Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) The oath taken by enlisted members: "I, (name), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The oath taken by officers: "I, (name), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of (the name) against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of (the name), that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of (grade) in the Army/Air National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of (the name) on which I am about to enter, so help me God."
They took an oath to follow the command of the POTUS.
I do not believe all military members would follow that order if it meant firing on their own people, but I wouldn't gamble that all of them would lay down their arms.
2) You don't see a government beating up its people in France? REALLY? Have you not been paying attention to what has been going on in France for months now? You don't see it, eh?
3) Hi tech weapons, and yet we still lose military members who are stationed overseas in war zones, or in their peace keeping efforts. We just lost some the other day. Those hi tech weapons don't protect everyone.
4) How naive of you to think that not allowing law abiding citizens to have AKs will prevent bad people from getting them. This isn't Unicorn Island. And that argument falls flat on its face every single time. It's stated as if the people who say it actually care about the law abiding citizens, when in reality, it's a pathetic excuse to take guns away from them. No one believes anyone who says, "We just want to prevent the bad guys from getting them" = see: Eric Holder "Fast and Furious". Yeah, he was just so damned concerned, wasn't he? See: Al Quaeda. I wonder who armed them.
The amusing part of threads like these is the absolute irony of them. On one hand the anti-gun crowd also hate the police and never have good things to say about them. On the other the anti-police crowd who also tend to be anti- 2nd Amendment rights claim that we should never fear our government.
It is a delight, I mean that with all sincerity, to read these threads.
You know it is a truism. Nobody likes a cop until you need one. I would be willing to bet that every person ever trapped in their home during a home invasion, who didn't have a firearm was wishing that they did.
Why do we need assault rifles? We don't. Then again the best part of freedom is being able to own things regardless of need. Me? I love to shoot but never took a liking to assault rifles. Just not my thing.
You know what is more dangerous than an assault rifle? Especially in a crowd? A pistol grip shot gun. We better ban those too. Oh my god, what about the Sega 12?
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,185 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19508
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuakerBaker
Many people say that we need the right to own weapons such as an AK47 so that we can protect ourselves from an abusive government.
I would argue that this is not true.
1...Our military takes an oath to defend the constitution or in other words the rights of the people. In Nazi Germany they took an oath to Hitler, etc...not the rights of the people. Our military is staffed by good people overall who hold the protection of the constitution in high value.
2...In similar countries with similar constitutional values like France, the UK, Australia....which have reduced gun rights...you don't see an oppressive government beating up the people. Because as above, the military would turn on the government if it ever did that.
Assault rifles is always one of those terms that is open to debate by the gun lobby, what we banned in the UK was semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges (in magazine plus the breech).
There are two basic types of firearms licence in the UK, a shotgun licence which is generally more straightforward to get and which can be used for shooting pests, game birds, clay pigeons etc r in professions such as farming and gamekkeping.
The second licence is a firearms licence, which is more complicated and generally weapons are restricted to .22 Rimfire LR, although you can aply for more powerful rifles in relation to culling deer and shooting larger mammals which must be by law shot cleanly.
Furthermore there was never any right or reason before the restrictions to keep firearms for protection or in relation to public carry, indeed all offensive weapons are generally banned from being carrtied in public in most democratic western countries.
In terms of the Armed Forces and Police in the UK they pledge allgiance to the Queen, who is the Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces and not the Government, whilst every military regiment has it's own Colonel in Chief.
Assault rifles is always one of those terms that is open to debate by the gun lobby, what we banned in the UK was semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges (in magazine plus the breech).
There are two basic types of firearms licence in the UK, a shotgun licence which is generally more straightforward to get and which can be used for shooting pests, game birds, clay pigeons etc r in professions such as farming and gamekkeping.
The second licence is a firearms licence, which is more complicated and generally weapons are restricted to .22 Rimfire LR, although you can aply for more powerful rifles in relation to culling deer and shooting larger mammals which must be by law shot cleanly.
Furthermore there was never any right or reason before the restrictions to keep firearms for protection or in relation to public carry, indeed all offensive weapons are generally banned from being carrtied in public in most democratic western countries.
In terms of the Armed Forces and Police in the UK they pledge allgiance to the Queen and not the Government, and every military regiment has it's own Colonel in Chief.
You have the right not to be armed, so what is the problem?
If you don't own a gun, it won't break out of you safe in the middle of the night and assault you.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,185 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19508
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
You have the right not to be armed, so what is the problem?
If you don't own a gun, it won't break out of you safe in the middle of the night and assault you.
This isn't about the right to carry or not to carry a gun, it's the type of weapon and calibre that you are allowed to legally own and bringing in proper checks to ensure that gun owners are responsible individuals, who don't have any current mental health issues or other such problems relating to drugs and alcohol addiction, or a history of serious violence.
As for the right not to be armed, I am not aware of any such right, indeed there has been periods of compulsory military conscription in most western countries.
Many people say that we need the right to own weapons such as an AK47 so that we can protect ourselves from an abusive government.
I would argue that this is not true.
1...Our military takes an oath to defend the constitution or in other words the rights of the people. In Nazi Germany they took an oath to Hitler, etc...not the rights of the people. Our military is staffed by good people overall who hold the protection of the constitution in high value.
2...In similar countries with similar constitutional values like France, the UK, Australia....which have reduced gun rights...you don't see an oppressive government beating up the people. Because as above, the military would turn on the government if it ever did that.
3...The military has high tech weapons and vehicles...an AK47 wouldn't be effective for fighting against that either.
4...The same reason that many don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons is the same reason that many don't want anyone to have AK47s. The more weapons of mass destruction out there the more likely they are to fall into wrong hands and be used for evil.
"Many people say that we need the right to own weapons such as an AK47"
And WHO are those "many"? How "many" have you actually talked with about this?
Last edited by Quick Enough; 08-06-2019 at 06:29 AM..
As for the right not to be armed, I am not aware of any such right, indeed there has been periods of compulsory military conscription in most western countries.
Can't speak for other nations, but conscientious objectors are allowed to serve in unarmed roles.
This isn't about the right to carry or not to carry a gun, it's the type of weapon and calibre that you are allowed to legally own and bringing in proper checks to ensure that gun owners are responsible individuals.
As for the right not to be armed, I am not aware of any such right, indeed there has been periods of compulsory military conscription in most western countries.
So, you're ok with cars that can't go over 30 mph but believe any that can go faster tgan that should be banned?
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,185 posts, read 13,469,799 times
Reputation: 19508
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
So, you're ok with cars that can't go over 30 mph but believe any that can go faster tgan that should be banned?
I think you will find vehicles are highly regulated.
Firstly you have to have a licence to drive a car and pass a test, indeed in the UK you have to pass both a practical and a written test.
Your driving licence may be withdrawn due to medical problems or if you are on certain medication, and if you drink and drive or continually go over the speed limit you can be banned from driving, and you can be made to go to driving awareness courses and to even re-take your driving test.
Whilst cars can go faster, they are limited to speed limits by law and those that break such laws are brought before the courts.
Furthermore all vehicles must be registered for road tax, and must have insurance in order to cover any accident.
Finally a car is a mode of transport, and must be road worthy, and certain types of vehicle are not road worthy, and ever car must have a log book and ownership details as well as regular annual checks in order to check that the vechile it is still safe to go out on to the roads. This is known as an MoT in the UK.
If you would like similar regulations as there are for vehicles for guns, then I am sure most of those lobbying for tighter gun controls would be very happy indeed.
Last edited by Brave New World; 08-06-2019 at 05:23 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
