Rym, first and second protect each other not one protecting the other.
How do they protect eachother? How does the civilian right to bear arms protect free speech in the modern era?
I don't think the second protects the first, but I do think that having a privileged, corrupt, institutionalized class of arms-bearers is a bad idea.
There are TED talks and lectures saying that this exact idea - a monopoly on deadly force - is the primary reason violence has decreased so rapidly in the world over the last centuries.
Also, police are armed civilians given extra responsibility AND extra force to back it. Not really the same as a "privileged class," nevermind that armed civilians are literally useless in the face of any real police or military action.
It's exactly the same as a privileged class, just with qualifications.
NYPD is not my idea of morally unassailable benevolent protectors.
As to your last assertion, it's true that the government already has a monopoly on coordinating and applying overwhelming force. The PATRIOT Act and similar legislation has sure helped with that, not that they needed it.
nevermind that armed civilians are literally useless in the face of any real police or military action.
So what happened in Vietnam?
So, in the year 2012, you honestly believe that the armed civilians of the United States would and could rise up en masse to continuously resist anything?
Vietnam was an armed military engaging in guerrilla tactics against an external force.
No, I don't think armed civilians have a chance of organizing thanks to domestic spying and a cowed, propaganda-ridden populace.
Still, until there are some significant strides made w.r.t. the transparency and morality of our government, I'm not going to be for a complete monopoly on deadly force.
I don't think arming civilians has any relevance at all to modern politics in industrialized nations.
If it has no relevance then why are we discussing it, and why does it drive so many NRA members to the polls?
Honestly? I think they're mostly paranoid and misinformed.
It has no relevance in that armed civilians' weapons have no actual impact, nor any possibility of impact. The gun owners will never be in a position to use those weapons to effect change.
nevermind that armed civilians are literally useless in the face of any real police or military action.
So what happened in Vietnam?
So, in the year 2012, you honestly believe that the armed civilians of the United States would and could rise up en masse to continuously resist anything?
Vietnam was an armed military engaging in guerrilla tactics against an external force.
The Viet Kong were more poorly equipped than American gun owners. If the rebels were able to organize themselves properly -- hiding in urban areas, attacking through operations that couldn't be traced to individuals, making it such that search and destroy missions were the only practical way to stop them -- they could keep a significant amount of land a la the Roman conquest of Britania. The US Federal Gov would probably build a Hadrian's Wall of sorts.
Yes. All those white collar criminals being punished, all the banking regulations that have been put in place from it -- it's been very successful.
OWS was a very good publicity stunt, but it didn't change policy. They needed to make their debut in an election year to change the actual laws, as opposed to public opinion.
The Viet Kong were more poorly equipped than American gun owners. If the rebels were able to organize themselves properly -- hiding in urban areas, attacking through operations that couldn't be traced to individuals, making it such that search and destroy missions were the only practical way to stop them -- they could keep a significant amount of land a la the Roman conquest of Britania. The US Federal Gov would probably build a Hadrian's Wall of sorts.
If you're interested in that sort of thing, check out a series of books called "Tomorrow when the war began" - it's about a group of people fighting a Guerrilla war against a force that vastly overpowers them both technologically and with pure numbers, as well as having vastly more firepower. They're pretty good, and they're a lot better than many other novels of that general theme.
So again, how are the Viet Kong relevant to the modern US? There is zero danger of an external military force attempting to subdue the civilian population under an occupation or martial law. So what senario exactly is the armed populace protecting us from?
The Viet Kong were more poorly equipped than American gun owners. If the rebels were able to organize themselves properly -- hiding in urban areas, attacking through operations that couldn't be traced to individuals, making it such that search and destroy missions were the only practical way to stop them -- they could keep a significant amount of land a la the Roman conquest of Britania. The US Federal Gov would probably build a Hadrian's Wall of sorts.
Im not sure that you have gotten the right end of the history there. The Viet Kong was actually quite well organised and well equipped, though not in comparison to the UN forces, if they hadn't been they would not have held out as long as they did. Nor where they untrained pesants. They had fought against the French and the Japanese before had and had become well versed in jungle and guerilla fighting. They had also been trained by elements of the OSS. The equipment that they did use might have been simple but it worked. They were not, despite the image that is often given. A half trained militia of pesants.
Also the which Roman conquest are you talking about? There have been a couple and Hadrian wall was built against the Pictish tribes. Partly to keep them out and party because there was nothing of value that far north. They had already captured the mines that Britain offered and subdued or converted most of the populace. After that what was the point? There were more pressing matters to attend to.
The matter that I do not understand is why people are so crazy over guns? I am much happier knowing that the police, the trained individuals that my government pays and equips and regulates, are the ones with the guns not some mad man who's gone and brought a .50 cal, and don't get me started on conceal carry that is just fucking nuts.
The Viet Kong were more poorly equipped than American gun owners. If the rebels were able to organize themselves properly -- hiding in urban areas, attacking through operations that couldn't be traced to individuals, making it such that search and destroy missions were the only practical way to stop them -- they could keep a significant amount of land a la the Roman conquest of Britania. The US Federal Gov would probably build a Hadrian's Wall of sorts.
Im not sure that you have gotten the right end of the history there. The Viet Kong was actually quite well organised and well equipped, though not in comparison to the UN forces, if they hadn't been they would not have held out as long as they did. Nor where they untrained pesants. They had fought against the French and the Japanese before had and had become well versed in jungle and guerilla fighting. They had also been trained by elements of the OSS. The equipment that they did use might have been simple but it worked. They were not, despite the image that is often given. A half trained militia of pesants.
Also the which Roman conquest are you talking about? There have been a couple and Hadrian wall was built against the Pictish tribes. Partly to keep them out and party because there was nothing of value that far north. They had already captured the mines that Britain offered and subdued or converted most of the populace. After that what was the point? There were more pressing matters to attend to.
I didn't say they were poorly organized or poorly trained. I didn't mean to say that they were a half-trained militia of peasants when American forces began fighting, but rather that they started as one. In the hands of a competent leader, a good tactician, and a handful of decent drill sergeants, one can make a very potent army. Were an American rebellion to break out, they would be better equipped than the Vietnamese were when Ho Chi Minh started the Viet Minh, making it easier to build as competent an army.
As for the Roman conquests, that was my point. The Feds would give the rebels some useless pieces of land in order to stop the war.
So again, how are the Viet Kong relevant to the modern US? There is zero danger of an external military force attempting to subdue the civilian population under an occupation or martial law. So what senario exactly is the armed populace protecting us from?
External v Internal isn't really relevant to the situation. The hypothetical situation proposed is that the existing government and army introduces martial law. The Viet Kong were a small group of devoted rural soldiers who were able to successfully defeat the most powerful fighting force on the face of the earth (more or less).
What scenario an armed populace is protecting us from... I don't know. I just like arguing about hypothetical wars. The reintroduction of state sanitariums is my solution to gun (and other) violence. Gun control is a compromise I would make for that cause.
The very idea of the government and army introducing martial law in the US is ridiculous for a variety of reasons, almost as ridiculous as the militias and survivalists who think they would resist such an already ridiculous thing with their small arms.
The very idea of the government and army introducing martial law in the US is ridiculous for a variety of reasons, almost as ridiculous as the militias and survivalists who think they would resist such an already ridiculous thing with their small arms.
I'm not saying that it's going to happen. I'm a military strategy/tactics nerd. I like arguing about hypothetical wars, plausible and not.
The very idea of the government and army introducing martial law in the US is ridiculous for a variety of reasons, almost as ridiculous as the militias and survivalists who think they would resist such an already ridiculous thing with their small arms.
I'm not saying that it's going to happen. I'm a military strategy/tactics nerd. I like arguing about hypothetical wars, plausible and not.
But if they're purely hypothetical and in no way plausible, then they're of no relevance to the modern justification of the second amendment.
The very idea of the government and army introducing martial law in the US is ridiculous for a variety of reasons, almost as ridiculous as the militias and survivalists who think they would resist such an already ridiculous thing with their small arms.
I'm not saying that it's going to happen. I'm a military strategy/tactics nerd. I like arguing about hypothetical wars, plausible and not.
But if they're purely hypothetical and in no way plausible, then they're of no relevance to the modern justification of the second amendment.
When was I justifying the second amendment?
EDIT: today, that is. I have in the past, but not with this argument.
Asked me to defend the 2nd amendment using those points I'd say that the supreme court has interpreted the 2nd amendment to apply to the ownership of weapons outside of the context of a militia. I'd also say that the right to form militias was struck down decades ago.
I'd politely suggest that folks look up the 2nd amendment on Wikipedia and actually read the rulings surrounding it so they aren't arguing with a poor understanding of the issue as it stands.
Folks who go on and on about how important the 2nd amendment is could use to do the same.
Oh, I'm not arguing for a reinterpretation. I'm arguing for an amendment.
That's the point. the amendment doesn't really work the way most people think it does. These days it functions more along the line of "The Need for personal security being necessary to the function of the state, the right of the people to reasonable* weaponry to provide such defense shall not be infringed."
*"Reasonable" as defined by state and local authorities , subject to the purview of the federal government.
Comments
So you guys are afraid of armed police, and think that armed citizens protect the first amendment somehow?
Also, police are armed civilians given extra responsibility AND extra force to back it. Not really the same as a "privileged class," nevermind that armed civilians are literally useless in the face of any real police or military action.
NYPD is not my idea of morally unassailable benevolent protectors.
As to your last assertion, it's true that the government already has a monopoly on coordinating and applying overwhelming force. The PATRIOT Act and similar legislation has sure helped with that, not that they needed it.
Vietnam was an armed military engaging in guerrilla tactics against an external force.
Still, until there are some significant strides made w.r.t. the transparency and morality of our government, I'm not going to be for a complete monopoly on deadly force.
It has no relevance in that armed civilians' weapons have no actual impact, nor any possibility of impact. The gun owners will never be in a position to use those weapons to effect change.
OWS was a very good publicity stunt, but it didn't change policy. They needed to make their debut in an election year to change the actual laws, as opposed to public opinion.
Also the which Roman conquest are you talking about? There have been a couple and Hadrian wall was built against the Pictish tribes. Partly to keep them out and party because there was nothing of value that far north. They had already captured the mines that Britain offered and subdued or converted most of the populace. After that what was the point? There were more pressing matters to attend to.
The matter that I do not understand is why people are so crazy over guns? I am much happier knowing that the police, the trained individuals that my government pays and equips and regulates, are the ones with the guns not some mad man who's gone and brought a .50 cal, and don't get me started on conceal carry that is just fucking nuts.
As for the Roman conquests, that was my point. The Feds would give the rebels some useless pieces of land in order to stop the war. External v Internal isn't really relevant to the situation. The hypothetical situation proposed is that the existing government and army introduces martial law. The Viet Kong were a small group of devoted rural soldiers who were able to successfully defeat the most powerful fighting force on the face of the earth (more or less).
What scenario an armed populace is protecting us from... I don't know. I just like arguing about hypothetical wars. The reintroduction of state sanitariums is my solution to gun (and other) violence. Gun control is a compromise I would make for that cause.
It just loaded. I laughed out loud.
Well played. ;^)
EDIT: today, that is. I have in the past, but not with this argument.
2. The chances of an effective "military occupation" or "perpetual state of martial law" in the United States are basically zero.
3. Threat of force by arms is irrelevant to modern political discourse: an actual armed revolution basically isn't possible in the US.
I'd politely suggest that folks look up the 2nd amendment on Wikipedia and actually read the rulings surrounding it so they aren't arguing with a poor understanding of the issue as it stands.
Folks who go on and on about how important the 2nd amendment is could use to do the same.
*"Reasonable" as defined by state and local authorities , subject to the purview of the federal government.