The 2nd Amendment - What does it mean?

[Lou Minotti]

And that matters because? And who is talking insurrection? The issue is self defense.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Sonart Why is that? The civil war represented the seque from the Napoleonic concept of warfare to the modern concept of total, technology driven warfare. And I daresay the capabilities of our military and police have increased exponentially since then. But maybe I'm wrong... certainly - since I made your day - you can provide me with an example of where an armed insurrection against our Federal or State governments has been successful. Just one. Take all the time you need. .

It was funny because anything from the 1860's is irrelevent since it happened so long ago and things have changed so much since then.

However, to answer your question, how about 9/11 and the OKC Federal building for starters?

[The Dunedan]

you can provide me with an example of where an armed insurrection against our Federal or State governments has been successful. Just one. Take all the time you need.

Well, nobody's tried in the US for quite some time...but Athens, TN is a good example of such things being used against a more local gov't.
The War Between The States failed because the CSA tried to go toe-to-toe with the Union's greater industrial capacity. If the CSA had stuck to hit-and-fade warfare, properly exploited their superior leadership, and simply bled the Union dry, they would have won. Jefferson Davis' dogmatic insistance upon "honorable" face-to-face slugfests against the Union's greater numbers is what lost us the war. In the context of a modern guerilla insurgency, your "example" is irrelevant; armies don't stand still and blaze away at each other anymore, and they havn't since WW1.

Foreign examples are much more prolific and instructive:

Ireland: 1916-1922. Irish insurgency drives out British.
1965-1995. Insurgency in Occupied Northern Ireland drives British to negotiations.

Afghanistan: Just ask the Russians how well this one turned out. 60,000+ dead bodies tend to make quite an impression.

Iraq: What did you think all that shooting was, target practice?

Vietnam: I know some Americans would love to forget about this little disaster; don't tell me the disease has spread to other countries as well! The French could also tell you a few things about the efficacy of a localized insurgency.

Pretty much all of South America, at one time or another: These guys are old hands at the insurgency game. They may not be making much gain at the moment, but they ( and their bosses ) control huge swaths of their countries, especially in Columbia.

[tman_ndsu08]

Also, have you ever seen the movie Blackhawk Down? Based on true events in Somolia.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Also, have you ever seen the movie Blackhawk Down? Based on true events in Somolia.

Bad Example. Had the military gone in with a "total warfare" mindset and not ha their hands tied, it would have been a nonissue.

Same thing in Iraq. Instead of trying to "take falluja" had we just sent a flight of 8-12 B-52 or 16 B-1's...

And carpet bombed the damn place, there would be no insurgency. It would also increase the number of innocent casualties and thus the reason we didn't, but if we ever used WWII style tactics, with today's fire power...

Think about that.

[G. Adams]

You'd have nobody left in Iraq to conquer if you took such a course. And unless yoru goal is some middle eastern lebensraum I can't see the point of wiping out populations in such a manner.

[bishop]

keep in mind the "logic" that the pro-bush side uses.. one side of their mouth will cry about all the evils committed by saddam - the other side will yell "let's flatten fallujah!". clearly, each line of rhetoric cancels the other out, and you're left with nothing more than hollow partisanship that's based solely on ego than on any semblance of long-term thinking. it's almost mathematical how flawed the logic is, yet they cling to it because their egos refuse to admit that they're wrong.

with inconsistent "logic" like that, there is little point in trying to understand that "logic".

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Bad Example. Had the military gone in with a "total warfare" mindset and not ha their hands tied, it would have been a nonissue. Same thing in Iraq. Instead of trying to "take falluja" had we just sent a flight of 8-12 B-52 or 16 B-1's... And carpet bombed the damn place, there would be no insurgency. It would also increase the number of innocent casualties and thus the reason we didn't, but if we ever used WWII style tactics, with today's fire power... Think about that.

You could say the same for the Vietnam war.

That wasn't the point, however.

The point was a non military force beating a military force in any way.

[Lou Minotti]

Quote by: bishop keep in mind the "logic" that the pro-bush side uses.. one side of their mouth will cry about all the evils committed by saddam - the other side will yell "let's flatten fallujah!". clearly, each line of rhetoric cancels the other out, and you're left with nothing more than hollow partisanship that's based solely on ego than on any semblance of long-term thinking. it's almost mathematical how flawed the logic is, yet they cling to it because their egos refuse to admit that they're wrong. with inconsistent "logic" like that, there is little point in trying to understand that "logic".

Seriously. "Not having our hands tied" is purely doublespeak for committing war crimes and genocide. "Think about that"....

[Sonart]

Quote by: Lou Minotti And that matters because? And who is talking insurrection? The issue is self defense.

No, the issue I was referring to is this silly idea that arming American citizens is a defense against their own government. Citizens resisting their government by force of arms is called insurection. The United States government will never allow an armed insurrection to succeed.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 It was funny because anything from the 1860's is irrelevent since it happened so long ago and things have changed so much since then.

How about that... my point exactly. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when the defense of our nation, because our founders wanted nothing to do with a standing Federal Army, depended on how many citizens armed with muskets we could line up shoulder to shoulder on a battlefield "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

I daresay that since 1860 onward, our standing Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, along with the FBI, state and local police, have pretty well taken over those roles, making the need for citizens armed with muskets completely moot.

As so stated by our U.S. Supreme Court and 90% of the Federal District Courts of Appeals.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 However, to answer your question, how about 9/11 and the OKC Federal building for starters?

What about them? We're already among the most well-armed, most violent, most murderous civilized countries on earth. Do you honestly think becoming more so would have stopped those events, or would make the rest of us safer? Sh!t happens and arming every man, woman and child won't stop it... it'll only cause more of it.

The point was a non military force beating a military force in any way.

All swell examples of domestic insurgencies defeating outside occupiers, but I'll simply repeat... the U.S. government will never allow an armed insurrection to succeed.


.

[Milton Bradley]

Of course they will "never allow an armed insurection in the U. S.", Sonart, but they don't "allow" anal rape in U.S. prisons either, do they?

[Runa216]

"And that matters because? And who is talking insurrection? The issue is self defense."

there'd be nothing to defend against if there were no weapons. Look at england, you cannot get guns, not even the cops. and there is far less violence.

Runa

[Lou Minotti]

there'd be nothing to defend against if there were no weapons. Look at england, you cannot get guns, not even the cops. and there is far less violence.

Sorry, we're talking reality here, not fantasy. Yes, if angels came down from the sky and took everyone's guns simultaneously maybe , MAYBE, we would be better off. But guess what? That's not going to happen. And even if it did, the guy that starts building guns in his basement AUTOMATICALLY becomes the most powerful man on the block. What you are suggesting is a power monopoly of the state. NO THANK YOU....Yes, angels from heaven could make the world a better place. But what does that have to do with my God-given right to own firarms?

[PatrickHenry]

UK is not a republic. The US was born out of the struggle against tyranny. Without weapons, democracy cannot prevail over tyranny. Brits are wimps, willing to settle for a parliamentary monarchy. They have no freedoms except what they receive from Her Majesty's Government. And when their freedoms are abridged, there is hardly a peep.

You don't like guns, you don't like America, runa.

[Lou Minotti]

No, the issue I was referring to is this silly idea that arming American citizens is a defense against their own government. Citizens resisting their government by force of arms is called insurection. The United States government will never allow an armed insurrection to succeed.

It is your assertions regarding the second amendment that is silly. The United States government is made up of people. People have the right to defend themselves. People also have the God-given right to own guns. Judicial activism doesn't impress me. If you support gun control, you support fascism. The end.

daresay that since 1860 onward, our standing Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, along with the FBI, state and local police, have pretty well taken over those roles, making the need for citizens armed with muskets completely moot.

A fascist federal takeover is good because _________?

the U.S. government will never allow an armed insurrection to succeed.

And that makes the slightest difference because_______?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Sonart No, the issue I was referring to is this silly idea that arming American citizens is a defense against their own government. Citizens resisting their government by force of arms is called insurection. The United States government will never allow an armed insurrection to succeed.

Recognize these words, Sonart?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Why would the US government be any more amenable to citizen resistance to tyranny than any other? And why should citizens interminably suffer under their tyranny? When we resist gov intrusion and are subjected to armed force by gov agents, should free citizens simply acquiesce? A time is coming..."A long train of abuses and usurpations"

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Sonart How about that... my point exactly. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when the defense of our nation, because our founders wanted nothing to do with a standing Federal Army, depended on how many citizens armed with muskets we could line up shoulder to shoulder on a battlefield "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

I agree 100% that the constitution should be rewritten in modern terms and that, as it is now, it is open to interpretation from either side of an argument.

I daresay that since 1860 onward, our standing Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, along with the FBI, state and local police, have pretty well taken over those roles, making the need for citizens armed with muskets completely moot.

No, there is no need for any citizen to be armed if they don't want to be. If they want to be, however, it's completely up to them. They don't need a reason, then just decide they want a gun one day and they can get one.

I'll simply repeat... the U.S. government will never allow an armed insurrection to succeed.

I'm sure if they had been able to, the government wouldn't have allowed 9/11 and the OKC federal building bombing. It's not a case of allowing or disallowing.

[Lou Minotti]

I agree 100% that the constitution should be rewritten in modern terms and that, as it is now, it is open to interpretation from either side of an argument.

I would have to disagree with this. I have pondered it for years. I think the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing.

[PatrickHenry]

Rewriting the US Constitution would be the end of any hope for restoring freedom in America. As for your take on OKC and 9/11, let's just say the media coverups are a little too ragged to prevent suspicion. My opinion, the Feds did allow these events to occur! The evidence is not obscure, just drowned by the chorus of media misdirection.

[supergenius586]

Ok. Some people tend to forget that was wrote a little over 200 years ago. A lot has changed since then. Even if every person in the country had a gun, it couldn't do much to stop someone with enough power to take over the country to begin with. But it is an understament to say guns have a part in many crimes. The U.S. has 15 gun deaths per 100,000 people. We lead the list in gun deaths per year. Japan, which has gun restrictions, was at the bottom with only 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people. That's ridiculous! I think no private citizen should have the right to own guns, because they then have the power to kill someone. No one has the right to kill anyone that way. Defending your stereo or not. Yes, I think weapons with long barrels used for hunting should be allowed because they're not easily concelled. You can't sneak up to a bank teller with a shot gun. The 'basic' right of humans is not to protect yourself, it is to survive. Yes, that may require self-defense. But you should not deprive another person of their right to survival. Yes, you could shoot them in the leg or something, but how often does that happen in the heat of the moment? Rarely. 200 years ago, people had hostile native americans to deal with. People lived miles from help. Guns were a neccessity. Now days, three numbers get you help. 911. In today's modern world, it is not neccessary for a person to have a hand gun with the potential to kill someone. A person with a police record or a outstanding citizen.