The weakest argument for gun ownership in the USA

[Beskar]

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.

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.

[PowerWizard]

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.

Power corrupts.

Nice thought-terminating cliché.

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.

[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.

[Ser Clegane]

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

[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?

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.

[HoreTore]

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".

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...

[Lemur]

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.

[King Henry V]

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?

[Marshal Murat]

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.

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.

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".

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?

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.

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

Greatest support for gun-rights.

[Reverend Joe]

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.

[PowerWizard]

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

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.

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.

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.

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

[Strike For The South]

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

Main Entry: ig·no·rance Pronunciation: \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\ Function: noun
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

[PowerWizard]

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.

Main Entry: ig·no·rance Pronunciation: \ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\ Function: noun
: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

Sorry, but...

[Beskar]

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



Broken image link?

[drone]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

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

[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.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Main Entry: ig·no·rance 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...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

omg, unfrickin' believable