[subego]

I should clarify, the above statement applies for being in public. Your house is a little different, so I can't make such a blanket statement. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Sure, we should outlaw firearms, that way the 275 million existing weapons in this country will only be in the hands of criminals and gangs (who already ignore existing gun laws). That's a wonderful idea. I'm sure they'll just give them up is someone asks nicely...

Because that is exactly the inescapable and only conclusion that could be drawn from a post that reads

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

If it's the kind that dictates that more instruments of death in the hands the public result in higher public safety, I'm all for it becoming more uncommon, because it ain't calibrated to reality.

I know for a fact that you are not a slobbering idiot. Stop arguing like one, please.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So, I can infer that you are for the complete disbandment of all militaries, armed services, armed police officers and nuclear weapons in the US? I mean, their only purpose is to wage war and kill people, right...distilled for efficiency over time and able to be wielded for mass murder, correct?

That's where we end up following your logic to it's conclusion.

That's not logic, and it's certainly not an argument in any way inferrable from the post you responded to.

Please see post above, except I'm not so sure with you.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Did someone even suggest this on this page? Call me crazy, but I expect better than a strawman argument from you. I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground between where we are and a full-on gun ban.

Yes, it's called public gun education, where people learn how to handle and respect firearms, so they don't live in fear of the gunpowder boogeyman.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yes, it's called public gun education, where people learn how to handle and respect firearms, so they don't live in fear of the gunpowder boogeyman.

That's a nice way to not address the heart of my post.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I also should throw in there, even though I don't support much regulation, I certainly agree with the claim if you have less guns, you'll have less deaths by guns.

With freedom comes risk.

We reached a tipping point, a looong time ago, where lessening the number of new guns, parts, (and even ammo) will have the effect you're talking about.

Originally Posted by sek929 

No, it's not common sense, it's a jump to conclusion and absolutely brimmed with confirmation bias. "I support CC, and crime is down while CC is on the rise. It must be true!"

because it is true.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's a nice way to not address the heart of my post.

You disrespect my intent, try to make me look ignorant, then complain when a small portion of your medicine is returned. Really?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

because it is true.

No, there's correlation between them but not causation.

Pirates prevent global warming

[subego]

Great. We broke the shit. Nice going.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

That's not logic, and it's certainly not an argument in any way inferrable from the post you responded to.

Please see post above, except I'm not so sure with you.

I made an inference that was incorrect to the point of his post. Honest mistake

You made a personal attack. What's your excuse?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I know for a fact that you are not a slobbering idiot. Stop arguing like one, please.

as I said in a previous post:

We reached a tipping point, a looong time ago, where lessening the number of new guns, parts (and even ammo) will have the effect you're talking about.

Due to having decades of warning (and the river of illegal weapons flowing into the USA), if they brought about further firearm restrictions on new weapons, it would have zero impact on criminals. What would happen is law-abiding folks will be turned away, while the black market is clogged with guns in this country. Case in point, I can buy an illegal, unmarked AR-15 for $500-600, NIB. The same weapon from a wholesaler is $750-900. I wouldn't purchase the former, because I obey the law, but a thug doesn't care. "We'll stop the sale of guns, we'll make them harder to acquire!" No, you'll make it tough for decent people, while criminals won't be restricted at all.

FYI, I'm all for a better, more comprehensive, background check. No purchasing records, because that's none of the federal govt's business, but better checks and a comprehensive firearm education requirement are good things. Want to own a handgun or semi-auto rifle (I'm not counting shotguns and bolt-action/single-shot rifles)? You need to take a class and pass it, but after that you get a CWP as well. In almost anything, education lessens the frequency of dangerous situations and complications. It works for sex ed and driving, and it works with firearms too.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

No, there's correlation between them but not causation.

Pirates prevent global warming

After seeing the effect a dozen times in different regions, ignoring the evidence becomes irresponsible.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I repeat, correlation does not equal causation. Crime is down everywhere, more people than ever eat McDonalds. Crime is down everywhere, more people drive Hondas than ever before. The reason for the decrease in violent crime cannot be attributed to one factor.

In fact, crime rates fell faster in states right after they enacted concealed carry, with Florida being a pretty strong indicator - violent crime against individuals fell a lot right after carrying was legal. The correlation is very strong, but you're right, it isn't causation. However, interviews with felons incarcerated for violent crime included questions about their motives and decision processes; they said that uncertainty over whether individuals were armed changed their habits,

Originally Posted by sek929 

it's not common sense, it's a jump to conclusion and absolutely brimmed with confirmation bias. "I support CC, and crime is down while CC is on the rise. It must be true!"

it looks like you are using the kind of invalid cause/correlation logic you just discounted... Many gun owners are no doubt black-and-white thinkers, but it is just bad logic to assume that this particular logical flaw is used by enough individuals to make a public opinion difference.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by subego 

Reading between the lines, I'd say no.

The anti-Federalists were. The Federalists were for the militia.

A lot of people are apparently assuming that "the militia" was some sort of government organized and controlled group. It was not. It was individuals who answered a call to arms. Think Paul Revere's ride...."To arms!" Not "the militia is activated, go see your commander!" Instead "there is a common threat approaching, and the community needs an armed group to defend it!"

[subego]

sek's been self-banned from the PWL.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

A lot of people are apparently assuming that "the militia" was some sort of government organized and controlled group.

Like, say, the anti-Federalists.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The militia was already argued against and it lost. We replaced it with a standing army (despite the founder's reservations).

No, the militia still exists today in the common man's ownership of arms. There was a standing army at the time of the 2nd Amendment's drafting, it didn't replace militias. You can say the Reserve forces or police have replaced the militia, but that wouldn't be true either as the common man is still capable of owning a firearm.

By the way, all; "well-regulated" meant effectively outfitted or provisioned as a check against the standing armies. Anti-Federalists insisted on this amendment to provide a check on the standing armies and is not useful if the militias are only outfitted with pea-shooters and slingshots.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

A lot of people are apparently assuming that "the militia" was some sort of government organized and controlled group. It was not. It was individuals who answered a call to arms. Think Paul Revere's ride...."To arms!" Not "the militia is activated, go see your commander!" Instead "there is a common threat approaching, and the community needs an armed group to defend it!"

Exactly!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Like, say, the anti-Federalists.

Using this logic, how would this exclude say... anarchists?

Anti-Federalists were those who wanted to ensure there were checks against power run amok and insisted on provisions that would seek balance between the centralized authority and the populace.

[mattyb]

I'd be interested in the figures for legal firearms being used to kill people against illegal firearms used to kill people. Then of course we'd break that down even further into illegal firearms used to kill people with a criminal record against ... etc.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I'd be interested in the figures for legal firearms being used to kill people against illegal firearms used to kill people. Then of course we'd break that down even further into illegal firearms used to kill people with a criminal record against ... etc.

But that wouldn't be good FUD.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Using this logic, how would this exclude say... anarchists?

Anti-Federalists were those who wanted to ensure there were checks against power run amok and insisted on provisions that would seek balance between the centralized authority and the populace.

I agree with your second paragraph.

I don't understand your first.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You disrespect my intent, try to make me look ignorant, then complain when a small portion of your medicine is returned. Really?

Maybe you should communicate your intent more clearly because I'm not getting it.

Also you response was meant to disrespect me somehow? 'Cause aside from not addressing my post its a quality suggestion.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, the militia still exists today in the common man's ownership of arms.

I didn't say it stopped existing. I said they stopped existing for the security of the nation. The army took that role – the role that was outlined in the 2nd.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I didn't say it stopped existing. I said they stopped existing for the security of the nation. The army took that role – the role that was outlined in the 2nd.

Then who protects the nation from the army?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Then who protects the nation from the army?

I think that was the general idea behind using militias instead of having a standing army. The practical logistics of it turned out to suck, and Washington decided he had to create one anyway.

To answer your question, I think this is why we have civilian oversight of the military.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think that was the general idea behind using militias instead of having a standing army. The practical logistics of it turned out to suck, and Washington decided he had to create one anyway.

To answer your question, I think this is why we have civilian oversight of the military.

I don't think the secretary of defense has the balls to stand in a street in front of a tank. Never mind that it wouldn't work if it came to that.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

I don't think the secretary of defense has the balls to stand in a street in front of a tank. Never mind that it wouldn't work if it came to that.

If it came to that, our AR-15s aren't going to be doing much to tanks, drones and missiles, either.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If it came to that, our AR-15s aren't going to be doing much to tanks, drones and missiles, either.

And round we go. We don't need to be able to beat tanks and drones to win a war against the government.

To name a few modern equivalents

Afghanistan (Soviets)
Afghanistan (US)
Iraq
Syria
Eqypt
Vietnam
etc.

The populace does not need to decisively win a battle to erode a tyrannical government. On the world stage, an armed populace can isolate and topple a regime by
A) Disrupting the economy of a tyrannical regime
B) Eroding international support for a regime for their use of such weapons against a population.
C) Enticing military defectors to the cause (bringing heavier weapons and supplies)
D) Forcing the disbandment of "for-show only" political processes designed to obfuscate the depth of corruption on the world stage.
E) Giving the opposition a voice that is not easily squelched by the regime (and if it were to be, it would be an international headline)
F) Attrition; decommissioning the use of advanced weaponry such as drones and tanks. American factories make those weapons and would likely be shut down or targeted in the case of civil war, at least after some time.
G) Assassinating key regime personnel using the anonymity of the populace as an effective means of getting close to those personnel.
H) Allowing enough time to organize an opposition command structure and PR machine to seek international support.
I) Taking back the country based on the sheer numbers of armed population (~150 million people potentially supporting the cause vs > 2.5 million military, not counting defections). I would bet many of the military would defect to defend their homes and families in the case of civil war.
J) Taking back the country because people are willing to fight and die for the future of their homes and families.

A federal firearms database would severely jeopardize the ability of the populace to quickly dismantle the regime as the regime would have a list of names and addresses of people to target. The regime wouldn't have to flatten entire neighborhoods to achieve a strategic suppression of the unrest. Flattening entire neighborhoods is a good way to draw more to the cause against you including from international observers.

Take a look at Syria as a good example. The world did not intervene, and what started out as peaceful protests degraded to civil war - one that the regime cannot win despite their (at the beginning) vastly superior military force.

Again, this is (in my own terminology) THE BIG RED BUTTON. We hope to God we never have to use it, and it's mere existence gives pause to those who would usurp authoritative processes for their own gain. It's presence is much the same reason we keep a nuclear arsenal. We pray we never use it, and the fact that it's there means that certain lines will not be crossed in fear of the consequences of a reprisal.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And round we go. We don't need to be able to beat tanks and drones to win a war against the government.

They're not fighting the government. They're fighting the military.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Afghanistan (Soviets)

We armed them.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Afghanistan (US)

Explain.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Iraq

Which war.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Syria

And they're doing it with far more restrictive gun rights. Funny that.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Eqypt

The military abstained on this one.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Vietnam

One of the most highly debated wars the US 'lost'. Not so simple as you're trying to paint it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The populace does not need to decisively win a battle to erode a tyrannical government. On the world stage, an armed populace can isolate and topple a regime by
A) Disrupting the economy of a tyrannical regime
B) Eroding international support for a regime for their use of such weapons against a population.
C) Enticing military defectors to the cause (bringing heavier weapons and supplies)

You don't need guns to do these.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

D) Forcing the disbandment of "for-show only" political processes designed to obfuscate the depth of corruption on the world stage.

No idea what this means.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

E) Giving the opposition a voice that is not easily squelched by the regime (and if it were to be, it would be an international headline)

Illustrate. You don't need guns to talk. See: The Internet

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

F) Attrition; decommissioning the use of advanced weaponry such as drones and tanks. American factories make those weapons and would likely be shut down or targeted in the case of civil war, at least after some time.

Conversely they would be heavily fortified and defended by the military.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

G) Assassinating key regime personnel using the anonymity of the populace as an effective means of getting close to those personnel.

You don't need universal gun rights for that. All it takes is one man with one gun (or bomb).

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

H) Allowing enough time to organize an opposition command structure and PR machine to seek international support.

You can do that while under despotic rule.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I) Taking back the country based on the sheer numbers of armed population (~150 million people potentially supporting the cause vs > 2.5 million military, not counting defections). I would bet many of the military would defect to defend their homes and families in the case of civil war.

That's an argument I've made against the need for guns rights. Defectors become the civilian armory.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

They're not fighting the government. They're fighting the military.

Sorry, who? And in case of a tyrannical regime there would be no distinction.

We armed them.

So who will arm us?

Explain.

After a decade, we still really haven't accomplished what we set out to accomplish. The left should know quite well what I'm talking about.

Which war.

Second one. There is a still a strong insurgency movement.

And they're doing it with far more restrictive gun rights. Funny that.

And 100,000's of dead civilians. It didn't have to be so. A shorter war with an armed populace would have prevented assad from shelling neighborhoods unopposed for close to a year before the revolutionaries could do anything about it. Now they are shooting down planes, but they started with rocks and that cost alot of people their lives.

The military abstained on this one.

Because? Hint: They did not want to go to war with their own people and face losing power.

One of the most highly debated wars the US 'lost'. Not so simple as you're trying to paint it.

It is not debatable that the US did not achieve it's strategic objectives at the outset of the war. You could say we won because we killed more of them then they killed of us, but at the end of the day they got what they were fighting for (us to back off).

You don't need guns to do these.

Explain how an unarmed citizenry can accomplish any of those objectives. Please.

No idea what this means.

A corrupt and/or paid for congress would be absolved at the onset of a civil war.

Illustrate. You don't need guns to talk. See: The Internet

How's that working for those in communist china and NK? Iran? Their revolution was squashed because they were not armed and troublemakers were quickly killed or arrested with no means to prevent this from happening to themselves. The world was not outraged because it was done behind closed doors. No headlines about a battle, war, etc....just off to a nondescript building and gone.

Conversely they would be heavily fortified and defended by the military.

Supposing the military is still intact.

You don't need universal gun rights for that. All it takes is one man with one gun (or bomb).

But to what end? If the opposition isn't organized and armed the next man up just takes over - no one would be there to pressure for a new government.

You can do that while under despotic rule.

not when doing so gets you a bullet to the back of the head.

That's an argument I've made against the need for guns rights. Defectors become the civilian armory.

But you need a group to defect to in the first place.

[Snow-i]

Dakar:

Can you cite just one example of an unarmed group successfully overthrowing an armed regime? Bloodless coups happen because of the threat of armed action.

At that stage, it is all about influence. The pen may be mightier than the sword in alot of situations, but civil war is not one of them. The 2nd amendment is there for a reason - one that can be traced back through all of history. There are absolutely no examples in the history of man that can demonstrate an unarmed populace maintaining a successful society beyond a half-century. You can argue a few first world countries today do it but without the US maintaining military dominance over everyone I would bet you'd see quite a few more tyrannical regimes. But, we are talking about the US. The juice has to be worth the squeeze and the 2nd amendment makes sure that the US military might stays in civilians' oversight.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Sorry, who? And in case of a tyrannical regime there would be no distinction.

Cart before horse. How do you get into power without the military?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So who will arm us?

Half your points rely on on demonstrating what is happening to the rest of the world. Them.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

After a decade, we still really haven't accomplished what we set out to accomplish. The left should know quite well what I'm talking about.

It's not because of us being fought. Its because of their attitude towards us and what we're trying to do there.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

There is a still a strong insurgency movement.

That didn't succeed against us.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And 100,000's of dead civilians. It didn't have to be so. A shorter war with an armed populace would have prevented assad from shelling neighborhoods unopposed for close to a year before the revolutionaries could do anything about it. Now they are shooting down planes, but they started with rocks and that cost alot of people their lives.

And why hasn't anyone armed them? Because we're not sure the alternative is any better than the current regime. How would Libya have faired if the world hadn't decided to intervene?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Because? Hint: They did not want to go to war with their own people and face losing power.

That has nothing to do with guns, however.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Explain how an unarmed citizenry can accomplish any of those objectives. Please.

Not work for military, not fight military, making people see your point of view.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

A corrupt and/or paid for congress would be absolved at the onset of a civil war.

Still not following. What are guns doing in this equation?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

How's that working for those in communist china and NK? Iran? Their revolution was squashed because they were not armed and troublemakers were quickly killed or arrested with no means to prevent this from happening to themselves. The world was not outraged because it was done behind closed doors. No headlines about a battle, war, etc....just off to a nondescript building and gone.

That's all after the fact. It's hard to fight against an entrenched regime? No shit. All the talk of the 2nd is about preventing them.

Their revolution gets squashed because there aren't enough of them. Thanks to speech (not guns), though, it's getting harder and harder for China to crack down on dissidents.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Supposing the military is still intact.

If the military is so smart as to somehow individually target gun owners from a database, I'm pretty sure they're going to beat your theoretical armed but unorganized civilian population to the punch on shit they consider vital.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

But to what end? If the opposition isn't organized and armed the next man up just takes over - no one would be there to pressure for a new government.

You don't need guns to organize and plan. That's an intellectual endeavor.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

not when doing so gets you a bullet to the back of the head.

As opposed to armed resistance where it nets you a bullet to the face?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

But you need a group to defect to in the first place.

Not anymore than you need a group to choose to resist government tyranny.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Dakar:

Can you cite just one example of an unarmed group successfully overthrowing an armed regime? Bloodless coups happen because of the threat of armed action.

You're misconstruing my point. My point is that all effective resistance and revolution has been done with outside help. We relied heavily on the French soldiers and training, the spanish for arms, and the dutch for funds during the birth of this country.

This difference is best demonstrated in modern times by the international involvement in Libya vs. Syria.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You're misconstruing my point. My point is that all effective resistance and revolution has been done with outside help. We relied heavily on the French soldiers and training, the spanish for arms, and the dutch for funds during the birth of this country.

This difference is best demonstrated in modern times by the international involvement in Libya vs. Syria.

My point is that the 2nd amendment keeps us from having to rely on outside help in the first place.

[subego]

Also, there's help and there's help.

There's selling someone arms, and then there's discounting or giving someone arms.

Which did the Spanish do? I have no idea.

[mattyb]

There are a few here who talk about being able to withstand a government or an army, that that is what the 2nd protects against. Can you please show me when this has actually worked. I don't know much US History, but I do know the story of the Bonus Army. And the 2nd didn't do shit to help them.

Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Cart before horse. How do you get into power without the military?

By generating influence from within the military.

Half your points rely on on demonstrating what is happening to the rest of the world. Them.

Ok? You didn't answer the question.

It's not because of us being fought. Its because of their attitude towards us and what we're trying to do there.

It's because they are fighting us for what we are trying to do there

That didn't succeed against us.

Nor did we succeed against them. Because they are armed, and inflicted enough damage for us to set up a weak government then say "Have at it guys! Good luck!" because of the political climate at home.

And why hasn't anyone armed them? Because we're not sure the alternative is any better than the current regime. How would Libya have faired if the world hadn't decided to intervene?

Yes, it is not in our interest to arm them. Just as it may not be in anyone's interest to arm us in case of another civil war/world power vacuum. If anything, this strengthens my point that we should not hope to have an outside entity arm us incase our government goes tyrannical.

That has nothing to do with guns, however.

This had to do with influence. And look, the unarmed populace got another tyranny! Reinforcing my point that though Egypt's unarmed populace was successful in ousting their dictator, the next man up took control and it's back to business as usual over there. The next round of riots were suppressed by force, however. The world didn't really seem to care.

Not work for military, not fight military, making people see your point of view.

Make the people with guns pointed at their heads should they step out of line "see your point of view?" Doesn't jive.

Still not following. What are guns doing in this equation?

Forcing the regime to consolidate power and, instead of working through a corrupt institution, declare a new institution which could aid the resistance in garnering international economic, military, or other support. Without teeth, however, nothing stops the regime from utilizing current institutions such as congress and maintaining plausible deniability on a world stage. Look at Syria, the armed rebellion more or less forced Assad to do things that reflected poorly upon his credibility in the world news (such as flattening entire provinces). Before the revolution became armed, he was simply rounding up and executing troublemakers.

That's all after the fact. It's hard to fight against an entrenched regime? No shit. All the talk of the 2nd is about preventing them.

The threat alone prevents such an entrenched regime to a great degree.

Their revolution gets squashed because there aren't enough of them. Thanks to speech (not guns), though, it's getting harder and harder for China to crack down on dissidents.

Their revolutions got crushed because those who demonstrated were imprisoned and killed. Would you speak out against the regime knowing you will surely die? If the protesters were armed, Iran could not have quashed it so quickly and quietly. It would have become an international story overnight and many more would have united to fight the injustice, even sparked more unrest in isolated areas just as the Arab Spring saw 5-6 countries all rise up at the same time.

If the military is so smart as to somehow individually target gun owners from a database, I'm pretty sure they're going to beat your theoretical armed but unorganized civilian population to the punch on shit they consider vital.

It's not that simple, Dakar. They wouldn't have the resources, nor the ability to account for defectors, nor could they win a war of attrition. Given a long enough time, the American populace could simply starve the regime to death by cutting off access to domestic food supplies. You underestimate the power of 150 million people at home vs a military of 2.5 million.

You don't need guns to organize and plan. That's an intellectual endeavor.

Organize and plan what? A march on the capital just to be arrested and slaughtered?

As opposed to armed resistance where it nets you a bullet to the face?

That's quite a jump in logic there.

Not anymore than you need a group to choose to resist government tyranny.

Exactly. The group has to survive long enough to garner defectors though. Took the Syrians about a year, and many of them were slaughtered by the Assad regime because they could not fight back.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

There are a few here who talk about being able to withstand a government or an army, that that is what the 2nd protects against. Can you please show me when this has actually worked. I don't know much US History, but I do know the story of the Bonus Army. And the 2nd didn't do shit to help them.

Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US homeland hasn't been invaded since 1812. No one has been stupid enough to try. Keep in mind we were not a military superpower until the conclusion of World War II. Infact, before WW2 our military was pretty shitty.

If you took Gun Owners in Montana alone and counted them by themselves as an army, it would be a little more then one fifth of the entire US military today. Who would be stupid enough to invade us? Who would be dumb enough to try to take over?

[mattyb]

I very much doubt, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, that they were thinking 'Oh shit, those guys from Montana are coming after us with their 30-30s.'

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I didn't say it stopped existing. I said they stopped existing for the security of the nation. The army took that role – the role that was outlined in the 2nd.

Why do you assume they're mutually exclusive? It seems to me they were both regarded as necessary for national security.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

There are a few here who talk about being able to withstand a government or an army, that that is what the 2nd protects against. Can you please show me when this has actually worked. I don't know much US History, but I do know the story of the Bonus Army. And the 2nd didn't do shit to help them.

Bonus Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, but the Bonus Army lacked imagination in its leadership. They never figured that Hoover would just turn the troops loose on them. They assumed that there was some kind of due process needed to shoot/burn/kill American citizens.

We know now that there ISN'T that kind of due process in all cases.

Silly Bonus Army!

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I very much doubt, when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, that they were thinking 'Oh shit, those guys from Montana are coming after us with their 30-30s.'

Japan intended to cripple our military and take over the Pacific. They never planned to invade the US (they knew they would lose). Yamamoto himself (the commander of the Japanese Navy) is quoted as saying something along the lines of "all we've done is wake a sleeping giant." So yes, they were thinking "Oh shit those guys from the US are coming for us."

Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though there is debate about the quote verbatim:

Regardless of the provenance of the quote, Yamamoto believed that Japan could not win a protracted war with the United States. Moreover, he seems to have believed that the Pearl Harbor attack had become a blunder — even though he was the person who came up with the idea of a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. It is recorded that "Yamamoto alone" (while all his staff members were celebrating) spent the day after Pearl Harbor "sunk in apparent depression".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

My point is that the 2nd amendment keeps us from having to rely on outside help in the first place.

Which one of the examples you listed demonstrates that?

Afghanistan (Soviets)
Afghanistan (US)
Iraq
Syria
Eqypt
Vietnam

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why do you assume they're mutually exclusive?

Because I know who got sent to do the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The US homeland hasn't been invaded since 1812. No one has been stupid enough to try.

This is a result of a geographic advantage is it not?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Which one of the examples you listed demonstrates that?

An armed populace makes those scenarios likely to occur, thereby acting as a deterrence for anyone who would try.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is a result of a geographic advantage is it not?

Only because the US citizenry would fiercely repel anyone who tried to land on our shores or try to go through Mexico or Canada. Resupplying to fight native militias would be a nightmare.

[Snow-i]

Dakar:

I want to make sure I understand your position correctly.

You believe that the 2nd does not act as a check against the erosion of our constitutional republic?
Further, you believe that in terms of revolting against a tyrannical regime, there is no difference between an armed populace and an unarmed one at the outset of the revolt?

If I'm wrong or off base, my apologies.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The US homeland hasn't been invaded since 1812.

Depends on who you ask, WRT to German U-boats.