Free Allegiance Forums

germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Jan 9 2013, 06:04 PM) The one thing i noticed about the gun debate is that Jon Stewart is getting preachy.

And I say "preach on, brutha!"

Spunkmeyer wrote:QUOTE (Spunkmeyer @ Jan 9 2013, 07:53 PM) And I say "preach on, brutha!"

I love a lot of his analysis though, but people who fight monsters should take care not to become one and all that.

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Jan 9 2013, 10:01 PM) Just wondering about the gun nuts afraid of government tryanny, shouldn't that mean anti-tank and anti-aircraft armaments be legal? Of course if that happens then civilian aeroplanes should be able to be equipped with Air-To-Surface missiles so there is mutually assured destruction while corporate/commercial aircraft should be able to buy fighter jets for escort as armed security.

oh i dunno, why don't you ask the syrians trying to overthrow their dictator

That's exactly the point TA, if the current guns laws are supposed to enable the populace to take down a corrupt (or not corrupt I guess) government then they're woefully inadequate because the the government has jets and apaches and nukes.

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jan 10 2013, 09:47 AM) That's exactly the point TA, if the current guns laws are supposed to enable the populace to take down a corrupt (or not corrupt I guess) government then they're woefully inadequate because the the government has jets and apaches and nukes.

This.

With such a reading of the 2nd amendment (a fairly insane reading which ignores the first part about militia being vital for the state, not as a safeguard against the state) semi automatic assault rifles are hardly sufficient. The private citizens should have access to anti tank rocket launchers, MANPAD SAMs and rocket artillery at the very least. Tanks, jets and combat helicopters would be useful too... and at this point you start to realise that only the government (and the biggest megacorps maybe) has enough money for such.

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Jan 10 2013, 02:47 AM) That's exactly the point TA, if the current guns laws are supposed to enable the populace to take down a corrupt (or not corrupt I guess) government then they're woefully inadequate because the the government has jets and apaches and nukes.

and how would the syrians be able to put up even a token resistance if they didn't have firearms?

I think we're all spoiled because we live in civil societies run by democratically elected officials. The idea that people need guns to protect themselves against their government arose during the US revolution, where we needed guns to fight off you evil colonial British. The idea only seems crazy now because our government isn't tyrannical.

Also you don't necessarily need equal firepower at the start to win a revolution. Ask the Lybians.

@Adept - one of our leading jurists and a US Supreme Court judge disagrees that such a reading of the 2nd amendment is insane. Considering you're not even a lawyer, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it's a debatable point.

All the armor and air support in the world is not enough to take down guerrillas... especially when most of the nation is engaged in it. Armor is great in open warfare, much less so in the shadows.

Besides, all of that is irrelevant, owning a firearm is just as much of a right as freedom of speech. That right can be abused, but it is a right and thus should not even be open to debate.

It always amuses me when people attack others rights and then get all offended when those who were attacked start attacking rights that the former holds dear.


The current hysteria over "assault weapons" is amusing as well. I guess adding a pistol grip and some black body parts somehow makes a rifle 100000x more deadly... as that is pretty much all an "assault weapon" is to the fear mongers. A real assault weapon must be select fire... and... well those are already illegal.

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Jan 10 2013, 03:39 PM) and how would the syrians be able to put up even a token resistance if they didn't have firearms?

I think we're all spoiled because we live in civil societies run by democratically elected officials. The idea that people need guns to protect themselves against their government arose during the US revolution, where we needed guns to fight off you evil colonial British. The idea only seems crazy now because our government isn't tyrannical.

Also you don't necessarily need equal firepower at the start to win a revolution. Ask the Lybians.

Syria and Libya were/are ruled by totalitarian regimes. People deserted from army/police and armed others with military stocks to fight against the regime or these people bought weapons at the black market. You wanna tell me that the USA ever was/is/will be ruled by a totalitarian regime?

The States have also a Nation Guard. Two military bodies aren't enough, you need a civil one, too. The whole government at once (local, state and national government) goes mad and the people have to fight for their right to own weapons...

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Jan 10 2013, 04:39 PM) @Adept - one of our leading jurists and a US Supreme Court judge disagrees that such a reading of the 2nd amendment is insane. Considering you're not even a lawyer, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that it's a debatable point.

It seems to be so, but not from reading the short paragraph. It's pretty bewildering that it can be seen to refer to protecting yourself against your own state. I'm pretty sure it's a reference to Britain, and other foreign powers.

QUOTE 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.[/quote]
I suspect that the reading of the supreme court is more due to partisan politics, and less a honest take on the original intent of the text. If they wanted people to keep guns to protect them from their own government turning tyrannical, I'm pretty sure that would have been worded to make it clear.

Well, wording it to make things clear in the Constitution has two very drastic, clashing points of view by design. I forget the term, but it was left ambiguous for a reason. The Constitution was very much take 2 on the then very new experiment of modern democracy after the not so hot Articles of Confederation.