The weakest argument for gun ownership in the United States

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

This isn't a general firearms debate, so please focus your replies on the following argument of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, typically sounding like this:

An armed populace is the ultimate sanction against government that has overstepped its authority and turned towards tyranny.

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, how would the general populace counter the invaders who would presumably possess supereffective weapons, machines and personnel? With machine guns?

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting and winning over the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines alone.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

[Ahlerich]

i think old gamers argument is proven in afganistans situation

[jankren]

i think old gamers argument is proven in afganistans situation

Or Iraq.

[Captain Blackadder]

i think old gamers argument is proven in afganistans situation

Not really it is not the guns that are causing the problems to the military but the IEDS explosive devices are what annoys military personal in order to defeat an invader americans need to stock up on their rpg-7's or stingers. But I don't really see that argument made by the gun people out their. You having an assult rifle will do sweet f a to any invader/tyranical government.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

As I said, let's focus the debate on gun ownership in the USA, and the underlying argument of a "well-regulated militia".

[Oberbefehlshaber]

The world was a very different place 200 years ago, I dont think the constitution has any relivance on this issue.

[Phier]

The world was a very different place 200 years ago, I dont think the constitution has any relivance on this issue.

So get the constitution rewritten, its allowed.

In the mean time we keep our weapons.

[ivan_the_terrible]

As I said, let's focus the debate on gun ownership in the USA, and the underlying argument of a "well-regulated militia".

Well, apparently, the trick is to say that the part of the sentance that talks about a militia isn't the "operative" part, and just ignore it.

[Pious Agnost]

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

The America that would have done that is gone

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, how would the general populace counter the invaders who would presumably possess supereffective weapons, machines and personnel? With machine guns?

See above...

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting and winning over the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines alone.

They are not emotionless machines, I think there'd be a massive schism if not outright desertion

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

Liberalism was 'the thing' 200 years ago

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

Well-regulated militia, isn't that the State Guard?

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Finally a response, even if it's a little bit hollow.

The America that would have done that is gone

What do you mean by that?

See above...

See above.

They are not emotionless machines, I think there'd be a massive schism if not outright desertion

They will obey anything they are commanded. If they are emotionless machines, the bigger the chance they will not desert, but take out their compatriots without the any second thought.

Liberalism was 'the thing' 200 years ago

How is that a reply to my question?

Well-regulated militia, isn't that the State Guard?

Which operates under the sole authority of a state government.

[Pious Agnost]

Finally a response, even if it's a little bit hollow.



What do you mean that?

I mean I don't think Americans would ever kill one of their Presidents because they're pseudo-Fascist/Communist e.t.c

See above.

I am certain the US would never rise against a foreign occupier, in significant numbers (In other words, no 'Wolverines!'

They will obey anything they are commanded. If they are emotionless machines, the bigger the chance they will not desert, but take out their compatriots without the any second thought.

Lets use an example from our own fora.
Do you think, for example, Farnan would obey anything they are commanded to do? (There are certain orders they are legally obligated to disobey)

How is that a reply to my question?

"Let them make armed paramilitary groups?"
"Sure, why not"

Which operates under the sole authority of a state government.

Yes.
I don't think I understood what you were saying in this one

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

The courts have ruled and clearly fall down on the side that a militia as used in the constitution must by necessity allow for private ownership of weapons. The National Guard can be considered a form of a militia, but a militia need not be under the control and funded by the government to be well regulated.

This is also not a question of chance or likelyhood. It does not matter whether a tyranny is likely, whether a foreign power will succeed in invading -- it is only a question of what the law constrains government from doing.

And yes, times change. The law is the law. The provision within the constitution for amendment exists. Outdated or misplaced rules such as slavery, equality of opportunity, legal age to vote, etc. have all been addressed by this process. The right to bear arms has not and is likely not to be subjected to an amendment. This would mean that the law is still applicable.

The right to bear arms has not and is likely not to be changed, but not due to the "well-armed militia" argument. Chance or likelihood is a question indeed, for example, if pink elephants would ramble on the streets of San Francisco and rape women, the local council could make a law, that it is illegal to breed, keep, sell or buy pink elephants. What are the chances? Close to zero. What are the chances US citizens will overthrow the federal government with machine guns bought in the local gun shop? Close to zero too. Still, there is no law saying it is illegal to have pink elephants in San Francisco.

And it isn't a valid argument too, that once it was useful, so let's keep this law. For instance, it is illegal in Tennessee to catch a fish with a lasso. Why? Some day, back in 18.. a weirdo decided to hunt fish with a lasso and incidentally hurt his fishing buddy, who died of a heart stroke. So the good state of Tennessee made a law to ban fishing with a lasso to prevent similar unlucky accidents. How smart. And centuries later, they forgot to abolish this law.

The law does not allow private organizations to train and plan the overthrow of the government. Fringe groups of any political color are often arrested for doing these actions. This is not an argument about planning an overthrow. This is an argument about the lawful private ownership of weapons under the rule of law.

You don't have to reveal the aims of an organization. Let's say some people gather at someone's ranch for a 'shooting practice' and discussing politics, meanwhile they are conspiring against federal government. Legally, they can do that, until their real goals are revealed to the authorities. Why on earth gun ownership isn't centrally logged in a police database, skips my mind.

I mean I don't think Americans would ever kill one of their Presidents because they're pseudo-Fascist/Communist e.t.c

Still, the possibility exists. If someone thinks the government is tyrannical or the President is a despot, he will have the right to shoot him or organize a group that will overthrow the bad government based on the second Amendment. The origin of the Second Amendment occurred in context of an ongoing debate about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny. It has nothing to do with ideologies.

I am certain the US would never rise against a foreign occupier, in significant numbers (In other words, no 'Wolverines!')

In that, we agree. So why do people think this right would eventually stop a foreign invasion?

Lets use an example from our own fora.
Do you think, for example, Farnan would obey anything they are commanded to do? (There are certain orders they are legally obligated to disobey)

Wrong example, moderators are not Marines.

"Let them make armed paramilitary groups?"
"Sure, why not"

Your point?

Yes.
I don't think I understood what you were saying in this one

I am saying, allowing people to bear guns who operate under the sole authority of a state government, isn't an argument for allowing anyone to bear guns.

[DimondLight]

Wrong example, moderators are not Marines.

Lol, he's in the Army.

[Pious Agnost]

Still, the possibility exists. If someone thinks the government is tyrannical or the President is a despot, he will have the right to shoot him or organize a group that will overthrow the bad government based on the second Amendment. The origin of the Second Amendment occurred in context of an ongoing debate about "the people" fighting governmental tyranny. It has nothing to do with ideologies.

I still do not think they would

In that, we agree. So why do people think this right would eventually stop a foreign invasion?

Jingoism

Wrong example, moderators are not Marines.

Farnan is in the army

Your point?

It's a dubious civil liberty

I am saying, allowing people to bear guns who operate under the sole authority of a state government, isn't an argument for allowing anyone to bear guns.

On this we agree also

[Pickle_mole]

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting and winning over the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines alone.

They will obey anything they are commanded. If they are emotionless machines, the bigger the chance they will not desert, but take out their compatriots without the any second thought.

You're American? i have three close buddies in the marine corps that i know for a fact they wouldnt serve a tyrant. In the radical world you propose the military and especially the police would encounter massive desertions.

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

Our checks and balances have been eroded by activist judges and presidents like FDR so its VERY plausible

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, how would the general populace counter the invaders who would presumably possess supereffective weapons, machines and personnel? With machine guns?

Its happened a lot throughout history, the insurgents just have to make the transition to a conventional force to win. If they stay insurgents the occuping force may decide to leave but they wouldnt be
destroyed.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

Who says they are all trying to do that?

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia sucked in the conventional battles of the revolution. But they started the revolution! without them we would still be british. If it can happen once it can happen twice.

[Viking Prince]

The courts have ruled and clearly fall down on the side that a militia as used in the constitution must by necessity allow for private ownership of weapons. The National Guard can be considered a form of a militia, but a militia need not be under the control and funded by the government to be well regulated.

This is also not a question of chance or likelyhood. It does not matter whether a tyranny is likely, whether a foreign power will succeed in invading -- it is only a question of what the law constrains government from doing.

And yes, times change. The law is the law. The provision within the constitution for amendment exists. Outdated or misplaced rules such as slavery, equality of opportunity, legal age to vote, etc. have all been addressed by this process. The right to bear arms has not and is likely not to be subjected to an amendment. This would mean that the law is still applicable.

The law does not allow private organizations to train and plan the overthrow of the government. Fringe groups of any political color are often arrested for doing these actions. This is not an argument about planning an overthrow. This is an argument about the lawful private ownership of weapons under the rule of law.

[hellheaven1987]

First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

Not sure, we do know British was saying same thing two hundreds years ago and Athenian was saying same thing a little bit more than two thousands years ago...

And then they all screwed up...

Edit: Oh, and I forgot to mention Weimar Republic and Republican Spain, which are considered the ever close to full democracy country - they screwed up in the end, still.

[bushbush]

not just weak, it's incredibly dumb too.

[Chlodwig I.]

Weimar Republic?

The Weimar Republic was overthrown because the Government lacked the power to keep public order,
because of politcal militas fighting each other in the streets.


So the missing democratic tradtition, the weak government, the economic crisis and the right to bear arms have been
the grave diggers of the Weimar Republic.

In one sentence
The right to bear arms didn't prevent the tyranny it was one of its creators

[Nietzsche]

This isn't a general firearms debate, so please focus your replies on the following argument of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, typically sounding like this:



First off, I'd like to know what are the chances of democracy becoming a tyranny in the United States, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. Aren't the political institutions, checks and balances, democratic traditions, the rule of law not trusted enough so that you can buy an AK-47 on every corner without any restriction to take out the FBI, or buy a sniper in case you would feel the urge to shoot the President in the face?

Secondly, I'd like to know what are the chances of a foreign power invading the United States, and an armed populace resisting the invaders, so that gun ownership can be justified through this argument. If this would happen, wouldn't it be a massive failure of the defense forces? And if the US defense forces failed to defend the country, how would the general populace counter the invaders who would presumably possess supereffective weapons, machines and personnel? With machine guns?

Thirdly, I'd like to have your bets on the chances of an armed militia resisting and winning over the police, the SWAT and the Marines in the case of an armed revolution against a tyrannical government. I'd bet all my money on the Marines alone.

Four, I'd like to know why do you think it's reasonable to uphold a law that allows extremists (right- and left-wing alike) to form paramilitary groups and train themselves to overthrow the federal government. Why is it such a good argument?

Finally, why can't US citizens comprehend that a "well-regulated militia" should be read in a historical context of the Revolutionary War? Of course, it has its roots in English history, but still. Times change, so do laws.

All in all, common sense says it is a very weak argument indeed. Please come up with something else that makes sense.

VP's eloquence has yet to return you to logic. The right to bear arms extends beyond the pitiful handful of reasons you have provided. It is a right based on the protection and security of personal life and property which you continue to ignore (at your own peril).

Until you can finally come to terms with those ideas there is nothing to discuss and nothing to debate.