I'm tired of hearing this particular argument against the Second Amendment:

[Zakarath]

snippage
2) What will this hypothetical tyrannical government use to oppress the people? The military of course! Who is the military? The people themselves! Who do you think flies those planes and pilots those tanks? Your neighbors, your friends, your former classmates from high school. I think people overestimate the willingness of the National Guard and U.S. armed forces to massacre their fellow citizens. Keep in mind - the enemy in this situation would not be "brown people" (as George Carlin put it) with a foreign culture and religion in a part of the world most Americans know nothing about - but rather the enemy would be us. snippage

Kent State, Ohio. Unarmed protesters.

Nothing to do with me though, as we have no such right to bear arms and therefore little gun related crime.

Kent state was a tragedy, yes, but what if the protesters had in fact been armed to protect themselves from government oppression? The place would have turned into a battlefield, and there wouldn't have been four dead, there would have been dozens. I'm not saying that what happened was ideal in any stretch of the imagination, but more guns is not the answer.

 

[Aur0ra145]

I will debate with you anytime we both have the free time to post on here.

Sounds good, cheerio.

I look forward to the day, but tonight I must sleep for university starts again for me tomorrow.

 

[Krylock]

This is 'Merika, we speak 'Merikan

Just felt like using that for no particular reason.

 

[Zakarath]

A revolution cannot succeed in a modern country without the support of a Military force, a Civilian uprising on its own is doomed to fail.

Mhm. Their second amendment rights aren't going to protect rebellious citizens from predator drones.

 

[phelan511]

the US military aren't allowed to blow up expected bases or attack people without authorization due to the 'Human rights protesters'

Oh horseshit. Human rights protestors have about zero effect on how the US military conducts itself in the field.

False. If they and the world opinion didnt matter Iraq and Afghanistan would have been effectively wiped off the map.

 

[Wertbag]

I think people overestimate the willingness of the National Guard and U.S. armed forces to massacre their fellow citizens.

Sadly history shows us that the vast majority of people can be easily lead. You can gaurantee that the Nazi troops didn't share the hatred and blood lust of the leadership but they still carried out the orders as required. Opposing voices are quickly surpressed and people follow like sheep to fit in with what society appears to want. The US is no different. You would need some uniting call to arms such as terrorists in your country, then simply direct people towards a target group, for arguements sake lets say muslims and in no time you have human right breaches like gitmo bay and escalate from there. I think you under estimate the human ability to commit violence on our fellow man with little or no justification.

Finally, people making this argument severely underestimate the effectiveness of low-tech, leaderless resistance. Look at Vietnam...

Really? You actually consider those effective? The Vietcong lost over a million soldiers in exchange for 50,000 US lives. Its really easy when you are in someone elses country to simply not care about other infrastructure damage. Snipers in a building? Rocket the building. Soldiers hiding in the forest? Carpet bomb the area. People hiding weapons or soldiers? See how fast your neighbours will turn on you once they start having their loved ones executed in the street...

 

[AquaAscension]

An armed citizenry in the United States cannot stand up to tyranny of government in today's day and age. Our AR-15s and handguns are useless against AC-130s and cruise missiles and Predator drones and F-16s! If the government wants to oppress you, they will.

There are several things that immediately come to mind whenever I hear or read this:

1) This is equivalent to telling a child that he is banned from owning baseball bats for the rest of his life because he sucks at baseball.

2) What will this hypothetical tyrannical government use to oppress the people? The military of course! Who is the military? The people themselves! Who do you think flies those planes and pilots those tanks? Your neighbors, your friends, your former classmates from high school. I think people overestimate the willingness of the National Guard and U.S. armed forces to massacre their fellow citizens. Keep in mind - the enemy in this situation would not be "brown people" (as George Carlin put it) with a foreign culture and religion in a part of the world most Americans know nothing about - but rather the enemy would be us.

3) Finally, people making this argument severely underestimate the effectiveness of low-tech, leaderless resistance. Look at Vietnam, look at Iraq, look at Afghanistan - in all cases the U.S. military had superior technology but nevertheless got locked in a quagmire that sapped their will to fight. In Iraq, militants armed with little more than with assault rifles, cell phones, and improvised explosives did serious damage to the most powerful armed force the world has ever seen.

Your points are valid. But there's a problem that's being missed: the fact that the gun's sole use is not in defense. It's also pretty offensive. One might even say a weapon. Somehow reminds me of the phrase, "guns don't kill people..." which is relatively accurate. It's actually the massive trauma caused by the bullets, the guns are just a delivery system. Dosage: lethal.

My guss is that I've been seeing a lot of gun rights polls and that sort of thing because of the Gabrielle Giffords thing. Does there need to be stricter gun control laws? Hell yes. Do guns need to be respected more? Again, yes. Are guns themselves dangerous? Well, that depends. Depends on the person wielding the weapon. Just like a pen in the wrong hands can lead to a lot of damage, so too can a gun in the wrong hands. It's just that a gun's last word is usually non negotiable. At least, with ink, lives aren't in immediate danger.

Anyhow, I think that threads like these are healthy because they, hopefully, will inspire some thoughtful debate and rationality (although this is a.) the internet and b.) talk about gun law which somehow inspires religious fervor).

 

[Zakarath]

the US military aren't allowed to blow up expected bases or attack people without authorization due to the 'Human rights protesters'

Oh horseshit. Human rights protestors have about zero effect on how the US military conducts itself in the field.

False. If they and the world opinion didnt matter Iraq and Afghanistan would have been effectively wiped off the map.

Keep in mind that while some of the civilian populace in these areas may be terrorist sympathizers, there are a great deal of innocent civilians to whom these regions are simply their home, and all they seek is to live out their lives. And they have been the ones hit the hardest by far. I'd say that is reason enough not to saturation bomb the place.

 

[Something Amyss]

An armed citizenry in the United States cannot stand up to tyranny of government in today's day and age. Our AR-15s and handguns are useless against AC-130s and cruise missiles and Predator drones and F-16s! If the government wants to oppress you, they will.

There are several things that immediately come to mind whenever I hear or read this:

1) This is equivalent to telling a child that he is banned from owning baseball bats for the rest of his life because he sucks at baseball.

2) What will this hypothetical tyrannical government use to oppress the people? The military of course! Who is the military? The people themselves! Who do you think flies those planes and pilots those tanks? Your neighbors, your friends, your former classmates from high school. I think people overestimate the willingness of the National Guard and U.S. armed forces to massacre their fellow citizens. Keep in mind - the enemy in this situation would not be "brown people" (as George Carlin put it) with a foreign culture and religion in a part of the world most Americans know nothing about - but rather the enemy would be us.

3) Finally, people making this argument severely underestimate the effectiveness of low-tech, leaderless resistance. Look at Vietnam, look at Iraq, look at Afghanistan - in all cases the U.S. military had superior technology but nevertheless got locked in a quagmire that sapped their will to fight. In Iraq, militants armed with little more than with assault rifles, cell phones, and improvised explosives did serious damage to the most powerful armed force the world has ever seen.

1. Except that the purview for owning a baseball bat doesn't hinge upon the concept of actually playing baseball. Funny, many of the arguments for gun rights DO hinge on the notion of defending ourselves against a tyrranical government.

2. And the military would never harm their own people, or what?

3. Yes, but we're talking about those same foreign cultures you just mentioned. People went into Vietnam with no clear enemy, limited knowledge and unfamiliarity with the culture. Similarly, in Iraq. That's not to say that Americans couldn't fight back, but it's a radically different playing field.

 

[phelan511]

the US military aren't allowed to blow up expected bases or attack people without authorization due to the 'Human rights protesters'

Oh horseshit. Human rights protestors have about zero effect on how the US military conducts itself in the field.

False. If they and the world opinion didnt matter Iraq and Afghanistan would have been effectively wiped off the map.

Keep in mind that while some of the civilian populace in these areas may be terrorist sympathizers, there are a great deal of innocent civilians to whom these regions are simply their home, and all they seek is to live out their lives. And they have been the ones hit the hardest by far. I'd say that is reason enough not to saturation bomb the place.

True. But speaking as someone who's been in Iraq. The US military is effectively hamstrung by world opinion. I was in an Armor unit and we had to call up to Battalion HQ just to get approval to fire anything bigger than a 7.62. Now our request had to go up the chain from my tank, to my platoon leader, to my company commander, to the battalion CO. By the time the information got sent back to us the situation had already reached shitstorm levels. Why? Because we cant afford to "lose the hearts and minds" of the people. Not just here, not just in Iraq. But globally. I can honestly say that if there was zero consequence for it, ground troops would be out of there and we'd bomb them into submission. Not saying I agree with it, but its a whole lot easier to pacify an area by turning it into a large parking area.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

I'm on your side of the argument, but why didn't you just post this in the existing thread? I hate contributing to insanely long threads unless I have been part of the discussion like many others here, but the number of copycat threads or threads with relevance to something that already exists is getting a little ridiculous.

 

[iLikeHippos]

An armed citizenry in the United States cannot stand up to tyranny of government in today's day and age. Our AR-15s and handguns are useless against AC-130s and cruise missiles and Predator drones and F-16s! If the government wants to oppress you, they will.

Who in the name of Hel (Yes, I referred to Hel of Loki from the Norse mythology for a change) came up with that quote? Seems largely... Inaccurate.

All you need to know is that the country can only oppress you if you let them. If all of the people gets shot, than there can be no country anymore.
NOT to mention the humanitarian governments outside of the US might react to their tyrannical behavior, and liberate them from the oppressing government. Kind of like a chess-play.
Not reliant, but still something to hope on.

You guys are safe and sound. Or at least in theory.

 

[Sknyjdwb]

I made an account just to reply to this thread. I come from off-and-on murder capital of the US, we have some of the highest gun crime rates in the civilized world and I'm all for the legal ownership of ANY firearm. People don't commit crimes with legal guns, they're registered in your name, that would be stupid. They commit crimes from black market guns, and trust me you can get anything you want anytime of day in my neighborhood. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them, and they WILL have them. I'm less worried about an oppressive government than I am the stung-out dealer down the block, not to say there won't be a time that tyrrany presents itself. In my opinion if you restrict legal gun purchases you are only inviting more gun crime, because the greatest deterrent to home invasion is the the thought of what might be on the other side of that door. -JoJo LaForte

 

[Sonic Doctor]

2) What will this hypothetical tyrannical government use to oppress the people? The military of course! Who is the military? The people themselves! Who do you think flies those planes and pilots those tanks? Your neighbors, your friends, your former classmates from high school. I think people overestimate the willingness of the National Guard and U.S. armed forces to massacre their fellow citizens. Keep in mind - the enemy in this situation would not be "brown people" (as George Carlin put it) with a foreign culture and religion in a part of the world most Americans know nothing about - but rather the enemy would be us.

I totally agree with this outcome if the government decides to default on a Constitutional right, guns or whatever else.

I'm used this example on here before:

My friend's cousin is in the military(don't know what branch, I think army). This cousin told my friend that if the government every did go wacko and repeal the second amendment, him and his whole group he serves with, plus his commanding officer, agreed that if it ever happened, they would turn on the government. The officer even told this cousin that he knows there are many other groups in the military that would do the exact thing.

That is why I would trust the military more than the government. The military of every day citizens, and majority of those people are my kind of people.

2) Granted, in a government take-over a portion of the military would refuse, but it wouldn't be enough to take down the armed forces.

Now, do I think the Second Amendment should be abolished? No. Guns are very necessary. However, clip sized and weapons should be heavily restricted.

I like that you have a healthy respect for the second amendment. That is why I will only touch on your thought about the second point.

I believe a larger portion of the military would turn than you think. Considering the type of people I know who were recruited in my area, and in areas of friends and family across the country, it is hard to see that it would be enough to take down the rest of the military and the government.

Type I am talking about is Conservatives. Considering the make-up of this country and who makes up the military. Now liberals that join the military, usually go through the channels to get to the higher areas so that they can command, but still the amount of them in command are small.

Now, if there was a repeal of the second amendment(this will be what I consider a safe estimate): The government/military would lose 80% of its lower level front-lines fighting force, and 65 to 70% of the command sector.

The government would be bowing and with its tail between its legs and regretting one of the most stupid mistakes in the history of all government mistakes. If it did fight, it would lose and we would have an entirely Conservative government.

Now, liberals out there, what would you rather have? The 2nd amendment still in place with about the same restrictions there are now or an entirely Conservative government?

 

[phelan511]

the US military aren't allowed to blow up expected bases or attack people without authorization due to the 'Human rights protesters'

Oh horseshit. Human rights protestors have about zero effect on how the US military conducts itself in the field.

False. If they and the world opinion didnt matter Iraq and Afghanistan would have been effectively wiped off the map.

Keep in mind that while some of the civilian populace in these areas may be terrorist sympathizers, there are a great deal of innocent civilians to whom these regions are simply their home, and all they seek is to live out their lives. And they have been the ones hit the hardest by far. I'd say that is reason enough not to saturation bomb the place.

True. But speaking as someone who's been in Iraq. The US military is effectively hamstrung by world opinion. I was in an Armor unit and we had to call up to Battalion HQ just to get approval to fire anything bigger than a 7.62. Now our request had to go up the chain from my tank, to my platoon leader, to my company commander, to the battalion CO. By the time the information got sent back to us the situation had already reached shitstorm levels. Why? Because we cant afford to "lose the hearts and minds" of the people. Not just here, not just in Iraq. But globally. I can honestly say that if there was zero consequence for it, ground troops would be out of there and we'd bomb them into submission. Not saying I agree with it, but its a whole lot easier to pacify an area by turning it into a large parking area.

Really? Your chain of command do realize they are hated already right? And that they can't make matters worse especially after wikileaks and occupying a country in which you have no business being in?

Hated.... right. Thats why when my unit was on foot doing patrols we had groups of kids running to us laughing and wanting to play. Thats why when we went inside a home to talk to the locals to gather intelligence and help clear out the militants in their neighborhood they were actually happy we were there. Look, unless you've actually fucking been there, don't open your mouth. And from what I can tell. You haven't read the damn files so I don't totally know why you're bringing up wikileaks. Seems to me that you listen to the news way too much. The news will always post what they like to post to drive ratings, they will never give the full story, only what will outrage people and keep them coming back to find out what the big bad American government is doing.