thank god for the second amendment

[Joshua G]

i am hurting for the people of Iran. I wish they were armed & could form militias & destroy their oppressors. its not a fair fight out there, these armed thugs killing unarmed innocents expressing their grievences.

thats why we need the second amendment, & should never let liberals take away our right to bear arms. An armed people are a free people.

god bless freedom, & the wisdom of our founding fathers.

[Odin]

It's an interesting point now doubt. People see the US as too stable now, and too established of a democracy to still require the second amendment. But as the recent financial crisis has taught us, things can change very quickly. If the early predictions had been right and the world slipped into another great depression who knows what could of happened.

[broke]

Originally Posted by joshgirls

i am hurting for the people of Iran. I wish they were armed & could form militias & destroy their oppressors. its not a fair fight out there, these armed thugs killing unarmed innocents expressing their grievences.

thats why we need the second amendment, & should never let liberals take away our right to bear arms. An armed people are a free people.

god bless freedom, & the wisdom of our founding fathers.

You're a fucking nutjob.

You actually think the "armed" citizenry of the US could "form militias & destroy [the US government]"? Keep thinking you're free and that your semi-automatic rifle and handguns are going to stop Apaches, M1A1s, and bombs raining from the sky.

What color is the sky in your world?

[gwidomains]

Originally Posted by broke

You're a fucking nutjob.

You actually think the "armed" citizenry of the US could "form militias & destroy [the US government]"? Keep thinking you're free and that your semi-automatic rifle and handguns are going to stop Apaches, M1A1s, and bombs raining from the sky.

What color is the sky in your world?

Thanks for that man.

[Odin]

Originally Posted by broke

You're a fucking nutjob.

You actually think the "armed" citizenry of the US could "form militias & destroy [the US government]"? Keep thinking you're free and that your semi-automatic rifle and handguns are going to stop Apaches, M1A1s, and bombs raining from the sky.

What color is the sky in your world?

Iraq hasn't taught you much has it?

1/ Apaches, tanks, etc aren't effective in urban or militia type warfare.

2/ If the Government were overly oppressive, thus warranting people to rise up, a lot of US soldiers might think twice about dropping a bomb on citizens legitimately rising up. Even the Iranians have to ship in Arabs to control their own population brutally.

3/ The very fact that they know the bloodbath that would occur in their own streets would give leaders reason to think twice.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by broke

You're a fucking nutjob.

You actually think the "armed" citizenry of the US could "form militias & destroy [the US government]"? Keep thinking you're free and that your semi-automatic rifle and handguns are going to stop Apaches, M1A1s, and bombs raining from the sky.

What color is the sky in your world?

Apaches, heavy artillery, and bombs raining from the sky don't do much against an armed, motivated militia. Particularly if the people that are flying the Apaches, firing the heavy artillery, and laying the rain of bombs are part of that militia.

Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan... all good recent examples of the havoc an armed, motivated militia can cause. Throw in a "civil war", which is basically what you are alluding to, and you really have a mess.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by broke

You're a fucking nutjob.

You actually think the "armed" citizenry of the US could "form militias & destroy [the US government]"? Keep thinking you're free and that your semi-automatic rifle and handguns are going to stop Apaches, M1A1s, and bombs raining from the sky.

What color is the sky in your world?

you suffer from low IQ disease. Given that our military is comprised of the people, & not the hired thugs of a tyrant, what you propose is not possible. its true that the one time the military was used on US citizens, those citizens lost. but even in that case, those americans were oppessors of other americans & the military fought for the side of freedom. Get a clue.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by Chief

Iraq hasn't taught you much has it?

1/ Apaches, tanks, etc aren't effective in urban or militia type warfare.

2/ If the Government were overly oppressive, thus warranting people to rise up, a lot of US soldiers might think twice about dropping a bomb on citizens legitimately rising up. Even the Iranians have to ship in Arabs to control their own population brutally.

3/ The very fact that they know the bloodbath that would occur in their own streets would give leaders reason to think twice.

A really funny point is that it's "illegal" for the military to "attack" American soil. Now that throws a wrench into things!

[Agent 488]

why do we give a fuck about iran -

governments get toppled everyday -

[Dodge2hot]

It wouldn't be a quick war either way.

The major problem is that you have way to many americans that are to scared to do shit.

But there is enough of Us that will stand up to protect our rights that it would be a major war for years.

[Agent 488]

then again it's kind of cool -

we are going to see most governments in the next couple years.

interesting times.

[broke]

Originally Posted by joshgirls

you suffer from low IQ disease. Given that our military is comprised of the people, & not the hired thugs of a tyrant, what you propose is not possible. its true that the one time the military was used on US citizens, those citizens lost. but even in that case, those americans were oppessors of other americans & the military fought for the side of freedom. Get a clue.

I don't often engage the dense, but do you honestly thing being armed with small arms would help the Iranian protesters now? That's what you indicated in you first post.

It's Saturday night so it's probably difficult for you, Chief, Sly, et al to understand; but I was indicating what would happen if an armed US populous tried to uprise against a US regime like the one that currently exists in Iran. I did that in an effort to indicate what would happen to the Iranian protesters if they had and took up small arms at this point.

* rolls eyes *

[spacedog]

American's are fucking lazy pansies.

They'll do NOTHING.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by spacedog

American's are fucking lazy pansies.

They'll do NOTHING.

go visit a VA hospital sometime.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by broke

I don't often engage the dense, but do you honestly thing being armed with small arms would help the Iranian protesters now? That's what you indicated in you first post.

if the mob stays unarmed, & the thugs use guns, the mob will lose, no matter how righteous their cause. they'll all be dead. at some point, this revolt will become an armed conflict between the people & the thugs, or they will lose. its that simple.

Try doing some reading about why the second amendment was written in the first place. you sadly take it for granted.

[gwidomains]

Originally Posted by joshgirls

if the mob stays unarmed, & the thugs use guns, the mob will lose, no matter how righteous their cause. they'll all be dead. at some point, this revolt will become an armed conflict between the people & the thugs, or they will lose. its that simple.

Try doing some reading about why the second amendment was written in the first place. you sadly take it for granted.

Facts don't bare out what you are saying -- armed resistence sometimes works out, sometimes it doesn't! Just go through some simple counter factuals of oppressed communities and see if violence is always the optimal solution.

I think it shows in the long-term non-violence actually allows a much quicker integration into common governance where the rights of minority religious / ethnic/ etc. populations are respected...

Remember why the U.S. is so mad at Cuba, Venezula and other S. American countries? Cause they violently overthrew the U.S. gov't of choice.

Can you imagine if S. Africans allied with communists to overthrow the apartheid regime? How about India? How about E. Germany and the rest of E. Europe? How about the 1960s South -- as opposed to a few riots you had blacks and hippies in the streets popping caps in police?

Further what if the "well armed militia" is bat-shit crazy, actually has suffrage but just lost?

[broke]

Originally Posted by joshgirls

if the mob stays unarmed, & the thugs use guns, the mob will lose, no matter how righteous their cause. they'll all be dead. at some point, this revolt will become an armed conflict between the people & the thugs, or they will lose. its that simple.

Try doing some reading about why the second amendment was written in the first place. you sadly take it for granted.

While you may have read history, you clearly don't understand it. Plus, you continue to miss the point...

The 'thugs' are using small arms because it's the least amount of force they need to subdue the crowds. If the crowds had small arms, do you not think the Iranian government would roll in artillery and tanks? If the crowd had artillery and tanks do you think the Iranian government would not call in the air power? End of the day, the mob will STILL be dead.

It's never been about righteousness. It's always been about force.

The second amendment was written when the arms the citizenry could hold MATCHED the arms of the military. That condition doesn't exist anymore - in any 'state'. Any sense of security you have with your gun locker is simply a false sense of security.

It's that simple.

[Agent 488]

gwidomains probably the best post so far.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by broke

While you may have read history, you clearly don't understand it. Plus, you continue to miss the point...

The 'thugs' are using small arms because it's the least amount of force they need to subdue the crowds. If the crowds had small arms, do you not think the Iranian government would roll in artillery and tanks? If the crowd had artillery and tanks do you think the Iranian government would not call in the air power? End of the day, the mob will STILL be dead.

It's never been about righteousness. It's always been about force.

The second amendment was written when the arms the citizenry could hold MATCHED the arms of the military. That condition doesn't exist anymore - in any 'state'. Any sense of security you have with your gun locker is simply a false sense of security.

It's that simple.

your point is taken. However life is full of examples where the where the lesser armed side wins a war. A man with a handgun & an intelligent mind can beat a man with a machine gun & no brains.

it may even come to pass the iranians win their freedom with no arms at all, through mass bloodshed that causes a rift in the military. at some point an army thinks twice about butchering its own, unless the soldiers are imported.

but the second amendment does allow individuals to protect themselves with arms. This will not help the individual in a fight with the military. but that is not useful in the case of the US, where our military is compised of our own people. Rather, the second amendment does help the people defend their liberty from the tyranny of the mafia, criminal gangs & KKK types, in absence of a police that cannot protect all people at all times. this is a freedom that should not be relinquished, as criminals do not follow laws.

[gwidomains]

Originally Posted by broke

While you may have read history, you clearly don't understand it. Plus, you continue to miss the point...

The 'thugs' are using small arms because it's the least amount of force they need to subdue the crowds. If the crowds had small arms, do you not think the Iranian government would roll in artillery and tanks? If the crowd had artillery and tanks do you think the Iranian government would not call in the air power? End of the day, the mob will STILL be dead.

It's never been about righteousness. It's always been about force.

The second amendment was written when the arms the citizenry could hold MATCHED the arms of the military. That condition doesn't exist anymore - in any 'state'. Any sense of security you have with your gun locker is simply a false sense of security.

It's that simple.

hello mr hobbes

[Mr Pheer]

Originally Posted by broke

While you may have read history, you clearly don't understand it. Plus, you continue to miss the point...

The 'thugs' are using small arms because it's the least amount of force they need to subdue the crowds. If the crowds had small arms, do you not think the Iranian government would roll in artillery and tanks? If the crowd had artillery and tanks do you think the Iranian government would not call in the air power? End of the day, the mob will STILL be dead.

It's never been about righteousness. It's always been about force.

The second amendment was written when the arms the citizenry could hold MATCHED the arms of the military. That condition doesn't exist anymore - in any 'state'. Any sense of security you have with your gun locker is simply a false sense of security.

It's that simple.

I dont think you have considered that our armed forces are made up of american citizens. When I was in the army in the 90's, they passed out anonymous surveys to a lot of soldiers, asking questions about "would you fire on american citizens" and posted several different scenarios.

The answer from the majority of soldiers was 'no' in most scenarios. What difference does it make if you have a squadron of helicopters if the american citizens flying them will not fire on a group of american citizens.

[gwidomains]

I think it naturally depends on the circumstances of the protest and the size of the force.
In U.S. history from inception to present the government has had no problem enslaving, assaulting, brutalizing, moving, torturing and interning ( etc.) citizens all with the help of the military.

No one sits back and says they will do awful things to another human being--let alone a fellow citizen; however, if you can objectify the enemy, define them in harsh uncivilized terms, then anything is possible.

All it takes is watching Japanese citizens interned during WII or the return of black soldiers from WWII full of pride of country or Vietnam Veterans -- and see them brutally treated and degraded by fellow citizens and/or the government. It does not take much for the government to persaude the general population to scapegoat an entire segment of the populace or world (consider muslim Americans presently).

However, consider that before the military would even be necessary, local law enforcement would have already been called in -- given the faith that the majority of Americans have in the system of governance, judicial system and the rule of law -- EXCEPTIONAL circumstances would have to arise for the local law enforcement to be called in and FAIL, and then the national guard, and later the military to be utilized against a domestic disturbance (that refuses to take all of the other amazing avenues of available -- public office, press, courts, clergy, even United Nations and foreign governments).

How long would U.S. soldiers avoid firing on an armed militia that poses a proven direct threat to their well-being, the rule of law, and the democratic way of life in America?

How likely would it be that a militia so willing to disregard the rule of law, democracy and the safety of the public would actually bother to continue to call themselves Americans anyway?

So, yes while anything is possible, armed uprisings are often brutally quelled in developing countries with little thought b/c of the complicity of the government and the military. However, by the time the military would be necessary in the U.S. considerable barriers would have been broken-down, so I kind of find it hard to understand the senarios that have been presented.

That's why non-violent protest is an appeal to the best of humanity, rather than the animalistic instincts of self-preservation.

1.) It is a numbers thing -- if you don't have the numbers and weaponry to support an armed uprising than forget about it. (e.g. Native Americans v. colonial powers, African Slave population in South v. Aristocratic Southern Ante-bellum society, or better comparisons Jim Crow and Anti-war protesters)

2.) Also you have to consider the cause and whether people will actually be sympathetic to the cause both foreign and domestic. e.g. American Revolution etc.

Considering the U.S. has already faced a national election with a disputed outcome decided in a dubious manner without full recounts, revotes etc.(where all that resulted was a lot of hee-hawing and hurt feelings) -- I'm sort of at a loss as to understand the type of scenario that would justify armed uprising in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Mr Pheer

I dont think you have considered that our armed forces are made up of american citizens. When I was in the army in the 90's, they passed out anonymous surveys to a lot of soldiers, asking questions about "would you fire on american citizens" and posted several different scenarios.

The answer from the majority of soldiers was 'no' in most scenarios. What difference does it make if you have a squadron of helicopters if the american citizens flying them will not fire on a group of american citizens.

[Drake]

This has turned into a very interesting debate.

[Drake]

Let's look at it this way. There is no gaurantee that guns owned by millions of citizens could stop oppressive military action. But it certainly gives those citizens a much better chance of success than not having them.

[voa]

If you have an weapon in your hand maybe someone will use in wrong purpose.We see that lot of people kill each other now you will see what will happened if is free for everyone.