When is it OK for Americans to exercise their 2nd amendment right?
- Thread starter platocplx
- Start date
- Status
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
I think that the treatment of black people by law enformcement in the US is the closest to government tyranny we get in western countries today.
I don't want to compare these groups, but nobody would blame jews or other minorties for attempting to assassinate Hitler.
Not to justify the recent acts of violence, but the 2A is constantly defended by people saying that its supposed to give the public a tool for stepping up to injustice. (An inherently stupid idea in this day and age, in my opinion.) But if thats part of your constitution you shouldn't be surprised when very few individuals of a group that constantly faces incredible injustice by the government, resorts to violence. Thats the way they interpret this part of your constitution and I can't say their interpretation is fundamentally flawed, the problem is the constitution.
But anyway, I think even without all the 2A stuff its always just be a matter of time untill a surpressed minority resorts to violence.
I don't want to compare these groups, but nobody would blame jews or other minorties for attempting to assassinate Hitler.
Not to justify the recent acts of violence, but the 2A is constantly defended by people saying that its supposed to give the public a tool for stepping up to injustice. (An inherently stupid idea in this day and age, in my opinion.) But if thats part of your constitution you shouldn't be surprised when very few individuals of a group that constantly faces incredible injustice by the government, resorts to violence. Thats the way they interpret this part of your constitution and I can't say their interpretation is fundamentally flawed, the problem is the constitution.
But anyway, I think even without all the 2A stuff its always just be a matter of time untill a surpressed minority resorts to violence.
andythinkpad
Member
When president Trump declare martial law and try to change his title to Protector of the Realm.
Imperfected
Member
If you actually believe that the Second Amendment exists (and should continue to exist) to facilitate armed opposition to government oppression, then you have to accept that no one gets to strictly define when armed opposition to the government is or isn't "justified" or "right", and it's very much a might makes right scenario. (That is, as soon as the number of rebellious individuals reaches critical mass, they are within their rights to rebel, regardless of other circumstances. That's the way violent revolution works.)
You shouldn't actually believe that, of course. I don't think even most of the people who say they believe it actually do, it's just another NRA talking point that's been shouted so much that some people spout it automatically without ever stopping to think about it, while others--mostly Republican talking heads in the media--pretend to believe it in an incredibly insincere fashion to drive the wedge further between races, classes, and rural/urban ideologies in America.
I mean, if I go meet with a Republican Congressman who preaches how vital the 2nd Amendment is, will he be okay with me bringing a gun into his office? If I tell him I plan to lead an armed insurrection against him, is he going to shake my hand and say, "I have confidence you won't be able to muster the necessary support because my constituents trust and respect their government, so feel free to waste your time" or is he going to report me to the NSA on the spot?
None of the people in charge actually believe in the right to revolution. It's a bullshit talking point to get people in deep rural areas fired up to vote Republican.
You shouldn't actually believe that, of course. I don't think even most of the people who say they believe it actually do, it's just another NRA talking point that's been shouted so much that some people spout it automatically without ever stopping to think about it, while others--mostly Republican talking heads in the media--pretend to believe it in an incredibly insincere fashion to drive the wedge further between races, classes, and rural/urban ideologies in America.
I mean, if I go meet with a Republican Congressman who preaches how vital the 2nd Amendment is, will he be okay with me bringing a gun into his office? If I tell him I plan to lead an armed insurrection against him, is he going to shake my hand and say, "I have confidence you won't be able to muster the necessary support because my constituents trust and respect their government, so feel free to waste your time" or is he going to report me to the NSA on the spot?
None of the people in charge actually believe in the right to revolution. It's a bullshit talking point to get people in deep rural areas fired up to vote Republican.
The right to rebel isn't in the constitution, but the right to have the TOOLS to rebel is. It seems like an oxymoron but really isn't. Citizenry with small arms will prevent the gov't (at all levels) from enacting extremely oppressive laws for fear of being unable to enforce them.
Having the tools to rebel, but not the right, means that some lone wacko can't start a legal rebellion with force of arms, but if the sentiment is widespread enough, folks can pool resources and do it regardless if the current government objects or not. Ready access to firearms means these rebellions, if they have sufficient support and membership, have a chance at success. Otherwise most gov'ts will restrict access to guns and oppress a targeted population that can not offer resistance.
Having the tools to rebel, but not the right, means that some lone wacko can't start a legal rebellion with force of arms, but if the sentiment is widespread enough, folks can pool resources and do it regardless if the current government objects or not. Ready access to firearms means these rebellions, if they have sufficient support and membership, have a chance at success. Otherwise most gov'ts will restrict access to guns and oppress a targeted population that can not offer resistance.
Yeah I dont see the Milatary mowing down people from back home, pretty sure they would question what the hell is going on at that point.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
The Second Amendment said:
At the time following the Revolutionary War, there was a lot of concern about having a permanent standing army that could be used or co-opted by the government to control the population. So The founding fathers decided that any standing army would only be funded for a short period of time (two years; see Article 1 section 8), and in its stead a well-regulated militia would be used for defense.
A militia is made up of civilians who can be called up to fight as needed, bringing their own arms.
The second amendment specifically provides for this. The citizens must be allowed to keep and bear arms in order for the well regulated militia to be available when needed.
Of course the USA has long since abandoned the "two years of funding" part of the constitution, and has maintained a permanent standing army for a very long time.
In addition, the National Guard is more of a well regulated militia than farmers bringing their varmint rifles to battle, with superior weapons, equipment and training.
Militia have long been obsolete in the US. Which I think makes the 2nd Amendment obsolete, because the reason why it gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms is obsolete. I think we either need a new amendment to replace it, or a very explicit Supreme Court ruling to define it in terms that make sense today.
New Jersey justifies the use of force, deadly or otherwise, to defend one's self or others when there is reasonable belief that the force is immediately necessary to defend one's self or others in their home. These is no duty to retreat from one's home.
N.J.S.A. §§ 2C:3-1, :3-4, :3-5, :3-6; 2C:1-14(j)
The American military - masters at holding down guerrilla groups.
RyougaSaotome
Member
Bam. Was coming in here to post this.
Thats pretty much what happened in Russia, China and most places where a revolution had a successful coup, essentially the military seizes power from the ruling party.
Watch one of their buddies get shot and the game changes quickly. Wars aren't just idelogical and who's to say the rebellion will be a just one? The last civil war we had was over owning people as property.
He also lied about the amount of medals he received and punching Jesse Ventura in a bar fight. Watching that movie after those stories dropped kind of repaints the whole thing. It's awfully convenient that everyone knows who he is and how amazing he is.
old manatee
Banned
Dragon Puncher
Member
The 2nd amendment as it was originally intended basically has no place in today's society and isn't and will never be used as such.
The problem with the mythology around the US constitution as an almost sacred document, is that you now have the oldest constitution still in effect today (and also the shortest as far as I know) filled with laws that are so vargue and outdated, that they are incredibly open to interpretation, meaning specific groups often get to use things like the 2nd amendment as a way to legitimize something that wasn't even close to the original intention.
There's a reason most other western countries have been forced to pass several new constitutions in the last 200 years and it isn't just because they weren't as "good" as the American one.
Didn't want to go totally off in another direction here, but post just reminded me that the problem with gun control and all the shit going on in the US right now, have deeper roots than most people are willing to accept.
The problem with the mythology around the US constitution as an almost sacred document, is that you now have the oldest constitution still in effect today (and also the shortest as far as I know) filled with laws that are so vargue and outdated, that they are incredibly open to interpretation, meaning specific groups often get to use things like the 2nd amendment as a way to legitimize something that wasn't even close to the original intention.
There's a reason most other western countries have been forced to pass several new constitutions in the last 200 years and it isn't just because they weren't as "good" as the American one.
Didn't want to go totally off in another direction here, but post just reminded me that the problem with gun control and all the shit going on in the US right now, have deeper roots than most people are willing to accept.
IISANDERII
Member
When it was fashionable to wear these
i always thought the idea that owning guns somehow kept your government in check was just a demonstrably false libertarian wank fantasy.
you might bear arms, but your minds have long since been disarmed. sandwiching talk of armed rebellion inbetween complaining that your iphone charge cable is too short and where to find the nearest caterpie.
you might bear arms, but your minds have long since been disarmed. sandwiching talk of armed rebellion inbetween complaining that your iphone charge cable is too short and where to find the nearest caterpie.
Tell that to the Viet Cong and Al Qaeda Literally the only forces that have had some success against the modern USA military are small low tech guerilla forces.
jackissocool
Member
There seems to be a big misconception about what a revolution would look like in the US. I suspect there would be very little war in the streets. Mostly it would consist of huge strikes crippling business and the government. The point of arms would be to fight reactionary civilian elements that attempt vigilante actions on behalf of the status quo and the police. The police will be much more willing to use violence against American citizens than the military (that's their job, after all) and will be the ones to fight. The bulk of a revolution will be disruption of work through occupation, strikes, and property destruction.
This is a heavily flawed argument. The military isn't some faceless entity. It's made up of people whose job is to defend the rights of Americans, not murder them for the government. Go ask a member of the military, be it a drone operator, a commander, or a mess hall cook, if they would ever fire upon the people they swore to protect just because old people in DC told them to. Most of the people in the military would side with the civilians in this sort of situation.
Look at what happened at the refuge in Oregon recently. Did the FBI go in guns blazing or send in an air strike to end that occupation with bloodshed? No. The Bundys were wreckless, but their ability to have guns kept the government in check until they were essentially outsmarted. Even in a situation like that, violence is not thr first solution sought by the government. I'm not defending the Bundys actions, but they could have held out for months if they hadn't been so stupid. At no point was the government going to go in and shoot everyone holding a gun.
So the protesters would probably fire the first shot you think?
That would be unwise.
If the Goverment starts to drone strike citizens then I'm all for the citizens fighting back.
The president and his cabinet can enjoy ruling an empty country of dead civilians.
Those tactics were only successful because the US didn't want to kill innocent civilians. But if civilian lives don't matter?
The US military doesn't serve the government they take an oath to defend the Constitution. Were things to get to the point a civil war was to happen the military would fracture into multiple parts since there would be disagreement even among soldiers.
Doesn't matter though since insurgents around the world already showed that a prolonged uprising using remote IEDS costs trillions to fight. The government would go bankrupt as soon as the first debt payment comes due and you can be sure no foreign investment would be coming in. Even those soldiers who support the government are unlikely to die and not get paid for it.
I think it depends on how the whole situation arises. We as a society excuse many of the mistakes police and military make because they "keep us safe." A civilian doesn't get that kind of buffer and even if it was in retaliation, the media would probably paint that as the starting point. Also, when you're working with a group of people who feel they are under siege regularly they tend to rely on each other for support and if Bobby shoots someone because they felt scared, then that group will reactively back them up. Camaraderie carries more weight than people realize.
A lot of the intensity of this subject propagates on fear: fear of government, fear of the other, fear of losing your home/family. There's enough fear out there that any random person on either side of an escalation like this can snap and throw the whole thing into chaos. People can't be afraid forever and eventually will do something to make themselves feel safe or in control.
And that's not factoring in the sociopaths who take advantage/enjoy situations like this because it gives them the opportunity to do what they really want.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
The cold reality that a a lot of people don't want to face about Dallas is that when society turns it's back to an atrocity and refuses to do anything about it over & over again, eventually someone is going to become unhinged and retaliate in a really bad way. In the back of my mind, I knew something like this was going to happen, but I was hoping that things would get better before it could happen.
adamsappel
Member
There's a civil war going on in Syria right now
And why do you think no one would like the civilian side?
Iorv3th
Member
When you take up arms to overthrow the government the laws no longer apply to you.
If your life is in immediate danger from a person of authority and you feel the need to protect yourself do it.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/prosecutor-seeking-death-penalty-officer-killed-knock-raid/
If your life is in immediate danger from a person of authority and you feel the need to protect yourself do it.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/prosecutor-seeking-death-penalty-officer-killed-knock-raid/
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll