Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote: On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age.
The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years.
the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population.
Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have.
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
Heh, thanks, but it's actually Scalia's argument. Not mine. :D
About your thoughts on how a modern military would be stalled/thwarted by the mere presence of unlimited handguns/rifles... Nope. I don't think I agree with your ideas, based on the fact they're totally unsubstantiated. Even with a conflict like Syria, where the rebellion has plenty of access to relatively sophisticated weaponry and foreign aid -- the result is devastation on civilian targets. Is there some example of this working, in the real world? I mean to say, can you point to a case where rifle/handgun armed population of civilians successfully repelled a dictatorial government? Re: No outside aid or military weaponry -- just handguns and rifles, as we are discussing here. To save you the time, you won't find one :D
Syrians don't have access to the bomb making materials that the iraqi people did. The Syrians don't have the high school level education that Americans have. My physics teacher in high school taught us how to make shaped charges, I dobut that they had that happen. Syria is also a much smaller scale country geographically and population wise while being a much larger boots on the ground focus in its military (as its derived from being a soviet style military it was preparing for civil war for a long long time).
I don't know why you think that its going to be "just handguns and rifles". For one example the syrians have Ak-47's while Americans traditionally have a much larger focus on long rifles. We also have explosives derivable from everything from farming supplies to cleaning supplies. If anything the Iraq civil war in the 2004-2007 years would be used as a model for a successful resistance movement against a modern military.
Both Syria and iraq (minus a fair amount of kurds to the north) are both smaller then texas alone. It gets lost quickly on the difference in scale between these countries and the united states.
"small arms" really aren't that obsolete. Once you take your fantasy out that tanks and planes would be a used thing you'll fine out that hunting rifles will go though modern body armor and most vehicle armor. Not to mention you don't need to kill a car you just need to kill whatever feeds the car.
And we get it wombat. Europe is a lot more liberal then the USA and doesn't have any sort of gun culture and its weird. No reason to be a dick to a culture you don't understand, its not like everyone thinks your culture is any better then ours.
On April 23 2013 13:47 FallDownMarigold wrote: Well, if I was this hypothetical US dictator that wouldn't actually ever exist in real life, I would probably ask my button-pushers to send a few million missiles at any hostile targets -- especially those pesky neighborhoods of gun owners. I'd then probably destroy any means of food, water, medicine, and other supply, on which my dear civilian population relies.
Oh my lord, you actually think this, don't you?
You think a government would actually carpet bomb millions of its citizens with missiles, and then further starve and dehydrate its people and take away their medicine. You actually think a fucking government would do this because of a few people with rifles. And you think the people would just take it.
Holy Christ, you do realize the purpose of a tyrannical government is to impose fear and not to actually fucking kill its entire citizenship, right? The point is that they point the gun at you and you cower, not that they actually go around fucking shooting everyone. No one wants to rule a nation of corpses. The point of a tyranny is FEAR, not KILLING. Killing is a vessel of fear, but if the people have a means to resist your killing you have already failed. Again, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with actual winning official battles. It has to do with the fact that you can simply resist and people like you would think it's appropriate to holocaust millions of your citizens. Do you honestly think our military men and women would actually go through with an order to bomb residential neighborhoods? To line up hundreds and gun them down?
I mean, this is sorta dumb. There really should not be any need for arguing why a modern US military would easily destroy a civilian population armed to the brim with small arms. Small arms are utterly obsolete vs. the a modern military -- especially one that would not be concerned about hurting civilians, as in this ridiculous scenario, civilians ARE the targets.
OUR MODERN MILITARY WOULD NOT FUCKING PERFORM A HOLOCAUST ON OUR CITIZENSHIP. THEY FUCKING COULDN'T. NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU SAY "MUH TANKS" AND "MUH JETS", IT WON'T FUCKING WORK.
There are maybe 100,000 actual fucking infantrymen in the military and 200,000,000 adults in this country. How fucking long do you think they could just go around slaughtering civilians. Do you really think tanks just fucking run on the whim of slaughter? Do you think they have infinite ammunition and fuel? Do you think other countries would sell us fuel to run these tanks if our government is murdering tens of millions of its citizens? Why don't you think for once long and hard about this subject beyond battleships vs hunting rifles. This isn't a fucking group of people with hunting rifles going in a straight line towards a line of tanks and jets hoping it works. It would be you, me, and uncle joe poking a rifle shot out of a residential window and shooting once and then running away. And if you think the government would just go "welp, someone shot from that window, time to level the house and everyone inside" -- you're beyond clueless on how the world works.
I have no idea what you're even on about at this point, Serm & Frus. You're doing an awful lot of unnecessary theory crafting. The plain fact of the matter is that if gun control is feared due to the fact it will abolish the ability to resist via formation of armed militias, this fear is ridiculous, because it is plainly clear that no amount of small arms would overcome the full power of the government's military, which necessarily does include planes, tanks, etc.
On April 23 2013 13:52 Fruscainte wrote: You actually think a fucking government would do this because of a few people with rifles. And you think the people would just take it.
I mean, this is just one awful example of how you "debate". No, I do not "actually fucking think that". I simply stated that if the people needed to rise up and form militias to combat the US military, it would be a meaningless effort, as no amount of arms available to civilians even without gun control could ever amount to anything in the face of all the modern sophistication and firepower possessed by the US military.
On April 23 2013 13:54 FallDownMarigold wrote: I have no idea what you're even on about at this point, Serm & Frus. You're doing an awful lot of unnecessary theory crafting. The plain fact of the matter is that if gun control is feared due to the fact it will abolish the ability to resist via formation of armed militias, this fear is ridiculous, because it is plainly clear that no amount of small arms would overcome the full power of the government's military, which necessarily does include planes, tanks, etc.
Holy shit you're actually willingly ignoring the points we're making and just saying "b-b-b-but tanks"
I'm sorry, I'm getting mad now so I'll take a breather before I post something I regret. I suggest for posterity sake and the sanity of future posters you discuss with, you actually take the time to read the arguments being presented to you.
On April 23 2013 13:27 Wombat_NI wrote: I wasn't making any kind of argument, just venting. I'm not even particularly vehemently anti-gun by most metrics, but I'm reading things on here that are just as ridiculous as the things that conspiracy theorists get laughed out of threads for coming out with.
This is the part of the gun debate I get bored of — arguing the necessity of guns to combat doomsday or nightmare scenarios.
There a nice quote from Ryan Duffy from Vice Magazine, commenting on a New Life Baptist Church & Academy in Albuquerque, NM, where they training teacher to use firearms, and teach students to defend themselves in the event of a mass shooting (bi-weekly, as part of gym class).
It's not without merit — well-trained/prepared students would definitely respond to this kind of crisis of threat better. But the specific scenario of a psychopath going on a shooting rampage is very, very, very rare. You're much more likely to get mugged at knife point or be caught in a burning building than get shot randomly (<--keyword) by a crazy person at school.
As Duffy puts it, you are quite literally trying 'to prepare for INSANITY.'
Talking about a junta in the US or murderous psychopaths doesn't really address current gun legislation or policy and how it could be improved.
Holy shit you're actually willingly ignoring the points we're making
Because your "points" are utterly absurd, trifling with meaningless details, totally ignoring the brunt of MY point (actually Scalia's). No need to reply to any of them. In fact, my brain is actually hurting after attempting to follow both of your replies.
Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about? 2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace? 3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it? 4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen.
On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote: Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about? 2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace? 3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it? 4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen.
You're comparing government tyranny, something that has happened in varying amounts in literally every formal government since the beginning of organized governments, to the likes of zombies in terms of the likelihood of it happening.
On April 23 2013 13:54 FallDownMarigold wrote: I have no idea what you're even on about at this point, Serm & Frus. You're doing an awful lot of unnecessary theory crafting. The plain fact of the matter is that if gun control is feared due to the fact it will abolish the ability to resist via formation of armed militias, this fear is ridiculous, because it is plainly clear that no amount of small arms would overcome the full power of the government's military, which necessarily does include planes, tanks, etc.
We're not against gun control because of fear. We're against your gun control because its based on fear of our guns. Gun control people create these stupid points about how we only want guns because we're crazy rednecks afraid of the government to make us look like crazy rednecks that want the south to rise again. You don't get to just completely ignore what the other side says because tanks and planes then come out looking smarter then them.
On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote: Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about? 2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace? 3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it? 4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen.
Pretty sure you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to clarify for you anyway, on why I brought up the Scalia guns vs. US military thing:
The point of theory crafting about a tyrannical US government hell bent on engaging armed pockets of US civilians was to show in a very basic way that the presence of rifles and handguns would mean absolutely nothing given that the military possess the means by which to overcome these obsolete weapons quite easily (re: drones, guided missiles, precision bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc).
The point was absolutely not to focus on whether or not it could happen -- something Serm and Frus wanted to attack (we call this strawman arguing :D). Frankly, any relatively sane person should understand that it is highly unlikely to ever see a murderous US dictatorship that would murder its own civilians.
As an outside observe there are far too many uses of 'us' and 'them' in these kind of discussions. How is any sort of constructive discussion meant to happen when it is discussed in that kind of language. I feel this, regardless of my desired outcome coming to pass.
Edit- I was focusing on that, as a possibility because said possibility is frequently evoked as a reason to justify having guns. (Yes the Constitution, 2nd Amendment I know it's in there before anyone jumps on me)
It's not about whether or not we can rise up and win, it's about if we can rise up. Tyranny exists, it will always exist in every government that does exist and ever will exist. However, great tyranny can never truly exist if the people have the means to fight back. Again, it's not about winning. It's about being able to fight. The point of an extreme case of tyranny is to impose fear. Even on smaller levels, it is meant to impose boot quaking fear. If the people have no fear, and if the people are fighting back, you have already lost. If the people have absolutely no means to fight back, the people have already lost.
Get this through your head, and I want to emphasize this point as concisely and politely as possible and further want to apologize for my previous posts -- let me make this clear: It is not about winning, it is not about organized militias, it is not about revolution. It is about the government not being able to kick in your door without fear of two or three residents taking out a rifle or a shotgun and taking some of you down with them. It's about being able to instill, even if a little, fear into the government as well and forcing such drastic measures as bombing residential neighborhoods. Because guess what, you're right, that will NEVER happen. Our government is not nearly stupid enough to bomb residential neighborhoods or line up hundreds and slaughter them. So that just leaves one option in a tyrannical state, live in fear, if said guns exist.
The 2nd Amendment has never been about the people being able to overthrow the government. It's always been about instilling the same fear in the government that they want to instill in us. Whether or not you want to admit it, all people want is power and power corrupts absolutely. Every President, every Senator, every PM, every King, every Duke has abused their power since the beginning of time and the 2nd Amendment is one of many sticks we have to threaten back. As long as it exists in its earnest, it is a chicken and egg. We will never overthrow the government because of the implied military power, and the military will never impose absolute tyranny over us to force revolution because of 200,000,000 adults and guns providing resistance.
On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote: Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about? 2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace? 3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it? 4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen.
Pretty sure you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to clarify for you anyway, on why I brought up the Scalia guns vs. US military thing:
The point of theory crafting about a tyrannical US government hell bent on engaging armed pockets of US civilians was to show in a very basic way that the presence of rifles and handguns would mean absolutely nothing given that the military possess the means by which to overcome these obsolete weapons quite easily (re: drones, guided missiles, precision bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc).
The point was absolutely not to focus on whether or not it could happen -- something Serm and Frus wanted to attack (we call this strawman arguing :D). Frankly, any relatively sane person should understand that it is highly unlikely to ever see a murderous US dictatorship that would murder its own civilians.
But we refuted your exact point. Rifles and handguns would mean a lot in any resistance. You instead of replying to our points just plugged your ears and said "NANANA Tanks and planes NANANA".
We're not the ones who have to say why this wouldn't happen when your the one that literally proposed that it would happen. Its not stawman arguing to refute your stawman arguments when you back them up with nothing but stawman statements.
On April 23 2013 14:09 Wombat_NI wrote: As an outside observe there are far too many uses of 'us' and 'them' in these kind of discussions. How is any sort of constructive discussion meant to happen when it is discussed in that kind of language. I feel this, regardless of my desired outcome coming to pass.
Edit- I was focusing on that, as a possibility because said possibility is frequently evoked as a reason to justify having guns. (Yes the Constitution, 2nd Amendment I know it's in there before anyone jumps on me)
There is no constructive discussion going on with gun control in america, that's literally the entire problem with it. You have ignorant gun hating liberals with huge violence problems in the cities telling people who don't live in the cities and don't have the same problems that they need to lose their rights and their guns. There isn't any attempt at all anymore at trying to reason with either side when liberals think that bringing the families of dead children around like props and conservatives can fear monger with nothing to stop either side. Its not about progress in national politics its about charging up peoples base's with ideological heft on a subject neither side can make any progress on. Liberals can't get any more gun control when they have no logic to back up their emotional pleas. Conservatives can't get any less gun control when they have no logic to back up their fear mongering.
On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote: Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about? 2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace? 3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it? 4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen.
Pretty sure you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to clarify for you anyway, on why I brought up the Scalia guns vs. US military thing:
The point of theory crafting about a tyrannical US government hell bent on engaging armed pockets of US civilians was to show in a very basic way that the presence of rifles and handguns would mean absolutely nothing given that the military possess the means by which to overcome these obsolete weapons quite easily (re: drones, guided missiles, precision bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc).
The point was absolutely not to focus on whether or not it could happen -- something Serm and Frus wanted to attack (we call this strawman arguing :D). Frankly, any relatively sane person should understand that it is highly unlikely to ever see a murderous US dictatorship that would murder its own civilians.
Rifles and handguns would mean a lot in any resistance.
Cite a successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians armed with small arms, and without access to foreign military aid.
"Would mean a lot" is awfully subjective. Scalia thinks that they would not overcome a modern military, so I would like to politely request that you explain to me why this is wrong. Not from your imagination, but with real examples, please.
On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote: Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about? 2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace? 3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it? 4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen.
Pretty sure you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to clarify for you anyway, on why I brought up the Scalia guns vs. US military thing:
The point of theory crafting about a tyrannical US government hell bent on engaging armed pockets of US civilians was to show in a very basic way that the presence of rifles and handguns would mean absolutely nothing given that the military possess the means by which to overcome these obsolete weapons quite easily (re: drones, guided missiles, precision bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc).
The point was absolutely not to focus on whether or not it could happen -- something Serm and Frus wanted to attack (we call this strawman arguing :D). Frankly, any relatively sane person should understand that it is highly unlikely to ever see a murderous US dictatorship that would murder its own civilians.
Yeah, we already had our revolution.
And even in some bizarre, awful scenario (that I can't even imagine) in which we need another, I fail to see why I should be pleased that a bunch of Americans decided to use their weapons to take control of everything. Trade one supposed tyranny for the tyranny of whoever has the most/best guns. Everything about the 2nd Amendment is archaic. Some ideas in history hold water through time, some don't.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There is a structure to the English language, which we all know. This Amendment contains reasoning. The "necessity" of this Amendment is based on the "security of a free State", for which we need an armed militia.
This is because America didn't have an army.
It's use was completely, diametrically, philosophically, utterly, and entirely different from what it is being used for now. We now have the biggest army man has ever created.
Our guns are completely irrelevant to what the 2nd Amendment was written for, in every way -- in ways that our Founding Fathers couldn't only not predict, but actually fought against. We replaced the militia. We have an army. And slavery is illegal, so we don't need to worry about forcing people into labor. We changed those things, so we can change the 2nd Amendment.
On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote: Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about? 2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace? 3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it? 4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen.
Pretty sure you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to clarify for you anyway, on why I brought up the Scalia guns vs. US military thing:
The point of theory crafting about a tyrannical US government hell bent on engaging armed pockets of US civilians was to show in a very basic way that the presence of rifles and handguns would mean absolutely nothing given that the military possess the means by which to overcome these obsolete weapons quite easily (re: drones, guided missiles, precision bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc).
The point was absolutely not to focus on whether or not it could happen -- something Serm and Frus wanted to attack (we call this strawman arguing :D). Frankly, any relatively sane person should understand that it is highly unlikely to ever see a murderous US dictatorship that would murder its own civilians.
Rifles and handguns would mean a lot in any resistance.
Cite a successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians armed with small arms, and without access to foreign military aid.
"Would mean a lot" is awfully subjective. Scalia thinks that they would not overcome a modern military, so I would like to politely request that you explain to me why this is wrong. Not from your imagination, but with real examples, please.
Cite a non successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians arms with small arms and without access to foreign military aid.
I can literally do that because you just ignored my entire post except for one line about an example that you brought up originally. Do you have anything backing up your point at all or are you just looking to paint me as a crazy redneck afraid of the government?
On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote: Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about? 2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace? 3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it? 4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen.
Pretty sure you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to clarify for you anyway, on why I brought up the Scalia guns vs. US military thing:
The point of theory crafting about a tyrannical US government hell bent on engaging armed pockets of US civilians was to show in a very basic way that the presence of rifles and handguns would mean absolutely nothing given that the military possess the means by which to overcome these obsolete weapons quite easily (re: drones, guided missiles, precision bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc).
The point was absolutely not to focus on whether or not it could happen -- something Serm and Frus wanted to attack (we call this strawman arguing :D). Frankly, any relatively sane person should understand that it is highly unlikely to ever see a murderous US dictatorship that would murder its own civilians.
Yeah, we already had our revolution.
And even in some bizarre, awful scenario (that I can't even imagine) in which we need another, I fail to see why I should be pleased that a bunch of Americans decided to use their weapons to take control of everything. Trade one supposed tyranny for the tyranny of whoever has the most/best guns. Everything about the 2nd Amendment is archaic. Some ideas in history hold water through time, some don't.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There is a structure to the English language, which we all know. This Amendment contains reasoning. The "necessity" of this Amendment is based on the "security of a free State", for which we need an armed militia.
This is because America didn't have an army.
It's use was completely, diametrically, philosophically, utterly, and entirely different from what it is being used for now. We now have the biggest army man has ever created.
Our guns are completely irrelevant to what the 2nd Amendment was written for, in every way -- in ways that our Founding Fathers couldn't only not predict, but actually fought against. We replaced the militia. We have an army. And slavery is illegal, so we don't need to worry about forcing people into labor. We changed those things, so we can change the 2nd Amendment.
I'm sorry but this is literally a terrible argument. Our media today is completely irrelevant to what the 1st amendment was written for in everyday so we can change that. Our founding fathers wrote freedom of religion because they were talking about freedom from catholic's so we can change that because it doesn't have anything to do with non Christians.
They had an army back in the day they just called them the militia. We have never had the biggest army (I'm fairly certain the russians always had a bigger one and now the Chinese do). This country is different in every single way from what it was when the constitution was written except from things that the constitution has directly impacted us in. This dangerous idea that because times have changed we can change the 2nd amendment means that we can change the whole thing in any way the ruling party wants.
On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote: Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about? 2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace? 3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it? 4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen.
Pretty sure you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to clarify for you anyway, on why I brought up the Scalia guns vs. US military thing:
The point of theory crafting about a tyrannical US government hell bent on engaging armed pockets of US civilians was to show in a very basic way that the presence of rifles and handguns would mean absolutely nothing given that the military possess the means by which to overcome these obsolete weapons quite easily (re: drones, guided missiles, precision bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc).
The point was absolutely not to focus on whether or not it could happen -- something Serm and Frus wanted to attack (we call this strawman arguing :D). Frankly, any relatively sane person should understand that it is highly unlikely to ever see a murderous US dictatorship that would murder its own civilians.
Rifles and handguns would mean a lot in any resistance.
Cite a successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians armed with small arms, and without access to foreign military aid.
"Would mean a lot" is awfully subjective. Scalia thinks that they would not overcome a modern military, so I would like to politely request that you explain to me why this is wrong. Not from your imagination, but with real examples, please.
Cite a non successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians arms with small arms and without access to foreign military aid.
I can literally do that because you just ignored my entire post except for one line about an example that you brought up originally. Do you have anything backing up your point at all or are you just looking to paint me as a crazy redneck afraid of the government?
On April 23 2013 14:25 Falling wrote: @Leporello So then, was that wording of the militia due to a distrust towards standing armies in early American history?
That's kind of my point, yeah. And whether they ultimately trusted them or not, they didn't have one. Thus militia was a very necessary concept.
Guns are necessary for security. That is obvious to everyone, and no one is disputing it.
But it isn't "necessary for the security of a Free state" for everyone to own as many weapons of any kind that they please. The 2nd Amendment was very clearly not written for that purpose.
I wish this would be said more, so we could go about the task of amending the Amendment.
On April 23 2013 14:02 Wombat_NI wrote: Oh you're so restrained and full of poise by not responding.
1. Why would the military/government impose such a tyranny, realistically? What kind of hypothetical tyranny are we even talking about? 2. The military are made up of citizens, why would they all decide to join it in sufficient numbers to subjugate the civilian populace? 3. If this eventuality DID happen, what the hell are citizens going to be able to do to it? 4. Why have the US military cut manpower (according to you?) Could it be to do with the increasing use of drones and other similar unmanned vehicles and other things like that?
Simply going 'guerrilla warfare' as if it's some kind of foolproof method is ridiculous. The US has a varied environment for sure. I swear you two remind me of those people who plan for a zombie apocalype. I find it hard to tell if you think it will happen, or just enjoy theorycrafting how it would go. The two are both about as likely to happen.
Pretty sure you weren't responding to me, but I wanted to clarify for you anyway, on why I brought up the Scalia guns vs. US military thing:
The point of theory crafting about a tyrannical US government hell bent on engaging armed pockets of US civilians was to show in a very basic way that the presence of rifles and handguns would mean absolutely nothing given that the military possess the means by which to overcome these obsolete weapons quite easily (re: drones, guided missiles, precision bombing, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc).
The point was absolutely not to focus on whether or not it could happen -- something Serm and Frus wanted to attack (we call this strawman arguing :D). Frankly, any relatively sane person should understand that it is highly unlikely to ever see a murderous US dictatorship that would murder its own civilians.
Rifles and handguns would mean a lot in any resistance.
Cite a successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians armed with small arms, and without access to foreign military aid.
"Would mean a lot" is awfully subjective. Scalia thinks that they would not overcome a modern military, so I would like to politely request that you explain to me why this is wrong. Not from your imagination, but with real examples, please.
Cite a non successful resistance of a modern dictatorship by civilians arms with small arms and without access to foreign military aid.
I can literally do that because you just ignored my entire post except for one line about an example that you brought up originally. Do you have anything backing up your point at all or are you just looking to paint me as a crazy redneck afraid of the government?
Kuwait
edit: literally
2.8 million population in an area smaller than almost every State alone compared to 300 million population with some of the most square miles in any country in the world.
I love apples man, especially when compared to other apples.
EPT
