Author Topic: US Constitution - 2nd Amendment (Read 2652 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #15 on:** April 07, 2004, 12:15:42 AM »

You're right Sandman, I don't have the firepower, maybe Lazs does.

Seriously though, 250 million people even with only 22 caliber rifles are more than a match for our present government. Especially if you consider that the majority of the military will likely join a just revolution.

However, if no one is allowed to own a firearm, a revolution is much more unlikely to ever begin. Or at least until the oppression is far more grievous.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #16 on:** April 07, 2004, 12:24:10 AM »

A single Waco can be over run without any fuss by anyone, and given no second thought by the American people - so long as the higher ups give some nice details that convince the American people those that are on their own property are crazed and need to die anyway.

Now... multiple pockets of civil unrest with people who have the means to let their voices be heard in a sane manner... the government is fuxx0rd, so long as the people aren't simpletons and easily manipulated by the government.
-SW

Sandman · « **Reply #17 on:** April 07, 2004, 12:31:36 AM »

Masherbrum · « **Reply #18 on:** April 07, 2004, 12:35:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
Liberalism, Multi-culturalism, and bi-lingualism will be the downfall of this nation, that which is brought forth by our government which is beyond control.
====
I have thought long and hard about this and although I cannot disagree, I am still hopeful that the downward trend can be reversed at some future point, God willing. Or unwilling...hell, lets just have fun with it while we are here

Amen.

Karaya

Yeager · « **Reply #19 on:** April 07, 2004, 12:38:27 AM »

Sandman, you need to think outside the liberal monocular. Waco was a freakshow from both ends of the political spectrum.

And yes, Redawn was a movie, the Civil war of 1862-1865 was not a movie. It was millions and millions of Amercians shedding blood over each other in a dispute over states rights against the perceived federal overreach of power. It could most assuredly happen again in times not far different from ours.

Sandman · « **Reply #20 on:** April 07, 2004, 12:40:35 AM »

The states lost that one, IIRC.

AKIron · « **Reply #21 on:** April 07, 2004, 12:43:36 AM »

I'm all for settling differences lawfully and peacefully. Much like we did in Florida and the Supreme Court after the 2000 election. However, if a candidate had taken taken unlawful control of the election and influenced the Supreme Court to violate our Constitution I'd be demanding justice. If that failed then it'd be time for more forceful action. Those of us with our constitutional rights trampled upon would be taken more seriously if we had guns. That's a big part of what the 2nd amendment is all about.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #22 on:** April 07, 2004, 12:45:19 AM »

We can say for certain what history is, the future is still a blank chapter.
-SW

Sandman · « **Reply #23 on:** April 07, 2004, 12:46:20 AM »

No argument from me.. an armed populace can make things difficult for the government. I just have a hard time seeing any validity in the "we can overthrow" argument.

AKIron · « **Reply #24 on:** April 07, 2004, 12:53:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No argument from me.. an armed populace can make things difficult for the government. I just have a hard time seeing any validity in the "we can overthrow" argument.

Sure, we're far removed from the American Revolution, however, that argument was very real to the writers of the Constitution. They had afterall just overthrown their own government.

Tarmac · « **Reply #25 on:** April 07, 2004, 12:57:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No argument from me.. an armed populace can make things difficult for the government. I just have a hard time seeing any validity in the "we can overthrow" argument.

Why? Asymmetric warfare has worked in the past -- history is full of examples of people overestimating the strength of armies against ragtag resistance movements.

Sandman · « **Reply #26 on:** April 07, 2004, 01:02:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Sure, we're far removed from the American Revolution, however, that argument was very real to the writers of the Constitution. They had afterall just overthrown their own government.

True, but they didn't go up against artillery using handguns.

Sandman · « **Reply #27 on:** April 07, 2004, 01:04:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tarmac
Why? Asymmetric warfare has worked in the past -- history is full of examples of people overestimating the strength of armies against ragtag resistance movements.

History record a case where a superior force lost a war to one of these ragtag movements?

AKIron · « **Reply #28 on:** April 07, 2004, 01:10:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
True, but they didn't go up against artillery using handguns.

You're only strengthening the argument for citizens to own assault weapons.

Tarmac · « **Reply #29 on:** April 07, 2004, 01:15:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
History record a case where a superior force lost a war to one of these ragtag movements?

?

I'll assume you're asking for examples. Chechnya. Vietnam (US). Vietnam (France). Chinese Cultural Revolution. Russian Revolution. I hope Iraq isn't shaping up to be one.

And "lost" isn't the right word... the advantage of guerilla warfare is that it doesn't have to "win," because as long as it is fighting the organized army is losing its soldiers and its will to fight. Guerilla armies don't have to "win," they just have to outlast their occupiers.

Are you just being difficult, or can you really not see that the possability exists?