Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[RetiredGySgt]

I have never understood the fear of government idea in the US. I think I know why it exists but I've never understood it. Perhaps if you hadn't been conceived in violent revolution and had evolved then as a nation you wouldn't have the fear - or a better word is "mistrust" I think - of your own government. But you didn't, you seized your independence from a tyrannical British regime (anyone who doubts my use of the word only has to take a look at British history at this time under King George III) which repressed its own people as much as its colonies. I suppose the attitude of the revolutionaries who created your nation has permeated every generation since. You're a bit like Cuba like that aren't you? Your historical heroes were the revolutionaries who grabbed independence from the colonial power.

And a critique isn't "anti". I must admit to getting ticked whenever I'm accused of being "anti-American" or told to piss off because I'm not an American and I can, if I choose, get quite pointed in discussion. I'm not going to take anything back because those are my views, like them or not.

Anyway, the idea of the US military turning on its own people is patently ridiculous and when it's suggested I shall point that out with vigour.

So your going to take Jillian to task for claiming a "militia" is worthless against the US Military? I thought not.

 

[Diuretic]

That is precisely what the 2nd Amendment is for. The fact that it is a laughing matter to you, today, doesn't change that one iota.

PS: It was also once considered absurd that a bunch of militia types could fight off the forces of the mighty British Empire.

You had a bit of luck though, France assisted the colonists and the British were fighting all over the Empire which meant that they couldn't put in the resources necessary to crush the rebellion. Just as well though, I think that the loss of the American colonies and the concomitant uprisings in various parts of the Empire by colonised peoples went a long way to reducing and eventually removing the tyranny from British government.

 

[Diuretic]

However slim the chance may be, it is slimmer still and less likely to grow if the citizenry is known to possess armaments to defend themselves.

As I may have said, if that's sufficient justification for you, then fine.

 

[Diuretic]

Is the government not made up of individuals?

Of course, any government is, it's greater than the sum of its parts, it's a whole created out of a massing of individuals, if it wasn't then it would be a rabble. So, while government is made up of individuals, when those individuals are elected or appointed to office then government becomes a single entity.

 

[Diuretic]

Fine I'll spell it out for you. Your argument isn't necessity at all. Your argument is in the distinction between a PS3 and an automatic weapon. Now what is that distinction?

My argument is based on necessity. You mightn't accept it, you mightn't agree with it but you can't refute it yet. Simply telling me about my argument is like telling me about my dress sense, it might be poor but you're not able to do anything about it.

And if I were you I'd rethink the analogy you're using.

 

[Diuretic]

So your going to take Jillian to task for claiming a "militia" is worthless against the US Military? I thought not.

Oi grumpy! Give me a chance! I'll take anyone on, friend or foe in they go, that's my motto.

Now, point me to the alleged comment and this time leave the bloody door open so I can at least get through.

 

[Diuretic]

Talking about grumpy, my postey-sense tells me the grumpy level is increasing in this thread. Let's not get our pixels in a twist....I don't know why anyone else is posting here but for me it's interesting to read everyone else's views, that's all.

Okay, back into it...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you think that's what the 2nd amendment's for? lol... if that were the case, treason wouldn't be the only crime defined in the Constitution, not to mention, the absurdity of the entire concept of a bunch of militia types fighting off the US military.

Post 327. Long ago and with nary a peep from you.

 

[jillian]

Post 327. Long ago and with nary a peep from you.

Post 327 was mine.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Post 327 was mine.

Yes it was, I am pointing it out for Diuretic . Do keep up love.

 

[jillian]

Yes it was, I am pointing it out for Diuretic . Do keep up love.

Why would you point something out for Diuretic by responding to me? If you want to be understood, you should be clearer.

*Edit*

Sorry... or maybe I should have read the posts above. Oops....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why would you point something out for Diuretic by responding to me? If you want to be understood, you should be clearer.

If you had bothered to read the thread you would know WHY I would quote your post, do try to keep up, just look up a little and you wills ee he ASK me for the post I was referring to regarding you. which was discussed just a few posts before that.

Do you need some alziemers meds?

 

[Dr Grump]

So your going to take Jillian to task for claiming a "militia" is worthless against the US Military? I thought not.

In the highly unlikely event that the whole US military works in tandem with a despotic president, what would you intend to do with your peashooters (even fully automatic weapons) against tanks and F16s and B2s? What about a few dozen highly trained and equipped divisions? Seeing Rambo and actually turning into him are two different things. Rambo having and endless supply of bullets and killed 250 bad guys in 90 minutes is just a fiction. So, do tell, how would you do it?

 

[jillian]

If you had bothered to read the thread you would know WHY I would quote your post, do try to keep up, just look up a little and you wills ee he ASK me for the post I was referring to regarding you. which was discussed just a few posts before that.

Do you need some alziemers meds?

See my post above... and no re alzheimers' thankfully.

 

[LOki]

No



it's



the




continual



slice


and


dice


that



drives



me



up




the


wall

I'm not slicing and dicing your argument--I'm addressing each point, so you can't accuse me of dodging them. You know, the way you are dodging mt points with your "parsing" complaints.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In the highly unlikely event that the whole US military works in tandem with a despotic president, what would you intend to do with your peashooters (even fully automatic weapons) against tanks and F16s and B2s? What about a few dozen highly trained and equipped divisions? Seeing Rambo and actually turning into him are two different things. Rambo having and endless supply of bullets and killed 250 bad guys in 90 minutes is just a fiction. So, do tell, how would you do it?

The reality is that the US military would never in mass join a despotic Government against the people. It would fracture and Fragment. But even if it did not, armed citizens would out number the military and the military would not have a ready source of replacements that could be trusted.

A revolution would require millions to be effective and would require a number of things to be effective. Assuming those things occurred would include the fracturing of the military and the lose of the support of a LARGE chunk of the civilian population.

In the American revolution not even a majority of colonialists supported the revolution. At best 1/3 supported. 1/3 were against and 1/3 had no position. AT times less than 1/3 supported the cause.

If 1/3 of the American people supported revolution that would be 100 MILLION people. It won't take anywhere near that to cause a revolution nor to crack the military.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have never understood the fear of government idea in the US. I think I know why it exists but I've never understood it. Perhaps if you hadn't been conceived in violent revolution and had evolved then as a nation you wouldn't have the fear - or a better word is "mistrust" I think - of your own government. But you didn't, you seized your independence from a tyrannical British regime (anyone who doubts my use of the word only has to take a look at British history at this time under King George III) which repressed its own people as much as its colonies. I suppose the attitude of the revolutionaries who created your nation has permeated every generation since. You're a bit like Cuba like that aren't you? Your historical heroes were the revolutionaries who grabbed independence from the colonial power.

If you think there was 'violent revolution' in the USA more than you will find in any other nation's history, you need to get a refund on your world history deposit. The one difference between the American revolution and most others is that ours was to establish a nation where the people would govern themselves rather than a rising up or invasion to wrest control from one monarch to give to another. And that is why your perception that we 'fear our government' is not only wrong, but ludicrous. We do not fear our government, nor does the government fear the people. It has allowed the people to be armed and ready to fight since the inception of the nation. I wonder if many nations that do not allow the citizens to significantly own and use firearms have that policy because they do fear that the people will rise up against the leaders?

And there is no comparison between the U.S. government and Cuba. Batista successfully initated a military coup to take control of the government and subsequently to establish himself as dictator. Castro overthrew Bastista's regime to install a worse dictatorship. There has never been a dictator of the United States.

And a critique isn't "anti". I must admit to getting ticked whenever I'm accused of being "anti-American" or told to piss off because I'm not an American and I can, if I choose, get quite pointed in discussion. I'm not going to take anything back because those are my views, like them or not.

When you write something like this:

Why the hell you get so explosive about it is beyond me. It's a totally ambiguous piece of legislation. Way back when it might have made sense in context but in a highly advanced society the whole concept of a militia is, well, sort of amateurish.

I don't suppose you can see the irony but you have the most powerful military the world has ever seen and some of you have this fetish about a militia and people having machine guns just in case your government does you over.

You just don't get how it looks do you?

You have to have firearms to defend yourselves against your own government, a government that commands the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Are you with me? Uh, here's a clue, when it comes to gummint and military against the ordinary folks, the ordinary folks lose.

it suggests to me that you are looking down your superior European nose at us even as you get the principles involved wrong. I do accept that this was not your intent. But if you're going to use 'how it looks to you' as an argument, it seems reasonable that we can use a 'how your observation looks to us' as a rebuttal.

Anyway, the idea of the US military turning on its own people is patently ridiculous and when it's suggested I shall point that out with vigour.

Which is why I was quite explicit in my previous post that the U.S. military won't turn on the people mostly because the U.S. military considers itself to also be the people. Nor will any foreign power likely attempt to seize control of the U.S. government purely because not only would they not be able to control the military for long, but they would also be facing millions of guns held by American civilians who know their Constitutional rights to retain those guns and who would be unwilling to allow such a coup to stand.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm not slicing and dicing your argument--I'm addressing each point, so you can't accuse me of dodging them. You know, the way you are dodging mt points with your "parsing" complaints.

I'm not dodging at all, I've made my arguments and I'll stand ready to defend them but analysing each phrase is pointless. It's a sort of reductionism. By focusing on single parts you manage to divert attention from the whole. I'm quite prepared to be accused of backing down, of leaving the argument, of "losing" (I know you haven't put that but it's a perspective held by some) and I'll have to wear any of those accusations. But the moment someone comes up with a cogent attack on my ideas I'll be happy to address it.

 

[Ravi]

What sized unit uses Nukes? Using your definition every type of weapon ever used by the military is covered. Are you arguing that a Tank is an "arms"? How about an Howitzer?

I guess we should be allowed to own surface to air missiles, I mean company sized units use Patriot missile systems after all.

Tell ya what M14, let me help ya out. The Constitution forbids the States the right to keep Warships in time of peace. IN the Founding Father's day the only "strategic" asset would have been armed war ships. They forbid States the right to keep them.

So rather then argue the "company sized" bullshit, argue that militias can not own nor keep in peace time "strategic" arms or weapons. That would include surface to surface ICBMs , Long Range Bombers, Nuclear war heads, War Ships, et al.

Thanks, RGS, I'm glad I'm not the only one that found his reasoning ridiculous.

Though I'm not sure yours is much better. Strategic is a matter of opinion. What if I call my nukes defensive, instead?

 

[Diuretic]

Foxfyre

If you think there was 'violent revolution' in the USA more than you will find in any other nation's history, you need to get a refund on your world history deposit. The one difference between the American revolution and most others is that ours was to establish a nation where the people would govern themselves rather than a rising up or invasion to wrest control from one monarch to give to another. And that is why your perception that we 'fear our government' is not only wrong, but ludicrous. We do not fear our government, nor does the government fear the people. It has allowed the people to be armed and ready to fight since the inception of the nation. I wonder if many nations that do not allow the citizens to significantly own and use firearms have that policy because they do fear that the people will rise up against the leaders?

Just for the record this isn't parsing I'm addressing your cogent points as best I can.

I'll defend my view of a violent revolution. The colonists rose up against their British rulers. They didn't sail to London and request independence. So, the colonists took up arms, fought the British and eventually got rid of them and founded a new nation. That's how revolutionaries act. So, your nation was born of revolution and not much different from any other revolutionary activities. It can be constrasted to the struggle between parliament and King Charles I in England. That wasn't a revolution so much as a civil war which ended with parliamentary control and the removal of the monarchy, substituted with a commonwealth, a form of republic.

Now, I'll take your point about not fearing government. So why is the 2nd Amendment interpreted as giving citizens the right to be armed in case they need to defend against the government?

And to your question about governments not allowing citizens to possess firearms because they fear an uprising - I don't think so. If you control the military then you have the people - armed or unarmed - at a distinct disadvantage. But it's an interesting point. Again, the mistrust of government intrudes in your thinking.

And there is no comparison between the U.S. government and Cuba. Batista successfully initated a military coup to take control of the government and subsequently to establish himself as dictator. Castro overthrew Bastista's regime to install a worse dictatorship. There has never been a dictator of the United States.

As I said, revolutionaries act in much the same way through history. They rise up and topple, by arms, a dictatorial government or a single dictator. Didn't the American revolutionaries rise up under arms and take on an oppressive, tyrannical colonial government? That's the similarity I was getting at. Castro and his revolutionaries toppled, by arms, a dictator in Cuba.

When you write something like this:

Why the hell you get so explosive about it is beyond me. It's a totally ambiguous piece of legislation. Way back when it might have made sense in context but in a highly advanced society the whole concept of a militia is, well, sort of amateurish.

I don't suppose you can see the irony but you have the most powerful military the world has ever seen and some of you have this fetish about a militia and people having machine guns just in case your government does you over.

You just don't get how it looks do you?
You have to have firearms to defend yourselves against your own government, a government that commands the most powerful military the world has ever seen. Are you with me? Uh, here's a clue, when it comes to gummint and military against the ordinary folks, the ordinary folks lose.


it suggests to me that you are looking down your superior European nose at us even as you get the principles involved wrong. I do accept that this was not your intent. But if you're going to use 'how it looks to you' as an argument, it seems reasonable that we can use a 'how your observation looks to us' as a rebuttal.

I can't help it if you see it as me looking down from my superior European nose. I'm Anglo-Irish-Australian and I don't have a superior European nose. Was my offence to be too frank?

Which is why I was quite explicit in my previous post that the U.S. military won't turn on the people mostly because the U.S. military considers itself to also be the people. Nor will any foreign power likely attempt to seize control of the U.S. government purely because not only would they not be able to control the military for long, but they would also be facing millions of guns held by American civilians who know their Constitutional rights to retain those guns and who would be unwilling to allow such a coup to stand.

The Red Dawn scenario.

I made mention that the military wouldn't be used by a would-be American dictator. That was tried and failed when General Smedley Butler USMC refused to listen to the plotters who wanted to overthrow Roosevelt.

Now, given the US military will protect the constitution and not obey the orders of a dictator or conspirators to a coup I don't see the armed civilian populace as being necessary to protect against the government or the military, so where that's put forward as an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment then I'll ask the appropriate questions.

As far as the Red Dawn scenario goes, again, fantasy. Unless the US is suddenly weakened by a catastrophic event or series of events, it will not be invaded by a foreign power. If it was then the US military, the most powerful the world has seen, would dispatch the invaders. There's no need for an armed populace to see off the invaders. Apart from the logistical problems in organising the insurrection the insurrectionists would be in big trouble trying to fight an invasion force that defeated the might of the US military. I reckon the invaders would have to be from Mars to succeed. So, another rationale for the armed citizenry is debunked.

Why don't people just accept that they can have firearms and leave it at that? Why construct fantastic arguments that are so easily debunked?