Colorado Democrats lose recall elections over gun-control votes

[pondwater]

Actually we have been invaded, both by Mexico and Canada, although not recently. 

Let me rephrase my post. Let's just say that mainland America hasn't been invaded in the last century.

There are two reasons that other countries haven't invaded us and it has absolutely nothing to do with private gun ownership -- namely the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean. 

Although, the Atlantic and Pacific ocean are one piece of the puzzle. They are hardly the main reason. America and all or our guns invade countries across those very same oceans on a constant basis. The oceans don't seem to be slowing us down much.

[pondwater]

And that has what to do with keeping an invading military out? As Hoodie pointed out the Atlantic & Pacific have quite a bit to do with it. Also, the guns owned by the majority of Americans would have little effect on the firepower needed to defeat our own military and invade this country. Private gun ownership is a large number but has absolutely nothing to do with homeland security from an opposing military.

I would highly disagree. I think that if it came down to it the US population could defeat the US military through sheer numbers, guns and people. As long as no nukes or chemical weapons were used. We had enough problems with Vietnam and Iraq. The US citizens would have a distinct advantage over those 2 countries. If you haven't noticed, WWII was the last war that the US has won.

Also, I can't help but notice you throw in military as well as police facts while our topic is actually private gun ownership.

Yes, just to put in context exactly how many firearms actually are secured by private citizens.

[pondwater]

Yes, US is number one.  Serbia is #2.  They have been invaded recently.  Not far down the list is Iraq #8.  Didn't prevent them from being invaded either.  

Your side arm isn't what keeps other countries from invading us.  The Navy is.  

And look at the gap between #1 and #2-5. Serbia has about 60% and Iraq has about 30% the firearms we have respectively. That's a huge difference between the 3. Kind of like the difference between Marino, Fiedler, and Henne. 

[pondwater]

If our "rights" are not negotiable, why are there so many constitutional amendments? Why was slavery abolished? Why were women allowed to vote? We don't have "rights" in this country. Anyone who believes that we do should familiarize themselves with Japanese-American internment camps in the 40s. 120,000 US citizens were locked away and told they had no rights whatsoever simply because they were Asian. Now, explain to me how that can actually happen in a country that has "rights"? Rights aren't rights if they can be changed or taken away. They're suggestions at best. -EK

Actually, all of those added rights. If I recall correctly the only amendment that took away a right was prohibition which was subsequently amended to restore the right because prohibition was a total failure.

Anyhow, this thread is getting off topic.

[Phishfan]

I would highly disagree. I think that if it came down to it the US population could defeat the US military through sheer numbers, guns and people. As long as no nukes or chemical weapons were used. We had enough problems with Vietnam and Iraq. The US citizens would have a distinct advantage over those 2 countries. If you haven't noticed, WWII was the last war that the US has won.
 Yes, just to put in context exactly how many firearms actually are secured by private citizens.

Winning in war is a relative term. I will tell you that in no conflict that you consider a loss has the US military taken more casualties than their opponents. I will also say that in today's world our military does not even need to put troops in the line of fire to inflict casualites. If you want to dream an armed civilian rebellion can overtake the US military, go ahead. I bet you aren't even factoring in who is currently a civilian that would not support the uprising and would fight for the government if such a thing happened.

[Sunstroke]

Although, the Atlantic and Pacific ocean are one piece of the puzzle. They are hardly the main reason. America and all or our guns invade countries across those very same oceans on a constant basis. The oceans don't seem to be slowing us down much.

Note to the Office of the Liberal Scribe-General: Please include an addendum to our current insidious gun control agenda which allows the United States government to keep its Navy.

[pondwater]

Winning in war is a relative term. I will tell you that in no conflict that you consider a loss has the US military taken more casualties than their opponents. I will also say that in today's world our military does not even need to put troops in the line of fire to inflict casualites. If you want to dream an armed civilian rebellion can overtake the US military, go ahead. I bet you aren't even factoring in who is currently a civilian that would not support the uprising and would fight for the government if such a thing happened.

They would have to put boots on the ground in a civil war. Correct me if I'm wrong. If we use rough numbers there are 2 million in the military and 300 million US citizens. I would agree with you that there would be a percentage of the civilian population that would not participate. However, you also have to realize that there would be a percentage of military personal that wouldn't fire on or kill American citizens and would switch sides. Even if only 25% of the population participated, that would be 75 million. Even if zero percent of the military defected to the other side, which would be highly unrealistic, I would guess 15-20 percent would defect. That would be a 38 to 1 civilian to military ratio. All of whom are heavily armed and know the land. Those odds ain't too bad.

[Spider-Dan]

Regardless of what they say after the fact, I'm pretty sure that the politicians that lost their jobs don't think that it was a circle jerk.

Somehow, I doubt that anyone in this thread (least of all, you) cares what those particular politicians think.  And if we did, since at least one of them has already come out and said that it was all worth it, I don't think the lesson learned is quite what you think it is.

That's what happens when you ignore what the citizens want and proceed to limit their rights by creating laws through fear mongering and disinformation.

Are you talking about Wisconsin or Colorado?  Just so I understand which feckless recall attempt (that resulted in no actual change of power) is supposed to be driving the national discussion.

[pondwater]

Somehow, I doubt that anyone in this thread (least of all, you) cares what those particular politicians think.  And if we did, since at least one of them has already come out and said that it was all worth it, I don't think the lesson learned is quite what you think it is.
Are you talking about Wisconsin or Colorado?  Just so I understand which feckless recall attempt (that resulted in no actual change of power) is supposed to be driving the national discussion.

Yes, I know, according to you none of it matters.

[Spider-Dan]

America and all or our guns invade countries across those very same oceans on a constant basis. The oceans don't seem to be slowing us down much.

I'm pretty certain that the number of private citizens' handguns in the United States has had exactly zero impact on every invasion the U.S. has carried out in the last 50 years.

I think that if it came down to it the US population could defeat the US military through sheer numbers, guns and people. As long as no nukes or chemical weapons were used.

So if the U.S. military is dropping nukes on Dallas, you admit that handguns and rifles would be useless, but if they are carpetbombing Dallas into rubble from miles above, you think the local NRA chapter has a fighting chance?  Are you planning on grabbing your shotgun and taking out a submarine that's firing cruise missiles, or a battleship that's shelling your city from 20 miles away?

If you think handguns and rifles are going to make a difference against the most powerful military in the world, you're delusional.  Nothing you have will make any difference until the battle is already over, your "side" has surrendered, and your city is being occupied by "the enemy."

They would have to put boots on the ground in a civil war. Correct me if I'm wrong. If we use rough numbers there are 2 million in the military and 300 million US citizens. I would agree with you that there would be a percentage of the civilian population that would not participate. However, you also have to realize that there would be a percentage of military personal that wouldn't fire on or kill American citizens and would switch sides. Even if only 25% of the population participated, that would be 75 million.

If you seriously think one out of four people (in addition to the existing military!) would pick up a gun, you're beyond hopeless.

For purposes of comparison: back in 1860, when picking up a gun made you nearly equal to the available arms of the government (meaning, you didn't have to worry about bombers or tanks or heavy machineguns or drones), the population of the United States was approximately 31.5 million.  The total combined strength of the Union and the Confederates was 3.16 million; just over 10%.  And you think people are going to be grabbing their Glocks to go shoot at an Apache?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Actually, all of those added rights.

Every change both adds and takes away rights.  A prohibition on guns takes away the right of private ownership of guns but add the right of security.  The ending of slavery game right to the blacks but took away rights of the slave owners. And btw the second amendment like the 18th amendment was an amendment. 

[Spider-Dan]

Actually, all of those added rights.

In point of fact, the 13th Amendment removed the Constitutionally-affirmed right to own slaves.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Although, the Atlantic and Pacific ocean are one piece of the puzzle. They are hardly the main reason. America and all or our guns invade countries across those very same oceans on a constant basis. The oceans don't seem to be slowing us down much.

1) We haven't invaded anyone with a military close to our own strength.  

2) We typically need a staging area.  E.g. a build up in Saudi Arabia to invade Iraq.  

3) Give the other 70% of Iraq a sidearm and it doesn't change the outcome.  Fact is every single person who wanted to be a suicide bomber or take up arms against the US had no problem getting a weapon.  

[pondwater]

I'm pretty certain that the number of private citizens' handguns in the United States has had exactly zero impact on every invasion the U.S. has carried out in the last 50 years.

Neither has either of the oceans, that was my point.

So if the U.S. military is dropping nukes on Dallas, you admit that handguns and rifles would be useless, but if they are carpetbombing Dallas into rubble from miles above, you think the local NRA chapter has a fighting chance?  Are you planning on grabbing your shotgun and taking out a submarine that's firing cruise missiles, or a battleship that's shelling your city from 20 miles away?

Well, that's if you believe that the US government would use that course of action. No telling what they would do these days.

If you think handguns are going to make a difference against the most powerful military in the world, you're delusional.  Nothing you have will make any difference until the battle is already over, your "side" has surrendered, and your city is being occupied by "the enemy."
If you seriously think one out of four people (in addition to the existing military!) would pick up a gun, you're beyond hopeless.

Yeah, well that's all fine and good but if a bunch of goat herders in a desert can do it, I think the American people can do it better with more people and more weapons. Also that scenario doesn't cover the single end issue of military sympathizers and deserters. All it takes is for 1 soldier to "flip" and agree with the "insurgents" and the "insurgents" have a huge advantage.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Note to the Office of the Liberal Scribe-General: Please include an addendum to our current insidious gun control agenda which allows the United States government to keep its Navy.

Not only that, but I would amend it to give the Navy and the rest of our well regulated militia (Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force, Army, National Guard, and any state or federal designated police force, etc.) the right to keep and bear arms.

But lets close the loop hole that allows convicted felons to buy a gun at a gun show without a background check.