Quote:
Originally Posted by
Subby
True, it wasn’t a PR win, but Hiroshima wasn’t a PR win for the US either, nor was Dresden a PR win for the allies.
What consequences were suffered as a result of this bad PR though? And are they going to deter future events?
You are contrasting the actions of federal law enforcement against American citizens with the actions taken in a declared war against the enemy. This is silly.
Quote:
If I have a central point, it would be that the presence of guns alone doesn’t put you that far ahead of Australia because wars are not won with Guns alone. It just presents another challenge to taking over. And like all static defenses that exist, they can be circumvented with time.
You're right, guns alone don't win the war. But you guys voluntarily gave your guns to your government, effectively surrendering before the conflict started. We have not done that, nor will we.
Quote:
Assuming that the Police doing the actual seizing are told the history of the suspect and incident in question and not just shown a mugshot and told “this is todays bad guy”
I’ve never been in a planning room for this type of thing but I would imagine that it leans towards the latter not the former. I think this because there is no benefit to the guys giving the orders for the door kickers to know too much about who they are arresting.
They would probably prefer to know if they guys they are going to be arresting are armed, and what with.
Quote:
Also the ideal that “Cops would do the right thing” is a pretty common thought, but does it happen much in reality?
One incentive for the cops to "do the right thing" in our society is their desire to go home tonight in one piece, instead of to the emergency room or the morgue. This is the reason we have the 2nd Amendment, but as I said earlier, it's hard to explain this to Europeans, including southern hemisphere Europeans.
Quote:
This is pretty far into speculation too, but one of the more interesting things I’ve read on the weirder parts of the internet is supposedly a summary of the governments contingency for something like this. What I remember most was that to get around this, was the geographical jumbling of forces. Soldiers from Montana would never be deployed for operations in Montana. They’d be arresting strangers in California and vice versa.
This is true of the military, but not the Police, who live with us. In the US, the military is prevented from conducting police activities on US soil, by a statute passed in 1878 called the Posse Comitatus Act.
Quote:
Has America trended away from a constitutional republic in that time or remained true to its founding principles? Is that trend similar to Australia’s trajectory?
We still have our guns, the significance of which is explained above.
Quote:
Just off the top of my head:
- taxing firearms/ammo directly
- regulating parts/ammo to make it more difficult to manufacture
- allowing gun makers to be sued
- increasing the difficulty of gun makers to operate with various methods of lawfare
- increasing felony convictions for gun owners
1. They already tax these things at the point of sale. Perhaps you're suggesting an annual tax, which we will not pay.
2. That is already being done. But there are the previously mentioned 400,000,000 guns already in our possession, and lots of ammo.
3. Can automakers be sued for car wrecks? You apparently don't realize how the courts would deal with this.
4. See #2 above.
5. Convictions for gun owners? As in ownership becomes illegal? Or do you mean increasing penalties for the illegal use of firearms in the commission of a felony? That's fine with us. It was our idea, in fact.
Quote:
I’ll stop posting about this now because it’s starting to derail the thread and I think we’ve all said what there is to say and you can have the last word since it’s your forum. There’s also so much covid shit going on to talk about and this is covering that up.
And you haven't made a single defensible argument.
Quote:
But the mere presence of guns alone isn’t a magic bullet.
Quote:
Just like voting once every 4 years isn’t enough, merely owning guns isn’t enough.
But the absence of guns is a much larger problem, one that we do not have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wal
So is Texas in the "nominally free" part of the Union as opposed to say CA? Or would you say Texas for the most part is a normally free state? Meaning the freedoms under the Constitution especially the 2nd amendment are given full expression under Texas law.
I don't know what you're asking. Look up the definitions of "nominally" and "normally" and get those straight.
Quote:
Could FEMA override state laws and the constitution in a national emergency?
Only if they want to get shot. You Southern Hemisphere Europeans just don't understand this. There are lots of us here that will not live as slaves. Seriously.