107 replies to this topic

[darkravenntk]

You know, you're totally right. What was I thinking? Defending our freedom? Dang. I totally agree with you now, we should just get rid of any chance of pushing back the goverment if they turn tyrranical and just drop our pants, bend over, and take it if it ever happens.

Do you think a lot of people would willingly walk off a cliff in order to defend a principle? The results would be more or less the same as fighting a trained army.

I would like to point out again that the Bush Administration has been the worst the American government has come to regarding the infringement of human rights in the last hundred years, and the resulting response has shown that in the events of such infringements, an allowance for a potential all-out occupation and dictatorship is just a ridiculous scenario. It's a product of fearmongering.

[img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of people do die to protect principles. It happens all of the time.

It might seem to be a ridiculous scenario, but it the Second Ammendment was put into place in case of such an emergency. If you live in an area where there have been no tornadoes for the past 100 years, do you abandon all plans of seeking shelter and let your people become uneducated to the danger just because it is not probable that it will happen? No. You keep them informed, and let them know that chances are it will not happen but you teach them the saftey drills anyways.

Edited by darkravenntk, 05 March 2009 - 01:16 PM.

[darkravenntk]

[qoute]What you've failed to establish is how Obama's proposed law prevents you from defending your freedom. I'll repeat that this law quite specifically targets arms which have primarily criminal uses. Whether or not a militia is a deterrant to tyranny the capabilities of said militia are not harmed by this proposal. [/qoute]

The proposal would disarm the people evern further. Would you rather face an army with a shotgun capable of holding under five rounds, or an semi-automatic assualt rifle with attatchments allowing for greater control and mobility.

The United States Department of Justice did a study and found that "assault" were used in 2 to 8 percent of gun crimes before the previous ban.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

If you are concerned that this law will lead to far tighter gun control in the future, then I think you are right to be suspicious.



As an aside with the extent of media control exerted by modern Governments, would the populace necessarily be aware of the tyranny of their Government? It was widely reported that at the time of the Iraq invasion most Americans believed Sadam had in some way aided the 9/11 attacks - mainly because the Bush administration repeatedly claimed this to be true.

American's aren't stupid.

[Raien]

[img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of people do die to protect principles. It happens all of the time.

Sure, I remember when the American people fought against the Bush Administration's infringement on civil liberties by wiretapping, throwing people into prison without trial and torture. The Americans sure had a good reason to keep those guns, right? Right? It's funny how illegal violations of the constitution weren't really important enough that you felt you needed to get your guns out, but now Obama is trying to legally remove a specific selection of guns, and now you're up in arms about potential threats to democracy. It looks like a joke from where I'm standing.

Of course, since the dissolution of the Bush Administration, their civil rights infringements have been in the process of dismantlement and investigation by the Obama Administration. The democratic process has actually encouraged morally responsible actions from the government to protect people from opposing party exploitations. It makes up for the fact that the American people aren't willing to personally fight for their principles if it means putting their lives on the line. Most civilians in the world aren't actually willing to sacrifice themselves for the principles; it doesn't happen "all the time".

It might seem to be a ridiculous scenario, but it the Second Ammendment was put into place in case of such an emergency. If you live in an area where there have been no tornadoes for the past 100 years, do you abandon all plans of seeking shelter and let your people become uneducated to the danger just because it is not probable that it will happen? No. You keep them informed, and let them know that chances are it will not happen but you teach them the saftey drills anyways.

You obviously have never lived in an area where there are no tornadoes. I'd like to see you come to the UK and justify spending money on a tornado-awareness program. Just don't take offense if they look at you funny. In all seriousness, the Second Amendment was put in place at a time when the American nation was much less secure than it is today. Social upheaval can place people at risk, and in that context, it was much more likely that a group of people would try to prop up their own little kingdom. Today, the ideals of occupation are realistically dead, and it really does sound dumb to try and use the "Founding Fathers" as a serious excuse for keeping guns in the 21st century.

Edited by Raien, 05 March 2009 - 02:43 PM.

[Selena]

You know, you're totally right. What was I thinking? Defending our freedom? Dang. I totally agree with you now, we should just get rid of any chance of pushing back the goverment if they turn tyrranical and just drop our pants, bend over, and take it if it ever happens.

I am telling you on a strategic level - not a political one, moral one, or gun rights one - why your civilian war is most likely going to result in the mass death of the very people you are trying to liberate. Which is the reason you should actually care about, and the very reason why your 'keep guns to liberate the people' argument doesn't effectively work. You can't enjoy freedom if the majority of those 'free Americans' are now dead. Which they likely will be if you go ahead with a civilian war. There is a very, very slim chance that you will be successful. Slimmer still if you think you can 'surgically strike' the US government before it can muster its forces. Defending your freedom is well and good, but if you go about it in a way that results in the slaughter of your people, you've done it in the wrong way.

You would probably have more success with formal state secession (including their military forces and all cities) than you would with a civilian military movement. Formal state secession, at least if the Civil War is a valid example, can potentially buy you months of time before any battles begin. This will give you time to draft and put your people through proper training. This will boost your combat effectiveness by a great margin, as opposed to just leaving things to a militia force. If you simply attack the US Army, then you will invite them to invade your lands. The US Army didn't attack the CSA until Fort Sumter. By attacking first, you lose valuable preparation time for the war to come. And you're the side that actually needs the prep time - the US Army would not.

Also necessary will be the outside support of foreign nations, both in terms of trade and military support. This will be easy if you're fighting for genuine freedom. But if it's split down present party lines, most of the world will only support just one of America's parties in the event of civil war. Your allies will depend on your motives.

And, realistically, state secession would likely come before the federal government becomes too tyrannical anyway. With this scenario, real combat would be left to genuine military forces instead of makeshift militias. Which throws the excuse to keep private military equipment out the window. Thankfully. The probability that citizens would actually need advanced guns for the sake of revolution is very low. Realistically, that will just put a lot of military grade hardware on the streets, which will give law enforcement a much tougher job than they already have. But I guess if everyone has an assault rifle, we could resort to vigilantism. But I don't really want to live in a new Cowboy era. It was more violent than it was worth, right to pack revolvers around or not.

The idea that you have two options - civilian revolution or...er... anal rape - is ridiculous. You have many options, not all of them based around military operations.

So yes, I'm for defending one's freedoms. But some methods of defending freedom cause your people more harm than good. I don't care for your way at all. Too many of my friends and family members will end up needlessly dead. It is not a good idea, plain and simple.

[Egann]

I am of the firm persuasion that nothing should be forbidden outright, only that all things should be dealt with with responsibility. Now, don't take that idea too far; there are some things which cannot be handled "responsibly" by an individual, like nerve gas, nukes, and biological warfare germs. In all of these cases, the difference is that none of these have "constructive" uses because their use involves destruction.

This is not true, however, with firearms. Even the most war-related firearms are used in sports shooting and all firearms have at least one valid constructive use; self-defense.

Also, tactical rifles and their derivatives tend to do quite well as hunting rifles. Take the .223, for instance. It was originally a military round, but it's become a popular medium game round as well because it has virtually perfect ballistics out to about 400 yards...although 22 caliber is a touch small to be used for a deer rifle.

Now, some aspects of firearms design strike me as just plain pointless. Take fully-automatic fire, for instance. Except for trench warfare when you're being attacked by thousands of doughboys and you want to put them down as quickly as possible, or as a weapon on the deck of a ship or in a fighter (which are aimed by dragging a stream of fire across the target) there's really no use for the bloody thing. Even Congress realized that fully-automatic fire is just a waste of bullets, which is why the later versions of the M-16 in Vietnam had a three-round burst function instead of fully-automatic fire and why most tactical firearms today are no longer fully-automatic, but have a three-round burst function (although quite a few have both.)

The same thing is very much true with laser sights. To quote Ken Hackathorn, it's from "gunshop commandos." You only really need a laser-dot on your target if you're a novice shooter learning how to put the sights on a target, otherwise the glow-in-the-dark night-sights make much more sense.

But does "pointless" mean "should be illegal?" I don't think so. If people want to feel like Rambo, let them. Stupidity doesn't increase the power of their weaponry, it decreases it.

Edited by Egann, 05 March 2009 - 05:36 PM.

[darkravenntk]

[img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of people do die to protect principles. It happens all of the time.

Sure, I remember when the American people fought against the Bush Administration's infringement on civil liberties by wiretapping, throwing people into prison without trial and torture. The Americans sure had a good reason to keep those guns, right? Right? It's funny how illegal violations of the constitution weren't really important enough that you felt you needed to get your guns out, but now Obama is trying to legally remove a specific selection of guns, and now you're up in arms about potential threats to democracy. It looks like a joke from where I'm standing.

Of course, since the dissolution of the Bush Administration, their civil rights infringements have been in the process of dismantlement and investigation by the Obama Administration. The democratic process has actually encouraged morally responsible actions from the government to protect people from opposing party exploitations. It makes up for the fact that the American people aren't willing to personally fight for their principles if it means putting their lives on the line. Most civilians in the world aren't actually willing to sacrifice themselves for the principles; it doesn't happen "all the time".

First off, stop making presumptions about how I felt or what I did. Also I'm not going to go and and revolt even if this get passed, you know why? Because the goverment isn't tyrannical. People have the right to vote and change the government and laws passed by to the government. If you paid attention to anything I was saying you would realize that my support of guns isn't because I want people to go out and start killing people over laws that they do not like when they are still in control of the government. It's for when they /lose/ control. And, according to you, the Obama administration is fixing those "civil rights infringements" which means that the people still are in control.

You obviously have never lived in an area where there are no tornadoes. I'd like to see you come to the UK and justify spending money on a tornado-awareness program. Just don't take offense if they look at you funny. In all seriousness, the Second Amendment was put in place at a time when the American nation was much less secure than it is today. Social upheaval can place people at risk, and in that context, it was much more likely that a group of people would try to prop up their own little kingdom. Today, the ideals of occupation are realistically dead, and it really does sound dumb to try and use the "Founding Fathers" as a serious excuse for keeping guns in the 21st century.

You can put your faith in the idea that security is absolute and can not be shaken but if the time ever comes that it is not, you can reap the rewards of your ideological trust.

[darkravenntk]

I am telling you on a strategic level - not a political one, moral one, or gun rights one - why your civilian war is most likely going to result in the mass death of the very people you are trying to liberate. Which is the reason you should actually care about, and the very reason why your 'keep guns to liberate the people' argument doesn't effectively work. You can't enjoy freedom if the majority of those 'free Americans' are now dead. Which they likely will be if you go ahead with a civilian war. There is a very, very slim chance that you will be successful. Slimmer still if you think you can 'surgically strike' the US government before it can muster its forces. Defending your freedom is well and good, but if you go about it in a way that results in the slaughter of your people, you've done it in the wrong way.

And if you give up any chance at actually defending yourself then you have done nothing at all, and you won't enjoy the freedom anyways. Because there will not be any.

You would probably have more success with formal state secession (including their military forces and all cities) than you would with a civilian military movement. Formal state secession, at least if the Civil War is a valid example, can potentially buy you months of time before any battles begin. This will give you time to draft and put your people through proper training. This will boost your combat effectiveness by a great margin, as opposed to just leaving things to a militia force. If you simply attack the US Army, then you will invite them to invade your lands. The US Army didn't attack the CSA until Fort Sumter. By attacking first, you lose valuable preparation time for the war to come. And you're the side that actually needs the prep time - the US Army would not.

"Attacking while plans are being laid was part of my scenario, mentioned during the training bit - the part where the US Army is likely to shut down rebel training camps even before the first few classes can graduate from basic training and execute their plans. The US Army will already have its soldiers trained and prepared for a crisis. The militia will not be in a situation where they can strike while US government plans are being laid, as it's the rebels that will be the ones that have to lay out plans and extensively prepare. And, given that this is a scenario where the US government would be tyrannical, chances are that communication lines are being tapped and more actively listened to than in the past. Especially if you're suspected of forming a full scale revolution against the nation."

Your words. Also, do you think that a tryannical government is gonig to let a succesion happen? No.

Also necessary will be the outside support of foreign nations, both in terms of trade and military support. This will be easy if you're fighting for genuine freedom. But if it's split down present party lines, most of the world will only support just one of America's parties in the event of civil war. Your allies will depend on your motives.

Given.

And, realistically, state secession would likely come before the federal government becomes too tyrannical anyway.

I don't think that people would be that willing to succeed when it can just be reclaimed. And I don't think that a tyrranical goverment would let the states succeed, and even if they did, it would just be another Civil War.

With this scenario, real combat would be left to genuine military forces instead of makeshift militias. Which throws the excuse to keep private military equipment out the window. Thankfully. The probability that citizens would actually need advanced guns for the sake of revolution is very low. Realistically, that will just put a lot of military grade hardware on the streets, which will give law enforcement a much tougher job than they already have. But I guess if everyone has an assault rifle, we could resort to vigilantism. But I don't really want to live in a new Cowboy era. It was more violent than it was worth, right to pack revolvers around or not.

The people who do not commit crimes are going to turn in their weapons, those who do are still going to keep them. Drugs are illegal yet still a ton of people use them, even in my small town.

The idea that you have two options - civilian revolution or...er... anal rape - is ridiculous. You have many options, not all of them based around military operations.

So yes, I'm for defending one's freedoms. But some methods of defending freedom cause your people more harm than good. I don't care for your way at all. Too many of my friends and family members will end up needlessly dead. It is not a good idea, plain and simple.

The ideal way for things to go would be for the people to control the government through voting and political activism. But, if things ever go south, and you do not know what the future might hold in these terms, you will wish that you had held onto the chance for defending your freedom.

[Raien]

First off, stop making presumptions about how I felt or what I did. Also I'm not going to go and and revolt even if this get passed, you know why? Because the goverment isn't tyrannical. People have the right to vote and change the government and laws passed by to the government. If you paid attention to anything I was saying you would realize that my support of guns isn't because I want people to go out and start killing people over laws that they do not like when they are still in control of the government. It's for when they /lose/ control. And, according to you, the Obama administration is fixing those "civil rights infringements" which means that the people still are in control.

Right. The democratic system is one of self-regulation; any attempt to subvert or exploit the system is open to detection and intervention by various groups (government, media and populous). That said, it's important to recognise that the strength of the democratic system is dependent on the prosperity and moral foundations of the nation. The United States today is much more prosperous than it was two hundred years ago, and it has generally adopted a stonger moral code. As such, it's much harder to justify a potential dictatorship in the United States than it was back in the eighteenth century.

You can put your faith in the idea that security is absolute and can not be shaken but if the time ever comes that it is not, you can reap the rewards of your ideological trust.

What you don't seem to understand is that it is highly dangerous to encourage a population's fear of non-existent or minute threats. The inability to determine the likelihood/potency of threats has been more responsible for civil rights violations and dictatorial occupations than the ownership of guns ever was. The Nazis, for example, gained popularity under the abstract belief that Jews and Communists were threats to the nation. The Bush Administration was able to violate the constitution by creating a fear of Muslims. Right now, there are talks among hardline right-wing groups that the American South should secede from the United States, because they are told Obama is a communist and his administration will turn the country socialist, which is a complete lie. So the most significant threat to the unity of the United States today is due to fearmongering.

By emphasising a threat just because it is "possible", you distort the likelihood of that threat into something that can generate paranoia. It's fearmongering, and that's dangerous.

Edited by Raien, 06 March 2009 - 10:44 AM.

[Selena]

Your words. Also, do you think that a tryannical government is gonig to let a succesion happen? No.

State secession is out of the federal government's hands - states can secede whenever they feel like it if they have enough local support. Even if the tyrannical feds abolished state governments, you can still formally secede. Certain parts of other countries have done/attempted it before.

And yes, my words about the government striking first, but you're situation is even worse off in that respect. Which goes to show that fighting the US government is going to be tricky and/or suicidal no matter what approach you take. However, the training camps will be much harder to hit if you formally secede and defend an area of land rather than hope your militia forces can strike real military structures before anyone notices. Defense is phenomenally easier than offense. Especially if the brunt of your force is made up of armed farmers with no formal training.

I don't think that people would be that willing to succeed when it can just be reclaimed. And I don't think that a tyrranical goverment would let the states succeed, and even if they did, it would just be another Civil War.

Again, your situation is even more dangerous to the American people. Civil War was the point. The Confederacy actually stood a chance at winning their right to stay an independent government. They had a proper army and proper strategy. And yeah, your seceded states can just be reclaimed. Of course they can. However, state secession offers you more resources than a pure civilian war and you actually stand a better chance at winning. All without sending off your civilian men and women to die in a shoddy attempt at a people's revolution.

Milita had limited effect during the American Revolution, were relegated to support roles during the Civil War at best, and were ineffective during the Russian Revolution in 1917. The value of the militia was questioned as far back as the late 1700's. They're not going to be effective now, in an era that requires months of training to successfully operate the military hardware necessary to hold your ground. You need a real army, and one that's had enough time to learn how to truly use the equipment they're handling. Otherwise your grand heroic revolution will turn into the slaughter of everyone you care about. Better to die in that kind of battle? Okay, go ahead. But if you're alive, you actually have a chance to find a method that will work.

Again, this civilian revolution is highly romanticized. It's actual chances of success aren't the kind of odds I'd bet on even if I was playing up the underdog sympathy.

The people who do not commit crimes are going to turn in their weapons, those who do are still going to keep them. Drugs are illegal yet still a ton of people use them, even in my small town.

I know criminals aren't going to hand in their guns. That's the point. Cops will be facing assault rifles with grenade launchers and laser sights if there aren't any limitations to gun distribution. If those things never leave a military armory, the criminals can't get them in the first place. And again, you won't be protecting your property 24/7, regardless of how many guns you own, so the brunt of the work will still be done by the police. And their work will be made much, much harder if the bad guys have easy access to any weapon they can dream of. You could easily give the cops assault rifles to balance things out, but all those increase the risk of somebody getting caught in the fray and allows for the damage of property. Extensive damage if the evil liberal government decides not to take attachable grenade launchers away. Taking a criminal to justice could become like an insurgent shootout if someone refuses to go quietly.


And really, looking over the new ban, it's still pretty lenient. The sheer fact that you can have an attachable grenade launcher means you have little actual reason to complain. That's about as overkill as you can get for a rifle!

[darkravenntk]

Right. The democratic system is one of self-regulation; any attempt to subvert or exploit the system is open to detection and intervention by various groups (government, media and populous). That said, it's important to recognise that the strength of the democratic system is dependent on the prosperity and moral foundations of the nation. The United States today is much more prosperous than it was two hundred years ago, and it has generally adopted a stonger moral code. As such, it's much harder to justify a potential dictatorship in the United States than it was back in the eighteenth century.

The actual event of a dictatorship occurring is very unlikely, but that does not mean we should disarm ourselves to the possibility.

What you don't seem to understand is that it is highly dangerous to encourage a population's fear of non-existent or minute threats. The inability to determine the likelihood/potency of threats has been more responsible for civil rights violations and dictatorial occupations than the ownership of guns ever was. The Nazis, for example, gained popularity under the abstract belief that Jews and Communists were threats to the nation. The Bush Administration was able to violate the constitution by creating a fear of Muslims. Right now, there are talks among hardline right-wing groups that the American South should secede from the United States, because they are told Obama is a communist and his administration will turn the country socialist, which is a complete lie. So the most significant threat to the unity of the United States today is due to fearmongering.

By emphasising a threat just because it is "possible", you distort the likelihood of that threat into something that can generate paranoia. It's fearmongering, and that's dangerous.

By not removing people's view of a wider spectrum of possibilities, you narrow their vision and regress their critical thinking abilities. Have I once said that a certain group is trying to control America and should be attacked? No. Have a said that the government is already tyrannical and we should be in constant fear of or government? No. I've said it was a possibility and that a solution is already in our Bill of Rights. Our country has had the Second Amendment ever since the Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution, and the founding fathers have made it known why it was there. Were the Founding Fathers fear mongers? I'd think not.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

[darkravenntk]

State secession is out of the federal government's hands - states can secede whenever they feel like it if they have enough local support. Even if the tyrannical feds abolished state governments, you can still formally secede. Certain parts of other countries have done/attempted it before.

And yes, my words about the government striking first, but you're situation is even worse off in that respect. Which goes to show that fighting the US government is going to be tricky and/or suicidal no matter what approach you take. However, the training camps will be much harder to hit if you formally secede and defend an area of land rather than hope your militia forces can strike real military structures before anyone notices. Defense is phenomenally easier than offense. Especially if the brunt of your force is made up of armed farmers with no formal training.

And what, may I ask, they defend themselves with? Weapons. And if the government has succeeded in a lot of restriction of these weapons, then it will be truly suicide.

Again, your situation is even more dangerous to the American people. Civil War was the point. The Confederacy actually stood a chance at winning their right to stay an independent government. They had a proper army and proper strategy. And yeah, your seceded states can just be reclaimed. Of course they can. However, state secession offers you more resources than a pure civilian war and you actually stand a better chance at winning. All without sending off your civilian men and women to die in a shoddy attempt at a people's revolution.

Milita had limited effect during the American Revolution, were relegated to support roles during the Civil War at best, and were ineffective during the Russian Revolution in 1917. The value of the militia was questioned as far back as the late 1700's. They're not going to be effective now, in an era that requires months of training to successfully operate the military hardware necessary to hold your ground. You need a real army, and one that's had enough time to learn how to truly use the equipment they're handling. Otherwise your grand heroic revolution will turn into the slaughter of everyone you care about. Better to die in that kind of battle? Okay, go ahead. But if you're alive, you actually have a chance to find a method that will work.

Again, this civilian revolution is highly romanticized. It's actual chances of success aren't the kind of odds I'd bet on even if I was playing up the underdog sympathy.

They did not have a limited effect, they were the start. They were the first to resist the British and had major roles in Concord, Bennington, Saratoga, and Boston.
A militia isn't going to just remain a full blown militia, in the case of an actual attempt at a takeover, they would be the first to resist while trying to train an actual army. Such as the Americans did during the Revolution.

I know criminals aren't going to hand in their guns. That's the point. Cops will be facing assault rifles with grenade launchers and laser sights if there aren't any limitations to gun distribution. If those things never leave a military armory, the criminals can't get them in the first place. And again, you won't be protecting your property 24/7, regardless of how many guns you own, so the brunt of the work will still be done by the police. And their work will be made much, much harder if the bad guys have easy access to any weapon they can dream of. You could easily give the cops assault rifles to balance things out, but all those increase the risk of somebody getting caught in the fray and allows for the damage of property. Extensive damage if the evil liberal government decides not to take attachable grenade launchers away. Taking a criminal to justice could become like an insurgent shootout if someone refuses to go quietly.


And really, looking over the new ban, it's still pretty lenient. The sheer fact that you can have an attachable grenade launcher means you have little actual reason to complain. That's about as overkill as you can get for a rifle!

Fully automatic weapons are already strictly banned by Federal law. and the semi-automatic guns that are in the proposal fire at the same rate as any other semiautomatic gun. No faster than a revolver.

http://www.guncite.com/aswpolice.html - Check this out, it has actual account from police officers regarding assault weapons.

Since the ban, which was originally passed in 1994 and ended in 2004 statistics on violence and gun crimes have not changed much at all. http://www.disasterc...ime/uscrime.htm

Look at the AR-15, it has a .233 caliber. This is not allowable to even hunt with because it will probably just wound the animal.

And if a criminal wants a grenade launcher, either he is going to manufacture it or he is going to find another underground organization to buy it from.

[Raien]

The actual event of a dictatorship occurring is very unlikely, but that does not mean we should disarm ourselves to the possibility.

Except when the fear can be exploited to get people supporting dictatorship principles.

By not removing people's view of a wider spectrum of possibilities, you narrow their vision and regress their critical thinking abilities. Have I once said that a certain group is trying to control America and should be attacked? No. Have a said that the government is already tyrannical and we should be in constant fear of or government? No. I've said it was a possibility and that a solution is already in our Bill of Rights. Our country has had the Second Amendment ever since the Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution, and the founding fathers have made it known why it was there. Were the Founding Fathers fear mongers? I'd think not.

The founding fathers created the Constitution in a period of deep fear and insecurity; they weren't fearmongering, but the Second Amendment was created as a product of fear. But in any case, my point can be made with a very simple question:

Which do you think is the more likely source of a dictatorship in the United States?
a) A self-regulated government observed and developed by various groups?
b) A paranoid self-styled civilian militia that believes its government is going to threaten their very way of life?

Edited by Raien, 06 March 2009 - 07:01 PM.

[darkravenntk]

The actual event of a dictatorship occurring is very unlikely, but that does not mean we should disarm ourselves to the possibility.

Except when the fear can be exploited to get people supporting dictatorship principles.

By not removing people's view of a wider spectrum of possibilities, you narrow their vision and regress their critical thinking abilities. Have I once said that a certain group is trying to control America and should be attacked? No. Have a said that the government is already tyrannical and we should be in constant fear of or government? No. I've said it was a possibility and that a solution is already in our Bill of Rights. Our country has had the Second Amendment ever since the Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution, and the founding fathers have made it known why it was there. Were the Founding Fathers fear mongers? I'd think not.

The founding fathers created the Constitution in a period of deep fear and insecurity; they weren't fearmongering, but the Second Amendment was created as a product of fear. But in any case, my point can be made with a very simple question:

Which do you think is the more likely source of a dictatorship in the United States?
a) A self-regulated government observed and developed by various groups?
b) A paranoid self-styled civilian militia that believes its government is going to threaten their very way of life?

A.

B. Is usually taken to jail.

[Raien]

A.

B. Is usually taken to jail.

Thought for the day: Mein Kampf was written in jail.

For the record, it takes a very large minority for anyone to contend the system of self-regulation, regardless of whether they are civilians or government officials. That said, where government and civilians differ in this argument is that the civilians are the only ones actually talking about violent uprising. Far-right talk radio and television hosts have been discussing and advocating violence since Obama officially won the presidential election. The literal word has been spread that Obama will destroy the United States because they are liberals who hate America. This fearmongering is more dangerous than a government that has neither said or done anything to imply intent for a violent dictatorship, quite the contrary.

If I'm standing next to a large man and a small man, I'd be more worried about the small man threatening to shoot me for my beliefs.

Edited by Raien, 06 March 2009 - 08:17 PM.

[Selena]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

If we're quoting George Washington, then this quoted letter deserves to be brought forth:

"To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when oppsed to Troops regularly train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows...if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter."

-- George Washington in a private letter.

So he's not terribly fond of the militia as a reliable fighting force either. Not that the opinions of George Washington have much relevance on the modern era. The nation and warfare has changed by leaps and bounds, which you seem to be failing to acknowledge.

First, the nation:

America just after the Revolution has a pathetically small standing army, ravaged and in ill supply after all the fighting with the British. It had a handful of ships in the entire navy. To the west were Native tribes none too happy about all the Europeans in their country. Shortly after the formation of the US, we had stuff like the Whiskey Rebellion spring up. With no real law enforcement and a tiny army, the militia was used to handle domestic disputes in a time of crisis. And that's about it. Not to fight off invaders or conquer a tyrannical government. And while the militia may have played some major roles in the occasional battle, the actual war was won by the regulars.

The role of the militia as originally thought of by some of the founding fathers no longer applies. They have no real function in society.


Second, the nature of war:

Falling on the Revolutionary War is not a very good way to back up your argument. The muskets used in the Revolution were not that much different from regular hunting rifles and the main tactic was to stand in a line in front of the enemy and shoot. They wore cloth jackets and tripoint hats instead of kevlar and helmets. It did not take much to train a regular army in the day. Because, again, the brilliant tactic was to stand in a line and shoot volleys at another army that stood in a line a few hundred feet away. Guerrilla tactics were not as common. The Army unquestionably ruled the land and all land operations.

Fast forward to the modern era. The role of the infantry has been shrinking ever since World War II. Soldiers are used to secure buildings, move in after devastation brought by advanced weaponry, parachute drop onto a location to complete a new phase in an operation, occupy conquered territory, or strike targets that are in too awkward or dangerous a place to hit with the big guns. They are no longer the dominating aspect of war, as was the case in the 18th century. Air power is presently the dominating factor. Without air superiority, you are screwed. Then comes the tanks and advanced artillery. Then things like SAM launchers and countermeasures. Then soldiers. You don't send the boys in first unless its for a very covert commando/Ranger style mission. And that's only if you have no real alternative.

And more importantly - soldiers are now packing advanced equipment rather than a musket and cloth uniform. It takes much, much longer to learn how to effectively use all of that equipment and put it to use in a team. Again with the US' motto of 'quality over quantity.' Just having a lot of armed civilians is ludicrous. And by the time such a revolution will likely occur (i.e.: years from now) the role of the infantry will be all the more focused and the equipment all the more advanced, thus increasing training time even more than at present. And that's not even counting how long it will take to train pilots and tank crews, which will be absolutely essential from the start of your war. Not a few months to a full year later.

The Gulf War is a good example of how war will be. In the first Gulf War, you had an entire country decimated and defeated in a very short time frame through use of aircraft, attack helicopters and tanks. Soldiers were after that. The current Gulf War was similar in its first days, but things passed to the soldiers when it came time to occupy. Which happened quickly.

Your militia forces can't shoot down an F-15 with an assault rifle or a Stinger launcher. And you aren't likely going to take the US military by surprise, as mentioned before. You need an Air Force and armored vehicles before you need soldiers or even militia forces if you want to stand a chance.

And what, may I ask, they defend themselves with? Weapons. And if the government has succeeded in a lot of restriction of these weapons, then it will be truly suicide.

When the Confederate states seceded, they acquired all military bases and equipment within their borders. Barring exceptions like Fort Sumter, but an isolated base in the middle of a now hostile state will not last long. As Sumter did not. The states will defend themselves with their local military equipment, not with a militia. And it will work much better.

They did not have a limited effect, they were the start. They were the first to resist the British and had major roles in Concord, Bennington, Saratoga, and Boston.
A militia isn't going to just remain a full blown militia, in the case of an actual attempt at a takeover, they would be the first to resist while trying to train an actual army. Such as the Americans did during the Revolution.

Again, the Revolutionary War is a greatly outdated example. Things moved slower. If the British had Panavia Tornado fighter jets at the time, we would be a commonwealth right now. And drink a lot more tea. A militia alone will not buy you enough time to train a modern army. You need another way to stall them.


As for "guncite.com" (not a biased sounding name in the least), yes, handguns will be much more common than assault rifles. They're much more readily available, cheaper, and easier to hide on one's person. However, criminals cannot buy assault rifles from underground organizations if they are exclusively sold to the military. Much like you can't buy an F-18 on the black market. It would remove them all together. Unfortunately, I agree that a ban on weapons is unrealistic. But only for the reason that guns made/sold before the ban would still be floating around in the criminal world. The only stuff that can feasibly be banned and avoid street usage are future guns. Technology would then level the playing field as pre-ban guns were phased out by whatever police would carry by 2050. Like that corner-shot rifle.

Still, the Obama ban is not worth complaining about, because you can still legally strap a freakin' grenade launcher on your semi-automatic shotgun. You have it good.



Note: Also, remember not to post twice in succession. It's against the rules. Thank you.

[darkravenntk]

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

If we're quoting George Washington, then this quoted letter deserves to be brought forth:

"To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when oppsed to Troops regularly train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows...if I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole, I should subscribe to the latter."

-- George Washington in a private letter.

So he's not terribly fond of the militia as a reliable fighting force either. Not that the opinions of George Washington have much relevance on the modern era. The nation and warfare has changed by leaps and bounds, which you seem to be failing to acknowledge.

First, the nation:

America just after the Revolution has a pathetically small standing army, ravaged and in ill supply after all the fighting with the British. It had a handful of ships in the entire navy. To the west were Native tribes none too happy about all the Europeans in their country. Shortly after the formation of the US, we had stuff like the Whiskey Rebellion spring up. With no real law enforcement and a tiny army, the militia was used to handle domestic disputes in a time of crisis. And that's about it. Not to fight off invaders or conquer a tyrannical government. And while the militia may have played some major roles in the occasional battle, the actual war was won by the regulars.

The role of the militia as originally thought of by some of the founding fathers no longer applies. They have no real function in society.


Second, the nature of war:

Falling on the Revolutionary War is not a very good way to back up your argument. The muskets used in the Revolution were not that much different from regular hunting rifles and the main tactic was to stand in a line in front of the enemy and shoot. They wore cloth jackets and tripoint hats instead of kevlar and helmets. It did not take much to train a regular army in the day. Because, again, the brilliant tactic was to stand in a line and shoot volleys at another army that stood in a line a few hundred feet away. Guerrilla tactics were not as common. The Army unquestionably ruled the land and all land operations.

Fast forward to the modern era. The role of the infantry has been shrinking ever since World War II. Soldiers are used to secure buildings, move in after devastation brought by advanced weaponry, parachute drop onto a location to complete a new phase in an operation, occupy conquered territory, or strike targets that are in too awkward or dangerous a place to hit with the big guns. They are no longer the dominating aspect of war, as was the case in the 18th century. Air power is presently the dominating factor. Without air superiority, you are screwed. Then comes the tanks and advanced artillery. Then things like SAM launchers and countermeasures. Then soldiers. You don't send the boys in first unless its for a very covert commando/Ranger style mission. And that's only if you have no real alternative.

And more importantly - soldiers are now packing advanced equipment rather than a musket and cloth uniform. It takes much, much longer to learn how to effectively use all of that equipment and put it to use in a team. Again with the US' motto of 'quality over quantity.' Just having a lot of armed civilians is ludicrous. And by the time such a revolution will likely occur (i.e.: years from now) the role of the infantry will be all the more focused and the equipment all the more advanced, thus increasing training time even more than at present. And that's not even counting how long it will take to train pilots and tank crews, which will be absolutely essential from the start of your war. Not a few months to a full year later.

The Gulf War is a good example of how war will be. In the first Gulf War, you had an entire country decimated and defeated in a very short time frame through use of aircraft, attack helicopters and tanks. Soldiers were after that. The current Gulf War was similar in its first days, but things passed to the soldiers when it came time to occupy. Which happened quickly.

Your militia forces can't shoot down an F-15 with an assault rifle or a Stinger launcher. And you aren't likely going to take the US military by surprise, as mentioned before. You need an Air Force and armored vehicles before you need soldiers or even militia forces if you want to stand a chance.

And what, may I ask, they defend themselves with? Weapons. And if the government has succeeded in a lot of restriction of these weapons, then it will be truly suicide.

When the Confederate states seceded, they acquired all military bases and equipment within their borders. Barring exceptions like Fort Sumter, but an isolated base in the middle of a now hostile state will not last long. As Sumter did not. The states will defend themselves with their local military equipment, not with a militia. And it will work much better.

They did not have a limited effect, they were the start. They were the first to resist the British and had major roles in Concord, Bennington, Saratoga, and Boston.
A militia isn't going to just remain a full blown militia, in the case of an actual attempt at a takeover, they would be the first to resist while trying to train an actual army. Such as the Americans did during the Revolution.

Again, the Revolutionary War is a greatly outdated example. Things moved slower. If the British had Panavia Tornado fighter jets at the time, we would be a commonwealth right now. And drink a lot more tea. A militia alone will not buy you enough time to train a modern army. You need another way to stall them.


As for "guncite.com" (not a biased sounding name in the least), yes, handguns will be much more common than assault rifles. They're much more readily available, cheaper, and easier to hide on one's person. However, criminals cannot buy assault rifles from underground organizations if they are exclusively sold to the military. Much like you can't buy an F-18 on the black market. It would remove them all together. Unfortunately, I agree that a ban on weapons is unrealistic. But only for the reason that guns made/sold before the ban would still be floating around in the criminal world. The only stuff that can feasibly be banned and avoid street usage are future guns. Technology would then level the playing field as pre-ban guns were phased out by whatever police would carry by 2050. Like that corner-shot rifle.

Still, the Obama ban is not worth complaining about, because you can still legally strap a freakin' grenade launcher on your semi-automatic shotgun. You have it good.



Note: Also, remember not to post twice in succession. It's against the rules. Thank you.

Personally I'm one for following the way our country was made. Despite the fact that technology has advanced and so has society, it does not mean that one should abandon the principles that founded their nation.

Not only does the Second Amendment act as a way to get out of such a situation as in a clash with a tyrannical government but it acts as a deterrent for the government if it were "considering", as it would be, becoming tyrannical. A tyrannical government would rather face a civilian militia with degraded and useless weapons than one with systems that are closer to date.

"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors."- (Source I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789)

[Raien]

Personally I'm one for following the way our country was made. Despite the fact that technology has advanced and so has society, it does not mean that one should abandon the principles that founded their nation.

Now I get it. Your entire argument is not based on the context of the Second Amendment, but a poetic reverence for the founding of the United States. In that case, there really isn't any way to continue this discussion. You don't want to recognise the pointlessness and problems of the Second Amendment because you are too deep into your own romantic idealism.

Edited by Raien, 06 March 2009 - 10:14 PM.

[darkravenntk]

Personally I'm one for following the way our country was made. Despite the fact that technology has advanced and so has society, it does not mean that one should abandon the principles that founded their nation.

Now I get it. Your entire argument is not based on the context of the Second Amendment, but a poetic reverence for the founding of the United States. In that case, there really isn't any way to continue this discussion. You don't want to recognise the pointlessness and problems of the Second Amendment because you are too deep into your own romantic idealism.

No, not really. Maybe you're to far into bashing the Bush administration to look into the details of the discussion that has just occurred? Or do you have to add a few more insults to complete your tapestry of right-wing humiliating remarks before you can be fulfilled enough to start looking into it?

[Selena]

Personally I'm one for following the way our country was made. Despite the fact that technology has advanced and so has society, it does not mean that one should abandon the principles that founded their nation.

Well, unfortunately, the fact that technology (not so much society) has changed so much in the military does require a shift in principles. At least in the case of warfare and a militia. The way war is conducted now makes some of the principles of the 1700's null and void out of strategic necessity. Having a militia as a last resort is simply too great a risk for the security of the nation in an era where even basic training can last months upon months. By the time you're pushed up against the wall and feel the need to call on the people to fight, it will be too late to train them into a working army. Which leaves you with two feasible options (at least in terms of military revolution):

1. You try the secession route and let real militaries have a go at war, rather than civilian militiamen.

2. You make it a policy and national tradition to conscript every 18 year old in America BEFORE such a time period comes. This means that everyone will, as a right of passage, go through basic training and potentially learn a variety of military careers. So when the time does come for revolution, everyone will have been trained by the actual military. Conscription did occur during the early years of the US, so it's technically a part of the 'founding' characteristics of the nation. However, it is also a trademark of more authoritarian societies, and somewhat clashes with the 'small, hands off government' approach to ruling America.

[Steel Samurai]

As a side note, I actually think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to have every physically able kid go through a year of military service between high school and college (or what have you). It would likely help with obesity rates, kill off some of those annoying emo tendencies, and perhaps even cut down on hoodlumism etc. Obviously it would make a helluva lot more sense if the US was under constant threat of attack or something similar, but I don't think it would be a bad thing even without that.

[Goose]

I just find it funny to thin that Americans still think that they'd kill eachother if they had the chance, and that thats the stance they they use for gun control.

[Raien]

No, not really. Maybe you're to far into bashing the Bush administration to look into the details of the discussion that has just occurred? Or do you have to add a few more insults to complete your tapestry of right-wing humiliating remarks before you can be fulfilled enough to start looking into it?

What the Fuck? The Bush Administration violated your constitution and your principles, and the criticism is just "Bush-bashing"? Why are you not scandalised by what Bush did? Why do you think most of the country, and the free world, is scandalised by what Bush did? If you're going to make grand speeches about defending principles, then you can't just ignore all the occasions in which you allowed your principles to be violated. That's called hypocrisy.

As for the right-wing pundits, they are proven liars. There are websites dedicated to exposing their lies; there are comedians who have gained popularity due to their making fun of those lies. Let's take a recent example of this lying; Glenn Beck recently said that the Democratic Party are fascists. Why? Because "National Socialism" apparently refers to "nationalisation", and "socialism" was an actual Nazi policy. This is of course bullshit, and yes, I do find this hilarious because it is such a fucking joke.

During this discussion, I have yet to hear from you a substantial reason for keeping the Second Amendment. If it's not a reverential reference to the Founding Fathers, then it's an idealistic fantasy of civilians bravely fighting against trained armies and getting brutally mowed down as a consequence. Never mind that the only open calls for violence have come from the civilian militias themselves.

Edited by Raien, 07 March 2009 - 07:08 AM.

[Fizzbit]

If the government banned guns there's still one weapon that can be extremely deadly.

Pit Bulls*

*=Provided your city has no ban on them. But even then there are those that get through the cracks.

[Egann]

Personally I'm one for following the way our country was made. Despite the fact that technology has advanced and so has society, it does not mean that one should abandon the principles that founded their nation.

Well, unfortunately, the fact that technology (not so much society) has changed so much in the military does require a shift in principles. At least in the case of warfare and a militia. The way war is conducted now makes some of the principles of the 1700's null and void out of strategic necessity. Having a militia as a last resort is simply too great a risk for the security of the nation in an era where even basic training can last months upon months. By the time you're pushed up against the wall and feel the need to call on the people to fight, it will be too late to train them into a working army.

I'll disagree. There's enough destructive potential in my immediate family and friends that if I really wanted to, I could lead an insurrection, and while I might not be able to "win," I definitely would be able to make it quite painful and expensive and definitely not worth it for the victors. If you're dealing with someone willing to die for a principle against a totalitarian regime, a Pyrrhic victory is really the only possible outcome, regardless of any difference in power.

As a side note, I actually think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to have every physically able kid go through a year of military service between high school and college (or what have you). It would likely help with obesity rates, kill off some of those annoying emo tendencies, and perhaps even cut down on hoodlumism etc. Obviously it would make a helluva lot more sense if the US was under constant threat of attack or something similar, but I don't think it would be a bad thing even without that.

That's actually a closely related thought to the story-idea I'm presently writing about....

Edited by Egann, 07 March 2009 - 12:32 PM.

[Khallos]

Personally I'm one for following the way our country was made. Despite the fact that technology has advanced and so has society, it does not mean that one should abandon the principles that founded their nation.

I have no idea what the principles of those who founded my nation were exactly (and in the case of Britain it's pretty hard to decide when 'it' was founded) but I'm pretty sure I would find them unsurprisingly old fashioned and disgusting. I mean I could highlight awful personal hygiene as a good example, and that would be one of the nicer things I could dig up from my country's past. As far as I know slavery was still in use by both the British and Americans at the time of the creation of the Constitution, an expediant principle of using unpaid labour forced to work long hours in tempratures that Europeans would find it hard to work in. I sincerely hope you don't support this dated idea as well as quite a few other dated ideas from that period. Living in the past is foolish, our ancestors were not better than us in most cases however much it's easy to look back in rose-tinted hindsight. In 300 years time if there's such a thing as civilization (or perhaps even more so if there isn't) our descendants will hopefully look back and think what the hell we were thinking.

Most of what I would say has been said, I honestly find it hard to see the harm in most western governments and most military systems would find it very hard to attack their own people on a government's orders as most militaries have members from across the whole population demographic. If anything the army would be more like to topple a corrupt government than be used by one in my opinion. Politicians tend to come from a minority population, soldiers don't.

[Oberon Storm]

If the government banned guns there's still one weapon that can be extremely deadly.

Pit Bulls*

*=Provided your city has no ban on them. But even then there are those that get through the cracks.

You're kidding, right?

[darkravenntk]

Well, unfortunately, the fact that technology (not so much society) has changed so much in the military does require a shift in principles. At least in the case of warfare and a militia. The way war is conducted now makes some of the principles of the 1700's null and void out of strategic necessity. Having a militia as a last resort is simply too great a risk for the security of the nation in an era where even basic training can last months upon months. By the time you're pushed up against the wall and feel the need to call on the people to fight, it will be too late to train them into a working army. Which leaves you with two feasible options (at least in terms of military revolution):

1. You try the secession route and let real militaries have a go at war, rather than civilian militiamen.

2. You make it a policy and national tradition to conscript every 18 year old in America BEFORE such a time period comes. This means that everyone will, as a right of passage, go through basic training and potentially learn a variety of military careers. So when the time does come for revolution, everyone will have been trained by the actual military. Conscription did occur during the early years of the US, so it's technically a part of the 'founding' characteristics of the nation. However, it is also a trademark of more authoritarian societies, and somewhat clashes with the 'small, hands off government' approach to ruling America.

Your options do not change the fact of why the Second Amendment was put into place or its function. It also does not change the fact that the ban is infringing upon the right given by that Amendment and could affect the exact purpose of it. You might feel that a civilian militia is outdated and would not stand a chance against a tyrannical force, but I believe that it is not and is a better alternative to just letting the government overrun you if the event ever occurs. The sheer number of people that would be armed and capable would truly be a formidable force only if they have systems that are close to date and not antiquated. Otherwise it just ends up that guns are only in the hands of tyrants.

[Fizzbit]

If the government banned guns there's still one weapon that can be extremely deadly.

Pit Bulls*

*=Provided your city has no ban on them. But even then there are those that get through the cracks.

You're kidding, right?

Honestly I'm far more afraid of an attack-trained pitbull than I am of a gun. At least the gun makes it quick.

[darkravenntk]

What the Fuck? The Bush Administration violated your constitution and your principles, and the criticism is just "Bush-bashing"? Why are you not scandalised by what Bush did? Why do you think most of the country, and the free world, is scandalised by what Bush did? If you're going to make grand speeches about defending principles, then you can't just ignore all the occasions in which you allowed your principles to be violated. That's called hypocrisy.

As for the right-wing pundits, they are proven liars. There are websites dedicated to exposing their lies; there are comedians who have gained popularity due to their making fun of those lies. Let's take a recent example of this lying; Glenn Beck recently said that the Democratic Party are fascists. Why? Because "National Socialism" apparently refers to "nationalisation", and "socialism" was an actual Nazi policy. This is of course bullshit, and yes, I do find this hilarious because it is such a fucking joke.

During this discussion, I have yet to hear from you a substantial reason for keeping the Second Amendment. If it's not a reverential reference to the Founding Fathers, then it's an idealistic fantasy of civilians bravely fighting against trained armies and getting brutally mowed down as a consequence. Never mind that the only open calls for violence have come from the civilian militias themselves.

Is this about Bush? No, it is not? And you don't know what I felt or what I did so just cool your presumptions down. What the fuck does Glenn Beck have to do with this argument of the weapons ban? Well, you should look into the argument a little more, it's not an idealistic fantasy its people having liberty and the chance the defend themselves from tyranny. Maybe its your idealistic fantasy of all crime being removed once the guns are gone and that there is absolutely no chance of people ever needing to use arms to defend themselves from tyranny. It was built into our Bill of Rights because it is a right of the American people for protection, not just from themselves but from the government. You never know what the future holds and this is one way of being prepared. NEVER MIND THAT "BLAHBLAHBLAH", What the hell is your point? All you've really done is come here and trash the republican party and say that all of them are violence screaming, warmongering, hate group attending, criminals. Ex-military civilian militias calling for violence? Well, they can call. They have an opinion and can state it. Not that I agree with them but they can do and say what they want, and if it gets them arrested that is fine. Getting rid of guns won't change how those people feel and if they are that dedicated to actually revolting, then they are going to do it one way or another.

[Selena]

Your options do not change the fact of why the Second Amendment was put into place or its function. It also does not change the fact that the ban is infringing upon the right given by that Amendment and could affect the exact purpose of it. You might feel that a civilian militia is outdated and would not stand a chance against a tyrannical force, but I believe that it is not and is a better alternative to just letting the government overrun you if the event ever occurs. The sheer number of people that would be armed and capable would truly be a formidable force only if they have systems that are close to date and not antiquated. Otherwise it just ends up that guns are only in the hands of tyrants.

I will stress the point yet again:

The militia does not fail because of guns. A civilian militia can have the most advanced guns available in the world, which is what you're suggesting. It's not about the guns. It's the fact that guns alone will not win you a war with the US government. You need tanks, air superiority, and naval forces to stand a snowball's chance in hell. And it's about training, because it will take months to year(s) to get your people ready to use such equipment and not have them accidentally kill themselves. That is why your militia will fail. The traditional militia you are thinking of is outdated and ineffective, just as it was in the era of muskets and cloth jackets. A nation that has routine conscription, however, is a more "modern" militia that stands a vague chance.

If you're serious about your argument (making sure civilians can overthrow the government), you should be just as worried about training and the whole scope of the war. Conscription of all 18 year olds in good health should be just as important to you as the guns, because professional training is the only way to keep the citizens of America ready for just such an emergency. A traditional militia is almost certainly doomed to fail. So what is the case? If you really want people to be able to overthrow their government, you should be for conscription or formal training of some kind. Otherwise it mostly seems like an excuse to keep high powered weapons in your home. Because like I said: Just having a gun doesn't mean anything in a real war if you don't have the training and a well rounded army. Just handing someone a rifle isn't being serious or at all realistic.



However, the argument for gun ownership in the event of a zombie apocalypse is still quite strong.


Still, if I had my way, I'd limit gun ownership to hunting and basic self defense. But preferably tasers or other non-lethal close range weapons for self defense. A gun is only really effective if you have enough time to get it and load it before you're attacked. Which, if you're caught off guard (as is the case with murder attempts and many break ins), is not terribly likely. I keep a knife by my bed instead of a gun. Less time needed to get ready, less noisy, no ammo, easier to conceal, and still quite deadly. Sure, guns might be left to the 'evildoers' of society in this scenario, but if they get their gun trained on you before you can get to any of your weapons, having a gun of your own doesn't matter. You're screwed either way.