The gun thread

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3216
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:02 am

BSH wrote:
Stebben84 wrote:And, if a tyrannical government DID take over, do you thing the citizens owning guns could stop it?


See Libya, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, to name a few in just the most recent era.


Yes, because these are all similar to the United States culturally, politically, financially and militarily, right?

Were you drinking with Leroy this weekend?

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21173
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:05 am

BSH, have you served in the U.S. military? I have (four years during wartime). There is no way the armament possessed by the U.S. citizenry can successfully take on the might of our government's Armed Forces.

I think you have watched Red Dawn way too many times.

BSH
Senior Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:10 am

penquin wrote:If you could replace the Second Amendment, how would you word it?


Now this is a good question. There are many possibilities worth considering, from just eliminating it as some desire, to clarifying and improving it. No need to reinvent any wheels, most state constitutions contain provisions.

Here is Pennsylvania's, which predated the US constitution:
"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Sophists might play word games and pretend that sporting purposes (hunting, target shooting, competitions) are not legitimate purposes to keep and bear arms. Some point out that the state no longer requires armed citizens for its defense.

Here is Wisconsin's:
“The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”
This one is clear, well-worded, and covers just about everything a gun hobbyist (or those who choose to carry for self defense) could want, yet enables the state to enforce criminal penalties on destructive illicit activities as appropriate. This one is my favorite.

Here is Illinois':
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
With that loose and vague preface on it, politicians in Illinois and their court enablers have gutted the purpose of the clause (see Chicago).

Most of them are pretty similar to these, and to the US 2nd. Here is the entire collection.

BSH
Senior Member
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 6:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby BSH » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:22 am

Henry Vilas wrote:BSH, have you served in the U.S. military? I have (four years during wartime). There is no way the armament possessed by the U.S. citizenry can successfully take on the might of our government's Armed Forces.

I think you have watched Red Dawn way too many times.


Of course you're right. There's no way a million (or more) Americans could possibly organize and descend on Washington and forcibly enact any meaningful change. Nothing would change at all, and things would just keep going as they are.

Really, it's not a military question: it's a political question. What is war? It is politics by other means. War is not one set of equipment attacking another set of equipment. It is people pursuing their own respective visions of what ought to be. How well did the superpower Soviet Union do in Afghanistan? How well did the superpower USA do in Vietnam? Every single tyrant who was ever hoisted on his own petard believed they could not be defeated by the common rabble. Until it happened.

And I've never seen Red Dawn - either of them.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21173
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:28 am

How are your examples of invading another country the same as the citizenry of the U.S. rebelling against its own government? Take Vietnam for example. Russia and China gave matériel and manpower support to the North. It wasn't just the people of Vietnam by themselves.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3216
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:56 am

Don't lose sight of the fact that those fomenting war against the US government would represent significantly less than half the population. Attack Washington, it's not just the government that will be fighting back.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3693
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby jonnygothispen » Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:44 pm

Pro-gun claims more full of BS than pro-human being claims: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ss-target/

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:20 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:BSH, have you served in the U.S. military? I have (four years during wartime). There is no way the armament possessed by the U.S. citizenry can successfully take on the might of our government's Armed Forces.

I think you have watched Red Dawn way too many times.


See, that's where you go wrong if you interpret the primary purpose as being "to take on the US military" or to overthrow the US government. I believe the primary purpose is to act as a prophylactic-- to prevent the rise of conditions where the people would be at war with the government. It is like barbed wire atop a surrounding wall: When it does it's job of deterrence you won't have to go in a toe-to-toe fight, and you're unaware of how many battles have been avoided due to it's presence.

But even in your fantasized scenario:

Your assumption that the entire Armed Forces would somehow be loyal to a tyrannical US government is a huge, and I would say, doubtful assumption. You may be enlightened if you spent some time on gun rights forums and see how many veterans and active duty are there.

And, if you think technological superiority guarantees a military victory, you have a very simplistic and erroneous idea of the nature of warfare.

Last, you also need to consider that the number of military personnel actually engaged in combat is small compared to the number of non-combat support personnel. And that there are at least around ten or more civilian gun owners for every soldier, marine, airman or sailor, including the reserves: be they infantrymen, cooks, mechanic, clerks, truck drivers. Throwing every sworn federal and local law enforcement officer (whose support of a tyrannical government would also be doubtful) into the mix would barely change things. If you haven't noticed, over 300 sheriffs across the country have already said publically that they wouldn't enforce certain potential federal gun control legislation should it be passed. That's not an insignificant number.

Now, if you could somehow reduce that balance of power to the point where the military and police actually held the upper hand in the amount of potential violent power then the conditions for a tyrannical government could arise. If you look at the entire period of time since the establishment of the United States, you'll be hard-pressed to identify many areas in the rest of the world that have not been subjected to a tyrannical government at some point during the past 250 years. Africa? Difficult to name a single country. South America? Forget it! Asia? No way. Europe? Most of it was under the control of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or the Soviet Union at one time, if not their locally grown dictators.

I'd say the 2nd Amendment has done it's job fairly well, and continues to do so.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" - Mao

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21173
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Apr 09, 2013 2:29 pm

Dangerousman wrote:But even in your fantasized scenario

Projecting.

It you want to see a real fantasizer, go to a mirror.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:32 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:But even in your fantasized scenario

Projecting.

It you want to see a real fantasizer, go to a mirror.


That's not even a response, Henry. (No surprise there.) Anyone can see I was responding to your post and your hypothetical scenario. Admit it, you got nothing.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21173
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Apr 09, 2013 3:40 pm

A response to your fantasical hypothetical scenario would be fruitless. As I said before, the purpose of the Second was never to overthrow our constitutional government. You can dream about treason all you want, but I don't desire to join in on your nightmare.

peripat
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:59 am

Re: The gun thread

Postby peripat » Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:00 pm

I'd certainly agree that the founding fathers did not intend us to fight off our own government. I expect they'd be horrified by the current wing nut position on the second amendment.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:11 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:A response to your fantasical hypothetical scenario would be fruitless. As I said before, the purpose of the Second was never to overthrow our constitutional government. You can dream about treason all you want, but I don't desire to join in on your nightmare.


Are you arguing with yourself now? Did you bother to read what I wrote?

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21173
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:17 pm

Why did the NRA ask for universal background checks after Columbine, yet are now opposed to it after Sandy Hook? Could their sponsored in the firearms manufacturing industry be worried that such checks would decrease sales and thus hurt their bottom line? Rhetical questions, of course.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:51 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Why did the NRA ask for universal background checks after Columbine, yet are now opposed to it after Sandy Hook? Could their sponsored in the firearms manufacturing industry be worried that such checks would decrease sales and thus hurt their bottom line? Rhetical questions, of course.


Try thinking it through for once. How would it have any effect on the bottom line of firearms manufacturers? All of their sales are made to licensed dealers who already must conduct a background check when they sell them to individuals. Ford or Chevy don't make a dime if you sell your old pickup truck to your neighbor and Smith and Wesson wouldn't make a dime if you sold your Model 29 .44 magnum to him also. With or without a background check, it has no effect on the gun manufacturer.

Why don't you ask the NRA why they don't support the current push for background checks? Maybe it's because there's a lot more to it than simply requiring a background check on all sales. It also includes many firearm transfers that don't involve an actual sale of the firearm. It includes a number of common and harmless actions are are perfectly legal to do now and turns them into felonies if a background check isn't conducted.

Here's a better question: Why does the no-big-friend-of-the-Second Amendment ACLU oppose universal background checks?


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests