Guns, who should be able to own them? Options

[ComradeRed]

Well when we do need it, we can lift the ban

I'm still not sure what you mean..

How are they starting to oppress us? So what you're basically stating is that its important for us to have guns so that we can revolt against the government if it comes down to it?

Where are you getting this?

Well if the government because oppressive enough, what makes you think they WILL lift the ban?

Where am I getting this??

Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights [life, liberty, pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men. That whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to set aside new guards for their future security."

What do you think abolishing the government means?

Declaration of Independence continues: "But when a long train of absues and usurpatins, pursuing invaraibly the same object, evinces a design to reduce the people under absolute despotism, it is their RIGHT, it is their DUTY, to throw off such government..."

Our country was founded on the Premise that people have an inalienable right to overthrow their government. That's exactly what we did.

The Constitution: "A well-regulated militia being vital to the security of a free state, the right of hte people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."

Back when the Constitution was written, the militia meant ALL adult males in the population, and the purpose of the militia was to FIGHT THE ARMY. The militia was NOT designed to protect against foreign invaders, it was designed to protect against the ARMY and the GOVERNMENT. That's why militias were NEVER given to federal control, but rather were controlled locally.

Further, James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, explains the Second Amendment and its purpose in the Federalist Papers: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

The Right to Bear Arms was designed to prevent oppressive government and to ensure that people had the means to overthrow their government if it came down to that.


My ideas come from the ideas that founded America. Fairly credible.

[EmeraldKnight]

Dang...do you memorize this stuff?

Alright well... first of all... it is still highly unlikely that the government will get oppressive enough that merits an armed revolt..

Second of all... what happened to all the progress we've made in civil rights and nonviolent protest? we're a role model countries all over the world.. if we revolt by means of force, it'll cause a chain reaction

Thirdly, if you will, please cite examples in the past where our government has oppressed us

[ComradeRed]

Dang...do you memorize this stuff? 

Alright well... first of all... it is still highly unlikely that the government will get oppressive enough that merits an armed revolt..

Second of all... what happened to all the progress we've made in civil rights and nonviolent protest? we're a role model countries all over the world.. if we revolt by means of force, it'll cause a chain reaction

Thirdly, if you will, please cite examples in the past where our government has oppressed us

1) I memorized the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence. The other quotes are copy-pasted.

2) You said law enforcement. When the government breaks the law, as it already has, it technically justifies armed enforcement of the Constitutin, just as if someone steals a pen, even though it doesn't do any real harm, we still prosecute.

Of course, there are practical problems to overthrowing the government every other day, but the fact remains that SOONER OR LATER, government will progress to the stage when armed rebellion is the only solution... This is what has happened with EVERY SINGLE REPUBLIC in history, including our own. That's why in the Declaration there's a clause that says some times you ahve to tolerate a LITTLE oppressive government, but when it gets so bad that there's no longer any way to stop it using legal means, then armed force is an acceptable means to do so.

Every Republic in history has gone through four stages:
Civic Republic
Imperial Republic
Welfare-State
Desptoism

It is customary to compare America to Rome. The Civic Republic is the Rule of Law and the devotion of the citizen-body to civic duty and the law, usually created by post-Revolutionary fervor. For the US, this is the period from the Revolution to the Civil War, while for Rome it was the period from 509 BC to the Punic Wars.

After the Republic becomes powerful, it looks outside its borders. After a great period of crisis (The Civil War or the Punic War), it expands into the Imperial Republic. This is the Republic dominated by expansionist or sometimes financial interests. This type of country has a small but corrupt government, endlessly pandering to a rich elite. For the US, this would be from the Civil War to the 1920s, and for Rome this would be from the Punic Wars to Julius Caesar (44 BC).

Usually, a major crisis ends the power of the old aristocracy and turns the power to liberals. This is the beginning of the Welfare-State. In America, this began with Roosevelt in the Great Depression. Power goes from "snobs to mobs". The rule of law, weakening in the previous stage, is almost totally disregarded in the name of hte common good. While this stage temporarily revitalizes a country, ultimately it leads to downfall. In Rome, this was "bread and circuses" -- free gladiator tickets. In teh US, I will say this stage started with the Great Depression and is ending.

Finally, a Republic goes into Despotism, when neither rule of law nor the common good is upheld. The government grows rapidly, quikcly becoming the single biggest entity in the country. People are oppressed by heavy taxes and arbitrary rule, and ultimately, they have no recourse but to overthrow their government. In the United States, this stage probably can said to have begun in 2001, whereas in Rome this meant from 300 AD onwards.

Power goes from THE LAW [Rule of Law/Republicanism] --> BUSINESS [Corrupted Rule of Law/Plutocracy] --> "THE PEOPLE" [Ignored Rule of Law/Socialism] --> THE GOVERNMENT [No Rule of Law/Oppression] --> (revolution) --> THE LAW

I'm not making this up; historically speaking this is what happens.

[EmeraldKnight]

You said law enforcement. When the government breaks the law, as it already has, it technically justifies armed enforcement of the Constitutin, just as if someone steals a pen, even though it doesn't do any real harm, we still prosecute

I wasnt the one to mention law enforcement..someone else brought that up, but anyways.. how has the government broken the law? you havent stated specifically yet..

Alright and 1. I love your Rome analogy, its very well written but 2. it shoudnt apply here

Of course, there are practical problems to overthrowing the government every other day, but the fact remains that SOONER OR LATER, government will progress to the stage when armed rebellion is the only solution... This is what has happened with EVERY SINGLE REPUBLIC in history, including our own. That's why in the Declaration there's a clause that says some times you ahve to tolerate a LITTLE oppressive government, but when it gets so bad that there's no longer any nway to stop it using legal means, then armed force is an acceptable means to do so.

I still dont see how you can be so sure that our government will reach that point.. i mean.. simply because it happened in the past doesnt mean that it'll happen again..

We cant prepare for everything that might possibly happen, its just not practical

[ComradeRed]

I wasnt the one to mention law enforcement..someone else brought that up, but anyways.. how has the government broken the law? you havent stated specifically yet..

Alright and 1. I love your Rome analogy, its very well written but 2. it shoudnt apply here


I still dont see how you can be so sure that our government will reach that point.. i mean.. simply because it happened in the past doesnt mean that it'll happen again..

We cant prepare for everything that might possibly happen, its just not practical

The Constitution is the HIGHEST law of the land. The government breaks it every day.

In the War on Drugs, they routinely raid people's homes and businesses without warrant, thus breaking the Fourth Amendment, and the law.

They pass laws against hate speech, pornography, etc., thus violating the First Amendment, and breaking the law.

They forcibly tax us, then use the money to pay for things that are not authorized by Article I, Section 8 such as welfare, thus breaking the Ninth AND Tenth Amendments, and breaking the law.

They delegate legislative powers to the United Nations, thus violating Section I of the Constitution, and breaking the law.

They put American citizens in G-Bay without access to trial, thus breaking the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, and the law.

They pass gun laws, thus breaking the Second Amendment, and the law.

Need I go further? Numbers-wise the government is easily the biggest criminal in the country.

Moreover, I'm not saying we should prepare for everything that might possibly happen, but it's VERY CLEAR that the United States is heading down the road to despotism. The government -- ONE SINGLE AGENCY -- already uses almost 60% of our Nation's GDP. Get that? The government controls THREE out of every FIVE dollars in the country. This is a sure-fire response for dictatorship, when a single agency becomes that powerful.

My Rome analogy is perfectly relevant, I've already shown how it applied if you read more closely. And it's not just Rome. This is what happened to the French as well, only on a much quicker scale (Civic Republic: 1789, Imperial Republic: 1793, Welfare-State: 1804, Despotism: 1815, Revolution again: 1848). And in England in the 1600s and 1700s, only the Revolutions did not reach the Mother Country itself excpet for the 1688 "Glorious Revolution", instead occuring in the Colonies.

[EmeraldKnight]

Ok... you're starting to scare me.. how much you know and all the specifics , lol whereas I'm just kinda saying stuff off the top of my head.. anyways..

Moreover, I'm not saying we should prepare for everything that might possibly happen, but it's VERY CLEAR that the United States is heading down the road to despotism. The government -- ONE SINGLE AGENCY -- already uses almost 60% of our Nation's GDP. Get that? The government controls THREE out of every FIVE dollars in the country. This is a sure-fire response for dictatorship, when a single agency becomes that powerful.

My Rome analogy is perfectly relevant, I've already shown how it applied if you read more closely. And it's not just Rome. This is what happened to the French as well, only on a much quicker scale (Civic Republic: 1789, Imperial Republic: 1793, Welfare-State: 1804, Despotism: 1815, Revolution again: 1848). And in England in the 1600s and 1700s, only the Revolutions did not reach the Mother Country itself excpet for the 1688 "Glorious Revolution", instead occuring in the Colonies.

Alright if you realli believe that, then why dont you instead advocate mandating a gun in every household then?

[ComradeRed]

Ok... you're starting to scare me.. how much you know and all the specifics , lol whereas I'm just kinda saying stuff off the top of my head.. anyways..

Alright if you realli believe that, then why dont you instead advocate mandating a gun in every household then?

I'm against mandating a gun in every household, because in the end it's individual choice. Even if everyone has a gun, and government becomes oppressive, those who were forced to have guns probably aren't going to use them anyway. They just become dead-weight costs.

During the American Revolution, it was as little as a third of hte population resisting the British, and perhaps only half of those actively doing so, and yet it was enough. The popular image of the Revolution as a people's war is untrue.

The cycle, in the end might be unavoidable, not to sound overly grim. But when civic virtue dies in the hearts of the people, no Courts, no Constitution, and no law can save it. Sometimes the only way to revive the Rule of Law is to show people what life is like with no rule of law -- just what America is coming to.

[EmeraldKnight]

During the American Revolution, it was as little as a third of hte population resisting the British, and perhaps only half of those actively doing so, and yet it was enough. The popular image of the Revolution as a people's war is untrue.

But that was then.. when guns fought guns.. now they have tanks and missiles.. what good will guns do if the government starts shooting from underground bases or something?

The cycle, in the end might be unavoidable, not to sound overly grim. But when civic virtue dies in the hearts of the people, no Courts, no Constitution, and no law can save it. Sometimes the only way to revive the Rule of Law is to show people what life is like with no rule of law -- just what America is coming to.

Wait.. are you saying that we need guns in case there be need to revolt, or that having guns prevents the chances of revolt?

[ComradeRed]

But that was then.. when guns fought guns.. now they have tanks and missiles.. what good will guns do if the government starts shooting from underground bases or something?


Wait.. are you saying that we need guns in case there be need to revolt, or that having guns prevents the chances of revolt?

If you look at what's happening in Fallujah, you can see clearly that the best-high tech army in the world CAN be defeated by a ragtag militia, if the militia is smart enough to pick its fights. And you have to understand the most fundamental military adage: Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics. If the government does start shooting from underground bases, it risks alienating moderates tremendously. Eventually, parts of the army itself defects, resistance grows, and the government itself collapses, regardless of how strong it is.

Moreover, with guns, you can seize heavy weapons when it comes down to that. During the Revolution, one of the first battles was when Ethan Allen and a small team of riflemen stormed Fort Ticonderoga and took the cannons from the British. The Colonials eventually took more heavy weapons by seizing British arsenals using common weapons.

For the forseeable future, guns are still going to be the ultimate hinge of war.

[EmeraldKnight]

If you look at what's happening in Fallujah, you can see clearly that the best-high tech army in the world CAN be defeated by a ragtag militia, if the militia is smart enough to pick its fights. And you have to understand the most fundamental military adage: Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics. If the government does start shooting from underground bases, it risks alienating moderates tremendously.

But the thing is.. in Fallujah, we're fighting on their soil, unfamiliar territory to us, with natural defenses for them.. while in the US, if it does come to a revolt, they'd still have a lot more high tech weaponry.. i mean.. the vast majority of gun owners own handguns, not automatic weaponry, so an armed revolt would be basically suicide

Eventually, parts of the army itself defects, resistance grows, and the government itself collapses, regardless of how strong it is.

Part of the army defects? are you saying that our troops in Iraq defect?

Moreover, with guns, you can seize heavy weapons when it comes down to that. During the Revolution, one of the first battles was when Ethan Allen and a small team of riflemen stormed Fort Ticonderoga and took the cannons from the British. The Colonials eventually took more heavy weapons by seizing British arsenals using common weapons.

You're still stuck with historical references, I seriously doubt that we can go into some base and hijack tanks and aircraft or something.. plus civlians wouldnt know how to utilize the weaponry even IF they managed to steal them.. the Continental army was at least familiar with the weapons they stole

[ComradeRed]

But the thing is.. in Fallujah, we're fighting on their soil, unfamiliar territory to us, with natural defenses for them.. while in the US, if it does come to a revolt, they'd still have a lot more high tech weaponry.. i mean.. the vast majority of gun owners own handguns, not automatic weaponry, so an armed revolt would be basically suicide


Part of the army defects? are you saying that our troops in Iraq defect?


You're still stuck with historical references, I seriously doubt that we can go into some base and hijack tanks and aircraft or something.. plus civlians wouldnt know how to utilize the weaponry even IF they managed to steal them.. the Continental army was at least familiar with the weapons they stole

In the US, the people would still know their local community better than the government. ENOUGH people, armed with only handguns, would be able to overthrow their governemnt, especially when the government lacked support.

YOu have to remember that in a revolution, actual fighting is only a small part of it. In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Bloc, alot of governments were brought down with only a little fighting. Why? Because after the soldiers were ordered to fire on their own countrymen, alot simply laid down their arms and joined the rebels looting the country.

You have to remmeber that when I say a revolution, I don't mean one now obviously. One could only happen when the government is so decrepit, that it already lost the support of MOST of the country, and that morale in the army itself is low.

No I'm not saying our troops in Iraq defect. They're being ordered to shoot Iraqis. When soldiers are ordered to shoot their own friends and neighbors for a cause that they might not percieve to be just, historically speaking, they have a tendency to defect: Eastern Europe 1990s, Russia 1918, etc. This is especially true of conscripted troops. If we resume the draft, then a sucessful revolution would be fairly probably within 50 years. But we probably won't.

There's lots of retired army vets. They tend to be the most traditionally conservative of all. The American Revolution was started largely by people with military experience, or at least civilians who could figure out.

[EmeraldKnight]

In the US, the people would still know their local community better than the government. ENOUGH people, armed with only handguns, would be able to overthrow their governemnt, especially when the government lacked support.

And you're sayng that currently, a significant enough portion of the population possesses handguns to do so?

YOu have to remember that in a revolution, actual fighting is only a small part of it. In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Bloc, alot of governments were brought down with only a little fighting. Why? Because after the soldiers were ordered to fire on their own countrymen, alot simply laid down their arms and joined the rebels looting the country.

You have to remmeber that when I say a revolution, I don't mean one now obviously. One could only happen when the government is so decrepit, that it already lost the support of MOST of the country, and that morale in the army itself is low.

No I'm not saying our troops in Iraq defect. They're being ordered to shoot Iraqis. When soldiers are ordered to shoot their own friends and neighbors for a cause that they might not percieve to be just, historically speaking, they have a tendency to defect: Eastern Europe 1990s, Russia 1918, etc. This is especially true of conscripted troops. If we resume the draft, then a sucessful revolution would be fairly probably within 50 years. But we probably won't.

Couldnt the same results be achieved by peaceful protest? if the army loses its morale and defects, why must civilians fight? I think you're going against yourself here..

There's lots of retired army vets. They tend to be the most traditionally conservative of all. The American Revolution was started largely by people with military experience, or at least civilians who could figure out.

Well... are you saying that retired army vets and civilians would know enough about modern military technology to be able to utilize captured weaponry?

haha, i find it kinda funny that we're debating what would happen if there was another revolution and still managing to tie it back to the topic

[ComradeRed]

And you're sayng that currently, a significant enough portion of the population possesses handguns to do so?



Couldnt the same results be achieved by peaceful protest? if the army loses its morale and defects, why must civilians fight? I think you're going against yourself here..


Well... are you saying that retired army vets and civilians would know enough about modern military technology to be able to utilize captured weaponry?

haha, i find it kinda funny that we're debating what would happen if there was another revolution and still managing to tie it back to the topic

There are almost 200 million registered handguns in the United States, and probably 50 million unique owners, yes, I think enough Americans have handguns.

The same results could be achieved with peaceful protest, sure, that's what has happened, but sometimes, a little force--even a little--is necessary. Modern revolutions have been mostly peaceful, but there have been violent outbursts, and the people have to be able to defend thesmelves in cases like that.

Even if part of the army defects, it is very likely that a brief period of fighting would have to occur for other parts of it to lose their morale and defect. Being ordered to shoot is one part of defecting, being shot at is another.

[EmeraldKnight]

The same results could be achieved with peaceful protest, sure, that's what has happened, but sometimes, a little force--even a little--is necessary. Modern revolutions have been mostly peaceful, but there have been violent outbursts, and the people have to be able to defend thesmelves in cases like that.

But.. wouldnt less bloodshed still be better than more?

Even if part of the army defects, it is very likely that a brief period of fighting would have to occur for other parts of it to lose their morale and defect. Being ordered to shoot is one part of defecting, being shot at is another.

I think this situation we're talking about is far too hypothetical... all your references are to the past, hundreds of years ago.. how can you assume the results will be the same now?

[ComradeRed]

But.. wouldnt less bloodshed still be better than more?


I think this situation we're talking about is far too hypothetical... all your references are to the past, hundreds of years ago.. how can you assume the results will be the same now?

No past ... Ten years ago ... Romania. Government overthrown by popular movement. A few people with guns tried to raid the government headquarters. Ceasescu ordered his soldiers to fire. His soldiers defected and arrested him instead. He was executed the next day.

[EmeraldKnight]

No past ... Ten years ago ... Romania. Government overthrown by popular movement. A few people with guns tried to raid the government headquarters. Ceasescu ordered his soldiers to fire. His soldiers defected and arrested him instead. He was executed the next day.

Couldnt they have done that with peaceful protest? AND.. thats just a few ppl, like you said.. so if a few ppl, say the law enforcement did that or something..

[strice]

as proven in Bowling For Columbine, it isn't the presence of guns or a bloody history, but just they way people are brought up. Go watch it.

[EmeraldKnight]

as proven in Bowling For Columbine, it isn't the presence of guns or a bloody history, but just they way people are brought up. Go watch it.

Yes, but couldnt we have avoided that whole Columbine incident simply by banning or greatly restricting guns? I mean.. seriously.. they didnt just take their father's handguns or anything, they had automatic assault weapons.. do we as civilians seriously need those to protect ourselves?

[angel-roh]

teenagers under 21 of age shud be illegal for gun using...hehe... well it's good to be keep it...but if u dont wana kill someone they dont keep it haha. my friend almost killed her neighbor with her gun. well she is 20 and live by herself in this old house she lived in since wen she was 2 years old. and her neighbor who is around 67 years old went over to my friend's house to bring some brownies that old lady made. my friend and her neighbor and good friends. and that old lady came to my friend's house like 1 am in the morning... i was over at her house for sleepover...my other friends were there too.. someone crashed her door.. her door has glass window...and my friend got her gun out and she shot that person cus she was sooo scared... well the reason that old lady crashed the glass cus she was blind and my friend didnt knoe that... cus my friend havent talk to that old lady for 3 weeks so yeah... but good thing the old lady was saved... my friend didnt go to jail..whew!

[EmeraldKnight]

teenagers under 21 of age shud be illegal for gun using...hehe... well it's good to be keep it...but if u dont wana kill someone they dont keep it haha. my friend almost killed her neighbor with her gun. well she is 20 and live by herself in this old house she lived in since wen she was 2 years old. and her neighbor who is around 67 years old went over to my friend's house to bring some brownies that old lady made. my friend and her neighbor and good friends. and that old lady came to my friend's house like 1 am in the morning... i was over at her house for sleepover...my other friends were there too.. someone crashed her door.. her door has glass window...and my friend got her gun out and she shot that person cus she was sooo scared... well the reason that old lady crashed the glass cus she was blind and my friend didnt knoe that... cus my friend havent talk to that old lady for 3 weeks so yeah... but good thing the old lady was saved... my friend didnt go to jail..whew!

But then how do we keep ppl under 21 years of age from obtaining a gun from their household (as in a parent bought it for protection), and abusing it?

[ComradeRed]

Yes, but couldnt we have avoided that whole Columbine incident simply by banning or greatly restricting guns? I mean.. seriously.. they didnt just take their father's handguns or anything, they had automatic assault weapons.. do we as civilians seriously need those to protect ourselves?

We should have every SIDEARM available to the military, as well as government secret-police agencies like the BATF and the DEA, which are MUCH bigger threats than the military is to us.

When we made the Second Amendment, ALL guns were assault weapons.

I'll admit, back when we passed the second amendment, guns could fire three rounds a minute. Today, they can fire three hundred rounds a minute. To say that this is a reason to abolish them is comparable to saying: "Back when we passed the first amendment, a printing press could print three pages a minute. Today, the New York Times can print three hundred thousand pages a minute (an even bigger gap). Therefore, we should abolish the New York Times."

"The Press is more dangerous than guns. We don't let our people have guns, why should we let them have press?"
--Lenin

Communist thinking is always backwards. Reverse that last statement: "The Press is more dangerous than guns. We let our people have the Press, why should we not let them have guns?"

[Spirited Away]

I thought that the Columbine kids had made some of their own weapons in their garage. .

[EmeraldKnight]

We should have every SIDEARM available to the military, as well as government secret-police agencies like the BATF and the DEA, which are MUCH bigger threats than the military is to us.

I dont see how this is relevant to civilians..

When we made the Second Amendment, ALL guns were assault weapons.
I'll admit, back when we passed the second amendment, guns could fire three rounds a minute. Today, they can fire three hundred rounds a minute. To say that this is a reason to abolish them is comparable to saying: "Back when we passed the first amendment, a printing press could print three pages a minute. Today, the New York Times can print three hundred thousand pages a minute (an even bigger gap). Therefore, we should abolish the New York Times."

So you're in favor of civilians owning assault weapons?

Communist thinking is always backwards. Reverse that last statement: "The Press is more dangerous than guns. We let our people have the Press, why should we not let them have guns?"

because guns are more often abused than the press

[ComradeRed]

I dont see how this is relevant to civilians..

So you're in favor of civilians owning assault weapons?


because guns are more often abused than the press

1) It's very releveant. The BATF barbecued 100 American civilians at Waco. The DEA has ONE MILLION Americans in arrest -- mostly because of non-violent offenses that wouldn't have been considered criminal in 1920.

2) I am in favor of civilians owning assault weapons. Law enforcement does. And we are what enforces the law upon the government.

3) Guns are NOT more often abused than the press. Ask the government if they would rather control the media or the guns, I guarantee you they will say the media. The media controls minds. Guns can't. Ask any deposed dictator. Sure, in their last moments, they might have been shot by a civilian with a gun, but their downfall was begun in the media.

[Spirited Away]

2) I am in favor of civilians owning assault weapons. Law enforcement does. And we are what enforces the law upon the government.

I agree with that.

Civilians should be able to own guns, but to a regulated degree.