Ways to prevent mass shootings?

[Caecus]

There were bigger secrets to be kept then Bill's extra marital activities and if he was going to be impeached it was thought better to have it be for some tabloid level nonsense instead of something that might endanger some backroom deal or another.

Oh goodie. Want to tell us what that is? Or is this another baseless conspiracy theory of yours? That's besides the point. The point is, we have a system of removing an executive from office, and we have exercised that system in more cases than one for significantly more trivial reasons than "taking over the country." Do you disagree with this statement?

 

 

If the constitution is so set-in-stone then why are the proper method of changing Constitutional laws not being used?

 

 

If the constitution is so set-in-stone then why are the proper method of changing Constitutional laws not being used?

We get this endless fearmongering about guns and hints at Australian/UK style gun laws instead of seeing a straight forward proposal to amend the constitution like during the prohibition era, they amended the constitution to ban alcohol then figured out how much of a bad idea it was and amended the constitution again to legalize it.

 

In this whole debate i have never said these things will happen i have been laying out a picture of what things might look like if a President carries out a threat to bypass congress and attacks a core ideal of America in this case the 2nd amendment.

This is where your gap in understanding of American politics fails you. I am assuming that "...a President carries out a threat to bypass congress...," you are referring to executive orders? If you are not referring to executive orders, please, do enlighten me what the current President is doing to "bypass congress." 

 

 

Rome lasted so long because communication and travel was slower, when ideas and people move faster so do events.

You are wrong, but this is irrelevant. 

[Lu Xun]

Psychology is a very important factor still and until the military becomes 100% automated it will remain a large factor, when a solider is given an order to do bad things the ones of poor moral character will follow orders so long as they face zero risk, thous of higher moral character will protest so long as they are not burdened with ideas similar to that of original sin.

If guns are banned and it is accepted it is the same as telling thous of high morals that they have done something wrong and if they think they have done something wrong they will stand down so long as they think they are in the wrong.

If there is a true revolt and not a false start there will be a split in the military it won't be just the civil population vs the gov.

Read up on the banality of evil. Beyond that, if it's a "true revolt" civilian auxiliaries will matter less than military elements, given that military elements will have more heavy support. Civilians can attempt guerrilla warfare, but if you actually read up on the history of it it's never clean and is a matter of reprisals and counter-reprisals.

 

@ WISD0MTree:

 

Yet, who would control the drones and heavy armor? Let's put it this way, you're thinking that somehow the militias in Fallujah, which had the support of the people, as well as large caches of automatic weapons, would somehow be able to defeat the occupying US military. That doesn't work that way, if the US Army wants you gone, it'll have you gone.

 

The executive branch is already entitled to droning American citizens it deems undesirable. The question is less a matter of whether the guns would be sufficient to defeat the US army, but whether or not the US army would be willing to shoot armed civilians and cause collateral damage on American soil.

 

We have already had one civil war; and as long as there is popular support for brutal methods a revolt can be put down; remember Sherman's March to Atlanta.

 

Also, when I brought up ATs and MANPADs, they're theoretically capable of working, but in practice artillery and screening infantry can effectively neutralize them. You can theoretically be able to break into tanks when it comes to side armor, but screening infantry means you'll always be facing front armor. Manpads, by the way, are mainly useful against low-flying aircraft and helicopters. If you're being bombed by B-2s, good luck getting your hands on a S-400 or S-500 system.

[London J Collins]

BIN THE KNIVES, SAVE NAM LIVES.

[WISD0MTREE]

Yet, who would control the drones and heavy armor? Let's put it this way, you're thinking that somehow the militias in Fallujah, which had the support of the people, as well as large caches of automatic weapons, would somehow be able to defeat the occupying US military.

 

That doesn't work that way, if the US Army wants you gone, it'll have you gone.

 

The executive branch is already entitled to droning American citizens it deems undesirable. The question is less a matter of whether the guns would be sufficient to defeat the US army, but whether or not the US army would be willing to shoot armed civilians and cause collateral damage on American soil.

 

We have already had one civil war; and as long as there is popular support for brutal methods a revolt can be put down; remember Sherman's March to Atlanta.

 

Also, when I brought up ATs and MANPADs, they're theoretically capable of working, but in practice artillery and screening infantry can effectively neutralize them. You can theoretically be able to break into tanks when it comes to side armor, but screening infantry means you'll always be facing front armor. Manpads, by the way, are mainly useful against low-flying aircraft and helicopters. If you're being bombed by B-2s, good luck getting your hands on a S-400 or S-500 system.

On the physical level, people who pledged to uphold the Constitution. Sure, people will obey the US government. People will also defect with the weapons. 

 

I didn't read the whole thread, but I didn't see anywhere where someone gave a legit reason why we wouldn't be fighting guerrilla style. 

 

And I would have to say that it would be a mixture. Lots of veterans I know wouldn't be willing to shoot Americans. According to some of them, we did come close to a military coup when Nixon resigned. He was very popular in the military, but we didn't have an outcry from the military for him to stay. 

 

The South was fighting (for the most part) like a typical army. 

 

I didn't see where you mentioned those. What page is it on? Still, IEDs and Kornet Launchers (If fighters in the middle east are receiving some, I'm sure Russia would give them to a group fighting the strongest NATO nation.) would work. 

[Bored now Leafing]

Read up on the banality of evil. Beyond that, if it's a "true revolt" civilian auxiliaries will matter less than military elements, given that military elements will have more heavy support. Civilians can attempt guerrilla warfare, but if you actually read up on the history of it it's never clean and is a matter of reprisals and counter-reprisals.

If this man goes over the deep end it won't be a clean split between civilian auxiliaries and military elements, there are a lot of guys in play now that do not like him, but there are also units being/have been setup that owe loyalty to the leader and not the Constitution.

 

Or is this another baseless conspiracy theory of yours?

You can't maintain civility can you?

Well there is no reason to continue talking to such an abusive person.

13

 

Caecus is an example of someone raging so hard on the inside that it spills out into the real world and people like that can only hear there own rage and the rage of another, so they try to make other people rage so they don't have to hear the inner rage that is only silenced by the rage of another.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Quew

[Caecus]

You can't maintain civility can you?

Well there is no reason to continue talking to such an abusive person.

13

 

GG. You are wrong, I'm right. 14. 

[thePVT]

This pretty much sums up everything about gun control and crap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63i1yCswEtI

Edited October 15, 2015 by thePVT