So if guns serve to preserve your freedom

[_Rick_]

Military won't be forced to make that choice if there is no armed resistance.

So what if it believes to be defending the constitution against the armed resistance?

Why would unarmed resistance be different from armed resistance?
The gun doesn't change anything. It's the gesture that counts, as the military is always the deciding factor. The military is probably more likely to shoot at armed aggressors than unarmed ones. If they shoot at unarmed ones, a full scale revolution is usually the result. Shooting at armed aggressors is just counter-insurgency (as perceived by the general populace and the military).

The gun is not the argument that would get the military on your side. Numbers are that argument.

 

[jpeyton]

Consumption of a harmful luxury good has no benefits. It merely raises costs on limited resources that could be used for productive purposes. But this is an issue for another thread.

Welcome to western society. Consumption of luxury goods is a main pillar of our economy.

Soft drinks are a luxury good with no benefit (it's a poor source of carbohydrates, water is a better beverage for hydration, tea/coffee is a better source of caffeine). Eliminating soft drinks in the USA would drastically cut deaths from diabetes, heart disease and other obesity related causes, while saving us billions in medical liabilities.

Take emotion out of it and look at the numbers.

 

[_Rick_]

All the Arabs had to do was go on strike?

Somebody call the Syrians.

The point I made initially, is that in a democracy the second amendment is unnecessary.
You don't lose a democracy without support from a majority of the population or the military. Both of which render the second amendment moot. If a majority votes in a dictatorship (see e.g. the NSDAP's rise to power) then a pseudo democratic process will remove gun laws, and only the smallest minority will complain. If they already have the power to change the constitution with backing from the people, then you've lost already. Party members can carry guns though! Sign up today!

The military, if it is not on your side, and engaging you in counter-insurgency operations, will overpower you eventually. They can do it in Iraq, of course they can do it at home, where it's cheaper to do, they've got all the manpower they could dream off, and know the terrain.

My argument is that for the situations for which the second amendment was designed, it provides no protection or advantage.

 

[_Rick_]

Welcome to western society. Consumption of luxury goods is a main pillar of our economy.

...another thread. And a promising one.

 

[xj0hnx]

If the military is on your side - there's no need for you to have guns. If it's not on your side, it will eventually fire back, even if it has a defensive stance to protect its CIC. Especially if the military is well provided for and sees its interests endangered it may be more proactive. Insurgents are still the enemy.

LOL, the military in our country isn't a singular, self contained entity. These threads always make me laugh. As someone that was in the military I'll tell you right now that attacking Americans, in America is not something that is going to happen on a large scale in this country. You morons that make this argument seem to forget that the military is filled with nothing but volunteers from all over the country, the majority of them are not going to attack their homeland, and fellow countrymen, no matter how many deranged fantasies you loony leftist have about it.

 

[Genx87]

The point I made initially, is that in a democracy the second amendment is unnecessary.
You don't lose a democracy without support from a majority of the population or the military. Both of which render the second amendment moot. If a majority votes in a dictatorship (see e.g. the NSDAP's rise to power) then a pseudo democratic process will remove gun laws, and only the smallest minority will complain. If they already have the power to change the constitution with backing from the people, then you've lost already. Party members can carry guns though! Sign up today!

The military, if it is not on your side, and engaging you in counter-insurgency operations, will overpower you eventually. They can do it in Iraq, of course they can do it at home, where it's cheaper to do, they've got all the manpower they could dream off, and know the terrain.

My argument is that for the situations for which the second amendment was designed, it provides no protection or advantage.

Come on we have had plenty of examples of democracy being used to install dicatators that then crush the civilian population with the force of a gun. The NSDAP did not have a majority of the voters at all. They only garnered 37.4% of the vote in the '32 elections. From there they weaseled their way into a coalition govt that delivered enough power to them to use the power of the state to take full control and crush the opposition. Little surprise the National Socialists outlawed gun ownership in the 3rd reich by the civilian population.

 

[Texashiker]

The point I made initially, is that in a democracy the second amendment is unnecessary.

The US is not a democracy.

Even if the U.S. was a democracy, democracy is nothing more then mob rules.

Democracy is a terrible form of government, probably worse then communism.

 

[desy]

Nobody can force you to do anything. And shooting back is not going to do you any good, if you're a minority. You'll only alienate even more of the remaining populace

In your opinion, please provide your work in support

 

[monovillage]

If the military is on your side - there's no need for you to have guns. If it's not on your side, it will eventually fire back, even if it has a defensive stance to protect its CIC. Especially if the military is well provided for and sees its interests endangered it may be more proactive. Insurgents are still the enemy.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[MrColin]

How is the impoverished criminal using his gun to kill you and take your money not making a political statement, by getting the means to benefit of his freedom?

This fabled militia - what if it's made up of poor black gangbangers, who see the enemy not in the government, but in the money controlling the government? After all, going after the actual government is pointless, as they will defend themselves with means to which you cannot respond. But marauding their base might just be what it needs to end this tyranny.

And what's the difference if suddenly it's you and your posse against the powers that are? That changes everything, right? You're no mere criminal, you're a citizen, shooting people that are immoral and wrong!


So - with that in mind - is the second amendment in this day and age anything else but an excuse to have toys / imaginary penis extensions / the tool to the ultimate power trip?

(Yes, I know, same old, same old. But then I'm really interested in how anyone can defend the second amendment in a pluralist democracy. The uprising will always be a minority. That is how a democracy works. If everyone has guns, it will only mean more people will die with little accomplished. If the democracy is broken, then a large enough uprising will usually sway police forces and the army. If they don't, good luck using your shotgun against an Apache Gunship, AC-130, or Predator.)

An armed society is a polite society. What you have here is a straw man argument. Nobody is claiming that you can sway the govt. or ruling class with small arms. Just that when you know there can be consequences for your actions, you tend to think a little more before starting any crap. Also, guns are hardly the ultimate power trip. When you have the means to defend yourself against your marauding black boogeymen or even troops herding the populace on to the death camp trains, you at least have the opportunity to go out with some dignity or possibly escape with your life. Disarming the lawful will only benefit the unlawful.

 

[Jhhnn]

I do love all the attributions made by firearms enthusiasts as to the purposes of militias at the time immediately after the revolutionary war. They never were intended as a check against our own govt, at all.

The original 13 states had hostile natives all along their western borders, and still hostile & potent British forces in Canada. They didn't believe in a large standing army, either. Therefore, they sought to establish citizen militias, and to allow individual citizens offensive & defensive capabilities wrt those hostile natives & as a check against British Canada.

The issue of their own govt being repressive wasn't really central to the second amendment, at all. Those who thought otherwise, like participants in the Whiskey Rebellion, were dealt with quite ruthlessly.

Today's mythological construct around armed citizenry vs repressive govt stems from a much later time, the Civil War, and we all know how that worked out. Vague threats of armed insurrection against the duly elected govt will be dealt with most un-gently should they come to fruition. The legitimacy of the govt will remain unchallengeable so long as that is the case.

That reason alone demands the broadest voting franchise possible, which is the basis of true legitimacy.

It's impossible to determine what the founders would have thought about modern firearms, because they had a very limited frame of reference. Their guns were quite primitive, with smoothbore muzzle loading black powder flintlocks being what they had. Rifled barrels were rare, and the invention of the percussion cap, conical bullets, smokeless powder, cartridges & breechloading repeaters lay in the future. The second amendment was intended to apply to arms as they understood them, not necessarily to arms that were beyond their imaginations.

 

[Gerle]

The second amendment was intended to apply to arms as they understood them, not necessarily to arms that were beyond their imaginations.

So, to state of the art weapons?

 

[_Rick_]

An armed society is a polite society. What you have here is a straw man argument. Nobody is claiming that you can sway the govt. or ruling class with small arms. Just that when you know there can be consequences for your actions, you tend to think a little more before starting any crap. Also, guns are hardly the ultimate power trip. When you have the means to defend yourself against your marauding black boogeymen or even troops herding the populace on to the death camp trains, you at least have the opportunity to go out with some dignity or possibly escape with your life. Disarming the lawful will only benefit the unlawful.

So you agree, that the 'militia' is no longer the argument for the second amendment.
An emancipated but educated society is a polite society. I don't see much politeness in the armed bible basher states of America. The educated, liberal (as in open-minded) states are more likely to be polite. Unless tolerance is not part of your definition of politeness.

Desy, take a look at the French and British riots recently. They had no guns (at least not in large scales), and yet managed to make their point. Look at the end of Apartheid in South Africa, for a more large scale example. (Yes, some elements of this insurgency were para-militarized. The civilian Soweto uprising caused the world to condemn the regime and isolated it. The military -was- on stand by. A universeally armed insurgency would have not had the same world political impact - self defense is morally less reprehensible)

monovillage: remember the storming of that religious compound a few years back (Waco siege)? The perfect example of a militant, armed insurgent small scale uprising. While the acting agents were mostly police forces, those same police forces are also getting more heavily militarized, and I for one would expect the military to initially at least follow the example set by police forces (the National guard got involved in the Waco siege).

Looking at the way the fall of the Apartheid regime played out, that is probably the example that should be studied by those that believe the right to bear arms is necessary and beneficial to a successful defense of their liberties against the state. And the Waco siege serves as a great counter point, showing what's going to happen if you don't reach critical mass, but have hand guns.

 

[soulcougher73]

Let me get this straight. You believe our military will on a whole be more well prepared to mow down civilians than Libya and Syria? Based on what exactly? Those armies were ideologically driven to die for a dictator. Our military is ideologically driven to die for a piece of paper. Huge difference. I'd say our military would have a harder time pulling the trigger than in those despot regimes. But for arguments sake lets discuss how our military has done putting down insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is my take on it as well. Ive been in the military and i think most military members would not choose to fire on US citizens even when ordered to. Most are their because its a steady job and to protect America from other countries. Even though we vow "foreign and domestic"..its really only the foreign part people seem to care about. I know i would never take up arms against my own countrymen.

 

[diesbudt]

How is the impoverished criminal using his gun to kill you and take your money not making a political statement, by getting the means to benefit of his freedom?

This fabled militia - what if it's made up of poor black gangbangers, who see the enemy not in the government, but in the money controlling the government? After all, going after the actual government is pointless, as they will defend themselves with means to which you cannot respond. But marauding their base might just be what it needs to end this tyranny.

And what's the difference if suddenly it's you and your posse against the powers that are? That changes everything, right? You're no mere criminal, you're a citizen, shooting people that are immoral and wrong!


So - with that in mind - is the second amendment in this day and age anything else but an excuse to have toys / imaginary penis extensions / the tool to the ultimate power trip?

(Yes, I know, same old, same old. But then I'm really interested in how anyone can defend the second amendment in a pluralist democracy. The uprising will always be a minority. That is how a democracy works. If everyone has guns, it will only mean more people will die with little accomplished. If the democracy is broken, then a large enough uprising will usually sway police forces and the army. If they don't, good luck using your shotgun against an Apache Gunship, AC-130, or Predator.)

You do realize even fully right-out banning guns from the country (Most extreme measure) would do very little to curve the criminals using guns right?

People who illegally use guns will/do/would get them illegally reguardless what we have they set as in the country. All gun control does is remove the ability for someone to have one and defend themselves in such a situation.

As they say. Anything can kill a person, but it fully depends who is behind it. Scissors can kill. Should we ban that too? Or what about butter knifes and forks? Even our own hands can kill.

Items don't kill people, the people wielding them do.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, to state of the art weapons?

Any answer would be pure conjecture.

Firearms development had been stagnant for 100 years, so it's not like they anticipated much progress.

 

[Jhhnn]

An armed society is a polite society.

That's one of the most desperately inaccurate memes ever created.

The US is easily the most heavily armed of advanced societies, and the notion that we're more "polite" is absurd. Homicide is about as impolite as it gets, and we have the highest rate of any developed nation.

 

[desy]

The British and French have food in their belly and what were they protesting again?
I'm talking about real human rights violations Libia, Egypt and your premise of a large military able to crush every rebellion? Vietnam Afghanistan French Russians Americans decades of trying

 

[nobodyknows]

In a modern, mostly civilized world.
Insurgents these days (the people that are to benefit from the second amendment) tend to use IEDs to greater effect than hand guns anyway.

God your an ignorant dick.

 

[biostud]

So when the government start using the military to oppress the US citizen, the handguns will definitely be what stops the M1A1's

 

[desy]

You only need 1 gun to get a better gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

The FP-45 Liberator was a single shot .45 ACP derringer-type pistol, made by the U.S. during World War II. It was made from stamped steel with an unrifled barrel. The designation "FP" stood for "flare projector", which was apparently an attempt to disguise the use of its intended purpose by obscuring the nature of the project. It was packed with ten rounds of ammunition, and was intended to be used for assassinating enemy soldiers so that their weapons could then be captured and used by the insurgents. The instructions were pictorial, so that the gun could be distributed in any theatre of war, and used even by illiterate operators. The country in which the largest quantity was used was the Philippines.

The CIA Deer gun was a single shot 9×19 mm Parabellum pistol, made by the U.S. during the Vietnam War. It was packaged with three rounds of ammunition in the grip, and packed with instructions in a plastic box. If air-dropped into water, the plastic box containing the pistol would float. Like the earlier FP-45 Liberator, it was designed primarily for assassination, and meant to be replaced by an enemy soldier's left-over equipment. The instructions for the Deer Gun were pictorial, with text in Vietnamese.

 

[Abraxas]

LOL, the military in our country isn't a singular, self contained entity. These threads always make me laugh. As someone that was in the military I'll tell you right now that attacking Americans, in America is not something that is going to happen on a large scale in this country. You morons that make this argument seem to forget that the military is filled with nothing but volunteers from all over the country, the majority of them are not going to attack their homeland, and fellow countrymen, no matter how many deranged fantasies you loony leftist have about it.

Uh, one, it is the conservatives that tend to fantasize about an armed uprising against the US government using their second amendment rights to fight tyranny(TM), not liberals. Second, you are making his point for him. Most of the military is unlikely to open fire on civilians but I'll bet you a small fortune they would be more likely to open fire on an armed mob firing at them than they would be a peaceful protest. I still have not seen a reasoned counter to the argument that if the military is on your side then small arms are unnecessary and that if they are against you then small arms are inadequate.

 

[Abraxas]

Guns make people a threat. Means you either have to shoot them, or listen and maybe even come to terms with them. The projection of strength is at issue here. When the military has to face this threat, they think twice.

You can do whatever you like to disarmed sheep.

This in the same way that when you pull a gun on a cop they think twice about using force and become open to negotiation, right?

 

[Steeplerot]

It is about enriching the gun lobbyists and manufacturers, and as a side benefit helping the criminals liberate you from your possessions or life.

These anti-gov folks are plain silly hysterical boobs who fall for the gun grabbing shit over and over again.

No rifle will help you against a air strike or just nuking your tiny pistol waving ass.

Follow the money. This country is awash with millions of guns, it's literally all we manufacture anymore worth a crap.

The second amendment nuts are just pawns in big gun industries corporate welfare scam.

Buy a fancy new gun, der black man iz comin!! We mean it this time!!11!!! Line up and have your wallets open!

Suckers.

 

[_Rick_]

God your an ignorant dick.

Please, let's not discuss your personal insecurities.