Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[spartan]

 " but then again, i dont buy the whole idea of our govt turning on ourselves."

Yep, they never do... until they come for your guns.

has it ever happened?

Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, Vietnam, China, Korea, Cambodia. Places where they shortly thereafter started the mass extermination of people who did not share their views. That's just coincidence though.

[GameTime]

Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, Vietnam, China, Korea, Cambodia. Places where they shortly thereafter started the mass extermination of people who did not share their views. That's just coincidence though.

honestly, my history knowledge stinks.  were these democratic (this term will probably sidetrack) societies or were they led by dictators?

[CBWx2]

Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, Vietnam, China, Korea, Cambodia. Places where they shortly thereafter started the mass extermination of people who did not share their views. That's just coincidence though.

honestly, my history knowledge stinks.  were these democratic (this term will probably sidetrack) societies or were they led by dictators?

They were monarchies. Monarchies that were in shambles, which created a power vacuum that allowed dictators to rise up and take advantage of a desperate, and in some cases literally starving to death, populace.

To hear these guys tell it, all of those countries turned due to a bad election cycle. "If only the people had guns those rotten Bolsheviks would have never overthrown Tzar Nicholas II, and all would be well in Russia!"

[Chief Joseph]

 
Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

[GameTime]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

[Pewter Pirate]

Actually, in most cases, the people are conned into giving up their rights voluntarily. Those seeking power often employ two devices; a scapegoat, which simultaneously divides the citizens into two groups while uniting the group against the other, and the useful idiot, well meaning but misguided people who passionately plead to the people to give up their protection, it's okay, you can trust the government, they're here to take care of us.

i just find it hard to believe that AK47's in our closets are the only thing keeping us from concentration camps and genocide from within.

You should take Illuminator's advise and read, you would be surprised how secure those who willingly give up their rights are when giving up their rights.  Look, you are ready to give up this important right to bear arms with no knowledge of history while you are currently secure.  It's after your rights are taken is when the door for a power seeking group to take control.   

[dbucfan]

http://ukraineanalysis.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/genocide-or-not-stalin-starved-millions-to-death-and-soviet-regime-concealed-for-54-years/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017839/Madman-starved-60-million-death-Devastating-book-reveals-Maos-megalomania-turned-China-madhouse.html#axzz2K9rFQpDM

Here's a couple of instances when perhaps governments would have had other thoughts GT - and both groups of citizens had faith in their governments

[Chief Joseph]

Exactly. People will give up their rights while they feel secure. But security is temporary and the loss of protection is permanent.

[Chief Joseph]

" To hear these guys tell it, all of those countries turned due to a bad election cycle."

No one has said anything remotely close to that - except you. Good luck making that strawman dance.

[GameTime]

http://ukraineanalysis.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/genocide-or-not-stalin-starved-millions-to-death-and-soviet-regime-concealed-for-54-years/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017839/Madman-starved-60-million-death-Devastating-book-reveals-Maos-megalomania-turned-China-madhouse.html#axzz2K9rFQpDM

Here's a couple of instances when perhaps governments would have had other thoughts GT - and both groups of citizens had faith in their governments

i am naive, i dont deny that.  but for the first article you are comparing our govt to a Stalin-led Soviet Union...i cant buy that.  the second article states "The disastrous famine that overtook China’s millions was the direct result of blind political dogma backed by centralised control and totalitarian power. Common sense was thrown out of the window, alongside any respect for humanity."  i dont see how that compares to the USA either.

[dbucfan]

Both Socialist/Communist governments - Germans were electing government officials - you can check the countries Spartan listed and see where governments caused the deaths of their own citizenry - picking out the US like government that has done the same thing is impossible as the US is unique.  Being unique precludes comparison - but losing the unique structure of the US by moving to Socialist/Communist/Progressive might make it different.  That is the thought process - I am not offering that is my thought - nor telling you to accept it.  You were asking for info - and I have offered enough for you to check it out if that is your wish.

[dalbuc]

[quote author=VinBucFan link=topic=1303027.msg1861800#msg1861800 date=


So Scalia did what he is want to do and he (and the majority) dissected the phrase "right to bear arms" by starting with "arms" and saying that "arms" applied then and through history to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity  I didn't say ONLY and, more importantly, the Court did not say ONLY because they didn't need to.  All the Court was trying to do (because Scalia is an ORIGINALIST) was show that there was an actual historical underpinning for the Court's 2008 interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The very paragraph I quoted acknowledges at there were other interpretations of the word, but the Court found the "arms" = "non-military" the most compelling definition.


[/quote]

You are again misreading the Heller decision.  The ruling was not about military use at all but rather "in common use for lawful purposes"..  A terms that is exceedingly vague but that, based on other language, appears designed to exclude anti aircraft missiles,  real machine guns and such since they went to lengths to explain this on pages 54-56.  The expectation per the ruling is that a militia is made up of those bringing guns from home and guns in common use are just those guns.

Assault weapons are going to be hard to place outside this realm since despite the scary name they are nothing more than semi automatic rifles/carbines which have been in common use for lawful purposes for better than 50 years. Further, the types of guns sold as assault weapons to civilians are  not military weapons and are not used in the forms sold by any military anywhere in the world. The problem assault weapons have is cosmetic not functional.

The further problem is that the lawful part doesn't help the banning case.  Assault weapons compose a stunningly low % of all crimes. Thus while tens of thousands of these weapons have been sold a generous reading might put the number used in crimes in the hundreds. Handguns are overwhelmingly (90+%) the weapon of choice in all crimes including having a dominant position ( again over 90%) in street and drug related crime.

You are importing way too much import to this part of Heller, which was really designed to create an individual right and not just a collective right to firearms, and ignoring the fact that the use of this element of the decisions has limited to no applications in the discussion we are having here.

[Chief Joseph]

 " i dont see how that compares to the USA either."

You talking about the same U.S.A. that systematically eliminated the food source of the natives to steal their land? The same U.S.A. that rose to power on slave labor?
The same U.S.A. that interned its own citizens for the color of their skin as recently as the 1940s?

These may seem a long way away to you, but all that and worse is just one viral rice infection and resulting worldwide famine away. As stated, people give up their protections when secure, only to realize too late that security is an illusion resulting from bigger picture myopia.

[GameTime]

These may seem a long way away to you, but all that and worse is just one viral rice infection and resulting worldwide famine away. As stated, people give up their protections when secure, only to realize too late that security is an illusion resulting from bigger picture myopia.

i just dont see assault rifles as the answer - to the rice famine or anything else.  some do, and thats fine.  i dont have a doomsday bunker.    i do honestly hope that these folks plan their militias ahead of time, because i dont see that being easy to do on the fly either.

[spartan]

These may seem a long way away to you, but all that and worse is just one viral rice infection and resulting worldwide famine away. As stated, people give up their protections when secure, only to realize too late that security is an illusion resulting from bigger picture myopia.

i just dont see assault rifles as the answer - to the rice famine or anything else.  some do, and thats fine.  i dont have a doomsday bunker.    i do honestly hope that these folks plan their militias ahead of time, because i dont see that being easy to do on the fly either.

You would be correct if, as some would propose, pretty much every gun known to man was banned, but currently, I reckon if the times were dire you could do it within 24 hrs. There is a bunch of ex military for example that could be put together to field a reasonably disciplined force. Not ready to take on the SEALS one on one any time soon, but pretty sure they could create a pretty big headache for someone.