Colorado to arm teachers in classrooms

[h4rm0ny]

Considering it's attempting to place weapons into another environment, it is indeed not off-topic, this is not SC either. Regardless i clearly mean the average European state, and the average European state isnt a tyranny either.

You're probably the last poster on these forums I would have expected to describe Britain as "not a tyranny"

Regarding that subtitle, I would actually wager money that if you surveyed those in favour of gun-ownership in the USA with the question "Why should owning a gun be legal," more than 50% would give you as their first answer to be because the Second Amendment is vital to protect democracy, or some variant of it. I believe "to protect myself" would be a popular but secondary answer. A lot of non-Americans don't get just how important the right to bear arms is as a principle to most of the pro-gun lobby.

But anyway, this is again trying to take it into a topic that isn't germane. This bill will not increase the number of people owning guns by a single individual. It only applies to people who are already licenced gun owners and not even most of them.

 

[Vonhelmet]

And the ability for a populace to defend itself against a tyranny is not silly, imo.

In principle, sure, but the only scenario I can envisage in which Americans would use their weapons to resist the government would be if the government attempted to take their weapons off them, at which point the problem becomes somewhat circular.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

The second amendment was brought in to ensure the public could forcibly overturn the government (with arms) should they need to.

Now, I don't know about you but to overturn the current US government you'd need much more than a 9mm pistol, and therein lies the issue.

Cletus having access to a full auto assault rifle under the second amendment is plain stupid, but they don't see it. Bigger is better and all that.

Now, the matter at hand... talk about not tackling the root of the problem and instead fixating on introducing a control measure which will only make things riskier: Stop the guns getting in and you won't need to use guns for protection

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

If the American education standard doesn't reduce itself to some kind of Battle Royale endpoint then I'm at a loss as to what a progressive society needs to work out in terms of providing an education where, somehow, no one dies.

 

[Sankari]

Regarding that subtitle, I would actually wager money that if you surveyed those in favour of gun-ownership in the USA with the question "Why should owning a gun be legal," more than 50% would give you as their first answer to be because the Second Amendment is vital to protect democracy, or some variant of it. I believe "to protect myself" would be a popular but secondary answer.

Quite likely.

A lot of non-Americans don't get just how important the right to bear arms is as a principle to most of the pro-gun lobby.

I agree. It's an irrational belief, perpetuated by a culture of ignorance and paranoia.

 

[jsmoke]

Stalemate. can't really see a solution without risking a civil war, similar to the banning of slavery I suppose, so much passion with many to keep the 2nd amendment. The best the left can do is just keep chipping away, introducing more rigid background checks, banning high powered rifles etc. Subject has been done to death and same old arguements.

 

[Rroff]

I find it interesting how many people who aren't American, don't live in the USA and not likely to do get so worked up about US gun laws and ownership, etc.

That said I do think it is kind of crazy in that it would only take a small number of common sense changes to reduce gun related violence and incidents by like 75% with little real impact on their rights.

 

[StriderX]

Ok if American's have the right to rise up, why didn't they when the PATRIOT act was enacted or when it was known that Americans were being watched in some STASI information orgasm?

What about when the modern (not at all free) federal government came to be at the turn of the 20th century?

There's a massive cognitive dissonance here, and that's the most annoying part of this.

 

[jsmoke]

So what do you think the ulterior motive is then Strider. Tradition, pride, money(business)?

Most of the die hard pro gunners will say that their ancestors had to fight and die for their country, WOI, Civil War, Mexican war and whatever else their was. So it seems they could be holding onto the legacy of their forebearers as the main reason.

 

[StriderX]

They can own that reason then, but it is definitely not to "stop a tyrannical" government, not one that can literally wipe out towns within seconds (this isnt amazingly the 18th century anymore, who knew), that tiny AR15 is a pea shooter in comparison. But whatever, they can use the silly reason all they want.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I find it interesting how many people who aren't American, don't live in the USA and not likely to do get so worked up about US gun laws and ownership, etc.

If I want less violence and killing, why would that desire only extend as far as the shores of this country?

 

[Rroff]

If I want less violence and killing, why would that desire only extend as far as the shores of this country?

Not really talking about people who are critical but those that take it almost like its a personal affront to them.

They can own that reason then, but it is definitely not to "stop a tyrannical" government, not one that can literally wipe out towns within seconds (this isnt amazingly the 18th century anymore, who knew), that tiny AR15 is a pea shooter in comparison. But whatever, they can use the silly reason all they want.

Its not as one sided as it seems - the US armed forces are pretty large (and heavily equipped) but outnumbered more than 50 to 1 in a potential uprising and assumedly in that scenario some sections of the military would defect, etc. and likewise an impact on their ability to draw on reserve forces or call people up. There are estimated enough civilian owned firearms in the US in total to arm every single member of the population.

If the US armed forces start wiping out entire US towns that seals turning the population against the government - their bases and other land based military infrastructure would fall within minutes afterwards - get a large armed mob turning up even if the base is protected by heavy armour, etc. its likely many of those defending it wouldn't shoot on their own people.

 

[sanaxe1]

*gun to students head* Wheres your homework mother ******.

 

[jsmoke]

They can own that reason then, but it is definitely not to "stop a tyrannical" government, not one that can literally wipe out towns within seconds (this isnt amazingly the 18th century anymore, who knew), that tiny AR15 is a pea shooter in comparison. But whatever, they can use the silly reason all they want.

That makes sense however maybe not underestimate the power of militia groups of which I think there have been many in the US since it's founding, and still are active ones, Timothy Mcveigh was part of one for example and look at the carnage they caused. I guess that's where all the Fema camps and martial law comes into place, if it ever really did take off.

Also was reading an interesting article about whether the WOI was a just war, i.e against tyranny, no real conslusion to it though, seems the taxation without representation may have just been an excuse to create a new country with perfect ideals. They were rebels after all.

https://spectator.org/38933_americas-unjust-revolution-what-british-tyranny/

 

[cainer]

*gun to students head* Wheres your homework mother ******.

i covered that in post #17

damn right too,
sorry sir i forgot my homework, are you going to gives me lines?
no lad, Bang.

 

[dowie]

They can own that reason then, but it is definitely not to "stop a tyrannical" government, not one that can literally wipe out towns within seconds (this isnt amazingly the 18th century anymore, who knew), that tiny AR15 is a pea shooter in comparison. But whatever, they can use the silly reason all they want.

well the Vietcong, NVA, and Taliban put up a decent enough fight... also I don't know why people imagine the armed forces to be an entirely separate entity to the rest of the US population, they're made up of US citizens after all, you couldn't necessarily expect all of them to suppress the civilian population to being with if there were a 'tyrant' in power, rather you might well find various units or individuals joining the rebels or staying out of the conflict... I mean technically the US armed forces isn't supposed to be used within the US - only national guard units... You could have a situation like in the Arab spring in Egypt that turned into protestors vs Police with the Army initially not getting involved against either

 

[Vonhelmet]

That makes sense however maybe not underestimate the power of militia groups of which I think there have been many in the US since it's founding, and still are active ones, Timothy Mcveigh was part of one for example and look at the carnage they caused.

Not really selling it