Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standard

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Dammitboy! said:

The 2nd amendment was not written to protect gun manufacturers. In point of fact, I doubt there was any kind of established gun manufacturing at the time it was written. The 2nd amendment was written to protect our right to self-defense from an over-reaching government - to put restrictions on government from taking our firearms.

How can you not possibly know or understand this?!

Click to expand...

If the intent of the second amendment was to protect the right to self defense from government then why limit it to firearms? Why not include canons, swords, axes and other methods of self defense?

Simon W. Moon said:

I cannot find the part about confiscating guns.
Can you underline it?
Afaict, there's more to the definition of a threat than mere intent. It has to be an intent to do some harm iirc. I mean I have an intent to get another cup of coffee. But that's hardly a threat.
Sorry to hear that.
I had been hoping that my grasp of language would remain loyal to my "pretentious pseudo-intellectualism." ...especially after all they have been through together. That's life I s'pose.

Have you thought much about your motivation to shift the topic of conversation to my varied multitude of personality flaws?
Cataloging my many flaws doesn't seem to do much to advance your case that Biden threatened "to take the guns."
Discussing my shortcomings seems to distract and detract from your case, imho.
Of course, ymmv. You may feel that it logic dictates that if I have flaws then Biden did indeed "threaten to take the guns."
idk
But, fwiw and imho, it doesn't seem to strengthen your argument.
:shrug:

Click to expand...

Let's browse google on the subject of gun laws...

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-vows-to-push-new-gun-control-legislation-2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWerMi9OXpM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Ok, context of the quote, "after a meeting concerning gun violence.", meaning that the discussion was concerning gun control.

Then he said that the president will act executively AS WELL AS the legislative action that is believed to be required.

Then says if the executive power saves one life then it's worth it...

But wait... More important than how I see this what the hell are you going to propose he is saying here?!?

Oh, and I brought up your grasp of language because you can't seem to understand the meaning of what he is saying, and then attempt to use your seeming ignorance in a pretentious attempt to appear superior.

I was bringing it up only to point out that smugness like that does not strengthen your point.

Moot said:

If the intent of the second amendment was to protect the right to self defense from government then why limit it to firearms? Why not include canons, swords, axes and other methods of self defense?

Click to expand...

Sure, but collateral damage is indefensible.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Moot said:

If the intent of the second amendment was to protect the right to self defense from government then why limit it to firearms? Why not include canons, swords, axes and other methods of self defense?

Click to expand...

It says "the right to bear arms", firearms being what we are discussing. At the time it was completely legal to own cannon and it still is today. Swords, axes, bayonets are all "arms". Jesus, educate yourself before you start discussing a topic please, why do I have to educate you?

Arms are not limited to firearms. The Supreme Court has interpreted the word "arms" to mean anything a soldier could normally carry by himself. Grenades fall in this category. As our founders pointed out;

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." ~ Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788 explaining the meaning of the 2nd amendment.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

BmanMcfly said:

More important than how I see this what the hell are you going to propose he is saying here?!?

Click to expand...

I would propose hewing a little more closely to the meanings of the words which were actually used.
But I am boring like that.
Sometimes I can be the last one to get on board with creative and dynamic interpretations of words and phrases.
Just another one of my personality flaws I s'pose.

Simon W. Moon said:

I would propose hewing a little more closely to the meanings of the words which were actually used.
But I am boring like that.
Sometimes I can be the last one to get on board with creative and dynamic interpretations of words and phrases.
Just another one of my personality flaws I s'pose.

Click to expand...

Well you were missing just the element of context.

See, the political context of such a statement in say Clinton's day would have been a threat for something like background checks or gun registration...

Here, in the wake of ten bills being proposed, Biden talks about Obama going the executive route if the legislative route fails.

Again, what do you interpret Bidens statement as saying?? Since it clearly means something else in your mind.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Dammitboy! said:

It says "the right to bear arms", firearms being what we are discussing. At the time it was completely legal to own cannon and it still is today. Swords, axes, bayonets are all "arms". Jesus, educate yourself before you start discussing a topic please, why do I have to educate you?

Arms are not limited to firearms. The Supreme Court has interpreted the word "arms" to mean anything a soldier could normally carry by himself. Grenades fall in this category.

As our founders pointed out;

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." ~ Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788 explaining the meaning of the 2nd amendment

Click to expand...

"...arms to mean anything a soldier could normally carry by himself." So does that mean the intent of the second amendment was for soldiers and people in militas and not for an individual citizen's self defense? Because it sure looks like thats what you and Coxe saying.

Tench Coxe was a gun manufacturer. lol Yeah, I can see why he believed in the "peoples right to keep and bear arms." Because the more guns he sold the richer he got. Hmm, sounds familiar.

Tench Coxe was a quite a paradox. Apparently, he helped to arm the British during the Revolution at the same time his fellow patriots were being disarmed. After the Revolution he procured a lucrative government contract to manufacture guns for the standing army ....to use against American citizens. Wasn't that what the framers were most afraid of? And doesn't kinda undermine Coxe's quote above?

Something about Coxe...

"... In a series of articles published in early 1811, Coxe's former Pennsylvania political associate, William Duane, charged that Purveyor Coxe had accepted large quantities of inferior firearms. In his first article, Duane made the sweeping allegation "that arms we had seen, which had been manufactured for the MONEY (for we cannot say the use) of the United States, were better adapted to kill American soldiers into whose hands they should be put, than an enemy." Coxe rejoined in the same issue, flatly denying the charges and noting that all arms were inspected prior to payment.

In subsequent installments, Duane relied on averments of the former inspector who was discharged for incompetence. Duane claimed that some rifle barrels lacked grooves (rifling), had grooves only six inches down the barrel, or had grooves that were too shallow. Some were made with unfit Dutch locks (firing systems), or had stocks filled with glue and sawdust. There were Hessian or Hanoverian arms (German imports) which needed inspecting. "There were nine hundred pairs of pistols, but not one pair fit for public service."

In a series of articles addressed To the Public, Coxe responded to "the late unfounded attack upon the public muskets and private manufacturers of of muskets for the United States." The muskets, rifles, and pistols in question were the equivalent of any manufactured in this country. Coxe stated that, thanks to the federal procurement program, the number of private armorers had increased ten-fold in just a few years.

Months passed without further public controversy, but at the end of 1811, Duane renewed "The Military Establishment" series. Duane insinuated that in America there were those who placed "a military force before its enemy with saw dust cartridges or balls too large for the calibre, or with rifles without touchholes, and without spiral grooves, and of which 8 out of 18 burst on the proof with powder only of 135, whilst the true proof should be of the standard of 150."....read

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

Click to expand...

It appears that Tench Coxe was a one man NRA whose only goal it seems was to peddle fear in order to make money from selling guns....and poor quality guns at that.


Hey Dammitboy, thanks for educating me. LOL

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Moot said:

If the intent of the second amendment was to protect the right to self defense from government then why limit it to firearms? Why not include canons, swords, axes and other methods of self defense?

Click to expand...

Because firearms are what you used to kill people in the late 18th century. You will recall, for example, that what kick-started the actual Revolution was an attempt by the British to seize privately owned cannon.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Dammitboy! said:

It says "the right to bear arms", firearms being what we are discussing. At the time it was completely legal to own cannon and it still is today. Swords, axes, bayonets are all "arms". Jesus, educate yourself before you start discussing a topic please, why do I have to educate you?

Click to expand...

Moot, you really are getting destroyed in this thread. Maybe quit digging while you are still behind?

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Moot said:

Thanks I'll add your link to my favorites. Nevertheless, not remembering the official name does not negate my original response

Click to expand...

No, it just demonstrates the baseline you are working from.

But it is a very interesting historical factoid that many are unaware of and for me it gave an entire new perspective on the Civil War. I thought it was brilliant on Lincoln's part and was probably the most single important factor that kept the union in tact..legally.

Click to expand...

Nah. Mao had that one right - political power flows from the barrel of the gun. Lincoln understood that if you win the war, the legal reasoning will follow.

The point of posting the 1807 insurrection law was in response to someone posting Jeffersons quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Click to expand...

Yeah, here's the only problem with that. It doesn't actually have any impact whatsoever on either that quote or the discussion at hand - especially given that it was an act of Congress.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

BmanMcfly said:

Here, in the wake of ten bills being proposed, Biden talks about Obama going the executive route if the legislative route fails.

Click to expand...

That doesn't appear to be supported by the text offered either.
The text offered seems to say that there will be legislative action "as well." Which, imho, means something different than if the legislative action fails we will resort to EOs.
See, to me, in my mind, "as well" means something more equivalent to "also", "too", and "in addition."
but we have already determined that I have some reading comprehension issues. So take that assessment with a grain or two of salt.

BmanMcfly said:

Again, what do you interpret Bidens statement as saying?? Since it clearly means something else in your mind.

Click to expand...

Again, I hew closer to the emanings of the words which were presented and don't see the need to drift so far afield or to be creative in the interpretation. Again, as you pointed out, I have some serious issues which may or may not prevent my mind from thinking clearly.

"There are executives orders..."
imho, this means that executive orders exist. ymmv

"...there's executive action that can be taken."
imho this means that there are deeds which can be done by the PotUS in re the matter at hand. ymmv

" We haven't decided what that is yet. "
imho, this means that they have not picked a course of action. ymmv

" But we're compiling it all..."
They are gathering a list of options. ymmv

"...with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members..."
The AG and members of the cabinet are helping with the list of options. ymmv

"...as well as legislative action that we believe is required."[/I][/COLOR]
They think that changes to current laws or the creation of new laws is required to be a part of the appropriate course of action. ymmv

So, as you can see, I don't see anything akin to a threat to confiscate firearms in that statement.
I am usually not the first to subscribe to creative or dynamic interpretations of words and language.
My reluctance to go with the newer more exciting interpretation may be what's keeping me from being able to find the part where Biden threatens to confiscate firearms.

So, if you could just underline the part of the quote where the threat to confiscate firearms occurs, perhaps that would help me see the light. Then I could get a charge out of feeling that fear and drama like some other people seem to.

Simon W. Moon said:

That doesn't appear to be supported by the text offered either.
The text offered seems to say that there will be legislative action "as well." Which, imho, means something different than if the legislative action fails we will resort to EOs.
See, to me, in my mind, "as well" means something more equivalent to "also", "too", and "in addition."
but we have already determined that I have some reading comprehension issues. So take that assessment with a grain or two of salt.

Again, I hew closer to the emanings of the words which were presented and don't see the need to drift so far afield or to be creative in the interpretation. Again, as you pointed out, I have some serious issues which may or may not prevent my mind from thinking clearly.

"There are executives orders..."
imho, this means that executive orders exist. ymmv

"...there's executive action that can be taken."
imho this means that there are deeds which can be done by the PotUS in re the matter at hand. ymmv

" We haven't decided what that is yet. "
imho, this means that they have not picked a course of action. ymmv

" But we're compiling it all..."
They are gathering a list of options. ymmv

"...with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members..."
The AG and members of the cabinet are helping with the list of options. ymmv

"...as well as legislative action that we believe is required."[/I][/COLOR]
They think that changes to current laws or the creation of new laws is required to be a part of the appropriate course of action. ymmv

So, as you can see, I don't see anything akin to a threat to confiscate firearms in that statement.
I am usually not the first to subscribe to creative or dynamic interpretations of words and language.
My reluctance to go with the newer more exciting interpretation may be what's keeping me from being able to find the part where Biden threatens to confiscate firearms.

So, if you could just underline the part of the quote where the threat to confiscate firearms occurs, perhaps that would help me see the light. Then I could get a charge out of feeling that fear and drama like some other people seem to.

Click to expand...

Ok, so you know, you point out a few ways where I gave the benefit... What he was saying then was that all those presented bills are not enough.

So, what do you propose he means by these actions that are required??

No matter how you slice it, the executive orders will require some sort of mental health background check (that will deem virtually everyone ineligible), to the worst case of a "forced buy back" to outright confiscation, and wherever the "solution" lies it will be unconstitutional... And people that can't see past the tip of their nose will cheer not knowing that they are casting a vote to increase crime, to make their streets less safe, and to make the government more oppressive.

The fact is that a well armed society is a safer society and generally more friendly / polite.

That's why these extremely rare events are highly profiled and used to push an agenda of gradual disarmament... The unfortunate fact is that when the people are disarmed the people that keep their weapons rule over the ones disarmed.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

cpwill said:

Moot, you really are getting destroyed in this thread. Maybe quit digging while you are still behind?

Click to expand...

I don't think so, cpwill. I simply put forward a question to see what kind of responses it would get. Yours was rather...banal and uninspiring.

cpwill said:

No, it just demonstrates the baseline you are working from.

Click to expand...

Actually I've found better and more indepth baselines to work from.

Nah. Mao had that one right - political power flows from the barrel of the gun. Lincoln understood that if you win the war, the legal reasoning will follow.

Click to expand...

Lincoln went to great lengths never to call it a war. For if he hadn't, he wouldn't have had a legal base on which to suppress the rebel states and keep them in the union and all the guns and all the blood shed would have been for naught. Mao wasn't exactly the brightest leader and you'd do well to find another mentor.

Yeah, here's the only problem with that. It doesn't actually have any impact whatsoever on either that quote or the discussion at hand - especially given that it was an act of Congress.

Click to expand...

Yes, it was an act of congress giving the president sole discretion and permanent authority to use the standing army to suppress insurrections of US citizens. The fact that it was signed into law by Jefferson himself had the effect of making him the tyrant. I'm sorry if you fail to understand that, but it does in fact pertain to the discussion to the letter.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Dammitboy! said:

The 2nd amendment was not written to protect gun manufacturers. In point of fact, I doubt there was any kind of established gun manufacturing at the time it was written. The 2nd amendment was written to protect our right to self-defense from an over-reaching government - to put restrictions on government from taking our firearms.

How can you not possibly know or understand this?!

Click to expand...

In an age of Apache helicopters, cruise missiles, carrier battle groups, and predator drones, what kind of delusional individual thinks they can defend themselves against a "tyrannical" US government? That AR-15's really going to be the difference between freedom and oppression, is it? :lamo

If the US government decides to go 1984 on us, there isn't anything we can do to stop them. Fortunately, it's the same delusions that lead people to believe this is actually happening.

If we have learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan it is that guerrilla tactics can be highly effective. Sure we have over come them but look at the cost in time, money, and manpower, it has cost.

You can destroy a multimillion dollar piece of equipment with a roadside bomb.

Organized troops have to follow rules, which can be a hindrance when fighting people who don't.

If your fighting civilians, how do you get PID? How do you know who to shoot and who not to.

Do you think you will lose support from the non violent population when they start seeing their friends and family get mowed down?

There will be defectors, soldiers are trained to kill terrorist/foreign aggressors, their not going to be too happy turning the barrels on their countrymen ( if they even do it at all)

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Paratrooper said:

If we have learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan it is that guerrilla tactics can be highly effective. Sure we have over come them but look at the cost in time, money, and manpower, it has cost.

You can destroy a multimillion dollar piece of equipment with a roadside bomb.

Organized troops have to follow rules, which can be a hindrance when fighting people who don't.

If your fighting civilians, how do you get PID? How do you know who to shoot and who not to.

Do you think you will lose support from the non violent population when they start seeing their friends and family get mowed down?

There will be defectors, soldiers are trained to kill terrorist/foreign aggressors, their not going to be too happy turning the barrels on their countrymen ( if they even do it at all)

Click to expand...

The military is sworn to protect the country and the constitution, an attempt at violent overthrow is going to be seen as the enemy.

If the military "defects" to a sufficient degree, the armed civilians are irrelevant. This 1984 government you guys fantasize about fighting against can't exist without the force of the military and police. Remember, this is some hypothetical tyrannical government. It wont be like Afghanistan. The gloves will be off. Chicago proving hard to pacify? Drop bombs until they cooperate.

Incidentally, we have eleven of these.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

BmanMcfly said:

What he was saying then was that all those presented bills are not enough.

Click to expand...

You seem to take it that way.

BmanMcfly said:

So, what do you propose he means by these actions that are required??

Click to expand...

" We haven't decided what that is yet. "

BmanMcfly said:

No matter how you slice it, the executive orders will require some sort of mental health background check (that will deem virtually everyone ineligible) to the worst case of a "forced buy back" to outright confiscation, and wherever the "solution" lies it will be unconstitutional...

Click to expand...

This seems to be largely based on assumptions you have made rather than the evidence at hand.
It's fanciful to think that the PotUS would even consider some of the kinds of things which people have decided to be afraid of him doing. Everybody and their dog realize that some of the scenarios being floated would have the entire nation up in arms.
Worse than a crime, it would be a blunder.

Imho, there's a great willingness on the part of some to suspend disbelief and swallow conspiracists' sensationalist speculations when it comes to this matter. ymmv.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Paratrooper said:

If we have learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan it is that guerrilla tactics can be highly effective. Sure we have over come them but look at the cost in time, money, and manpower, it has cost.

You can destroy a multimillion dollar piece of equipment with a roadside bomb.

Organized troops have to follow rules, which can be a hindrance when fighting people who don't.

If your fighting civilians, how do you get PID? How do you know who to shoot and who not to.

Do you think you will lose support from the non violent population when they start seeing their friends and family get mowed down?

There will be defectors, soldiers are trained to kill terrorist/foreign aggressors, their not going to be too happy turning the barrels on their countrymen ( if they even do it at all)

Click to expand...

All that has been taken into consideration and theorized by military strategists and their conclusion is an insurrection by civilians would not be successful....

War Colleges Need to Plan for Military Action to Suppress ?Insurrections? on U.S. Soil

If I recall the national guard had no problem turning their weapons on civilians during the 1960s.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Firearms Refresher Course:

1. "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson

2. "Those who trade liberty for security have neither." ~John Adams

3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.

6. Gun control is not about guns; it is about control.

7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

8. Know guns, know peace, know safety.
No guns, no peace, no safety.

9. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All rights reserved.

13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

14. What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you NOT understand?

15. Guns have only two enemies: rust and politicians.

16. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Diogenes said:

Unfortunately a majority of the country disagrees with you. Otherwise Obama would not have been reelected.

Click to expand...

problem is the act took place after the election.. if he campaigned on taking guns away.. he would have gone the way of Mondale.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Deuce said:

In an age of Apache helicopters, cruise missiles, carrier battle groups, and predator drones, what kind of delusional individual thinks they can defend themselves against a "tyrannical" US government? That AR-15's really going to be the difference between freedom and oppression, is it? :lamo

If the US government decides to go 1984 on us, there isn't anything we can do to stop them. Fortunately, it's the same delusions that lead people to believe this is actually happening.

Click to expand...

And this is massively understanding on how guerrilla warfare works. US's military has had it's ass handed (or a hard time) due to it a few times. While the America #1 crowd will disagree (mainly on the right). A "group" of individuals with AK-47 (74s), RPGs, and ingenuity caused more problems politically and in treasure then the US could afford to lose.. Viet Cong did it to the US in Vietnam, Shia and Sunnis did it to the US in Iraq and the Taliban is still around bleeding the US dry. Since WW2 the US military hasn't won ****. It's been withdraws and policing. So for all that tech the US has it's shown no ability to defeat guerrilla warfare. As in the world of guerrilla warfare you don't stay on the grid and the US has a horrible time finding people off the grid. Took 9 years to find Bin Laden with luck.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

A well-regulated militia...

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

austrianecon said:

And this is massively understanding on how guerrilla warfare works. US's military has had it's ass handed (or a hard time) due to it a few times. While the America #1 crowd will disagree (mainly on the right). A "group" of individuals with AK-47 (74s), RPGs, and ingenuity caused more problems politically and in treasure then the US could afford to lose.. Viet Cong did it to the US in Vietnam, Shia and Sunnis did it to the US in Iraq and the Taliban is still around bleeding the US dry. Since WW2 the US military hasn't won ****. It's been withdraws and policing. So for all that tech the US has it's shown no ability to defeat guerrilla warfare. As in the world of guerrilla warfare you don't stay on the grid and the US has a horrible time finding people off the grid. Took 9 years to find Bin Laden with luck.

Click to expand...

Yes, the actual US government would never be able to handle a forcible suppression of its whole population. But we're not talking about the actual US government here, we're talking about this absurd paranoid fantasy that the right wing has concocted. That government will do what it takes and wont have qualms about leveling cities.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Moot said:

All that has been taken into consideration and theorized by military strategists and their conclusion is an insurrection by civilians would not be successful....

War Colleges Need to Plan for Military Action to Suppress ?Insurrections? on U.S. Soil

If I recall the national guard had no problem turning their weapons on civilians during the 1960s.

Click to expand...

The "Scenario 2016" played out is just that.. a scenario in which the authors even state: " “Countering Al Qaeda web-based propaganda is one thing, countering domestic information bombardments is another … entirely.” and that "soldiers will no doubt have loyalties to people they know who are living in Darlington, and so their response to orders to put down the resurrection by firing on them may be questionable".

The majority of the US military is not trained to deal with domestic threats. Soldiers swear and oath to the Constitution and the Constitution alone. If soldiers feel the Constitution is trampled on.. they have every right to refuse orders of the President. It's kinda like what happened in Egypt. Their military stayed out of the mess.

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Deuce said:

Yes, the actual US government would never be able to handle a forcible suppression of its whole population. But we're not talking about the actual US government here, we're talking about this absurd paranoid fantasy that the right wing has concocted. That government will do what it takes and wont have qualms about leveling cities.

Click to expand...

But we are talking about the US Government. Government will do what it takes to stay in power, make no mistake. All Governments when threaten with loss of power will resist. You've seen it a dozen times over the last 30 years. Be it Libya, Iran, Iraq, Balkans, Russia (via Chechnya) , Egypt, Syria, UK (via Northern Ireland), France, Spain, South Africa, Mexico, and so on.. every one of these Governments made no qualms about destroying towns or killing innocent people to stay in power.