Guns check government

[MachZer0]

In present day America it is a relic. Yet there are still those who fantasise about one day playing patriot and taking on the government in an armed uprising.

While others are apparently prepared to roll over and allow the government o control their lives

 

[Archaeopteryx]

While others are apparently prepared to roll over and allow the government o control their lives

Until you can deal in specifics, this continues to ring hollow.

 

[KWCrazy]

And yet you can't cite a single instance in which it actually worked out as Jefferson planned.

Maybe the man was just wrong. There seem to be plenty of countries out there that are neither dictatorships nor very free about citizens having guns.

It works out every day because until the socialists have completely numbed the minds of the voting public we still have protection against tyranny. We are also a Republic, which makes it harder. However, had Jefferson seen a 2,000 page law brought to a vote without anyone being able to read it; had he been told that we had to pass the law to know what was in it; had he seen a country governed by un-elected Czars and presidential executive orders; he would have proclaimed that tyranny is at our doorstep and our liberty is under assault.

If you don't like our Constitution you are free to attempt to amend it. If you violate it you belong in prison.

 

[Rion]

http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

Interesting little insight as to why the 2nd Amendment is there in the first place.

 

[Schneiderman]

In present day America it is a relic.

It is not a relic; it is dormant. If you studied history you would know that it repeats itself. How long will the US government exist? Until the end of time? No. It will inevitably be gone someday.

We can not be sure of when or how it will end. When I was born, there were two superpowers in the world. Shortly thereafter, one of them collapsed under its own weight, yet without significant violence. That's one possible end facing the US. Another possible end is armed domestic conflict. It already came close to that once for this country- and historically, 150 years ago is not all that long a time.

Yet there are still those who fantasise about one day playing patriot and taking on the government in an armed uprising.

This statement is a non-sequitur. Anyone can make vague statements about groups of people who fantasize about things. There are people who fantasize about being king of the world, and people who fantasize about a peaceful, homogenous world where everyone believes the same things and gets along with each other. [By the way, I'd like to point out that John Lennon's "Imagine" is the most violent song ever written]

The historically accurate fact of the matter is that governments routinely engage in violence and sometimes their own populations retaliate against them for it. Nobody who seriously considers the ramifications of this holds any romanticism for it. Such claims are reminiscent of arguments over self defense wherein, pejoratively, opponents of self defense claim that advocates of self defense only seek it out as a pleasant, power-affirming experience. That is not the case. No stable person would ever choose to be put in a position where they had to defend themselves, whether it was from rape, murder or government tyranny. However, some of the more rational minded among us recognize that rape and murder do as a matter of fact occur, and prefer to be prepared to defend against it. The same is true for the threat of tyranny, the rational men who constructed our Constitution recognized this, and attempted to reserve our right to defend ourselves against our own government. This is something which is occurring around the world at this very moment, and to deny that it could ever again happen here in the US is to willingly ignore the well documented cycles of history. Will it happen in our lifetimes? That much is not known. But to deny the very possibility is willful ignorance.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

The assumption that the entire US military is going to pitch their oath and serve an anti-Constitutional political coup led by people who openly despise them is as much a far fetched fantasy as fat hillbillies with lever actions taking on M1 Abrams.

Exactly. Which is why in the case of "tyrrany" and subsequent "rebellion" the deciding factor will be which side the US armed forces join. Nothing whatsoever to do with civilians being armed.

I could not give a toss if Americans are allowed to have guns or not. I've got no axe to grind. But at least be honest about it - you like having a gun(s) because you like it. It helps you shoot things and/or people which in turn helps you to feel less inadequate. That's cool. Just don't pretend you are keeping the government in check. The uncertainty as to whom the US armed forces would side with is what keeps the governement in check.

 

[Schneiderman]

Exactly. Which is why in the case of "tyrrany" and subsequent "rebellion" the deciding factor will be which side the US armed forces join. Nothing whatsoever to do with civilians being armed.

I could not give a toss if Americans are allowed to have guns or not. I've got no axe to grind. But at least be honest about it - you like having a gun(s) because you like it. It helps you shoot things and/or people which in turn helps you to feel less inadequate. That's cool. Just don't pretend you are keeping the government in check. The uncertainty as to whom the US armed forces would side with is what keeps the governement in check.

If armed citizens don't keep the government in check then why is the government so interested in disarming them?

Why does the DHS identify gun owning veterans as one of the greatest threats to our national security?

<edit>

 

[JCSr]

If armed citizens don't keep the government in check then why is the government so interested in disarming them?

How many gun laws have been enacted under Obama? none.

Why does the DHS identify gun owning veterans as one of the greatest threats to our national security?

Because they are more likely to go off and kill people.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

If armed citizens don't keep the government in check then why is the government so interested in disarming them?

Well one reason presumably is to prevent disturbed sociopaths from shooting schoolchildren.

But as I said - it's your country. The only time I would comment on such a debate is when something truly ludicrous like "we're keeping the government in check" is rolled out as the reason for owning firearms. WALOB.

I could own a gun in the UK should I wish. It might be fun to shoot pheasants and eat them. Maybe when I retire. If/when I do it will be because shooting and hunting are quite exciting pursuits and I enjoy game. And probably by then I might be impotent and so having a nice phallic gun could help me feel like a man.

 

[bricklayer]

The fact remains that the second amendment was established as a check on government.

 

[JCSr]

Do away with the standing army so the citizenry can justify owning their guns.

 

[Glas Ridire]

How many gun laws have been enacted under Obama? none.

Of course. It would have cost him the election, now that is settled, it is time to exploit a tragedy.

Because they are more likely to go off and kill people.

Really? Which of our recent (lets call recent 30 years) spree shooters were veterans? Rambo and . . . .. wait! Rambo was fictional. . . . ..

How does that compare to the number of non-veteran spree shooters?

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Do away with the standing army so the citizenry can justify owning their guns.

Good idea. It might make a useful comparison for cretins who think they are modern day minutemen to see just how more effective the armed forces actually are.

 

[Illuminaughty]

We have a large standing army already so it's too late unless you want to get rid of it. It's bizarre to me that a lot of pro-gun people are all for making the military bigger and spending unlimited funds on it all the while talking about the need for civilians with their little ar-15's being able to defeat them. If standing armies are bad and we should have militias instead why aren't these people demanding massive cuts to the military?

 

[pgp_protector]

What good is your 70 or whatever round fully automatic gonna do against a missile laden drone? Ask the Afghans how that's working.

So if America ever starts another Civil war, 100% of the military will be on only one side, just like last time right?

 

[JCSr]

Of course. It would have cost him the election, now that is settled, it is time to exploit a tragedy.

Yes, no gun laws from Obama.

Really? Which of our recent (lets call recent 30 years) spree shooters were veterans? Rambo and . . . .. wait! Rambo was fictional. . . . ..

How does that compare to the number of non-veteran spree shooters?

Rambo? try JT Ready

 

[Glas Ridire]

Yes, no gun laws from Obama.



Rambo? try JT Ready

You gave me one veteran (who never left the country & had an in-service history including multiple disciplinary actions and imprisonment), cool. Aurora shooter, 121412 shooter, and the two Columbine shooters. 1:4, wanna keep playing?

 

[stamperben]

So if America ever starts another Civil war, 100% of the military will be on only one side, just like last time right?

So will it be 50-50? 30-70? 20-80? Just what percentage of the military will be on which side? Oh, and what are the sides since you seem to be able to conjecture these facts.

 

[pgp_protector]

So will it be 50-50? 30-70? 20-80? Just what percentage of the military will be on which side? Oh, and what are the sides since you seem to be able to conjecture these facts.

What good is your 70 or whatever round fully automatic gonna do against a missile laden drone? Ask the Afghans how that's working.

I'm asking, not telling, you're the one saying that we have to stand up to drone attacks without any evidence that the Military (who are Americans) will attack their fellow Americans.

 

[bricklayer]

Guns are safer than gravity.