The soldiers in question might not fire on American citizens with lethal force, but if asked to gas or subdue by nonlethal means I'm sure they'd take far less issue with such an order. Enough use of nonlethal force might incite protesters to use lethal counters, and the presence of examples in which men and women of the armed forces have been gunned down during crowd suppression would increase their likelihood to comply with lethal force initiatives.Agayek said:I was responding to your hypothetical situation. I know several soldiers in the US military, they would not fire on American citizens unless said citizens were pointing guns at someone else. The military simply would not allow a hostile takeover of the US.jasoncyrus said:And the award for not reading posts properly goes to you. Second line of the bit you quoted, stated he'd have to get them (the military) on his side to achieve it. And it was a hypothetical situation in responce to the uninformed person *I* was quoting. GO back to sleep please you are hampering the discussion by not reading things properly before flaming people.
Simply put, martial law is all but impossible in the current climate.
That said, it is not infeasible, and I would say it's probable, that someone is working with/on the government to establish at least some form of oligarchy behind the scenes. That may just be distrust of authority on my end though.
That artical is from 2005.JRslinger said:As a rebuttal to your Australia comment I provide this link
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html
Actually we do in proportion, many differning nationalities fight for control. They just don't shoot each other.JRslinger said:Also Australia doesn't have the inner city gang problems that we do.
Because you are very likely to be shot with the family gun, by another family member (whom you are unlikely/unable to shoot back, as they have your gun....).JRslinger said:How does that fact that crime victims know their attacker have any bearing on self defense?
To quote that same report wich is very out of date (from 1997)JRslinger said:Furthermore the national crime victimization survey estimates 100,000 defensive gun uses a year. It's halfway down the page.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt
TechNoFear said:That artical is from 2005.JRslinger said:As a rebuttal to your Australia comment I provide this link
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.html
In Australia NOW it is a requirement that all firearms are kept at a gun club
OR
after two years ownership may be kept at home in a locked safe.
This stops guns getting into the wrong hands or being used in a moment of anger.
Even that artical mentions a 19% drop in gun murders, contrasted with a 4% increase in attempted murder involving guns (due to the ban on high powered semi autos).
This is a net 15% decrease in gun related crime.
The SMH is also similar to FOX in outlook ie biased and sensasionalist in nature.
Fact is that Australia's CURRENT rate of gun crime is 30 times lower then the US's (per 100K pop).
Actually we do in proportion, many differning nationalities fight for control. They just don't shoot each other.JRslinger said:Also Australia doesn't have the inner city gang problems that we do.
Because you are very likely to be shot with the family gun, by another family member (whom you are unlikely/unable to shoot back, as they have your gun....).JRslinger said:How does that fact that crime victims know their attacker have any bearing on self defense?
To quote that same report wich is very out of date (from 1997)JRslinger said:Furthermore the national crime victimization survey estimates 100,000 defensive gun uses a year. It's halfway down the page.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt
"Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack. "
Studies show that only 0.2% of crime is thwarted by guns, this includes the use of guns by police officers (20% of these incidents).
You will NEVER get it through these guys heads that the "scary" looking gun is the same damn thing as your grandads hunting rifle. Paint any rifle black put a pistol grip on it and suddenly it's an assault rifle that only has one purpose and thats to kill people. Or they think the asinine mag cap limit will help. (like the .5-3 seconds it takes to change a mag is gonna help prevent a killing spree)Samurai Goomba said:I find it ridiculous that we've had multiple people talk about how this assault ban is on semi-auto weapons, and only on certain ones (for cosmetic reasons), and yet people still keep posting like they think this "Assault weapon" ban is going to remove machine guns from the hands of the populace.
News flash: Fully-automatic machine guns are already illegal. All this ban does is make certain models (but NOT ALL) of semi-automatic rifles illegal. It does not keep people from buying semi-auto weapons. It does not keep people from even buying semi-auto rifles. This law, in effect, does absolutely nothing useful.
http://forums.howwhatwhy.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=weapons&Number=305314&fpart=1
Here's a link to a forum explaining the difference between manual, semi-auto and fully automatic firing modes. It was all I could find on short notice.
The only real difference between a civilian AR-15 and a civilian semi-auto hunting rifle is that the rifle is more accurate and fires a more powerful cartridge. Why ban an inferior gun (well, sorta) that CANNOT fire in full-auto mode?
how much good is that assault rifle going to do against an Abrams tank or F22 raptor, the government has always had the civilian population outgunned even after the revolution the government had ships an cannon. I support the right to own a hand gun or hunting rifle after extensive background checks and psychological testing.x434343 said:Does anyone know why we have the second amendment? It is so that, if ever needed, the people of America would have the means to overthrow and replace an opressive government.
By banning any sort of gun, a red flag should go up. If he bans all guns, all he's done is opressed America, preventing the right to own the means of revolution.
people of Somalia did pretty well in Black hawk Downcordeos said:how much good is that assault rifle going to do against an Abrams tank or F22 raptor, the government has always had the civilian population outgunned even after the revolution the government had ships an cannon. I support the right to own a hand gun or hunting rifle after extensive background checks and psychological testing.x434343 said:Does anyone know why we have the second amendment? It is so that, if ever needed, the people of America would have the means to overthrow and replace an opressive government.
By banning any sort of gun, a red flag should go up. If he bans all guns, all he's done is opressed America, preventing the right to own the means of revolution.
And clearly the Supreme Court disagrees with you. It was the very same 2nd Amendment that prevented the arms of newly freed slaves from being seized in the time following the Civil War. Many states in the South attempted to make it illegal for people of color to own a firearm, and their laws were ultimately struck down as unconstitutional. Read the Heller decision. The more recent Nordyke vs King decision in from the 9th Circuit of Appeals also details the historical and cultural background of the 2nd Amendment as part of the court's opinion.ravensheart18 said:That's the ammendment. Clearly you only had the right to bear arms in order to form state militias - which were eliminated/reorganized after your little civil war. This was to let you form regional armies not under control of the President, it wasn't so every idiot could have his own substitute penis.
dreadedcandiru99 said:Come on--these guns have the word "assault" right in the freaking name.
Unless you're in the military, or the deer you're hunting has a bazooka, you don't need one.
RA3 took your bear ideas. Sorry man...Gormourn said:You can bear all the arms you want, I'd rather arm bears. Bwahaha FEAR MY ARMY OF POLAR BEARS ARMED WITH LAZERS AND MACHINE GUNS!
Yep. I mean, what's up with all the people who think the fallacious label of "assault weapon" makes the gun worthy of banning? By that logic, anything could be banned as long as it was capable of firing projectiles fast enough to kill a person and had a scary enough name.sneakypenguin said:You will NEVER get it through these guys heads that the "scary" looking gun is the same damn thing as your grandads hunting rifle. Paint any rifle black put a pistol grip on it and suddenly it's an assault rifle that only has one purpose and thats to kill people. Or they think the asinine mag cap limit will help. (like the .5-3 seconds it takes to change a mag is gonna help prevent a killing spree)Samurai Goomba said:I find it ridiculous that we've had multiple people talk about how this assault ban is on semi-auto weapons, and only on certain ones (for cosmetic reasons), and yet people still keep posting like they think this "Assault weapon" ban is going to remove machine guns from the hands of the populace.
News flash: Fully-automatic machine guns are already illegal. All this ban does is make certain models (but NOT ALL) of semi-automatic rifles illegal. It does not keep people from buying semi-auto weapons. It does not keep people from even buying semi-auto rifles. This law, in effect, does absolutely nothing useful.
http://forums.howwhatwhy.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=weapons&Number=305314&fpart=1
Here's a link to a forum explaining the difference between manual, semi-auto and fully automatic firing modes. It was all I could find on short notice.
The only real difference between a civilian AR-15 and a civilian semi-auto hunting rifle is that the rifle is more accurate and fires a more powerful cartridge. Why ban an inferior gun (well, sorta) that CANNOT fire in full-auto mode?
But you can't argue with people that see things from an emotional or idealic perspective.