2nd Amendment

View previous topic View next topic Go down

2nd Amendment

Post  Lady Evelyn Grey on Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:48 am

So, I know I'm getting onto the band wagon late.

Ever since the shootings, I've been reading loads of articles about gun rights vs the second amendment vs what would the founders think vs guns then and now vs everything else.

How do you all interpret the 2nd Amendment? Have you been following the discussions? If so, do you think the opposite position has any vaild points?

Lady Evelyn Grey
Dabbler
Dabbler

Posts : 21
Join date : 2013-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2nd Amendment

Post  Mr. Tower on Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:22 am

Well, that really is the trillion dollar topic these days isn't it?

2A (the second amendment) has really been the big thing in my life the last couple months.

I think a lot of discussion on this lately lacks very much depth so forgive me if this turns into an essay. You've been warned.

First off, its important to understand a couple things about where I am coming from.

About ten years ago I was the victim of an accidental shooting which took me two years to physically recover from.

I am an EMT and have experienced the aftermaths of gun violence and other forms of murder as part of my job.

I voted for Obama both times.

I have always owned guns, mainly handguns.


With that being said, on December 19th, the day after Obama made his first speech pushing for gun control I got in my truck and drove into town and was standing in line outside of the local gun store at 8 AM when it opened. I bought the last two AR 15 style rifles (Colt semi-auto only M4's to be exact) that they had in stock with as many 30 round magazines as they had. I tried to buy ammo but the Banic (ban panic) had already stripped the shelves bare at that point. Even at pre panic prices (the store had not yet had the chance to triple their prices the way many have now done) It still cost all the savings that I had.

The next day I found the most strategic location on my property to watch the only road up the hill and began digging a sandbagged bunker.

Am I a gun nut? No, I wouldn't say that I am. The fact that I didn't already own an AR when this began should be proof enough of that. However, as a history enthusiast and general student of philosophy I believe that I had no other choice, at least not a choice that I could live with.

As you may have guessed, I oppose an assault weapons ban and if needed I will oppose it with my very life. Notice that its not a gun ban that I fear, its an assault weapons ban. I wouldn't die for the right to own handguns or hunting rifles, assault weapons are where I draw the line.

But why? That is the interesting question. I've written about this a lot lately in many places to many people but in a recent PM to a Brassgoggles member who asked me about 2A this is what I wrote:


First off, lets look at the the three main reason most gun owners say that they have the right to own guns.

1. Personal Protection

2. Hunting/Sporting

3. Defense against tyranny.

I believe that two of these reasons are flawed and one of them is powerful enough to justify gun ownership all on its own.

Although I believe that an AWB (assault weapons ban) would have no effect on violent crime its effectiveness is irrelevant to my argument. Even if it could be proved without a doubt that banning assault rifles would instantly stop all gun deaths I would still believe as I do.


Personal Protection is the most often stated reason that a person should own a gun, and one that on the surface seems unassailable. After all, the world is a dangerous place, criminals do exist and murders happen. It seems obvious that everyone should have the right to protect themselves and of course everyone does.

However, where most pro gun guys get it wrong is in thinking that only a gun provides protection. Statistically however, they have no case. Guns have an inherent danger and unless you leave in a near warzone your odds of shooting yourself or someone else on accident are higher than those of shooting a criminal. Pro Gunners say that the statistics are flawed or that its a conspiracy or that its only because there are so many irresponsible people and that they would never have an accident.

But that is not human nature. No matter how careful and responsible you are if you are arround dangerous objects you increase your own danger. Its true for guns, its true for tools, its just the way the world works but unlike tools guns only function is to be dangerous and so the risk/benefit equation does not add up in guns favor.

And lets not forget the vast array of non lethal weapons available to us. Pepper spray, Tasers, batons (if used correctly) there are very many effect ways to protect yourself that do not carry the inherent risk of accidental death or misuse by criminals.

If you really where interested in personal protection you would be better off learning a martial art and learning how to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.

I have a concealed carry permit and vary rarely, carry a gun. I can tell you , its not a security blanket. It does not make you feel safe, it simply allows you to walk into situations that you would otherwise avoid. All the while you have to be aware of your gun, making sure it stays concealed, keeping it from catching on the doorframe, etc. Honestly, very few people who have a concealed carry permit actual bother to carry, which I think is part of the reason that despite the US's very high rate of gun ownership we have so few actual crimes that are stopped with guns.

Because of all these reasons I believe the personal protection argument is a flawed one.

Hunting and shooting sports.

Hunting is as old as mankind, heck, its as old as life. Humans would probably never have survived without it. People do it for a range of reasons with varying ethic's but unless your a vegetarian most people acknowledge that in general hunting is a positive thing in peoples lives. It gets you out in the woods and away from our modern lazy lifestyle and provides meat that is healthier and ethically better than what you can find in a supermarket.

And really, I don't have anything bad to say about hunting. I'm not a big hunter myself but I did take a deer with my sniper rifle last year and it was a great experience and tastes even better.

However, I really don't know if I can say that hunting alone is worth the cost that guns take on society. The truth is don't need to hunt anymore. Some people claim that they could not afford to eat meat unless they hunted but in the vast majority of the country this just isn't true. Hunting is expensive. If you add the cost of gas, the gun, ammo, processing and storage you almost always end up paying more for your meat than you would from a store.

When it comes down to it, hunting is a sport and you can't reasonably justify the deaths of dozens of schoolchildren in the name of a sport.

Speaking of sports, when asked what possible reason anyone would have to own an assault rifle many gun owners refer to the fact that the AR15 has become extremely popular in shooting sports. With its low recoil, high accuracy and high capacity it is just about the perfect gun for competitive shooting or just plinking. As you probably know, shooting an AR is very fun.

But again, is any amount of fun worth the tens of thousands of lives lost to gun violence every year?

I would say no.

So your probably wondering what my point is about now. I've shot down personal defense and hunting, the two things most people talk about when they defend gun ownership. I don't think there is anything wrong with either of these reasons but they are not good enough.

The real reason to own a gun is this: unless the people of a country hold military power in their own hands they have no way to assure that their government actually remains their government. We can vote, we can make laws, we can protest (if we are allowed to) but when it comes down to it no law or election can provide protection against our own government (or any other)

The second amendment is the one that allows us to enforce all the others.

We, the people need the ability to kill our own police and military personal when the time comes. We don't need handguns or hunting rifles, we need high capacity, rapid firing military arms functionally identical or superior to the personal arms of our government and police forces. We need weapons of war.

One of the many lessons of history is that power corrupts and that all governments eventually turn against their own people or fall to foreign forces. It is a telling detail that just looking at my own ancestry that some member of my past family has fought in either a revolutionary war or as militia defending against foreign invasion for at least twenty three generations, dating all the way back to Robert the Bruce in Scotland. It seems insane to believe that all of a sudden, in my generation the world has changed such that citizens are no longer threatened by government forces.

I do not know when the next revolution will take place. It could happen in four months or forty years. But it will happen.

Its for this reason that I think that personal firearm ownership is worth the cost in lives that it takes even in time of peace.

This is usually the point in my argument where people tell me I'm crazy if I think that any number of citizens with semi-auto rifles are going to take down a government armed with tanks, missiles, drones etc. Some people even say that by this rational that means that individual people should be armed with nuclear weapons.

This is a separate argument and a long one that I won't go into the whole thing here unless you ask me to but the short version is that historically governments fair very poorly against determined and well equipped insurgencies. Wars are very expensive and difficult to wage, particularly against insurgent forces who live and work among civilians. Any government bent on dictatorship cannot simply kill all its citizens as those citizens are in essence the prize that a dictator wishes to own. Not much point in being a tyrant over the dead. Historically, all that an insurgent force need do to bring down a tyranny is to put up a strong enough resistance that the population cannot be subdued without the use of strategic force, the kind of force that makes a wining a civil war irrelevant.

Without a doubt, military personal would have a massive advantage in a civil war but not insurmountable. Based on data from engagements between the US army and militia groups a casualty rate of 20 to 1 could be expected. Even at this rate of loss the gun owners of America could easily defeat our own military forces due to the sheer numbers of us compared to our armed forces.

It is for this reason that assault weapons of the general type of our own military are the only ones that are actually constitutionally protected and the seemingly 'reasonable' restrictions that are currently being suggested do not merely target a small part number of unnecessary weapons but in fact target the most important class weapons that a citizen can own.

As for the nuke argument, its simple, missiles, large bombs, aircraft etc are not personal weapons. They require organized, large groups of people with funds not typically available to an individual regardless of laws.

P.S. On the meaning of the term Assault Rifle

Technically, only rifles capable of fully automatic fire can be considered assault rifles. Fully automatic rifles have been illegal to manufacture in the US for decades and technically 99% of the AR15's and AK47's that are owned and sold these days cannot be classified as assault rifles if we are to be purely technical about it and most gun enthusiasts deplore the term.

However, I believe that any rifle designed primarily for the purpose of conducting an assault is an assault rifle regardless of its rate of fire and that the effort by gun owners to re-lable these guns as "modern sporting rifles" is as inaccurate and deceptive as the media calling every black rifle they see an assault rifle.



avatar
Mr. Tower
Admin

Posts : 60
Join date : 2012-12-11

View user profile http://theretort.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2nd Amendment

Post  The Lady Branwyn on Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:40 am

I'm going to be horribly conceited here for a moment and quote myself. Horrible, I know, but I wrote this in response to a facebook friend who was expressing his misunderstanding of and lack of appreciation for the second amendment, and it really does sum up my viewpoints nicely. Please forgive the argumentative tone... as I said, it started out as a response to an opposing viewpoint:

"Saying that someone with a history of violent crime, or someone who cannot pass a basic firearms safety course, can't have a gun is analogous to saying that a person who verbally threatens to kill his wife should be arrested for it. Most people in our culture believe these are reasonable measures that do not violate the first and second amendments. By contrast, banning so-called "assault weapons" is like saying that no one is allowed to write books or make films about Islam, because a handful of assholes have used their first amendment rights to say such inflammatory things about Islam that innocent people have been killed as a result.

"We as a society have decided that the first amendment is so important, that allowing a few innocent people to be hurt or killed is the lesser evil when compared to taking away someone's right to free expression, even when that someone is an utter idiot or asshole. We recognize that the right to free speech is so fundamental to our whole way of life that to take it away, even in small steps, each of which seems completely reasonable and designed to save lives, is still completely unacceptable and would destroy what makes us who we are.

"Many of us, myself included, see the second amendment as similarly fundamental. Remember that our founding fathers wrote the bill of rights based on the evils that they had seen perpetrated by governments against citizens. The second amendment is specific to military style weapons, for the purpose of allowing individual citizens to form into militias whenever they need might arise, whether in opposition to a foreign invader, civil unrest, or corrupt government. In a society where significant potential force rests in the hands of ordinary people, those individuals who hold that potential force safeguard the freedoms of the entire society.

"The second amendment guarantees individuals the right to hold that power. To say that people can have arms, but not powerful or military style ones, not ones that hold more than 10 shots, is as contrary to the fundamental meaning of the second amendment as to say that people have freedom of religion, but only if they pick one of five acceptable religions, as determined by popular vote."




I think the opposite position has two problems, both of which I can sympathize with.

The first is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the second amendment is for (in my opinion of course). I keep hearing people talking about the rights of self defense and rights of hunters and sportsmen. Rights of self defense are extremely important, but if that's all it was we'd all carry tasers and bear mace and maybe expandable batons, that is, primarily non-lethal means that stand much less chance of leading to accidental deaths. You could make an argument for small handguns that can carry only a few shots for self defense (and indeed, people are making these arguments), but not what I would consider "Arms" (with a capital "A"). And as someone who enjoys a freezer full of venison as much as the next person, and who has fond memories of bonding with my father as he taught me to shoot my little .22 pistol at the range, I still think having constitution protections for guns so hunters and target shooters can enjoy their hobbies doesn't make sense in the light of how many people are hurt and killed with guns.

If these really were the reasons for the second amendment, then I would understand the opponents. All of the people accidentally (and not accidentally) killed and hurt would not be worth it. But, the thing is, I really think the second amendment is as fundamental to our freedoms as the first amendment is. It is specific to powerful, military style weapons, for militia style fighting. Or, more optimistically, to prevent the need for militia style fighting in the first place. To cripple it would be as catastrophic, eventually, as crippling the first amendment. It might not be in our generation, but if this civilization goes on long enough, it will go the way of every other and either be attacked and taken over or have the people in power grow to such levels of corruption as to be fatal to our way of life. If a significant amount of raw authority is held by ordinary people who are not controlled by any military or government, then and only then can the real will of the people (and not what the government/ invaders/ corporations think the will of the people should be) be protected.

The second problem I see with the opposing viewpoint is that they are being driven by emotions rather than reason. I understand. On the day of the Sandy Hook shooting I spent the day crying, blew up at my fiance over nothing, and seriously considered canceling Christmas because I just couldn't see celebrating anything at all. But the thing is, we know from history that making laws based on emotionally charged individual events is a bad idea. Anyone remember that "Caylee's Law" that was proposed in response to the Casey Anthony trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caylee's_Law)? People were rightly angry at what they saw as a miscarriage of justice and wanted a law on the books to prevent them from ever feeling like they were in the same bind again. Yet, the law would only "help" in situations where everybody knew someone was guilty of the horrible crime of child murder, yet there was insufficient evidence to actually hold or try the person for the crime. But logically, there is a very good reason we have the system set up so that we can't punish people for crimes that everyone knows they're guilty of but no one can prove. It's kind of the basis of our justice system.

Crippling the second amendment would not stop atrocities like school massacres from happening. There are too many guns already out in the country, and the people crazy enough to want to commit such atrocities are far too determined to be completely prevented. No single simple step will stop them, and any of the non-simple steps that might stand a chance would cost far, far too much (think of the 10% of the population that struggles with mental health issues being locked up and losing their freedoms despite the fact that 99.9%+ of them are normal, decent people who are as appalled by massacres as everyone else). People don't want to believe this. People get too caught up in the need for emotional reassurance in the form of Big and Obvious Reaction to prevent such things from happening again that they fail to realize that their reaction won't bring those children back and won't even save the next ones, but it will deal a crippling blow to our fundamental way of life.

So I do have sympathy for the opposite side, and I think their hearts and by and large in the right place. But I think they are gravely mistaken.
avatar
The Lady Branwyn
Dabbler
Dabbler

Posts : 11
Join date : 2012-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2nd Amendment

Post  The Lady Branwyn on Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:43 am

(Can you tell that Mr. Tower and I have been talking about this a lot? I composed my response before I read his... I really wasn't trying to steal every single one of his arguments...) Wink
avatar
The Lady Branwyn
Dabbler
Dabbler

Posts : 11
Join date : 2012-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2nd Amendment

Post  Lady Evelyn Grey on Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:42 am

They are good arguments to share! And I do believe that the fundamental nature of the Second Amendment is about the balance of power between the people and government. Though I wonder, even with assault rifles and whatever other weapons necessary, how good an untrained force would be against our military. That's a topic for a later discussion how ever.

My main concern with this argument is that there might not be an objective line that the government can cross that will cause the majority of people to rise up in an armed uprising. What if only a small, but well armed, part of the population decide that the Government has gone too far and revolt? However, the larger part- through either apathy or general belief- remain unrebellious. This isn't a question of gun rights, exactly, but a question of when is it acceptable to use the guns against the government. If someone goes and shoots up the DMV and claims it was in revolution, for an extreme example, isn't he or she exercising the implied right of the citizen to rebel against an unjust government?

Lady Evelyn Grey
Dabbler
Dabbler

Posts : 21
Join date : 2013-01-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2nd Amendment

Post  Mr. Tower on Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:22 pm

Though I wonder, even with assault rifles and whatever other weapons necessary, how good an untrained force would be against our military. That's a topic for a later discussion how ever.

Its actually not that complicated. Except for special forces our military is not very highly trained. Most of the training they do get is focused on programing them to follow orders and work within the system of military life. Very little of that time is spent on actual weapon training. For one, its just not that hard to learn to use an AR and for another only a very small percentage of soldiers, even soldiers in combat, ever fire their weapon.

Even so, data supports a 20-1 casualty rate in a militia vs US army conflict but that even at that rate the military would be soon defeated if even 10% of current gun owners rebelled.

My main concern with this argument is that there might not be an objective line that the government can cross that will cause the majority of people to rise up in an armed uprising.

Very true. But since this is democracy we are talking about that is okay. If not enough people rise up against a government then it must mean that the government is not really all that bad, or that the people really aren't that good. We only ever get the government that we deserve.

The other thing is that governments and nations are not monolithic. It is unlikely that all of the people everywhere would ever rebel. What you would have is certain states rebelling against the government while others remain loyal. Its already happening really, right now you have some states that are rushing to pass stricter gun laws while at the same time other states are rushing to pass gun friendly laws.

Realistically you would end with some state in rebellion on some in support, a civil war. What this war would be over I don't know. I hope its not gun rights because that would mean its about to happen now.

A Tyrannical government is not the only reason for military power to be held in civil hands either. Another possibility is government collapse. Its not inconceivable that at some point the government may become so weak that it is unable to function. Perhaps the civil war will not be a rebellion against the government but by a city or state attacking its neighbors for resources or territory and the central government being unable to stop it and hold the country together. This is actually a much more common scenario than a revolt against a dictatorship if you look at history and even current events.

This isn't a question of gun rights, exactly, but a question of when is it acceptable to use the guns against the government

Right again. I think thats a question that everyone will have to answer for themselves. If enough people answer yes then they will go from being mere outlaws and terrorists and become a rebellion. There is no one answer which is really the whole point of owning weapons, the give you the right to make up your own mind.

If you really want to think about this question in the most blunt and direct way possible this youtube video has some possible answers, if you can get past the almost instinctual reaction most people have to the title I think you will find this video pretty interesting. Its premise is utterly shocking to most people but I think few people can argue with its logic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ9w1HHRMQw

If someone goes and shoots up the DMV and claims it was in revolution, for an extreme example, isn't he or she exercising the implied right of the citizen to rebel against an unjust government?

No. For one thing, going into the DMV makes him the attacker. Its not as if the DMV is breaking down his door and forcing him to take a driving test. It is not an act of resistance to simply kill people you don't like when they are minding their own business, these applies equally for civilians and the government.

This is why the combatants in the Ruby Ridge incident where not prosecuted and Timothy McVeigh was.

avatar
Mr. Tower
Admin

Posts : 60
Join date : 2012-12-11

View user profile http://theretort.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2nd Amendment

Post  Octavius von Gilgamesh on Sun May 05, 2013 11:04 pm

While I can certainly understand one wishing to ensure that his freedom, and that of his loved ones is kept safe at all times, from oppression both within and without, I do have a small question, and I was hoping you could provide me with clarification.

I note that a lot of 2A arguments focus on the fact that it is an Americans right to bear arms, however few, if any seem to bring up the fact that it also mentioned, and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, something about a well organized or regulated militia.

Now, coming from Australia, where gun violence and crime is low it would seem to me that the best way to prevent the outrages seen in the last few months, while still allowing citizens to bear arms, would be to enforce this part of 2A, how, I do not know, that is the responsibility of the government, in consultation with other groups.

A simplistic question I know, but one I have yet to hear a reasonable response to, and was hoping someone more knowledgeable would be able to assist.

Octavius von Gilgamesh

Posts : 1
Join date : 2013-01-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2nd Amendment

Post  Mr. Tower on Mon May 06, 2013 3:32 am



First welcome to forum, I know there isn't much going on around here but I do still check it everyday and will do my best to respond to any and all posts.

A simplistic question I know, but one I have yet to hear a reasonable response to, and was hoping someone more knowledgeable would be able to assist.

Its actually a very complicated question and one with many answers. This I think is the reason that so many people don't talk about that part of the amendment. Every single word can be argued over, in some ways its very poorly written law in its wording.

So first off here is the full text.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


As you can see, its not written very plainly but the most common interpretation is that what is being said is that its important for a country to have a well equipped militia and that to accomplish that you need the people to be able to own arms. (an unarmed militia not being very useful)

In other words, the goal is a well regulated militia, the means to accomplish that goal is to allow people to own weapons.

It does not say the rights of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed, it says the rights of the people shall not be infringed. There is really no way to enforce this part of 2A since in no way is the militia referred to as a requirement.

The real problem comes with the term "regulated militia" In modern usage regulated means "controlled" and militia isn't really used at all in modern context in this country but is generally accepted to mean a military force composed of civilians rather than professional soldiers. Some people think that this refers to the National Guard, but since the national guard is part of our military and equipped with weapons by the government (which they do not keep when they aren't deployed" It would hardly make sense to say that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Something else that is interesting is that at the time 2A was written could also mean "equipped" so one possible way to read it is as "a well equipped militia" which given the context of the rest of 2A would make more sense as the second part of 2A says nothing about organization or management but only speaks of 'arms'

It can also mean "trained" which would also make sense as even if the government supplied arms to militia only in time of war people who never owned weapons before would require a lot of training but people who already own their own weapons presumably would already know how to use them.

In fact, even if you interpret 2A to mean that only a well controlled militia has the right to bear arms, no where in the constitution or bill of rights does it say who should be doing the controlling. In theory this means that anyone could claim to be running a militia and bear arms based on solely that claim.

But again, it could have been written much more clearly. Sometimes I wonder if the original writers made it purposely confusing.

Ironically, the English bill of rights that served as the inspiration for the American bill of rights actually states it much better:

"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[30]"

But of course, even with this clearer wording the english lost their rights so perhaps 2A isn't so badly worded after all.


Now, coming from Australia, where gun violence and crime is low it would seem to me that the best way to prevent the outrages seen in the last few months, while still allowing citizens to bear arms, would be to enforce this part of 2A, how, I do not know, that is the responsibility of the government, in consultation with other groups.

I would probably get eaten alive for saying this on a pro gun forum (in US gun culture Australia is viewed as a hell on earth akin to North Korea in its political system,) but I actually agree in part to what you say.

Part of the problem with gun ownership in the US is that there is very little unity on how, why or what we are doing with them. We have a vast amount of guns in private hands, enough to conceivable stop any crime yet its rare that anyone with a gun is actually present to stop a crime when its being committed. We seem to be very good at the keeping of arms but when it comes to bearing them we seem to fail. (There is a related issue that nearly all mass shootings occur in places where it its illegal to carry guns but the issue goes beyond that) We buy guns because it is our right but it seems that few people actually exercise the rights and responsibilities of being an armed citizen. Its a very un-american idea but I think there is more to being a citizen than simple where you live and when you take advantage of your rights you also have some responsibility to protect and enforce those rights. I guess in someways I agree with Robert H. Henliens views on citizenship as expressed in Starship troopers where he says: "A citizen has the courage to make the safety of the human race their personal responsibility" I feel that too many gun owners only own their guns for purely selfish reasons, which is the least noble reason to own a weapon.

There is also certain truth in that being part of an organization tends to either weed out or moderate unstable individuals, in some ways group activities are a better diagnostic of mental issues than physiological tests.

But of course, who is to run the militia? That is where the trouble lies because one of the purposes of a peoples militia is to keep their own government in check so obviously if the militia was government controlled there would be a conflict of interest.

And then of course there is the fact that there are millions of perfectly nice and reasonable people who none the less are not the kind of people who enjoy working in groups or being part of organizations.

I believe the best answer (if indeed there even is one) is a system of licensing and training similar to many existing professional licenses that grant citizens certain rights and responsibilities. (Medical licenses for example) This of course would not solve all problems but the truth is that it is difficult for extremely disturbed people to pass through such programs. On the other hand, even inexperienced but motivated people can usually rise to the challenge.

Again, this is a system more akin to a meritocracy than a democracy but unlike many gun owners, I do not own guns because I'm patriotic or the constitution tells me I can, I own guns because I believe it is a basic human right and I feel as though I am the kind of person who really does take responsibility for the survival of the human race, at least the small part of it that around me.



avatar
Mr. Tower
Admin

Posts : 60
Join date : 2012-12-11

View user profile http://theretort.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2nd Amendment

Post  akumabito on Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:58 pm

I just registered on this forum, and it's getting late here.. I just wanted to chip in with my $.02 regarding the 'defense from tyrany' argument.

I'm actually quite interested in the mechanics of it. Not even so much the actual combat, but the leading up period. How exactly is that supposed to work? What's the triggering event? At what point has a government officially become tyrannical? Who is calling that shot? Or more interestingly - who would deal the first blow - the tyrnnical government, or the brave rebels?

See, as an outside observer, I look at US voters a bit like this: 45% democrat, 45% republican, 10% floats about.. No matter who, or what party is in office, you have about half the country supporting him, the other half hating him. Now granted, starting with the support of only half your country isn't all that great, but to go from there and fuck up so badly that people rise up in armed revolt and to do so in a period of less than four years has to be quite the accomplishment.

And the rebellion, or at the very least the causes they fight for, would need to have very broad support of the populace. Let's say 10% of the country would agree to rebel against the government, that would leave 90% of the country thinking "wtf do those assholes think they're doing?". In the beginning they'd be branded domestic terrorists, the situation might devolve to a seccessionist war, maybe a regional civil war at most..Like Texas would become America's Chechnya or something.. How bad would things have to get before people all over the country agreed it's about time?

akumabito

Posts : 1
Join date : 2013-09-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2nd Amendment

Post  Mr. Tower on Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:20 pm

Sorry about the late reply, I've been pretty busy and its not like this forum is exactly active.

Its a really fascinating question and there are no set answers.

I'm not really sure what would kick off the rebellion but I have a few theories.

First thing you need to understand is that while its true that the country is evenly split between republican and democrat, only a bit more than half of the people in the country even vote, and even those who do vote are not necessarily republicans or democrats but are merely choosing the lesser of two evils.

A close election between divisive candidates with wide spread and credible voter fraud could kick it off. If you seriously got a large percentage of the population believing that the election was really and truly rigged you could have states not validating the results and or being in conflict with each other. If one of the candidates claimed to be the rightful president, not calling for a recount or an investigation but outright claiming victory you could end up with large scale rioting by his supports who would believe that they are in fact fighting for the rightful president. I

Alternatively the clear assassination of a president by an opposing political party or racial party could cause a massive backlash, starting as large riots and progressing into militia groups attacking bastions of the opposition.

A national confiscatory gun ban would certainly start a civil war, although I find it unlikely that any administration would ever be profoundly stupid enough to do this, at least not all at once.

The most likely scenario though I believe is a gradual collapse of the nations economy resulting in mass poverty and homelessness. The government is weakened as it loses tax base and becomes unable to provide government services, perhaps an unpopular foreign war at the same time strips money away from social programs. Add in some environmental disasters like a hurricane or dustbowl and you end up with million of desperate people. At some point they will decide to stop paying taxes or cooperating with the government in anyway. Local leaders will start to gain more power than national ones. No government that I know of has ever voluntarily released power to local groups so it seems inevitable that they would try and take control of these area's, at first with police and then with military. In this scenario there would be multiple trigger events spread out over years.

As for straight up tyranny that would probably take a few decades to become established. In the first stage a president is elected who becomes popular enough to give his party a clear advantage in the next election. A large enough majority emerges that the term limit laws are repealed and more power is given to the executive branch, at some point the president has enough power that it becomes impossible for his new powers to be taken away by popular vote. Perhaps this is tolerated for some time until a true tyrant comes into office.

Governments change over time and if we look at history it seems that all countries have periods of tyranny, usually brought on themselves. I do not think the US will be the first country in all of history to not suffer this fate.

As for specific numbers I often like to play with the numbers and try and come up with some statistics based on rough assumptions.

There are approximately 1.5 active military personnel in the US.

There are approximately 6 million gun owners in America.

There are more guns in private hands than all the armies of all the world combined so only gun owners are the limiting factor.

Based on causality rates between American military personnel and foreign militia we could assume that US soldiers are capable of killing militia at a rate of 20-1, this is of course highly variable but its a reasonable place to start.

So, if one half of the just the gun owners in America took up arms against our own military and if every member of the military stayed loyal and fought to the last man the militia forces could still inflict 100% casualties on the American military.

We can play with these numbers a lot to create interesting scenarios. Lets say that 50% percent of the military defects to the militia side (not unreasonable) And lets assume that since these are trained soldiers with access to military weapons that they can kill regular military forces at a ratio of 1-1 you would only need about 25% of gun owners to revolt in order to have a 2-1 advantage of militia and ex-military over regular military, again assuming that you had to destroy the regular military forces to the last man.

This is assuming a rapid, modern war where ongoing recruitment is not a prime factor.

Lets flip it the other way and consider a low intensity insurgency. Using unconventional tactics insurgent forces could kill regular forces at a higher rate than in straight combat. Lets say 5 insurgent deaths to every regular military causality.

If 1% of gun owners become insurgents every year and inflicted casualties at the above ratio they would be able to kill 120,000 regular military forces per year, about the same average of losses during WWII. Its anybodies guess how long this could be sustained but it shows how a revolt by only a small percentage of one minority demographic could inflict massive losses even with a sever disadvantage.

You could literally have 99% percent of the country saying WTF is up with these assholes and still have a civil war of massive proportions that the US military would lose unless they where able to implement massive recruitment.




avatar
Mr. Tower
Admin

Posts : 60
Join date : 2012-12-11

View user profile http://theretort.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Re: 2nd Amendment

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum