Utah Sheriffs: "Won't take our guns without a fight"

[_Racer]

I am confused by all this. Maybe I haven't been up to speed. Has Obama said anything about physically taking people's guns away? I haven't heard this in any of the dialogue going on in DC. The current discussion of making some stricter laws to obtain a gun, banning a few models of assault rifle, or high capacity clips, to me, does not translate into jack booted Feds kicking down our doors and confiscating our guns, and yet so many people behave like this is actually happening.

[_moksha]

Has Obama said anything about physically taking people's guns away?

Well, he did talk about better control of our guns and that is enough to get everyone up in arms, truck-mounted artillery and antipersonnel mines.

If county sheriffs cannot draw the line on the battlefield against the feds, then who can? If they send Johnston's Army against us, we will be ready somewhere near Bridger, Wyoming led by the valiant Nauvoo Sheriffs Association. Our muskets, howitzers and squad car to air missles must not be compromised!!!

[_keithb]

Cletus get your shotgun, Seal Team Six is comin'.

by the way did anyone see Zero Dark Thirty? If you do nothing else sneak in and see the last thirty minutes when they do their raid on the Bin Laden compound. Feel free American gun owner to think you'd survive the SWAT tactics of flash bangs and tactical teamwork of that or any special ops group the government can muster if the "guvment" was to come for your guns.

Against single targets or small groups? Sure. Against an entire hostile population, not so much.

As I recall, the turning point in Iraq came when the U.S. troops began to negotiate with the disparate Sunni militias. Before that, they tried to kill their way out of the situation, and it didn't work so well. Iraq only had about 25 million people. A hostile civilian population of over 300 million, well armed, would be much, much harder to control -- impossible in any practical sense without committing massive war crimes.

So, the populace as a whole would be a counter-balance to a tyrannical government.

As for whether the government could ever become tyrannical ... these things have been known to happen. We are very privileged to have a relatively well functioning democracy. I think that the U.S. government is one of most well functioning governments to ever exist. But, time changes a lot of things. There is very little question that the founders of the U.S. government meant the Second Amendment to be a counterbalance to a tyrannical government. There are numerous quotes to this effect. Also, considering the catastrophic damage done since 9-11 to the Fourth Amendment protections, the real possibility of a systematic erosion of personal liberty is troubling, at least to me.

As for banning assault weapons, it's just another feel good piece of legislation that will not noticeably impact gun violence, either to increase it or decrease it. I don't understand why we need to pass another piece of feel good legislation that doesn't address the problem for which it was originally written. However, even if another assault weapons ban does get passed (it won't though), I will survive either way. I don't even own a gun.

[_beastie]

Heller? None of it. When beastie is able to address her original false premise, then we can address Heller which by the way, is being quoted out of context by beastie. When we're able, we shall begin by first noting Heller hints at remedy against having to have a license at all but no no such relief had been requested.

LOL. The Columbine guards have NOTHING to do with the Heller case, nor did I quote the Heller case in response to our conversation about the armed guard at Columbine and VA Tech. I quoted the Heller case in direct response to you calling a Obama a tyrant for his gun sense proposals. You have yet to point out which of Obama's premises constitute tyranny, by the way.

[_beastie]

bcspace

That was not beastie's argument, at first. She argues that security was there and so it did not matter if even there is trained armed personel. The premise is flawed because:

1) I never proposed that there be armed guards anywhere. I merely propose that law abiding citizens have the right to choose when and where they will be armed.
2) Security was not on the scene in each of those events, the one Columbine security guard being at lunch, etc.
3) Her solution erroneously assumes (even if the original erroneous assumption is correct) that no armed person or persons could have stopped these events and doesn't take into account the NUMEROUS and almost infinite (by comparison) events in which guns have saved lives, protected property, prevented rape, etc.

I hope you don't play with matches. With this many strawmen, you'd be in imminent danger.

I merely stated that Columbine and VA Tech did, indeed, have armed guards. That did not stop the massacre. You'd have to have multiple armed guards to try and stop such a massacre, as I clearly stated. You'd have to have an armed guard in every hallway, at every exit, because, otherwise, they won't happen to be in the right place at the right time.

So your solution is to arm all teachers. That is the proposition to which I object. Armed guards have training which enable them to react more appropriately in confusing and dangerous situations. Armed citizens do not. We'd end up with multiple people shooting. Moreover, there is no way for an armed teacher to mutually have the gun ready in an instant and keep that gun out of the hands of students.

Moreover, teachers are not perfect and sometimes have their own problems and over-reactions. It's funny how conservatives normally disdain public school teachers as incompetents, and yet now people like you want to put guns in all their hands. Put armed teachers in all classrooms, and sooner or later one of them will pull out that gun and use it in an unwarranted situation, like to break up a fight.

[_beastie]

no shock, if any state is going to be strange it is Utah. This is another reason why I am so happy not to be living in Utah.

Have no fear. Even top Senate Dem Mitch McConnell is pro Second Amendment; on the surface anyway lest Kentuckians see him for what he truly is.

Talk about low-information voters. This explains a lot about bcspace's posting in the off-topic forum. He has no idea what he's talking about. He's just repeating what he heard some shock-jock who is simply trying to get ratings shouted in his ear.

[Guest]

I am confused by all this. Maybe I haven't been up to speed. Has Obama said anything about physically taking people's guns away? I haven't heard this in any of the dialogue going on in DC. The current discussion of making some stricter laws to obtain a gun, banning a few models of assault rifle, or high capacity clips, to me, does not translate into jack booted Feds kicking down our doors and confiscating our guns, and yet so many people behave like this is actually happening.

"It's because the Gov't controls the media sport"


The Occupy Movement was squashed quietly and effectively. The news suppressed the true reason behind the problem "some dying white guy in office" (ask someone that works in a television station) by promoting non violent resistance. Media painting the movement as nothing but 40 somethings right wing psychos cured most of that. The Gov't is playing with people's lives for no damn reason and the people are tired of it. Leading to divorce, suicide, out house and home. What do the people get in return? a f****** head game. They're done laying low, just that simple.

[_harmony]

I love that my father-in-law plays army all day yet was more than willing to dodge the draft to serve a mission in oregon.

You're criticizing him for legally avoiding serving in the single worst war ever devised? Do you have any idea what Vietnam was like?

[Guest]

I love that my father-in-law plays army all day yet was more than willing to dodge the draft to serve a mission in oregon.

You're criticizing him for legally avoiding serving in the single worst war ever devised? Do you have any idea what Vietnam was like?

Harmony, I have a very strong idea what war is like. He was more than happy to talk a big game about fighting "those people" yet claimed his mission stopped him from doing so. What kind of service have you done?

Edited to add, I am not trying to be a d1ck it is just that the morality of the Vietnam war is rarely questioned by these folks (at least my FIL and his buddies), they play army all day in northern Idaho and Texas, yet tried at all costs to avoid actually participating in wars they were so excited about.

[_lostindc]

Cletus get your shotgun, Seal Team Six is comin'.

by the way did anyone see Zero Dark Thirty? If you do nothing else sneak in and see the last thirty minutes when they do their raid on the Bin Laden compound. Feel free American gun owner to think you'd survive the SWAT tactics of flash bangs and tactical teamwork of that or any special ops group the government can muster if the "guvment" was to come for your guns.

Against single targets or small groups? Sure. Against an entire hostile population, not so much.

As I recall, the turning point in Iraq came when the U.S. troops began to negotiate with the disparate Sunni militias. Before that, they tried to kill their way out of the situation, and it didn't work so well. Iraq only had about 25 million people. A hostile civilian population of over 300 million, well armed, would be much, much harder to control -- impossible in any practical sense without committing massive war crimes.

So, the populace as a whole would be a counter-balance to a tyrannical government.

As for whether the government could ever become tyrannical ... these things have been known to happen. We are very privileged to have a relatively well functioning democracy. I think that the U.S. government is one of most well functioning governments to ever exist. But, time changes a lot of things. There is very little question that the founders of the U.S. government meant the Second Amendment to be a counterbalance to a tyrannical government. There are numerous quotes to this effect. Also, considering the catastrophic damage done since 9-11 to the Fourth Amendment protections, the real possibility of a systematic erosion of personal liberty is troubling, at least to me.

As for banning assault weapons, it's just another feel good piece of legislation that will not noticeably impact gun violence, either to increase it or decrease it. I don't understand why we need to pass another piece of feel good legislation that doesn't address the problem for which it was originally written. However, even if another assault weapons ban does get passed (it won't though), I will survive either way. I don't even own a gun.

You have no idea how quickly shutting down utah interstates would end the militia. Frankly, you likely have no idea about armed conflict at all. Just stop, go enjoy a good lunch and believe that no one is going to infringe upon the rights you should have.