|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Second Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
However, as was amply demonstrated in the other thread, there is now no militia that could counter the US military. People referred to tanks, aerial bombings, and nuclear weapons, but I assumed they were being facetious. Is it actually anybody's position that a popular uprising against the US military is doomed to fail because they would deploy nuclear weapons against their own cities? Those who believe that the US military has the capability to pacify any resistance need to deal with the amazing failure of the US military, so far, to pacify resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq. What I usually find is that most progressives hold precisely two contradictory positions on the capability of the US military, depending on what question is being asked: "no ordinary rabble could hope to stand in the face of the modern military" when the question is about the Second Amendment; "pacifying an entirely population of motivated resistance is simply not something a modern military is able to do" when the question is about the security situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. But which is it? Edited by crashfrog, : "Liberals" to "progressives" to avoid sounding pejorative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Do you honestly believe that the reason that the US isn't being converted into a totalitarian regime as we write is because Joe and his buddies have access to rifles and suchlike and that the government is just too scared of these gun wielding protectors of freedom to do what it really wants to do? No, of course not. But again the purpose of the Second Amendment isn't to protect against a despotic government, since a despotic government wouldn't respect any Constitutional right; it's to protect the American people from being disarmed by their legitimate democratic government in the name of "public safety", leaving them defenseless against a future despotic government. The Second Amendment exists precisely to protect us from well-intentioned disarmament of the American people, as has happened in the UK, Australia, and other countries. Whether or not we need to be protected from that is an open question, and I don't believe that I know enough to say one way or the other, but that's what's different about the US - we have the Second Amendment right to own firearms and you don't. Better? Worse? I don't know. But it's why we can't have the kind of gun control that exists in your country.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Was the Branch Davidians "ordinary rabble?" I don't understand the question, I guess, or it's relevance.
I do not recall that being anybody's position. Well, ok. What did you mean by "amply demonstrated"?
In another decade or two, what would Palestinians say about that question? Who knows? Maybe in a decade or two they'll have carved out their own state, because cooler heads than those that now prevail in Israel will realize that the security mechanism needed to pacify the Palestinians will cause more harm than good to Israel itself. And if that's the case, won't the continuing armed rebellion of the Palestinians have gotten them what they wanted? It's really easy to say that the military has nukes, therefore they always win (this was said a few times in the other thread.) But the question has always been what the military is willing to do, and frequently the force the military is willing to bring against its own citizens and cities is a lot less than their full capability. That's why armed rebellions in Chechnya, Syria, Libya, and other places are succeeding. I don't see how the world post-Arab-Spring can deny the capability of people to successfully contend with their own military government. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Well, if that answer is correct, then that tentatively nullifies the assertion that "pacifying an entirely population of motivated resistance is simply not something a modern military is able to do" I didn't make that assertion.
Why use a nuclear bomb when rubber bullets or gas can be used? Sure. And you can even get to the point where the military is willing to surrender rather than deploy devastating attacks against the cities they see themselves as having the purpose of protecting. That's how a modern popular militia can be effective against a modern military, even one with overwhelming force.
Although you didn't state Egypt in your Arab-Spring example, its rebellion has not fully succeeded yet, and is still in danger of becoming a military state. Sure. Egypt is the one I didn't include because their uprising was largely a nonviolent one; it was more about demonstrations and the unwillingness of the Egyptian military to deploy overwhelming destructive force against unarmed protestors.
Lastly, be mindful of the topic, I think we're going off-topic with these complex, yet, unimportant side points. Fair enough; let's let it lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
If the government is despotic, whether it follows a non-despotic disarming government or not, what is going to stop it’s despotism? Whatever it takes, hopefully. If what it takes is an armed popular rebellion, such as during the American Revolutionary War, then I can see why the Founders wished that capability to be preserved.
Do you think we in the UK are more at risk from despotic governments than you because we aren’t all armed? Well, I don't know if you are or not, I guess. I do know that we have the First Amendment; you have one day a week at Speaker's Corner. We have the Second Amendment; you have a greater chance of being mugged in London than in New York. We have a Fourth Amendment right against warrentless search and seizure; you live in a country where every city and town is under 24-hour video surveillance. The government runs most of your channels on broadcast TV. They install missile batteries on your apartment buildings. There aren't a lot of people who look at your country as "the home of the free." Do you live in under despots? I'm sure you don't think so. I've been to the UK - it's nice, I enjoy it when I'm there. But there's a great deal of bullshit you guys put up with from your government - all in the name of "public safety" of course - that you just couldn't do in the US, literally because of what guys like this would do: When I go to London, where you literally can't walk around the corner without being videotapped and facially-recognized, I wonder if that black guy up there has the wrong idea. I'm not so sure he does.
But we can evidentially debate whether the existing interpretation of the 2nd amendment really has any rational basis Look, it says what it says, and there's no way to interpret what it says as being about the right to hunt and shoot skeet. It's hard to see how when it says "people" it really means "state"; that's not how the language is used in any of the rest of the Constitution. I know legal language isn't always the same as the common tongue, but the Founders weren't all lawyers, they were trying to express the principles behind a system of government, not create a set of statutes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Broadcast TV, guys. Slow your roll. I'm sure you get the same 700 channels on satellite/cable that we do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
For example in this often quote mined statement from James Madison, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is closely related to the benefits of having a state militia, with state officials in charge. I don't get that from the quote, I guess, so "clear" seems a bit of an overstatement. This seems to be Madison affirming that widespread arms ownership by the people would "speedily overturn" the despotic thrones of Europe (or, presumably, anywhere else.) The precise view so recently lampooned by some here. I don't see any support, here, for the notion that the right to arms is something Madison viewed as appropriate only for militia members. The view implied here, it seems, isn't that militia membership should be a pre-requisite for the ownership of arms, but that the popular ownership of arms is a prerequisite for being able to form a militia.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024