The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA

This isn't a general firearms debate, so please focus your replies on the following argument of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, typically sounding like this:

Quote:

---

An armed populace is the ultimate sanction against government that has overstepped its authority and turned towards tyranny.

---

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

Not my full personal opinions, but short answers to why/etc which it could be argued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States

---

Pretty high, look at all the anti-terror legalisation you guys have, including secretly moving citizens to places lime Guantamo Bay to avoid a fair trial.

Quote:

---

what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

---

Also, with this, you don't have to spend so much on funding an army as they come already equipped, or if the Zombie Terror Outbreak happens, how will Joe Bloggs defend his farmhouse Left4Dead style?

Quote:

---

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

---

The population outnumber the marines. Also the fact, Marines will join the population. If America was going to do it, they would use a foreign armed force, which wouldn't be persuaded to join the opposition.

Quote:

---

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

---

They won't be able to because they will never gain enough support.

Quote:

---

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

---

How much power do you want the state to have? If the state becomes too strong, you are defenceless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

---

The only case in which this would be a valid argument, is to protect against a small military coup. Nazism, Fascism and Communism have all had huge popular support and most of the time it's been a people's movement, so an armed populace won't do anything against that, as the fascist/nazi/commie supporters will also have the same guns. The most probable outcome in such a case is a long civil war. And we all know how every government act in times of civil war, don't we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

---

An armed population will have zero chance against a foreign military invasion, see Iraq/Afghanistan. Their only chance is, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, to win a war of attrition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

Times change, so do laws.

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

They won't be able to because they will never gain enough support.

---

Yes, we've never seen an extremist popular movement end up in a ruthless dictatorship... That's never happened.

You contradict yourself a bit where you argue that gun-ownership allows extremists to form paramilitary groups to overthrow the government, and then on the other hand you argue guns are uselses to civilians since they could never defeat their government in a fight should it become tyrannical.

On the whole though, I agree, gun ownership is not a good thing is today's society. I remember one of the founding fathers said constitutions have to be renewed to meet the needs of the day, can't remember it though.

Bah. Any would-be dictatorship in America worth it's salt wouldn't suddenly declare in from one day to the next the suspension of all democratic rights and liberties. They'd use the goold old salami tactics, slicing away those rights bit by bit. When would you, and by you I mean the average American citizen and not some paranoid extremist who crises "Tyranny!" every time they're stopped by the police, resort to something so drastic as armed rebellion? When a 9 pm curfew is established? When the press becomes censored? When voting rights are slowly shaved away? After all, this could only happen in a time of grave crisis, when there is some tangible threat to the very existence of the United States. Many people would believe these measures to be for the public good and would not have much sympathy for people who declared an armed rebellion from the word go.

This is the twenty-first century. Like it or not, the state has much more power than it did two hundred years ago, and very little, least of all sporadic armed resistance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

You contradict yourself a bit where you argue that gun-ownership allows extremists to form paramilitary groups to overthrow the government, and then on the other hand you argue guns are uselses to civilians since they could never defeat their government in a fight should it become tyrannical.

---

Extremists and normal civilians are two different kinds of groups, I hope we agree. These are two separate issues, there's no contradiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Also the fact, Marines will join the population.

---

It is light years far from being a fact, it is your personal opinion that lacks any kind of proof. The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained. If they are told, that evil men funded and staffed by terrorist organizations are willing to overthrow the federal government and establish a Muslim Republic, they won't hesitate shooting their own compatriots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

How much power do you want the state to have? If the state becomes too strong, you are defenceless.

---

Presuming the state is intentionally acting against the interests of the people, moreover wants to oppress them. Why would you presume that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

It is light years far from being a fact, it is your personal opinion that lacks any kind of proof. The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained. If they are told, that evil men funded and staffed by terrorist organizations are willing to overthrow the federal government and establish a Muslim Republic, they won't hesitate shooting their own compatriots.

---

They will obvious shoot their own families for the state. If the government is that unpopular, it would have breached all aspects including the army. People would desert the army and take up arms along side their friends and families.

People in the army aren't idiots. They might be conditioned for obedience but that only goes so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

Presuming the state is intentionally acting against the interests of the people, moreover wants to oppress them. Why would you presume that?

---

Power corrupts. I think politics today shows you how corrupt politicians are, look at examples such as the MP expenses scandal. Do you think the state doesn't oppress people and trample on our civil liberties? The "anti-terrorist" laws, which all they do is strip away our rights in the guise of protection, how a earlier post highlighted. US government is far from the shining beacon of democracy as it claims to be, how it ties up its own citizens and takes them to Guantamo Bay where they are tortured without rights or a fair trial, or even any trial at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

It is light years far from being a fact, it is your personal opinion that lacks any kind of proof. The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained. If they are told, that evil men funded and staffed by terrorist organizations are willing to overthrow the federal government and establish a Muslim Republic, they won't hesitate shooting their own compatriots.

---

It is interesting that you would criticize somebody for presenting his opinion as a "fact" only to do the very same thing with your opposite opinion (at least I do not see any kind of "proof" in your argument).

As I am not aware of any case where the willingness of marines to shoot their own people (on a broader scale) has been really but to the test, the two opposing viewa are obviously based on conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

They will obvious shoot their own families for the state.

---

Meh, strawman. They will obviously NOT be assigned to posts where they have the chance to shoot their own families. And families could join their side too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Power corrupts.

---

Nice thought-terminating cliché.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

It is interesting that you would criticize somebody for presenting his opinion as a "fact" only to do the very same thing with your opposite opinion (at least I do not see any kind of "proof" in your argument).

As I am not aware of any case where the willingness of marines to shoot their own people (on a broader scale) has been really but to the test, the two opposing viewa are obviously based on conjecture.

---

Please address my original questions, then get in the nitty-gritty of the debate.

As for proof of my argument. Look at any civil wars. Not everyone joins the side of the state. Armies and generals can join the opposite side as well. Look at all the cases of revolutions around the world, same happens there as well. They don't just obey their master, especially if the master is very unpopular, even with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

Please address my original questions, then get in the nitty-gritty of the debate.

---

As a "moderator" I got into this nitty-gritty detail as the discussion style took a not so constructive direction, i.e. chastising somebody who responded to your thread for labeling his opinion as a fact while doing the very same thing.

I think overall your discussions would benefit from applying a less hostile tone

Thanks you

:bow:

It's a fact that 9 million lives have been saved by the 2nd amendment. Maybe you should have read up on that.

One of the very few things in this modern age that would cause a full scale revolt/revolution would be if the Second Amendment were repealed.

If this Right isn't safe from being repealed, then what Right is safe?

Quote:

---

The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained.

---

There are 3 components to their code of honor.

1. Loyalty to the State
2. Loyalty to the US Constitution
3. To protect the People of the US

If there is a conflict between those things in their orders, which do you think would be more dominant?

Also remember that Marines and other service members are people, not automatons, with other influences on their lives other than their training.

It is implied that the current makeup of the military, being an all volunteer force, would have some patriots in it.

And most patriots would tell the State to go fornicate itself if there is a conflict between the orders of the State and the Constitution, because the Constitution is the source of the structure and legitimacy of the State.
If the State is issuing orders that conflict with the Constitution, then the State is no longer legitimate. (that is also a part of their training)

____

The Second Amendment is there for many reasons.

The most important is that it is the American Litmus Test for Tyrants TM.
Most who would try to touch it have ambitions beyond traditional American political custom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiddling_nero

It is implied that the current makeup of the military, being an all volunteer force, would have some patriots in it.

---

It is implied that any wannabe despot would redefine the meaning of "patriotism" to mean supporting the dictator. Anyone who doesn't support said despot would be labeled traitors, and would be fair game for every "patriot".

Quote:

---

It's a fact that 9 million lives have been saved by the 2nd amendment. Maybe you should have read up on that.

---

How 'bout giving some sources on that? Please note; only studies performed by non-partisan organizations will be accepted...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiddling_nero

One of the very few things in this modern age that would cause a full scale revolt/revolution would be if the Second Amendment were repealed.

If this Right isn't safe from being repealed, then what Right is safe?



There are 3 components to their code of honor.

1. Loyalty to the State
2. Loyalty to the US Constitution
3. To protect the People of the US

If there is a conflict between those things in their orders, which do you think would be more dominant?

---

Sure, but what happens if in 50, 100 or 200 years time America is threatened by the Enemy Within who seek to destroy all that America stands for? If the loons in the Pentagon advocating nuclear war with Russia during the Cold War are anything to go by, I doubt you woud lack people in the military who believe that like in Ancient Rome, in times of crisis one must suspend certain liberties in order to destroy this enemy and anyone who sympathises with them.

Besides, say a potential megalomaniac hell-bent on becoming Emperor of America is elected President, and manages to amend the constitution through Congress. All privately-owned guns are banned, citing the reasonable grounds of crime-prevention. What are you going to do when asked to hand in your gun? Shout "You'll never take me alive!" before barricading yourself in your house staging your one-man rebellion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

As a "moderator" I got into this nitty-gritty detail as the discussion style took a not so constructive direction, i.e. chastising somebody who responded to your thread for labeling his opinion as a fact while doing the very same thing.

I think overall your discussions would benefit from applying a less hostile tone

Thanks you

:bow:

---

It's a fact, that Marines will obey anything they are told, except for maybe killing their own mother.

And I'd just like to hear your opinion, good Sir.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

As for proof of my argument. Look at any civil wars. Not everyone joins the side of the state. Armies and generals can join the opposite side as well. Look at all the cases of revolutions around the world, same happens there as well. They don't just obey their master, especially if the master is very unpopular, even with them.

---

Don't civil wars happen in the first place, because of the abundance of weapons? I wonder how can you fight a civil war without guns.

Quote:

---

There are 3 components to their code of honor.

1. Loyalty to the State
2. Loyalty to the US Constitution
3. To protect the People of the US

If there is a conflict between those things in their orders, which do you think would be more dominant?

---

Obviously the first value: loyalty to the state. That assures my point of view.

Quote:

---

Also remember that Marines and other service members are people, not automatons, with other influences on their lives other than their training.

---

Aha, okay. Just a few points to add to that statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdania_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Gale

Also, check out these: U.S. Marine Corps - Making a Marine part 1, 2 and 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYRccSZgXV4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPgk...eature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPRz...eature=related

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

How 'bout giving some sources on that? Please note; only studies performed by non-partisan organizations will be accepted...

---

Don't bother asking; Sasaki is not actually participating in a thread when he does his "9 million" thing; it's his personal, private joke.

To those who say an armed populace does not deter a modern military, take a look at how much trouble we had with people armed with AKs and explosives in Iraq. Although given that example, to deter tyranny we need fewer hunting rifles and more plastique.

Besides which, the gun control debate is kind of silly. There are millions (9 million?) firearms in the U.S.A., and they don't expire like milk. Our population is armed, and any talk of disarming them is fantasy-land wishful thinking. Better to talk about how to enforce existing laws and have as few firearms as possible land in the hands of the criminal and the insane.

The Repubs don't back gun control, and these days it looks as though the Dems don't either. Dead issue.

Quote:

---

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

---

The invasion of a foreign power into the United States need not simply be a total invasion of all areas of the United States. Were Cuba to invade South Florida, that would be a "foreign power invading the United States" and could conceivably be either harassed or countered by a combination of partisan gun-owners, detached armed forces, and police forces until National Guard and Army troops could throw the Cubans back into the sea.

Quote:

---

An armed population will have zero chance against a foreign military invasion, see Iraq/Afghanistan. Their only chance is, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, to win a war of attrition.

---

So an armed population can win against a foreign invasion. The statement is entirely predicated on the assumption that our foes share the same moral standards we do. If they have censored news and no problem killing Americans, then we have a serious problem that will result in the total defeat of America no matter what we have.

Quote:

---

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

---

If an "armed militia" consists of a couple disaffected homeowners who own hunting rifles, then I would bet on the Marines, Police, and SWAT. Were it a tyrannical government which is generally unpopular then the "homeowners" might eventually gain support to overthrow the government. Especially if we were to enlist the aid of countries who don't like the "current tyrannical government".

Quote:

---

Meh, strawman. They will obviously NOT be assigned to posts where they have the chance to shoot their own families. And families could join their side too.

---

Impossible. You are seriously suggesting that the Marine Corp is going to go through it's lists, and then move troops around so much to prevent Marine units from being posted in "home-areas" is not only highly impractical but it would also ruin unit cohesion and prevent the Marines from operating effectively in a counter-insurgency. While Marines are some of the best soldiers in the United States, we aren't talking about heroes. If that was the case, we wouldn't have friend-on-friend or civilian casualties would we?

Quote:

---

As for proof of my argument. Look at any civil wars. Not everyone joins the side of the state. Armies and generals can join the opposite side as well. Look at all the cases of revolutions around the world, same happens there as well. They don't just obey their master, especially if the master is very unpopular, even with them.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Zombie Terror Outbreak happens, how will Joe Bloggs defend his farmhouse Left4Dead style?

---

Greatest support for gun-rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

The invasion of a foreign power into the United States need not simply be a total invasion of all areas of the United States. Were Cuba to invade South Florida, that would be a "foreign power invading the United States" and could conceivably be either harassed or countered by a combination of partisan gun-owners, detached armed forces, and police forces until National Guard and Army troops could throw the Cubans back into the sea.

---

Ok...

Radar
A fleet
An airforce
An army...

Here's the timeline:

Cuba sets off in a combination of rafts, rusting ex-soviet ships and cargo containers. They are detected before leaving port.
The ones that don't sink slowly make their way towards Florida; the covering aeroplanes run out of fuel and have to turn back as ethanol has a shorter range.
When the coastguard have stopped gut laughing they inform the Navy and set off to rescue those drowning due to the capsizing of most of the rafts and ships.
The minute anything sets foot in USA waters there are already ships en-route. The Navy and coastguard, who both have more sophisticated ships and weaponry argue whether this is an invasion or whether they've just got lost and who has juristiction.
Contact is finally made - the difficulties being the lack of working radios on the Cuban ships.
Those that decide to try small arms verses the USA ships get sunk within seconds. The rest declare asylum.

The point being - they'll NEVER reach land in an organised way :wall:

What's next? Mexicans invading? The Russians finding the remains of the Pacific fleet and invading? The Chinese sneakily building a blue-water fleet, making it accross the whole pacific without detection and storming the beaches?

When you're a weak power with powerful Imperial neighbours with a vast, hostile hinterland this argument is valid. But as the world's largest power? Please...

~:smoking:

Well, what if your city falls into anarchy, the state fails to respond properly, and you have to protect yourself, your family, your property and your neighbors and their property from roving bands of armed and violent criminals?

And don't tell me for one moment that does not, and would not happen in the U.S.

Don't worry rory, Harold Coyle has you covered

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910

Well, what if your city falls into anarchy, the state fails to respond properly, and you have to protect yourself, your family, your property and your neighbors and their property from roving bands of armed and violent criminals?

And don't tell me for one moment that does not, and would not happen in the U.S.

---

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely? :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

To those who say an armed populace does not deter a modern military, take a look at how much trouble we had with people armed with AKs and explosives in Iraq. Although given that example, to deter tyranny we need fewer hunting rifles and more plastique.

---

Two things:

- As shown by both Iraq and Afghanistan, a crazy amount of insurgents did not deter the US in the slightest.
- Secondly, you think Joe Iraqi had his house stuffed with c-4, RPG's and so on before the invasion? He didn't, nor did he need to, since an invasion creates a power vacuum for looting, as well as allies(Iran, Syria, etc etc) willing to give you a bunch of stuff for free. Also, there seems to be an unending supply of black market ex-soviet weapons...

Quote:

---

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

---

It's a low chance. That doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare or even think about it.
Also, you cannot buy an AK-47 unless you have tens of thousands of dollars and the time to fill out a lot of paperwork.

Quote:

---

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

---

Armed citizenry resisting was the case a couple times in the 1800s. Right now it is unlikely. Times will change however, and the future may be different.

Quote:

---

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

---

Police or SWAT? Sure - they can be resisted easily. SWAT teams rely on surprise, they're not soldiers. As for Marines, perhaps you ought to take a look at how many there are (not that many) and how big the US is (huge) and how many people there are (a great deal). Marines can't be everywhere. Look at the trouble they had in Iraq, a country of far fewer people. The military cannot control the population of the US if even a fraction rebels.

Quote:

---

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

---

Because I want somebody to be able to overthrow a tyrannical government. Why should I care what they're doing so long as they don't actually attack someone?

Quote:

---

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

---

It is read in that context- where every male was a member of the militia and well regulated meant well organized and armed. And no, laws do not change over time. They mean the same thing until they are rewritten or repealed.

Quote:

---

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

---

Anti-gun folk always say they have the 'common sense' position because they don't really have any facts. If this country rebels, people aren't going to march out and find Marines to fight toe-to-toe with. Maybe you ought to stop thinking about how an idiot would stupidly fight.

Quote:

---

The Repubs don't back gun control, and these days it looks as though the Dems don't either. Dead issue.

---

I'm afraid it's not. There's some dems and liberals for whom it is the main issue. They aren't getting anywhere right now, but that doesn't mean they won't try again. They must be kept under close watch, and the struggle for gun rights must continue.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

It's a fact, that Marines will obey anything they are told, except for maybe killing their own mother.

---

Main Entry: ig·no·rance http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif Pronunciation: \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\ Function: noun
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely? :idea2:

---

You have no idea what he is referring to here, do you? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely? :idea2:

---

Oh, and what if the Federal government takes the majority of your state military and their infrastructure, which normally deals with such a situation, and plants them in a place like, I don't know, Iraq, where they wouldn't be able to respond to such a situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What if, instead of paying 10.000 for a bunch of guns, you pay 10.000 more in tax to train and hire more police officers, thus making that scenario even more unlikely? :idea2:

---

In the Rodney King riots in the early 1990s, the LAPD pulled their officers off the streets for the officer's safety. Guns let business owners defend themselves and their stores.

Quote:

---

As shown by both Iraq and Afghanistan, a crazy amount of insurgents did not deter the US in the slightest.

---

Gee, you mean the spots where we were going to be welcomed as liberators? The US wasn't deterred because the government didn't even think about that.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

It's a low chance. That doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare or even think about it.

---

The right to bear arms has not and is likely not to be changed, but not due to the "well-armed militia" argument. Chance or likelihood is a question indeed, for example, if pink elephants would ramble on the streets of San Francisco and rape women, the local council could make a law, that it is illegal to breed, keep, sell or buy pink elephants. What are the chances? Close to zero. What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

And it isn't a valid argument too, that once it was useful, so let's keep this law. For instance, it is illegal in Tennessee to catch a fish with a lasso. Why? Some day, back in 18.. a weirdo decided to hunt fish with a lasso and incidentally hurt his fishing buddy, who died of a heart stroke. So the good state of Tennessee made a law to ban fishing with a lasso to prevent similar unlucky accidents. How smart. And centuries later, they forgot to abolish this law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Main Entry: ig·no·rance http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif Pronunciation: \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\ Function: noun
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

---

Sorry, but...

[QUOTE=PowerWizard;2249752]Sorry, but...



Broken image link?

Quote:

---

Chance or likelihood is a question indeed, for example, if pink elephants would ramble on the streets of San Francisco and rape women, the local council could make a law, that it is illegal to breed, keep, sell or buy pink elephants. What are the chances? Close to zero. What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

---

False analogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too.

---

Actually, the chance is exactly zero. US citizens cannot buy machine guns from their local gun shop.

Your facepalm image is hotlinked, host it yourself. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

The right to bear arms has not and is likely not to be changed, but not due to the "well-armed militia" argument. Chance or likelihood is a question indeed, for example, if pink elephants would ramble on the streets of San Francisco and rape women, the local council could make a law, that it is illegal to breed, keep, sell or buy pink elephants. What are the chances? Close to zero. What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

---

Pink elephants don't exist. Whereas this nation was founded by throwing off the tyranny of a nation (in fact, the nation with the greatest military power in the world at the time) by citizens with guns.

Quote:

---

And it isn't a valid argument too, that once it was useful, so let's keep this law. For instance, it is illegal in Tennessee to catch a fish with a lasso. Why? Some day, back in 18.. a weirdo decided to hunt fish with a lasso and incidentally hurt his fishing buddy, who died of a heart stroke. So the good state of Tennessee made a law to ban fishing with a lasso to prevent similar unlucky accidents. How smart. And centuries later, they forgot to abolish this law.

---

Another bad example. People could still be hurt by lasso-fishing, if that's why the law was written. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make it less dangerous.

See- this is why antis refer to the "common sense" argument - they don't have any others.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

---

Ah the Red X. A truly powerful image.

I at least hope you're serious. Becuase if this is a troll then you have way to much times on your hands.

Quote:

---

What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

---

The chance of a militia in say, Ohio, capturing Washington DC and thus overthrowing the government there would be slim at best.

The chance of a seceding state protecting its autonomy is much greater, especially if other states would follow its example.
I know you're thinking about the Confederacy now, but you have to realize that it comprised less than a third of the total population and the Union's success depended on the willingness of the population to fight a rebellion they viewed as illegitimate. If the US government were to become truly tyrannical it's questionable wether people would agree to be drafted to supress rebels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Main Entry: ig·no·rance http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif Pronunciation: \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\ Function: noun
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

---

It appears "common sense" is really an oxymoron in this thread, doesn't look to be that ...common. Some of the statements eschewed as "facts" simply leave me speechless. Now pardon me, but I'm late for the machine gun store. Musn't forget the grenades for our pink elephant hunt this weekend... ~:wacko:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: omg, unfrickin' believable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Pink elephants don't exist. Whereas this nation was founded by throwing off the tyranny of a nation (in fact, the nation with the greatest military power in the world at the time) by citizens with guns.

---

Oh come on. Comparing that situation to the current world has so many glaring errors it's getting ridiculous.

Quote:

---

In the Rodney King riots in the early 1990s, the LAPD pulled their officers off the streets for the officer's safety. Guns let business owners defend themselves and their stores.

---

Yes. You didn't pay enough taxes, thus leaving your policemen understaffed, overworked and unable to both prevent such a situation from ever occurring, as well as stopping it once underway.

Be a patriot, double your taxes :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes. You didn't pay enough taxes, thus leaving your policemen understaffed, overworked and unable to both prevent such a situation from ever occurring, as well as stopping it once underway.

Be a patriot, double your taxes :smash:

---

[Tribesy]:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:[/Tribesy]

Prevent it? You are aware that the LAPD caused the Rodney King riots, right? Strike 2!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Ah the Red X. A truly powerful image.

I at least hope you're serious. Becuase if this is a troll then you have way to much times on your hands.

---

Some people get so sensitive by a single picture. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

People could still be hurt by lasso-fishing, if that's why the law was written. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make it less dangerous.

---

People could be still hurt by bungee-jumping, dog keeping, cycling, packing crates and slicing a bread. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make them less dangerous. So why aren't those activities banned in laws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

See- this is why antis refer to the "common sense" argument - they don't have any others.CR

---

You're right, why do you, Americans need common sense, when you have laws?

The budget for the DOD is about 600 billion dollars in 2010. Up around 4%.

The US military battle of order represent the single most devastating military force available on the planet by a factor of same considerable margin.

Owning a gun, to prevent a tyrannical government and its action against the populace, is entirely and utterly a distant second on the "To Do List" when it comes down to the bottom line.

The number one issue is....who is in command and control of the US military? If anyone thinks otherwise then they are on some serious drugs.

Not only does the US military have better guns, they have more, and they have far superior training.

Don't let insurgent success in Iraq and Afghanistan delude you. The reason they have success is because of the extremely restrictive rules of engagement placed on them by civilian governments.

If it was in fact left up to the military to simply achieve objectives, with far less regard for a number of "engagement rule" issues, like civilian casualties, weapon types available etc etc, I'd say the result would be far, far different. The consequence of course would be that no one would be able to sleep at night due to the horrors committed. However make no mistake, there would not be much of an insurgent force left in reality.

In the context of a tyrannical government and what that entails by definition, well then I'll leave it up to your collective imaginations as to what the military could be ordered to do.

It certainly is becoming ironic that the 2nd amendment, written in a vastly different time, in vastly different circumstances, is being upheld for those vastly out of date reasons. In contrast, the US government is currently in control of a military force that makes the civilian ownership of any type of weapons completely redundant.

Keep in mind that the personal weapon used at the time of the writing of the constitution was entirely similar to that of the military. A smooth bore musket. While the military at the time had the use of cannon that was the only real technological difference.

If we could time warp Lincoln to 2009, I'm sure the gentlemen would look at the USS Enterprise and then at the smooth bore musket and realise something was vastly out of date...that being the words written on the paper he signed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Prevent it? You are aware that the LAPD caused the Rodney King riots, right? Strike 2!

---

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot ~:)

Or it might've helped to use some money to get an actually functioning judiciary system. Or trying to be less racist. Or even have police officers who don't get a woody from beating up citizens.... The thing is; every such incident has a cause. And every such cause can be neutralized. Hiring your own army of mercs will lessen the effect, but it won't address the cause. However, if you address the cause, you can hop around naked preaching peace and love, hippie-style :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot ~:)

---

Epic US history failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

---

In spoilers for language:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Enjoy.

Quote:

---

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

---

You really should read the last gun control debate thread, which answers your questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

You really should read the last gun control debate thread, which answers your questions.

---

I did, and believe it or not, I made me think about some of my views. It didn't change my mind though about the "well-regulated militia" argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

I did, and believe it or not, I made me think about some of my views. It didn't change my mind though about the "well-regulated militia" argument.

---

Hence the link I provided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

...
Utter destruction of a rebellion by US military forces
...

---

A citizens' revolt could be easily crushed by the US military, and the tyrannical government would cease to exist due to the economical cost of the aftermath. Who would pay to build it back up again? China isn't going to fund that bill. Smoking rubble and an oppressed citizenry make for a horrible economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot

---

Strike 3! The upper income tax bracket in the 60s was 70%+. Income taxes across the board were much higher than today. It wasn't until Reagan when the tax rates were significantly reduced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Hence the link I provided.

---

The link you provided is funny, but it doesn't counter my points. It says:

"Why the word people? Because the people who wrote this had just fought a war for 2 years against a tyrannical state. They knew the time would come, when they have to that again."

Which leads us back to the first post.

drone

I'd appreciate it if you didn't misquote me so directly. :inquisitive:

Insurgence is quite fine in the US: vast expenses filled with the most diverse guerrila friendly terrain, from marshlands to rocky and hilly ground. The US military, as intimidating as it might have seemed, was unable to fully fight the power of the VC back in 'nam near their own nose. Now to guard the whole country against insurgents would be beyond their capabilities, and eventually their strained operational capabilities would be slowly grinded in a low intensity guerrila movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

drone

I'd appreciate it if you didn't misquote me so directly. :inquisitive:

---

I didn't want to repeat 40 lines of text into the discussion, so I summed it up. :bow:
You are correct, if the US military removed the restrictions meant to prevent civilian casualties and used it's full force to suppress a rebellion, they could do it quite easily. And the US Treasury would never recover. A secondary goal in Iraq is to leave a functioning state behind, the methods you describe would make this goal impossible. Total war doesn't work when you are at war with yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

I didn't want to repeat 40 lines of text into the discussion, so I summed it up. :bow:
You are correct, if the US military removed the restrictions meant to prevent civilian casualties and used it's full force to suppress a rebellion, they could do it quite easily. And the US Treasury would never recover. A secondary goal in Iraq is to leave a functioning state behind, the methods you describe would make this goal impossible. Total war doesn't work when you are at war with yourself.

---

Ah, ok now I understand. No problem then. :2thumbsup:

And yes I agree with your context. However limited levels of severe destruction by the US military controlled by the government would do the trick nicely.

In the end as I mentioned, back when the document was written, parity of weapons between the people and the militia was very real.

Now it's beyond comprehension and something those learned gentlemen back then could never have even contemplated. I just don't get it.

But as long as no American complains about the consequences then I guess it's fine.

Quote:

---

People could be still hurt by bungee-jumping, dog keeping, cycling, packing crates and slicing a bread. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make them less dangerous. So why aren't those activities banned in laws?

---

I thought your point with the Tennessee law against lassoing fish was to say it was now a stupid law that had passed its usefulness. I was pointing out that circumstances that made lasso-fishing dangerous haven't changed. So another bad argument on your part.

Quote:

---

You're right, why do you, Americans need common sense, when you have laws?

---

What's the point?

What's really funny about this thread is the huge amount of ignorance of US history and law being put on display here:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

---

Quote:

---

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

---

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

It's a fact, that Marines will obey anything they are told, except for maybe killing their own mother.

---

Quote:

---

It is light years far from being a fact, it is your personal opinion that lacks any kind of proof. The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained. If they are told, that evil men funded and staffed by terrorist organizations are willing to overthrow the federal government and establish a Muslim Republic, they won't hesitate shooting their own compatriots.

---

Quote:

---

Two things:

- As shown by both Iraq and Afghanistan, a crazy amount of insurgents did not deter the US in the slightest.

---

Quote:

---

Chance or likelihood is a question indeed, for example, if pink elephants would ramble on the streets of San Francisco and rape women, the local council could make a law, that it is illegal to breed, keep, sell or buy pink elephants. What are the chances? Close to zero. What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

---

Quote:

---

Yes. You didn't pay enough taxes, thus leaving your policemen understaffed, overworked and unable to both prevent such a situation from ever occurring, as well as stopping it once underway.

---

Quote:

---

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot

---

Quote:

---

If we could time warp Lincoln to 2009, I'm sure the gentlemen would look at the USS Enterprise and then at the smooth bore musket and realise something was vastly out of date...that being the words written on the paper he signed.

---

As for gun-owning citizenry being of no danger to an established government - well, it makes me wonder why so many authoritarian states banned their subjects from having guns.

CR

I meant George Washington. Sorry CR.

-EDIT-

They were probably nations that didn't govern the worlds most impressive military force at the time. Meaning an armed militia could have been a credible adversary to those authoritarian states. The US military is far different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

This isn't a general firearms debate, so please focus your replies on the following argument of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, typically sounding like this:



First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

---

We can't "buy an AK-47 on every corner". Nice strawman though.

Quote:

---

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

---

I don't think it's likely. But I don't think that's the purpose of the 2A.

Quote:

---

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

---

If a third of the US supported the revolution, it would be hopeless for the Marines and the entire armed forces to put down such a movement, except perhaps locally. It wouldn't be fought conventionally, civilian rifles against tanks. It would be fought as a guerrilla war, hitting military targets where they are weakest (behind the lines, supply depots, that sort of thing). Not to mention that parts of the military are likely to join any popular revolution.

Quote:

---

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

---

Groups that openly advocate such as usually dealt with. If it is done in secret, how will disarming the population change things?

Quote:

---

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

---

The "historical context" argument supports gun rights.

Quote:

---

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

---

Well that's nice. You can say "you're argument is stupid" and it just goes away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

---

Fairly good, considering that both parties have not only totally consolidated power in the election system (thus effectively eliminating choice) and that both parties are slowly growing more totalitarian in nature. I personally see no difference in the overall goal of both parties, aside form the fact that the Democrats want a Communist state, and the Republicans want a Fascist state run by their bigtime corporate buddies. Basically, it adds up to the same thing: no free market or state, or choice.

Color me paranoid.

Quote:

---

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, the invaders would presumably possess weapons the general populace couldn't counter with a bunch of machine guns.

---

An invasion is very unlikely given the current circumstances. However, if the populace were forced to break their "contract" with the Government, it would not only necessitate the use of powerful weaponry, but it would also greatly increase the likelihood of foreign intervention. In such a case, I will admit that those who would style themselves to be prepared to resist the crazy train would need actual training in partisan warfare if they want to have a chance.[/quote]

Maybe they should learn a little from the Iraqi Parisans. :clown:

Quote:

---

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines.

---

Very bad, if they don't know what they are doing. If they do, well, it's a known fact that a populace which does not wish to be conquered, will never be conquered.

Quote:

---

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

---

It may arm psychopaths, but it also allows regular citzens to defend their homes (and I do mean their HOMES -- I absolutely disagree with any firearm-related action extending beyond your property grounds, as it gets far too iffy in legal and realistic terms.) It also gives the rest of us a chance just in case. And yeah, you can bitch and whine about "realistic," but if you don't ever have a plan B, you will be screwed when the time comes, no matter how low the chances.

Hell, there's a latent fear that honey-bees are dying off. That's a big problem; all major crops depend upon bees for productivity. Do we have a plan B? No, until just recently, when people started looking at Carpenter bees and other types of bees. Seems crazy, but the collapse of a small part of our system can lead to disastrous consequences.

Point is, you best have a plan B.

Quote:

---

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

---

A "well-regulated milita" means an armed populace by its original definition, and I find it to be equally applicable now as ever. And don't insult our intelligence, please. It's rude.

Quote:

---

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

---

Anyhow, sorry for reading ZERO of this thread, but I felt like dropping my own arguments at random. Let's see how it works, eh?

Just for the purposes of debate (with my previous ideas already stated), why has the British nation not yet succumbed to tyranny with a lack of weaponry available to the common citizen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Sure, but what happens if in 50, 100 or 200 years time America is threatened by the Enemy Within who seek to destroy all that America stands for? If the loons in the Pentagon advocating nuclear war with Russia during the Cold War are anything to go by, I doubt you woud lack people in the military who believe that like in Ancient Rome, in times of crisis one must suspend certain liberties in order to destroy this enemy and anyone who sympathises with them.

Besides, say a potential megalomaniac hell-bent on becoming Emperor of America is elected President, and manages to amend the constitution through Congress. All privately-owned guns are banned, citing the reasonable grounds of crime-prevention. What are you going to do when asked to hand in your gun? Shout "You'll never take me alive!" before barricading yourself in your house staging your one-man rebellion?

---

Henry, I find your arguments interesting, but does it not occur to you that the same slippery-slope situation is occurring among the American populace? Because it is; there's far more paranoid anti-government people in the US than there were 50, 100, or 200 years ago. Anyhow, I would advise you to examine how your local Catholics handled the situation, because it's remarkably similar to how the drug users in the US face the "Drug War": just slip it by. Don't get caught so you can practice your God-given freedoms out of Big Brother's gaze.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Just for the purposes of debate (with my previous ideas already stated), why has the British nation not yet succumbed to tyranny with a lack of weaponry available to the common citizen?

---

Well, 1) it's kinda close, from what I hear, and 2) apparently there are more illegal guns there now than there were legal and illegal guns before the ban.

Edit: 20 more posts and I have 4200 posts...

...get it? :jester:

Edit 2: is nobody else reminded of Paranoid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Just for the purposes of debate (with my previous ideas already stated), why has the British nation not yet succumbed to tyranny with a lack of weaponry available to the common citizen?

---

A lack of weaponry does not mean there will be a tyranny. It merely means there is one less recourse to use against such a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

The link you provided is funny, but it doesn't counter my points. It says:

---

It does, if your point is that gun rights should not exist unless there is a "well-regulated militia."

Regardless, the historical context argument does support the right to own firearms, as previously stated. Jefferson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Just for the purposes of debate (with my previous ideas already stated), why has the British nation not yet succumbed to tyranny with a lack of weaponry available to the common citizen?

---

Good point, alas it will be ignored or handled with something irrelevant like "yeah, but you Brits are compromising your basic freedom".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

It does, if your point is that gun rights should not exist unless there is a "well-regulated militia."

Regardless, the historical context argument does support the right to own firearms, as previously stated. Jefferson.

---

No, that's not my point, have you read my first post? I didn't say gun rights should or should not exist, I said people resisting tyranny is a weak argument for gun ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I meant George Washington. Sorry CR.

-EDIT-

They were probably nations that didn't govern the worlds most impressive military force at the time. Meaning an armed militia could have been a credible adversary to those authoritarian states. The US military is far different.

---

No prob about the history - I was just amused. As for states that banned weapons - they included WWII Germany, which as I recall had quite an impressive military, and the Soviet Union. An armed citizenry is a threat to any dictatorship, no matter how large. The American revolutionaries overthrew the most powerful military on earth.

Quote:

---

Edit 2: is nobody else reminded of Paranoid?

---

Or The Clash?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Well, 1) it's kinda close, from what I hear, and 2) apparently there are more illegal guns there now than there were legal and illegal guns before the ban.

---

To be fair, Manchester is nicknamed Gunchester for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

No, that's not my point, have you read my first post? I didn't say gun rights should or should not exist, I said people resisting tyranny is a weak argument for gun ownership.

---

Then perhaps you could restate it in a different manner? I have reread it and am having trouble deciding where you were going with that point specifically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Then perhaps you could restate it in a different manner? I have reread it and am having trouble deciding where you were going with that point specifically.

---

My point is this. Is it a myth that US citizens would be able to resist a tyrannical/usurper government if they own guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

My point is this. Is it a myth that US citizens would be able to resist a tyrannical/usurper government if they own guns?

---

Answer: no.

I was asking why, specifically, you brought up the militia aspect.

A little background on American militias, and their use, as experienced by the writers of the US Constitution. LINK

Note: this is longish, so skip to the summary if you're pressed for time:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In essence, the 3rd Amendment of the Constitution (seldom looked at in depth), prohibiting the quartering of troops, walks alongside the 2nd Amendment's establishment of the need for a militia. It was envisioned, that when a war (constitutionally declared) was over, via surrender or treaty, that the "standing army" of that war would always be dissolved, or at least reduced in strength to mere cadre level.

Soldiers would return to their fields and farms and shops, until the next emergency, when they, already armed (by the right declared by the 2nd Amendment) would amass again to address the emergency/fight the new war. The "cadre level" would maintain bases, stay up to date on weapons and tactics, and practice managing militia mobilization.

A "large standing army" was and is anathema to American thought; americans prefer a small, crouching army (SCA) instead. This held true until FDR/Truman, armies being deactivated quite routinely between the US's wars.

With the onset of the Cold War, that changed. It being thought of as a war, though undeclared constitutionally, it seemed to justify the funding and support of a large standing army. The immediate events in Korea and, in succession, Viet Nam, Panama, Grenada, Nicaragua, Bosnia, Iraq1, Afghanistan, Iraq2... has gotten 2 generations of americans more accustomed to the idea of a large standing army being "necessary", due to the threats perceived, and the speed with which we think we need to respond to crises/emergencies.

Resulting in a situation in which the LSA (large standing army), its existence and justification, is now a foregone conclusion. To the detriment of the concept of militias.

=============================
In summary: the country wasn't designed to maintain a LSA, just a SCA and a buncha armed volunteers. So, with present reality being athwart that idea, should the 2nd & 3rd Amendments be scrapped? I don't think so. We will eventually return to our senses and abide the Constituion, and its Bill of Rights, and subsequent hard-fought amendments. And we will someday need a means to oppose a tyrannical gov't, short of "off with their heads" revolution. A totally disarmed populace, made so in the name of public safety, removes the final legal means of opposition to oppression.

In my humble opinion. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Note: this is longish, so skip to the summary if you're pressed for time:

---

Followed the link. When you say longish, you are engaging in that most Anglo-Saxon of pastimes: comic understatement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

People could be still hurt by bungee-jumping, dog keeping, cycling, packing crates and slicing a bread. The physics of the universe haven't changed to make them less dangerous. So why aren't those activities banned in laws?

---

You do realize that these activities aren't banned by law because in our present day world, people know the risk involved with doing them. The same thing goes for gun ownership in the US. There are severe flaws in assuming that the 4 original statements are why the 2nd amendment exist. If I suddenly wanted to go hunting, and was in the well regulated season, I am allowed to. The ability to defend my friends and family from, oh lets say, Oakland gangsters trying to expand their turf, who mind you never buys their weapons from a gun store. There is no need to worry about a military force from another country stepping foot in the US because we already have our own "wars" to deal with in the streets.

When "Jack Yo mama dog" is driving down the street with his crew and looking for rival hoods the police aren't going to respond in time to get Jack and his crew after their drive by. While anyone in my family and a well placed round can end Jack's day in a hurry.

So, if you didn't want to read that here's the short hand

Gun ownership is the peoples shield against gangs and other groups (Another nations army being one) of danger.
Gun ownership allows me to feed my family should there be a major disaster with little or no signs of relief in the way of food coming.
Anti-Gun laws won't stop the crypts and the bloods from obtaining their firearms.
There will never be 100% protection from the law.


EDIT: I forgot to add, our military will never fight its own people. They aren't going to mow down their neighbor sally because some crack pot general says so. Even in Iraq and other conflict zones there are reports of men who would hold their fire even though being told to open fire repeated times. That's in a place where you actually have a higher chance of being shot by the guy you choose not to shoot.

The traditional way to get your soldiers to kill their own is to bring in troops from a very different region; that's how China does it, and that's the way every despotic government has done it. Wouldn't work in the U.S.A.

Even if you grabbed a platoon of good ole boys from the backwoods of Arkansas and asked them to fire on civilians in San Fran, I doubt they would do it. Our culture is too mixed, you just don't see the same regional differences that you have in, say, Kenya or Malaysia.

To be fair, Manchester is nicknamed Gunchester for a reason.

And this is why Manchester is the most free and safe place in the UK ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If you had payed a proper tax in the 60's, you might not have had the problem with gangs that you have, thus you wouldn't have had that riot ~:)

---

What about the 20's?

Will the USA have a standing army in 100 years? 200 years? You can't predict the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

To be fair, Manchester is nicknamed Gunchester for a reason.

And this is why Manchester is the most free and safe place in the UK ~;)

---

Would it happen to be the "most free and safe place in the UK" because the people there can legally own firearms to defend themselves from criminals who would wield firearms anyhow, thus giving ordinary citizens a chance and crime a major deterrent?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

It is light years far from being a fact, it is your personal opinion that lacks any kind of proof. The fact is that Marines will do anything they are told, because blind obedience is in their code of honour, that's how they are trained. If they are told, that evil men funded and staffed by terrorist organizations are willing to overthrow the federal government and establish a Muslim Republic, they won't hesitate shooting their own compatriots.

---

I got this far on the first page and saw this and now I don't want to continue in the thread because you have completely discredited yourself by writing, hands down, one of the stoopidest things ever written on this forum. congratulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The traditional way to get your soldiers to kill their own is to bring in troops from a very different region; that's how China does it, and that's the way every despotic government has done it. Wouldn't work in the U.S.A.

Even if you grabbed a platoon of good ole boys from the backwoods of Arkansas and asked them to fire on civilians in San Fran, I doubt they would do it. Our culture is too mixed, you just don't see the same regional differences that you have in, say, Kenya or Malaysia.

---

What about the civil war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I got this far on the first page and saw this and now I don't want to continue in the thread because you have completely discredited yourself by writing, hands down, one of the stoopidest things ever written on this forum. congratulations.

---

You just discredited yourself with a very stupid post without countering or disproving any of my points. Kthxbye.

Quote:

---

What about the civil war?

---

As CR will no doubt point out, the American Civil War was set in a different period in American History, when we viewed ourselves as "Union of States" where citizens held themselves to their state governments before the federal government. After the Civil War, we transformed into a "United States". It's like saying "because the War of the Roses occurred, there is a stronger possibility of Tories and Labor going at it with guns and tanks to decide who is going to be Prime Minister".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Will the USA have a standing army in 100 years? 200 years? You can't predict the future.

---

Will US citizens be able to buy guns if they can't even pay for a standing army? You can't predict the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Will US citizens be able to buy guns if they can't even pay for a standing army? You can't predict the future.

---

"not being able to pay for it" is far from the only reason that we might abandon the standing army, and guns are many many times cheaper than paying for a standing army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The traditional way to get your soldiers to kill their own is to bring in troops from a very different region; that's how China does it, and that's the way every despotic government has done it. Wouldn't work in the U.S.A.

Even if you grabbed a platoon of good ole boys from the backwoods of Arkansas and asked them to fire on civilians in San Fran, I doubt they would do it. Our culture is too mixed, you just don't see the same regional differences that you have in, say, Kenya or Malaysia.

---

Those boyos from Arkansas sure didn't mind shooting my neighbor's dog, and when they almost ran me over while I was on my bicycle, they were laughing it up.