[Athens]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Did it? Even if you stop short of nukes, I think you are underestimating the difference in technology and firepower between the US military industrial complex and a semi-organised militia. I think everyone is.

The more advance the military becomes the more unsustainable and fragile it becomes. I honestly think the US WW II military make up would last much longer in a sustained fight between the people then the current modern day military. It would be a bloody ground based war. The US Air Force could not just blow up all the power stations for cities with out hurting its own power sources. The US Air Force could not bomb US oil installations and not suffer its own shortages. The US Air Force could blow up sections of cities like LA and small towns but would achieve very little. Whats left the ground war. And as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan its very difficult and numbers really play a big part. Tanks are not very useful in that kind of warfare. There is 700 000 members of police a lone in the US. Just police. A war between the US Military and the People of the US would result in a military completely over run. I have no doubt the people would win. There is just not enough man power and equipment to win against a well armed general population. Most of the domestic military installations would fall.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

The more advance the military becomes the more unsustainable and fragile it becomes. I honestly think the US WW II military make up would last much longer in a sustained fight between the people then the current modern day military. It would be a bloody ground based war. The US Air Force could not just blow up all the power stations for cities with out hurting its own power sources. The US Air Force could not bomb US oil installations and not suffer its own shortages. The US Air Force could blow up sections of cities like LA and small towns but would achieve very little. Whats left the ground war. And as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan its very difficult and numbers really play a big part. Tanks are not very useful in that kind of warfare. There is 700 000 members of police a lone in the US. Just police. A war between the US Military and the People of the US would result in a military completely over run. I have no doubt the people would win. There is just not enough man power and equipment to win against a well armed general population. Most of the domestic military installations would fall.

The thing is, not all of those people would fight. I'd wager it would be a pretty small percentage that would take up arms in the first place and they'd probably suffer a lot of casualties pretty quickly.

That said, if the US government actually got tyrannical do you really the think the US military is going to blindly obey orders to oppress the people? Soldiers are citizens too remember. I wonder how many of the paranoid tyrant fearing crowd actually bother to wonder exactly how such a situation would realistically arise or pan out beyond the "I'll grab my guns and save America."

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Assad won't use chemical weapons because the second he does the rest of the world is likely to get involved and that is not what he wants as it will cost him his power and more than likely his life.

Both his power and his life are in danger presently. Without an armed populace, there would be no option to thwart the oppressive regime. Though I'm not sure how many would jump to our defense if we were in the same predicament.

I understand why you think gun ownership is necessary in this capacity, its not a difficult concept to grasp but I think it is simply simply incorrect. The argument is not about the difference between those 10 million people and their 300 million guns and no resistance at all. Its about however many assault weapons and other unnecessarily over the top privately owned, non-hunting weapons and then just the more practically useful hunting or sporting weapons. (And no, I don't consider firing machine guns at a range to be legitimate sport in this instance.) I know the SC has ruled that handguns are never, ever going to be questioned again in the US (thats how I understand it) but if it were up to me, I'd factor those into the debate too.

I appreciate your fairness in this regard, but the right does not exist for hunting as guns aren't necessary for that either.

Other countries manage guerrilla tactics without a 2nd amendment don't they?

By "guerilla tactics", I presume you're talking about peoples constantly mired in conflict with their oppressive governments? Otherwise, had the citizenry been brought up under a documented package of checks, balances, and individual rights, their government may have been more reluctant to endeavor oppression.

[besson3c]

Ebuddy,

How many of those relatively few "mired in conflict with their oppressive governments" are mired in a democracy? Maybe democracies are the difference, not guns?

This sounds like you subscribe to this guns are for tryannical governments nonsense.

[Shaddim]

You speak as if "once a democracy, always a democracy", and that's not true. Change and death are the only things in life that are guaranteed.

[subego]

A few questions for those who wonder where an oppressive government could come from:

Did you think our government response to 9/11 was rational? Proportionate?

If not, were you not ultimately struck by how easy it was to provoke an irrational response?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You speak as if "once a democracy, always a democracy", and that's not true. Change and death are the only things in life that are guaranteed.

Cases of democracy being removed after it has been established are quite rare though.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ebuddy,

How many of those relatively few "mired in conflict with their oppressive governments" are mired in a democracy? Maybe democracies are the difference, not guns?

This sounds like you subscribe to this guns are for tryannical governments nonsense.

Perhaps your comprehension would be better served if you were less concerned with what I sound like and more concerned with what I'm saying. "Guns for tyrannical governments" is already after the fact. The system that governs the US was designed with checks and balances to mitigate the failures of the system they were abandoning. You will find language in the Constitution that explicitly protects both parties. There are provisions in the Constitution that fund the standing army while discouraging insurrection and that is no more "Drones for the psychotic masses" than the Second Amendment is "guns for tyrannical governments". Otherwise, you're free to deny the history of human nature, but you'll not have a lot of evidence to affirm your view.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Perhaps your comprehension would be better served if you were less concerned with what I sound like and more concerned with what I'm saying. "Guns for tyrannical governments" is already after the fact. The system that governs the US was designed with checks and balances to mitigate the failures of the system they were abandoning. You will find language in the Constitution that explicitly protects both parties. There are provisions in the Constitution that fund the standing army while discouraging insurrection and that is no more "Drones for the psychotic masses" than the Second Amendment is "guns for tyrannical governments". Otherwise, you're free to deny the history of human nature, but you'll not have a lot of evidence to affirm your view.

I take it this was in response to the guns for tyrannical government bit, and not the point about how maybe Democracies are the deciding factor, not guns?

I had to read this a few times before I was able to process it, maybe you should speak more plainly? If it's just me that finds posts like this hard to follow, so be it...

What is your interpretation of the constitution, in plain and simple terms? Is it our job as regular citizens to supplement the military? A "standing army", according to the Wikipedia, is a professional army compromised of full-time career soldiers. We have a military, nobody is saying that we shouldn't, so what does this have to do with the whole notion of us needing guns to protect ourselves from the government? You said that the Constitution discourages insurrection, so would it be logical to follow that you don't feel that regular people need to defend themselves from the government with weaponry?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I had to read this a few times before I was able to process it, maybe you should speak more plainly? If it's just me that finds posts like this hard to follow, so be it...

I stumbled a bit on it too, but I think I got the gist. Ebuddy should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

What is your interpretation of the constitution, in plain and simple terms?

Checks and balances, balance of power

Is it our job as regular citizens to supplement the military?

No(t entirely), to check and balance the military

A "standing army", according to the Wikipedia, is a professional army compromised of full-time career soldiers. We have a military, nobody is saying that we shouldn't, so what does this have to do with the whole notion of us needing guns to protect ourselves from the government?

Checks and balances, balance of power

You said that the Constitution discourages insurrection, so would it be logical to follow that you don't feel that regular people need to defend themselves from the government with weaponry?

No, they are still a check and balance on the government overstepping its role as the constitution laid out for it. The constitution declares that the people should not revolt, and the constitution declares that the government should not become tyrannical. Checks and balances are the enforcement mechanism of these roles. The constitution can't leap off the parchment to enforce its demands, but it can set up a basic system of checks and balances so that its subjects all police each other.

What entity could possibly play the role of a balance against the military? Perhaps none, but if any can, the people at large are the most likely candidate. What is a better candidate for that job? Serious question: given that the modern military is a different beast than anything in the 1700s, how would you go about setting up a fresh democracy with a check and balance on the military? Two militaries?

The argument that a modern military is unbeatable is compelling. But compelling us to do what? To dismantle its already-disadvantaged rival? Anyone who's concerned about the loss of the Checks and Balances system that has served us well so far, should be taking this argument as a reason to strengthen the people in their ability to rein in a theoretically power-hungry military. Not eliminate it entirely.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Cases of democracy being removed after it has been established are quite rare though.

Cases of a democracy lasting much longer than the US has already lasted are quite rare too, though. If our only available examples for democracies that are more tyrant-proof than we (are afraid we) are, are ones that are either behind us on the life-cycle of democracies, or examples that did in fact fall to tyranny (in antiquity, which also detracts from their applicability) then we really don't know what lies ahead at all, do we?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Cases of a democracy lasting much longer than the US has already lasted are quite rare too, though. If our only available examples for democracies that are more tyrant-proof than we (are afraid we) are, are ones that are either behind us on the life-cycle of democracies, or examples that did in fact fall to tyranny (in antiquity, which also detracts from their applicability) then we really don't know what lies ahead at all, do we?

We can never know for sure, but I think the international relations we have today through NATO and the UN make a tremendous difference. In fact its not a bad argument to suggest that reducing the significance of borders and boundaries is a better protection than that AR-15 in your bedroom closet.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

We can never know for sure, but I think the international relations we have today through NATO and the UN make a tremendous difference. In fact its not a bad argument to suggest that reducing the significance of borders and boundaries is a better protection than that AR-15 in your bedroom closet.

Half right, IMO. The international relations we have today through the presence of a benevolent superpower are what make NATO and the UN work (to the limited degree that they do in fact work). I'm not generally in support of the US role as the UN's resident bully, but I do have to admit that bullying is one way to prevent internal power struggles among those bullied. In general, working together does not work unless backed up by force. Maybe some day that will no longer be true, but I'm fairly certain today is not that day.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, a government can be prevented from straying outside its mandate either from above or from below. From above, would be from other stronger nations watching for corruption, from below, would be from its own armed populace watching for corruption. The fact that many modern democracies have managed to survive after doing away with the latter tells us little, so long as the former remains. The US doesn't have the benefit of the former, and it may very well be that only the latter is keeping our representatives honest (to the extent that they even are still honest).

Just to be clear though, either way we're still acknowledging the fact we can't expect examples to provide any preview of what works and what doesn't. Both sides are equally playing fortune-teller here... Right?

[Waragainstsleep]

Absolutely. I just think the rest of the world would step in to help if the US was in danger of being taken over by a tyrannical government.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Half right, IMO...

To put it another way, once Europe decided the only way it could get its act together is through a permanent American military presence, it forfeit the right to lecture us about coping with tyrannical governments.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Absolutely. I just think the rest of the world would step in to help if the US was in danger of being taken over by a tyrannical government.

Wouldn't there be a pretty big concern about the might with which we may strike back?

Also take into consideration the rest of the world tends not to agree on things.

[Snow-i]

Obama signs bill, gets Secret Service protection for life – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

He doesn't need the 2nd amendment like we do.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Obama signs bill, gets Secret Service protection for life – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

He doesn't need the 2nd amendment like we do.

How are your 2nd amendment rights being threatened?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I stumbled a bit on it too, but I think I got the gist. Ebuddy should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.



Checks and balances, balance of power



No(t entirely), to check and balance the military



Checks and balances, balance of power



No, they are still a check and balance on the government overstepping its role as the constitution laid out for it. The constitution declares that the people should not revolt, and the constitution declares that the government should not become tyrannical. Checks and balances are the enforcement mechanism of these roles. The constitution can't leap off the parchment to enforce its demands, but it can set up a basic system of checks and balances so that its subjects all police each other.

What entity could possibly play the role of a balance against the military? Perhaps none, but if any can, the people at large are the most likely candidate. What is a better candidate for that job? Serious question: given that the modern military is a different beast than anything in the 1700s, how would you go about setting up a fresh democracy with a check and balance on the military? Two militaries?

The argument that a modern military is unbeatable is compelling. But compelling us to do what? To dismantle its already-disadvantaged rival? Anyone who's concerned about the loss of the Checks and Balances system that has served us well so far, should be taking this argument as a reason to strengthen the people in their ability to rein in a theoretically power-hungry military. Not eliminate it entirely.

Nope, pretty much nailed it! I'm not so sure what was unclear about it though as I thought I had beat the checks and balances as avoiding the unthinkable narrative into the turf on this issue. Maybe it was one of the other gun control threads.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How are your 2nd amendment rights being threatened?

What part of "Shall NOT be infringed" don't you understand. So "ANY" tampering with what I can own, how much ammo, etc is infringing. Sorry, you will NEVER understand.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

What part of "Shall NOT be infringed" don't you understand. So "ANY" tampering with what I can own, how much ammo, etc is infringing. Sorry, you will NEVER understand.

And yet you aren't allowed to own nuclear weapons, so either your right has already been heavily infringed or restricting what you are and aren't allowed to own is not infringing your right. As long as there is one legal type of weapon for you to buy then technically your right to keep and bear arms stands.

[BadKosh]

Nukes? Please, keep to realistic discussions. Your strawman sucks. Again, why tamper with unconstitutional 'solutions' when it still is infringement?

Its a joke for lawmakers to suggest more unenforceable legislation and with their typical shallow responses, when none of it has helped. We need smarter politicians than the idiots we have now.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Nukes? Please, keep to realistic discussions. Your strawman sucks. Again, why tamper with unconstitutional 'solutions' when it still is infringement?

Its a joke for lawmakers to suggest more unenforceable legislation and with their typical shallow responses, when none of it has helped. We need smarter politicians than the idiots we have now.

You implied (if not stated) that banning certain weapons was infringing your 2nd amendment rights. A nuke is a weapon. I'm sure there are plenty of others that you aren't allowed to own either. Would you prefer I used mustard gas or weaponised smallpox as an example? I don't actually know what is banned any more so I went for one I was sure of.

[subego]

I don't think you could get much support (from all three branches of government) to allow a militia to have a nuke, so the question for individuals is moot.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Nope, pretty much nailed it! I'm not so sure what was unclear about it though as I thought I had beat the checks and balances as avoiding the unthinkable narrative into the turf on this issue. Maybe it was one of the other gun control threads.

To check and balance the military? If the military needs a check or a balance in the form of civilian offense we are toast, period. If this is a worry for you, maybe it makes sense to not pump up the military as much as we do?

These sorts of scenarios only occur in Sly Stallone movies though.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't think you could get much support (from all three branches of government) to allow a militia to have a nuke, so the question for individuals is moot.

Well said. I'm not above allowing any weapon to be owned by a private citizen. However, that person would have to prove that they can maintain and care for such a device properly (and all the money and specialized manpower that entails). That places such things out of the reach of mortal men (Gates, Buffett, Ellison, and the like notwithstanding).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

To check and balance the military? If the military needs a check or a balance in the form of civilian offense we are toast, period.

Umm, it's always been this way, you've just never noticed it before.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

To check and balance the military? If the military needs a check or a balance in the form of civilian offense we are toast, period. If this is a worry for you, maybe it makes sense to not pump up the military as much as we do?

These sorts of scenarios only occur in Sly Stallone movies though.

I'm pretty sure I asked this question in this thread.

Were you not surprised by the ease with which 9/11 caused a disproportionate government response towards its citizens?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Well said. I'm not above allowing any weapon to be owned by a private citizen. However, that person would have to prove that they can maintain and care for such a device properly (and all the money and specialized manpower that entails). That places such things out of the reach of mortal men (Gates, Buffett, Ellison, and the like notwithstanding).

It's okay for the rich to have these weapons because they are rich?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm pretty sure I asked this question in this thread.

Were you not surprised by the ease with which 9/11 caused a disproportionate government response towards its citizens?

Yes, and the power that the government has to make us scared shitless is a terrifying premise.

[subego]

The government wasn't scared shitless on its own?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

The government wasn't scared shitless on its own?

It probably was, until it got its bearings.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's okay for the rich to have these weapons because they are rich?

Isn't that the solution already proposed by the usual suspects, to just raise taxes on guns and ammo and make them more expensive? It's the same thing, only on a larger scale. Except, it actually makes sense in my example, because nukes and other WMDs require very specialized, and expensive, care.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Isn't that the solution already proposed by the usual suspects, to just raise taxes on guns and ammo and make them more expensive? It's the same thing, only on a larger scale. Except, it actually makes sense in my example, because nukes and other WMDs require very specialized, and expensive, care.

Raising taxes on guns and ammo creates a deterrent, but access to wealth should not be the deciding factor that dictates what weapons are available. I don't want Donald Trump pointing a nuke at Obama demanding his birth certificate.

[Shaddim]

If you raise the cost of guns and ammo, you will dictate what weapons are available. Same thing, different scale.

The Donald can't afford nukes, he can barely pay his outstanding loans. He isn't brilliant, just in debt up to his ridiculously coiffed hairline.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If you raise the cost of guns and ammo, you will dictate what weapons are available. Same thing, different scale.

No, you'll just create a different entry threshold and a deterrent to those who wouldn't be as comfortable meeting this threshold. If you can put together the money you can get the weapons, no matter whether you are the next Hitler or Warren Buffet.

The Donald can't afford nukes, he can barely pay his outstanding loans. He isn't brilliant, just in debt up to his ridiculously coiffed hairline.

I think you get my point.

[Shaddim]

No, by placing a heavy tax, only the wealthy will be able to buy a gun, much less the ammo to use in it. By placing the "entry point" too high, you create just another case of the haves and have-nots. Remember, you and others like this scenario because it keeps guns out of the hands of the average Joe, but it doesn't slow down rich folks at all. Only the wealthy can arm themselves, only the wealthy can smoke, only the wealthy can afford gas... So we'll just become more like the current situation in Russia?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, by placing a heavy tax, only the wealthy will be able to buy a gun, much less the ammo to use in it. By placing the "entry point" too high, you create just another case of the haves and have-nots. Remember, you and others like this scenario because it keeps guns out of the hands of the average Joe, but it doesn't slow down rich folks at all. Only the wealthy can arm themselves, only the wealthy can smoke, only the wealthy can afford gas... So we'll just become more like the current situation in Russia?

I would rather the determining factor be based on mental health, and I would rather prohibit weapons that nobody but the military needs. I know that this is not a solution, but I believe that we should be focussing on deterrents, not chasing after phantom solutions to gun violence which doesn't exist in the form of any single piece of legislation.

If one actually thinks that weapon usage should be restricted to the rich, and if one simultaneously fears the government and feel that regular Joe sixpack needs to defend himself against the tyranny of government, how can one reconcile this obvious logical contradiction?

I've been listening to this debate for a while and trying to keep open-minded, but at this point I'm just about ready to conclude: people that want no restrictions on weaponry really don't have a great reason, they just like having these weapons. If you like having these weapons, I can understand why you'd resent the thought of having certain things banned, but all I ask is that we stop kidding ourselves. These arguments about tyranny, the 2nd amendment inferring that there should be no restrictions on weaponry one can own, or these arguments about needing crazy weapons that can fire 203942094 rounds for self defense in their homes are just silly. Of course, it goes without saying that all of the FUD about the 2nd amendment being threatened is also just there to provoke fear and hysteria.

[ebuddy]

You all have given me a brilliant idea. If raising the cost of guns and ammo seeks to reduce the amount of guns in society, we should apply this reason to the taxation of prosperity as well.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You all have given me a brilliant idea. If raising the cost of guns and ammo seeks to reduce the amount of guns in society, we should apply this reason to the taxation of prosperity as well.

We should raise the cost of taxing prosperity? A tax on enacting taxes?

[cgc]

I'm curious what percentage of legal gun owners use them illegally and what percentage of illegally used guns are stolen or purchased via the black market. Taxes, gun-free zones, etc. are all proven to not prevent what has been happening in America. They are feel good measures but don't address the root cause.

If guns don't stop gun violence, why not have all the politicians who have bodyguards get rid of their security entourage? Obviously, they will demand to keep their guns but at the same time demand we (e.g. the angry villagers) give up our guns. Kind of similar to Animal Farm:

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You all have given me a brilliant idea. If raising the cost of guns and ammo seeks to reduce the amount of guns in society, we should apply this reason to the taxation of prosperity as well.

Sounds like a good plan for reducing income inequality.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How are your 2nd amendment rights being threatened?

It is hypocritical for him to push any sort of legislation on gun ownership whilst he will enjoy heavily armed protection for the rest of his life (that he signed for himself).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It is hypocritical for him to push any sort of legislation on gun ownership whilst he will enjoy heavily armed protection for the rest of his life (that he signed for himself).

The man is a military and political target that receives something like 30 threats a day. Hypocritical is not the word you're looking for.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The man is a military and political target that receives something like 30 threats a day. Hypocritical is not the word you're looking for.

Ok, I'll amend to say unqualified to chime in on the matter.

[The Final Dakar]

What makes one "qualified"?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've been listening to this debate for a while and trying to keep open-minded, but at this point I'm just about ready to conclude: people that want no restrictions on weaponry really don't have a great reason, they just like having these weapons. If you like having these weapons, I can understand why you'd resent the thought of having certain things banned, but all I ask is that we stop kidding ourselves. These arguments about tyranny, the 2nd amendment inferring that there should be no restrictions on weaponry one can own, or these arguments about needing crazy weapons that can fire 203942094 rounds for self defense in their homes are just silly. Of course, it goes without saying that all of the FUD about the 2nd amendment being threatened is also just there to provoke fear and hysteria.

I'm shocked, really. And here I was thinking you'd be swayed over to our "side".

Reasons I own firearms (my reasons, which are as valid as anyone's):

1. In defense of tyranny. Not only on a federal level, but state and/or local, as well. Since I can't predict the future, being prepared is logical.
2. Home/personal defense.
3. Sport. I don't hunt very often, but I do enjoy trap and target shooting.
4. Collectibility. I own some weapons that are worth a great deal, from both monetary and historical perspectives.

However, I don't need a reason, as long as I obey the laws and care for them properly. That's the foundation of this country's rule of law.

[Athens]

I hardly doubt that in defense of tyranny ever came into your mind for owning a gun until debate and talk about banning guns came up. Im pretty sure the only thing on your mind when you bought your guns was Home/Personal defence, sport and collectability and this tyranny thing developed as a argument of defending gun rights after the fact.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I hardly doubt that in defense of tyranny ever came into your mind for owning a gun until debate and talk about banning guns came up.

Incorrect, I've owned guns, and thought about their ownership, for most of my life. It was a topic of debate as early as my high school civics and history classes (~27 years ago).

[Athens]

I stand corrected. Just most people that I have herd talk about defending against tyranny end up having to look up what tyranny even means when you ask them what it is. I just dont think its much on the minds of most people when they buy guns. Usally its about self defence, or cool factor or hunting.