2nd amendment discussion. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

slvemike4u -> 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 12:04:32 PM)

While driving home earlier I was behind a pick-up truck which had stenciled in the rear window..."the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
That got me to thinking,the founding fathers ,having just fought a revolution to secure their liberties and having no desire to subject the citizenry to despotic rule in the future iserted this clause as a hedge against despotic government.Rightly so...for their times.
This is my question,and it is not an attempt to start a gun thread per se...merely a narrow discussion over wether or not that original intent is still realistically served by a citizenry armed with small arms weaponry ?
In today's environment...with the forces of government having at their disposal all sorts of modern and fearful weapons....can we truly say that an armed citizenry gives the government pause in any attempt to abridge our rights?
Opinions please.....as I said,I am not looking for a fight here,just a discussion.



DomKen -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 12:08:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

While driving home earlier I was behind a pick-up truck which had stenciled in the rear window..."the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
That got me to thinking,the founding fathers ,having just fought a revolution to secure their liberties and having no desire to subject the citizenry to despotic rule in the future iserted this clause as a hedge against despotic government.Rightly so...for their times.
This is my question,and it is not an attempt to start a gun thread per se...merely a narrow discussion over wether or not that original intent is still realistically served by a citizenry armed with small arms weaponry ?
In today's environment...with the forces of government having at their disposal all sorts of modern and fearful weapons....can we truly say that an armed citizenry gives the government pause in any attempt to abridge our rights?
Opinions please.....as I said,I am not looking for a fight here,just a discussion.

The 2nd Amendment never was intended to let the civilian population defend itself against the government. See the Whiskey Rebellion.



mnottertail -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 12:10:36 PM)

Ummm, yeah. Like it says in my profile:

A master without a slave is like a king without a crown.....

for one is the glory of the other....

They won't have the political will to destroy our population in keeping us underfoot, we have somewhat more than basic means of fucking that up, and if they don't have someone to govern...

Same reason we don't blast Russia or China or Pakistan when they give us fits, they have arsenals, no matter how insignificant they are compared to the full force and might of the United States Government, we have the will and the means to secure at least an uneasy detente.



slvemike4u -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 12:18:07 PM)

DomKen simply because the whiskey rebellion was suppressed does not negate the fact that an armed populace was indeed a hedge against despotic rule.
Simply put the whiskey rebellion did not enjoy populist support so it never stood a chance.
Ron I am not stating that we do not currently enjoy protections against despotic rule....a free press for one,an American military that would never,IMHO, obey an unlawful order to fire upon fellow citizens.....what I am asking is if the founders attempt was to give future despots pause,with an armed citizenry,has not the time when that was true simply passed.



FirstQuaker -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 12:18:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

While driving home earlier I was behind a pick-up truck which had stenciled in the rear window..."the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
That got me to thinking,the founding fathers ,having just fought a revolution to secure their liberties and having no desire to subject the citizenry to despotic rule in the future iserted this clause as a hedge against despotic government.Rightly so...for their times.
This is my question,and it is not an attempt to start a gun thread per se...merely a narrow discussion over wether or not that original intent is still realistically served by a citizenry armed with small arms weaponry ?
In today's environment...with the forces of government having at their disposal all sorts of modern and fearful weapons....can we truly say that an armed citizenry gives the government pause in any attempt to abridge our rights?
Opinions please.....as I said,I am not looking for a fight here,just a discussion.


Look at Iraq.

It took several weeks to trash out Saddam's military and many years to "pacify"  the civilians.

There are other modern examples.

But the origin of the amendment must be considered against the main body where the states were the keepers of the militia, and a "standing army" was not liked save in times of war (never mind how that works these days.)

The intent modeled on the Iroquois confederation, was to keep the military out of the hands of the central government, by divvying it up among the states, much as the different clans in the Iroquois confederacy prevented one tribe from gaining enough power to rule the others, while still maintaining a powerful military force.

How much control each state should exercise over it's "militia" is the crux of the matter. (in the old days they required you own certain prescribed weapons and show up and practice with them.)

They did not have such a problem with a standing navy, for naval forces are not easily used to hold coups or oppress the public, and did not consider an air force, for there was not such a thing at the time.



slvemike4u -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 12:27:04 PM)

Exactly FQ,and my question is...is that impetus for the second still in play today....given the fact of our standing army and all of it's weaponry...can one actually consider an armed populace to still be a hedge against despotic rule whether internal or external?



TheSophist -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 12:29:04 PM)

GUNS ARE AWESOME YEAH!!!



slvemike4u -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 12:31:01 PM)

Thank you for your reasoned and measured contribution to the discussion.



TheSophist -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 12:37:18 PM)

What I meant to say is that every iron-fisted future dictator first disarms the public, and then takes over power. It's very hard for an invading country to take control of towns and cities if they have to fight door-to-door of well-armed civilians.

I believe in Switzerland almost every family owns a Sig Sauer rifle.



FirstQuaker -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 12:40:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Exactly FQ,and my question is...is that impetus for the second still in play today....given the fact of our standing army and all of it's weaponry...can one actually consider an armed populace to still be a hedge against despotic rule whether internal or external?


Actually it likely is, but thinking you can make the states actually train your citizenry and equip them properly would cause trouble. thus the state have taken the National Guard approach, and then just drafted people in disasters and emergencies and hoped for the best.

You tell the average person with the 2nd amendment sticker that this also subjects themto his or her state calling them into the militia and the drop of a hat if a fire or flood occurs and you likely will hear how that is an infringement of his or her rights.

But in today's world something like Katrina or a big forest fire is the far more likely need to do such a thing then an invasion for Mexico or wherever, and shovels and axes are the tools of this "war" not assault rifles.

Then you have most states with similar clauses in their constitutions that enact the local version of the federal law.

Basically you would have to completely rearrange the government of the US and its states, each of which is it's own little republic, to accomplish such a thing as removing the militia, as it is ingrained in much of the laws and relationships they have.



slvemike4u -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 12:42:15 PM)

And"Guns are awesome yeah"(in caps to boot) was meant to get that point across ...sorry I somehow missed the implications .
But to your point,were this fictitious future dictator first to best and than disarm the American military,and all of it's fearsome weaponry ...what would stop this so called dictator from laying waste to those same towns and cities ?



FirstQuaker -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 12:56:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And"Guns are awesome yeah"(in caps to boot) was meant to get that point across ...sorry I somehow missed the implications .
But to your point,were this fictitious future dictator first to best and than disarm the American military,and all of it's fearsome weaponry ...what would stop this so called dictator from laying waste to those same towns and cities ?


His tax income would go to utter shyt. If Saddam had to suppress the Iraqi population like the US and its allies did, and tax them to pay for it at the same time, along with feeding his troops and those loyal to him, he woudl have had a real rough go of it.

If every IRS or federal agent or employee in the US had to have a platoon of Marines escort him around to do his duty, it would get really non-cost effective.

And a modern warplane is a fierce implement when flying, but on the ground it is as helpless as a baby. Ditto for the rest of these military toys, they need expensive pieces to repair, lots of fuel and munitions to operate and must be guarded when not in use.

Then your troops need a place to sleep and if they have families, a safe place to house them. These will also need protection from a hostile population.

Having the majority of your civilian population torqued at you and armed with even rudimentary weapons is not a pleasing prospect.



TheSophist -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 12:56:56 PM)

In the USSR, Stalin disarmed the general populace, even hunters. No one was allowed to have weapons and to own a weapon was a serious crime.



StrangerThan -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 1:01:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And"Guns are awesome yeah"(in caps to boot) was meant to get that point across ...sorry I somehow missed the implications .
But to your point,were this fictitious future dictator first to best and than disarm the American military,and all of it's fearsome weaponry ...what would stop this so called dictator from laying waste to those same towns and cities ?


Enough people on the other side who are willing to take a stand.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 1:05:18 PM)

If that was in fact the founding father's intent (and there is considerable debate that that), then it is not realistically served.  I have a 38; the government has nukes.  I have a shotgun, the government has biological weapons.  It just wouldn't be a fair fight.



StrangerThan -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 1:12:12 PM)

It wouldn't be fair if they didn't use nukes or biological weapons - which they won't. The question wasn't if the fight would be fair. It never is against governments. They have the money, the standing army, the toys.

I mean hell, if things were fair, we wouldn't have protesters and tea parties and bailouts and patriot acts and.. you know, the fair column is one that's pretty damned empty in a lot of ways.





slvemike4u -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 1:25:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And"Guns are awesome yeah"(in caps to boot) was meant to get that point across ...sorry I somehow missed the implications .
But to your point,were this fictitious future dictator first to best and than disarm the American military,and all of it's fearsome weaponry ...what would stop this so called dictator from laying waste to those same towns and cities ?


Enough people on the other side who are willing to take a stand.

And that would have fuck all to do with my question on whether or not one can still consider an armed populace to be a hedge against despotic rule.....that being the central question I am asking...and strictly as an intellectual discussion,I am not here advocating doing away with the second,seriously not going there,just wondering if one can still consider that one of twhe chief by products of having it in place ?



slvemike4u -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 1:28:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

It wouldn't be fair if they didn't use nukes or biological weapons - which they won't. The question wasn't if the fight would be fair. It never is against governments. They have the money, the standing army, the toys.

I mean hell, if things were fair, we wouldn't have protesters and tea parties and bailouts and patriot acts and.. you know, the fair column is one that's pretty damned empty in a lot of ways.



But see that is my point we as a populace today have much more effective means at our disposal to resist despotic rule than firearms....a free press,the free and instantaneous exchange of information and ideas( the Internet ) so with that being said can the argument still be made that an armed society keeps government in check?



Iamsemisweet -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 2:12:24 PM)

Thanks Stranger, but the question was:
quote:

This is my question,and it is not an attempt to start a gun thread per se...merely a narrow discussion over wether or not that original intent is still realistically served by a citizenry armed with small arms weaponry ?


quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

It wouldn't be fair if they didn't use nukes or biological weapons - which they won't. The question wasn't if the fight would be fair. It never is against governments. They have the money, the standing army, the toys.

I mean hell, if things were fair, we wouldn't have protesters and tea parties and bailouts and patriot acts and.. you know, the fair column is one that's pretty damned empty in a lot of ways.



I think the answer is clearly that it is not realistically served



slvemike4u -> RE: 2nd amendment discussion. (10/19/2011 2:20:47 PM)

That is the conclusion I reached too...but I want to stress that this is not me building a case for repeal of the second....I believe,unfortunately ,guns are part of the American psyche...and as such will not ever be repealed.The public discombobulations would be fearful,and with all the guns in current hands any repeal would be toothless and not worth the effort.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125