Gun Control thread (merged many)

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

To be fair though, the Second Amendment is only valid if the army also defects to join whatever uprising against the tyrannical government takes place, otherwise all those 'patriots' with AR-15s will just be drone fodder.

You sound pretty eager for that to happen Oberon seeing as how you express similar sentiments in every gun control thread. Are you just trolling or do you really wish our government would start killing it's citizens?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

You sound pretty eager for that to happen Oberon seeing as how you express similar sentiments in every gun control thread. Are you just trolling or do you really wish our government would start killing it's citizens?

No, he is just making a very good point.

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

No, he is just making a very good point.

In every thread, at every opportunity, hence the question.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

In every thread, at every opportunity, hence the question.

I cannot speak for Oberon, but I can make a guess and say that he brings it up,
because the reason behind the 2nd Amendment was to have the capability for
civilian population to fight against a tyrannical government or defend the state against foreign enemy.
AR-15 doesn't do much against a government nor foreign enemy who has tanks, planes, helos, artillery etc. on it's side.

Again, this is just my guess as to why Oberon posted it.
Might want to wait for his own input on the matter.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I cannot speak for Oberon, but I can make a guess and say that he brings it up,
because the reason behind the 2nd Amendment was to have the capability for
civilian population to fight against a tyrannical government or defend the state against foreign enemy.
AR-15 doesn't do much against a government nor foreign enemy who has tanks, planes, helos, artillery etc. on it's side.

Again, this is just my guess as to why Oberon posted it.
Might want to wait for his own input on the matter.

Depends...what warfare you are talking about.
AK 47 does the job for Taliban for example....
The philosophy behind 2 amendment is fine in my opinion , it is better to have some alternative to fight than none.
The debate is whether this philosophy right/freedom is worth the price , I think.

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Again, this is just my guess as to why Oberon posted it. Might want to wait for his own input on the matter.

That would have been the better course of action doncha think?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

That would have been the better course of action doncha think?

Perhaps. I don't know what else Oberon would mean by the post you quoted.
I am 100% sure he wasnt trolling, though.

[Dowly]

Ah well, maybe August misunderstood what Oberon meant or something, I don't know.

Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment has evolved, or maybe devolved, from what
it was intended to be and today it covers the entirity of the right to bear arms,
instead of right to bear arms to have a militia force to resist tyrannical government or foreign enemy.

Now, US constitution is definitely not my strongest points, so I might be very much wrong
in what I said, and I am happy to be corrected if there is the need.

And with that, I shall head off to celebrate the ending of 2014. Take it easy everyone!

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment has evolved, or maybe devolved, from what it was intended to be and today it covers the entirity of the right to bear arms, instead of right to bear arms to have a militia force to resist tyrannical government or foreign enemy.

That is not and has never been the only reason for the American peoples right to keep and bear arms. It's one reason certainly and a darned important one but the 2nd (or any other right for that matter) are not limited by what the government considers (however reluctantly) is valid justification.

[Oberon]

If I wanted to troll in this thread there are far far easier ways to do it.

I bring this question up each time because it's a question that needs looking at by Americans.

Let's look at the Amendment itself, adopted in 1791 when the average weaponry was musket, cannon and sword.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That's fair enough, and given the experiences of the young American republic at the time, it's perfectly understandable and indeed sensible that it would want to provide its citizens with the means to defend themselves against both foreign and domestic invasion.
However, what is a well regulated militia and does the average Hank with a colt .45 constitute one?
That aside, one must also take into account the vast increase of technology between 1795 and 2014, the founding fathers could not have, in their wildest dreams, imagined some of the weaponry we take for granted in todays world, nor can we imagine the weaponry that will be available to the US government in the future to come. As technology increases in complexity and capability pretty soon a single man will be able to control squadrons of drones, and use them to destroy scores of people whilst outside of their ability to respond.
Goldenrivet has already pointed out the biggest lynchpin in the Second Amendment in the 21st century, it is assumed that the US Armed Forces would, in any tyrannical US government, splinter and help the citizens. However, to assume is a dangerous endeavour and not always guaranteed. The example of the Nazis has already been used in this thread, and yet I don't recall the armed forces of Germany intervening en masse when it came to the rounding up of the Jews and other undesirables, likewise the armed forces of Russia and the Soviet Union, or indeed many many other nations whose armed forces have been quite complicit in crimes against their own citizens.
"But America is different!" I hear you cry, but is it really? Already we have seen the mass militarization of the police as weaponry from the 'War on Terror' is handed down in the name of national security, and these same weapons used on those protesting in US cities.
"But they're criminals and looters!" I hear you reply...and I'm sure that's exactly how you would be portrayed by the government and media if you turned against a tyrannical state.
Remember Goerings quote?

Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

This was mainly addressed towards external wars, but the same can be said of internal ones, to be honest. Anyone who is deemed by the government to be dangerous to the state has a whole army of media turned against them before a single shot is fired, and in the minds of the people who harvest this media they are already put on trial, judged and executed.
Right now, the main culprits are Muslim extremists, once it was communists, and before that the Japanese. All forces that were and have been portrayed as looking to attack and destroy America from outside and from within. All a government would need to do is to frame a set subframe of people for an attack and mobilise public support for action against them.
It's not as if such things haven't been proposed (and thankfully dismissed) before.

So I really wouldn't rest so assuredly in a tyrannical government actually portraying itself as tyrannical, or the armed forces being on the side of someone fighting against it. Likewise in an era where automated computerised weapons systems are becoming more and more commonplace, I wouldn't put as much faith in a citizen militia being able to be as effective as it was in 1792.

Food for thought.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment has evolved, or maybe devolved, from what it was intended to be and today it covers the entirity of the right to bear arms, instead of right to bear arms to have a militia force to resist tyrannical government or foreign enemy.

While facing down a tyrannical government is the point people always mention, in fact the Founders considered private ownership of arms to be an inherent right, just like the right to free speech. The main concept behind the bill of rights was that all rights belong to the people, and none to the government. There are, and have to be, limitations to every right, but the first thing to be acknowledged is that governments have no rights. Once you get past that the rest is easy. Well, easy to understand as a concept. The direct impact on everyone's lives is never easy.