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

[_Chap]

If you believe that violent criminals should be put in prison, you should have to spend a few months in prison so you know the power society is wielding. If you experience that, then you can start talking about the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

*shrug*

Sounds fair.

Joking aside, it would probably be a good idea for legislators (if not the general populace) at least to have some real acquaintance with:

(a) What actually happens to people incarcerated by their fellow-citizens.
(b) What the effects of that incarceration are on the likelihood of re-offending by released prisoners.
(c) How people do things in countries which incarcerate smaller proportions of their populations than the US, and what the outcomes are in terms of differences in crime risks for citizens of those countries.

They might still think that present policies are the best way to make the US a safer and more civil place. But at least they would be doing so on a basis that is slightly more solid than simply asking 'how will my voting record play on Fox News?'.

[_EAllusion]

=
(c) How people do things in countries which incarcerate smaller proportions of their populations than the US,

e.g.

All of them.

The US has a quarter of the world's entire prison population. Mathematicians might note that it lacks anywhere near that portion of the total world population. That's because it has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Outside of Russia, where conviction rates of the accused border on 100%, no other nation is even remotely close to the US.

[_lostindc]

Lol. What, are you some senior military adviser in hiding? A former general? If not, I would guess that neither one of us have much idea about armed conflict as a practical matter. I am speculating that (based on what I've seen from other armed conflicts around the world) an armed civilian population would be difficult to control in a hypothetical tyrannical government situation in the U.S. . This is even assuming that the majority of the military stayed loyal to the president. But, whatever. I don't think we'll ever find out either way.

As for having my rights infringed ... do you realize that the NSA keeps a record of every phone call, email, text message, and internet post that is made in the country and has done for the last 10 years or more? This is according to the science television program Nova (among other sources). I am personally a bit disturbed by this, and I really don't understand why other people aren't.

You just gave a great reason for why you need not worry regarding the democratically elected U.S. gov't becoming tyrannical and attempting to put down the population when you stated the issues regarding military staying loyal to their leadership.

Anyways, I am not sure why one has to reach as high as General in order to understand armed conflict. Apparently you have never been in and around the military. I hope you get a chance to tell some lowly mid-tier officer such as a Captain that he does not understand armed conflict. Your ignorance is amazing.

Go ahead and keep worrying. Get your food storage up and find a bunker in Magna, UT.

[_lostindc]

The Fort Hood shootings had armed military police throughout the area but that did not stop the shooter.

An armed civilian police officer stopped the shooter. By shooting him. With bullets. From her gun. http://www.stripes.com/news/civilian-po ... an-1.96218

Great point, "an armed civilian police officer" not an armed civilian.

Have you been on a military base? If so, you would understand the level of arms that is all throughout the base. I am guessing you have not been on a military base.

[_lostindc]

I guess you missed Seth Payne's link that this is happening in Oregon, too.

Nope, not sure how Oregon doing the same as Utah has any bearing on my prediction that Utah is one of the stranger states that is willing to make strange declarations.

And how would they go about this, lostindc?

Use you imagination GarthJ, I am sure the concept is difficult to comprehend. One example would be in 04 when the U.S. military shut down the roadways heading north out of baghdad to tikrit and samarra to counter the planting of bombs. Iraq is a much more difficult case than Utah. Hardened middle eastern fighters > Fat Carrot Jello Eating Eagle Scouts

[_Darth J]

Great point, "an armed civilian police officer" not an armed civilian.

Oh, of course. If armed civilians are so inept, why are we worried about them committing violence with guns?

Have you been on a military base? If so, you would understand the level of arms that is all throughout the base. I am guessing you have not been on a military base.

I was born at Fort Benning, Georgia, and my dad was a major when he left the Army.

My dad also has a six-inch scar in the middle of his chest. That scar is from the surgery he had to remove the bullet after he was shot and nearly killed during an attempted mugging.

But please go on and tell me about your guesses that necessarily inform whatever you assume my views to be.

I guess you missed Seth Payne's link that this is happening in Oregon, too.

Nope, not sure how Oregon doing the same as Utah has any bearing on my prediction that Utah is one of the stranger states that is willing to make strange declarations.

It's because you are not explaining why other states are doing it, too---regardless of the advisability or constitutionality of it.

And how would they go about this, lostindc?

Use you imagination GarthJ, I am sure the concept is difficult to comprehend. One example would be in 04 when the U.S. military shut down the roadways heading north out of baghdad to tikrit and samarra to counter the planting of bombs. Iraq is a much more difficult case then Utah. Hardened middle eastern fighters > Fat Carrot Jello Eating Eagle Scouts

So you are okay with the U.S. military committing acts of war against a sovereign state. Thanks for clarifying.

[_Darth J]

Lostindc, could you also explain for me how it is you are simultaneously saying guns don't solve the problem because one single guy at Ft. Hood was not stopped with "the level of arms that is all throughout the base," but the military can easily vanquish a geographically huge state even if all of its residents have automatic weapons?

[Guest]

Oh, of course. If armed civilians are so inept, why are we worried about them committing violence with guns?

Good point, inept citizens will make inept mistakes with firearms. Thanks!

I was born at Fort Benning, Georgia, and my dad was a major when he left the Army.

My dad also has a six-inch scar in the middle of his chest. That scar is from the surgery he had to remove the bullet after he was shot and nearly killed during an attempted mugging.

But please go on and tell me about your guesses that necessarily inform whatever you assume my views to be.

I love how you, and others, live off what their parents and great parents did in the armed forces as if it is something that gives you some level of credibility. My mom and dad both served during Vietnam with dad suffering injuries and this gives me no credibility. Also, since my dad was never shot by a mugger does that make the opposing argument to your argument (dad shot by a mugger) every bit as valid?

I cannot say what I do professionally but I will say that I know what I am talking about in regards to the military aspects of the conversation. You are arguing for the sake of arguing and have absolutely no supporting background, unless you are in a role similar to mine then I respect your privacy, carry-on.

It's because you are not explaining why other states are doing it, too---regardless of the advisability or constitutionality of it.

My assumption is that the sheriffs from Oregon and Utah are misinformed in regards to the importance of every citizen having the right to semi-autos and similar weapons. I assume we disagree on this...

So you are okay with the U.S. military committing acts of war against a sovereign state. Thanks for clarifying.

I am okay with the U.S. government banning semi-autos and similar weapons. I am also okay with sticking to the actual subject of the debate and not basing an argument on a logical fallacy (see last quote).

[_lostindc]

Lostindc, could you also explain for me how it is you are simultaneously saying guns don't solve the problem because one single guy at Ft. Hood was not stopped with "the level of arms that is all throughout the base," but the military can easily vanquish a geographically huge state even if all of its residents have automatic weapons?

logical fallacy

Are you suggesting the citizens of Utah plan to do a surprise attack on the U.S. government much like the fort hood shooter conducted against those soldiers and civilians at fort hood?

[_Bond James Bond]

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.

Touche' and point well taken by me. To which I respond: Drone attacks.