The Second Amendment
 

Today, as a thought experiment, I put myself in the role of a military strategist in a tyrannical US government, just the citizenship rose up against the tyranny - What would I do?

The answer is simple...

Being in government I'd have all the intelligence about the supply infrastructure of my own country. I wouldn't need to gather the intelligence, I'd have it already. Joe Citizen, on the other hand, would have to figure all that out, giving me the advantage.

I'd hole up in Area 51 for two reasons:

1. It's remote and fortified.
2. It's the only US military base I can name off the top of my head.

Any citizen militia is likely to prepare their assault from the nearest city, which is Las Vegas. So, I'd launch a few tactical surface-to-surface ballistic missiles to take out the water treatement plant, and food storage areas, electricity generators, and roads leading in and out of the city.

This would leave that territory isolated, without food, water, and electricity. It would, however, be brimming with firearms. That way I can just sit back and let the second amendment suppress the revolt for me.

Do you think the 2nd amendment is woefully outdated? Is it now subject to the law of unintended consequences? Has time subverted it's original intention in to a tool of oppression?

Discuss.

While it may be relatively remote, "Area 51" isn't really fortified. Sometimes it seems like it is because it is shrouded in the myth of secrecy; it has legend protecting it. If an armed populace were to go parading in, there may not be much you could do to protect yourself. I suppose you could unleash all the alien super-technology that is housed there, but, well, yeah. There are any number bases from which to operate, and they are likely better fortified and better connected - that is unless you plan to live out your regime in a bunker in the desert.

I'm a little unclear about your plan. You state that you would neuter Las Vegas, and then let the Second Amendment take care of the revolt. Could you elaborate, because I'm not following the logic. It seems to me that a tactical strike on America's symbol of consumerism would likely inspire the populace to grab their guns, hop in the RV, and drive out to Groom Lake. Actually, come to think of it the populace is more likely to worship you for eliminating that particular stain from the landscape.

Also, your very first statement is flawed. The citizenry has quite a lot of knowledge about the supply infrastructure of the country. Contrary to the popular image, no president can ever know a lot about everything; true polymaths aren't as common as popular media would have you believe. If you were the despot, you would rely on your advisers to tell you all about the nation's infrastructure, and your advisers likely came from the private sector, where there are hundreds more just like them.

I'd blow up the major fuel depot. America is a big country, without fuel the populous is sparse, physically disconnected and ripe for the pacifying. Tough nuts would get the nuke.

EDIT: Wouldn't this fare better in the general forum?

Probably would, if it weren't talking about a current key issue due to people generally overreacting and freaking the hell out over a bunch of nut jobs looking at columbine as a benchmark. Frankly, ITS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS and if I'm not mistaken, the RIGHT to bear arms isn't the problem. WHY, you might ask? GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE! kill people.

The fact that people would rather get rid of a BASIC human right rather than give teachers a tazer, teach them how to use it is beyond me. Even if you do ban guns it'll be similar to prohibition. IT'S called C.O.N.T.R.A.B.A.N.D. heard of it? It'll just make the sales illegal, make people PO'ed and then the flow of said weapons shall thrive. Then it all gets Fuglier than ever.

Not intending to flame nobody if it seems like I am:worried:

I think OP wants to discuss the 2nd Amendment but using a fictional back story to introduce a debate rather than quoting recent events, being as sensitive as they are. Quite a serious subject now that I think about it.

Back to topic, as a UK resident that couldn't care for possession of firearms, I say it's very outdated. With modern firearms and the availability of them in certain parts of the USA, any old nut can buy one and go on a rampage. The 2nd Amendment was written when the primary weapon of war was a musket that could fire at a rate that is a fraction of modern weapons therefore having significantly reduced danger to the wider public. Imo, if people want to quote the 2nd amendment to buy a firearm, it should only be applicable to muskets and flintlock pistols... (Or, just not at all.)

So, you could care less for a right to protect yourself? its like ophcrack, its meant for good, so why should a few nut jobs give us reason to swing the hammer on it?

Because a few nutjobs can easily go on a killing rampage. Doesn't America have the highest murder rates with guns in the Developed world?

Typical socialist / leftist / rainbow coalition logic: If somebody, somewhere, does something bad, than all others should either voluntarily give up their rights, and if not, have those rights infringed upon, or completely removed.

Their juvenile, irrational and emotional "thinking" has become a cancer in our society today.

As for disarming the population solving mass shootings? Perhaps you English should look at what happened in Norway, over 70 people killed. Need I remind you that he didn't use an automatic assault rifle.

Point is this: A: Banning guns, or restricting them, would NOT prevent mass shootings. B: There will always be people around who want to see the world burn. C: Anyone who is motivated enough will get their hands on the weapons they need to commit the crime.

It is apparent that you English don't like this. How ironic, isn't it? that a country (and a people) who came up with much of these laws (and rights) +250 years later would have made a complete U-turn promoting surveillance and control, only giving lip service to responsibility, rights, and freedom.

Lastly, people have the right (and the obligation) to protect and defend themselves.

Edit:

It has aldready been explained as to why the population should be allowed to carry them, the 2nd amendment has beeen brought up as well. Seems as if though the attention span is lacking.

Here you go: http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthrea...253499&page=22

There's a difference between having the right to defend yourself and the right to bear a semi-automatic assault rifle...

I really shouldn't make the obvious "typical right-wing" comment...

Where do you draw the line with 'a few people' doing something bad - it's only a small number of people in the world that would want to set off car bombs but they're illegal in the US (at least I hope they are). You might argue that explosives strapped to cars are only designed to kill people, but that's exactly what assault rifles are designed for - not 'protection'.

Restricting gun sales doesn't stop mass shootings, but it certainly restricts the number of them

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-shootings-map

USA - 62 in the last 30 years

UK - 3 in the last 30 years.

I admit that it's also a cultural / social thing and not simply to do with the number of guns available.

And as to the 'lacking attention span' comment - just because some people have previously stated their opinion as to why 'mericans should be allowed access to guns, that doesn't mean that I have to agree...

I exercise my right to let the USA get on with whatever weapon policies they already have, and remain quietly confident that living in a semi-rural part of the UK, away from any large centres of population, makes me statistically very safe.

Facts are not opinions. As I said, it has been explained as to why such weapons should be in the possession of the American people, the 2nd amendment has been explained as well. You and others just want accept it.

The Constitution is there to protect the people from the government, as well as from other people, that's right, people like you for instance, meaning - you are not to be able to use democratic mob rule to override certain rights that you, for whatever reason, either don't' like or approve of, as to then impose yourself on to those you disagree with.

And one of those rights, is the right to keep and bear arms.

A very enlightened view my good man - I was getting quite wound up there for a minute but actually, thinking about it, if Americans want to defend their right to own an assault rifle whilst simultaneously condemning others that use said assault rifles to murder a load of innocent people then I should let them get on with it...

I think before using a case study, you should actually know about it. Gun ownership is legal in Norway and the guns he owned were legally owned himself, as could any other citizen in Norway.

We English are doing quite alright with quite a low gun crime rate compared to America thanks.

I didn't know Norwegians were allowed to own automatic assault rifles, the point I made, was that he committed those murders without the use of an assault rifle, he could have used a pistol and been as effective.

...

I personally think Americans should be allowed to have as many deadly weapons as they like who cares if they kill each other, It's well known the majority of the American people are a bunch of trigger happy cow boys and have the most undisciplined soldiers in the world ask any British soldier what they fear most and they will tell the worst thing is to have the American forces behind them because there's more chance of getting shot in the back or bombed from above than there is getting killed by the enemy, Ah the Americans the inventors of the 2nd amendment and friendly fire

Really?

Free speech is a basic human right. An inherent claim to life and freedom from torture and freedom from slavery and judicial entitlement to a fair trial - those are all basic human rights.

The right to bear firearms, however? To ignite small quantities of explosive within a sealed chamber to propel a carefully fatalistically-shaped piece of lead out of a carefully shaped metal tube at approximately 1500 feet per second? That is a basic human right? I don't doubt it is currently a basic constitutional right in your country. But the right to bear arms didn’t quite make it onto the international declaration of human rights, last time I checked...

And yet people kill people with guns.

And alas we can't easily abolish people (altough a small number of gun bearing Americans seem pretty bent on trying), so it seems significantly easier to abolish guns; to try and ensure the violent and the criminal are far less able to enact their violent fantasies upon the innocent masses.

It would be far more effective to arm the children, surely? I always say, if the children in Newtown had each been issued with a mandatory assault rifle, that murdering ******* couldn't have stormed into the school quite so easily. For a start there wouldn't even be a school left, thanks to playtime with assault rifles...

You may not be surprised to hear that this argument doesn't quite satisfy me :D

In 2010:

155 people died in Britain as a result of guns.

In the USA 31,672 people died from gunshot wounds in the same year. Roughly 21,000 of those deaths were accidental
[SOURCE: Gunpolicy.org]

I feel uncomfortable claiming that association equates to causation etc. But it seems sensible to conclude that gun laws would reduce the number of senseless gun crimes (and equally importantly fatal accidents) in the United States. Of course there will always be people who get hold of guns through illegal means, but with proper enforcement this could well be a small minority.
---
I'm sorry if my argument has seemed unnecessarily angry - you have a basic human right to express your free opinion and I wouldn't dare deny you such a right.

But while you - and many others like you - continue to shout in your big, gratuitously capitalised type-faces about the "basic human right" to bear arms, innocent children across your country are going to continue dieing, shot to pieces with the bullets of the distorted America concept of freedom. And for me the right to life of those school children easily outweighs the right to bear arms.

Yours faithfully,
SW

Agreed.
To clarify those 21,000 are mainly suicides and about 1,000 are accidents.

US suicide rate is 12 per 100,000 and the UK's is 6.9. It could be easily available guns make suicide easier and therefore more common.

"Guns dont kill people, people kill people" is quite possibly the most ridiculous catch phrase of pro gun figure heads.

I doubt Adam Lanza could achieve the same disgusting devastation with a found object or improvised melee weapon.
Would Anders Breivik of managed to carry out his abhorrent plot with his bare fists or knife?

The degree of these act's is only ever amplified with the access to high powered fire arms. In no recent situation has any "conceal and carry citizen" stopped them, no lone sharpshooter on the look out for 'murica's freedom been the hero.

There is an ease of acces within the USA to weapons far beyond the purpose of protecting your wife and kids on your property. It is this issue they should tackle, not the right to bear arms full stop.

The right to bear arms or not is in no way infringing on human rights, only constitutional. Knowing the difference between the two seems to be a big problem in the States currently.

In all seriousness though, up against a tyrannical government (lol don't even...) i find it hard to believe an overweight texan with 50 guns under the bed would stand a chance at toppling one of the worlds largest and highest funded military mights.

Completely agree with the above. Take a look at this :D link.