PDA

View Full Version : Argument with a coworker about why the 2nd Amendment is of utmost importance


Peter W Bush
01-19-2010, 5:10 PM
My view- The right of the people to keep and bear arms is essential to freedom. The government would not be capable of taking all privately owned firearms. In a situation like nazi germany, the people would be capable of defending themselves from tyranny.

His view- The RKBA is not important whatsoever. The other amendments are more crucial to maintaining a free people. If a totalitarian brutal dictator were to take control of the US and the armed forces, the people would be able to do nothing about it anyway. Also, he believes that a lot of gun owners wouldn't mind a dictator taking away peoples freedoms.


What are your thoughts as gun owners?

liketoshoot
01-19-2010, 5:12 PM
Turn him over and do with him as you want, then tell him if he had a gun he could have stopped it, but you as the Government just had your way with him.

M1A Rifleman
01-19-2010, 5:15 PM
The only thing worse than an idiot..........


is somone who argues with one. ;)

B Strong
01-19-2010, 5:16 PM
It's very simple.

You can't educate every fool.

There are folks out there that honestly believe that if they were ever in danger, the police would come and rescue them.

There is no reasoning with an individual that deluded.

Try to get your co-worker out to the range if you think they're worth the effort.

If not, agree to disagree and go about your business.

BroncoBob
01-19-2010, 5:16 PM
I'm sorry to say your co worker is not very smart.

Peter W Bush
01-19-2010, 5:30 PM
It's very simple.

You can't educate every fool.

There are folks out there that honestly believe that if they were ever in danger, the police would come and rescue them.
I dont think this one is that crazy. Another one of them, however, insists that the police exist to protect us. When I told him that they werent bound by law to protect us, he said "well... they should be... doesnt mean you should own guns"
There is no reasoning with an individual that deluded.
sad but true

Try to get your co-worker out to the range if you think they're worth the effort.
He has a lot of fun shooting guns and has even borrowed my old beretta 12 gauge.

If not, agree to disagree and go about your business.



Turn him over and do with him as you want, then tell him if he had a gun he could have stopped it, but you as the Government just had your way with him.

oh that was part of the initiation to work here :eek:

GrizzlyGuy
01-19-2010, 5:31 PM
Given what you're up against, I think you need to get a copy of this book:

Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government (http://www.amazon.com/Arguing-Idiots-Small-Minds-Government/dp/1416595015)

Chapter 2 is the 2A chapter. :)

BiggMatt
01-19-2010, 5:33 PM
"Also, he believes that a lot of gun owners wouldn't mind a dictator taking away peoples freedoms."

He might be right about that, I know quite a few people who own guns that haven't even seen them in many years. Look at all the guns that are turned into the LASD every year (for $100) during their gun for money drive, or whatever they call it.

Super Spy
01-19-2010, 5:38 PM
Lock-N-Load

berto
01-19-2010, 5:44 PM
Your co-worker is one who would go down without a fight. Not much use arguing with those who would so willingly surrender.

bulgron
01-19-2010, 5:51 PM
I personally believe that all the enumerated rights are equally important, and each relies on the others for its existence. However, the 2A is the enumerated right most under attack and so it is the one that requires as much support as is possible.

But your coworker is already convinced that an armed population is no check against tyranny, so there's probably no point in arguing any further with him. Or, if you do argue with him, you should focus on how an armed population really is an excellent check on tyranny before you delve into any other issues surrounding the 2A.

Lagduf
01-19-2010, 6:07 PM
I personally believe that all the enumerated rights are equally important, and each relies on the others for its existence. However, the 2A is the enumerated right most under attack and so it is the one that requires as much support as is possible.



I agree, though post 9/11 it seems some would seek to circumvent our 4th amendment rights.

2A is certainly the most controversial.

picasso
01-19-2010, 6:29 PM
Maybe he's hoplophobic? Some people are afraid of guns and they don't even know it. They try to justify their fears by arguing the "evils" of guns.

Give this link to him...http://changethatsrightnow.com/phobia-of-guns/

kcbrown
01-19-2010, 6:39 PM
But your coworker is already convinced that an armed population is no check against tyranny, so there's probably no point in arguing any further with him. Or, if you do argue with him, you should focus on how an armed population really is an excellent check on tyranny before you delve into any other issues surrounding the 2A.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, an armed population was almost certainly about as absolute a check against tyranny as you would find.

It's entirely unclear if it's much of a check against tyranny in the face of a military equipped with modern weaponry.

If the civilian population as we normally think of it has to go up against a modern military machine, it stands no real chance. A bunch of civilians armed with pistols, rifles, and even hand grenades is no match for a howitzer-equipped C-130 gunship, much less high-altitude bombers, cruise missiles, etc. There's no way the civilian population can win in an all-out fight against the military, else countries wouldn't bother with standing armies and such for defensive purposes -- they'd just leave the defense of the country to the armed civilian population (on the other hand, if the civilians are disarmed....).

That's more of an argument for an even better-armed population than it is against the usefulness an armed population.

On the other hand, subduing an armed population is a harder task than subduing an unarmed one. In that sense, an armed population is a check against tyranny. It's just not as much of a check as it was when the country was founded.

Today, if a revolution is to have any chance of success, it would need to at a minimum get the military to stay out of the fray, if not get it to take the side of the revolutionaries. In the latter case, of course, the tyrannical government wouldn't stand a chance and chances are the attempt to overthrow the tyrannical government would succeed with hardly a shot fired.

Where things would get bloody and messy is if the military fractures. In that event, it becomes a stand-up military engagement. I'd say having a big, armed civilian population on one side would give a significant advantage to that side as long as the civilian population could be used to good military effect.

I'm sure the military has already worked out all these scenarios, since it's the job of the planners to play "what if" games like this...

sholling
01-19-2010, 7:29 PM
My thoughts are that it's a foolish argument to have at work. Even as a friendly give and take. Have it over beers after work but not at work. As a former manager I can tell you that HR departments are as a rule populated by raving liberals. If someone overhears your conversation and reports it you could be labeled a risk and called on the carpet. Yes I agree that it's wrong but that's just how it is.

bulgron
01-19-2010, 8:21 PM
In the 18th and 19th centuries, an armed population was almost certainly about as absolute a check against tyranny as you would find.

It's entirely unclear if it's much of a check against tyranny in the face of a military equipped with modern weaponry.

If the civilian population as we normally think of it has to go up against a modern military machine, it stands no real chance. A bunch of civilians armed with pistols, rifles, and even hand grenades is no match for a howitzer-equipped C-130 gunship, much less high-altitude bombers, cruise missiles, etc. There's no way the civilian population can win in an all-out fight against the military, else countries wouldn't bother with standing armies and such for defensive purposes -- they'd just leave the defense of the country to the armed civilian population (on the other hand, if the civilians are disarmed....).

That's more of an argument for an even better-armed population than it is against the usefulness an armed population.

On the other hand, subduing an armed population is a harder task than subduing an unarmed one. In that sense, an armed population is a check against tyranny. It's just not as much of a check as it was when the country was founded.

Today, if a revolution is to have any chance of success, it would need to at a minimum get the military to stay out of the fray, if not get it to take the side of the revolutionaries. In the latter case, of course, the tyrannical government wouldn't stand a chance and chances are the attempt to overthrow the tyrannical government would succeed with hardly a shot fired.

Where things would get bloody and messy is if the military fractures. In that event, it becomes a stand-up military engagement. I'd say having a big, armed civilian population on one side would give a significant advantage to that side as long as the civilian population could be used to good military effect.

I'm sure the military has already worked out all these scenarios, since it's the job of the planners to play "what if" games like this...

I don't want to get into a long discussion of whether the US population could stand up against our military. I think they could for a large number of reasons, not the least of which is the almost certain fracturing of the military. Suffice to say, let's just hope we never get to find out. I also seriously doubt that it will ever come to that.

The 2A serves as a canary in the coal mine for our Constitution. In order to eliminate the Constitution, a would-be dictator would almost certainly have to first get all the guns and ammo in this country. To millions of people, that would signal the end of the social contract, which would result in some measure of violent reaction -- a reaction that I'm convinced would leap into the military ranks, causing the aforementioned fracturing.

There's also the tiny little fact that if the civilian population is resisting the political class with all the guns and ammo at their disposal, then what they aren't doing is raising the crops, keeping the electrical plants running, delivering the oil, repairing the highways, and doing all the million other things that need doing in order for the political class to remain comfortable. Therefore, it really is in their best interest to avoid angering the civilian population by trying to take our guns away, or otherwise suspending the Constitution.

Finally, given the large amount of hardware in the hands of the civilian population, I have to wonder if it's logistically possible to take all our guns and ammo, even if we were willing to cooperate, which we aren't.

When all it takes is one guy with a sniper rifle from 500 yards out to really ruin your day, it behooves the political class to not take too abrupt a move towards tyranny. Which is why they move slow, which is why we have so far had the time to use elections and the courts to correct the course of things before they go too far down the road towards Barbed Wire and Gas Ovens.

Peter W Bush
01-19-2010, 8:31 PM
My thoughts are that it's a foolish argument to have at work. Even as a friendly give and take. Have it over beers after work but not at work. As a former manager I can tell you that HR departments are as a rule populated by raving liberals. If someone overhears your conversation and reports it you could be labeled a risk and called on the carpet. Yes I agree that it's wrong but that's just how it is.

On the bright side, I am the HR department :D

Anothercoilgun
01-19-2010, 8:34 PM
SSSL
Some people simply cannot be shown the light

chessknt
01-19-2010, 8:35 PM
In the 18th and 19th centuries, an armed population was almost certainly about as absolute a check against tyranny as you would find.

It's entirely unclear if it's much of a check against tyranny in the face of a military equipped with modern weaponry.

If the civilian population as we normally think of it has to go up against a modern military machine, it stands no real chance. A bunch of civilians armed with pistols, rifles, and even hand grenades is no match for a howitzer-equipped C-130 gunship, much less high-altitude bombers, cruise missiles, etc. There's no way the civilian population can win in an all-out fight against the military, else countries wouldn't bother with standing armies and such for defensive purposes -- they'd just leave the defense of the country to the armed civilian population (on the other hand, if the civilians are disarmed....).

That's more of an argument for an even better-armed population than it is against the usefulness an armed population.

On the other hand, subduing an armed population is a harder task than subduing an unarmed one. In that sense, an armed population is a check against tyranny. It's just not as much of a check as it was when the country was founded.

Today, if a revolution is to have any chance of success, it would need to at a minimum get the military to stay out of the fray, if not get it to take the side of the revolutionaries. In the latter case, of course, the tyrannical government wouldn't stand a chance and chances are the attempt to overthrow the tyrannical government would succeed with hardly a shot fired.

Where things would get bloody and messy is if the military fractures. In that event, it becomes a stand-up military engagement. I'd say having a big, armed civilian population on one side would give a significant advantage to that side as long as the civilian population could be used to good military effect.

I'm sure the military has already worked out all these scenarios, since it's the job of the planners to play "what if" games like this...

This is spot on. Even if armed, it would essentially amount to suicide to stand up against a modern organized military force, regardless of whatever weaponry you may have. The majority of people would prefer to live under a different regime (eg a dictator) rather than die. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to be excellent examples of what it is like to have an armed civilian resistance vs. a military force.

kcbrown
01-19-2010, 9:11 PM
I don't want to get into a long discussion of whether the US population could stand up against our military. I think they could for a large number of reasons, not the least of which is the almost certain fracturing of the military. Suffice to say, let's just hope we never get to find out. I also seriously doubt that it will ever come to that.


I agree. However, I will note that the success of the U.S. population would depend on the military fracturing in a significant way. If that didn't happen (for whatever reason), then the civilians would be so outgunned that it would be laughable.



The 2A serves as a canary in the coal mine for our Constitution. In order to eliminate the Constitution, a would-be dictator would almost certainly have to first get all the guns and ammo in this country. To millions of people, that would signal the end of the social contract, which would result in some measure of violent reaction -- a reaction that I'm convinced would leap into the military ranks, causing the aforementioned fracturing.
Yep. The people who are going to be most comfortable with firearms, in general, will be those with military backgrounds and those currently serving. Those will, I expect, be the very people who support RKBA the most.



There's also the tiny little fact that if the civilian population is resisting the political class with all the guns and ammo at their disposal, then what they aren't doing is raising the crops, keeping the electrical plants running, delivering the oil, repairing the highways, and doing all the million other things that need doing in order for the political class to remain comfortable. Therefore, it really is in their best interest to avoid angering the civilian population by trying to take our guns away, or otherwise suspending the Constitution.
This hasn't stopped despots in the past and won't stop them in the future. The fact of the matter is that even in an armed revolution, only a small fraction of the population actually participates in armed combat. If the government has a significant military and/or police presence, it can and will coerce the civilians into keeping the production going, via a number of means. Indeed, I think you can count on a sizable fraction of the population supporting the tyrannical government. Some people, it seems, are born to be slaves...



Finally, given the large amount of hardware in the hands of the civilian population, I have to wonder if it's logistically possible to take all our guns and ammo, even if we were willing to cooperate, which we aren't.
All? No. Enough? Probably. The population needn't be disarmed in its entirety, merely enough so that the remaining armed population is a mere nuisance.



When all it takes is one guy with a sniper rifle from 500 yards out to really ruin your day, it behooves the political class to not take too abrupt a move towards tyranny. Which is why they move slow, which is why we have so far had the time to use elections and the courts to correct the course of things before they go too far down the road towards Barbed Wire and Gas Ovens.This is true as far as it goes. However, I would cite the fact that no U.S. President since Kennedy has been assassinated (despite the occasional publicized attempt) as evidence that the one guy with a sniper rifle must not be that much of a concern, since you can bet that in a population of 300 million, there is a large enough number of people with the means, the motive, and the ability to carry out such an assassination with a sniper rifle at 500 yards even under the current set of political circumstances. No, the task of carrying that out must be a lot harder than you suggest here.

In the event of an armed revolt, the political class would simply insulate itself further from the population and interact with the population through its minions much more than it does now.

kcbrown
01-19-2010, 9:16 PM
This is spot on. Even if armed, it would essentially amount to suicide to stand up against a modern organized military force, regardless of whatever weaponry you may have. The majority of people would prefer to live under a different regime (eg a dictator) rather than die. Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to be excellent examples of what it is like to have an armed civilian resistance vs. a military force.

I agree. Iraq and Afghanistan prove two things:


Against a well-armed military machine, the civilian population has no real chance of achieving an armed victory.
That same military machine has little to no chance of entirely eliminating the armed resistance without burning the entire place to the ground.

Which means that, in practice, an armed resistance without major military backing is little more than an annoying thorn in the side of the government.

And that means that without major military backing, an armed resistance will lose against a government backed by a modern military, because "losing" for them means failing to overthrow the tyrannical sitting government.

Fyathyrio
01-19-2010, 9:34 PM
In the scenario proposed above about US citizens vs modern weapons, I'd have to somewhat disagree that we wouldn't stand a chance. The all volunteer US military would fracture if asked to take up arms against US citizens as mentioned above...and would likely turn into a large and well armed force against those attempting to give the orders. Posse Comitatus basically prevents the US military from being used as a police force inside US borders, and I imagine many Admirals and Generals would have to get relieved before ones were found that would violate that. I know I would resist at all costs obeying an order to attack Americans.

In the case of US vs outside hostile invaders, while all the fancy weapons can kill large amounts of citizens very efficiently, none of them can take or hold land. Provided there's no large scale nuclear exchange, enough gun owners would survive and hide out and likely organize an effective underground to bleed any attempt to invade at every opportunity

JDoe
01-19-2010, 9:55 PM
His view- The RKBA is not important whatsoever.

Why?

The other amendments are more crucial to maintaining a free people.

How?

If a totalitarian brutal dictator were to take control of the US and the armed forces, the people would be able to do nothing about it anyway.

Name one country whose citizens were as well armed as citizens in the U.S. that has had a totalitarian brutal dictator take control of it and it's armed forces.

Also, he believes that a lot of gun owners wouldn't mind a dictator taking away peoples freedoms.

How many gun owners did he poll?

bulgron
01-19-2010, 9:58 PM
In the scenario proposed above about US citizens vs modern weapons, I'd have to somewhat disagree that we wouldn't stand a chance. The all volunteer US military would fracture if asked to take up arms against US citizens as mentioned above...and would likely turn into a large and well armed force against those attempting to give the orders. Posse Comitatus basically prevents the US military from being used as a police force inside US borders, and I imagine many Admirals and Generals would have to get relieved before ones were found that would violate that. I know I would resist at all costs obeying an order to attack Americans.

In the case of US vs outside hostile invaders, while all the fancy weapons can kill large amounts of citizens very efficiently, none of them can take or hold land. Provided there's no large scale nuclear exchange, enough gun owners would survive and hide out and likely organize an effective underground to bleed any attempt to invade at every opportunity



Something else to consider is that Iraq didn't go so well for us at first. It is a country roughly the size of California with several heavily armed factions that truly hate one another's guts. Yet it still stretched our military and our budget to the breaking point to pacify the country. And that was even with the advantage of all those advanced arms, plus the ability to rotate troops out of the war zone to rest and rearm, plus the ability to obtain arms and equipment from someplace that is not the warzone.

Now imagine what happens if you try the same thing in a country that spans an entire continent. Not only is the territory you have to cover orders of magnitude greater than Iraq, but the population is massively larger, and is generally not in the business of engaging in open armed conflict amongst factions, which means no distractions. It also becomes a lot harder to rotate troops to a protected area. And they have to ensure their families are protected. And they also have to somehow force a (presumably) hostile domestic population to continue to work for them.

Of course, in order for armed resistance in the US to work, you'd have to have massive wide-spread support for the resistance, either actively through taking up arms or via sabotage, or passively by just not turning in the active fighters. We aren't talking about a couple of rinky-dink Idaho militias here. For it to be successful, it would have to involve tens of millions of people across the entire US.

Could it ever happen? Heck if I know. Hopefully not in my lifetime, though.

lanche50
01-19-2010, 10:07 PM
My view- The right of the people to keep and bear arms is essential to freedom. The government would not be capable of taking all privately owned firearms. In a situation like nazi germany, the people would be capable of defending themselves from tyranny.

His view- The RKBA is not important whatsoever. The other amendments are more crucial to maintaining a free people. If a totalitarian brutal dictator were to take control of the US and the armed forces, the people would be able to do nothing about it anyway. Also, he believes that a lot of gun owners wouldn't mind a dictator taking away peoples freedoms.


What are your thoughts as gun owners?

Ask him how many people would have perished on 9/11 if one or more of the individuals on each plane were armed.

The other thing to do is the famous quote, how does it go... "An armed society is a polite society."

HondaMasterTech
01-19-2010, 10:19 PM
Andromeda will collide with the Milky Way in a few billion years which will ultimately destroy our planet. I'm pretty sure that by then nobody will care anyway.

Maybe you could promise that when he's being raped you won't bring around any of those big bad mean scary guns to save him.

sholling
01-19-2010, 10:48 PM
On the bright side, I am the HR department :D
Careful you'll have irresistible urges to call yourself on the carpet. ;)

slipangle
01-20-2010, 2:11 AM
...snip....
When all it takes is one guy with a sniper hunting rifle from 500 yards out to really ruin your day...snip

Sure, but thankfully we haven't had any successful attempts on U.S. Presidents since Kennedy.

However, consider the dangers posed by long-range shooters in conflicts we are currently involved in. It wouldn't be a President, more like a Chief of Police, Mayor, City Councilman, or head of a group.

Alternatively, look at our southern neighbor if you want to see how dangerous life can be for public figures.

If anything like a civil war would break out in the U.S. it would be unimaginably horrible.

Things would go really far south really fast. I don't believe any such thing will happen here.

kcbrown
01-20-2010, 4:04 AM
For what it's worth, I agree with you guys that in the event of an armed uprising here in the U.S., the military would almost certainly fracture and the end result would be a very bloody mess.

All I'm saying is that while the armed population would be a mighty nuisance and the politicos would live in constant fear, I don't think the armed citizenry would be able to achieve victory over a tyrannical government equipped with a modern military all by themselves. Achieving victory here means pushing the tyrannical government out of power and replacing it with one that answers to the people once again.

And while I know a lot of our military guys would never fire on American civilians, history has shown repeatedly that there are quite sufficient numbers of people would would be willing to do just that. Most military dictatorships are comprised of just such people, after all.


I think bulgron said it best: the check an armed population provides against tyranny is that it forces those who would take away our liberty to operate very slowly, which allows us to successfully work against that in the courts and in other ways.

ALSystems
01-20-2010, 6:34 AM
Sure, but thankfully we haven't had any successful attempts on U.S. Presidents since Kennedy.
Hinkley got pretty close to getting President Reagon but he was using only a .22 caliber handgun.

However, consider the dangers posed by long-range shooters in conflicts we are currently involved in. It wouldn't be a President, more like a Chief of Police, Mayor, City Councilman, or head of a group.
California has plenty of local politicians for some nut to target.

Alternatively, look at our southern neighbor if you want to see how dangerous life can be for public figures.
Mexico or certainly countries in Central and South America show how dangerous life can be for public or even orginary people.

If anything like a civil war would break out in the U.S. it would be unimaginably horrible.

Things would go really far south really fast. I don't believe any such thing will happen here.
I hope not.

nat
01-20-2010, 8:33 AM
Also, he believes that a lot of gun owners wouldn't mind a dictator taking away peoples freedoms.

That isn't much of a stretch, especially after watching the Patriot Act get passed, then watching people tell "anti-patriot act" people they are unpatriotic for complaining.

Bugei
01-20-2010, 8:41 AM
People like this are just not relevant. When push comes to shove, the bad guys are going to rob/rape/eat the pacifists firsts and the anti-second-amendment types second.

I judge people by their thoughts on the Second Amendment. I never saw a person who felt that the Second Amendment was irrelevant or obsolete or was just for the National Guard who wasn't living in a dream world in other ways, too.

Either they're stupid, deluded, cowardly or just plain wishful, but they can't be trusted to do the right thing. Don't turn your back on one. Don't respect one or have feelings for one...other than contempt and/or pity.

nat
01-20-2010, 8:49 AM
Don't turn your back on one. Don't respect one or have feelings for one...other than contempt and/or pity.

Because the guy has different views, he doesn't deserve respect?

No wonder ant-gunners have such a low view of us.

jamespres2001
01-20-2010, 8:51 AM
Make sure to remind him that the Police are NOT required to protect you!! I swear whenever I say this to people they either stand there with their mouth open or Say " Yes they are" and off I go sighting example after example, They still are not sure if I'm right or not.

ZombieTactics
01-20-2010, 9:12 AM
I... no U.S. President since Kennedy has been assassinated (despite the occasional publicized attempt) as evidence that the one guy with a sniper rifle must not be that much of a concern, since you can bet that in a population of 300 million, there is a large enough number of people with the means, the motive, and the ability to carry out such an assassination with a sniper rifle at 500 yards even under the current set of political circumstances. No, the task of carrying that out must be a lot harder than you suggest here. ...
I'd suggest an alternate explanation. Aside from motive, opportunity and skill, intention is required, and of sufficient coherency to plan well, and well ahead. It's always seemed to me that the assassin types are almost by definition "insane", which militates strongly against them having the kind of mental profile to carry through effectively. The fact that assassination attempts are rare serves also as a counter argument to those who feel threatened by lawful gun owners. Political figures are often among the most despised and hated members of our society, but few are ever attacked, and fewer still have been at risk of attempted assassination. Even our current head-of-state, with what many would consider a highly elevated "risk profile", has not sparked an uptick in threats, at least not according to the Secret Service. As much crazy talk as there was on the part of some about offing the former Chief Executive, nobody took a crack at it.

As often as we are propagandized to believe otherwise, our society is exceedingly civil, at least for the most part. I find this encouraging.

Rob85
01-20-2010, 9:22 AM
Turn him over and do with him as you want, then tell him if he had a gun he could have stopped it, but you as the Government just had your way with him.

+1:iagree:

mtptwo
01-20-2010, 9:31 AM
That isn't much of a stretch, especially after watching the Patriot Act get passed, then watching people tell "anti-patriot act" people they are unpatriotic for complaining.

Too true. Conservatives during the Bush years loved giving the government any means to protect them, no matter how badly the people's rights got trampled.

7x57
01-20-2010, 9:51 AM
Too true. Conservatives during the Bush years loved giving the government any means to protect them, no matter how badly the people's rights got trampled.

You are not the only one who thinks Bush was a problem *for Conservatives*. The Tea Party assault on the Republican party is, I believe, a direct consequence of W's presidency. The fact that he was first out the gate with nationalizing the economy seems to have been a watershed event. Well, and then conservatives being asked to pound pavement for another RINO who was for the bailout Bush first started.

There is a direct line from the Bush bailout to the knife fight in NY-23, I believe.

7x57

cineski
01-20-2010, 10:09 AM
How exactly does your co-worker expect to defend all the rights in the Constitution if there's no 2a? Ask him that. Does he think a tyrant will be respectful of his constitutional rights? The only way you can deal with a tyrant is through how they deal with the people....violence. You just can't be rational with one. Of course my liberal friends sure think you can be. My cousin's b'friend thinks if someone breaks into his house he'll just talk to him and change his mind.

Bugei
01-20-2010, 10:13 AM
Because the guy has different views, he doesn't deserve respect?

No wonder ant-gunners have such a low view of us.

They had a low view of gun owners LONG before I developed the low view of them, Nat.

Different views? How far should I respect a person if he believes in something that isn't real? If a guy has verbally stated that he/she believes that the Tooth Fairy should rule the world, do I respect him/her?

Nope. Sorry. When they change their views, I'll revisit the respect issue. Because they certainly don't respect my views.

taloft
01-20-2010, 10:57 AM
The 2nd is the teeth of the Constitution. Without the 2nd Amendment we have no way of stopping a tyrannical government from usurping all other rights. This alone makes it the most important for without it all others will fall. History has proven this time and again. The first thing a tyrant does is disarm the population.

In a revolution, you don't need to go head to head with the Government. Guerilla tactics and/or superior numbers will suffice. If only one in ten gun owners joins the fight, that's 8,000,000 freedom fighters. This only includes people who own guns right now. Add to that number people who would side with us but, don't currently own a firearm and that number climbs dramatically. I'm sure many here have spare rifles that could be loaned out. This isn't including the oath keepers that would fracture the military. Who knows what LE would do, I'd imagine they'd fracture as well. The fact that a good many firearm owners are currently or have been in the military means that we have a large knowledge base to draw from concerning strategy. They know how things work and how bases they were stationed on are laid out. We only have to make a few successful raids to wind up with the same types of weapons. Heck, a guy walked onto a base down here with no gun and tore up the neighborhood with a stolen tank.

Consider how effective the Afghanistan population was against the Russians. superior tech isn't everything. Don't get me wrong, it would present some major problems but, it could be overcome. Now consider that the Government wouldn't be able to easily resupply because the industrial base is made up of the population, and it is too hard to defend such a large infrastructure. Plus, we are well aware of every sensitive area of the country. Civilians guard most of the powerplants, waterworks, and communication facilities, etc. Simply put, the Federal Government doesn't have the troops to effectively hold the land mass of the United States. They'd have to pick and choose key installations. Put the touch on the collaborators and those facilities either stop producing or produce at reduced capacity.

They'd have to capture or kill a large percentage in order to stop a revolution. We only have to capture or kill key figures within the Government to stop them. Consider the motivations of those who fight. I'll take a guy defending his home and family over a paid thug following illegal orders any day. Short of a scorched earth policy using nukes, the Government would have a heck of a time stopping it. If they went that far, it wouldn't matter much who won.

I hope I never live to see such a thing come to pass but, it isn't as cut and dry as some would make it. It would be a nasty, bloody, brutal fight but, my money would be on the population.

gravedigger
01-20-2010, 11:23 AM
When someone suggests that we should all just turn in our guns by offering the argument that citizens with guns are no match for the U.S. Military, I frankly view them as not having much of a brain and even less reasoning power.

The "Resistance to a Tyranical Government" argument does NOT refer to going up against an attack helicopter gunship with a Glock 27. When we arrive at the time when the U.S. military is sent out to attack its own citizens using heavy artillery, the tyranical government will have already won and been firmly seated in Washington, and the fight is over.

The military is NOT the "government." The military is a tool the government can USE for good or evil. The IRS is another TOOL a government uses. The military is there to fight the government's enemies, the IRS is there to generate revenue for the government through taxes, but NEITHER of them ARE the government.

The GOVERNMENT is the president and VP, senators and congressmen, governors, mayors, judges, city councilmen and women, and others, all the way down to the lowest elected office. Their powers come from us, and their powers can be removed by us. Not the other way around.

Guns in the hands of citizens CAN and DO keep the government in check. Anyone who doesn't believe that should try to come up with some OTHER reason why presidents don't ride around in convertible Lincoln Continentals any longer. They should offer up some plausible explanation for metal detectors at government buildings, body guards for unpopular public officials, and bullet proof vests on politicians, bullet proof ENCLOSED limos, and acrylic bullet shields erected for some blowhard politician to stand safely behind as he belches out another stomach churning speech touting the benefits of socialism and communism. Why are all of these measures enacted, if it isn't due to the fact that the citizens they govern have guns?

Every congressmen and senator KNOWS that they cannot tear through our freedoms like a bull in a china shop, because the citizens are ARMED, and we have all seen what happens to a politician in other countries who steps over the line. In other countries where security for tyranical government officials is not as good as it is here, we see news reports of the assassinations that occur as a result of the citizens of (insert name of his country here) have finally had enough of their B.S. Their bloody, lifeless bodies are usually photographed seated in a restaurant booth, or hanging out of the driver's seat of an expensive car.

It is no different here. Yes, our politicians and public figures are more heavily guarded, and as a general rule, it can be said that most Ameicans view the assassination of one of them as "extreme." But it DOES happen, and it IS a real threat. Abraham Lincoln, JFK, MLK, the attempt on Ronald Reagan ... I am sure you can add to the list.

The protections afforded to these public figures are reasonably good. In fact, when ONE INDIVIDUAL leaves his house with a gun in his pocket with the intent to take out some politician or public figure, it is safe to assume that his chances of successfully completing his mission are minimal. However, when a large segment of a country's population has the same goal in mind, the body guards and metal detectors and such are only troublesome obstacles. Border officials can stop SOME of the drugs coming into America, but they can't stop ALL of them. Pest control companies can rid SOME homes of pests, but they can't rid ALL homes of them. Security for public officials can stop SOME attempts on a person's life, but they can't stop ALL of them. The only reasons that current protections for public figures are seen as effective today is because thus far, only ONE act of aggression is perpetrated against the individual at a time, and the greatest majority of citizens are no current threat to them.

Here sits Senator so-and-so, or Congressman so-and so, and they go to their office or leave their home, or travel to that airport, or enter that building ... Don't think for a moment that there is no time when a determined citizen or group of citizens could end his or her career with the pull of a trigger, or the execution of some other form of retribution. They know it, and we know it.

EVEN IF every left wing socialist politician succeeded in acquiring a level of personal protection that makes it impossible to be vulnerable to an armed populace, that politician can still be severely punished and sent a message unless he also provides that level of protection for his family, his kids, his parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins.

So guns in the hands of ordinary citizens are VERY effective against a tyranical government. The only question is, will they be employed before a tyranical government can rise to power, or will they be quietly turned over TO that tyranical government?

Yesterday in Massachusetts, those who would embrace a tyranical government were sent a clear message. We know where the line is, and you are dangerously close to crossing it.

xrMike
01-20-2010, 11:32 AM
His view- The RKBA is not important whatsoever. The other amendments are more crucial to maintaining a free people. If a totalitarian brutal dictator were to take control of the US and the armed forces, the people would be able to do nothing about it anyway. Also, he believes that a lot of gun owners wouldn't mind a dictator taking away peoples freedoms.

Any time you spend trying to educate this person would be a waste. Best to just smile, say you disagree, and change the subject. Better yet, write him off entirely because chances are, most of his other opinions are probably very different from yours also, and will only antagonize you.

chiefcrash
01-20-2010, 12:01 PM
as for the "an armed population couldn't stop the government anyway" thing:

ask him who we've been fighting in Iraq for the last 6 years.

When Bush gave his little "Mission Accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier, he wasn't just blowing smoke up our nether-regions. We had, in the conventional sense, won the war. We had defeated the government and military of Iraq...

Then there was that whole guerrilla warfare thing by insurgents. Ordinary people with small arms and improvised explosives...

We've been fighting the insurgents for longer than the Iraqi military. It's the insurgents that really caused the "bring the troops home" sentiment....

So don't tell me some ordinary people with some ordinary guns can't stop the US government...

7x57
01-20-2010, 12:05 PM
The 2nd is the teeth of the Constitution. Without the 2nd Amendment we have no way of stopping a tyrannical government from usurping all other rights. This alone makes it the most important for without it all others will fall.

I don't like this line of reasoning, because the converse is equally true--without certain other rights we have no way of maintaining our 2A rights. In particular, you must have the right to pass on the gun culture to your children, or (as is now the case in Britain) there will be no one who cares enough to fight to prevent losing them in a generation or two. And that means you need things like freedom of association so that guns aren't simply something daddy had but something that was a normal part of a culture. You need to be able to actually take your kids shooting, and not keep the guns locked away, or they'll never know that it's not just right, it's fun. You need to be able to speak freely about guns so your kids don't grow up with the impression that it's a shameful family secret. And that's without even mentioning that you need the political rights to fight for your gun rights without burning powder over it.

What is so hard for people to understand about "necessary but not sufficient"? There are a number of rights that all appear to be necessary, and I see no logical ground to insist that any of them are "more required." All are required, and that's enough.

7x57

Steyrlp10
01-20-2010, 12:18 PM
To the OP: my empathy for having to work with someone who doesn't seem to have much of an open mind.

Look on the bright side -- he doesn't sign your paycheck.

nat
01-20-2010, 12:21 PM
What is so hard for people to understand about "necessary but not sufficient"? There are a number of rights that all appear to be necessary, and I see no logical ground to insist that any of them are "more required." All are required, and that's enough.

7x57

I agree completely and frequently argue the point.

kcbrown
01-20-2010, 1:44 PM
as for the "an armed population couldn't stop the government anyway" thing:

ask him who we've been fighting in Iraq for the last 6 years.

When Bush gave his little "Mission Accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier, he wasn't just blowing smoke up our nether-regions. We had, in the conventional sense, won the war. We had defeated the government and military of Iraq...

Then there was that whole guerrilla warfare thing by insurgents. Ordinary people with small arms and improvised explosives...

We've been fighting the insurgents for longer than the Iraqi military. It's the insurgents that really caused the "bring the troops home" sentiment....


Yes. And we're still there.

Have the Iraqis defeated us? Not even close!

Quite the opposite, actually. Their losses are orders of magnitude larger than our losses. To regard that as "defeat" on our part is beyond ludicrous.

If we leave, it will be because we decide to, not because we are forced to at the point of a gun.

That is the critical difference between a military victory/defeat and a political victory/defeat.


Finally, there is one crucial difference between Iraq and an armed revolt here in the U.S. We are in Iraq by some measure of choice, not of necessity. If we leave, it will not be the end of the government's power. In the event of an armed revolt here in the U.S., the government will be fighting for its very existence. I dare say that as a result, it will fight harder, longer, and dirtier than it has in Iraq.


I still agree that an armed population is a deterrent against tyranny.

chiefcrash
01-20-2010, 2:14 PM
Yes. And we're still there.

Have the Iraqis defeated us? Not even close!

Quite the opposite, actually. Their losses are orders of magnitude larger than our losses. To regard that as "defeat" on our part is beyond ludicrous.

If we leave, it will be because we decide to, not because we are forced to at the point of a gun.

That is the critical difference between a military victory/defeat and a political victory/defeat.


Finally, there is one crucial difference between Iraq and an armed revolt here in the U.S. We are in Iraq by some measure of choice, not of necessity. If we leave, it will not be the end of the government's power. In the event of an armed revolt here in the U.S., the government will be fighting for its very existence. I dare say that as a result, it will fight harder, longer, and dirtier than it has in Iraq.


I still agree that an armed population is a deterrent against tyranny.

I didn't say we the Iraqis have defeated us. The whole point is that some regular dudes with some small arms and improvised explosives are doing better than their military did.

But to cover some of the other things you said: did the british leave us alone because they were forced to at the point of a gun? no, not really. It was just so costly and politically unsavory that the people who wanted to continue the war lost their support, and those that wanted to end the war took over. Kinda like Iraq: it's not that anything is forcing us to leave iraq, it's just the support for continuing the war is evaporating. Why is it evaporating? Because it has become too costly and politically unsavory.

So if the was an armed revolt here, you'd end up with at least 3 sides: The Government (duh), the revolters (duh), and all the rest of the people just trying to stay out of it and going with the flow. But if you make the war costly and unsavory enough, those people who were trying to stay out of it won't stay out of it for long. They'll choose a side. And if you're right, and the Government starts fighting even dirtier than Iraq, I'd imagine they'd start loosing the support of those "go with the flow" types just like they are with Iraq....

highpowermatch
01-20-2010, 2:16 PM
In the 18th and 19th centuries, an armed population was almost certainly about as absolute a check against tyranny as you would find.

It's entirely unclear if it's much of a check against tyranny in the face of a military equipped with modern weaponry.

If the civilian population as we normally think of it has to go up against a modern military machine, it stands no real chance. A bunch of civilians armed with pistols, rifles, and even hand grenades is no match for a howitzer-equipped C-130 gunship, much less high-altitude bombers, cruise missiles, etc. There's no way the civilian population can win in an all-out fight against the military, else countries wouldn't bother with standing armies and such for defensive purposes -- they'd just leave the defense of the country to the armed civilian population (on the other hand, if the civilians are disarmed....).

That's more of an argument for an even better-armed population than it is against the usefulness an armed population.

On the other hand, subduing an armed population is a harder task than subduing an unarmed one. In that sense, an armed population is a check against tyranny. It's just not as much of a check as it was when the country was founded.

Today, if a revolution is to have any chance of success, it would need to at a minimum get the military to stay out of the fray, if not get it to take the side of the revolutionaries. In the latter case, of course, the tyrannical government wouldn't stand a chance and chances are the attempt to overthrow the tyrannical government would succeed with hardly a shot fired.

Where things would get bloody and messy is if the military fractures. In that event, it becomes a stand-up military engagement. I'd say having a big, armed civilian population on one side would give a significant advantage to that side as long as the civilian population could be used to good military effect.

I'm sure the military has already worked out all these scenarios, since it's the job of the planners to play "what if" games like this...


Our military is still in Iraq trying to get out the insurgents and we are much more powerful in skill and weaponry then they are. Its not the Military's fault its the rules they have to play by, they cant justify carpet bombing everything into oblivion.

Then there is the Warsaw Ghetto in WWII where a handful of citizens who had to add hock train themselves on weapons were able to hold off around 2,000 of the German army until the generals decided to burn the whole town and flood the sewers. Their guns were already taken away and they had no experience. Imagine if they were like America? A rifle behind every blade of grass. It would have never got that far IMO.

The United States Military would have a very tough time taking full control of our country in a scenario like that because a lot of military folks who hold to the Constitution would come to our side and the existing military most likely would not have cart blanch to use whatever means they want to rid us ... It would be a bloodbath but victory could be had by either side. And there is a lot of us who would rather go down in a fight than submit to tyranny and toss the Constitution aside.

Legasat
01-20-2010, 2:51 PM
The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others. ;)