Shot heard around the world be fired first in Conneticut?

[myth]

I think you could skip the government employees and jump straight to citizenry. There's nothing particularly special about most government employees. The sheriff (and perhaps military) are in a unique position of having been sworn to uphold the law. To then publicly state that they will refuse seems to be dereliction of duty, plain and simple.

Actually, I couldn't disagree more. Having recently re-sworn such an oath because of a promotion, I'd like to point out that I swore to uphold laws enacted by my state legislature that are 'not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States' (to paraphrase the oath of office).

In order for me to vigilant in the execution of the duties of my office and, indeed, to faithfully uphold my oath, I must evaluate whether or not a law is constitutional. I understand that every sworn law enforcement officer must interpret this for themselves. This leads to differences of opinion, and inconsistency in enforcement. But it's how our system works.

Call me old-fashioned, but I take my oath seriously.

[Cow Poke]

Actually, I couldn't disagree more. Having recently re-sworn such an oath because of a promotion, I'd like to point out that I swore to uphold laws enacted by my state legislature that are 'not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States' (to paraphrase the oath of office).

In order for me to vigilant in the execution of the duties of my office and, indeed, to faithfully uphold my oath, I must evaluate whether or not a law is constitutional. I understand that every sworn law enforcement officer must interpret this for themselves. This leads to differences of opinion, and inconsistency in enforcement. But it's how our system works.

Call me old-fashioned, but I take my oath seriously.

Interesting... my oath of office, regarding law enforcement, was back before typewriters were invented, so I'd have find the scroll....

Seriously, I don't remember exactly how that was worded back then.

[myth]

Interesting... my oath of office, regarding law enforcement, was back before typewriters were invented, so I'd have find the scroll....

Seriously, I don't remember exactly how that was worded back then.

I hear ya, CP. To be honest, I don't know what the oath of office in Texas is like. In my state, the precise wording varies from agency to agency (though the state, I believe, mandates certain guidelines). Most guys I know are, at least, concerned with following the spirit of the oath.

I don't know exactly how many of my co-workers pay attention to the phrasing of our particular oath...but I like it. It means that I don't have to blindly follow whatever the legislature may decide to do. So, it's a check on the legislature. They can't enact unconstitutional laws and then expect me to enforce them because of my previous oath.

[Psychic Missile]

The dadburn liberals.

I thought they already did that.

Like what?

Is "because it's untrustworthy" not good enough?

In what unique way?

Actually, I couldn't disagree more. Having recently re-sworn such an oath because of a promotion, I'd like to point out that I swore to uphold laws enacted by my state legislature that are 'not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States' (to paraphrase the oath of office).

In order for me to vigilant in the execution of the duties of my office and, indeed, to faithfully uphold my oath, I must evaluate whether or not a law is constitutional. I understand that every sworn law enforcement officer must interpret this for themselves. This leads to differences of opinion, and inconsistency in enforcement. But it's how our system works.

Call me old-fashioned, but I take my oath seriously.

Does the oath put that judgment into your hands, or is that an assumption? I'm not being smart here, I am genuinely curious.

[Carrikature]

Exactly! Gun control is not at all about protecting anyone. It is purely and simply about controlling people. No law will stop the evil we see in these mass killings in schools - or anywhere else.

Not at all? Purely and simply? It must be nice to live in a world where there is ever only one motivation for a given behavior....

Actually, I couldn't disagree more. Having recently re-sworn such an oath because of a promotion, I'd like to point out that I swore to uphold laws enacted by my state legislature that are 'not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States' (to paraphrase the oath of office).

In order for me to vigilant in the execution of the duties of my office and, indeed, to faithfully uphold my oath, I must evaluate whether or not a law is constitutional. I understand that every sworn law enforcement officer must interpret this for themselves. This leads to differences of opinion, and inconsistency in enforcement. But it's how our system works.

Call me old-fashioned, but I take my oath seriously.

I'm not sure what you're contradicting. You said yourself that you're sworn to uphold the law, which is all I said. More to my point, though, is that I find such interpretation a really bad idea. There's a system in place for determining if something is constitutional.

[lilpixieofterror]

There is already background checks in place and you want to limit people's rights based upon their relatives? Suppose such a law existed before, how about the neighbors? How about cousins? How about somebody else? Why couldn't he have stolen weapons to use from somewhere else? Do you see the problems here yet? Such a law would not work either for somebody really dedicated to doing the crime. Do such laws currently work for illegal drugs? How about prohibition? Did they work then? Sorry PM, but those are knee jerk reactions that don't work. Prohibition of common items almost never work and are rarely effective at preventing people, who really want those items, from getting those items.

[lilpixieofterror]

Exactly! Gun control is not at all about protecting anyone. It is purely and simply about controlling people. No law will stop the evil we see in these mass killings in schools - or anywhere else.

To be fair, I doubt most of them are really trying to 'control people' at least directly as they are not thinking before they react. History has shown, over and over again, limiting access to relatively common items (such as guns, for example) almost never work and only ensure that those who wouldn't follow the law anyway will have them and those who will follow the law, are unarmed. Just as prohibition was a complete failure and the current drug war is proving to be a failure too.

[Outis]

To be fair, I doubt most of them are really trying to 'control people' at least directly as they are not thinking before they react. History has shown, over and over again, limiting access to relatively common items (such as guns, for example) almost never work and only ensure that those who wouldn't follow the law anyway will have them and those who will follow the law, are unarmed. Just as prohibition was a complete failure and the current drug war is proving to be a failure too.

Agreed.

Folks, how many of you are afraid that your guns are the only line of defense against government tyranny? How many of you realize that, no matter how many fancy AR-15s and how many 30-round clips, or whatever, you may own, your ability to defend against the government is nil?

The government isn't going to come after your guns because your ability to defend yourself is utterly inconsequential. Every single prepper, militia member, Oathkeeper, or Tea Partier could all get together to fight the government ... and all they would accomplish would be to die, slowly or quickly.

You folks want to know why Ruby Ridge, or Waco, took so long to resolve? Because law enforcement deliberately chose to use "kid gloves," at least for a while.

Obama's not coming after your guns. Neither is whoever is going to be elected in 2016. They don't have to. More importantly, unless you're planning on using those guns in a crime, they don't care.

[Cow Poke]

Obama's not coming after your guns. Neither is whoever is going to be elected in 2016. They don't have to. More importantly, unless you're planning on using those guns in a crime, they don't care.

Cool! So why do they need us to register them?

[lilpixieofterror]

Agreed.

Folks, how many of you are afraid that your guns are the only line of defense against government tyranny? How many of you realize that, no matter how many fancy AR-15s and how many 30-round clips, or whatever, you may own, your ability to defend against the government is nil?

The government isn't going to come after your guns because your ability to defend yourself is utterly inconsequential. Every single prepper, militia member, Oathkeeper, or Tea Partier could all get together to fight the government ... and all they would accomplish would be to die, slowly or quickly.

You folks want to know why Ruby Ridge, or Waco, took so long to resolve? Because law enforcement deliberately chose to use "kid gloves," at least for a while.

Obama's not coming after your guns. Neither is whoever is going to be elected in 2016. They don't have to. More importantly, unless you're planning on using those guns in a crime, they don't care.

This would be assuming, of course, that members of the military would go out and gleefully kill lots and lots of American civilians without question (many would not) and it would really depend upon several factors: If leaders are willing to use bombs on US soil, the size of the rebellion, how organized they are, and what bases are they capable of overrunning before the military can react.

[Outis]

This would be assuming, of course, that members of the military would go out and gleefully kill lots and lots of American civilians

The military would only be involved for a wide-spread insurrection. Which requires authorization by Congress.

No, at this point, large metropolitan police forces and state police forces can easily handle most foreseeable events. Even if, just as an example, all the white supremacists in Idaho decided to get together and take over part of the state, it's within the state's capabilities to handle: at worst, the governor can call out the state national guard forces.

And yes, while national guard soldiers would not kill Americans just for no reason, they WILL act to put down an insurrection.

[lilpixieofterror]

Before I start, I just want to make it clear this is just a 'what if' kind of idea and not anything actual.

The military would only be involved for a wide-spread insurrection. Which requires authorization by Congress.

Which here is the problem we are running into here. What if they are able to overrun key government and military facilities before anybody could react? Sure, there would need to be some kind of organization, but you have to remember the US military is designed to mostly deal with threats outside the US and hasn't had to deal with anything major since the 1860's.

No, at this point, large metropolitan police forces and state police forces can easily handle most foreseeable events. Even if, just as an example, all the white supremacists in Idaho decided to get together and take over part of the state, it's within the state's capabilities to handle: at worst, the governor can call out the state national guard forces.

A small one, sure they can, but police are not built to deal with large scale straight up rebellions and you'd have to assume that all government officials and state governments are going to be on the side of putting down a rebellion. Most of history shows that, in many cases, major government officials are often the cause of or part of major rebellions to begin with. Remember, Jefferson Davis was a major force in DC long before he became president of the Confederacy and Robert E Lee was a US military general (a pretty decorated one and a grad of West Point at that) before he went to lead the confederate army. If the government is totally united, if it can react fast enough, and if a rebellion is prevented from overrunning key government facilities, sure it can be put down very quickly, but that is an awfully lot of assumptions and even if one goes wrong, it will not be easy.

And yes, while national guard soldiers would not kill Americans just for no reason, they WILL act to put down an insurrection.

Are you so sure about that? Robert E Lee was a US military general and Jefferson Davis was also a military officer before he took up a career in politics (he was a former Sectary or War and a US senator), and many confederates were former soldiers and sailors in the US military before they took up arms with the confederates. You can't possibility makes those assumptions considering what history in the US and across the world has shown that simply doesn't always happen, some units and personnel join in on the rebellion. Military officers can and do rebel against their leaders, military units many not want to shoot at crowds that contain their friends and family, etc. Your entire argument is being based upon assumptions that may or may not be accurate.

[Outis]

Which here is the problem we are running into here. What if they are able to overrun key government and military facilities before anybody could react? Sure, there would need to be some kind of organization, but you have to remember the US military is designed to mostly deal with threats outside the US

I'm probably not going to tell you anything you don't already know in the paragraphs below, so please bear with the redundancy.

First and foremost, especially in our post-Patriot Act world, the odds of something like this being discovered and defused are pretty good. This is especially true of you're talking about a multiple-site insurrection. Coordinating something on that scale without electronic communications would be prohibitively difficult--it could be done, but each added complexity adds to the odds of a planning or execution failure. You know as well as I do--in any military action, communication is critical. And considering the type of things that are being watched for (which would include massive ammunition purchases, ingredients for bomb-making, bulk purchases of certain communication equipment such as pre-paid cellphones ... that's just what I can think of off the top of my head), it's pretty good odds that somebody would make a mistake, send an email at the wrong time, or buy too much fertilizer, and the authorities would have a clue that something was up.

Military installations do have at least some security. Those that have sensitive materiel have security in depth, with orders to shoot to kill those who penetrate past a certain depth. Key political sites are the same way. Yes, you have some things that are less secure than they probably should be, like national guard armories, but the police know that these are vulnerable and watch them like hawks.

Could a single key military or political site be compromised? Probably, but it would be expensive in terms of casualties and materiel. Could multiple sites be compromised? Each additional site adds to the complexity of the overall plan.

and hasn't had to deal with anything major since the 1860's.

But they still train for them. The FBI, the National Guard, and (if it comes down to a Congress-authorized mobilization of the regular armed forces) the military take that "Against all enemies, foreign and domestic" pretty seriously, as you know.

A small one, sure they can, but police are not built to deal with large scale straight up rebellions and you'd have to assume that all government officials and state governments are going to be on the side of putting down a rebellion.

First and foremost, the concept of "large scale rebellions" is something out of a pipe dream. At least as far as practicality.
* You know as well as I do what the biggest weakness of conspiracies are: people love to talk. The more people you add to a conspiracy, the more opportunity there is for somebody to spill the beans.
* The larger the conspiracy, the more people need to be equipped. The purchases necessary to equip a force large enough to take multiple sites WILL be noticed.
* There are certain things that would be necessary or incredibly useful that civilians cannot purchase. Armored vehicles ... even police departments have these.

Folks like the Oath Keepers are, to put it bluntly, edging on treason ... but they're also not sufficiently saturated into the military to disable it, or to render any possible infighting into a stalemate. And, flatly, the military is NOT ignorant of the risk that they compose.

More later, perhaps--I'm starting to lose the thread of what I'm trying to say (fibro makes for some memory and cognition problems, and it's been a fun day).

[seanD]

Agreed.

Folks, how many of you are afraid that your guns are the only line of defense against government tyranny? How many of you realize that, no matter how many fancy AR-15s and how many 30-round clips, or whatever, you may own, your ability to defend against the government is nil?

The government isn't going to come after your guns because your ability to defend yourself is utterly inconsequential. Every single prepper, militia member, Oathkeeper, or Tea Partier could all get together to fight the government ... and all they would accomplish would be to die, slowly or quickly.

This is such a lame half-assed argument that it's hard to believe it's a common one among anti-gun idiots, and very easy to refute. But the point of an armed citizenry is not necessarily to have to use the arms to stave off a tyrannical government, but to force government to have weigh the costs before it gets to that point.

[seanD]

Cool! So why do they need us to register them?

And how does gun registration keep guns out of circulation? That hasn't been answered here yet.