Btw, does Obama officially suck?Follow

I've skipped about a dozen other posts, so I'm sure it's been said many times, but let's revisit the actual text of the second ammendment:



In the strictest sense, "arms" != guns. Arms (i.e. Armaments) means "a military or naval force" The equation of arms to guns is a more modern distinction made necessary only by the introduction of more advanced weaponry in the last 100 years or so. The 2nd ammendment does not explicitly restrict the type of arms the people are allowed to keep and bear, so it could be argued (though it may be futile to do so in today's society) that "arms" means whatever is necessary to deter an oppressive government, conventional or otherwise.

Loosely speaking, that may have been the exact thinking of the founding fathers who incorporated the statement. The ability of the citizens to respond with equal or greater opposing force is the last check against a tyrannical government.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 1:33pm by BrownDuck

Well, we could allow corporations to field their own minor militaries.

That's the red herring (or straw man, or beside the point, or whatever). Governments don't normally transit from being peaceful democracies representing the will of the people to oppressive regimes with a military force willing to use tanks and bombs against their own citizens in one step. It takes a number of steps, one of which often is the seizure of small arms from any citizens who are not part of the regime itself. That or some form of coup, again only likely to result in the aforementioned oppressive regime *if* there aren't a bunch of armed civilians refusing to follow the orders of the new leader.



Correct. But it makes perfect sense to suggest that we'll never have to use the small arms of our populace against the military if the populace has small arms in the first place.



The goal is to prevent that situation in the first place. Typically, the reason that one side has armored columns and gunships while the other side has nothing but small arms is because at some point in the past, someone was able to seize all the military grade weapons and put them in the hands of just his guys, while taking them from everyone else. And that usually can only happen if no one who disagrees with him can fight back. This all happens long before we get to that situation.


Obviously, a good portion of this has to do with ideology among the population itself. In our case, the 2nd amendment basically instills an idea in people that they should not be pushed around by their government, and that they have the right to fight back. Let's not forget that currently, a pretty large percentage of the very military forces that our government would need to man those armored columns and gunships are themselves supporters of the 2nd amendment. Merely having the amendment in place reduces the odds of our military going along with such things in the first place. Eliminate it, and in a few generations, the guys in the military might not have the same view of the rights of the citizens to stand up to the government. They might be more willing to accept more authoritarian orders (apply same to police if you wish). The effect of the 2nd amendment isn't just about the physical ability of those with privately owned guns to directly win in a fight with the military. It's about forcing a government who tries to take those early steps towards oppression to have to order their military to fight those private owners long before that military has adopted a "they don't have the right to defend themselves against the government" assumption.


It's not perfect, but it's a hedge against oppression. Just like any of the other checks we have in our system. No single one is intended to be perfect, or do it all.

Oh, gbaji.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 3:49pm by Eske

I think they try to sound a little less like an Umbrella Corp. clone every time.

What gun control advocates fail to recognise is the context in which the 2nd Amendment was written. The thirteen colonies were in the midst of a revolution against a larger, stronger, and better trained and equiped military force and a government intent on keeping them cowed and subservient. It was to this that the amendment was directed-- so that the very conditions against which the colonists were fighting would not occur within the very country they were trying to form.

It had nothing to do with hunting, sportsmanship, or any of the trappings that gun control advocates would have us believe our founding fathers really intended when penning that into our nation's core documents. It was strictly and purely a last line of defense for the freedom from tyranny from their own future government that they were experiencing at the hands of their present oppressors.

Sugarcoat it how you like, but the right to bear arms is intregal to the preservation of an individual's personal freedom, both from governmental threats and threats posed by criminals.

Totem

In this case, he's not crazy.

It's not the most eloquent way of saying it, but the presence of weapons in a group does deter authoritarian power grabs.

Edited, Jul 26th 2012 4:22pm by Timelordwho

Yeah, but without small arms being initially present, the war wouldn't have lasted long enough for intervention by a secondary power.

No, he's spot on, as is Totem. Unfortunately, gbaji is the proverbial poisoned well, so people will just assume he's spouting rubbish and disregard his ramblings, if they even read the post.

"...both declared ourselves the winner." --Jo

By stating it in such a fashion, you have implicitly conceded defeat to my superior argument. I accept your conditional surrender.

Totem