Obama: Greatest regret - not bringing in gun control

[Alistair]

You are right insofar as many politicians are just as soft-headed as the constituents who elected them. But they are not the real leaders of the direction of history.

If you read the plans and methods of those who shaped communism, socialism, and secular atheism, from the the 1770s and the French Revolution, through the 20th Century, they describe in detail the social changes I mention above as their tools. They are not acting out of charity, tolerance or naive wishful thinking. Western Society today, lulled asleep by the collapse of the USSR, has fallen under the control of those persons still implementing the road map of Lenin. It is all there in their writings, past and present.

To bring it all back around to the topic of this thread, understanding Barack Obama's socialist writings and his being raised by Stalinists and Muslims is vital to placing his desire to disarm those who adhere to Western Civilization into his entire agenda. He does not care one whit about crime or the innocent victims of criminals with guns.

Not being nearly so well read on political theory as you appear to be, I cannot really comment, but it appears to me that it is all very well saying Obama is out to get you, but the fact of the matter is that he will be out of office soon. I suspect that there is only really a cause for concern if a politician seeks to abolish limits on terms, or seeks to establish a political dynasty, as I believe ha happened before. Otherwise, assuming Obama and politicians in general are as arrogant and self absorbed as you suggest, and I admit the evidence is a touch worrying, then what would he achieve through limiting the freedoms of the populace when in a few short months he will be part of the populace? He is either arrogant and self absorbed, in which case it is in his best interest to make things as good as possible for, if not the entire population, then at least his peers, or he is willing to work for the betterment of a government which may or may not be run by his party, let alone anyone h feels true affection for. Which is more likely?

Anyway, I don'y think either of us are really getting anywhere here, its the old facts vs strongly held beliefs problem, although I have gained some insight into at least your opinions, if not the american populaces as a whole. My verdict, not incorrect, but really very distrustful of government to the point that to an outside observer from Britain (assuming I am representative) it seems faintly silly. Cultural differences and all that. Ho hum...

 

[Vipa]

Yes, but I suspect that the last sentence is the most important one. In such a situation as the study describes, success by the populace hinges almost exclusively on the fact that many service personnel would defect, joining the civilians and taking their hardware with them. People often forget that the military, paradoxical though it sounds, is effectively made up of civilians. If enough of these people agree with the issue at hand and join the 'freedom fighters' or whatever, then they will win the resulting civil war. If most of the army doesn't support it, or those high up with authority over the rank and file don't then the uprising will fail.
This is the case in any civil war, irrespective of whether the populace in general is armed. Weight of numbers coupled with military support or even apathy will lead to success. Even in Britain there are 141,775 people with firearm certificates and 580,653 shotgun certs (2010 data) whilst our active service personnel number 199,620 (2014), including support roles, so in theory, banning guns in the uk could end badly. It wouldn't purely because a.) most of those people wouldn't fight over it (as is the case in the US I suspect) and b.) Very, very few people from the armed forces would join such an uprising, and certainly none in positions of authority. Admittedly, most of those would only have a shotgun to rely on, but if Russian military action in WW2 proved anything, it is that a numerically superior force can prevail over a technologically superior one, even if they only have one bolt action rifle between the two of them.
In this case the only difference between the US and the UK is one of magnitude.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure I agree with the practical implications... the US SWAT teams came about because handguns and shotguns are no match for automatic weapons.. If you take that example.. 1 O/U shotgun does not = a Sig MP5. You also cannot possibly compare the 21st century with the WWII era.. The advanced surveillance and communication technology available to our security services, both military and civilian, is not and would not be available to the civilians leaving the uprising blind and deaf against an all seeing, all hearing opponent wearing plate armour.. would be like you or I stepping into the ring blindfolded for a quick 3 rounds with Mike Tyson... we would last seconds!

The playing field was much more even 70 years ago where the highest tech was very unreliable field telephones and indeed, the difference between a civilian and a soldier was nothing more than the supply of ammo in most cases!

 

[Alistair]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure I agree with the practical implications... the US SWAT teams came about because handguns and shotguns are no match for automatic weapons.. If you take that example.. 1 O/U shotgun does not = a Sig MP5. You also cannot possibly compare the 21st century with the WWII era.. The advanced surveillance and communication technology available to our security services, both military and civilian, is not and would not be available to the civilians leaving the uprising blind and deaf against an all seeing, all hearing opponent wearing plate armour.. would be like you or I stepping into the ring blindfolded for a quick 3 rounds with Mike Tyson... we would last seconds!

The playing field was much more even 70 years ago where the highest tech was very unreliable field telephones and indeed, the difference between a civilian and a soldier was nothing more than the supply of ammo in most cases!

All very true, but my point was that any armed revolution would require the support of defecting military personnel and the hardware they could bring, both here and in the states, which presumably you do agree with? Also, the situation in Afgan etc shows that even in a modern situation, poorly supplied insurgents can be a very effective nuisance to a superior force if they know the terrain and are creative, so I think it isn't entirely impossible, just massively unlikely and at the cost of many, many casualties on the side of the revolutionaries.

 

[Vipa]

All very true, but my point was that any armed revolution would require the support of defecting military personnel and the hardware they could bring, both here and in the states, which presumably you do agree with? Also, the situation in Afgan etc shows that even in a modern situation, poorly supplied insurgents can be a very effective nuisance to a superior force if they know the terrain and are creative, so I think it isn't entirely impossible, just massively unlikely and at the cost of many, many casualties on the side of the revolutionaries.

With you

 

[kes]

I am rather surprised at this abnegation of the efficacy of democracy in, for example the UK. No one in the armed forces could carry out or sustain an armed insurrection simply because we are so strongly wedded to democratic solutions that anyone carrying out a coup would be shortly tried convicted and possibly cause the reinstatement of the death penalty for treason/terrorism, whoever won.
In the US, it would seem that corruption/money or the assessment that much local/government runs on graft, supports the notion of potential armed insurrection, it may simply be a personal defence against individual impotence. If, however, things went badly wrong and the rule of law broke down, I would be hard put to decide whether I would prefer me and mine to be in the UK or US. I actually think the Us citizens would be better prepared to survive both physically and psychologically.

 

[Jagare]

. If, however, things went badly wrong and the rule of law broke down, I would be hard put to decide whether I would prefer me and mine to be in the UK or US. I actually think the Us citizens would be better prepared to survive both physically and psychologically.

The UK would be the place to be. When the poo hits the fan we would just put the kettle on and have a nice cup of tea. Sorted .

 

[A Guy Out West]

Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the US. That city had over 2,500 people shot last year. The people doing the shooting do not obey the existing laws, why would they obey additional ones?