Gun confiscation in America?

[Glitch 0]

Quote

However, it is clear that an armed populace would not be able to stop an organized and powerful military. (An example that doesn't go back over 100 years is Iraq, with a population that had a more armed population than the US)

...every hear of Vietnam? ...ever hear of Afghanistan (Russia's Vietnam)?

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

In any case, find a cite or stop claiming it.

Last time I check the 1st Amendment was still in effect and I can cite anything I choose. Your "demand" is simply non-sense.

That said, it is used in this http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1337. Specifically the last story "Straw Man" as I recall.

And we're free to write that you make up facts in your arguments. Come on - if meaningful, not propaganda, it would be the punchline in Brady attack legislation. It's not. The simpler bottom line is that most of the time they have no idea what gun was used. Likewise, ballistic fingerprinting is mostly hype.

Sorry, a radio program isn't a citation. It's media hearsay, which we know is highly suspect when it attempts to cover anything based on science or data or details.

[quade 3]

Quote

And we're free to write that you make up facts in your arguments.

Go right ahead and lie all you want. I won't stop you.

Quote

Sorry, a radio program isn't a citation.

And that's where you'd be wrong. If I say it's a number that floats around and can support that by linking somebody using it . . . yes, it's a proof of my statement being correct.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Neither the American revolt against the Brits nor the Texan revolt against the Mexicans was what I'd consider "small".

In the American revolutionary war, the number of loyalists was about equal to the number of patriots. But most of the loyalists weren't willing to fight for Britain, while more of the patriots were willing to fight for independence. Thus, the patriots were more committed, and prevailed. When a large number of men sit on the sidelines, unwilling to get involved, a committed minority can prevail.

In Texas at the battle of San Jacinto, only 900 Texans defeated Santa Anna's Mexican Army of 1,500, consisting of his very best soldiers, from an Army that was amongst the most formidable in the world at the time. Most Texans had fled in the face of Anna's advance, in what is called the "Runaway Scrape", as Anna was killing and burning everything in his path. But 900 brave men were willing to face him head-on at San Jacinto and fight for their independence. And because of that, much of southwest America is now part of the United States.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Back when the 2nd Amendmend was drafted, this was feasable. However, it is clear that an armed populace would not be able to stop an organized and powerful military. (An example that doesn't go back over 100 years is Iraq, with a population that had a more armed population than the US)

Uh, aren't we still in Iraq, and basically losing in our effort to force democracy and peace on them? And how much damage have we had to inflict on the infrastructure of that country just to obtain what has been gained? Is that practical to do to ourselves? If this is your argument, it's pretty weak.

Vietnam is the other obvious example. The VC and NVA were more poorly equipped and fought a military force that was willing to destroy entire villages to save them.

Good examples, kelpdiver.

And ultimately, just like Vietnam, America will lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We'll lose because, like Vietnam, the American populace is no longer willing to do what is necessary to win a war. The enemy knows that America lacks the will, and in time will simply withdraw. So all they have to do is hide out, bide their time, and wait for the American will to crumble, and the soldiers to be withdrawn. Then the Taliban will come out of hiding, and once again take control of the countries through fear, intimidation, and brutal force.

Likewise, on the instant topic, Americans would also have no long-term tolerance of a government that attacks it's own people, and the citizens would take back the government to return it to its constitutional roots. And our system is structured so that this does not even have to happen with force of arms. The mere threat of such is enough to restrain government from going too far.

[SkyDekker 1,140]

Quote

...every hear of Vietnam? ...ever hear of Afghanistan (Russia's Vietnam)?

And there were ways to win, the price was just deemed to high. Which goes for current situation in Iraq as well. Many posters here have said before to just nuke it into oblivion.

You seem to be implying that the outcome in Vietnam and Afghanistan was fixed and no other outcome was possible. The previous posters seems to be implying that the current situation is the only possible situation. That is a pretty weak argument.

The questions remains. If the 2nd Amendmend is no longer able achieve what it was intended to do, what should be done with it?

[SkyDekker 1,140]

Quote

And ultimately, just like Vietnam, America will lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We'll lose because, like Vietnam, the American populace is no longer willing to do what is necessary to win a war. The enemy knows that America lacks the will, and in time will simply withdraw. So all they have to do is hide out, bide their time, and wait for the American will to crumble, and the soldiers to be withdrawn. Then the Taliban will come out of hiding, and once again take control of the countries through fear, intimidation, and brutal force.

In short the American military does have the ability, but the political will is not existent.

Quote

Likewise, on the instant topic, Americans would also have no long-term tolerance of a government that attacks it's own people, and the citizens would take back the government to return it to its constitutional roots. And our system is structured so that this does not even have to happen with force of arms. The mere threat of such is enough to restrain government from going too far.

Which would be another argument against the necessity of the 2nd Amendmend.

In one post you have indicated that the 2nd Amendmend does not allow the US population to stop the government if needed. And, you have indicated such would never be needed anyways.

Since you seem to agree that the 2nd Amendmend is no longer needed for its intended purpose, what should be done?

[billvon 2,426]

>And ultimately, just like Vietnam . . .

Good example of losing the battle to win the war. I'd much prefer that to the alternative.

>Likewise, on the instant topic, Americans would also have no long-term
>tolerance of a government that attacks it's own people, and the citizens
>would take back the government to return it to its constitutional roots.
>And our system is structured so that this does not even have to happen >with force of arms. The mere threat of such is enough to restrain
>government from going too far.

Actually, your vote is the mechanism by which you can "tale back" the government. That's the good news. The bad news is that if everyone disagrees with you, then even your vote may not be enough to force the government to do what you want. If at that point you attempt to use force of arms to obtain the changes you want, you will be stopped - for a democracy cannot survive if armed gangs can impose their will on the rest.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

If the 2nd Amendmend is no longer able achieve what it was intended to do, what should be done with it?

There were two car-jackings in the news over the weekend. Since the laws against them was ineffective, should we just do away with it?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[SkyDekker 1,140]

Quote

There were two car-jackings in the news over the weekend. Since the laws against them was ineffective, should we just do away with it?

Ineffective/=unable

In general if a law is not able to achieve its intended objective, then yes it should be done away with.

[futuredivot 0]

You don't feel that it should remain as a reminder of the intent of the framers of the Constitution?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[quade 3]

Quote

You don't feel that it should remain as a reminder of the intent of the framers of the Constitution?

You mean like the whole 2/3rds of a person thing or women not having the right to vote?

No. If something in the US Constitution is antiquated it NEEDS to be changed to reflect the times.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,140]

Quote

You don't feel that it should remain as a reminder of the intent of the framers of the Constitution?

You can do both. Add an Amendmend that renders the 2nd invalid, yet keeps the wording in the constitution.

(As is the case with the items Quade mentiones above)

[futuredivot 0]

I don't know-I still think we need to revisit that whole suffrage thing.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[futuredivot 0]

What would your revised 2nd Amendment say?

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[SkyDekker 1,140]

Quote

What would your revised 2nd Amendment say?

I'm sorry it's not my Amendment to make. I was/am more interested in the discussion around it than the actual wording of the possible amendment.

It's a shame the usual suspects tend to go missing at this point.

(As a side note, my example had an amendment added, not a revision of the 2nd Amendment)

[futuredivot 0]

You are correct-I misunderstood. I'm still not getting how to invalidate the 2nd while still leaving the intent in place.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[SkyDekker 1,140]

Quote

I'm still not getting how to invalidate the 2nd while still leaving the intent in place.

Wording is there, intent conveyed.

If the American population should own guns for a different reason, that should be spelled out in a new amendment.

In my opinion that would be the honest and correct way to do it, since in my opinion the original intent is moot.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You don't feel that it should remain as a reminder of the intent of the framers of the Constitution?

You mean like the whole 2/3rds of a person thing or women not having the right to vote?

No. If something in the US Constitution is antiquated it NEEDS to be changed to reflect the times.

I don't think this is a big change in the constitution. The rights are the same, but the inappropriate exclusions were removed. Instead of all white men have said rights, it became all people have said rights.

As for getting a super majority of Americans and states to agree to a new amendment removing the 2nd: good luck. (ignoring the enforcement issue, just focusing on the legislative angle)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You seem to be implying that the outcome in Vietnam and Afghanistan was fixed and no other outcome was possible. The previous posters seems to be implying that the current situation is the only possible situation. That is a pretty weak argument.

I don't agree with John in that - I think the outcome was quite fixed. The Vietnamese didn't want to be a colony. They fought off the French, and then the US. They wanted it enough to fight against tremendous disadvantage, and suffered greatly for decades. The outcome was inevitable. Not too unlike the American Revolution.

Some argue that we fought Vietnam with our hands tied behind our back. True or not, we couldn't fight internally with that level of force and still have a country left. So either way, the point remains. Armed citizens do quite well against the mightiest armies on the planet.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If the American population should own guns for a different reason, that should be spelled out in a new amendment.

We have better things to do then 'fix' one of the few clauses of the constitution that includes an explanatory clause.

[catfishhunter 1]

Quote

Quote

This time, the tables would be reversed - there's a LOT more civilian gun owners than there are military/police.

For a small scale uprising, let's say some Texas militia decides to revolt, how many days do you think they'd last? Seriously. 30? They wouldn't have control of the air at all. If they were holed up at their "training facility" the government would simply surround them. Eventually, somebody inside their compound would start shooting and at that point it would be over and trust me, the US government would not lose.

The only way a "revolt" could possibly work would be if it were nation-wide, but even then I think the US Government ultimately still has the upper hand.

Your assuming the Millitary would follow a corrupt goverment.

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[SkyDekker 1,140]

Quote

I don't agree with John in that - I think the outcome was quite fixed. The Vietnamese didn't want to be a colony. They fought off the French, and then the US. They wanted it enough to fight against tremendous disadvantage, and suffered greatly for decades. The outcome was inevitable.

Only if you take the political climate into consideration. Without that, the widespread use of chemical, biological and nuclear warfare would have resulted in a different outcome. Once you have killed the majority of the population, there wouldn't be much fight left.

I am assuming you agree the US military has the ability to do so?

[SkyDekker 1,140]

Quote

Your assuming the Millitary would follow a corrupt goverment.

Some would, some would not.

Let's say unemployment rates are in the 30 to 40% range. Many would do things they would currently say they would not, just to try and provide for their family.

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

Say the Federal Government passed a law that banned publication of any material unless it had been reviewed and approved for publication by a representative of the government. That law is obviously in direct violation to the Bill of Rights. Citizens have no duty to obey that law regardless of whether the SCOTUS has had a chance to look it over.

That is manifestly FALSE.

Marbury v. Madison established that the Supreme Court has the authority to void laws that conflict with the Constitution (that power isn't set forth in the Constitution, so it isn't self-evident that the Article III courts would have that power).

It does NOT mean that people can ignore laws that they believe are unconstitutional. Put simply, an Article III court has to strike the law for it to cease to be a valid law of the United States (assuming it was passed in accordance with Article I and executed in accordance with Article II). Until it is struck, it is the law of the land. Saying otherwise is really bad legal advice and demonstrates a real misunderstanding of constitutional law.

No, I'm not wading in on discussions of 2nd amendment stuff. Just on the issue of citizens saying "no, we don't like that" and feeling that is all they have to do to step out of legal responsibility. That's just silly.

As I say to my students, "saying that you wish something were true is not the same as it being true."

<--- law professor

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork