Does the 2nd amendment really prevent tyranny?

Sun, why are you trying to disempower the proles?

Sun, why are you trying to disempower the proles?

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Sun, why are you trying to disempower the proles?

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Yeah and then they fvck you up even more for trying to play the badass hero.

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="Kamekazi_69"][QUOTE="XturnalS"]

I think you are underestimating how easy it would be to disrupt this current military using just any small and dedicated force. Hell it would only take one rouge nuclear sub crew to eliminate nukes from the question. Once MAD is ensured, it all comes down to counter-insurgency tactics that this current military hasn't even come close to mastering.

Carpet bombing whole neighborhoods is the anti-thesis to a counter-insurgency strategy. If the person is just committed to killing as many people as possible in you're example than how would to ever expect to win by using those brute force tactics. Look at Assad right now is Syria, he's killed a bunch of people but the writing is on the wall, he will not win that conflict.

The second innocent people are getting droned and bombed that will only embolden and strengthen any resistence efforts. Very much in the same way that for every one "terrorist" we kill we create 10 more in Pakistan, it would be similar here if not more so.

Would it be absolute hell on Earth for everyone in this country? Sure. Would there be countless casualities? Undouvtedly. But to be so naive to think that this military or government is unstoppable ignores history and is shortsighted.

That being said, there are enough safeguards before the second amendment that none of this would ever come to bear, but in the unlikely event that it did. I sure as shít would rather have a gun than no gun.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="XturnalS"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] *graphic story about rape and blah blah blah -Sun_Tzu-

I think you are underestimating how easy it would be to disrupt this current military using just any small and dedicated force. Hell it would only take one rouge nuclear sub crew to eliminate nukes from the question. Once MAD is ensured, it all comes down to counter-insurgency tactics that this current military hasn't even come close to mastering.

Carpet bombing whole neighborhoods is the anti-thesis to a counter-insurgency strategy. If the person is just committed to killing as many people as possible in you're example than how would to ever expect to win by using those brute force tactics. Look at Assad right now is Syria, he's killed a bunch of people but the writing is on the wall, he will not win that conflict.

The second innocent people are getting droned and bombed that will only embolden and strengthen any resistence efforts. Very much in the same way that for every one "terrorist" we kill we create 10 more in Pakistan, it would be similar here if not more so.

Would it be absolute hell on Earth for everyone in this country? Sure. Would there be countless casualities? Undouvtedly. But to be so naive to think that this military or government is unstoppable ignores history and is shortsighted.

That being said, there are enough safeguards before the second amendment that none of this would ever come to bear, but in the unlikely event that it did. I sure as shít would rather have a gun than no gun.

And I don't see how current events in Syria help the point you're making - if things continue as they have been going over, there's no reason why Assad won't be able to stay in power. Yes, he's killed a bunch of people but he still has substantial support from the Syrian population despite all of that.

If there was one nuke strike on American soil there wouldn't be any need for the sub to have a second strike capability. It would spin up just about all their missles and it would be the end of the ole US as we know it. Because if a unimaginable tyranny that Jim suggests was in power and they said nukes are on the table than everything is already lost.

There wouldn't be a civil war so much as a civil apocalypse. And Syria will fall, it'd take a miracle at this point for Assad to secure any sort of victory. Everyone from Russia to Chine to NATO is preparing for a post-Assad Syria. Human rights organizations are dreading that the violence will get worse once Assad is thrown out. Despite the recent stalemate, every day that passes with rebels not being stamped out (and it appears the only way this will happen would be with chemical warfare, which would lead Assad to a pyrrhic victory due to international backlash) the rebels gain supporters, soldiers, and more advanced weaponry (they have rocket artillary now).

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

Most of us are coming from a priveleged perspective where we're living in pretty good times relatively.

No, we don't have a tyrannical government right now, although some may argue we're slowly but surely headed in that direction. Abject apathy is a mistake we can only afford to make once. The 2nd amendment is our last ditch insurance policy in the off chance it really does happen. Take that away and we remove whatever safety net we have, as neutered as that safety net has become over the centuries.

-Sun_Tzu-

Without the second amendment, those aspiring freedom fighters could be labelled criminals at the whim of the government they're fighting against.

The second amendment is a statement that acknowledges that citizens' freedoms are legitimate and that those freedoms have teeth. Our system of checks and balances, legislation and voting can be stripped away, either immediately or chipped away at over time, but as long as we have the second amendment, the citizenry gets to draw the line in the sand and say "There is a price we will not pay. There is a point beyond which they must not advance."

Are we at the point yet? No. I think we're all reasonable enough to work things out before it gets there.

Its not the gov't trying to take away your guns. Its the other half of your countrymen that are afraid of being shot that want to limit gun rights.

The next time you hear a politician propose a new law you dont like just remind yourself, its not just him, but there are a whole bunch of supports who voted for him and want him to push that bill. Too often we act like the gov't is some separate big brother entity acting independently of the people. No. We have always been a country divided, forced together because the whole is better then the sum of its parts.Diablo-B

I don't have a problem with legislators representing their consituency, but I find issue with legislators that perpetuate false information on the thing they're tying to outlaw. There is a tremendous amount of fear-mongering that's fueling useless proposals, wasting time and resources.

Right now, I see politicians using incorrect information and a mostly emotional stance to manipulate people to their side... which to me is nearly tantamount to exploitation, which is just downwind of tyranny. This is wrong.

Part of my effort is to correct those falsehoods so we can at least start at an honest point in the conversation.

It's dated; but it's still possible. If a president tried to pull a Hitler I'm pretty sure the majority of America would rebel.Fightingfan

To be fair, us Americans have pretty low standards for rebellions these days. Most of us were ready to revolt over the NFL replacement referee situation.

hey question, so many of you are pointing to examples of tyranny such as Saddam gassing the Kurds, and Stalin/Hitler killing millions of their citizens. Has there been any examples where the citizens had the right to keep and bear arms, but still became ruled by a tyrant?

hey question, so many of you are pointing to examples of tyranny such as Saddam gassing the Kurds, and Stalin/Hitler killing millions of their citizens. Has there been any examples where the citizens had the right to keep and bear arms, but still became ruled by a tyrant?

LegitGamer3212

[QUOTE="XturnalS"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] *graphic story about rape and blah blah blah -Sun_Tzu-

I think you are underestimating how easy it would be to disrupt this current military using just any small and dedicated force. Hell it would only take one rouge nuclear sub crew to eliminate nukes from the question. Once MAD is ensured, it all comes down to counter-insurgency tactics that this current military hasn't even come close to mastering.

Carpet bombing whole neighborhoods is the anti-thesis to a counter-insurgency strategy. If the person is just committed to killing as many people as possible in you're example than how would to ever expect to win by using those brute force tactics. Look at Assad right now is Syria, he's killed a bunch of people but the writing is on the wall, he will not win that conflict.

The second innocent people are getting droned and bombed that will only embolden and strengthen any resistence efforts. Very much in the same way that for every one "terrorist" we kill we create 10 more in Pakistan, it would be similar here if not more so.

Would it be absolute hell on Earth for everyone in this country? Sure. Would there be countless casualities? Undouvtedly. But to be so naive to think that this military or government is unstoppable ignores history and is shortsighted.

That being said, there are enough safeguards before the second amendment that none of this would ever come to bear, but in the unlikely event that it did. I sure as shít would rather have a gun than no gun.

And I don't see how current events in Syria help the point you're making - if things continue as they have been going over, there's no reason why Assad won't be able to stay in power. Yes, he's killed a bunch of people but he still has substantial support from the Syrian population despite all of that.

Honestly if it ever came down to it, I dont think the military would cooperate.

A lot of people in the military have friends outside of the military.

And I have faith that armed forces would be able to really tell who the real bad guys are.

I prefer the government to tell me what I can and cant do. They know better than me.

I prefer the government to tell me what I can and cant do. They know better than me.

sonicare

I prefer the government to tell me what I can and cant do. They know better than me.

sonicare

Honestly if it ever came down to it, I dont think the military would cooperate.

A lot of people in the military have friends outside of the military.

And I have faith that armed forces would be able to really tell who the real bad guys are.

00-Riddick-00

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

I prefer the government to tell me what I can and cant do. They know better than me.

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]

Honestly if it ever came down to it, I dont think the military would cooperate.

A lot of people in the military have friends outside of the military.

And I have faith that armed forces would be able to really tell who the real bad guys are.

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"]

Honestly if it ever came down to it, I dont think the military would cooperate.

A lot of people in the military have friends outside of the military.

And I have faith that armed forces would be able to really tell who the real bad guys are.

00-Riddick-00

Its not the gov't trying to take away your guns. Its the other half of your countrymen that are afraid of being shot that want to limit gun rights.

The next time you hear a politician propose a new law you dont like just remind yourself, its not just him, but there are a whole bunch of supports who voted for him and want him to push that bill. Too often we act like the gov't is some separate big brother entity acting independently of the people. No. We have always been a country divided, forced together because the whole is better then the sum of its parts.Diablo-B

Totally, bro. If 51% of the population wants slavery to be legal than god dammit we should just let it happen. Fvck individual rights.

Dat mob rule

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

I prefer the government to tell me what I can and cant do. They know better than me.

sonicare

[QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] If this had any merit, the military wouldn't be killing civilians in other countries right now.DroidPhysX

I find it hard to believe you're this retarded droid. Oh wait, no I don't.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="00-Riddick-00"] ...Did you read my post?? At all? There is a pretty big difference between a bunch of people living in a 3rd world country half a world away and your best friends house.SpartanMSU

I find it hard to believe you're this retarded droid. Oh wait, no I don't.

goosfraba

goosfraba

Alternatively:

Serenity Now

Sernetiy Now

Arm 10,000 people with assault rifles capable of shooting 950 rounds per minute if you want. It won't make a difference if someone carpet bombs your ass.nocoolnamejim

Doesn't seem that hard to understand....

Ahh this thread again, although with a spin ^^

In a real world scenario an armed population would not work against a tyrany, but rather make every civilian a legitimate target for any occupation force. (they are armed and hostile afterall).

I understand the second amendmend, and in itself I have no problems with it.

The problems tend to stem from a society where mental Issues are hushed down or ignored, the price of advanced healthcare (and psychiatry treatments) are too expensive, and the preassure and stress of everyday life IS far more then a fair bit back.

Another point coul be how weapons were back then, how they were used, and how they are now. Weapons on a whole are far more lethal now then back then. (but some of the suggested fixes mirrors my own guesses and ideas so much that it is almost scary).

in the time where the second amendment weer made, it did make alot of sense, nowadays it does less so.

Taking the right away is not productive though, but defining the weapons would be beneficial. It is not a case of "I love guns, and the mechanical tech in them" but rather what would suffice for selfdefense, and some of the weapons you can not justify logically.

But prevent tyrany? I am not sure if you have looked out into the modern world (which is very peaceful by the way). The rules of engagement used by Nato, is not shared around the world. So no it would prevent very little. In a pure militery standpoint however it would justify carpetbombings, artillery strikes, or even the horrible Thermo Nuclear Bombs. Given that (as stated) near all sane people in a militery would consider all people as enemies, not civiliens.

The age of armies marching though streets were gone after the Second world War and sadly the US is not lightyears ahead of the rest of the armies on this earth, so what the US could do, so likely could alot of other armies (although likely slower, and on a lesser scale).

If it is to defend against Tyrany? Well then I wonder why people did not throw away thier tv, since so many people belive what they see and hear through the media. An easier way to subdue a population then rolling tanks through streets. Information warfare both against own people and opposing is very real. And even then I doubt the US population could fend against the US army if the goverment turned Tyranical.

*shrug*

I could be wrong on some things though, since this is ofcourse just my view.