Discussion in 'Camp Wordforge' started by Paladin, Jul 1, 2016.
Yeah, the 2nd says "arms," which is usually understood to mean such weapons as an individual soldier can wield. You *maybe* could make an argument for anything the military uses but you'll get bogged down in a semantic dispute over the difference between "arms" and "ordinance."
And you can't exactly "bear" a cannon or other crew-served weapons like that.
And even though such things as LAWs, bazookas and the like can be operated by one person, they're ordnance (<-correct spelling ) not small arms.
We've beaten that topic to death here and at this point people are either being willfully ignorant, stupid, or they're trolling. Possibly a combination of all three.
That's just non-sensical. You can't say that the 2nd protects weapons with which a militia could defend against tyranny, then add that it's restricted to one type, and admit that that type will not suffice for a militia to defend against tyranny.
Small arms is a very broad category. These are the types of weapons that can be borne by an individual and which are used, discriminately, against another individual. This category does not included ordnance or WMDs.
These are weapons a person could "keep" and "bear."
I made no such admission. I explicitly stated that a militia of several million people equiped with small arms would be sufficient to resist tyranny, and, if necessary, combat U.S. military forces.
You keep trying to force us into the argument that "arms" means nukes, nerve gas, etc. We're not making that argument. No one on the pro-2nd Amendment side is (at least, no one taken seriously).
You indeed made no sich admossion; I was answering the last two posts. You emphasised that small arms do, in your opinion, suffice because they make real trouble for an oppressor, even if they might not suffice to win, which is apparently not the goal anymore. But even if so: in order to defend that position, you needed to make that call, which you have decided the legislative can't.
And that's why no-one opposing gun control is making that part of your argument explicit: because either way, that's where it always breaks down.
I agree that many posts such as yours have been made, but they all amount to it is thus because I proclaim it so. That's not a compelling argument. You may be correct, but I see no actual meaningful reason why the line is drawn where it is.
If a would-be tyrant knows there will be resistance--even if it might not be sufficient to "win"--the tyrant may be dissuaded from aggression. You might be able to take me in a fight, but if I can give you a black eye and knock a couple of your teeth out, you may decide that beating me isn't worth it.
Frankly, I don't believe it's possible to tyrannize a large, well-armed population. I also believe no one will even consider trying until that population is disarmed.
The legislature is a potential tyrant. The tyrant is always going to argue for less anti-tyrant power in the hands of the public.
I don't see where anything breaks down.
Your argument seems to be that the state should be able to dictate how much power the people have to resist the state. Well, gosh, how much do you think that will be? You might as well ask the fox what the budget for foxproofing the henhouse should be.
If you want to argue for nukes and nerve gas, be our guest. We're not making that argument, nor will we support you if you do.
What types of arms do individuals keep and bear? SMALL ARMS. Guns, knives, swords, clubs, etc. Nobody's "proclaiming" anything; it's obvious from the text of the 2nd, the historical context, the common sense meaning, and Supreme Court rulings.
There are no lesser arms than small arms, and larger arms are ordinance, indiscriminant and not wieldable by an individual. You can't bear an artillery piece, after all.
Nukes and nerve gas? Hell no! My argument is that the line is arbitrary, meaning that it could move in either direction because the 2nd amendment doesn't actually address the question.
Then that's on you, hoss.
No one on Wordforge and no one I personally know IRL would argue that the Second Amendment refers to anything other than small arms like rifles and pistols.
See my response to Paladin, as I am not argung that it protects beyond rifles and pistols.
Neither are we.
It was more than a few thousand (tens of thousands between various insurgent and militia groups and they had a little more than pistols and AKs* there were these things called IEDs over there. But maybe that news didn't make it stateside.
*Assault rifles, machine guns, these weapons didn't phase civilians. They are common tool that most everyone has. A pistol though. Pistols scare the shit out them. That's because a pistol over there has only one purpose, execution. Resting your hand on a pistol can get someone talking faster than four dudes pointing machine guns at their chest! :LOL:
That said for the 2nd to do it's job militia doesn't need to be able to defeat the US military, it just has to have the ability to force the military to engage with deadly force.
Water cannons, pepper spray, gas, riot police etc can contain an uprising armed with sticks and stones with fairly light civilian casualties. Give those people rifles and all of a sudden the military has a choice 'Do I want to massacre Americans'.
The answer will be different for every soldier, sailor, airman and marine, and it will depend on what the uprising is about. But then you have the military fighting itself (or just packing up and going back to the barracks like the Iranian military did).
Well, you've convinced me. I want a full-auto FN P90 with the 10.75" barrel. And an M203 would look cool on my AR15. And I definitely want an M240G mounted on my car, James Bond-style. I even figured out where it bolts and how to wire it up and sight it. So I'll just pop down to my local gun shop and tell them "Packard said it was OK."
I don't disagree, but you are assuming a basically uncorrupted, current US military. In the face of such a military, minimal sane gun control will not undermine the people's ability for armed resistance. The opponents of gun control imagine an opposing army so far removed from the US reality it might as well be an invading force.
I've never understood the mentality that suggests that since it would be very difficult to resist, that hey, we might as well guarantee that it'd be impossible.
Hey, as long as you don't use them to harm anyone, what's the actual problem with any of those items?
American insurgents would be much more numerous and would make bombs, too.
And we can be just as violent as any Iraqi.
But more to the point.....
People like Packard assume it would be the American people versus the 100% of the military. No it wouldn't. The people would have people who had previously served but they would also have massive numbers of people dropping out of the military and joining up with the people to fight the Feds.
That's not to mention if states were involved (and why wouldn't they be?) now we are talking about the various National Guards which answer to the states. The Federal government could try to snatch up those units but most people aren't going to report to a Federal government that has gone off the rails.
The military's oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the federal government. Depending on the circumstances the military could quite rightfully refuse to obey what would be unlawful orders.
Either way it's going to be a big bloody mess.
I bet we could beat the Civil War deaths from both sides combined in less then a year.
Didn't stop us from royally fucking up Iraq. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, man.
Day 135 of the Gunpocalypse. It's a Sunday. I think. The liberals banned calendars as well. They say it's due to the impact on the environment of using millions of reams of paper to print calendars. But I know the truth. The demoncrats are trying to take away my weekends now too. If I don't have a weekend, I don't have time to go shooting. Not that I have much ammo left. I tried buying more but the ammo self-checkout wasn't working, so I gave up.
At least I have weed and condom-less porn to sooth me.
Day 164 of the Gunpocalypse. @Paladin is nowhere to be seen. I fear he has taken his own life, with his sole remaining plastic grocery bag. He would have used a gun, but his ammo was too heavily taxed to afford it. Luckily he did a self checkout at Safeway before the ban went into effect, and tripled up on bags.
I wish the best for his family during this troubling time.
You lost, faggot.
California is lost. But that's no surprise. The Left Coast is fucked. I feel bad about that. But mostly because I like my house. And my cat shits on everything if she's in a car for more than 5 minutes.
It takes more than 5 minutes to drive to S. Carolina.
Speaking of five minutes to drive to S. Carolina - about 20 years ago there was a big hanta-virus outbreak in the southern plains states. Anyway I had to drive myself & my family cross-country from Arizona to Alabama or some-such. Anyway my mother-in-law (over the phone) said "tell your husband to keep the windows rolled up when you travel through there! Matter-of-fact you guys should all just hold your breath going through there."
I'm not positive, but I think that holding your breath for 500 miles of freeway driving might....just might....be a world record.
Day 246 of the Gunpocalypse. Trump signed another immigration ban, but he can't find the time to overturn the Gunpocalypse in California.
I saw some protesters on the freeway and thought about running them over. But then I saw @Volpone, lost on his way to South Carolina, crash into the center divide. I hope he's OK. I saw his cat launch through the windshield and into the face of one of the protesters.
I hope she got rabies. Good luck getting that covered under Obamacare.
Day 614 of the Gunpocalypse. A buncha kids got killed in Florida and suddenly I can't own a bump stock. What the actual fuck? So much for Trump making America white great again.
Still haven't moved from California because I'm spineless and I've been spending too much on guns and ammo rather than transportation costs.
Separate names with a comma.