People really don’t understand the concept of a hedge. Noone is making the claim that an armed insurgency against a tyrannical government is guaranteed to win. But in case of tyranny, if a majority of the population feels oppressed then they at least have a fighting chance.
How’d Assad be if Russia didn’t intervene?
Keep in mind that Assad is fighting a lot of foreign fighters. Much of ISIS is night Syrian; it’s Jordanian, Iraqi, Saudi, and people from elsewhere.
If by “this system” you refer to things like the ballot box and rule by the masses, you’re missing one point. What if the heathen masses tried to repeal the Second Amendment itself? That would surely represent a breakdown in American values requiring Second Amendment solutions.
[ol]
[li]Cut a hole in a box[/li][li]Put your guns in that box[/li][/ol]
It’s a gun in a box, baby
Most of this quoted post is great, but the bolded parts are pure fantasy, IMO. It hasn’t been “both sides” fucking things up on purpose and there is no extreme left in America today that compares to the extreme right.
The heathen masses aren’t going to do such a thing in the next 70 years. Why stir a hornet’s nest? Provoking a backlash would be counterproductive. And that’s what’s wrong with the PC movement for example. A good idea pushed to far leads to Trump. Don’t people have any sense?
Bernie Bros would disagree.
If the “heathen masses” decide the Second Amendment needs to be repealed (as, for example, the 18th was repealed), and those masses are in fact the overwhelming majority, that means they will control the Congress, the executive, and the military. A minority clinging to their guns will have about the same impact as the people clinging to their segregated schools did in the face of mass public/government opinion, and they can expect their “Second Amendment solutions” to be met with overwhelming government power.
Popular insurgencies as in Vietnam or Afghanistan, or for that matter our own Revolutionary War, survive when a substantial segment of the civilian population is willing to support the insurgency. Absent popular support, the insurgency dwindles away.
Dude, do you believe power exists only in some abstract form of government? That only government sanctioned agents can subject others to their will? Cause news flash homey, any fucking clown with a gun in a liquor store can do that. Adding weapons only increases the ability an frequency of these events.
In the area of subjecting other people to ones own will, firearms have the monopoly.
You may think you are a righteous man, Damuri, and we may have good times over a few beers. But if our government begins to fall for whatever reason I don’t know you from Adam and your possession of firearms gives me no comfort whatsoever.
:dubious: Says you. How about we let one of them pop in and tell us themselves?
Isn’t this the same thing as saying “We are only pretending to believe in the Rule of Law…as long as The Law gives us what we want”?
Which specific “tyranny(s)” is it that will cause everyone to rise up?
If you think that this scheme is possible, please give a specific list that you think will unite 2nd Amendment patriots…and let’s see if it matches any else’s list.
Seems to me that those nations that have overthrown tyrannical governments and became better places in the last century have all done so without drawing a weapon: South Africa, India, East Germany, Poland all come to mind. Places where the overthrow has been by force haven’t fared so well- Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc. So the way I see it, an armed citizenry is a negative factor in preventing government tyranny. To think otherwise is to be in deep denial of reality. Ask the Waco whackos and the Bundy clan how armed insurrections fare against the US government.
The gun lovers have some dubious claims, I’m not sure whether the prevention of tyranny or the notion that the Second protects the First is the silliest.
Whenever people say that citizens having guns is how we became a country, they are forgetting how several thousand soldiers and the entire navy fighting against Britain were from France. Oh, Spain was helping out too.
If some people starting rebelling against out government which countries would help out?
Also, do some research on that Amendment. It wasn’t put there so individuals could rebel, it’s there so we can have militias to defend our country.
But is the gun loaded, Herr Schrödinger?
Yes. With a user name like Czarcasm it was easy for you to understand my post’s intended insinuation.
However, in defense of the gun nuts, several have made it quite clear that they believe gun rights derive not from Man’s Law but from a much Higher Authority.
[QUOTE=Yahweh, as reported in Genesis chapter 1 by Moses the Lawgiver]
…
16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20. And God said, Let the earth bring forth abundantly the rifles and the revolvers that defend and avenge, and semi-automatic and automatic guns with detachable 30-round magazines that may fire bullets above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21. And God created grenades and holsters, and every type of bullet that moveth, which the earth brought forth abundantly, and every caliber and barrel length after its kind: and God saw that it was good.
…
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, with an actual army of your own, massive help from the French on land and sea (don’t thank us, we only did it to fuck with the Brits), and the British were fighting across a fucking ocean which as it happens does take some logisticking.
The minutemen could have stayed home and the result would have been much the same. It’s not like they achieved much as it is, propaganda notwithstanding.
A much better example would be the French Revolution - but the Parisians seized the guns from the military and the police, armed with pitchforks (and, granted, most of said military and police siding with them). Which would go to show that gun control ? Not an insurmountable hindrance to popular uprisings ;).
But then again that was in an era without satellite imaging, tear gas, helicopters, tanks, machine guns, GPS guided bombs and long distance shelling. These days I wouldn’t bet a wooden nickel on us Parisians’ ability to take and hold the city against a hostile government/army. Hell, even the Commune only lasted a couple months and the actual fighting was over and done in a week.
For a modern example, try asking the people of Afghanistan.
To see how silly that analogy is, compare the very real tyranny those hardened and trained are fighting and the state of the army they are fighting, and the supposed “tyranny” claimed by the various unorganized and unaffiliated “militias” and podunk protest pods and the state of the military they would be facing in this country.
Again I ask: What is the “tyranny” that you think will cause this mass uprising to happen?
Pashto /= Americans. If the 'Merkin “Defending-the Constitution” bunch misses a meal or three, or has to actually put their ass on the line for a cause, you will hear a resounding echo where they once were. The Pashto have been guerilla fighters against outsiders for eons. Americans are pussies compared to them.