The Second Amendment

[supermonkey]

Originally Posted by fix-the-spade

As far as the revolt, they would be using phones, cell phones and the internet to communicate. Ergo they will have given away the positions and names of all the leaders, write these down and dispatch SWAT teams, insurrection finished, one week tops.

If it's really bad, order strikes using GPS guided JDAMs. Finished, the four hours it takes to ready a few F15s and tanker support.

It may sound quick and easy, but history has shown us that guerrilla warfare is anything but. It's not like the rebels would be checking in to headquarters on Foursquare. If that was all it took, We wouldn't necessarily be shoveling about Iraq some 10 years later. While I agree that the narrow position of assault weapons to defend from tyranny is somewhat flawed, the broader idea of a populace standing up against a military is a bit more complicated.

[Tangster]

Originally Posted by supermonkey

It may sound quick and easy, but history has shown us that guerrilla warfare is anything but. It's not like the rebels would be checking in to headquarters on Foursquare. If that was all it took, We wouldn't necessarily be shoveling about Iraq some 10 years later. While I agree that the narrow position of assault weapons to defend from tyranny is somewhat flawed, the broader idea of a populace standing up against a military is a bit more complicated.

It's only difficult because of the idea of being fair and such in war. Resorting to nerve gas and bioweapons would put down an insurrection or guerilla war much faster. Terror and oppression tactics after that would serve to keep the populous in line.

[eddie_dane]

Originally Posted by Tangster

It's only difficult because of the idea of being fair and such in war. Resorting to nerve gas and bioweapons would put down an insurrection or guerilla war much faster. Terror and oppression tactics after that would serve to keep the populous in line.

This is all theoretical but there is some historical precedence in Iraq when Hussein gassed the Kurds in northern Iraq to keep them in their place. That didn't keep the Kurds from being a significant force to deal with years later during the first Gulf War. Hitler decimated the French in an all out military assault in 6 weeks but there were still people wiling to participate in the underground resistance. I don't think anyone is under the delusion that the resistance would've ever liberated France on it's own but it goes to show that even under overwhelming defeat, people are still willing to do whatever it takes to sting oppression when they can.

The US is a large country with lots of people with lots of guns. You shouldn't discount the effect of gassing even a major city like Las Vegas to keep an insurrection in check and how it very much could galvanize people who might be on the fence rebellion-wise into fighting back, especially when you consider that bioweapons are indiscriminate in who they poison. What if only an ugly 35% of the urban area consists of trouble makers. Are you prepared to gas everyone to keep order? Also, what would be the international response to such actions?

Images of killed women and children by drone attacks in Pakistan aren't all that common in the media but if it happend in Las Vegas, you better believe it would be.

[mucgoo]

I'd rather no civil war happened to overthrow a dictatorship and instead its power ceased through a peaceful process.
It takes much longer but there's little bloodshed and it tends to usher in a more stable government in the aftermath.

[VipersGratitude]

Originally Posted by eddie_dane

Images of killed women and children by drone attacks in Pakistan aren't all that common in the media but if it happend in Las Vegas, you better believe it would be.

In my example I'm looking at a full-on insurrection. Not a fringe group who everyone else thinks is crazy...In the case of the former, hearts and minds would no longer be a concern.

I should also clarify that I imagine my scenario would happen in all US cities, not just Las Vegas.

[eddie_dane]

Originally Posted by VipersGratitude

In my example I'm looking at a full-on insurrection. Not a fringe group who everyone else thinks is crazy...In the case of the former, hearts and minds would no longer be a concern.

I should also clarify that I imagine my scenario would happen in all US cities, not just Las Vegas.

Well, insurrections have happened all over the world throughout history and we even can look at our own Civil War and in none of those circumstances, does the entire population agree with any given course of armed rebellion or get involved in it. There are always large portions of the population that are along for the ride and caught in the middle.

[rollo]

UK weapon laws are not really as strict as foke make out them to be.

you can own shotguns rifles without alot of issue. ( if someone came in your house what would you prefer a pistol or a shotgun? )

A pistol on the otherhand would get you arrested on site. But then again so would a baseball bat unless you had the ball that went with it.

Theres stronger military bases than area 51, Id be shocked if theres anything of any value even left in area 51 by this stage. They would of been moved to other highly classified bases.( Probably outside of the USA)

Look at the SAS in the UK was moved out of its old base after too many people knew its location.

Not like shutting down Guantanamo Bay was real they just moved them to a none press area where they could continue there torture. Whats the word americans use for it these days rendention flights to countrys that allow them to torture for political favours.

I asked a friend of mine from america the other night. Why do you need a Semi Automatic assault rifle. Whats wrong with just a standard rifle or a single shot pistol. If your a good shot you should never miss in the first place. And if you dont practice with the weapons you own they are totally pointless anyway.

[madkat769]

So, being that I'm qualified to teach this every year, I feel the need to weigh in.

Someone posted that ownership, "bearing" if you will, of firearms is not a human right. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were strongly rooted in the concept of natural rights, as best laid out at that time by John Locke. Locke's natural rights follow this progression: 1. You have a right to your life. 2. You have a right to your liberty, i.e. to do whatever you want so long as it does not directly interfere with anyone else's right to life. 3. You have a right to property, meaning that you can do whatever you want with the with the fruits of your labor, so long as you don't interfere with either of the two preceding rights. If you have a right to yourself and your property, then you surely have the right to defend both by way of any necessary. means.

The Bill of Rights was basically a bargaining tool used by the Federalists to gain support for ratification of the Constitution from their political opponents. Without specific enumeration of protected rights, the anti-Federalists were suspicious that a national government would not be adequately designed to protect their rights which they had just fought to secure. The Second Amendment specifically was designed to ensure that citizens were guaranteed with an adequate tool with which they could defend themselves against intrusive governments which sought to encroach upon their rights. They had just fought a war against a powerful nation which had been doing just that, and arming civilians is the perfect response to such a situation. Hunting and other silliness was a given, but armed resistance to government power was the original intent. Given how self destructive governments have been regarding their citizens during the 20th century, it's no wonder that people still feel the need to keep themselves well armed.

Also, plenty of notable free blacks (and women) fought in the American Revolution with their own firearms. The 2nd Amendment was never restricted to white property owning males. Restrictions on blacks owning weapons were implemented later on, as the U.S. moved toward the Civil War.

[VipersGratitude]

Originally Posted by eddie_dane

Well, insurrections have happened all over the world throughout history and we even can look at our own Civil War and in none of those circumstances, does the entire population agree with any given course of armed rebellion or get involved in it. There are always large portions of the population that are along for the ride and caught in the middle.

Of that I have no doubt, but my original assertion stands true. The proliferation of guns would end up killing more citizens than members of a corrupt government. Dissenters to the resistance would be punished.

I spoke to 3 convicted multiple murderers today. I'm hoping to arrange a discussion with the leader of a certain paramilitary organization - Partly in exploration of the question of armed resistance. I'll post more once I get that meaning, or when I have a chance to process the conversation I had earlier...

[mucgoo]

Originally Posted by madkat769

x

Which is great apart from wars are fought with tanks and jets nowadays.

[Da_Rude_Baboon]

I wouldn't get too hung up with tanks and guns. Look at Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq or even Northern Ireland to see how effective a comparatively lightly armed resistance group can be.

[mucgoo]

The point surely of a rising against the government is to win which means controlling entire swathes of the country. That's not possible when fighting a modern military.

Those example have all succeed in tying up a lot of money and manpower but actual success in establishing their desired form of government? And the suffering resulting from those situations is a very high price to pay.

[rollo]

Major Differences between the Real IRA and the Taliban.

The Taliban don't mind blowing themselves up or crashing things into other objects. Car bombs, IEDs, Suicide Bombers are normal day to day existance of Iraq and Afgan life.

The Real IRA give warnings and aimed for more showy explosions than any real damage. Also the Real IRA did not use Suicide bombers.

Checknya is again a totally different type of war. Russian tanks vs an armed resistance.

[Da_Rude_Baboon]

Control mass swathes of the country? That is WW2/cold war thinking! In the media age it's a war of attrition until one side can not take political heat anymore. As always its about having the will and the stomach do what the other side can't. You tie up the money and the manpower, let the press show the killing and wait for public opinion to turn against the war.

[eddie_dane]

Originally Posted by Da_Rude_Baboon

You tie up the money and the manpower, let the press show the killing and wait for public opinion to turn against the war.

You just summarized the Viet Nam war in one sentence.

[mucgoo]

It still require at some point an occupation of the country. Saigon, Tripoli or Syria with the regime fighting to hold onto Damascus.

In the context of the USA that requires a majority of the military to defect across as they are the only ones with equipment for dealing with the remaining regime aligned military.

Its not as though the government would back down due to the "heat" when at stake is own sovereignty rather than the governing party of some third world country or an isolated backwater group of separatist breaking away. And of course censorship and suppression would be occurring.

[madkat769]

Not sure which part of my post made you bring up tanks, but okay...let's roll with it.


That being said, fellow commenters who brought up wars of attrition and public opinion are absolutely correct. This would be especially true of an internal conflict within the United States, as much of the country is sparsely populated, and as a result extremely difficult to control by sheer force alone.


Back to the 2nd Amendment. The reason so many people feel the need to arm themselves with weapons which appear to be beyond necessity (regarding hunting for instance) is protection. Not protection from bears or would-be muggers and rapists, but protection from that which our American tradition has taught us to be most wary of; governments, especially tyrannical varieties. So on and so forth, arguments for "equal force," et alius.

[Ending Credits]

Originally Posted by madkat769

Back to the 2nd Amendment. The reason so many people feel the need to arm themselves with weapons which appear to be beyond necessity (regarding hunting for instance) is protection. Not protection from bears or would-be muggers and rapists, but protection from that which our American tradition has taught us to be most wary of; governments, especially tyrannical varieties. So on and so forth, arguments for "equal force," et alius.

I think the intended point of discussion is questioning whether the right to bear small arms really would make a difference in such a situation if it occurred in the modern age.

[Shirty]

2013 != 1791

In the same way as we no longer burn witches at the stake and go on crusades over here in Blighty, perhaps the USA would be better served taking a long hard look at the constitution and its various amendments in the modern context?

Just a thought.

[mucgoo]

Originally Posted by madkat769

Not sure which part of my post made you bring up tanks, but okay...let's roll with it.


That being said, fellow commenters who brought up wars of attrition and public opinion are absolutely correct. This would be especially true of an internal conflict within the United States, as much of the country is sparsely populated, and as a result extremely difficult to control by sheer force alone.

Government enforcement has gone from a group of men with guns and a few horses to a group of men with tanks, jets and artillery which can shoot 30km and land within a 5m zone.
Massive difference in what needs to be beaten in the event of a rebellion.


For a civil war to be won and replace the tyrannical government your going to need to establish control over the North East, California etc. not just Dakota.
I just addressed public opinion issue being completely different in a civil war scenario.