Bush: New gun limits not way to prevent shooting tragedies

[Merzik]

I've got a good idea. Give everyone in the US a gun. Make it mandatory to own a gun and join the NRA. No problems then. They wouldn't be called massacres then - just an everyday event.

When I first saw that 38 people were killed in a shooting I didn't think Tunisia I thought USA - again.

Here are some stats that may surprise you and the gun grabbers probably won't want to believe.

If you go to the official FBI website you will find that according to their own stats from 1992 until 2012 violent crime in the USA has declined by 49%. It has continued to decline and is over 50% now. One analyst believes it is now down by 61% since 1992.

Gun ownership has increased by about 400% since Obama took office.

The US states that have the highest gun ownership per capita have the lowest crime rates.

Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in Europe accept for Monaco which isn't really a country. Every man is required to serve in the military and is then required to take his full auto military machine gun home with him. They even have sold surplus ammo to civilians to keep in practice. It's part of the national defense strategy. I have confirmed this with several Swiss including a guy who rents from me. Who is going to break into a house if they know the owner has a machine gun? Point being, it's the mental health of the society that matters, not how many guns exist.

Although I haven't done any research to confirm this, I heard a very established talk show host say the other day that statistically Britain is actually a more violent society than the US is. Yes I know, more people die from gunshots in the US, but they are talking about violence in general.

OK, enough.

Good post. A few additional points;

The violent crime rate is starting to go up in Switzerland now and immigration from Africa and the ME is responsible for this. Still Switzerland is a great example of why citizens having weapons is a good idea. In contrast; countries with highly restrictive gun control laws ( like Brazil and Mexico) have some of the highest violent crime rates in the world.

Merzik,

Didn't know that about the immigration to Switzerland, thanks. Haven't been there for decades. If your in Phuket there is a 4th party on Saturday night at the "Stoned Crab" bar on Sai Luan. Owner also has a bar in N. Dakota. Great all you can eat American food buffet. I'll be there.

Bob

Sounds great. I live in Pattaya but would love to meet up sometime. No plans for Phuket in the immediate future however.

Per Switzerland; I often watch the French language Swiss news and have noticed the increased rate of crime of African and Muzz immigrants. I checked wiki and it confirmed my observations ( which are consistant with those of France)

More than half of the crimes in Switzerland are committed by immigrants. Those from Angola, Nigeria and Algeria committ 600% more crime than native Swiss population:

Wikipedia:

"The crime rate among resident foreigners ("immigrant criminality") is significantly higher (by a factor 3.7 counting convictions under criminal law in 2003).[7] In 1997, there were for the first time more foreigners than Swiss among the convicts under criminal law (out of a fraction of 20.6% of the total population at the time). In 1999, the Federal Department of Justice and Police ordered a study regarding delinquency and nationality (Arbeitsgruppe "Ausländerkriminalität"), which in its final report (2001) found that a conviction rate under criminal law about 12 times higher among asylum seekers (4%), while the conviction rate among other resident foreigners was about twice as high (0.6%) compared to Swiss citizens (0.3%).[8]

In 2010 for the first time was a statistic published which listed delinquency by nationality (based on 2009 data). To avoid distortions due to demographic structure, only the male population aged between 18 and 34 was considered for each group. From this study it became clear that crime rate is highly correlated on the country of origin of the various migrant groups. Thus, immigrants from Germany, France and Austria had a significantly lower crime rate than Swiss citizens (60% to 80%), while immigrants from Angola, Nigeria and Algeria had a crime rate of above 600% of that of Swiss population. In between these extremes were immigrants from Former Yugoslavia, with crime rates of between 210% and 300% of the Swiss value.[9]

Edited June 29, 2015 by Merzik

[Merzik]

The right to protect your life - even using lethal force - is a basic human right. I know you feel that some people's lives are more worthy than others, but the American constitution and ideals of "all men created equal" say otherwise.

Um, now you are just making sh!t up.

Well I did not write the constitution or more correctly the bill of rights as chuckd pointed out. But I really don't see the point in arguing about guns because it is a slam dunk argument.

If guns did not serve a legitimate purpose in the protection of human life, then please explain why Police have guns. Please explain why banks and airports and Politicians and rich folk are protected by guards carrying guns?

In every country, everyone in positions of power - even in Australia that bastion of anti gun hysteria - are protected by guns. What you are saying is the elite are allowed priveledges in terms of personal security that the average person is not entitled to.

I was in LA during the 1992 riots and the limousine liberals in Beverley Hills had a small army of coppers to protect themseves. Nice to have the cash to have this I guess? The gangbangers got nowhere near BH however; as even in times of peace they are given very close attention. Liberals don't hesiitate to racially profile on their turf. The rest of us were left pretty much on our own as the LAPD essentially stood down for a few days. On one occaision a car load of menacing thugs drove by our home very slowly to case the place out. My weapons became visible and they decided to move on. Fortunately I didn't have to shoot. Only the strong survive.

[samran]

The right to protect your life - even using lethal force - is a basic human right. I know you feel that some people's lives are more worthy than others, but the American constitution and ideals of "all men created equal" say otherwise.

Um, now you are just making sh!t up.

Well I did not write the constitution or more correctly the bill of rights as chuckd pointed out. But I really don't see the point in arguing about guns because it is a slam dunk argument.

If guns did not serve a legitimate purpose in the protection of human life, then please explain why Police have guns. Please explain why banks and airports and Politicians and rich folk are protected by guards carrying guns?

In every country, everyone in positions of power - even in Australia that bastion of anti gun hysteria - are protected by guns. What you are saying is the elite are allowed priveledges in terms of personal security that the average person is not entitled to.

I have no problems with guns. They have their legitimate uses. Farmers hunters, law enforcement. But people who use them should have effective training and they shouldn't be available to just anyone who 'wants' one. There should be extensive training and retraining and one should be licensed.

So get your hand off it with regards to this elitist clap trap. Never said such a thing.

[Miami Bob]

The right to protect your life - even using lethal force - is a basic human right. I know you feel that some people's lives are more worthy than others, but the American constitution and ideals of "all men created equal" say otherwise.

Um, now you are just making sh!t up.

Well I did not write the constitution or more correctly the bill of rights as chuckd pointed out. But I really don't see the point in arguing about guns because it is a slam dunk argument.

If guns did not serve a legitimate purpose in the protection of human life, then please explain why Police have guns. Please explain why banks and airports and Politicians and rich folk are protected by guards carrying guns?

In every country, everyone in positions of power - even in Australia that bastion of anti gun hysteria - are protected by guns. What you are saying is the elite are allowed priveledges in terms of personal security that the average person is not entitled to.

I was in LA during the 1992 riots and the limousine liberals in Beverley Hills had a small army of coppers to protect themseves. Nice to have the cash to have this I guess? The gangbangers got nowhere near BH however; as even in times of peace they are given very close attention. Liberals don't hesiitate to racially profile on their turf. The rest of us were left pretty much on our own as the LAPD essentially stood down for a few days. On one occaision a car load of menacing thugs drove by our home very slowly to case the place out. My weapons became visible and they decided to move on. Fortunately I didn't have to shoot. Only the strong survive.

I live in Krabi, just going to Phuket for the 4th party. I'm going to try to talk my Thai wife into applying for a permit to buy a 12 gauge pump. It looks like there could be a big 'correction" coming in the world economy in the not to distant future and there could be lots desperate people in every country. Just the sight and sound of a pump racking will send most folks running for a softer target and thus the least likely weapon you would actually have to fire. Similar to what you just described happened to you in LA.

[chuckd]

It's called an ammendment. It isn't one of the 10 commandments.

The right to protect your life - even using lethal force - is a basic human right. I know you feel that some people's lives are more worthy than others, but the American constitution and ideals of "all men created equal" say otherwise.

Um, now you are just making sh!t up.

You are right that somebody is "just making shit up"...but it isn't Time Traveller.

From the Declaration of Independence...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In addition, there is this:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Self-Government and the Unalienable Right of Self-Defense: Restoring the Second Amendment

http://lonang.com/commentaries/conlaw/bill-of-rights/cb1b/

[Mudcrab]

The USA was founded by scared individuals who have carried on this silly notion to the detriment of the nation. Watch the South Park version of the making of America.

Its only a cartoon but very incisive

[chuckd]

Let me get that right on my Bucket List, right behind watching Jon Stewart or Bill Maher for a decisive interpretation of today's news.

[White Christmas13]

just for your information

Study Proves Since 1968, More Americans Have Died From Gunfire Than All U.S. Wars Combined

Read this

Revolutionary War

4,435

War of 1812

2,260

Mexican War

13,283

Civil War (Union and Confederate, estimated)

525,000

Spanish-American War

2,446

World War I

116,516

World War II

405,399

Korean War

36,574

Vietnam War

58,220

Persian Gulf War

383

Afghanistan War

2,175

Iraq War

4,486

Total

1,171,177

Another 362 deaths resulted from other conflicts since 1980, such as interventions in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti, but the number is not large enough to make a difference.

Gunfire deaths

The number of deaths from gunfire is a bit more complicated to total. Two Internet-accessible data sets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allow us to pin down the number of deaths from 1981 to 1998 and from 1999 to 2010. We’ve added FBI figures for 2011, and we offer a number for 1968 to 1980 using a conservative estimate of data we found in a graph in this 1994 paper published by the CDC.

Here is a summary. The figures below refer to total deaths caused by firearms:

1968 to 1980 377,000

1981 to 1998 620,525

1999 to 2010 364,483

2011 32,163

Total 1,384,171

have a nice day

[samran]

It's called an ammendment. It isn't one of the 10 commandments.

The right to protect your life - even using lethal force - is a basic human right. I know you feel that some people's lives are more worthy than others, but the American constitution and ideals of "all men created equal" say otherwise.

Um, now you are just making sh!t up.

You are right that somebody is "just making shit up"...but it isn't Time Traveller.

From the Declaration of Independence...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

In addition, there is this:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Self-Government and the Unalienable Right of Self-Defense: Restoring the Second Amendment

http://lonang.com/commentaries/conlaw/bill-of-rights/cb1b/

No doubt you are still pining for the original 3/5ths interpretation before the 13th ammendment came along.

Have told you before, better get veterans to replace your bifocals. I was referring to TTs reference to me believing some people are more equal than others.

[Merzik]

The USA was founded by scared individuals who have carried on this silly notion to the detriment of the nation. Watch the South Park version of the making of America.

Its only a cartoon but very incisive

The USA was founded by exceptional men who took on the armed forces of the greatest military power since the fall of the Roman Empire which had a very long history of continuous victories on the battlefield and high seas. With a little help from France they prevailed despite the very poor odds of doing so. I know the Brits ( whom I respect and admire) like to gamble. In 1776 I am confident they wouldn't have given the Americans much of a chance to win; yet they somehow managed to do so. These were truely courageous and remarkable individuals that even inspired European intellectuals and idealists like La Fayette with their noble cause. They were obsessed with the idea of giving the new American citizens a government that would protect their natural rights and freedom and limited their own power in government. I have read enough about this era to give your cartoon a pass. Edited June 29, 2015 by Merzik

[Miami Bob]

The USA was founded by scared individuals who have carried on this silly notion to the detriment of the nation. Watch the South Park version of the making of America.

Its only a cartoon but very incisive

The USA was founded by exceptional men who took on the armed forces of the greatest military power since the fall of the Roman Empire which had a very long history of continuous victories on the battlefield and high seas. With a little help from France they prevailed despite the very poor odds of doing so. I know the Brits ( whom I respect and admire) like to gamble. In 1776 I am confident they wouldn't have given the Americans much of a chance to win; yet they somehow managed to do so. These were truely courageous and remarkable individuals that even inspired European intellectuals and idealists like La Fayette with their noble cause. They were obsessed with the idea of giving the new American citizens a government that would protect their natural rights and freedom and limited their own power in government. I have read enough about this era to give your cartoon a pass.

Dam Merzik, is that you in the photo!? I'm comin to Pattaya!! Ok enough of this threat. Time to eat.

[MZurf]

The big elephant in the room that most candidates and the mainstream media will not talk about is that most all of these nutcase shooters are on SRI drugs [ basically anti-depressants ] that say right on the insert that they can make you violent and even more so when coming off the drugs. A ridiculous number of Americans are on those drugs. The drug companies make billions off those drugs and the mainstream media gets lot's of advertising money from them.

And then there are the documented links between several of the shooters in recent decades like the unibomber and Sirhan - Sirhan who had connections to MK Ultra which is the division of the CIA that does mind control research. But that sounds to much like conspiracy theory talk so I won't go there

Too late!

[Merzik]

The USA was founded by scared individuals who have carried on this silly notion to the detriment of the nation. Watch the South Park version of the making of America.

Its only a cartoon but very incisive

The USA was founded by exceptional men who took on the armed forces of the greatest military power since the fall of the Roman Empire which had a very long history of continuous victories on the battlefield and high seas. With a little help from France they prevailed despite the very poor odds of doing so. I know the Brits ( whom I respect and admire) like to gamble. In 1776 I am confident they wouldn't have given the Americans much of a chance to win; yet they somehow managed to do so. These were truely courageous and remarkable individuals that even inspired European intellectuals and idealists like La Fayette with their noble cause. They were obsessed with the idea of giving the new American citizens a government that would protect their natural rights and freedom and limited their own power in government. I have read enough about this era to give your cartoon a pass.

Dam Merzik, is that you in the photo!? I'm comin to Pattaya!! Ok enough of this threat. Time to eat.

555

That is Brigette Bardot back in her prime; my fantasy date!

[MZurf]

Another Bush, another Dunce!

Did you live in Florida under Jeb Bush's governorship? Why do you say he is a dunce...as compared to what current leader? Name it, Boy.

Floridian who actually experienced JEB! Very simply 'JEB' on election signs. Get used to it folks, he will be the next president and just might be able to repair all the 'dunce' acts from Oboy.

Although I admittedly have no information to back this up I have to wonder if Jeb truly wants to be president or if it's just " OK Jeb, your turn to do your thing for the family". That's what Donald Trump suggested in an interview yesterday. Unless I discover skeletons in Trumps closest that could be used to compromise him [ like Hilary] I'm thinking Trump might actually be the best choice to try to undue some of the damage done to the country by previous administrations. He's a proven business man [ not a "community organizer" - ha ] and an excellent negotiator. And he has his own money [ 9 billion net ] thus far less likely to be owned by special interests or indirect donations from other countries [ like Hilary ] . But many would not vote for Trump because they don't like his hair style but will vote for Hilary because she is a women. What a world! Cheers.

Yes, he seems to have tied up the Latino voters already....

[MZurf]

I've got a good idea. Give everyone in the US a gun. Make it mandatory to own a gun and join the NRA. No problems then. They wouldn't be called massacres then - just an everyday event.

When I first saw that 38 people were killed in a shooting I didn't think Tunisia I thought USA - again.

Our Founding Fathers all agreed on having an armed population was essential for ensuring our freedom. This was not for the purpose of ordinary crime control ; but so that Americans could protect themselves from any potential tyrannical government in the future. As Jefferson stated " When government fears the people there is liberty; where the people fear the government there is tyranny."

And that kind of made sense way back when a musket was pretty much the most powerful weapon in the arsenal. But citizens with rifles against tanks, artillery, jet fighters??? Seriously????

If you get a hard on by owning a gun then say so - don't invent silly excuses.

[Merzik]

just for your information

Study Proves Since 1968, More Americans Have Died From Gunfire Than All U.S. Wars Combined

Read this

Revolutionary War

4,435

War of 1812

2,260

Mexican War

13,283

Civil War (Union and Confederate, estimated)

525,000

Spanish-American War

2,446

World War I

116,516

World War II

405,399

Korean War

36,574

Vietnam War

58,220

Persian Gulf War

383

Afghanistan War

2,175

Iraq War

4,486

Total

1,171,177

Another 362 deaths resulted from other conflicts since 1980, such as interventions in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti, but the number is not large enough to make a difference.

Gunfire deaths

The number of deaths from gunfire is a bit more complicated to total. Two Internet-accessible data sets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allow us to pin down the number of deaths from 1981 to 1998 and from 1999 to 2010. Weve added FBI figures for 2011, and we offer a number for 1968 to 1980 using a conservative estimate of data we found in a graph in this 1994 paper published by the CDC.

Here is a summary. The figures below refer to total deaths caused by firearms:

1968 to 1980 377,000

1981 to 1998 620,525

1999 to 2010 364,483

2011 32,163

Total 1,384,171

have a nice day

Your stats are off and misleading. To put this in perspective records indicate that there has been a total of 3,551,332 motor vehicle deaths in the United States from 1899 to 2012. That is almost 3 times your inflated number. (Wikipedia)

There are about 10,000 homocides per annum with guns and another 600 or so as a result of accidents. They are also used in suicides; but it is safe to assume most people wanting to kill themselves can figure out another way to do so. Like cars; guns are something we make a cost-benefit analysis for and want to keep.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Merzik

[Merzik]

I've got a good idea. Give everyone in the US a gun. Make it mandatory to own a gun and join the NRA. No problems then. They wouldn't be called massacres then - just an everyday event.

When I first saw that 38 people were killed in a shooting I didn't think Tunisia I thought USA - again.

Our Founding Fathers all agreed on having an armed population was essential for ensuring our freedom. This was not for the purpose of ordinary crime control ; but so that Americans could protect themselves from any potential tyrannical government in the future. As Jefferson stated " When government fears the people there is liberty; where the people fear the government there is tyranny."

And that kind of made sense way back when a musket was pretty much the most powerful weapon in the arsenal. But citizens with rifles against tanks, artillery, jet fighters??? Seriously????

If you get a hard on by owning a gun then say so - don't invent silly excuses.

There are countless examples of very powerful armies not being able to subdue a hostile civilian population that is not as well armed as them. Any foreign occupying army would be cut to shreds in the USA by our civilians and vets ( even if our armed forces were defeated). In the hypothetical case of the American military going up against their own population ; believe me they would have their hands more than full and many soldiers would defect . This is obviously not something I wish to happen nor am I predicting.

As per my hard ons; I get those from my go go ladies, waitresses and internet dates. I have a waitress from Black Canyon Coffee coming tonight.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Merzik

[sdanielmcev]

First off, I apologize for my typo. I think one in three years should be allowable.

[Time Traveller]

just for your information

Study Proves Since 1968, More Americans Have Died From Gunfire Than All U.S. Wars Combined

Read this

Revolutionary War

4,435

War of 1812

2,260

Mexican War

13,283

Civil War (Union and Confederate, estimated)

525,000

Spanish-American War

2,446

World War I

116,516

World War II

405,399

Korean War

36,574

Vietnam War

58,220

Persian Gulf War

383

Afghanistan War

2,175

Iraq War

4,486

Total

1,171,177

Another 362 deaths resulted from other conflicts since 1980, such as interventions in Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia and Haiti, but the number is not large enough to make a difference.

Gunfire deaths

The number of deaths from gunfire is a bit more complicated to total. Two Internet-accessible data sets from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allow us to pin down the number of deaths from 1981 to 1998 and from 1999 to 2010. We’ve added FBI figures for 2011, and we offer a number for 1968 to 1980 using a conservative estimate of data we found in a graph in this 1994 paper published by the CDC.

Here is a summary. The figures below refer to total deaths caused by firearms:

1968 to 1980 377,000

1981 to 1998 620,525

1999 to 2010 364,483

2011 32,163

Total 1,384,171

and many times that number have died from smoking related illness. Is tobacco somehow better?

The Anti-gun lobby is trying to reduce the gun control debate to simplistic arguments based on a fantasy crime free world. They quote meaningless numbers as some kind of evidence of the dangers of guns, but then reject in depth statistical analysis of gun crime v. gun control, which is extensive. (I do encourage everyone to read that book More Guns, Less Crime. In fact, I was once favored the gun control viewpoint as well until understanding the implications of what it meant)

In anycase, the matter has been debated in the US supreme court rigoursly numerous times. The ruling is in, and that's all that matters.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Time Traveller

[endure]

Gun crime in UK is at an all time high despite two knee-jerk reactions which only served to stifle legitimate pursuit.

Gun crime in the UK has fallen 50% in the past 10 years...

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/year-ending-december-2014/crime-in-england-and-wales--year-ending-december-2014.html#tab-Offences-involving-firearms

There was actually less gun control in the UK than the USA until the 1960s; yet there was very little violent crime at the time. Today the weapon of choice in the UK is the knife; and there is a high rate of violent crime with these and other objects. British citizens are unfortunately in a state of almost total dependence to their government for their protection now; and at their mercy. This is your choice of course; and I am still quite fond of your people even though you made the mistakes of disarming your population and inviting millions of people into your country who don't really fit in and are causing innumerable problems.

There were a total of 26,000 crimes involving knives in 2014. That's all types of crimes not just murder.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/year-ending-december-2014/crime-in-england-and-wales--year-ending-december-2014.html#tab-Offences-involving-knives-and-sharp-instruments

The comparison between violent crimes in the UK and the USA is a false one. The definition of a violent crime for statistical purposes in the USA is "murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault". The definition of a violent crime in the UK begins at simple assault i.e. pushing and shoving or a punch on the nose so trying to compare them is absurd.

Here's someone who did the maths...

https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

[Gandtee]

Another branch of the nut Bush

[sdanielmcev]

The USA was founded by scared individuals who have carried on this silly notion to the detriment of the nation. Watch the South Park version of the making of America.

Its only a cartoon but very incisive

Those 'scared individuals?' They took a ragtag army and beat #1. Go back to the kiddie table.

[chuckd]

<snip due to poster's lack of knowledge about using the quote function>

No doubt you are still pining for the original 3/5ths interpretation before the 13th ammendment came along.

Have told you before, better get veterans to replace your bifocals. I was referring to TTs reference to me believing some people are more equal than others.

The conversation was centered around the Second Amendment and the ten Commandments.

Your snarky little 3/5ths comment is noted with disdain.

[Bung]

Another Bush, another Dunce!

Did you live in Florida under Jeb Bush's governorship? Why do you say he is a dunce...as compared to what current leader? Name it, Boy.

Floridian who actually experienced JEB! Very simply 'JEB' on election signs. Get used to it folks, he will be the next president and just might be able to repair all the 'dunce' acts from Oboy.

Although I admittedly have no information to back this up I have to wonder if Jeb truly wants to be president or if it's just " OK Jeb, your turn to do your thing for the family". That's what Donald Trump suggested in an interview yesterday. Unless I discover skeletons in Trumps closest that could be used to compromise him [ like Hilary] I'm thinking Trump might actually be the best choice to try to undue some of the damage done to the country by previous administrations. He's a proven business man [ not a "community organizer" - ha ] and an excellent negotiator. And he has his own money [ 9 billion net ] thus far less likely to be owned by special interests or indirect donations from other countries [ like Hilary ] . But many would not vote for Trump because they don't like his hair style but will vote for Hilary because she is a women. What a world! Cheers.

Im sure he will make a president to remember. Hes already shown what a great man is by calling all mexicans rapists and drug addicts but assumed some are good people.

What a diplomat he will make.

[MZurf]

I've got a good idea. Give everyone in the US a gun. Make it mandatory to own a gun and join the NRA. No problems then. They wouldn't be called massacres then - just an everyday event.

When I first saw that 38 people were killed in a shooting I didn't think Tunisia I thought USA - again.

Our Founding Fathers all agreed on having an armed population was essential for ensuring our freedom. This was not for the purpose of ordinary crime control ; but so that Americans could protect themselves from any potential tyrannical government in the future. As Jefferson stated " When government fears the people there is liberty; where the people fear the government there is tyranny."

And that kind of made sense way back when a musket was pretty much the most powerful weapon in the arsenal. But citizens with rifles against tanks, artillery, jet fighters??? Seriously????

If you get a hard on by owning a gun then say so - don't invent silly excuses.

There are countless examples of very powerful armies not being able to subdue a hostile civilian population that is not as well armed as them. Any foreign occupying army would be cut to shreds in the USA by our civilians and vets ( even if our armed forces were defeated). In the hypothetical case of the American military going up against their own population ; believe me they would have their hands more than full and many soldiers would defect . This is obviously not something I wish to happen nor am I predicting.

As per my hard ons; I get those from my go go ladies, waitresses and internet dates. I have a waitress from Black Canyon Coffee coming tonight.

image.jpgimage.jpg

No, there are not countless examples. Off the top of my head I can only think of Afghanistan where this has happened to invading armies, but those guys are a particularly tough, hardened people. If you have a population of mainly potbellied, complacent sofa warriors and their soccer mom wifes (like in the US and pretty much every other developed nation) then an invading army tough enough to defeat the mighty US military would not have any problem subduing the civilian population at all.

[samran]

<snip due to poster's lack of knowledge about using the quote function>

No doubt you are still pining for the original 3/5ths interpretation before the 13th ammendment came along.

Have told you before, better get veterans to replace your bifocals. I was referring to TTs reference to me believing some people are more equal than others.

The conversation was centered around the Second Amendment and the ten Commandments.

Your snarky little 3/5ths comment is noted with disdain.

....most things are noted with distain when you hit your 80's I hear.

Anyhoo, good to see you are trying to keep up with us young'uns with your comment on all things techy. Problem is, I have this thing called an iphone, you may have seen them, they are a bit like a phone, TV and computer all in one. Amazing things.

Problem is, it doesn't like the TV quote function. But I'll save that tech lesson for when you are done with your morning snooze.

[sdanielmcev]

<snip due to poster's lack of knowledge about using the quote function>

No doubt you are still pining for the original 3/5ths interpretation before the 13th ammendment came along.

Have told you before, better get veterans to replace your bifocals. I was referring to TTs reference to me believing some people are more equal than others.

The conversation was centered around the Second Amendment and the ten Commandments.

Your snarky little 3/5ths comment is noted with disdain.

....most things are noted with distain when you hit your 80's I hear.

Anyhoo, good to see you are trying to keep up with us young'uns with your comment on all things techy. Problem is, I have this thing called an iphone, you may have seen them, they are a bit like a phone, TV and computer all in one. Amazing things.

Problem is, it doesn't like the TV quote function. But I'll save that tech lesson for when you are done with your morning snooze.

You may want to re-read the 13th amendment. It does not abolish the 3/5ths clause.

[Merzik]

No, there are not countless examples. Off the top of my head I can only think of Afghanistan where this has happened to invading armies, but those guys are a particularly tough, hardened people. If you have a population of mainly potbellied, complacent sofa warriors and their soccer mom wifes (like in the US and pretty much every other developed nation) then an invading army tough enough to defeat the mighty US military would not have any problem subduing the civilian population at all.

You can find many examples of civilians defeating organized formal armies below; since the top of your head is empty.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_guerrilla_warfare

Your caricature of the American population is erroneous; even though these people certainly exist in the millions. Historically it is usually only a minority of the population that takes up arms and resists. Even in the Ameican Revolution significantly less than 10% of the population got directly involved; but it proved to be enough. There are an estimated 90 million gun owners ( and God only kwows how many weapons ) in the USA; many of them vets and with combat experience. I would venture to guess that those would offer armed resistence would tend to be a bit slimmer that the average person in general; but there are some fatsos that can shoot pretty straight as well. 555

Edited June 30, 2015 by Merzik

[MZurf]

No, there are not countless examples. Off the top of my head I can only think of Afghanistan where this has happened to invading armies, but those guys are a particularly tough, hardened people. If you have a population of mainly potbellied, complacent sofa warriors and their soccer mom wifes (like in the US and pretty much every other developed nation) then an invading army tough enough to defeat the mighty US military would not have any problem subduing the civilian population at all.

You can find many examples of civilians defeating organized formal armies below; since the top of your head is empty.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_guerrilla_warfare

Your caricature of the American population is erroneous; even though these people certainly exist in the millions. Historically it is usually only a minority of the population that takes up arms and resists. Even in the Ameican Revolution significantly less than 10% of the population got directly involved; but it proved to be enough. There are an estimated 90 million gun owners ( and God only kwows how many weapons ) in the USA; many of them vets and with combat experience. I would venture to guess that those would offer armed resistence would tend to be a bit slimmer that the average person in general; but there are some fatsos that can shoot pretty straight as well. 555

- The examples listed in the Wikipedia link are irrelevant to the issue discussed. A large scale invasion by a well equipped army with the most modern weapons will not be stopped by rifle toting NRA members. You must stop watching Rambo and other movies where this happens (hint; it's not real).

- I will refrain from stooping to your level

- If they exist in their millions how can what I said be erroneous and a caricature???

- It does not matter if you're fat or thin - your rifle against a tank or jet fighter will have only one outcome anyway.

[Merzik]

- The examples listed in the Wikipedia link are irrelevant to the issue discussed. A large scale invasion by a well equipped army with the most modern weapons will not be stopped by rifle toting NRA members. You must stop watching Rambo and other movies where this happens (hint; it's not real).

- I will refrain from stooping to your level

- If they exist in their millions how can what I said be erroneous and a caricature???

- It does not matter if you're fat or thin - your rifle against a tank or jet fighter will have only one outcome anyway.

Hardly irrelevant and it was only an imcomplete list. Civilian campaigns against better armed armies are not quick and rapid victories. Generally it takes years and even decades to succeed. The armies may have tanks and jets but if they face a hostile civilian population this isn't always enough. Not every campaign against an occuppying army succeds; but if it has the support of a significant amount of the population they wear down the army with guerilla tactics. Heavy weapons are useful assets but do not ensure victory. Bombings in particular can motivate the population to get involved as resist more than they would otherwise. This certainly happened in Vietnam. The bombs killed enemies; but created new ones. Put aside who was right or wrong in this and other wars; there is overwheling evidence that jets and tanks can not assure a successful occupation.

I adressed your assertion about the couch-potatoes already. I aknowleged that they indeed exist in the millions ; but there are a lot more who don't fit this negative stereo-type and wars of resistance are fought by a minority of the population; often a very small minority. So the fat couch-potatoes would become irrelevant bystanders or victims. Countries like the USA, Switzerland, Afghanistan, Yemen....where there are many gun owners are a much tougher nut to crack than those in which the population is generally disarmed.

I am not much of a fan of action-movies like Rambo ; or even Hollywood in general. I do know there was one Rambo movie made about the Afghans vs the Soviet army. In real life this guerrilla army won ( regardless of whether their cause was just or not.) even without Rambo.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Merzik