Why do you need a gun?

[RickJay]

@Zeriel

Even 1% of the country actually willing to take up arms in a reasonably coherent revolutionary movement? Probably will win, especially given historical military reluctance even in totalitarian countries to engage in serious mass combat in their own cities against their own citizens.

Kind of depends on many citizens take up arms in support of the government, though, doesn’t it?

Totalitarian countries usually have only the support of the military establishment itself when it finally comes to the point where the people rise up, and that military establishment can certainly win; there are innumerable examples. Or they lose, as is the case in Syria right now, or in Libya before that.

But in a country with some semblance of freedom, threatening the established order will result in a lot of people throwing in with that order. Heck, look at the US Civil War; when secession broke out, people signed up by the thousands to support secession, but people also signed up by the thousands to preserve the Union.

[Kable]

@BobLibDem

The second protects the militia (now the National Guard) only.

Is that a fact or just your opinion as someone who does not like guns?

[Kable]

@BobLibDem

I can see having a shotgun in rural areas for taking care of the wolves and rattlers. I don’t mind the deer hunters, either. When you think you need weaponry that can fell 50 deer in 15 seconds you really lose me.

Do you think people should be able to have any shotgun they want, or would you place limits on them? What guns would you allow for deer hunters?

[BobLibDem]

@Kable

Is that a fact or just your opinion as someone who does not like guns?

It was the widely accepted legal consensus until the current right wing reactionary activist supreme court set down the worst ruling since Dred Scott.

[Kable]

@BobLibDem

It was the widely accepted legal consensus until the current right wing reactionary activist supreme court set down the worst ruling since Dred Scott.

How widely accepted?

[Kable]

@Fear_Itself

To reduce the injury and death of the innocent, of course. Your goal appears to be to overthrow the government, whenever you determine that to be necessary.

That’s a straw man if I ever heard one, I don’t want to overthrow any government. So you personally don’t seek to ban any guns or do you?

[Kable]

@BobLibDem

The second protects the militia (now the National Guard) only.

So I’m reading up on the militia. The Reserve Militia isn’t militia?

Militia (United States)

[XT]

@BobLibDem

It was the widely accepted legal consensus until the current right wing reactionary activist supreme court set down the worst ruling since Dred Scott.

What a load of horseshit. You just keep repeating that though, Bob…if you repeat it enough it will certainly become reality.

[Fear_Itself]

@Kable

That’s a straw man if I ever heard one, I don’t want to overthrow any government.

So you don’t believe the Second Amendment is necessary to oppose a government that imposes tyranny on its citizens?

[Kable]

@Fear_Itself

So you don’t believe the Second Amendment is necessary to oppose a government that imposes tyranny on its citizens?

I think it’s there to oppose tyranny yes. You however made it sound like I wanted to overthrow our government. Opposing tyranny and overthrowing our government are different and hopefully stay that way.

So you didn’t answer if you personally think we should ban or confiscate guns like Boblibdem does. Do you?

[Fear_Itself]

@Kable

So you didn’t answer if you personally think we should ban or confiscate guns like Boblibdem does. Do you?

I think we should ban unrestricted private ownership of full automatic rifles.

Whoops, we did. From your cold dead hands. So the 2nd is not absolute, and we are simply negotiating the details.

[Bricker]

@BobLibDem

The second protects the militia (now the National Guard) only. That doesn’t mean that the government may not permit ordinary citizens to own certain weapons at the discretion of the government. So we could allow people to get shotguns for hunting and protecting their cattle, and precious little else. Or we could allow the private citizen nothing at all, at the government’s discretion.

What a fortunate world we live in: where your interpretation of the Constitution is utterly without support in case law.

[Kable]

@Fear_Itself

I think we should ban unrestricted private ownership of full automatic rifles.

Whoops, we did. From your cold dead hands. So the 2nd is not absolute, and we are simply negotiating the details.

So what else do want to ban? Or don’t you want to let the cat out of the bag?

[Fear_Itself]

The point is, we already ban guns, and the Republic hasn’t fallen.

[XT]

When you say ‘we’, who do you mean?

[Fear_Itself]

We, as in America. America bans guns, under federal law.

[XT]

We do? Since when?

[Fear_Itself]

For the last 70 years or so. It was in all the papers.

[XT]

Are you talking about the regulations on automatic weapons? Because, if so, it’s not a ban in any way, shape or form. If you are talking about something else, please be specific, because I have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

[Stealth_Potato]

@BobLibDem

It was the widely accepted legal consensus until the current right wing reactionary activist supreme court set down the worst ruling since Dred Scott.

If there were even one single piece of U.S. case law that held “the right of the People” really meant “the right of the militia,” you’d still be wrong; per 10 USC 311, every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 is a member of the militia of the United States. Granted, the law as it stands is rather sexist, and we ought to correct that.

Also, “reactionary activist?” Bravo. I think you have exceeded even the most out-of-touch, frothing-at-the-mouth Republicans in self-contradictory and meaningless but nonetheless highly inflammatory imprecation against any judicial interpretation that they don’t like.