Guns and stuff

[2ndRateMind]

One's heart goes out the bereft relatives and blameless wounded of Las Vegas. And one's prayers for the innocent dead.

Yet, one notices that this is hardly an isolated occurrence. Quite why civilians need a right to buy and bear arms in the form of automatic assault weapons evades me. The more that are sold, the more likely they will fall into the hands of the mentally unstable, the criminal, and the downright malicious. No civilised country could or should or would tolerate such lax gun laws for long.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[bluethread]

That is also what the aristocracy in England thought.

That's the whole point - the amendment was made for a different time.

Yes, but that difference has made federal control even more of a fallacy. Anarchy and/or tyranny are still risks.

There are always multiple factors that play into such a situation.

All of which boils down to whether the US military is involved or not and if so, which side they take.

With 112.6 guns per 100 citizens it is unlikely that even the US military would be able to handle that degree of Whak-A-Mole. Also, whenever the law against deploying federal troops on US soil is violated, that number just goes up. Also, the military and police I speak to say that they would be reluctant in taking part in such a situation.

Unless one is led by someone like George "Cincinnatus" Washington.

I am not sure what you are trying to get at here, we were talking about assassinating a tyrant here, right?

Your argument was that overthrowing one tyrant just leads to another and in the case of our founding, that did not take place. It also did not happen right away in Rome under Cincinnatus. The difference is that we have had a nearly unbroken chain of peaceful transitions of government in these United States every four to eight years for 240 years. This is in part due to the fact that we have had an armed citizenry.

Also, weapons in civilian hands have always been a relevant factor in war. From Jael with a tent peg to the Swiss civil defense, and the French underground, they have been the wild card that have tipped to balance in many cases.

Now replace the German military with the US military, then take away the ally military from the picture and estimate your odds.

I never said the odds were good. I just said that an armed citizenry has historically proven to be a significant factor in armed conflict. That said, my main point is that an armed citizenry provides significant deterrent to government overreach.

[2ndRateMind]

That said, my main point is that an armed citizenry provides significant deterrent to government overreach.

I still think that the main deterrent to government overreach is simply to vote the dastards out, if they can't or won't or don't deliver social and economic progress. I can't conceive of a situation where a few disgruntled armed citizens provides a significant deterrent to the US federal government, or even state legislatures. This is a (poor) excuse to own assault weapons, and not a reason to.

Best wishes, 2RM

[Bust Nak]

Yes, but that difference has made federal control even more of a fallacy. Anarchy and/or tyranny are still risks.

Tyranny is still a risks, but owning your own gun has stopped being a solution. Anarchy is going to be that much worse if guns are plentiful, where exactly is the US army in your anarchy scenario?

With 112.6 guns per 100 citizens it is unlikely that even the US military would be able to handle that degree of Whak-A-Mole. Also, whenever the law against deploying federal troops on US soil is violated, that number just goes up. Also, the military and police I speak to say that they would be reluctant in taking part in such a situation.

Then what's the point of owning your own gun, when the military is on your side? Who exactly are you gonna shoot?

Your argument was that overthrowing one tyrant just leads to another and in the case of our founding, that did not take place.

Nah, my argument was assassinating one tyrant just leads to another.

It also did not happen right away in Rome under Cincinnatus. The difference is that we have had a nearly unbroken chain of peaceful transitions of government in these United States every four to eight years for 240 years. This is in part due to the fact that we have had an armed citizenry.

How much of a part though? The single most significant factor is that the citizenry has democracy worked into their very being, from which the military draws its soliders, which means the military are "reluctant in taking part in such a situation." Look at the Brits and the Aussies, guns ownership had never been a big thing, even before gun restructions, not having any problem with government transitions.

I never said the odds were good. I just said that an armed citizenry has historically proven to be a significant factor in armed conflict. That said, my main point is that an armed citizenry provides significant deterrent to government overreach.

If your odds aren't good, then how is it a significant deterrent?

[bluethread]

That said, my main point is that an armed citizenry provides significant deterrent to government overreach.

I still think that the main deterrent to government overreach is simply to vote the dastards out, if they can't or won't or don't deliver social and economic progress. I can't conceive of a situation where a few disgruntled armed citizens provides significant a deterrent to the US federal government, or even state legislatures. This is a (poor) excuse to own assault weapons, to not a reason to.

Best wishes, 2RM

Yes, that is the preferable deterrent. However, it appears that even people on the left are questioning the integrity of the voting process. This might be sour grapes on their part, because Hillary lost and they are losing in governorships and statehouses. That said, it must be noted that Hitler was elected. Also, the effect of deterrence is often hard to prove, because it is difficult to measure what did not happen. That said, the citizenry in this country does not need an excuse to exercise their right to do something. The government needs an excuse to limit or stop them from exercising that right. That is what the tenth amendment is all about. As The Declaration of Independence states, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." It is not the other way around. Those rights are "endowed by their Creator". "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[bluethread]

Yes, but that difference has made federal control even more of a fallacy. Anarchy and/or tyranny are still risks.

Tyranny is still a risks, but owning your own gun has stopped being a solution. Anarchy is going to be that much worse if guns are plentiful, where exactly is the US army in your anarchy scenario?

Federal government is empowered by the Constitution to secure the borders and arbitrates disputes between the states. It is also empowered to muster sufficient troops to fulfill those duties and enforce the judgements related to those arbitrations. Apart from that the responsibility for maintaining order is reserved to the various states and the people respectively.

With 112.6 guns per 100 citizens it is unlikely that even the US military would be able to handle that degree of Whak-A-Mole. Also, whenever the law against deploying federal troops on US soil is violated, that number just goes up. Also, the military and police I speak to say that they would be reluctant in taking part in such a situation.

Then what's the point of owning your own gun, when the military is on your side? Who exactly are you gonna shoot?

I have never called for mandatory gun ownership. However, part of the reason that members of the government armed forces and state approved constabulary hold that view is the understanding that the maintenance of order requires the cooperation of the citizenry.

Your argument was that overthrowing one tyrant just leads to another and in the case of our founding, that did not take place.

Nah, my argument was assassinating one tyrant just leads to another.

Well, you are the only one in this conversation who has suggested assassination. I have spoken to the concept of tyranny, and as I have also stated, the overthrow of tyranny does not necessary lead to the empowering of despot.

It also did not happen right away in Rome under Cincinnatus. The difference is that we have had a nearly unbroken chain of peaceful transitions of government in these United States every four to eight years for 240 years. This is in part due to the fact that we have had an armed citizenry.

How much of a part though? The single most significant factor is that the citizenry has democracy worked into their very being, from which the military draws its soliders, which means the military are "reluctant in taking part in such a situation." Look at the Brits and the Aussies, guns ownership had never been a big thing, even before gun restructions, not having any problem with government transitions.

Yes, constitutional democratic republicanism does provide a great degree of protection against tyranny. However, Great Britain's form of democracy has been developed incrementally as their empire waned. This is primarily do to armed conflicts with the citizenry outside of England. Also, Australia has had the luxury of isolation and were the beneficiaries of the waning of England's power that was put in motion by our armed rebellion. So, the cultural contexts in England and Australia are different. In short, the experiment continues and if one believes that the Anglican approach is the best, the solution, in these United States is a constitutional amendment. Disarming the citizenry by extraconstitutional means is itself an overthrow of our current form of government.

I never said the odds were good. I just said that an armed citizenry has historically proven to be a significant factor in armed conflict. That said, my main point is that an armed citizenry provides significant deterrent to government overreach.

If your odds aren't good, then how is it a significant deterrent?

The odds of overthrowing the government aren't good, however, the odds of deterring government overreach are good. An armed citizenry causes the government to hesitate in imposing it's will one the citizenry, this provides the opportunity for less immediate solutions to take effect, i.e. negotiations, elections, law suits, etc. The first thing that tyrants do is disarm the citizenry. This permits them the ability to use the force of arms to strip away those other less immediate solutions. So, it is the threat of armed resistance that assures the citizenry the right to redress of grievances. The fact that it rarely comes to that does not mean that it is not significant, but rather establishes that it is significant.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 54 by bluethread]

This might be sour grapes on their part, because Hillary lost and they are losing in governorships and statehouses. That said, it must be noted that Hitler was elected.

It should be noted Hitler was not elected president. Hindenberg got 53% of the vote in the 1932 election. Hitler was appointed as a successor and following the death of Hindenberg in 1934 Hitler took over and established a new position the Fuherer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ ... tion,_1932

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 55 by bluethread]

The odds of overthrowing the government aren't good, however, the odds of deterring government overreach are good. An armed citizenry causes the government to hesitate in imposing it's will one the citizenry, this provides the opportunity for less immediate solutions to take effect, i.e. negotiations, elections, law suits, etc. The first thing that tyrants do is disarm the citizenry. This permits them the ability to use the force of arms to strip away those other less immediate solutions. So, it is the threat of armed resistance that assures the citizenry the right to redress of grievances. The fact that it rarely comes to that does not mean that it is not significant, but rather establishes that it is significant.

In the era of modern military I.e. Drone strikes, Jets, Tanks, and missles this simply is not the case. This has been the history of our country the civil war is just a long drawn out example the south had all the guns it could muster to no avail and had to submit to the federal government. The problem here is it is illegal for you to use force against the government and it is legal for the government to use force against you. look at any police confrontation with an armed citzenry the use of arms in open protest against government authority leads to prison time for you and or death, like what happened in Oregon with the rednecks that took over a national park. 1 man died and the rest went to prison.

This might have worked in the 1700s but this is 2017 and unless you got a depleted uranium .50 Cal an Apache helicopter or an M1 Bradley you are not much for an armed resistance. A redneck with a bump stock ar-15 is only a threat to other citizens.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 54 by bluethread]

This might be sour grapes on their part, because Hillary lost and they are losing in governorships and statehouses. That said, it must be noted that Hitler was elected.

It should be noted Hitler was not elected president. Hindenberg got 53% of the vote in the 1932 election. Hitler was appointed as a successor and following the death of Hindenberg in 1934 Hitler took over and established a new position the Fuherer.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ ... tion,_1932

I stand corrected on that point.

[bluethread]

In the era of modern military I.e. Drone strikes, Jets, Tanks, and missles this simply is not the case. This has been the history of our country the civil war is just a long drawn out example the south had all the guns it could muster to no avail and had to submit to the federal government. The problem here is it is illegal for you to use force against the government and it is legal for the government to use force against you. look at any police confrontation with an armed citzenry the use of arms in open protest against government authority leads to prison time for you and or death, like what happened in Oregon with the rednecks that took over a national park. 1 man died and the rest went to prison.

This might have worked in the 1700s but this is 2017 and unless you got a depleted uranium .50 Cal an Apache helicopter or an M1 Bradley you are not much for an armed resistance. A redneck with a bump stock ar-15 is only a threat to other citizens.

In the era of the internet and 24 hr news cycle. such heavy handed tactics by the federal government receive immediate publication. Even before the internet boom, Waco and Ruby Ridge became rallying cries for those who would reign in federal overreach. So, the first amendment, presuming you do not think that is also not so important, serves to provide a counter balance to the federal governments firepower.

The problem is that media intimidation has caused some officials to allow anarchist run wild in the streets, causing mass destruction without guns, while they call for increased legislation to reduce the ability of law abiding citizens to protect their property. So, "rednecks" are imprisoned and antifa(ree speech) activists are allowed to destroy public and private property. This is de facto tyranny and, though most of the people that they "protest" do not engage in violence, those wish to use words rather than guns are silenced because those who threaten them do threaten violence.

In conclusion, the purpose of the second amendment is to assure that the nonviolent means of petition in the first amendment are respected.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 59 by bluethread]

n the era of the internet and 24 hr news cycle. such heavy handed tactics by the federal government receive immediate publication. Even before the internet boom, Waco and Ruby Ridge became rallying cries for those who would reign in federal overreach. So, the first amendment, presuming you do not think that is also not so important, serves to provide a counter balance to the federal governments firepower.

I think you shoot your own argument in the foot here. The government fears the public just fine without the need for guns in the first place. That being said I ain't against the second amendment. The only problem is its intended purpose is moot. If a government was set on being tryannical and decided it was going to oppress the electorate and it didn't care what people said you owning a gun doesn't threaten it. Even our revolution against England would have failed if it were not for the French and seizing some cannons. I don't have an issue with folks owning guns, I have a few myself. I just don't want crazy people with guns. I don't think it's that much of an ask really.