The Gun Thread

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by Botnst

The 2nd amendment wasn't written to guarantee the right to hunt deer.

It was all about protecting the individual's household and community from external threats. It is of equal importance to the 1st and all other amendments in the Bill of Rights. So named because of those amendments' restrictions on government's ability to step on the neck of the people.

The 2nd Amendment is a tool for guaranteeing the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

OK, thanks for the Constitutional primer course.

Did I miss the clause stating 'The right to pistol grips and large volume magazines shall not be infringed'?

If it was so cut and dried what the framers of the constitution had in mind, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The 2nd amendment is very open ended and it is the different interpretations that cause all the uproar. Personally, I agree with the interpretation that it is intended to keep the gov't honest (kinda failing there), but if we start revolting against the gov't, the pistol grips and large magazines aren't going to help. We will need the army on our side, or we'll lose. Can't fight a tank with a rifle.

[cmbdiesel]

or this one -
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

If it was so cut and dried what the framers of the constitution had in mind, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

It's cut and dried allright. "right" and "shall not be infringed" are pretty simple words that cant really be interpreted to mean anything other than what they mean.

However. The argument will continue forever simply because there are large numbers of people who dont care for the US constitution and are determined to stuff their opinions down other peoples throats and if that means destroying the constituion to do so they will happily try.

We will need the army on our side, or we'll lose. Can't fight a tank with a rifle.

Not necessarily. Plenty of oppressive governments have been overthrown thruought history when the army was on their side. What's really the deciding factor is the will of the citizenry. Do you realize just how small and inadequate the US military actually is?

- Peter.

[JollyRoger]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

It's cut and dried allright. "right" and "shall not be infringed" are pretty simple words that cant really be interpreted to mean anything other than what they mean.

However. The argument will continue forever simply because there are large numbers of people who dont care for the US constitution and are determined to stuff their opinions down other peoples throats and if that means destroying the constituion to do so they will happily try.



Not necessarily. Plenty of oppressive governments have been overthrown thruought history when the army was on their side. What's really the deciding factor is the will of the citizenry. Do you realize just how small and inadequate the US military actually is?

- Peter.

I would suggest you look into the "Bonus Army".

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

I would suggest you look into the "Bonus Army".

They were not popularly supported.

[DieselAddict]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Not necessarily. Plenty of oppressive governments have been overthrown thruought history when the army was on their side. What's really the deciding factor is the will of the citizenry. Do you realize just how small and inadequate the US military actually is?

- Peter.

It's not just the will of the citizenry that's the deciding factor, but also the will of the government. In some countries, well-armed insurgencies have been going on for decades without much success for their side (Sri Lanka, Colombia, etc.). In some other countries, oppressive governments fell at the hands of an unarmed citizenry and without a single shot being fired (Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.). I think in the end a successful revolution must have a political resolution. If the US citizenry ever decided to violently take on the government, it would be a never ending blood bath (mostly on the civilian side) until some resolution was reached.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

It's not just the will of the citizenry that's the deciding factor, but also the will of the government. In some countries, well-armed insurgencies have been going on for decades without much success for their side (Sri Lanka, Colombia, etc.). In some other countries, oppressive governments fell at the hands of an unarmed citizenry and without a single shot being fired (Czechoslovakia, Poland, East Germany, etc.). I think in the end a successful revolution must have a political resolution. If the US citizenry ever decided to violently take on the government, it would be a never ending blood bath (mostly on the civilian side) until some resolution was reached.

You just can't tell. You are absolutely right about the differences in duration of revolutions and insurgencies. There are certainly no guarantees. They vary from completely peaceful like the collapse of the USSR & Warsaw Pact to bloodbaths like the French experience. And there are those that last for centuries, like Northern Ireland. Is there any doubt that the UK outguns the "Real" IRA? Yet those people have been killing and maiming for over a decade since the entity formerly known as the IRA entered into peace negotiations. Also there's the Jewish experience vs Rome or the Palestinians vs Israel.

There is no historical combination that will always work. In our own little revolution most historians agree that less than 30% of colonists wanted to sever from Great Britain in 1776. In the unsuccessful revolution of 1861 one side had far better officers and were better led top to bottom and approximately equally matched in weapons at the beginning. They won some stunning victories early and had the other side not been willing to fight at all costs, could easily have won. It was the will to win that gave the union time to gear-up it's arms and promote effective general officers. Not guns. In the end the union forces won in every measurable way. But it was not weapons alone that won the war.

[DieselAddict]

Originally Posted by Botnst

But it was not weapons alone that won the war.

Examples like these is what makes me question the fairy tale that a well-armed citizenry can defeat its own oppressive government. I think the 2nd amendment is most useful for home and self-defense against common criminals, but IMO it's next to useless in fighting your own government. It didn't work out too well for the South, did it?

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Examples like these is what makes me question the fairy tale that a well-armed citizenry can defeat its own oppressive government. I think the 2nd amendment is most useful for home and self-defense against common criminals, but IMO it's next to useless in fighting your own government. It didn't work out too well for the South, did it?

The lesson is this: There is no lesson. You cannot generalize. Just as one cannot predict with certainty when a government will become despotic.

Thus, I would argue that protecting the power of the individual citizen, guided by his own morals and conscience, is a better guarantor of liberty than any number of promises of leaders, laws on the books, constitutions written, and armies raised.

[DieselAddict]

Originally Posted by Botnst

The lesson is this: There is no lesson. You cannot generalize. Just as one cannot predict with certainty when a government will become despotic.

Thus, I would argue that protecting the power of the individual citizen, guided by his own morals and conscience, is a better guarantor of liberty than any number of promises of leaders, laws on the books, constitutions written, and armies raised.

I'll take a well-trained and equipped professional military over an untrained mob of armed citizens as the better guarantor of my liberty. If what you're saying were true, there'd be no need to have a military as the armed citizenry would be enough to guarantee freedom for everyone. That might be an interesting experiment, but one I would not want to participate in. The thing is, there's much more to the power of the individual citizen than how many guns he owns.

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

It's not just the will of the citizenry that's the deciding factor, but also the will of the government. In some countries, well-armed insurgencies have been going on for decades without much success for their side (Sri Lanka, Colombia, etc.). In some other countries, oppressive governments fell at the hands of an unarmed citizenry and without a single shot being fired (Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.). I think in the end a successful revolution must have a political resolution. If the US citizenry ever decided to violently take on the government, it would be a never ending blood bath (mostly on the civilian side) until some resolution was reached.

I'm not so sure. You are assuming that the military will side with the government. However this is not written in stone. Should things degenerate to such a degree that the citizenry felt the need for a shooting war to protect their freedoms, it will be against the abridgement of those freedoms by the democrat party. Probably not the US governent themselves. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco. They may have been whack jobs but was a democrat government that went in with guns blazing. The kind of extreme "gun nuts" that would likely start such a conflict will not have much to argue against with a republican government, because, surprise surpries, such a government woudln't try to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Like I said. I'm not sure the US military would be very effective against the us citizenry.

- Peter.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I'm not so sure. You are assuming that the military will side with the government. However this is not written in stone. Should things degenerate to such a degree that the citizenry felt the need for a shooting war to protect their freedoms, it will be against the abridgement of those freedoms by the democrat party. Probably not the US governent themselves. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco. They may have been whack jobs but was a democrat government that went in with guns blazing. The kind of extreme "gun nuts" that would likely start such a conflict will not have much to argue against with a republican government, because, surprise surpries, such a government woudln't try to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Like I said. I'm not sure the US military would be very effective against the us citizenry.

- Peter.

That's why Eisenhower used the 101st in Little Rock. Those guys had a special, personal loyalty to Eisenhower that transcended politics. It also is one hell of an intimidation factor to put fully armed and trained elite combat troops in the state capitol. It worked perfectly.

But had Eisenhower gone by half-measure -- call up the local NG -- he probably would have had widespread mutiny to deal with.

[pj67coll]

Originally Posted by Botnst

But had Eisenhower gone by half-measure -- call up the local NG -- he probably would have had widespread mutiny to deal with.

A much more succinct description of my intended point.

- Peter.

[Fulcrum525]

Rifle- H&K G3
Handgun- Sig P229
Shotgun- SPAS 12
Overkill- Gepard G6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkDxUy7F0Ig


Then again i've never fired a real gun in my life, so what the heck do I know

[LUVMBDiesels]

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I'm not so sure. You are assuming that the military will side with the government. However this is not written in stone. Should things degenerate to such a degree that the citizenry felt the need for a shooting war to protect their freedoms, it will be against the abridgement of those freedoms by the democrat party. Probably not the US governent themselves. Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco. They may have been whack jobs but was a democrat government that went in with guns blazing. The kind of extreme "gun nuts" that would likely start such a conflict will not have much to argue against with a republican government, because, surprise surpries, such a government woudln't try to destroy the 2nd amendment.

Like I said. I'm not sure the US military would be very effective against the us citizenry.

- Peter.

There is a reason the oath is to defend the Constitution against all threats both foreign and domestic. If a government ever decided to throw out that piece of paper, the military would have no choice but to depose it with the help of the people. The Army is also not to be used as an occupying force inside the USA. I doubt the Army would fire on civilians even if called out. The Ohio National Guard is a different story...

Remember even in China the original troops sent to Tienanmen Square refused to fire on the protesters. Troops had to be brought in from far away before the government found ones willing to shoot.