|
ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/28/2009 3:49:13 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales
quote:
ORIGINAL: Crush
The government is also held responsible, at least in theory, to its constituency. And that constituency has the right/obligation to replace that government if it becomes burdensome and no longer in accord with its mandates. Hence the 2nd Amendment is also about the right of the people to replace their government, by force, if necessary. And there is that cliche "the 2nd Amendment Rights protect the other Rights."
The point you make is valid. The second amendment was indeed passed so that the citizenry could, if so moved, violently overthrow and replace it with another more to their liking. My question is whether you think, given the current state of the military, the populace and the possible array of armaments available, that this is still a viable option?
Do you think that there is any way that the American populace, even if motivated, could achieve a military overthrow of a ruling administration?
I think Archer answered the question as well as I could, and I agree with his evaluation almost 100%. The only substantive point where I would part company with him is his apparent belief that several Waco/Ruby Ridge events would be sufficient to destabilize and/or delegitimize the government to the point where it would be prone to toppling. I don't know if it would be quite that simple, but then again, I can't really argue the point because I'm just going on a gut feeling. But aside from that, I don't think there's anything I could add to his answer.
One thing I would like to add to this discussion, though, is that every time this issue comes up in a discussion forum, the debate seems to quickly center around the issue of whether it is realistic to believe that an armed populace could defeat a well-equipped modern army, and whether (in light of that question), it is realistic for gun-owners to believe that our weapons are actually as useful as we like to think they are. I think that's too simplistic a focus, and confines the debate to too narrow a range. Personally, I think it's highly unlikely - in fact, almost inconceivable - that I would ever need to defend myself against my own government. I'm not saying I can't imagine any situation in which that would become necessary, but rather that I consider the possibility to be exceedingly remote.
What is far more likely (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, far less unlikely) is that there will be a day when my government has collapsed to the point where it will no longer be able to defend its citizens from each other. I think there's a fairly good chance, and an increasingly good chance, that in my lifetime we'll see a substantial breakdown of the social order - not necessarily to the point of total anarchy, but quite possibly to the point where people are pretty much on their own. If that day should come, I intend to be in the best possible position to survive it, and ensure the survival of the people I care about. One of the the best ways to do that would be to make sure that I'm as well-armed as possible.
That's why I want a military-style rifle, and for no other reason. I own a number of firearms, some of them from when I was a kid and used to hunt, some of them just because I like to shoot handguns, and some of them because they belonged to my father and grandfather, and they mean something to me because they meant something to them. Those weapons would be more than adequate to feed me and mine if it ever comes to a point where I need them for that, but the military-style rifle is better suited for defending a position. My old Winchester .308 deer rifle is the most accurate rifle I've ever fired, but the Panther LR-308 is close enough that I won't notice the difference, plus it's more rugged and more reliable in adverse conditions than the Winchester - and having a 19-round magazine instead of a 5-round capacity can be a significant advantage when you're trying to discourage armed intruders from approaching your position. The larger capacity magazine allows you to lay down that much more fire in a given period of time, which is a significant tactical advantage when other people are trying to shoot at you.
Realistically, it's not something I ever expect to need; but at the same time, it's the sort of thing that when you need it, you, uh... really need it. That's why I want it, and that's why I oppose any outright ban on military-style weapons.
|
|
|
|
