Big Gun Protest in Chicago!

[Dave70968]

You would be surprised at how many officers would violate the 2nd Amendment. Many in the military dont even know what the 2nd Amendment is or even why it exists. That is evident by the number of retired officers who say that the public should have AR15s or AKs. Orders to confiscate guns, while violates the 2A, doesn't violate provisions under martial law. A nice little grey area.

If you think that NG troops or even RA are guaranteed to back the populace, you'd be in for a rude awakening. I have no idea how many would take part but I KNOW there are some that wouldn't hesitate. You have to remember that it was General Officers that were behind the law that made it illegal to carry a gun on military bases during Clinton's administration

They'd learn pretty quickly when people started shooting back.

If it ever gets to the point that they're doing citywide-lockdown, house-to-house searches, you know the penalty for being caught with a firearm will be severe. Severe enough, and it's worth it to fight back.

Do it in a big city, where you have lots of tall buildings, and it gets ugly, fast. It doesn't have to be everybody with a gun, or even a majority; just a few handfuls with rifles on high ground could make things painful, and when the news got out to other cities--and it would get out--it'd be a nationwide shitstorm.

 

[Tanis143]

You would be surprised at how many officers would violate the 2nd Amendment. Many in the military dont even know what the 2nd Amendment is or even why it exists. That is evident by the number of retired officers who say that the public should have AR15s or AKs. Orders to confiscate guns, while violates the 2A, doesn't violate provisions under martial law. A nice little grey area.

If you think that NG troops or even RA are guaranteed to back the populace, you'd be in for a rude awakening. I have no idea how many would take part but I KNOW there are some that wouldn't hesitate. You have to remember that it was General Officers that were behind the law that made it illegal to carry a gun on military bases during Clinton's administration

Say they did get the military behind it, how would they enforce it? Even if they recalled every service member from deployments, they would be fighting a civilian, guerrilla style war. As Dave said, they might get away with it in one city, but the rest of the nation would hear and it would be an uprising to rival the war for independence. The US has not had much luck with this style of warfare. And those were in countries that had strict gun laws. They wouldn't be able to raze whole cities without an outcry from the masses. It just wouldn't be feasible. This is why they are trying to limit the firearms we can "legally" posses. If they can whittle it down then they may have a chance. That is another reason why I am against "assault rifle" bans, red flag laws, and high capacity mag bans. The only thing I support is background checks that include criminal and mental health records. However I also feel that some felons should have that right restored and people who have been diagnosed with certain mental conditions should have it restored as long as its proven they are not a threat to themselves or others.

 

[D. Hargrove]

The only thing I support is background checks that include criminal and mental health records. However I also feel that some felons should have that right restored and people who have been diagnosed with certain mental conditions should have it restored as long as its proven they are not a threat to themselves or others.

I know you have been around the 2A for a long time now, either you support it fully ( a right period) or you are a gun grabber.... No gray space mister, none at all!! Geese, what have we become? lol

 

[rc508pir]

Say they did get the military behind it, how would they enforce it? Even if they recalled every service member from deployments, they would be fighting a civilian, guerrilla style war. As Dave said, they might get away with it in one city, but the rest of the nation would hear and it would be an uprising to rival the war for independence. The US has not had much luck with this style of warfare. And those were in countries that had strict gun laws. They wouldn't be able to raze whole cities without an outcry from the masses. It just wouldn't be feasible. This is why they are trying to limit the firearms we can "legally" posses. If they can whittle it down then they may have a chance. That is another reason why I am against "assault rifle" bans, red flag laws, and high capacity mag bans. The only thing I support is background checks that include criminal and mental health records. However I also feel that some felons should have that right restored and people who have been diagnosed with certain mental conditions should have it restored as long as its proven they are not a threat to themselves or others.

Outcry from the masses? Are you kidding me? How much outcry was there from the 94 AWB. I dont remember hearing about anyone taking up arms.
If things came to outright civil disorder, do not think that the military wouldn't lay waste to whole towns and cities to restore order. Bet your ass they would just to set an example. Most people in this country do little more than hollar and wave a stick

 

[D. Hargrove]

The Detroit riots of 1967 shows that both National Guard troops and Active Army (82d & 101st Airborne) can and have been used to quell civil disorder the results: 3 dead, 1,189 injured, over 7,200 arrests, and more than 2,000 buildings destroyed. Pretty sad situation all the way around.

 

[Tanis143]

I know you have been around the 2A for a long time now, either you support it fully ( a right period) or you are a gun grabber.... No gray space mister, none at all!! Geese, what have we become? lol

I do support it fully, however I do back the idea that violent felons and those with mental health issues should not be in possession of firearms. How does that make me a gun grabber? Hell I feel we should have the right to own full auto firearms. But I sure as hell don't want a convicted gang banger getting released from prison and being able to go buy a firearm that same day. Yes, I know they do it anyway, but not legally. Doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

 

[Tanis143]

The Detroit riots of 1967 shows that both National Guard troops and Active Army (82d & 101st Airborne) can and have been used to quell civil disorder the results: 3 dead, 1,189 injured, over 7,200 arrests, and more than 2,000 buildings destroyed. Pretty sad situation all the way around.

Yes, but who destroyed the buildings? The rioters. The biggest party at fault in that case was the Detroit police. This is similar to the LA riots.

 

[D. Hargrove]

I do support it fully, however I do back the idea that violent felons and those with mental health issues should not be in possession of firearms.

I was making a play on a few threads here where you are either all in or all out. Levity I assure you.

 

[Tanis143]

I was making a play on a few threads here where you are either all in or all out. Levity I assure you.

DoH! Missed the implied sarcasm... you really need to learn the HTML code to turn it off </sarcasm>

 

[Dave70968]

I do support it fully, however I do back the idea that violent felons and those with mental health issues should not be in possession of firearms. How does that make me a gun grabber? Hell I feel we should have the right to own full auto firearms. But I sure as hell don't want a convicted gang banger getting released from prison and being able to go buy a firearm that same day. Yes, I know they do it anyway, but not legally. Doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

I'll agree with him, though I'll take a different tack: I believe people who are institutionalized--whether criminally or civilly--ought to be denied arms. I believe violent felons and people whose mental issues are bad enough that they're a danger to others ought to be institutionalized until they're no longer dangerous.

Free people should be, well, free.