America and Guns,

[elbe]

If you don't mind me asking, when was that? I worked there in 1998 and they had a pretty strict "no weapons" policy. The Park does have its own police, which does have access to firearms, but they didn't regularly carry them IIRC.

Probably one of the high school trips, so about 98-00. I assumed it was security but it was still strange, at the least, to see a weapon that large being carried about. Potentially it could have been some sort of shooting game weapon, but I only saw it from across the main path and I don't know where he went after that.

 

[Chaos]

I'll hear this argument another thousand times and it'll never, ever make any sense.

Our protection from government tyranny does not come from citizens ability to counteract it. The protection is the fact that the government's armed forces are comprised of citizen volunteers. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that can protect us from government tyranny. Nothing at all - at least not in 2014.

Whether we want to admit it or not, when the 2nd was penned, the government had the same arms as us, just more of them. Today, the government can level cities without even getting out of their pajama's.

This bears repeating. Anyone who thinks that private citizens with firearms protect against tyranny is deluding themselves.

 

[Totovader]

This bears repeating. Anyone who thinks that private citizens with firearms protect against tyranny is deluding themselves.

These guys would disagree, and frankly- they would know.

History would disagree with you. Any rational person would disagree.

 

[DavidJames]

This bears repeating. Anyone who thinks that private citizens with firearms protect against tyranny is deluding themselves.

It's the Red Dawn Syndrome, Cowboy mentality, Testosterone gone wild.

 

[Kestrel]

I'll hear this argument another thousand times and it'll never, ever make any sense.

Our protection from government tyranny does not come from citizens ability to counteract it. The protection is the fact that the government's armed forces are comprised of citizen volunteers. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that can protect us from government tyranny. Nothing at all - at least not in 2014.

Whether we want to admit it or not, when the 2nd was penned, the government had the same arms as us, just more of them. Today, the government can level cities without even getting out of their pajama's.

Tyrants avoid this problem by creating ethnically pure armies. The Republican Guards in Iraq were all members of Saddam's tribe. The Czars had the Cossacks and even Alabama had an all white National Guard.

This same practice was common back when our nation was founded. Ethnic and religios minorities were kept out of the army, making it easy to use that army against these same minorities.

The US armed forces of today are ethnically, culturally and geographically diverse. An army of the people, unlikely to obey an order to attack their own kind.

 

[newyorkguy]

These guys would disagree, and frankly- they would know.

History would disagree with you. Any rational person would disagree.

This is the best you've got? To prove that absent widespread private gun ownership Americans are at significant risk of a tyrannical government takeover, you link to a Wikipedia page entitled, "Founding Fathers of the United States?" Following that by arguing that anyone who doesn't agree with you is irrational?

That's not even an argument. It's just name-calling. What are you going to "argue" next? Anyone who doesn't agree with you has cooties?

 

[NoahFence]

These guys would disagree, and frankly- they would know.

History would disagree with you. Any rational person would disagree.

Rationality has nothing to do with it. It's a fact. You cannot take out a tank with a shotgun, rifle or handgun. You can't shoot down an F-35 with the contents of your bug-out kit.

Constant appeals to what it really means to be 'Murican are all well and good when writing a novel or a editorial. In practice, in reality where we all live, not so much.

 

[Totovader]

This bears repeating. Anyone who thinks that private citizens with firearms protect against tyranny is deluding themselves.

These guys would disagree, and frankly- they would know.

History would disagree with you. Any rational person would disagree.

This is the best you've got? To prove that absent widespread private gun ownership Americans are at significant risk of a tyrannical government takeover, you link to a Wikipedia page entitled, "Founding Fathers of the United States?" Following that by arguing that anyone who doesn't agree with you is irrational?

That's not even an argument. It's just name-calling. What are you going to "argue" next? Anyone who doesn't agree with you has cooties?

When the argument is so patently false, the counter-argument is quite simple. It's not name-calling: scroll up for a genuine example of that.

 

[NoahFence]

When the argument is so patently false, the counter-argument is quite simple. It's not name-calling: scroll up for a genuine example of that.

Well then, do tell.

How do you shoot down an F-35 with the contens of your bug-out kit?
How do you take out a tank with a shotgun / rifle / handgun?

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that today isn't the same as it was 250 years ago?


FYI - I know how to do those things.

 

[Polaris]

I'll hear this argument another thousand times and it'll never, ever make any sense.

Our protection from government tyranny does not come from citizens ability to counteract it. The protection is the fact that the government's armed forces are comprised of citizen volunteers. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that can protect us from government tyranny. Nothing at all - at least not in 2014.

Whether we want to admit it or not, when the 2nd was penned, the government had the same arms as us, just more of them. Today, the government can level cities without even getting out of their pajama's.

Rationality has nothing to do with it. It's a fact. You cannot take out a tank with a shotgun, rifle or handgun. You can't shoot down an F-35 with the contents of your bug-out kit.

Constant appeals to what it really means to be 'Murican are all well and good when writing a novel or a editorial. In practice, in reality where we all live, not so much.

And I don't get the constant assumption that gun ownership = resistance to tyranny = open battlefield combat with standing armed forces. I would assume use against soft targets - assassinations of both high and low level functionaries, raids on communications, that kind of thing.

 

[NoahFence]

And I don't get the constant assumption that gun ownership = resistance to tyranny = open battlefield combat with standing armed forces.

That's not my assumption at all. I'm simply responding to that portion of the argument from the people who view the 2nd Amendment as holy writ. I'm well aware that gun ownership consists of far more than the illogical implication that they're preparing for tyranny.

I would assume use against soft targets - assassinations of both high and low level functionaries, raids on communications, that kind of thing.

So basically the plot of "Revolution".

That was a TV show.

 

[DavidJames]

The constitution isn't the only historical document people think is inerrant and it's interpretation shouldn't change based on the evolution of society.

 

[sunmaster14]

Rationality has nothing to do with it. It's a fact. You cannot take out a tank with a shotgun, rifle or handgun. You can't shoot down an F-35 with the contents of your bug-out kit.

The army is not the problem. The police force is the problem. If an army sides with tyranny, tyranny will win, but armies are not trained in urban suppression, nor are they indoctrinated to believe their own people are the enemy. Quite the opposite in fact. Armies do not arrest and imprison citizens for political crimes. And ordinary soldiers answer ultimately to career military officers who typically reside outside the political structure. In theory, military leaders answer to the civilian leadership, but they are independent enough that they are quite capable of making their own decisions about right and wrong.

Police forces are much more easily purged and molded to suit the political leaders' whims. Hitler installed his tyranny by taking control of the police, not by subverting the military. Stalin exerted his control over the Politburo by framing opponents for crimes and using the police to administer extrajudicial punishment (usually execution after a show trial). The Great Purge was executed by the NKVD, which was the Soviet secret police. In fact, the Red Army itself was purged, which of course proved to be a disaster for the Soviet Union in 1941 when the Wehrmacht ran roughshod over the poorly led Soviet forces for several months.

 

[Totovader]

The constitution isn't the only historical document people think is inerrant and it's interpretation shouldn't change based on the evolution of society.

Ignoring the fact that your statement is historically inaccurate- rights don't change because the nature of humanity doesn't change. The Constitution has been amended 27 times- sometimes to the detriment of society.

 

[NoahFence]

...Still trying to figure out where our rights come from if not the constitution....

 

[Polaris]

That's not my assumption at all. I'm simply responding to that portion of the argument from the people who view the 2nd Amendment as holy writ. I'm well aware that gun ownership consists of far more than the illogical implication that they're preparing for tyranny.

Apologies then if I misunderstood the part about taking on tanks and F-35s with small arms - my experience with the militia/sic semper tyrannus types is deliberately limited, but I think even those loons understand that the whole purpose of a tank is to be bulletproof. I know I think the 2nd Amendment should remain intact and untouched, and that isn't my portion of the argument in the least.

But then, if it came to such drastic actions I'd be more likely to learn how to seriously screw with computer systems.

So basically the plot of "Revolution".

That was a TV show.

Must have been before my time.

 

[sunmaster14]

The constitution isn't the only historical document people think is inerrant and it's interpretation shouldn't change based on the evolution of society.

The Constitution contains within in it a reasonable process whereby it can be amended. That is an implicit admission that it is not the gospel truth.

As for whether its interpretation should change, I think it's important to distinguish between interpreting the meaning of its provisions in new contexts and actually changing the interpretation to keep up with social and political changes. The former is legitimate; the latter is not.

 

[Polaris]

The army is not the problem. The police force is the problem. If an army sides with tyranny, tyranny will win, but armies are not trained in urban suppression, nor are they indoctrinated to believe their own people are the enemy. Quite the opposite in fact. Armies do not arrest and imprison citizens for political crimes. And ordinary soldiers answer ultimately to career military officers who typically reside outside the political structure. In theory, military leaders answer to the civilian leadership, but they are independent enough that they are quite capable of making their own decisions about right and wrong.

Police forces are much more easily purged and molded to suit the political leaders' whims. Hitler installed his tyranny by taking control of the police, not by subverting the military. Stalin exerted his control over the Politburo by framing opponents for crimes and using the police to administer extrajudicial punishment (usually execution after a show trial). The Great Purge was executed by the NKVD, which was the Soviet secret police. In fact, the Red Army itself was purged, which of course proved to be a disaster for the Soviet Union in 1941 when the Wehrmacht ran roughshod over the poorly led Soviet forces for several months.

The FLN began their campaign by assassinating policemen as well. I'm pretty sure that was a tactic of Castro's in his rise to power.

 

[Craig4]

Your argument is entirely without merit.

How ya figure? Not that it matters. Gun ownership is down and support for control is up in the latest polling.

It should should be instructive to you that non-smokers decide when and where smokers can smoke these days. It's going to be a generational shift but we'll get there.

 

[Polaris]

How ya figure? Not that it matters. Gun ownership is down and support for control is up in the latest polling.

It should should be instructive to you that non-smokers decide when and where smokers can smoke these days. It's going to be a generational shift but we'll get there.

How very "Anti-Saloon League".