And it begins: Obama Renews Push to Reduce Gun Violence

[LouCipherr]

In addition the idea that an armed population could fend off America's trained military for even a short space of time is ridiculous. Any kind of resistance would be quashed in the blink of an eye. Y'know shootem, I agreed with this in a previous thread, however, I've been thinking about this and I'm not so sure now. It depends on the situation. Our trained military are part of the US population as well. If the citizens were to rise up against the government, who's to say the folks in the military wouldn't join right in with the population? They're probably just as sick of this crap as the rest of us. In fact, they're probably more sick of what's going on than we are. It could go either way. Saying the military would quash a revolution in the US is only one outcome of many. Just a thought to consider.

[AcesandEights]

But the US possesses the most sophisticated military machine currently available. The idea that the population could fend off F-16's, M1 Abrahams and a trained body of men just doesn't stand up to even the most limited scrutiny. Firstly, I'm just reporting what I've heard in the past, but I also don't think you're following your thought process through. Military hardware does not really answer the problems of scale or complexity considered in a continent-wide, porous bordered country saddled with what would be guerrilla warfare and a possible civil war.

[Sammich]

Y'know shootem, I agreed with this in a previous thread, however, I've been thinking about this and I'm not so sure now. It depends on the situation. Our trained military are part of the US population as well. If the citizens were to rise up against the government, who's to say the folks in the military wouldn't join right in with the population? They're probably just as sick of this crap as the rest of us. In fact, they're probably more sick of what's going on than we are. It could go either way. Saying the military would quash a revolution in the US is only one outcome of many. Just a thought to consider. Those in the military who uphold their oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC would side against a tyrannical government.

[shootemindehead]

Are you even aware who Thomas Jefferson and James Madison are? Again, where is your evidence that the 2nd amendment is a collectivist right and where are any quotes of the Founders to support your assertion? Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which is NOT in the Bill of Rights, has the mention of calling for the militia: To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; As for your other claim, the British at that time were the most highly trained and technologically advanced military on earth, yet an armed population not only fended them off, but forced their surrender. The Afghans caused the Russian military to withdraw and now the U.S. military. The IRA was not "quashed" by the SAS. Of course I know who they are. Please let's not resort to condesending remarks. There was a lot of debate and many words spoken by individuals on the articles and many gave their own take on what they believed. However, the ACTUAL article itself mentions NOTHING about homegrown tyrannical governments as a reason for it institition. As for the British Empire, IRA and Afghans etc...each of those situations had substantial help from outside influence. The British were hated worldwide, so there was no shortage in help to defeat them. The Afghans had tons of help from the US (which later turned around to bite them on the arse) and the IRA had outside help too. They, however NEVER achieved the aim of getting the British out of Ireland and were forced to roll back their aims to a very great degree. You also assume that all of the U.S. military would comply with the orders of a tyrannical government and fire upon their own countrymen. I can tell you that is not the case. Likewise, you are assuming that anu insurrection would consist of the majority of the population. That wouldn't be the case either, -- -------- Post added at 09:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ---------- Y'know shootem, I agreed with this in a previous thread, however, I've been thinking about this and I'm not so sure now. It depends on the situation. Our trained military are part of the US population as well. If the citizens were to rise up against the government, who's to say the folks in the military wouldn't join right in with the population? They're probably just as sick of this crap as the rest of us. In fact, they're probably more sick of what's going on than we are. It could go either way. Saying the military would quash a revolution in the US is only one outcome of many. Just a thought to consider. Of course, "Nothing is written" according to Lawrence of Arabia, anyway. It also depends on how an insurrection is sold to the majority of the people too and one should never underestimate the ability of the majority to act like sheep. One only has to look at how quickly minds are twisted in America, where a lot of the people believe wholeheartedly that their Country's ways are correct, no matter what, doubly so in cases of overseas interference. I don't mean that as an insult, but merely as observation. In any case, I just don't believe that there will be a revolution in the US. The powers that be know very well how to push the buttons to keep the people sated. Enough of them anyway. TBH, I'd be all for a democratic revolution in the States. You can get rid of the rich-guy controlled two party system for a start.

[Sammich]

You still haven't supplied proof or quotes from the Founders supporting your statments that: 1) The 2nd Amendment only applies to government 2) The 2nd Amendment is collectivist right 3) The "security of a free state" did not mean tyranny Even the U.S. Supreme court has ruled it an individual right in District of Columbia vs. Heller. "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." - Scalia Then you should be well aware that Thomas Jefferson, who was the author of the Delcaration of Independence, and James Madison both insisted on the creation of the Bill of Rights as instrument against future oppressive governments. This is what "security of a free state" means. The quotes show the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Founders, not reimaged and revisionist positions to support current agendas. “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people." - Fisher Ames, a member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788 "Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jeffferson, 1799 “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” -George Washington Do you see a trend yet? The Founders were very concerned of the government reverting back into what they had just fought an 8 years war against.

[shootemindehead]

You still haven't supplied proof or quotes from the Founders supporting your statments that: 1) The 2nd Amendment only applies to government 2) The 2nd Amendment is collectivist right 3) The "security of a free state" did not mean tyranny I don't need to. I have the actual article, Sammich: "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." Doesn't mention anything about homegrown govermental tyranny anywhere. That's an intereptation that has been chosen by people who want to see it that way. Jefferson and others may have argued for that point pre or post ratification, but it's explicitly not in the actual article itself and could easily have been placed there, if the founding fathers had wished. I can accept that SOME people may want to view the 2nd in those terms, but I do not accept that that is the reason it was drawn up. The more logical reasoning, given the times, is that an easily raised armed citizenry be in place to be used in lieu of a regular standing army and the article specifically states these terms in the context of a militia. Not entirely sure what you mean by "collectivist right" though.

[Sammich]

I don't need to. I have the actual article, Sammich: "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." Doesn't mention anything about homegrown govermental tyranny anywhere. That's an intereptation that has been chosen by people who want to see it that way. Jefferson and others may have argued for that point pre or post ratification, but it's explicitly not in the actual article itself and could easily have been placed there, if the founding fathers had wished. I can accept that SOME people may want to view the 2nd in those terms, but I do not accept that that is the reason it was drawn up. The more logical reasoning, given the times, is that an easily raised armed citizenry be in place to be used in lieu of a regular standing army and the article specifically states these terms in the context of a militia. Not entirely sure what you mean by "collectivist right" though. I have posted numerous quotes from the Founders, even the ones that had wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights and you just want to play semantics games. Since you have no intention of answering anything with the smallest amount of evidence I am through arguing with you. It is like Bill Clinton and his trying to redefine what the definition of "is" is.

[rgc2005]

The 2nd Amendment applied to both sides of the current argument. Who defends my town, my street, my house in times of emergency? Armed citizens or the Federal government. In the days of "Ball and Musket" warfare individual ownership of firearms AND mandatory enrollment in the town militia were one in the same. Having, and participating in, a locally controlled force armed to defend against Indians, bandits and government oppression was considered as much a "Free Man's" duty as well as a right. Becoming the elected "Captain" of the militia was just as prominent as being a Mayor. In times of need local militias, NOT the National/State Guard, could assemble and respond within hours which given the era was a powerful and feared part of European Colonial culture. The 2nd Amendment was written because the British war plans hinged on their seizing the arms and ammunition in the local armories of the militias around Boston and New York. Hence the "Shots heard round the world" at Lexington and Concord. Those were local militias standing in defense of their communities. Today, because of the nationalization of the "State Militias" into the National Guard/Reserves in which all the equipment and 99% of the funding comes from the Federal government most US states have some sort of "State/Home Guard" authorized. Many theorists believe that post "Civil Rights Era", when the National Guard units in the south were Federalized to enforce school desegregation, local professional police forces became the local defense asset. Post "9/11 and Katrina" local police forces began the process of being trained to a federal standard for response nationwide. Federal funding has resulted in the standardization and militarization of local police SWAT and Civil Disturbance gear with a requirement that those assets be made available to HSA/FEMA when deemed necessary. Once again we see ourselves back to the question at hand. Who defends my town, my street, my house in times of emergency? Armed citizens or the Federal government.

[shootemindehead]

I have posted numerous quotes from the Founders, even the ones that had wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights and you just want to play semantics games. Since you have no intention of answering anything with the smallest amount of evidence I am through arguing with you. It is like Bill Clinton and his trying to redefine what the definition of "is" is. Whatever...there's still absolutely fuck all in the actual article mentioning anything about a homegrown government tyranny.

[Sammich]

Either you are now just trolling or have been backed into a corner and refuse to admit that you were wrong. Either way, like I said I am done arguing with a brick wall.

[shootemindehead]

It doesn't matter a jot, if you think I'm "trolling", or if I'm "refusing to admit I'm wrong", or even if "you're done". The fact remains that nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the article itself was designed to combat a homegrown governmental tyranny. But it does state VERY clearly, the within the context of A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, people can have the right bear arms.

[Mike70]

Y'know shootem, I agreed with this in a previous thread, however, I've been thinking about this and I'm not so sure now. It depends on the situation. Our trained military are part of the US population as well. If the citizens were to rise up against the government, who's to say the folks in the military wouldn't join right in with the population? They're probably just as sick of this crap as the rest of us. In fact, they're probably more sick of what's going on than we are. It could go either way. Saying the military would quash a revolution in the US is only one outcome of many. Just a thought to consider. I'm a veteran of the US Army and am from a military family. every male in my family has served in some capacity, usually in the Army, almost without exception. I know how American military people think. There is no way the US military would support a repeal of the 2nd amendment or any attempt to disarm American ciitizens, on that I will damn guarantee you. Why? because the vast majority of the folks in the military are avid gun owners. forget about this asinine argument. Shootem seems to be unaware that each State has its own Army and Air Force, some of them quite formidable. there are some states that are so pro-gun (including some of the very powerful ones like Texas, Florida, and Ohio) that another civil war would be the result. The States have all the same toys that the regular military does. that is why the "let's ban guns because there are crazy people" camp should just save its breath and energy for something else. Most of the folks in Europe are exposing a vast misunderstanding of not only America and Americans but the very way America works and how Americans see themselves. the concept of States Rights and the deep, deep attachment that most Americans have for their home State cannot be underestimated and any debate or argument MUST take those things into account. these are not just things you read/see/hear in books and movies about the War Between the States. They are very real and run very deep in the American consciousness. this is on a separate note: I also find it damn hilarious that the first thing people say when the US military is going to invade some pisswha country is, "They get bogged down. there will be insurgents, it'll be like the VC all over" and etc, etc, blah, blah, blah people using every excuse and rationalization in the world to foresee doom and gloom. yet when it comes to dealing with the US population, which is over 300 million, armed in numbers and ways that are hard to imagine (many of these armed people have police or military training), it's always, "they'll crush em flat."

[strayrider]

It doesn't matter a jot, if you think I'm "trolling", or if I'm "refusing to admit I'm wrong", or even if "you're done". The fact remains that nowhere in the article is it mentioned that the article itself was designed to combat a homegrown governmental tyranny. But it does state VERY clearly, the within the context of A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, people can have the right bear arms. Shootem, "...the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well." Furthermore. "The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule." -stray- Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment02/

[Mike70]

Shootem, "...the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well." Furthermore. "The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule." -stray- Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment02/ pretty funny the complete and utter silence that has ensued since it was pointed out to certain people that they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. people that live in a place where everything is centralized cannot uderstand the way things are done in the US. also stray anyone who cannot understand the words "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is complete and total moron without any understanding of the English language. f

[rgc2005]

Dear Management, I really don't know or care who Sammich is, or is not, BUT I come to this board to read about Zombies and the Horror genre. If his arguments were sound and based on something other than out of context quotes from wikipedia I could tolerate it if he added to the discussion of the relevant topics. However, they just pollute the threads and risk visitors misunderstanding the purpose of these boards. So could someone please ask him to stop steering every thread into the "Tin Foil Hat" zone.