Discussion: The Second Amendment

[Paradyme]

Strength in numbers is one thing. Having those numbers behave as one cohesive unit is another thing. Especially when a good majority of the civilian populace lack any form of military training.

You know the redcoats thought the same thing of the militia. Meaning they underestimated them. You can train people even then I'm saying that the military isn't stupid enough nor is the governement to kill off majority of the population. They could make you think they would but they wouldn't because the economy would collapse completely and America would be dead.

Look this is all just speculation and theory. I completely understand your realistic outlook on it but I view that the situation would turn more positively then negatively.

Anyways, banning assault rifles isn't going to make anyone safer or make criminals suddenly obey the law. Hence why they are called criminals.

The Governments only job is to protect the constitution that is why it was formed but somewhere along the way certain people hijacked it and made people believe the opposite of what it was created for in the first place.

 

[SuBe]

Paradyme, I agree with you completely, but you are never going to convince these people. To them, we've already lost the war of liberty. There's only the False sense of freedom anymore.

 

[Paradoxium]

The only hope of a civilian counterattack against the current military firepower is the practice of small units tactics akin to the ones taught in Asia. Had a similar discussion in the Future of America thread with moraldeficiency about this. But what are the odds of people developing or having this type of knowledge when the American military does not teach it begin with save for portions of special forces? It would be an incredibly small population sample.

But I won't lie, that is technically the best and realistic shot, since it is empirically proven.

 

[Addendum]

I don't buy into some fictionalized optimistic outlook on the American population, because I would have to ignore reality.

 

[Paradyme]

Paradyme, I agree with you completely, but you are never going to convince these people. To them, we've already lost the war of liberty. There's only the False sense of freedom anymore.

I feel like a broken record saying the same thing over and over again as I'm sure you do saying that with the FairTax this would never have happened or if we implement it now it'll fix just about everything (which is true). Thanks for your support though.

The only hope of a civilian counterattack against the current military firepower is the practice of small units tactics akin to the ones taught in Asia. Had a similar discussion in the Future of America thread with moraldeficiency about this. But what are the odds of people developing or having this type of knowledge when the American military does not teach it begin with save for portions of special forces? It would be an incredibly small population sample.

But I won't lie, that is technically the best and realistic shot, since it is empirically proven.

That's what I feel would more than likely happen. The militia didn't fight the redcoats in lines like the armies did because they knew they wouldn't survive. They used guerilla tactics and ended up turning the results of the war.

Who even knows if the military would even listen to the government if they ordered them to start annihilating opposition to the government when they are regular folk like ourselves.

 

[Paradyme]

I don't buy into some fictionalized optimistic outlook on the American population, because I would have to ignore reality.

Its not fictionalized when there is obviously an instinct within us all that when we are pushed to our limits we fight back. Freedom is in our blood and when you eliminate it and oppress it only lasts for so long.

I understand your view because I feel sometimes we are lost too but I know that more people then just myself have the motivation when pinned to fight. Its fight or flight response. Its in our blood. Live free or die.

 

[The Senator]

We aren't talking about 6 people against the rest of the nation we are talking about majority of the nation against an army. There is a huge difference. Using nukes against 205,000,000 Americans (assuming of course we have majority of people against the rogue government) wouldn't exactly be the brightest military move.

Look, I doubt that we would ever have to use our weapons against or own soldiers and maybe it would be best to just lay down and die that day because of how heartbreaking it would be.

I believe the second amendment is more for the ability to protect the country against an enemy that has infiltrated us when the military is spread thin. Militia is the last line of defense and when you remove the power from the Militia you are removing a layer of security. You do know why the Japanese didn't invade the U.S. during WW2 right? They believe every American owned a gun and it would be nearly impossible to do so.

The second amendment is protects the people of America and America herself. Assault weapons are the weapons of today. I'm sure if cutlasses and bows and arrows were still widely used they would be after those too.

Then, of course, you would actually have to assume that the majority of the country actually gives a damn about fighting any sort of tyrannical government-- or is actually capable of doing so. You also ignore the whole part about how the government has, you know, weapons of mass destruction which could wipe out the majority of the population simply by pressing a few buttons. It may not be a "bright" move on the U.S. military's part, but if they can wipe out a city like LA or NYC, that would certainly send a strong message.

 

[Paradoxium]

It may not be a "bright" move on the U.S. military's part, but if they can wipe out a city like LA or NYC, that would certainly send a strong message.

Actually I don't see the strategic benefit of this, considering this demographic would provide the least resistance given their dependency issues - in terms of resources. The biggest problems with the urban demographic would be crowd control and crime, not some revolutionary resistance. Of course if you blow it up still, I suppose the pragmatic motive is not expending your efforts on crowd control or whatever.

 

[Paradyme]

Then, of course, you would actually have to assume that the majority of the country actually gives a damn about fighting any sort of tyrannical government-- or is actually capable of doing so. You also ignore the whole part about how the government has, you know, weapons of mass destruction which could wipe out the majority of the population simply by pressing a few buttons. It may not be a "bright" move on the U.S. military's part, but if they can wipe out a city like LA or NYC, that would certainly send a strong message.

Lets say that they would be stupid enough to bomb a major city. At that point I'm sure just about everybody including the military would realize how nuts the government has become and people would have no choice but to fight back. That is where the instinct kicks in.

You and Addendum have your outlook I have mine. There is no way to convince either of you because you are set in your thinking on this issue as I am mine.

I've already stated how I feel on the subject of it protecting us against a rogue government and I think its a valid point. You claim superior firepower I claim resolve and strength of the American people.

 

[Addendum]

If someone wants to march toward death, I won't stop them. I'll just let them know what they're facing so the surprise wouldn't be so overpowering.

 

[SuBe]

"Give me Liberty or Give me Death. " Someone famous said that once.

 

[Addendum]

"Somebody said let's go out and fight for liberty and so they went and got killed without ever once thinking about liberty. And what kind of liberty were they fighting for anyway? How much liberty and whose idea of liberty? Were they fighting for the liberty of eating free ice cream cones all their lives or for the liberty of robbing anybody they pleased whenever they wanted to or what? You tell a man he can't rob and you take away some of his liberty. You've got to. What the hell does liberty mean anyhow? It's just a word like house or table or any other word. Only it's a special kind of word. A guy says house and he can point to a house to prove it. But a guy says come on let's fight for liberty and he can't show you liberty. He can't prove the thing he's talking about so how in the hell can he be telling you to fight for it?"

 

[SuBe]

Life is meaningless without Liberty.

 

[Addendum]

Nothing is bigger than life

 

[SuBe]

What is the Point of Life, if you can't live it to the Degree you choose?

 

[Addendum]

If you're dead, you won't get to collect

 

[SuBe]

At least you won't be under the control of Tyrrany. Better death on your feet, than life on your knees.

 

[Addendum]

I'm sure the people that died in the various wars over the millenia have said "you know, I'm glad I'm sure glad I died for liberty/honor/democracy/decency/their country" instead of wanting to see their friends, or their wife, or their children, or their mother, or their hometown again.

 

[SuBe]

They fought FOR their Families and their Hometowns, For Liberty.

 

[Addendum]

And they forgot all about that cause when they're lying in the mud, watching their blood pour out of them while they're holding their guts in their hand. They're not asking for liberty. They're not asking for honor. They want to see their mom. They want to see their wife.

 

[SuBe]

Maybe, but at least they stood up against Tyrrany. Instead of giving up before the fight, like many here say.

 

[Addendum]

So I gave up because I view things realistically instead of some idealized vision?

 

[SuBe]

That is Reality with today Political/Sociological enviroment, not reality in it's most basic level. There is nothing wrong with individual freedom. Liberty should be celebrated, not diminished.

 

[Spidey-Bat]

Then, of course, you would actually have to assume that the majority of the country actually gives a damn about fighting any sort of tyrannical government-- or is actually capable of doing so. You also ignore the whole part about how the government has, you know, weapons of mass destruction which could wipe out the majority of the population simply by pressing a few buttons. It may not be a "bright" move on the U.S. military's part, but if they can wipe out a city like LA or NYC, that would certainly send a strong message.

If that scenario occurred, the rest of the world would turn against the US. They would realize if the US would bomb one of its own cities, they would have no second thought on bombing a foreign country. By eliminating a few million of their own, they would be putting a huge target on their backs with the rest of the world aiming at them.

 

[Addendum]

That is Reality with today Political/Sociological enviroment, not reality in it's most basic level. There is nothing wrong with individual freedom. Liberty should be celebrated, not diminished.

There are some actions taken by my government that I disagree, but because I disagree with those actions doesn't mean that the government is "tyrannical" or "rogue"