British Expats
Page 5 of 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
15
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   The Trailer Park (https://britishexpats.com/forum/trailer-park-96/)
-   -   Oregon incident. (https://britishexpats.com/forum/trailer-park-96/oregon-incident-866047/)

Pulaski Oct 2nd 2015 2:59 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 11763277)
In 21st century North America, a militia of this kind is entirely pointless. .....
I already said that.

RoadWarriorFromLP Oct 2nd 2015 2:59 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 11763277)
In 21st century North America, a militia of this kind is entirely pointless. As has been eloquently explained above, the function of a local militia force has been formalized in the National Guard, which acts as a State-maintained force under the ultimate authority of the Federal government. The US has no other militia force in existence, except perhaps for the crazies and preppers (who may, of course, be one and the same) hiding in the mountains who call themselves militias.

For service with which militia organization, formal or informal, would a private citizen in today's America keep a gun at home?
At the time, the theory was that peacetime armies should be banned and that a citizens force was more democratic. Professional armies could be staffed with mercenaries and their power could be abused.

The War of 1812 was a turning point, as the militias performed poorly and the army wasn't much better. The theory gave way to reality -- a professionally-trained army is needed if wars are going to be won.

I don't agree that they're pointless, though. The US might be a bit more cautious with its foreign policy if everybody between 18 and 40-something had to pay the price for it.

SultanOfSwing Oct 2nd 2015 3:03 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Originally Posted by sir_eccles (Post 11763284)
Perhaps all these bored twenty something white males should be made to do some sort of national service to stop them getting bored. Doesn't have to be military service maybe something in the community, guarding planned parenthood clinics for example...
Honestly, while there is a flippancy to that post - this might not be a bad idea. Maybe have a period of service in the National Guard, or some other domestic service like the Coastguard or something. Not sending them off to war or anything, just serving the country from home.

I can say that now I'm in my 30s, of course, I might have thought a bit differently 15 years ago ...

sir_eccles Oct 2nd 2015 3:06 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Apparently there was someone with a conceal carry permit. He chose not to intervene because he didn't want swat to shoot him.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/scho...unity-college/

John Parker Jr., a student at Umpqua Community College and a concealed

handgun carrier, was studying with his fellow military veterans when the

gunman opened fire, but they chose not to get involved.

Here’s what he told MSNBC:

If there was something we were able to do, we were going to try to do it. Luckily we made the choice not to get involved. We were quite a distance away from the actual building where it was happening, whichcould haveopened us up tobeing potential targets ourselves. Not knowing where SWATwasonthe their responsetime,they wouldn’t know who we were, and if we had our guns ready to shoot they could think we were the bad guys.

Oakvillian Oct 2nd 2015 3:12 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Originally Posted by Pulaski (Post 11763285)
I already said that.
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP (Post 11763287)
At the time, the theory was that peacetime armies should be banned and that a citizens force was more democratic. Professional armies could be staffed with mercenaries and their power could be abused.

The War of 1812 was a turning point, as the militias performed poorly and the army wasn't much better. The theory gave way to reality -- a professionally-trained army is needed if wars are going to be won.

I don't agree that they're pointless, though. The US might be a bit more cautious with its foreign policy if everybody between 18 and 40-something had to pay the price for it.
Well, yes. My emphasis in quoting Pulaski was intended to highlight that the kind of militia where individuals keep weapons in their home is utterly anachronistic in today's United States. The National Guard serves that function.

The not-completely-tongue-in-cheek suggestion that service with some sort of public service organization (be it the Guard or another service such as Parks & Wildlife, or the Coast Guard, or whatever) should be required for everyone that wishes to own a private firearm, was supposed to illustrate that society has evolved a long way from the late 1780s; the requirement for militias to protect against marauding mercenaries has, one hopes, somewhat diminished in the intervening 230-odd years.

sir_eccles Oct 2nd 2015 3:17 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing (Post 11763293)
Honestly, while there is a flippancy to that post - this might not be a bad idea. Maybe have a period of service in the National Guard, or some other domestic service like the Coastguard or something. Not sending them off to war or anything, just serving the country from home.

I can say that now I'm in my 30s, of course, I might have thought a bit differently 15 years ago ...
Yeah just something to instill a bit of discipline and civic pride.

SultanOfSwing Oct 2nd 2015 3:18 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Originally Posted by sir_eccles (Post 11763304)
Yeah just something to instill a bit of discipline and civic pride.
It has knock-on effects as well, once someone is invested in a place like that after a couple of years of service, they will tend to respect it more, and not want to destroy it.

FlaviusAetius Oct 2nd 2015 3:31 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 11763254)
So instead you advocate doing nothing at all? Bravo.
I disagree. I was pointing out the political impossibility of disarming the populace, not advocating doing nothing.

The main problem is that gun opponents tend to be absolutists. The result is that there is a total distrust of them by gun owners and their representatives (NRA, etc.) They fear new and reasonable measures - such as outlawing teflon-coated bullets that could pierce body armour - as the first step on a slippery slope leading to total disarmament. It is that distrust that blocks any and all reform. Look at this thread and you can see the hysterical calls for total disarmament that I'm talking about.

Giantaxe Oct 2nd 2015 3:58 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Originally Posted by penguinsix (Post 11763071)
Does this mean that Trump can now claim that the "British government sends us their worst"??

Anian Oct 2nd 2015 3:58 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Curiously, only the BBC has pointed out his support of the IRA.

For those not visiting right wing site comments on this news (and for your own sanity I suggest you don't) here is the consensus:

He was shooting only at Christians. Christians are being persecuted again. It's more proof that Obama is a Muslim!
If more people had guns, he would have been shot quicker.

RoadWarriorFromLP Oct 2nd 2015 4:02 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Originally Posted by Giantaxe (Post 11763338)
Does this mean that Trump can now claim that the "British government sends us their worst"??
The recent Mississippi school shooter was from Germany.

RoadWarriorFromLP Oct 2nd 2015 4:04 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Originally Posted by Anian (Post 11763340)
Curiously, only the BBC has pointed out his support of the IRA.

For those not visiting right wing site comments on this news (and for your own sanity I suggest you don't) here is the consensus:

He was shooting only at Christians. Christians are being persecuted again. It's more proof that Obama is a Muslim!
If more people had guns, he would have been shot quicker.
Oddly enough, they also neglect to mention that he was a Republican.

Oakvillian Oct 2nd 2015 4:12 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Originally Posted by FlaviusAetius (Post 11763314)
I disagree. I was pointing out the political impossibility of disarming the populace, not advocating doing nothing.

The main problem is that gun opponents tend to be absolutists. The result is that there is a total distrust of them by gun owners and their representatives (NRA, etc.) They fear new and reasonable measures - such as outlawing teflon-coated bullets that could pierce body armour - as the first step on a slippery slope leading to total disarmament. It is that distrust that blocks any and all reform. Look at this thread and you can see the hysterical calls for total disarmament that I'm talking about.
Would you be so kind as to point out who, aside from yourself and Lansbury who have raised it as a straw man, has posted "hysterical calls" on this thread for total disarmament? I've just had a quick re-read from the top, and - although I'll acknowledge my eyesight is not great - I failed to note a single such post.

lansbury Oct 2nd 2015 4:43 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Originally Posted by london_calling (Post 11762985)
I've never understood this argument from the American right (and you). Does the sign at the entrance to a 'gun free zone' suck all the guns out of pockets, bags, holsters etc? Do the laws in 'gun free' cities such as Chicago, New York etc prevent people bringing in guns from elsewhere, maybe via a giant magnet? I'd love to know.
The argument is you can pass all the controls, laws rules etc you like but they are useless because it is impossible to enforce them. Only those who want to abide by them will, and they aren't the people who need to be kept away from guns

On the other hand Roseburg listening to some of the interviews on local TV, has high percentage of gun ownership. That made no difference either.

The genie is long out of the bottle. Until such time as there is the political will to repeal the 2nd Amendment there is no real solution to this problem.

scrubbedexpat099 Oct 2nd 2015 4:51 am
Re: Oregon incident.
 
Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing (Post 11763230)
Boiler, if you can't understand what I was getting at, quite frankly you aren't mentally equipped to own a kitchen knife, let alone a firearm and ammunition.
You raise another interesting question. You are on fire today.:starsmile:

Obviously knife crime is a major issue and could be even more so. How is access to knives going to be controlled, no background checks nothing to buy one of those bad boys.


All times are GMT -12. The time now is 5:01 am.
Page 5 of 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
15
Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.