Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Which is the exact reason WHY the people should have all arms available to them, but that's something that the socialists/communists/statists can't have because it interferes with their agenda.
|
You just said "all arms". You can't say "all arms", then get pissed when nukes get brought into the coversation. There absolutely, positively has to be a line drawn. I don't think anyone at all should have nuclear weapons, especially civilians. I feel the same way about all weapons, but for the sake of your statement, let's stick with serious weapons, as serious weapons like land-to-air missles, heavy, full auto machine guns, sniper rifles, and possibly nukes would be necessary in order to take the US military head on. In order for there to be the necessary force to deter the full power of the military, so as to protect us from the phantom menace of the marshal law, military police state. The current populace, including the uber-gun nuts, would be totally outguned in every way by the US military. Even if you managed to get together all of the former and retired military officers, you'd still have your ass handed to you.
Bottom line: any sane person can see that the right to bear arms has no real world connection with the responsibility of the public to keep the government in check. We have the reight to bear arms now, and I don't see one bullet being fired becuase of the loss of freedoms over the past 6 years. Not one shot rang out when we were wire tapped without a warrant. Not one bullet was fired when the Military Comissions Act of 2006 murdered Habeas Corpus. Not one shot rang out when the term "enemy combatent" was used to circumvent the Geneva Convention. Nothing. Nada. Until I see vigilantism on the rise among those who legally own weapons, I will not see the populace as a well regulated anything, and I will not support the arming of civilians. It's useless. Our military will prevent any kind of invasion, AND we have the National Guard in reserves...so that's out. If the government were to start turning on the populace, you wouldn't see lone gunmen or even organizaed terrorist cells work with any success. The only real success, as I've stated before, would come from domestic terrorism: independant terrorist bombers that have no connection to any kind of organization. That's the only way to fight the US military, and I don't see that happening until we're so far gone it may not make a difference.
That should effectively take the question or armed rebelion and well regulated militia out of your argument once and for all.
As far as nukes: all you need for a dirty bomb is some radioactive material, which is less guarded than bomb grade nuclear material.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Only because you still choose to ignore the founding fathers intent of the 2nd Amendment. That is ok though, I understand not wanting to be wrong so badly that you'll not concede despite all historical evidence to the contrary.
|
I'm assuming you know the origianl text of the Second Ammendment:
Quote:
|
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
|
The founding fathers wanted the second ammendment to be a barrier against a standing army. We fucked them in the ass when we let fear win over logic and created a perminant US military. See, the founding fathers understood that a standing army was a serious threat to democracy and civil liberties, so they wanted a militia: a military made up of volunteer civilians who trained for time of war, but were not full time soldiers.
The Federalists, on the other hand, wanted a perminant, federally controled military. They also didn't want a bill of rights.
BTW, San Francisco has been under the handgun ban for some time now, and crime rates have slowly dropped. Just an aside.
/threadjack