Register
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 19 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 373
  1. #1
    Templeton's Avatar
    Templeton is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    526

    Default Right to an Armed Insurrection?

    As Iíve been following this gun debate, Iíve recently come across a pro-gun argument that Iíve never heard before. Basically it states that the founding fathers wanted people to be armed so that they could fight off a tyrannical government. Is this a widespread belief amongst gun supporters? What are they basing this belief on?

  2. #2
    boognish is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    West Philly/Uni City
    Posts
    966

    Default

    The 2nd Amendment.

    Edit: I'm not trying to be cynical, but that's the most common explanation.
    Last edited by boognish; 01-15-2013 at 04:41 PM.

  3. #3
    Naveen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    East Falls
    Posts
    1,750

    Default

    Paranoia

  4. #4
    Sycamore is offline Sure Shot
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    West Chester
    Posts
    2,536

    Default

    I guess you just started paying attention to the gun debate?

  5. #5
    NickTheCage is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Templeton View Post
    As I’ve been following this gun debate, I’ve recently come across a pro-gun argument that I’ve never heard before. Basically it states that the founding fathers wanted people to be armed so that they could fight off a tyrannical government. Is this a widespread belief amongst gun supporters? What are they basing this belief on?
    Is this a serious question? Did you think the 2nd amendment is abt hunting down bambi?

    Not trying to be a dcik but what do you think the 2nd is all abt?

  6. #6
    OffenseTaken is offline Junior Dilettante
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Templeton View Post
    As I’ve been following this gun debate, I’ve recently come across a pro-gun argument that I’ve never heard before. Basically it states that the founding fathers wanted people to be armed so that they could fight off a tyrannical government. Is this a widespread belief amongst gun supporters? What are they basing this belief on?
    A sophisticated, nuanced, impeccably researched interpretation of the Second Amendment that was pulled directly out of their hairy butts.

  7. #7
    lemonfresh is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    245

    Default

    But how likely are we to have a dictatorship to have to rebel against? It would be interesting to see what the rates of voter participation are among gun owners. It's already too low in general.

  8. #8
    Geno's Avatar
    Geno is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Mt. Airy
    Posts
    2,326

    Default

    I have news for the insurrections: they have an army with really cool stuff. Forget it.

  9. #9
    NickTheCage is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno View Post
    I have news for the insurrections: they have an army with really cool stuff. Forget it.
    What makes you think the army would turn on their own people, family and friends?

  10. #10
    Geno's Avatar
    Geno is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Mt. Airy
    Posts
    2,326

    Default

    That's a ****ing pipe dream. The US Government has an Army. Some paranoid flabby losers defending their "liberty" aren't going to fare too well. Better go live in that freak compound in Idaho.

  11. #11
    Geno's Avatar
    Geno is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Mt. Airy
    Posts
    2,326

    Default

    Sorry about two posts saying the same thing. The Army isn't going to attack citizens, but if a gang of armed crazies just started firing on the pentagon say, I'm sure they would be thwarted immediately.

  12. #12
    Eastcoast is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    ATX
    Posts
    1,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Templeton View Post
    As I’ve been following this gun debate, I’ve recently come across a pro-gun argument that I’ve never heard before. Basically it states that the founding fathers wanted people to be armed so that they could fight off a tyrannical government. Is this a widespread belief amongst gun supporters? What are they basing this belief on?
    Most likely they are basing this line of thought on a quote by Jefferson.

    Thomas not George.

    "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

  13. #13
    NickTheCage is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno View Post
    That's a ****ing pipe dream. The US Government has an Army. Some paranoid flabby losers defending their "liberty" aren't going to fare too well. Better go live in that freak compound in Idaho.
    Yet you didn't answer the question! I'll make it easier on you. What makes you think the entire army would turn their guns on the citizens of this country especially knowing that many of their family and friends would be under the exact same 'siege' back at home? I'm just curious how you come to that notion ... it didn't even work in the USSR as the army proved declined to murder a bunch of its citizens to protect a coup by their own superiors. What makes you think our military hierarchy wouldnít turn itís guns on our govt and institute a govt to their liking?

    There are so many scenarios that could play out but you just think itís the govtís army and they will do as theyíre told which is factually wrong if you read your history. For a regime to squelch a revolution they must have complete control of their military. This means that they must hold enough control over the officers and that the officers still have enough control over their troops to do the nasty work of winning a civil war.

  14. #14
    bootsywannabe is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    628

    Default

    If you take a brief look at modern history, the seizure of guns owned by private citizens preceded their subsequent mass extermination in a number of countries - Stalin, Hitler, Mao all come to mind, heck even the Cambodians. Don't think it could happen here? What about when we rounded up and more or less exterminated a bunch of native americans? Or how about the internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry during WWII? How come Homeland Security can buy more than a billion rounds of ammo for high capacity rifles, as well as the rifles themselves, and we can't own high capacity magazines? What do they need them for? How about the police?

  15. #15
    NickTheCage is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bootsywannabe View Post
    If you take a brief look at modern history, the seizure of guns owned by private citizens preceded their subsequent mass extermination in a number of countries - Stalin, Hitler, Mao all come to mind, heck even the Cambodians.


    1911 - Turkey bans civilian ownership of firearms. From 1911 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.

    1928 - Germany bans firearms. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill & others, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    1929 - The Soviet Union bans firearms. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were systematically eliminated.

    1935 - China bans firearms. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were unable to defend themselves and were killed.

    1956 - Cambodia bans firearms. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people unable to defend themselves, were murdered.

    1964 - Guatemala bans firearms. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

    1970 - Uganda bans firearms. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated. In one infamous incident, the habitants of a small village took refuge in a church, where every man, woman and child was massacred with guns and machetes as they were unable to physically defend themselves.

    1995 - 6,000 Bosnian Muslims were massacred at Srebrenica in the ironically named "UN safe area" after having been disarmed first (a process aided by the UN).

  16. #16
    Geno's Avatar
    Geno is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Mt. Airy
    Posts
    2,326

    Default

    I answered your question. I said the army would not turn on citizens. What makes you think citizens are going to attack the government? Or a military post?

  17. #17
    Dayman's Avatar
    Dayman is offline Champion of the Sun
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Fairmount
    Posts
    5,382

    Default

    I'm pretty sure it's so the government would have a large body of well-trained self-armed militia who could be called up in case of war to fight invasions that would be cheaper than a standing army and less prone to being used tyrannically.

    I'm all for instituting mandatory service (18-20 for example. Pick your branch or do 2 years civil service in something like the CCC, USPHS, etc.) and reducing the core of the standing military down to SNCOs and officers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Paine
    ďThe World is my country, all Mankind are my brethren, and to do Good is my religion.Ē

  18. #18
    NickTheCage is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno View Post
    I answered your question. I said the army would not turn on citizens. What makes you think citizens are going to attack the government? Or a military post?
    My bad .. thought you wrote double post (#11) as I and other have been having that problem with the site. I addressed post #10 and I don't think they would attack the govt per say. That isn't how successful revolutions begin.

  19. #19
    sharkey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geno View Post
    That's a ****ing pipe dream. The US Government has an Army. Some paranoid flabby losers defending their "liberty" aren't going to fare too well. Better go live in that freak compound in Idaho.
    Sort of like a bunch of colonists defeating the greatest military power in the world, huh? Not a history major, are you?

  20. #20
    sharkey is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    973

    Default

    Why don't you all just read the 2nd Am.? Keep in mind that "well regulated" does not mean regulated as in today's use of "heavily controlled by rules", but rather "well equipped and well prepared." Also, at that time the term "militia" meant simply the mass of able bodied men who could take up arms if needed, not a gov't organization like the Nat. Guard. Does anything in the 2nd Am. refer to the right to hunt or to target shoot? No. Does it refer to the right to defend ourselves against common criminals? You could interpret it that way, as criminals do take our freedom from us in a sense, but it makes more sense to conclude that the arming of common citizens is meant to protect against a despotic government taking our freedom.

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2