Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

This kind of thing is why I never post politics on these forums.

So instead you're going to find a quote to act indignant about and flounce out?  At least Nikov would usually make a few posts before doing that.

[Powder Miner]

This kind of thing is why I never post politics on these forums.

So instead you're going to find a quote to act indignant about and flounce out?  At least Nikov would usually make a few posts before doing that.

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm going to do. I used to try to post politics here but the threads move too fast for me.

[Morrigi]

The reason why the Second Amendment allows so many guns in America is, according to the Founding Fathers, a last resort if tyranny were to overtake us as it did in the 1700's. They realized that no man was perfect and that it was likely that at some point in the future, blood would need to be shed to maintain liberty.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
-Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
         -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

     -- George Mason

"... who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

     -- George Mason


The list goes on. The point is that these men faced oppression far greater than just about any of us ever have, and after having their freedoms and liberties stripped one by one decided to ensure, to the best of their ability, that it would never happen again to anyone in America. While you may not agree with the Founding Fathers on all points, they were there in a period of true rebellion and war in what is now, thanks to them, the United States of America.

Some things never change, and one of them is the corruption of power.

tl;dr: There is a historical precedent for it and, being right after the amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and all that, it was clearly important to those who formed this country. Some things don't change as much as we'd like them to, and one of them is human nature.

[Jervill]

And how is a person who owns even a good rifle going to "revolt" against the entire U.S. Army?  The army government and the army are more well equipped than any survivalist nutter could ever hope to be.  One drone strike, tank deployment, or a regular police force and they're done.  The concept that having guns will somehow protect you from the "big ebul gubmint" is completely ludicrous and merely helps appeal to the paranoid among us.

[FearfulJesuit]

This is the real crux of the matter. It's absolutely true that outlawing assault rifles is against the Second Amendment. The real problem is that the Second Amendment is suitable for the frontier of 1790, not the superpower of 2013.

[tryrar]

Alright guys, we're starting to beat a dead horse here, enough of the second amendment debate

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And how is a person who owns even a good rifle going to "revolt" against the entire U.S. Army?  The army government and the army are more well equipped than any survivalist nutter could ever hope to be.  One drone strike, tank deployment, or a regular police force and they're done.  The concept that having guns will somehow protect you from the "big ebul gubmint" is completely ludicrous and merely helps appeal to the paranoid among us.

The concept is not so much that you can defeat the U.S. Army with hunting rifles as it is that it makes a hostile coup more trouble than it is worth. The number of guns in the civilian population guarantees an instant and giant guerrilla war. "There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass", to quote a certain someone.

Plus, in such a situation there are likely to be defectors from the armed forces, and they will need all the help they can get.

[mainiac]

The concept is not so much that you can defeat the U.S. Army with hunting rifles as it is that it makes a hostile coup more trouble than it is worth. The number of guns in the civilian population guarantees an instant and giant guerrilla war. "There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass", to quote a certain someone.

Plus, in such a situation there are likely to be defectors from the armed forces, and they will need all the help they can get.

This is downright cute.

[darkrider2]

The United States Military power is, to put it lightly, needlessly powerful at this point.

And any citizen of the US would have to be largely ignorant of that to believe his collection of Assault Rifles is going to protect him from the government in any way.

And the "They'll take our guns" argument is just a perpetuation of that ignorance. What that argument implies is that the minute you lose your guns the government will no longer fear you and become oppressive and tyrannical.

As if the government feared you at all because of your guns (they don't). Maybe your neighbor fears you, or the police even if you brandish that weapon well enough, but the power fantasy brought on by the glorification of weapons will ultimately end in your death should you pursue it.

The concept is not so much that you can defeat the U.S. Army with hunting rifles as it is that it makes a hostile coup more trouble than it is worth. The number of guns in the civilian population guarantees an instant and giant guerrilla war. "There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass", to quote a certain someone.

In all conflicts where an industrialized and militarized nation has invaded a technologically inferior nation, the former has stomped all over the latter.

Plus, in such a situation there are likely to be defectors from the armed forces, and they will need all the help they can get.

Not as likely as you would think. I have a source for this, Take the Milgram Experiments

[PanH]

Not as likely as you would think. I have a source for this, Take the Milgram Experiments

I remember that some people made a TV show like this experiment.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The concept is not so much that you can defeat the U.S. Army with hunting rifles as it is that it makes a hostile coup more trouble than it is worth. The number of guns in the civilian population guarantees an instant and giant guerrilla war. "There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass", to quote a certain someone.

Plus, in such a situation there are likely to be defectors from the armed forces, and they will need all the help they can get.

This is downright cute.

You are downright uncivil. If you don't think millions of people with guns who have had their liberty taken couldn't at least hinder a fallen US government, I don't know what to say. You could at least pretend you are interested in having a conversation if you want to respond so badly.

The concept is not so much that you can defeat the U.S. Army with hunting rifles as it is that it makes a hostile coup more trouble than it is worth. The number of guns in the civilian population guarantees an instant and giant guerrilla war. "There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass", to quote a certain someone.

In all conflicts where an industrialized and militarized nation has invaded a technologically inferior nation, the former has stomped all over the latter.

Good god, you people just do not listen to what I say. It isn't about defeating the might of the US military in direct conflict. It is about making suppressing the population too much trouble in the first place, as a deterrent.

Not as likely as you would think. I have a source for this, Take the Milgram Experiments

The Milgram Experiments do not change the fact that military splintering during a coup can and has happened many a time over the course of history. The immense size of the US military only makes it more likely that there will be defections.

EDIT: Plus, the Milgram Experiments also help such a possibility, because of the military's hierarchical nature. One higher up deciding the time for rebellion has come will take most of their subordinates with them because of the Milgram effect.

[FearfulJesuit]

The point isn't that the millions of armed American citizens would defeat the tanks on the field of battle. That's not the point and that probably hasn't been the point since the invention of the tank. The point is that no such regime would be sustainable. Sure, you can take over Washington, but then what? Try to actually rule anybody and you'll be dealing with one hell of a guerilla war...one that is probably completely impossible to win.

[Bauglir]

Man, so how bout that pipeline bullshit.

[Scoops Novel]

Wouldn't they use biological warfare, the latter in particular? Nukes could work with a power that has a surfeit of colonists (once that message gets across), and having an easily triggered bioweapon hanging over their heads in the event of overthrow would go a ways toward discouraging revolt.

[misko27]

using WMDS on your own population tends to have certain disadvantages. Remember that no one has ever used a nuke since 1945. They use it, and on their own population no less, and it'll start all out war with everyone else.