Victims of gun confiscation during aftermath of Katrina

[Agent_Orange]

Not with my maglight and my 22. I just love deep fried gator.

[steve.foote]

I don't know why you all are posting this stuff.

 

The Revolution will take care of all of this. Lawman, we may need a short paragraph in our Manifesto to cover this sort of thing. Right after the part about banning all non approved interaction with muppets (get over it Richard). It has about the same amount of social relevance as the NRA to most of us.

 

 

 

 

It's been a while, but I was under the impression that Beaker IS the leader of the revolution.

[azkaisr]

I don't know why you all are posting this stuff.

 

The Revolution will take care of all of this. Lawman, we may need a short paragraph in our Manifesto to cover this sort of thing. Right after the part about banning all non approved interaction with muppets (get over it Richard). It has about the same amount of social relevance as the NRA to most of us.

 

 

 

 

It's been a while, but I was under the impression that Beaker IS the leader of the revolution.

 

Don't believe the tabloid hype amigo....

 

[tallman]

I don't know why you all are posting this stuff.

 

The Revolution will take care of all of this. Lawman, we may need a short paragraph in our Manifesto to cover this sort of thing. Right after the part about banning all non approved interaction with muppets (get over it Richard). It has about the same amount of social relevance as the NRA to most of us.

 

 

 

 

It's been a while, but I was under the impression that Beaker IS the leader of the revolution.

 

Don't believe the tabloid hype amigo....

 

 

From the PBS blog.

"We actually believe that several of the Muppets would make great politicians. For example: We’d make Ernie and Bert co-president (we find working as a team makes us more creative and reasonable). We hope they would be a bit nepotistic and appoint some of the other Muppets to certain cabinet posts: The Count in the Treasury, Cookie Monster at the Food and Drug Administration, Grover as chief of staff, Khoka (who teaches girl empowerment and education on the Egyptian co-production) as secretary of education, Big Bird as secretary of defense and Kami (the HIV-positive muppet from South Africa) as secretary of state. "

 

YMMV*

 

Your Muppet May Vary

[ghaverkamp]

Well the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana sure thought it was valid.

 

Have you read the court's order? (I have.)

 

It doesn't say what folks here (including you) think it does. It is definitely not a ruling on the merits.

 

Are you just practicing on us or do you think the court blew it?

 

See above. The court didn't issue a ruling on the merits.

 

My position is that the law is not so cut-and-dried as some would like to believe. Further, I find some of the comments downright scary.

[ghaverkamp]

The courts said it was an illegal search and seizure.

 

There's the proof that they violated both 2nd and 4th Amendment rights.

 

Really? Why don't you show me where the "courts" said that.

 

 

Many states have passed laws since Katrina specifically banning this from happening. Happily I live in one of them.

 

And if one wants to see change, then that's what should be done. Pray tell, if it was illegal before, why were new laws required to remedy the situation?

[azkaisr]

Stop avoiding the muppets Haverkamp.

 

We are on to you

 

Kaisr

[Fugu]

Have you read the court's order? (I have.)

Yes.

 

For everyone's benefit: SAF and NRA filed the following:

 

http://www.saf.org/new.orleans.lawsuit/complaint.declaratory.injunctive.relief.pdf

 

 

Here's the resultant order from the District Court:

 

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=15277

if that doesn't work, it's from this page: http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/09/new-orleans-gun-grab-saga.html

scroll down to "the roaches scatter"

 

 

 

If there was a legal basis for seizing lawfully possessed firearms, why didn’t the district court deny the complaint for injunctive relief rather than granting NRA and SAF some of its requests?

[ghaverkamp]

If there was a legal basis for seizing lawfully possessed firearms, why didn’t the district court deny the complaint for injunctive relief rather than granting NRA and SAF some of its requests?

 

"Not withstanding the [denials], the parties hereby consent to the entry of the following order . . ."

 

Once the defendants consented to the entry of the order as requested in the complaint, there was no need to reach the merits of it. What reason would the court have to deny a request that all the parties had consented to?

[philbytx]

Greg,

Forget other countries.....

The gun genie is out of the bottle in the U.S. and until ALL weapons are removed then those law abiding folks that wish to protect themselves should retain the right to do just that. Gun free zones indeed I'm sure the nut jobs and perp's LOVE that

Police are reactive not proactive and the only person capable of defending ones self is, just that, ones self!

Law enforcement has no legal obligation to protect life.....darned if I can't remember the case but I bet you can

[Fugu]

What reason would the court have to deny a request that all the parties had consented to?

 

What reason would Nagin et al have to consent to such a request?

[ghaverkamp]

What reason would Nagin et al have to consent to such a request?

 

I think the answer to that is obvious. They didn't want any details of what happened dragged out. But that question is only meant to deflect from the point I was trying to make. PR control doesn't establish legal precedent.

 

Despite the propaganda that many have clearly bought into, the judge did not rule on the merits of the issue. It is clearly in error to say that the court found that the seizures were illegal. The court did nothing of the sort. There is no substantive precedent to fall back on.

 

Now, that's not to say that the judge would have decided differently. Right now, the Fifth Circuit is the place to be if you want an individual rights-based Second Amendment ruling. Of course, the Second Amendment rights would be balanced against the state's inherent interest in traditional police powers. The Fourth Amendment considerations would probably hinge on the reasonableness of the searches and seizures.

 

You asked earlier if I'm just practicing on everyone. I don't think I'd put it that way. However, I do see lots of interesting issues that I think are worth discussing, and none seem so cut-and-dried to me. So, I thought I'd try to discuss them. This is a discussion board, after all. Too often times folks here seem to lose sight of the distinction between discussion and advocacy.

[Fugu]

I think the answer to that is obvious. They didn't want any details of what happened dragged out.

 

And I think the answer as to why they didn't want details out is obvious. Let's not forget they were well represented by counsel. It looks like an Alford plea to the accusations made by NRA and SAF because Nagin knew, and his police chief knew, and their counsel knew that they were wrong morally and legally.

 

This way they get the net result of their wrong actions (they had already made the seizures), they get to claim they didn't do anything wrong, and they avoid what could have been a pivotal case supporting the 2A by claiming innocence while accepting the result of the inevitable court ruling.

 

Now they are refusing to return guns for which no confiscation receipts were issued, unless the owners can produce from the wreckage of their flooded and looted homes a copy of the original purchase receipts. They got the result they wanted- those guns were seized and will never be returned.

 

Too often times folks here seem to lose sight of the distinction between discussion and advocacy.

 

Fair enough, I wasn't implying anything, just checking to see if you were playing devil's advocate for fun, or if you were actually trying to debate the subtle intricacies of law with a bunch of laypeople who have little or no legal education. edit: like me, obviously.

 

I understand what you are saying about the court not having ruled on this now, by the way. Nagin's attorney accepting what they did is just as damning in my view. They knew they were wrong.

[ghaverkamp]

Fair enough, I wasn't implying anything, just checking to see if you were playing devil's advocate for fun, or if you were actually trying to debate the subtle intricacies of law with a bunch of laypeople who have little or no legal education. edit: like me, obviously.

 

At the risk of entering territory where I get criticized for parsing words... I don't feel I'm simply playing devil's advocate. At some point, I think I started with the misguided belief that if I could just expose the intricacies of these things, maybe people wouldn't be so enraged. I hoped I was providing an explanation, in a way, that made it clear how this could be legally justifiable. That, unfortunately, seems to come off as advocacy. I'm a big proponent of strong Fourth Amendment protections, for one thing. (There's a certain irony in all of this. Most of the elected officials who disfavor gun controls would appoint Justices who take very narrow views on First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights.)

 

I'm not trying to debate legal intricacies with laypeople, either. I don't, for instance, consider it a debate over intricacies to claim that a court held these searches and seizures unconstitutional. There's no intricacy there; it's simply not true. Now, if you and I were to launch into a debate over whether reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment supersedes the warrant clause, then no doubt, that would be debating legal intricacies -- and it would be all academic, because the law isn't terribly clear. I did bring that up in response to Mike, but only in passing. But he's armed for the discussion, anyway.

 

All of that very verbosely said, I do enjoy the challenge of trying to make my points understandable to those who don't speak law student. Clearly, I only occasionally succeed.

 

I understand what you are saying about the court not having ruled on this now, by the way. Nagin's attorney accepting what they did is just as damning in my view. They knew they were wrong.

 

In the Fifth Circuit (where NO resides), Nagin was probably going to lose. Worse, the already maligned NOPD was going to look like the the NRA's proverbial jack-booted thugs. I would imagine between losing in court at the district and circuit levels, a protracted legal fight to the Supremes, the negative national exposure that would result, and the desire just to put the Katrina missteps behind them all contributed.

[BabyCow]

In a free society, somebody unhinged & willing to murder others for little to no apparent reason can always find a victim. That's the way it is. Laws will never change it.

 

No question that is true. However, a person armed with a gun whether illegally or legally obtained is able to kill many more people at a time than someone armed with a knife/cricket(baseball) bat.

 

the majority who don't own guns/have an interest in guns wanted something that overuled a small minority

 

The majority imposing their will on the minority... Democratic tyranny?

 

You can look it that way.......however, as a democracy the Governments may change/make laws but the people change Governments. Laws can be reversed. (Side issue. Some US members of this board fear their Government(s). Governments should fear the people)

 

In 2006, the lack of any measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was confirmed using a statistical method (ARIMA), in a peer-reviewed article in the British Journal of Criminology by academics Dr Jeanine Baker (SSAA) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting).

 

I think there has been criticism of that report as it failed to mention that since the gun legislation there have been no random mass shootings in Australia. Sorry but that seems to be a measureable effect but was not mentioned in the report.

[BabyCow]

Still interested in how they did the ban. One of the issues I see here in the USA is criminals have guns. If you make a law saying "no guns" the criminals tend not to listen, and you end up making them more powerful. Following the ownership logs and the like is possible, but I think that area must get a bit gray and fuzzy. I'd assume many who use guns in crimes aren't legally allowed to own one, and as such purchased it without the needed background checks.

 

Not trying to be rude, or argue, I'm just curious. I just can't see the government being able to clean up all the guns. I know they did there, and in the UK, for the most part, but rather different cultures.

 

Steve. We were very lucky we started from a position where we are not a gun culture and there were not that ( compared to the US ) many firearms in the general community. ( I think 700,000 were ultimately surrendered or was that 70,000.I (shudder?) to think how many firearms there actually are in the US)

Criminals the world over are the same whether here or there. They will find a way to get a gun IF THERE ARE GUNS TO BE OBTAINED. My experience is that a major source of guns obtained by criminals is from legally owned firearms.

Personally I think the time has come and gone for effective gun control in the US (if most really wanted it). From the posts on this board and my exposure to American culture whilst in the US, it seems that culturally you are pro-gun. I am pro gun in some ways and anti gun in others. It just saddens me to see life wasted by gun massacres anywhere in the world.

If the governments attempted to remove guns from the US community the law abiding citizens would not comply as they need guns to protects themselves from criminals/people with guns. We do not have that problem here as previously stated as due to some cultural differences and now gun control we don't need and we don't think we need, guns to protect ourselves.

[Fugu]

I think I started with the misguided belief that if I could just expose the intricacies of these things, maybe people wouldn't be so enraged.

 

Well, I speak for nobody but myself, but when the intricacies of legal wrangling obscure right and wrong, they just plain piss me off.

 

That's a bit of a catch-22, as I believe even the worst scum has the right to legal representation and due process, and when I've screwed up I have appreciated the availability of those things. I guess it's perspective.

[Fugu]

If the governments attempted to remove guns from the US community the law abiding citizens would not comply

 

Boy I hope you're right. I have doubts about the state of our nation.

 

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

- Samuel Adams

 

 

as they need guns to protects themselves from criminals/people with guns.

Ironically, you didn't mention tyranny as the primary threat.

[BabyCow]

Ironically, you didn't mention tyranny as the primary threat.

 

What primary threat tyranny do you refer to here, what tyranny do the US citizens face today, and historically what tyranny has the US faced since Independance ?

[Matts_12GS]

Ironically, you didn't mention tyranny as the primary threat.

 

What primary threat tyranny do you refer to here, what tyranny do the US citizens face today, and historically what tyranny has the US faced since Independance ?

 

The Demican and Republocrat parties.....

[Francois_Dumas]

Ironically, you didn't mention tyranny as the primary threat.

 

What primary threat tyranny do you refer to here, what tyranny do the US citizens face today, and historically what tyranny has the US faced since Independance ?

 

The Demican and Republocrat parties.....

 

I thought he was referring to the IRS..... my bad.....

[Fugu]

What primary threat tyranny do you refer to here, what tyranny do the US citizens face today, and historically what tyranny has the US faced since Independance ?

We won the cold war, but we didn't destroy all of our nuclear missiles, did we?

 

BTW, the answer to all of your questions is the sort of invasive government you seem to cherish. You don't think they are done limiting your freedom do you? What's next? At what point would your citizens now take up arms against their government if necessary, and has that point moved as a result of your arms now consisting of rocks and sticks?

[Francois_Dumas]

If we'd actually 'won' the cold war, then we wouldn't have to worry about Russia anymore...... which we DO..... again. That's an era in which everybody involved just lost.

 

Talking about tyranny should be left to people who have actually experienced it and know what the word means, like those in (former) occupied nations and lawless nations. Unfortunately there are still quite a few around, but I hardly think ANY situation in Australia, Western Europe or the US comes anywhere near....

[steve.foote]

If we'd actually 'won' the cold war, then we wouldn't have to worry about Russia anymore...... which we DO..... again. That's an era in which everybody involved just lost.

 

Talking about tyranny should be left to people who have actually experienced it and know what the word means, like those in (former) occupied nations and lawless nations. Unfortunately there are still quite a few around, but I hardly think ANY situation in Australia, Western Europe or the US comes anywhere near....

 

No sale, Dutchy. Just because someone hasn't been (insert experience of choice) doesn't mean they don't know anything about it, or are barred from expressing their personal feelings.

 

Oh, and we DID win the cold war. Try and find the USSR on a map these days.

[Francois_Dumas]

Calling Australia or the US a 'tyranny' is just SO way off any reality..... (at least that's how I read his message, correct me if I am wrong there).

 

Try Cuba, or any of the 'funny' African nations, China, North Korea... yes, okay.....

 

As for Russia.... dream on, baby ! It is still there, they are gaining strength by the day, it is NOT a democracy, they have major energy reserves = power, and the wrong ideas of what to do with that power. They may have lost battles, but the only 'war' they lost was Afghanistan. Just like we are doing.

[steve.foote]

Calling Australia or the US a 'tyranny' is just SO way off any reality..... (at least that's how I read his message, correct me if I am wrong there).

 

Try Cuba, or any of the 'funny' African nations, China, North Korea... yes, okay.....

 

As for Russia.... dream on, baby ! It is still there, they are gaining strength by the day, it is NOT a democracy, they have major energy reserves = power, and the wrong ideas of what to do with that power. They may have lost battles, but the only 'war' they lost was Afghanistan. Just like we are doing.

 

You have a very, uh, unique way of seeing the world. Best of luck!

[Boffin]

Calling Australia or the US a 'tyranny' is just SO way off any reality..... (at least that's how I read his message, correct me if I am wrong there).

 

Try Cuba, or any of the 'funny' African nations, China, North Korea... yes, okay.....

 

As for Russia.... dream on, baby ! It is still there, they are gaining strength by the day, it is NOT a democracy, they have major energy reserves = power, and the wrong ideas of what to do with that power. They may have lost battles, but the only 'war' they lost was Afghanistan. Just like we are doing.

 

You have a very, uh, unique way of seeing the world. Best of luck!

 

Not unique, just non-American.

 

Andy

[Francois_Dumas]

[BabyCow]

What primary threat tyranny do you refer to here, what tyranny do the US citizens face today, and historically what tyranny has the US faced since Independance ?

We won the cold war, but we didn't destroy all of our nuclear missiles, did we?

 

BTW, the answer to all of your questions is the sort of invasive government you seem to cherish. You don't think they are done limiting your freedom do you? What's next? At what point would your citizens now take up arms against their government if necessary, and has that point moved as a result of your arms now consisting of rocks and sticks?

 

Fugu. This still does not answer my question concerning tryanny. BTW.....have you been to Australia? Just as a comparision if you wish to talk invasive compare entering Australia to entering the US at the moment as non-citizens of both countires. Now some would say that being fingerprinted as you are as a non citizen entering the US is invasive. However most would/could/may see it as necessary due to certain events and threats that the US as a whole faces. It all depends on one's prespective. What you find is invasive I may find as good policy. The fingerprinting may save lives as gun control can. BTW....as a further example of governments fearing the people we have just had a government change and the major reason appears to be an unpopular effort to alter workplace conditions to much in favour of employees. People taking arms up against any Australian government has not happened on a major scale since the early 1800's. Forgive me but I do not know enough of domestic American history of people taking arms up against any of you Governments. Not sure what your nuclear arsenal has to do with you being able to protect yourselves from other citizens and your Government. I can understand the analogy but it is a bit extreme.

[BabyCow]

Calling Australia or the US a 'tyranny' is just SO way off any reality..... (at least that's how I read his message, correct me if I am wrong there).

 

Try Cuba, or any of the 'funny' African nations, China, North Korea... yes, okay.....

 

As for Russia.... dream on, baby ! It is still there, they are gaining strength by the day, it is NOT a democracy, they have major energy reserves = power, and the wrong ideas of what to do with that power. They may have lost battles, but the only 'war' they lost was Afghanistan. Just like we are doing.

 

You have a very, uh, unique way of seeing the world. Best of luck!

 

Steve...not sure what you mean here. I was sure that Australia is not a tyranny, and thought the US generally was not. Am I wrong ? What is wrong with Francois's way of seeing the world. I do agree with you that you can have an opinion ( and opinions are like a#$%holes, everybodys got one. No offence intended. I just like that saying as it is so true)about something you have not experienced but generally I would defer to someone who has experienced something I have not

[DiggerJim]

In 2006, the lack of any measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was confirmed using a statistical method (ARIMA), in a peer-reviewed article in the British Journal of Criminology by academics Dr Jeanine Baker (SSAA) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting).

 

I think there has been criticism of that report as it failed to mention that since the gun legislation there have been no random mass shootings in Australia. Sorry but that seems to be a measureable effect but was not mentioned in the report.

 

That is a somewhat specious argument. Have there been no bombings, no poisonings, baseball bat attacks, knife murders, cars running down innocents, etc?

 

Are there no home invasions, rapes, kidnappings anymore? If there are, how does one protect oneself from them?

 

What would Australia need the AFP's anti-terrorism force for in a place where there are no more mass-shootings? Because there are other ways to kill people - including a lot of them all at once. While your gun confiscation program may have resulted in an un-fire-armed populace, it certainly didn't result in an unarmed one. You may have elminated the spur of the moment crazy person who shoots up a shopping center but not the more professional criminal who is determined to enter your house, rape your wife & daughters before attempting to kill you and setting your house on fire (a real crime here in Connecticut last summer). While the good doctor in this situation chose not to arm himself, perhaps to his later dismay, at least he had the option. In Sydney, that option is taken away.

 

It's the culture that makes you safer, not the lack of guns. Very similar to Japan and a host of other places where violence and criminality are viewed differently than here in the States.

 

Cheers.

[Fugu]

Talking about tyranny should be left to people who have actually experienced it and know what the word means

 

We are discussing a threat to our liberties, not living under tyrannical government, and I believe I heard enough from my grandparents about why they left Russia that I grasp it.

 

You're dissecting an analogy. I'm not going to discuss whether or not we won the cold war, it's irrelevant to this discussion.

[Fugu]

Fugu. This still does not answer my question concerning tryanny.

 

Tell you what - go back through this thread and answer the questions I've asked you, then feel free to pose anything to me in a direct fashion and I'll be happy to answer.

 

Otherwise we're both just standing on our own soap boxes.

 

I was alluding to the threat of tyranny in the way you seem to define it - feudal type tyranny. Clearly you don't regard being disarmed by your government as tyranny, whereas I and many other Americans do.

 

 

 

as a comparision if you wish to talk invasive compare entering Australia to entering the US

 

You're off the mark. We're talking about the treatment of citizens, not customs control at the airport for non-citizens crossing our respective borders.

 

What you find is invasive I may find as good policy.

 

That's what I said. You seem to really like your government. Good for you. That doesn't mean I want people with your opinions in charge in my country.

 

The fingerprinting may save lives as gun control can.

 

Not stipulating gun control saves lives. You can't prove it statistically or otherwise. It's your theory, nothing more. You've ignored proof to the contrary continually.

 

BTW, airport security is a joke, but it's a joke that's irrelevant to this thread.

 

 

People taking arms up against any Australian government has not happened on a major scale since the early 1800's.

 

And it will never happen again unless you and all your fellow subjects learn to make arms in your shop. Let's hope it's not necessary.

 

 

 

Not sure what your nuclear arsenal has to do with you being able to protect yourselves from other citizens and your Government. I can understand the analogy but it is a bit extreme.

 

Think deterrent.

 

What deterrent did you have as citizens to prevent your government from running amok?

 

1) Voting

2) Revolt

 

If you think there are more steps, stick them in there, but the last option, the severest option, has been removed from your arsenal. Just because right now you do not believe your government is invasive, or tyrannical, or evil doesn't mean they never will get that way. Why give up the means to remove them by force if necessary?

[Dave McReynolds]

Just because right now you do not believe your government is invasive, or tyrannical, or evil doesn't mean they never will get that way. Why give up the means to remove them by force if necessary?

 

While I'm generally in favor of owning guns for self-protection, and would have no reservations about using the ones I have for that purpose, that doesn't stop me from questioning statements I hear from either side of an argument.

 

I don't believe civilian ownership of guns would make a significant difference in a revolution. For example, in the beginning, the Viet Cong in So. Vietnam (as opposed to the NVA in the North) was not well armed. They had some guns, sure, but also relied heavily on improvised weapons, such as pungee stakes and tiger traps. By the time we got there in force in 1965, they had stolen enough weapons from the ARVN or been smuggled enough from North Vietnam or recovered enough unexploded ordinance to make into mines that they were well armed. A similar course of events happened in the Russian revolution, and in the Mexican revolution.

 

The single most important factor in any revolution is idealogical fervor: the willingness to suffer and die for a cause. The next most important factor is capable leadership. The third is picking the right point in history to stage your revolution. The forth is financing and logistical support, including guns, but I believe this factor is likely to follow if the first three are in place. Because of factor #1, for example, the Viet Cong were able to appropriate sufficient weapons from the ARVN due to sympathisers inside the ARVN and general lack of morale therein, which caused it to leak like a sieve. I think a similar thing would be likely to happen in any revolution that had any chance of succeeding. If the ideological fervor that was felt by those inside the revolution was strong enough for the revolution to have a chance, it would be bound to effect enough of those in the army of the oppressor to open a channel of arms (as an aside, this is another argument I would make in favor of a continued civilian involvement in our own army and against a professional warrior class that doesn't feel connected with society in general, but's that's an argument for another day).

 

Generally, while revolutions may succeed, those who initiate them are generally dealt a losing hand, if you look at what happened to the Bolsheviks under Stalin, the Viet Cong under Ho, the members of Pancho Villa's band, or the subsequent histories of the individuals who signed our own Declaration of Independence. I guess the general personality type would be difficult to control by whomever manages to come out on top at the end of the revolution.

[Ralph]

Gun registration leads to confiscation...Can you imagine this happened in the Land of the Free? I can rant but it's not worth it anymore...It's getting 'better and better'

 

Not registered & don't plan on it!

 

Unfortunately there are predators out there, and until the courts are willing to "REALLY" do something about it, we will need to protect our family's from these type of people. I see little respect for others everyday, and it alarming.

[steve.foote]

Calling Australia or the US a 'tyranny' is just SO way off any reality..... (at least that's how I read his message, correct me if I am wrong there).

 

Try Cuba, or any of the 'funny' African nations, China, North Korea... yes, okay.....

 

I have absolutely no idea how that has anything to do with my post.

 

As for Russia.... dream on, baby ! It is still there, they are gaining strength by the day, it is NOT a democracy, they have major energy reserves = power, and the wrong ideas of what to do with that power. They may have lost battles, but the only 'war' they lost was Afghanistan.

 

So is England, Mexico, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea and Vietnam. Like the Cold war, all of those wars live in the history books. Now if Russia starts up something new, well, that'll be a new war.

 

Just like we are doing.

 

My comment was directed at this quip about Afghanistan. Considering your own admission that one can only know about something from first-hand experience, how could you be qualified to make such a claim?

[Fugu]

I don't believe civilian ownership of guns would make a significant difference in a revolution.

 

I understand your points. Part of the problem with any discussion on this topic is that actual historical references are limited when you try to compare the events you cited to an armed populace revolting. There just aren't many cases of an armed populace taking those arms up against their government. Perhaps that's cause and effect, maybe it's dumb luck.

 

So while I see your points, we really don't know what would happen in a country like the US where half the homes have guns, and many of those who do have enough to supply their neighbors if needed. Your comments about citizen soldiers are right on the money and I've mentioned it before when people say "what good are your firearms against an F-16?". Well, my neighbors will be the ones asked to fly some of those F-16s, and I don't believe they'd all agree to bomb our neighborhood if the order was morally wrong.

 

Even if you are correct in your thinking - that support would come in from outside the country for a well-led revolution there is no valid argument to be made that I can think of that the population being armed would hamper a revolution. Meanwhile there are records of things like the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, where a few weapons in the hands of the oppressed made a large difference.