we're driven to pointing out that the dinosaurs weren't killed off by space aliens with nukes, you've clearly got us on the ropes.

I think a world not armed to any significant degree is the goal of every sane human being.As to the gun control history, it remains a polemic, a screed, bankrupt in logic and slipshod in fact.I'd warrant the person who wrote it knows that about it and doesn't care, because it's merely a weapon of political and cultural war. The "technical truth" is less important than the "larger truth" of its partisanship.The bitter divorce between the right in America and evidence-based policies is the great political tragedy of our time.

I can understand how the rest of the world may not understand. The U.S. really is the policeman of the world, and much of the world does appreciate it. The U.S. is a melting pot of diversity, so much more than other countries. And, for whatever reason, the U.S. citizenry and government loves its guns and ammo. I don't fully understand it, and like me, I'll bet you can't understand why the U.S. government needs billions of rounds of hollow point ammo for target practice. I guess vaporizing a target would be much more fun than just punching holes in it like conventional ammo would, but it wouldn't be as accurate in determining the skill of the shooter. I sincerely hope you never have the experience of hijacked planes flying into your buildings and killing 3000 innocent people. I'm sure you won't - your country isn't hated like the U.S. is. It will always be that way, and it's no crime, different cultures often don't understand each other. But it does make some Americans nervous when those from other countries take such a keen interest in gun control in the U.S. NOT ON MESSAGE BOARDS SUCH AS THESE, let me hasten to add, but more so when foreign countries show enough fondness to the gun-controlling Democrat party that it appears in any way that they may be monetarily supporting them. I understand, the U.S. is a scary place to a lot of people. But we like it.

If citizens disagree about the National Guard, do they fight it out in factions, first, then address the Guard?Can I make this determination whenever I encounter an armed agent of the state? You know, in a Founding Fathers-cheering-me- on kinda way? This getting a lot of people killed for freedom with guns is kinda fractally, works on all scales...

If you want me to respond to anything you say, here is what I would need you to do;I see that no one else here is going to show you, so you need to do it yourself. Go to any number of websites that list "logical fallacies". You should be able to find a favorite, most of them are very liberal. Find a definition of "straw man" there, and c/p it, in your next post. Then look at my message 3671, and pay special attention to the word "parasite" that was addressed to something I said. THEN, admit that you learned something about what "straw man" means.If you're too proud to do that, then you can keep amusing yourself and your friends by addressing what I say, but I won't be responding to it.

I note that you've ducked the question.But no, I don't believe things just because I read them on a lot of web sites. Are you certain that you cannot come up with something better than that to lend credibility to what you posted?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Some facts. This seems particularly relevant: But I would still like to know: if you deny that they are practicing with the bullets that they buy, with what bullets are they practicing? Do they have a top secret source of practice bullets? Or are they not practicing, but just hoping that if they ever need to actually shoot their guns they'll just wing it?

More like agog and dumbfounded. You're saying a lot of crazy things that don't make sense to other people, so your goal should be to put your ideas into a rational context that will show you're not just some kind of kook. Instead you're just piling on more crazy things.Leaving Bizarro World now...--Percy

Your poor fee-fees. We all know why you wont respond. You have nothing but assertions and misrepresentations of facts and history. You also have a marked lack of understanding of many logical fallacies. Someone restating your arguments in different words is not a straw man.

Bizarro World here for sure, in the minds of the anti-gun people. Just because the possibility of government tyranny is a major reason for the second amendment doesn't mean anybody imagines taking on an army should it be mobilized against the people. If it comes to that we're dead with or without guns, the idea is only for circumstances where we might stand a chance which could occur under any scenario, even a phase in such a takeover. And the knowledge that millions of Americans ARE armed is very probably a deterrent to some kinds of tyranny that could occur.Americans sent guns to the Brits in WWII with the idea that if there was an invasion they might at least defend their homes and families against soldiers on foot, or gain time to escape to a hiding place. Who knows what scenarios could occur?But sure, if the governments of the world should unite against the people or any segment of the people, we're most likely dead ducks. Being totally unarmed in ANY case is the LEAST desirable situation it seems to me. SOME Jews would have stood a chance if they hadn't been disarmed.As for guns in church and Bible Study, there is at least a CHANCE of defending people in case of an attack. The statistics don't show 100% failure you know. And no, I'm not imagining a wild west shootout, I'm imagining a person with a concealed gun in such a situation looking and hoping and praying for an opportunity to use it well, even perhaps after having been shot. The Charleston murderer reloaded five times. All it would take is one pause for reloading to give the good guy a chance at stopping him. I don't know of anybody who imagines an easy confrontation with a murderer, you're always at risk and you need to know the risks. It's the gun control people who have the silly scenarios in mind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.