Bracken: A Scenario for the Second Civil War

[UK2K]

Seems fairly plausible... thoughts?

MATTHEW BRACKEN is a former Navy SEAL (BUD/S Class 105), a Constitutionalist, and a self-described

[Dresta]

It will also take a serious economic crisis, as people are not prone to giving up their lives when surrounded by material luxury and creature comforts. All modern technology is bent to this end of keeping people stupefied and happy with whatever they have, very much like Huxley's perverse Brave New World.

But I think we are much closer than most people think--if these luxuries and conveniences are suddenly removed, then the result will be explosive.

[SexSymbol]

There's way too much media power out there to calm everyone down.
And millenials think that being ignorant and sarcastic about everything are signs of superiority so they would just shun people trying to fight for something as racists or bigots or whatever way they "tolerate" the opinion of others these days.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Guns are a God-given right? Whatever. Good luck with your new Civil War. :rolleyes:

[Dresta]

Oh, also, the Supreme Court has long been a disgrace, and Jefferson was right at the peril posed by "legislating from the bench"--the several States were always meant to be the counterbalance to Federal power, but that notion has been pushed aside by those intent on securing more and more power for themselves and their cronies.


Guns are a God-given right? Whatever. Good luck with your new Civil War. :rolleyes:
He's completely right about that. The whole concept of the Magna Carta and the concept of "higher law" that stands above Government is a religious one, namely a Christian one; the Second Amendment is a derivation of this, superadded onto the experience garnered regarding standing armies under Cromwell.

It's funny how ignorant people can be of their own political tradition. Where do you think the concept of "inalienable rights" comes from exactly? It is completely incompatible with any worldview that acknowledges no force higher than that of governmental power. Even radical deists like Jefferson found it necessary to acknowledge a "higher power" to justify his want for universality and universal truths about man. You cannot discard God and keep "inalienable rights" without some severe cognitive dissonance. Pick one.

[Real Men Wear Green]

He's completely right about that. The whole concept of the Magna Carta and the concept of "higher law" that stands above Government is a religious one, namely a Christian one; the Second Amendment is a derivation of this, superadded onto the experience garnered regarding standing armies under Cromwell.

It's funny how ignorant people can be of their own political tradition. Where do you think the concept of "inalienable rights" comes from exactly? It is completely incompatible with any worldview that acknowledges no force higher than that of governmental power. Even radical deists like Jefferson found it necessary to acknowledge a "higher power" to justify his want for universality and universal truths about man. You cannot discard God and keep "inalienable rights" without some severe cognitive dissonance. Pick one.
So neither you nor this alleged "Constitutionalist" care about separation of church and state. Ok. Please tell me what Jesus had to say about the AR-15.

[Steven Kerry]

Guy sounds like a nut.

[UK2K]

Guns are a God-given right? Whatever. Good luck with your new Civil War. :rolleyes:

It is your right to defend yourself, yes.

Didn't know that was really even debatable but... apparently it is.

I do love, though, how you addressed one sentence out of his entire block... thoughts on what he said beyond his first sentence??

[Dresta]

So neither you nor this alleged "Constitutionalist" care about separation of church and state. Ok. Please tell me what Jesus had to say about the AR-15.

Do you seriously think you've made an argument here? Why would you bring up Jesus, or an AR-15? I am no Christian. It's amazing how close-minded you are; can't you do better than regurgitated drivel about Jesus and AR-15s? Do you write for Buzzfeed by any chance? I care very much about the separation of Church and State, whereas you don't even seem to understand what the concept means. Separation of Church and State is not relevant to the fact that "inalienable rights," to be inalienable, have to be derived from something other than the State. The appeal to higher law cannot be justified upon secular grounds, and the American founding is based upon this appeal to rights that transcend time and place and circumstance. That you can't understand this very simple point shows you to be ignorant of the most basic rudiments of the civilisation in which you ungratefully reside.

[Real Men Wear Green]

It is your right to defend yourself, yes. "God-given right" to guns is not the same thing as the right to defend yourself. Especially not when you are talking about revolution.


I do love, though, how you addressed one sentence out of his entire block... thoughts on what he said beyond his first sentence??Extreme right-wing fantasy drivel. If Clinton manages to pass some gun law the overwhelming majority of Americans will accept it. A small number of gun nuts may decide to get themselves shot but understand that if you self-radicalize because we won't let, for example, people on the no-fly list by guns anymore and take up arms against police or government or innocent civilians, whoever it is you decide to attack you are just another terrorist.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Do you seriously think you've made an argument here? Why would you bring up Jesus, or an AR-15? I am no Christian.Then don't argue that gun ownership is a God-given right.
It's amazing how close-minded you are; can't you do better than regurgitated drivel about Jesus and AR-15s? Do you write for Buzzfeed by any chance? I care very much about the separation of Church and State, whereas you don't even seem to understand what the concept means. Separation of Church and State is not relevant to the fact that "inalienable rights," to be inalienable, have to be derived from something other than the State. The appeal to higher law cannot be justified upon secular grounds, and the American founding is based upon this appeal to rights that transcend time and place and circumstance. That you can't understand this very simple point shows you to be ignorant of the most basic rudiments of the civilisation in which you ungratefully reside.So you don't care about the separation of church and state. Ok.

[Dresta]

Like arguing with a brick wall ^^^^^

No desire to inform himself, or to learn; no sign of an open mind; only a desire to cling blindly to illogical opinions, based on nothing but his own fantasies.

Where do inalienable rights come from RMWG? The Separation of Church and State?

:roll:

[Real Men Wear Green]

Like arguing with a brick wall ^^^^^

No desire to inform himself, or to learn; no sign of an open mind; only a desire to cling blindly to illogical opinions, based on nothing but his own fantasies.

Where do inalienable rights come from RMWG? The Separation of Church and State?

:roll:
No, you have nothing to teach. The author of this revolution fantasy directly states that people have a God-given right to guns. This religious belief of his is the basis for him feeling that whatever gun reform Clinton and/or the Supreme Court enact is unjustified. This is the unification of religious belief and law. So you don't agree with separation of church and state. Ok, fine. Nothing in this stupid fantasy ofhis (and maybe yours) matters anyway.

[UK2K]

"God-given right" to guns is not the same thing as the right to defend yourself. Especially not when you are talking about revolution.

Extreme right-wing fantasy drivel. If Clinton manages to pass some gun law the overwhelming majority of Americans will accept it. A small number of gun nuts may decide to get themselves shot but understand that if you self-radicalize because we won't let, for example, people on the no-fly list by guns anymore and take up arms against police or government or innocent civilians, whoever it is you decide to attack you are just another terrorist.
Right wing drivel...

But he said you'd say exactly what you said. "If we pass the law, we're going to crush you if you don't follow along".

That's the whole premise to the scenario, and he called it perfectly. That's what makes it interesting.... cause it's pretty ****ing plausible. You just verified it.

Let's take it a step further.. if a law was passed banning guns of all types, would you support the government going house to house to find them?

[Steven Kerry]

It is my god-given right to protect myself with a rocket launcher.

[highwhey]

It is my god-given right to protect myself with a rocket launcher.
:roll:

[Dresta]

No, you have nothing to teach. The author of this revolution fantasy directly states that people have a God-given right to guns. This religious belief of his is the basis for him feeling that whatever gun reform Clinton and/or the Supreme Court enact is unjustified. This is the unification of religious belief and law. So you don't agree with separation of church and state. Ok, fine. Nothing in this stupid fantasy ofhis (and maybe yours) matters anyway.
lol, the Christian faith informs and underwrites the very foundations of our law and legal system--an acknowledgement of this historical fact, is again, not an attempt to unify religious belief and law, but a mere acceptance that much of that which we call law cannot be rationally deduced, and is indeed the product of long experience, something that (in our case) is so interwoven with Christianity and the postulates of Christian faith that the two are inseparable (see any serious ethicist, even those disdainful of religion, and scepticism incarnate, like David Hume). Law has always been derived from a sense of justice, which again, is a direct appeal to the transcendent and universal. You cannot have law without ethics and you cannot have ethics without metaphysics; even atheist civilisations like that of the Soviet Union require a metaphysical doctrine to underwrite their legal system, as does the secular belief-system that is now growing in the West (that rights are "universal" for instance, is not justifiable by any concept except faith or wishful thinking).

Separation of Church and State merely means that the State will not favour one particular Church over another, and is derived from the context of English history, the anglican church, and the enforced adherence to its doctrine that was required to bring about unity, and quell the sectarian strife that was tearing the country to pieces (a compromise that spared England much of the unpleasantness which ravaged the Continent). Those who fled to America were generally Protestants of the fanatic kind who would not get in line with moderate Anglicanism, who were the most uncompromising and inflexible in their beliefs (see early New England, see the writings of Nathaniel Hawthorne). This was well understood by the founders, none of whom would agree with what you're saying, even Jefferson, who was a supporter of the French Revolution, lets not forget. And yet he still required a Creator to underwrite his political opinions about the universal desirability of liberty, and of "freedom from tyranny"--an underlying metaphysic that is based upon only belief, not rational thought.

John Adams:

[QUOTE]

[Dresta]

It is my god-given right to protect myself with a rocket launcher.
This is what you're doing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

It's fundamentally childish and not serious. Try to grow up a bit.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Right wing drivel...

But he said you'd say exactly what you said. "If we pass the law, we're going to crush you if you don't follow along".

That's the whole premise to the scenario, and he called it perfectly. That's what makes it interesting.... cause it's pretty ****ing plausible. You just verified it.
What did I verify? "A small number of gun nuts may decide to get themselves shot." I am guessing that this is what you are currently misunderstanding. My meaning: A few crazy idiots obsessed with guns may act out in some way, confront police with their guns, maybe shoot at someone and get shot. This article is talking about massive gun raids leading to prolonged guerilla warfare. It's stupid. So long as people have jobs, homes, and families we are not going to be taking up gins against the government because Clinton passes some law to take guns from criminals and/or convicts.

[UK2K]

What did I verify? "A small number of gun nuts may decide to get themselves shot." I am guessing that this is what you are currently misunderstanding. My meaning: A few crazy idiots obsessed with guns may act out in some way, confront police with their guns, maybe shoot at someone and get shot. This article is talking about massive gun raids leading to prolonged guerilla warfare. It's stupid. So long as people have jobs, homes, and families we are not going to be taking up gins against the government because Clinton passes some law to take guns from criminals and/or convicts.
There's already a law that prevents that.

Clearly that's not the law he's discussing.

Nobody gives a shit about the law because, at worst, you'll go to jail for a few years... big whoop dudes are in and out all the time.

Thats the argument for banning guns now, completely, because nobody cares about the CURRENT laws.

Would you support government confiscation?

[Steven Kerry]

This is what you're doing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

It's fundamentally childish and not serious. Try to grow up a bit.
This is what you're doing:

:cry:

It's fundamentally childish and not serious. Try to grow up a bit.

[Real Men Wear Green]

lol, the Christian faith informs and underwrites the very foundations of our law and legal system--an acknowledgement of this historical fact, is again, not an attempt to unify religious belief and law, but a mere acceptance that much of that which we call law cannot be rationally deduced, and is indeed the product of long experience, something that (in our case) is so interwoven with Christianity and the postulates of Christian faith that the two are inseparable (see any serious ethicist, even those disdainful of religion, and scepticism incarnate, like David Hume). Law has always been derived from a sense of justice, which again, is a direct appeal to the transcendent and universal. You cannot have law without ethics and you cannot have ethics without metaphysics; even atheist civilisations like that of the Soviet Union require a metaphysical doctrine to underwrite their legal system, as does the secular belief-system that is now growing in the West (that rights are "universal" for instance, is not justifiable by any concept except faith or wishful thinking).

Separation of Church and State merely means that the State will not favour one particular Church over another, and is derived from the context of English history, the anglican church, and the enforced adherence to its doctrine that was required to bring about unity, and quell the sectarian strife that was tearing the country to pieces (a compromise that spared England much of the unpleasantness which ravaged the Continent). Those who fled to America were generally Protestants of the fanatic kind who would not get in line with moderate Anglicanism, who were the most uncompromising and inflexible in their beliefs (see early New England, see the writings of Nathaniel Hawthorne). This was well understood by the founders, none of whom would agree with what you're saying, even Jefferson, who was a supporter of the French Revolution, lets not forget. And yet he still required a Creator to underwrite his political opinions about the universal desirability of liberty, and of "freedom from tyranny"--an underlying metaphysic that is based upon only belief, not rational thought.

John Adams:

John Adams constantly railed against the religious fanatic, but that did not stop him from acknowledging historical realities; he also, was the most learnt and well-read of the founders (and also one of the most important). Yet, in your view, because he acknowledges the Hebraic influence on his own culture, he is trying to unify Church and State: what an absurdity.So you are, again, saying that it's fine for religion to influence law. Ok, fine. I won't deny that Christian morals are the base of much of the legal code but you don't need a religious rationalization to say that murder, rape, theft, etc. is wrong. A complete atheist could agree with all of that. The author on the other hand is pointing to God for the justification for his belief that he has the right to own whatever kind of guns he wants. That's fine for his personal belief but a "Constitutionalist" knows that a religious argument has no place in government policy.


If you'd read my posts on here
http://www.clipartkid.com/images/707/sweet-dreams-smiley-facebook-symbols-and-chat-emoticons-dg17PE-clipart.png

[Real Men Wear Green]

There's already a law that prevents that.

Clearly that's not the law he's discussing.The law he's discusing doesn't exist. He just gives the unquantifiable "Second Amendment is gutted." The enemies of gun reform throw that kind of argument at any proposed new legislation. Including preventing people on the no-fly list from buying guns.


Would you support government confiscation?
It would depend on what's getting confiscated. And we do have to be practical. Similar to how we can't deport all the millions of illegal aliens for the simple reason that it would be too expensive and too difficult we can't get every gun confiscated. But I would support taking guns away from the mentally deranged or violent criminals.

[UK2K]

The law he's discusing doesn't exist. He just gives the unquantifiable "Second Amendment is gutted." The enemies of gun reform throw that kind of argument at any proposed new legislation. Including preventing people on the no-fly list from buying guns.

It's not like the idea sprang from nowhere. If that's what you think, you haven't been paying attention.


"We cannot let a minority of people—and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people—hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people."
- Hillary Clinton

"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein

"My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned."
- Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health

“To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.”
― Adolf Hitler

Because they get their suggestions from people like Joe Biden...

"Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."



It would depend on what's getting confiscated. And we do have to be practical. Similar to how we can't deport all the millions of illegal aliens for the simple reason that it would be too expensive and too difficult we can't get every gun confiscated. But I would support taking guns away from the mentally deranged or violent criminals.
Everyone does, but the mentally deranged and violent criminals get their hands on guns anyway because, honestly, who gives a **** if they get caught? They clearly don't.

That's the precedent for a new law that would ban guns all together...

If they can't stop some people from getting their hands on them, they'll get rid of ALL of them. Have you been asleep the past few years? We've even had some on this board that called for a complete gun ban.

[Steven Kerry]

^ Hitler never said that.

[Steven Kerry]

That's the precedent for a new law that would ban guns all together...


Aw, the slippery slope argument. "Let's not implement a law that makes perfect sense, because I'm afraid the next law will do something I don't like."

[falc39]

So you are, again, saying that it's fine for religion to influence law. Ok, fine. I won't deny that Christian morals are the base of much of the legal code but you don't need a religious rationalization to say that murder, rape, theft, etc. is wrong. A complete atheist could agree with all of that. The author on the other hand is pointing to God for the justification for his belief that he has the right to own whatever kind of guns he wants. That's fine for his personal belief but a "Constitutionalist" knows that a religious argument has no place in government policy.

What seems common sense today may have not been common during certain periods in history. All those things that you mentioned become very common the further back you go.

[UK2K]

Aw, the slippery slope argument. "Let's not implement a law that makes perfect sense, because I'm afraid the next law will do something I don't like."

That's how it starts, yeah... Welcome to 2016. Bet me we won't have single payer insurance soon. Why? Because it was 'oh so terrible' before, then we got Obamacare which has been worse and is going bankrupt, the next step will be 'well let's just put everyone on the same insurance'.

That's how it starts.

What law makes perfect sense? There is already a law that prohibits criminals and metal people from owning firearms. That should be that, but it won't be...

[UK2K]

^ Hitler never said that.


The book Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944: Secret Conversations records Hitler as having said the following sometime between February and September 1942:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjugated races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjugated races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police.

If you want, I can provide you plenty of other examples of dictators and tyrannical leaders with the same mentality... go ahead, ask for them.

[TYCRO]

If you want, I can provide you plenty of other examples of dictators and tyrannical leaders with the same mentality... go ahead, ask for them.
That sounds like it was about not letting Jews and other minorities have guns.

[UK2K]

That sounds like it was about not letting Jews and other minorities have guns.

It was...

You don't think that's relevant now, given the stance towards gun ownership. Let me break it down for you...

The majority in this country are dumb as ****. Seriously, your average American is pretty stupid. So, people can use the media as propaganda to initiate a 'stance'. 'Guns are bad'. OK, got it. Now it's 'you can't open carry'. Then it becomes 'you have to have a CHL'. Then it becomes 'your gun has to be registered'. Then it becomes 'only guns used for sport'. Then it becomes 'No guns'.

And stupid people will eat it up. You think Rome fell in a day? Nah, it was hundreds of years of moral corruption while slowly moving away from the things that made Rome a super power. Sound familiar?

I'm not sure why people think its so far fetched. You think Clinton wouldn't throw two leftist SC Judges into the mix and then pass a law to ban firearms, while using the SC ruling as her leverage? Well, why the **** wouldn't she?

None of these things happen overnight, but if you believe that Clinton doesn't have a desire to ban guns (for normal people, not for her body guards of course. Like Mexico), you're kidding yourself.

[BoutPractice]

Americans are better than Europeans at realizing that for freedom to thrive, you need a degree of unpredictability and yes, even conflict.

But Europeans also have something to teach Americans, namely that there can be no true freedom when you are constantly fearing for your life.

I do not feel safe in America, not because of Mexicans or Muslims, but because of the easy availability of murder weapons.

To me allowing guns to be so widely distributed is also a form of terrorism. It means that any time, any place, you must expect that a random crazy person will go on a shooting spree (it's not a phobia when it's borne out by statistics... this is a regular occurrence in America)

When I go to the cinema, I don't want to think about the possibility that the person sitting right next to me has a loaded weapon that he might use... just like in Europe, I'd rather not have to think about the possibility of some angry looking young man deciding to proclaim the greatness of the almighty in a, shall we say "passionate" manner.

It's all a matter of degree. Just like there are too many would be terrorists in Europe, there are just too many guns in America, and I think most sensible people would agree with both of those things.

The main difference between those two situations of course is that guns are a more fixable. "Random crazy person going on a shooting spree" isn't a social problem in Europe. It's a one-time news item, because they figured out policies to stop it from happening.

Whereas terrorism is more complicated, since most of the terrorists were born inside the country, and putting them in prison only increases the odds that they'll commit an attack unless you can keep them there forever, or follow them 24/7, both of which are prohibitively expensive. The only policy that really works is espionnage and network infiltration to turn cells against themselves, but even that is risky.

[UK2K]

Americans are better than Europeans at realizing that for freedom to thrive, you need a degree of unpredictability and yes, even conflict.

But Europeans also have something to teach Americans, namely that there can be no true freedom when you are constantly fearing for your life.

I do not feel safe in America, not because of Mexicans or Muslims, but because of the easy availability of murder weapons.

To me allowing guns to be so widely distributed is also a form of terrorism. It means that any time, any place, you must expect that a random crazy person will go on a shooting spree (it's not a phobia when it's borne out by statistics... this is a regular occurrence in America)

When I go to the cinema, I don't want to think about the possibility that the person sitting right next to me has a loaded weapon that he might use... just like in Europe, I'd rather not have to think about the possibility of some angry looking young man deciding to proclaim the greatness of the almighty in a, shall we say "passionate" manner.

It's all a matter of degree. Just like there are too many would be terrorists in Europe, there are just too many guns in America, and I think most sensible people would agree with both of those things.

The main difference between those two situations of course is that guns are a more fixable. "Random crazy person going on a shooting spree" isn't a social problem in Europe. It's a one-time news item, because they figured out policies to stop it from happening.

Whereas terrorism is more complicated, since most of the terrorists were born inside the country, and putting them in prison only increases the odds that they'll commit an attack unless you can keep them there forever, or follow them 24/7, both of which are prohibitively expensive.

I don't at all. Never have. Likely never will.

It's pretty rare. Let me rephrase... It's EXTREMELY rare. The vast majority of violence happens in this country takes place in the ghettos, in about 5 or 6 major cities. Outside of those areas, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning.

Also... if I wanted to mass murder a movie theater, It'd be a lot cheaper, and more effective, if I used homemade pipe bombs instead of an 'assault weapon'. Guns are used for the shock and awe factor, and because the shooter gets to be Rambo for a while. It's more 'fun' so to speak...

But with a dozen pipe bombs, you could kill hundreds of civilians; and then after that, kill hundreds of first responders too. And you could be 20 miles away.

You do understand that, yes?

[Dresta]

Americans are better than Europeans at realizing that for freedom to thrive, you need a degree of unpredictability and yes, even conflict.

But Europeans also have something to teach Americans, namely that there can be no true freedom when you are constantly fearing for your life.

I do not feel safe in America, not because of Mexicans or Muslims, but because of the easy availability of murder weapons.

To me allowing guns to be so widely distributed is also a form of terrorism. It means that any time, any place, you must expect that a random crazy person will go on a shooting spree (it's not a phobia when it's borne out by statistics... this is a regular occurrence in America)

When I go to the cinema, I don't want to think about the possibility that the person sitting right next to me has a loaded weapon that he might use... just like in Europe, I'd rather not have to think about the possibility of some angry looking young man deciding to proclaim the greatness of the almighty in a, shall we say "passionate" manner.

It's all a matter of degree. Just like there are too many would be terrorists in Europe, there are just too many guns in America, and I think most sensible people would agree with both of those things.

The main difference between those two situations of course is that guns are a more fixable. "Random crazy person going on a shooting spree" isn't a social problem in Europe. It's a one-time news item, because they figured out policies to stop it from happening.

Whereas terrorism is more complicated, since most of the terrorists were born inside the country, and putting them in prison only increases the odds that they'll commit an attack unless you can keep them there forever, or follow them 24/7, both of which are prohibitively expensive. The only policy that really works is espionnage and network infiltration to turn cells against themselves, but even that is risky.Yeah, it's called treason. They aren't going to commit any attacks if they're in prison for life or swinging by the neck. The fact you want to treat psychopathic criminals delicately, but forcibly rob law-abiding Americans of their guns, shows how perverted and twisted your viewpoint is.

God damn is this post stupid (I thought you had some sense before this silly thing). Guns were available long before the proliferation of these kinds of mass shootings: look for another cause. Europe is not at all immune to mass killings either; what a load of crap (not to mention that guns are widely distributed in several European countries).

Guns are more fixable? Rubbish. You're just willing to accept the cost of removing guns (which would be vast in America, with over 300 million in circulation, and require authoritarian measures and enforcement), but not that of removing terrorism. If all muslims were expelled and no more permitted to enter, that would be an end to terrorism in the West (there is no terrorism in Poland--do you know why? Because they haven't accepted mass migration from the muslim world); the vast majority of muslims in no way deserve this, but neither do the vast majority of Americans deserve having the most basic means of self-defense taken from them. You are happy with one, but not with the other. What incredible hypocrisy!

[Dresta]

I don't at all. Never have. Likely never will.

It's pretty rare. Let me rephrase... It's EXTREMELY rare. The vast majority of violence happens in this country takes place in the ghettos, in about 5 or 6 major cities. Outside of those areas, you have a better chance of being struck by lightning.

Also... if I wanted to mass murder a movie theater, It'd be a lot cheaper, and more effective, if I used homemade pipe bombs instead of an 'assault weapon'. Guns are used for the shock and awe factor, and because the shooter gets to be Rambo for a while. It's more 'fun' so to speak...

But with a dozen pipe bombs, you could kill hundreds of civilians; and then after that, kill hundreds of first responders too. And you could be 20 miles away.

You do understand that, yes?
He's obviously never been to America if he thinks people live in perpetual terror of a mass shooting. I still can't wrap my head around the ridiculousness of his post on this.

:facepalm

[Nanners]

I do not feel safe in America, not because of Mexicans or Muslims, but because of the easy availability of murder weapons.

you are french right? how much time do you spend in america and where?

i feel completely safe in the USA. yeah some cities have dangerous neighborhoods, but I dont know any american who goes through their daily life worrying about "murder weapons".

[TommyGriffin]

The article in the OP is embarrassing. The writer sounds like he is mentally ill. These guys are making us look so bad. :facepalm

[Hawker]

Foreigners have no idea what it's like to live in America. They are scared by the media into thinking they're unsafe when it's not true at all. I never feel unsafe going into a school, cinema etc.

Guess I should be scared of muslims bombing the **** out of me when I'm in Western Europe.

[Hawker]

you are french right? how much time do you spend in america and where?

i feel completely safe in the USA. yeah some cities have dangerous neighborhoods, but I dont know any american who goes through their daily life worrying about "murder weapons".

My buddy from Aus was in Houston a few weeks back and had a great time. His friends back home couldn't believe that he would've dared go to Houston after the shootings that happened in Dallas.

[Dresta]

The thing about America that is noticeably unsafe (in some places at least) in comparison to W. Europe is the roads tbh. Highways are way more hectic.

And it sucks how all the cities are basically planned for cars.

[Dresta]

So you are, again, saying that it's fine for religion to influence law. Ok, fine. I won't deny that Christian morals are the base of much of the legal code but you don't need a religious rationalization to say that murder, rape, theft, etc. is wrong. A complete atheist could agree with all of that. The author on the other hand is pointing to God for the justification for his belief that he has the right to own whatever kind of guns he wants. That's fine for his personal belief but a "Constitutionalist" knows that a religious argument has no place in government policy.


You are not listening. I'm not saying whether "it's ok" for religion to influence Law, i'm saying that all Law is to some extent defined by the religion from which it is derived. All Law derives from ethical judgements made, by religious people, in religious times, and handed down to you, who are the beneficiary of such judgements, in spite of your scorn for them. There has not been a culture in history that has not emerged from some sort of communal worship and superstition--Law is not rational: it is a creation of prescription and custom, the product of long and shared experience (the view of the arch-empiricist and skeptic Hume). You only need to see the vast divergence of Law in various cultures to know this to be true--derive the Law from a different ethical foundation (i.e. a different religion), and it becomes completely different.

And actually, you do need religion to say that those things are wrong (when aimed at those outside your own "tribe", ethnic, cultural, or even political), because mechanistic explanations of the world cannot do it. Ancient Greece had one of the highest and most impressive cultures the world has ever seen, and yet it was normal practice to execute all military age males and sell women and children into slavery. Rome busily burnt whole civilisations to the ground, and with a moral self-righteousness that reminds me of America. Nazi Germany descended from the most scientific and advanced nation in the world to utter barbarism in a mere decade; Communist nations consistently "liquidated" those who dared to stand in the way of their desired ends--do you think these people didn't think they were doing good? It is very easy to dehumanise specific groups and justify outrageous behaviour towards them, and this is very recent, not ancient, history. Please, give me a "rational" reason for why the Law as currently constituted is the right and fair Law? Explain to me why we had a 2000 year break in infanticide that just so happened to correlate with Christian belief? Are these all coincidences in your mind (there are literally hundreds of other examples if you care to look for them)?

Also, this was the opinion of America's foremost legal experts in its early years. Both Joseph Story and James Kent emphasised the religious basis of Law (and the practical nature of the State/Church separation, which intended to prevent various religious sects vying for political favour), and all the founders were heavily influenced by William Blackstone, who repeatedly stressed the religious foundation of Law. You are completely ignoring the historical context of what you are discussing, and the very real opinions of the men who framed the Amendment you cherish (and fail to understand).

It's amazing how people can't recognise that the trope of universal rights is an offshoot of Christian dogmata. What rational basis is there for believing rights to be universal, when it contradicts all known experience? Explain it to me, really; think a bit deeper about the things you believe, because you're doing it unthinkingly, without any critical reflection whatsoever. Only then will you be able to understand why there is nothing stupid about taking the position of credo ut intelligam. Or perhaps everyone in human history was merely deluded, and they just needed RMWG, Chris Hitchens and Richard Dawkins to swing by and tell them how stupid and irrational they're being? One wonders how civilisation ever emerged if such was truly the case.

edit: I might also add that your position regarding the First Amendment requires you to believe that the men who drafted this Amendment didn't know what their own words meant. This is evidently an absurdity, yet it is what you believe, and I think shows that you are making a priori (i.e. metaphysical or even religious) assumptions without even being aware that this is what they are (this is what most people do as regards morality, religious or not--rational justification tends to come ex post facto).

[NumberSix]

So neither you nor this alleged "Constitutionalist" care about separation of church and state. Ok. Please tell me what Jesus had to say about the AR-15.
No.

He's talking origins which are English, in which there isn't no separation between church and state. And for the American constitution, there isn't either. "Separation of church and state" is a catchphrase that has nothing to do with the constitution. It's not in there. Anywhere. At least not the way you think of it.

The constitution says the government won't have an established religion. And, it doesn't. That doesn't mean all things having to do with religion are completely banned as some silly people seem to think it means. The president talks about God all the time, and that's perfectly fine. As long as there is no state religion like the Church of England, it's all fine.

[NumberSix]

No, you have nothing to teach. The author of this revolution fantasy directly states that people have a God-given right to guns. This religious belief of his is the basis for him feeling that whatever gun reform Clinton and/or the Supreme Court enact is unjustified. This is the unification of religious belief and law. So you don't agree with separation of church and state. Ok, fine. Nothing in this stupid fantasy ofhis (and maybe yours) matters anyway.
No, he's right. You're constitutionally illiterate. You literally just argued that the government should replace due process with... adding your name to a list.

[Dresta]

No.

He's talking origins which are English, in which there isn't no separation between church and state. And for the American constitution, there isn't either. "Separation of church and state" is a catchphrase that has nothing to do with the constitution. It's not in there. Anywhere. At least not the way you think of it.

The constitution says the government won't have an established religion. And, it doesn't. That doesn't mean all things having to do with religion are completely banned as some silly people seem to think it means. The president talks about God all the time, and that's perfectly fine. As long as there is no state religion like the Church of England, it's all fine.
The wall of separation quote is from a letter of Jefferson's, and isn't anywhere in the Constitution. I don't see how this validates the viewpoint though; remember, Jefferson had almost nothing to do with the drafting of the Constitution, being in Paris at the time; his opinions do not reflect those of the rest of the founders either, as he was the most radical of them by a distance, having been heavily influenced by the Jacobins of France (and Tom Paine).

The way he is framing the argument is: accept that religion has had no role in anything, and that Law is a pure product of "rationality", or you want to live in a theocratic state. There is plenty of middle ground between these two equally extreme positions.

[NumberSix]

What did I verify? "A small number of gun nuts may decide to get themselves shot." I am guessing that this is what you are currently misunderstanding. My meaning: A few crazy idiots obsessed with guns may act out in some way, confront police with their guns, maybe shoot at someone and get shot. This article is talking about massive gun raids leading to prolonged guerilla warfare. It's stupid. So long as people have jobs, homes, and families we are not going to be taking up gins against the government because Clinton passes some law to take guns from criminals and/or convicts.
See how your argument goes if you switch which group you're talking about...

"If the Supreme Court decides to 'interpret' the 13th amendment as saying you CAN have slaves, if some stupid blacks resist they're just gonna get themselves shot."

"If the Supreme Court decides to 'interpret' the 19th amendment as saying women DON'T have a right to vote, if some stupid women resist they're just gonna get themselves shot."

"If the supreme court decides to 'interpret' the 1st amendment as saying Jews DON'T have a right to practice their religion, if some stupid Jews resist they're just gonna get themselves shot."

"If the supreme court decides to 'interpret' the 2nd amendment as saying you DON'T have a right to keep and bear arms, if some stupid gun-nuts resist they're just gonna get themselves shot."

"If the supreme court decides to 'interpret' the 5th amendment as saying people accused of a crime DON'T have a right to a trial, if some stupid due process nuts resist they're just gonna get themselves shot."

[Real Men Wear Green]

I think I just got spammed...

[TheMan]

What's so civil about war anyway...

[dkmwise]

"God-given right" to guns is not the same thing as the right to defend yourself. Especially not when you are talking about revolution.

Extreme right-wing fantasy drivel. If Clinton manages to pass some gun law the overwhelming majority of Americans will accept it. A small number of gun nuts may decide to get themselves shot but understand that if you self-radicalize because we won't let, for example, people on the no-fly list by guns anymore and take up arms against police or government or innocent civilians, whoever it is you decide to attack you are just another terrorist.

I see that your listed as living in Boston, I gotta ask, have you ever lived outside of MA? I'm not being critical, I grew up just south of Boston myself and didn't realize until I moved to a more rural state that the attitude about guns in MA is not the norm for the country but the exception. People in Boston, NYC and LA are very anti gun or at least not at all pro gun, but the rest of the country, especially rural areas where hunting is big are super pro gun, and that is both democrats and republicans.

[KyrieTheFuture]

The reason that prediction won't come true is the bullshit about conducting raids on gun owners

[Kblaze8855]

It is my god-given right to protect myself with a rocket launcher.


And right there is the problem with gun nuts(in my eyes).

Once we acknowledge that a right to defend yourself isnt being infringed by society accepting that some weapons are too dangerous to put in the hands of anyone who wants one....the only issue is where do we draw the line. Not if the line itself is reasonable. We ALL know there is a line. Nobody is gonna say anyone who wants to should be allowed any weapon science can create.

At some point.....the safety of the many outweigh your "right" to decide how to defend yourself.

We all know that to be true. Nobody is gonna come in here and argue a 18 year old depressed goth kid should be given access to a rocket launcher and land mines.

The line exists because it must.

So the question is where do we draw it. We can argue about that all day....but the line must exist....and thats enough to justify discussion of where to place it. Discussion that some people consider out of line. And I just dont get it.

[dkmwise]

Seems fairly plausible... thoughts?



plausible that it's actually gonna happen, I would say no. Plausible enough as an idea for a book movie, absolutely. All the things he laid out are not that crazy or far fetched. However as some others have mentioned I don't see the confiscation piece of it ever happening, at least not in large scale. Especially in many parts of the country the law enforcement officers responsible for that role simply would not take part in confiscation. Although at the same time on a small scale we already see this type of confiscation in some states that make strict gun laws to outlaw semi auto's or 'high capacity magazines.' All police need is a tip called in from an angry ex-girlfriend or something that someone has these in their house and they will go there and search for them and then arrest the person.