Mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio

[VFOURMAX1]

That would mean europe is extremely vulnerable to tyranny?

Much more than the U.S. citizens would be.

Actually how much of Europes defense from being invaded by a foreign country would be due to U.S. assets deployed throughout Europe rather than actual European assets? Look at the included map of the U.S. bases and equipment that really become a good question in its self doesn't it?

 

[Famine]

Look at the included map of the U.S. bases

Firstly, that map doesn't include non-US bases. Secondly it's missing loads of US bases in the UK. Lastly, who on Earth drew it? They've got Lakenheath and Mildenhall where Alconbury should be, and Alconbury somewhere in Stamford.

 

[Rallywagon]

Firstly, that map doesn't include non-US bases. Secondly it's missing loads of US bases in the UK. Lastly, who on Earth drew it? They've got Lakenheath and Mildenhall where Alconbury should be, and Alconbury somewhere in Stamford.

 

[PocketZeven]

Much more than the U.S. citizens would be.

Actually how much of Europes defense from being invaded by a foreign country would be due to U.S. assets deployed throughout Europe rather than actual European assets? Look at the included map of the U.S. bases and equipment that really become a good question in its self doesn't it?
View attachment 852362

I think you might be to invested in Trump's rhetoric. US military budget and foreign bases are the cause of politics. You seem to think that the rest of the world asked the US to "police" the world. Your vote might be a much more powerfull weapon then any individual weapon you will own now and ever.

 

[Danoff]

I believe the question was whether tyranny is an issue in the modern world, and whether the right to bear arms has any bearing on resisting that tyranny. And I think it has been shown that the answer to both of those questions is a resounding yes.

 

[PocketZeven]

I believe the question was whether tyranny is an issue in the modern world, and whether the right to bear arms has any bearing on resisting that tyranny. And I think it has been shown that the answer to both of those questions is a resounding yes.

The devil is in the details. In the case of individual rights, I would say it really depends, but in a "well regulated militia" I would agree. To note I interpret the well regulated to responsible competent and trained bearers of arms in this case. Militia is something that does not really fit into modern times.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Militia is something that does not really fit into modern times.

That's simply not true, it's just an army raised from civilians that isn't under federal/sovereign control. In the US there's a further specification to the definition which I can't exactly recall right now, I think it's something to do with being eligible to be called for military service by a State or Government.

 

[PocketZeven]

That's simply not true, it's just an army raised from civilians that isn't under federal/sovereign control. In the US there's a further specification to the definition which I can't exactly recall right now, I think it's something to do with being eligible to be called for military service by a State or Government.

That defeats to purpose. The one defined in the bill of rights was to protect against government.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

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.

Do you think any civilian militia could be formed in 2019 capable of preventing (for instance) Donald Trump from instituting nationwide martial law?

I think the answer is a pretty resounding "no". Perhaps you could have some somewhat successful insurrection with small arms, but the tools at the disposal of the military and those available to civilians have diverged very, very widely since the American revolution. The ability of the 2nd amendment to protect the assembly of an actually useful militia (useful militia meaning one that can actually protect against tyranny) has been effectively gutted. You can't get field artillery, tanks, weaponized airplanes, cruise missiles, etc.

While individual citizens can bear arms, I sincerely doubt they would have much utility against a full on tyrannical US government. Instead, or maybe alongside, wouldn't it be more useful if 2A supporters strived to actually build on the militia part? If it's about freedom from oppression...that seems more important than being able to buy an AR15 as an individual.

The following is a strained analogy, but here me out.

What if militias followed a country club-esque model?
You have the facilities (golf course - shooting range[would have to be quite large to support a broad range of training]) and the members (golfers - militia) and the tools (golf clubs - weapons), the only difference being the weapons must be kept at the militia grounds. In this situation, the militia could have all manner of weapons available to them. Privatize the national guard?

 

[TenEightyOne]

That defeats to purpose. The one defined in the bill of rights was to protect against government.

I didn't say it was a limitation of definition, and States may war with Government.

 

[Danoff]

You can't get field artillery, tanks, weaponized airplanes, cruise missiles, etc.

As was explained for the last few pages, you don't have to. Because the enemy does not know friend from foe.

 

[Exorcet]

You can't get field artillery, tanks, weaponized airplanes, cruise missiles, etc.

What would the US do with these weapons in a martial law situation? Not all of them are suitable for crowd control, they are designed to destroy specific military targets and industry. The former won't happen unless the military splits its allegiance, which puts both sides on similar footing possibly. The latter set of targets are problematic because the military would be relying on them and wouldn't want to destroy them. Launching cruise missiles on New York would be senseless as would launching them on the homes of suspected rebels.

 

[Rallywagon]

The devil is in the details. In the case of individual rights, I would say it really depends, but in a "well regulated militia" I would agree. To note I interpret the well regulated to responsible competent and trained bearers of arms in this case. Militia is something that does not really fit into modern times.

You should come say that to the Michigan Militia. They would laugh you all the way back to the Netherlands. That fact that there may not be a need at the moment, doesnt mean militias are pointless. It's kinda like keeping a fire extinguisher in the shop. You dont need it... until you need it.

 

[McLaren]

Cruise missiles, tanks, and airplanes would do far more damage than “good”; the US Govt isn’t that ballsy enough to openly bomb civilians whilst destroying its own infrastructure/economy in the process just because there may be some rebels in a suspected area. New York and LA would be immediate safe havens.

 

[BobK]

You can't get field artillery, tanks, weaponized airplanes, cruise missiles, etc.

Actually I know of several people who own tanks and other AFVs, weaponized aircraft, field artillery and even a cruise missile.

They'll be playing with them in public in a few weeks.

I have lots of pictures of previous events including the cruise missile.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Cruise missiles, tanks, and airplanes would do far more damage than “good”; the US Govt isn’t that ballsy enough to openly bomb civilians whilst destroying its own infrastructure/economy in the process just because there may be some rebels in a suspected area. New York and LA would be immediate safe havens.

I'm not saying you are wrong in the context of the 21st century, but I do think the American Civil War is worth thinking about. Because the North lit up the south like a Christmas tree and there were a lot of scorched earth campaigns.

Further listening


If there is a US government in place that is so tyrannical that it is worth taking up arms against, I have doubts as to whether that same US government would have a kids-glove approach to insurrection. It starts to look like civil war eventually.

 

[PocketZeven]

You should come say that to the Michigan Militia. They would laugh you all the way back to the Netherlands. That fact that there may not be a need at the moment, doesnt mean militias are pointless. It's kinda like keeping a fire extinguisher in the shop. You dont need it... until you need it.

Not trying to offend here. I really didnt know militia's are a thing. I am ready to learn though how large is the michigan militia?

 

[Famine]

Do you think any civilian militia could be formed in 2019 capable of preventing (for instance) Donald Trump from instituting nationwide martial law?

I think the answer is a pretty resounding "no".

I can't say either way - but it's not a relevant question... or answer.


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.

Suggesting that the army is now sufficiently large that the tyranny can't be stopped so we may as well start allowing rights to be legislated against (which is the definition of tyranny) is... pretty circular.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I can't say either way - but it's not a relevant question... or answer.


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.

Suggesting that the army is now sufficiently large that the tyranny can't be stopped so we may as well start allowing rights to be legislated against (which is the definition of tyranny) is... pretty circular.

If the intent of 2a was to have militias instead of standing armies, and we have a standing army instead of militias, then I think 2a has been effectively undermined, No? 2a's capacity to resist tyranny is far more limited now than it was at the signing of the constitution. It's been undermined by the populace's indifference to a state military. I could go down a rabbit hole of speculation that the individual right to own an AR15 (for instance) is a distraction from the intent of 2a, but that would be baseless.

(Invalidated was probably the wrong word)

 

[Famine]

If the intent of 2a was to have militias instead of standing armies

It's not.

 

[PocketZeven]

If the intent of 2a was to have militias instead of standing armies, and we have a standing army instead of militias, then I think 2a has been effectively undermined, No? 2a's capacity to resist tyranny is far more limited now than it was at the signing of the constitution. It's been undermined by the populace's indifference to a state military. I could go down a rabbit hole of speculation that the individual right to own an AR15 (for instance) is a distraction from the intent of 2a, but that would be baseless.

(Invalidated was probably the wrong word)

2A is limited in its language and not of this time.

The constitution is a document that should evolve with time. That is how many of the rest of the world do it. The US has amended and passed laws, making slavery illegal, give everyone the right to vote, right to pursue education etc. The political landscape and the the danger of tyranny where much different during the era it was written. 2A should be reinterpreted to modern times through the democratic system. Interestingly the US hasn't amended the constitution for decades.

 

[Rallywagon]

2A is limited in its language and not of this time.

The constitution is a document that should evolve with time. That is how many of the rest of the world do it. The US has amended and passed laws, making slavery illegal, give everyone the right to vote, right to pursue education etc. The political landscape and the the danger of tyranny where much different during the era it was written. 2A should be reinterpreted to modern times through the democratic system. Interestingly the US hasn't amended the constitution for decades.

 

[PocketZeven]

View attachment 852623

Please explain.

I am not saying that it should be abolished, but merely amended in a way that would eliminate any controversy around it.

 

[AnthonyD1993]

Please explain.

I am not saying that it should be abolished, but merely amended in a way that would eliminate any controversy around it.

That's asking for something impossible to happen. Nothing can be done about the 2A without controversy surrounding it regardless of if the change is pro gun rights or pro gun control.

 

[Rallywagon]

Please explain.

I am not saying that it should be abolished, but merely amended in a way that would eliminate any controversy around it.

I'm kinda down beating this horse man. The meme is kinda straight forward. Everything there is your opinion. Amending it, it being outdated and irrelevant to this time. It should evolve. All of that is your opinion, man.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm kinda down beating this horse man. The meme is kinda straight forward. Everything there is your opinion. Amending it, it being outdated and irrelevant to this time. It should evolve. All of that is your opinion, man.

Correct, most in this forum is. But what is yours, when it comes to "updating" 2A?

That's asking for something impossible to happen. Nothing can be done about the 2A without controversy surrounding it regardless of if the change is pro gun rights or pro gun control.

The human rights movement were extremely controversial too. That didn't stop it from change? It is far from impossible. 2A itself was a literal amended much later then the constitution. Perhaps the next generation will make it happen.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

 

[AnthonyD1993]

Correct, most in this forum is. But what is yours, when it comes to "updating" 2A?



The human rights movement were extremely controversial too. That didn't stop it from change? It is far from impossible. 2A itself was a literal amended much later then the constitution. Perhaps the next generation will make it happen.

Then the people who do that will have some of their rights stripped as a middle finger to them when they lose power- which is already a major problem in power. Case in point: the battles over LGBT and women's rights by conservatives now after the Democrats for 8 years went on a crusade to enact gun control and force tax increases on the wealthy during the Obama years.

That's also completely ignoring Beto's plan to force a mandatory buyback on ARs and AKs and fining anyone who refuses to hand them in. That proposal is already worrying some Democrats which does matter because:

1. People will link (and already are linking) Beto's own proposal as a proposal that is a goal of the DNC.
2. The above aggravating blue states like Vermont and New Hampshire (pro gun states)
3. Republicans can use this as a major campaign to encourage the pro gun moderates and independents to vote for Trump (especially in swing states).
4. The NRA, NAGR, GOA, etc. can use this to strengthen their financial reserves because people will donate if worried they will lose their gun rights.
5. A key point in the article I linked- those comments make it harder for any bipartisan legislation to get passed now.

Which brings me back to the initial point- the people who had their rights stripped by one party(ies) will complain and ignore the rights they stripped of others during their political reigns like everyone already does in the USA and then wonder aloud on social medial about how the USA is a political hellhole. Which again, is something that is basically seen 24/7.

 

[PocketZeven]

Then the people who do that will have some of their rights stripped as a middle finger to them when they lose power- which is already a major problem in power. Case in point: the battles over LGBT and women's rights by conservatives now after the Democrats for 8 years went on a crusade to enact gun control and force tax increases on the wealthy during the Obama years.

That's also completely ignoring Beto's plan to force a mandatory buyback on ARs and AKs and fining anyone who refuses to hand them in. That proposal is already worrying some Democrats which does matter because:

1. People will link (and already are linking) Beto's own proposal as a proposal that is a goal of the DNC.
2. The above aggravating blue states like Vermont and New Hampshire (pro gun states)
3. Republicans can use this as a major campaign to encourage the pro gun moderates and independents to vote for Trump (especially in swing states).
4. The NRA, NAGR, GOA, etc. can use this to strengthen their financial reserves because people will donate if worried they will lose their gun rights.
5. A key point in the article I linked- those comments make it harder for any bipartisan legislation to get passed now.

Which brings me back to the initial point- the people who had their rights stripped by one party(ies) will complain and ignore the rights they stripped of others during their political reigns like everyone already does in the USA and then wonder aloud on social medial about how the USA is a political hellhole. Which again, is something that is basically seen 24/7.

You are assuming something I am not suggesting. Beto's proposal is much more extreme. Women and black people didnt gain the right to vote at the same time. 2A should be defined clearer and within the current timeframe. I am no lawmaker. But at least seperate or remove the part of the militia and clearly define keeping and bearing arms as an individual right. Also define what can be considered as "arms".

 

[Sander 001]