Mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio

[PocketZeven]

This is a weird thought process.

If the 2A is predicated on the notion that a standing army of the state is a threat to democracy, how is it invalidated (or undermined) by an even larger standing army? Surely it just makes the threat - and thus the necessity for civilians to retain the right to bear arms - greater.

If you look at the era when it was written it would make much sense. The notion was to protect the states from disarmement by the federal government by law. State armies where the militia referenced. The whole world has evolved however. The neccessity of both a militia and the right to keep and bear arms is not the same as it was back then. Like speedlimits have evolved, clothing ettiquete, etc.
Apparantly there are outdated federal laws that still exist for example: 18 U.S.C. §1657 makes it a federal crime to consult with a known pirate.

 

[Danoff]

If you look at the era when it was written it would make much sense. The notion was to protect the states from disarmement by the federal government by law. State armies where the militia referenced. The whole world has evolved however. The neccessity of both a militia and the right to keep and bear arms is not the same as it was back then. Like speedlimits have evolved, clothing ettiquete, etc.
Apparantly there are outdated federal laws that still exist for example: 18 U.S.C. §1657 makes it a federal crime to consult with a known pirate.

And yet tyranny continues to be an issue. Violent crime continues to be an issue. And we've seen how difficult it is for the US government to occupy a country when a substantial portion of the population is willing to fight.

 

[PocketZeven]

And yet tyranny continues to be an issue. Violent crime continues to be an issue. And we've seen how difficult it is for the US government to occupy a country when a substantial portion of the population is willing to fight.

Perhaps, but not in the language as it was written back then. Is tyranny still an issue? Violent crime does not decrease by arming people.

 

[Danoff]

Is tyranny still an issue?

Yes.

Violent crime does not decrease by arming more people.

There's a better argument for that than the converse - that it decreases by disarming people. But worse than either of those things is having people who are armed who are not capable of, or not willing to, be responsible with firearms and respect others.

 

[Famine]

If you look at the era when it was written it would make much sense. The notion was to protect the states from disarmement by the federal government by law. State armies where the militia referenced. The whole world has evolved however. The neccessity of both a militia and the right to keep and bear arms is not the same as it was back then. Like speedlimits have evolved, clothing ettiquete, etc.
Apparantly there are outdated federal laws that still exist for example: 18 U.S.C. §1657 makes it a federal crime to consult with a known pirate.

That doesn't follow on at all from anything I said.

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes.



There's a better argument for that than the converse - that it decreases by disarming people. But worse than either of those things is having people who are armed who are not capable of, or not willing to, be responsible with firearms and respect others.

How is tyranny an issue currently? (That doesnt mean it should still not be protected against within law, just being curious) I was referring to the necessity of militia's.

I guess we have similar thoughts. Having more responsible people armed and armed people behaving more responsible (or "well regulated") will decrease violent crime eventually in my opinion.

edit:

That doesn't follow on at all from anything I said.

Sorry, I was trying to speak to both you and Eunes. I think he confused the existence of state armies within the context of tyranny. It was to protect against the federal government (and its potential military forces) not state armies. Militia are the state armies.

 

[PocketZeven]

double

 

[Rallywagon]

Violent crimes have already been decreasing, homicides and so has crime in general. The only crime that has an uptick is mass shootings. But even statistically speaking, it was higher in the 90s than in the 2000's.
And is tyranny an issue now? Well, I mean, I am pretty sure I can go through only your comments on the America thread and use them as examples as to why now it is very much important to worry about tyranny. I'd also like to point out, tyrants dont care about any law that they didnt make, and would not give a damn about any law that would be used against them. So trying to codify anti tyrant laws is about as asinine it gets. If a tyrant takes power, which is made far easier by disarming civilians (*cough* godwins law works here) the only laws that will matter are the ones they make.

 

[PocketZeven]

Violent crimes have already been decreasing, homicides and so has crime in general. The only crime that has an uptick is mass shootings. But even statistically speaking, it was higher in the 90s than in the 2000's.
And is tyranny an issue now? Well, I mean, I am pretty sure I can go through only your comments on the America thread and use them as examples as to why now it is very much important to worry about tyranny. I'd also like to point out, tyrants dont care about any law that they didnt make, and would not give a damn about any law that would be used against them. So trying to codify anti tyrant laws is about as asinine it gets. If a tyrant takes power, which is made far easier by disarming civilians (*cough* godwins law works here) the only laws that will matter are the ones they make.

I was asking within context of the 2nd amendment.

edit:
I dont see the need for weaponized militia for Trumps potentially Tyranny.

 

[Rallywagon]

I was asking within context of the 2nd amendment.

cool, cause that is the context I was answering in
to that point, you said it would lower crime eventually, I was pointing out, crime is already lower and dropping. I mean, what more do you want there aye?

 

[PocketZeven]

cool, cause that is the context I was answering in

see edit above

 

[Rallywagon]

I was asking within context of the 2nd amendment.

edit:
I dont see the need for weaponized militia for Trumps potentially Tyranny.

No? you think a stacked SCOTUS and a stacked congress is going to stop his potential tyranny? I sure dont. Our best bet would be the military, and if they back him instead of us citizens? and we gave up our guns? pssshhhh.

 

[PocketZeven]

No? you think a stacked SCOTUS and a stacked congress is going to stop his potential tyranny? I sure dont. Our best bet would be the military, and if they back him instead of us citizens? and we gave up our guns? pssshhhh.

Within context of modern era? No amount of guns will be sufficient to protect themselves against the sheer size of the US army.

 

[Rallywagon]

As Danoff has pointed out. Our occupation in the middle east has been less than a cake walk, and that is with the highest budgeted military against third world combatants...

 

[Danoff]

Within context of modern era? No amount of guns will be sufficient to protect themselves against the sheer size of the US army.

Look at the occupation of Iraq to see how much trouble even pockets of civilians with weapons can be. But it's not quite that simple these days. Because in the event of a civil war or revolutionary war within the US, the military would also fracture. An unarmed population is much easier for an occupying force to deal with.

This is the case for tyranny from without too. For example if some foreign power decided to invade, the US population is easier to control when it is unarmed.

 

[Blood Eagle]

As Danoff has pointed out. Our occupation in the middle east has been less than a cake walk, and that is with the highest budgeted military against third world combatants...

Vietnam....

 

[McLaren]

Within context of modern era? No amount of guns will be sufficient to protect themselves against the sheer size of the US army.

How many wars have we lost where we claimed the enemy hid within’ civilian clothes?

 

[PocketZeven]

Look at the occupation of Iraq to see how much trouble even pockets of civilians with weapons can be. But it's not quite that simple these days. Because in the event of a civil war or revolutionary war within the US, the military would also fracture. An unarmed population is much easier for an occupying force to deal with.

This is the case for tyranny from without too. For example if some foreign power decided to invade, the US population is easier to control when it is unarmed.

That is what I assume the true intent was of the 2nd amendment. Every situation is complicated. I wouldnt call these civilians, but armed militant groups. Like if in the USA white supremacist militant groups, would start to resist the government and try to act out their predicted "race war". Butthat said, the real weapons nowadays arent arms. It is controlling the media and social media to sway public opinion. Putin, Xi and erdogan all came to power without much force.

How many wars have we lost where we claimed the enemy hid within’ civilian clothes?

Not every war is the same and civil war does not compare to foreign wars.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

As Danoff has pointed out. Our occupation in the middle east has been less than a cake walk, and that is with the highest budgeted military against third world combatants...

Vietnam....

There is quite a difference in war concerning what a military that has been unleashed to allow its generals to use its weapons and forces to win the war than a war that the military is on a short leash and plays by the rules given them by politicians that do not have a clue what winning a war is all about.

The closest that the U.S. military has actually shown to its true capabilities within the last 50 years is when we invaded Iraq and decimated their military within a few days.

If you really think that that we could not do the same to Afghanistan or Iran if the muzzle was removed from our military then you are fooling yourself.

 

[PocketZeven]

There is quite a difference in war concerning what a military that has been unleashed to allow its generals to use its weapons and forces to win the war than a war that the military is on a short leash and plays by the rules given them by politicians that do not have a clue what winning a war is all about.

The closest that the U.S. military has actually shown to its true capabilities within the last 50 years is when we invaded Iraq and decimated their military within a few days.

If you really think that that we could not do the same to Afghanistan or Iran if the muzzle was removed from our military then you are fooling yourself.

I realise what they are referring to is terrorism and guerilla warfar, which is a lot different then all-out war.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I realise what they are referring to is terrorism and guerilla warfar, which is a lot different then all-out war.

And exactly where we make our mistake, after we have blown them back into the stone ages like a dumbass we stick around rebuild their country and stay involved in chicken**** skirmishes within their borders that mean nothing to the U.S.

Make the damn place a Walmart parking lot and bring our equipment and men back home where they belong. Actually it is long past time for the U.S. to quit being the worlds police force and multiple countries defense force at U.S. taxpayer expense and shore up and close down the borders to our own country.
I could care less if all the middle east nations blew each other off the map actually!

 

[PocketZeven]

And exactly where we make our mistake, after we have blown them back into the stone ages like a dumbass we stick around rebuild their country and stay involved in chicken**** skirmishes within their borders that mean nothing to the U.S.

Make the damn place a Walmart parking lot and bring our equipment and men back home where they belong. Actually it is long past time for the U.S. to quit being the worlds police force and multiple countries defense force at U.S. taxpayer expense and shore up and close down the borders to our own country.
I could care less if all the middle east nations blew each other off the map actually!

You made my point in how militias in modern times are ineffective against tyranny.

 

[Blood Eagle]

The closest that the U.S. military has actually shown to its true capabilities within the last 50 years is when we invaded Iraq and decimated their military within a few days.

I was there. I was 21. We charged north with little resistance and sporadic pockets of fighting. We had really clear objectives. But those who were so easy to give up, regrouped and setup strongholds where nobody knew them from regular civilians. Like all guerrilla type fighters, there is a code of silence, they have safe houses, can acquire weapons easily, have quite a bit of support from locals and have no front line. Our rear is their front. Sabotage, decent intel, using terrain to their advantage etc.

The might of the US Military is awesome. However the US isn’t great at irregular warfare.

 

[PocketZeven]

I was there. I was 21. We charged north with little resistance and sporadic pockets of fighting. We had really clear objectives. But those who were so easy to give up, regrouped and setup strongholds where nobody knew them from regular civilians. Like all guerrilla type fighters, there is a code of silence, they have safe houses, can acquire weapons easily, have quite a bit of support from locals and have no front line. Our rear is their front. Sabotage, decent intel, using terrain to their advantage etc.

The might of the US Military is awesome. However the US isn’t great at irregular warfare.

To be fair it has been throughout history and all over the world.

 

[McLaren]

Not every war is the same and civil war does not compare to foreign wars.

Beside the point, which is the ability a normal group of citizens can have against an armed force when armed themselves.

 

[Rallywagon]

I wonder what sort of war you think would be waged here in the states. You appear to assume that civilians are gonna line up like the ol infantry formations and wait for a tank to run us down. No doubt we would be using the same sorts of guerilla tactics. That's not to mention the division, again, already mentioned, that would fracture the military. A military of a maybe a couple hundred thousand against millions of armed citizens, that will likely also have military backing... yeah, IDK man. Seems best to keep the 2nd around.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

You just made my point in how militias in modern times are ineffective against tyranny.

You are wrong, to kill the tyrant you do not need to kill the military only those that are leading it astray , hence the politicians and leaders in power, the head of the snake.

No way can you begin to argue that an armed population is not in a much better position to defeat tyranny than an unarmed population. I am glad and very thankful you are not one on our Supreme Court interpreting our constitution!

Like all guerrilla type fighters, there is a code of silence, they have safe houses, can acquire weapons easily, have quite a bit of support from locals and have no front line. Our rear is their front. Sabotage, decent intel, using terrain to their advantage etc.

Exactly why we should not have boots on the ground in such a hell hole! Kick the ass, destroy their actual main military capabilities and come on home should be the U.S. role if we are even involved at all.

I think we would be better served if we did like we did prior to WW2 and stay on our own little side of the world and stayed out of everyone else's business. Then other nations would have no reason to target us with terrorist attacks to begin with.

 

[Blood Eagle]

I wonder what sort of war you think would be waged here in the states. You appear to assume that civilians are gonna line up like the ol infantry formations and wait for a tank to run us down. No doubt we would be using the same sorts of guerilla tactics. That's not to mention the division, again, already mentioned, that would fracture the military. A military of a maybe a couple hundred thousand against millions of armed citizens, that will likely also have military backing... yeah, IDK man. Seems best to keep the 2nd around.

Yes, we'd become guerrilla fighters and insurgents. No doubt about it.

 

[PocketZeven]

I wonder what sort of war you think would be waged here in the states. You appear to assume that civilians are gonna line up like the ol infantry formations and wait for a tank to run us down. No doubt we would be using the same sorts of guerilla tactics. That's not to mention the division, again, already mentioned, that would fracture the military. A military of a maybe a couple hundred thousand against millions of armed citizens, that will likely also have military backing... yeah, IDK man. Seems best to keep the 2nd around.

If you were adressing me, I never said to remove the 2nd amendment all together. That said, most western countries dont have a right to keep and bear arms. That would mean europe is extremely vulnerable to tyranny?

edit:

You are wrong, to kill the tyrant you do not need to kill the military only those that are leading it astray , hence the politicians and leaders in power, the head of the snake.

No way can you begin to argue that an armed population is not in a much better position to defeat tyranny than an unarmed population. I am glad and very thankful you are not one on our Supreme Court interpreting our constitution!

Exactly why we should not have boots on the ground in such a hell hole! Kick the ass, destroy their actual main military capabilities and come on home should be the U.S. role if we are even involved at all.

I think we would be better served if we did like we did prior to WW2 and stay on our own little side of the world and stayed out of everyone else's business. Then other nations would have no reason to target us with terrorist attacks to begin with.

I guess the USA in your eyes is an anomoly. In other western countries there is no such right.
The only country that might be similar is switzerland. But that requires every gunowner to have a license and mandatory backgrounchecks, gun registration and training. Which is what I was advocating for all along.

 

[Blood Eagle]

Exactly why we should not have boots on the ground in such a hell hole! Kick the ass, destroy their actual main military capabilities and come on home should be the U.S. role if we are even involved at all.

Remember that part I said we had really clear objectives? We did it in 2 weeks. THen the objectives started becoming unclear. We've had one military operation go well since WWII and that was Desert Storm. Main difference? Clear objectives.