NationStates Jolt Archive

Because everyone's allowed one risque thread ;)

Anyway. Reading the discussions on the right to bear arms got me thinking on the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in today's America.

Realistically, I don't think America will ever be invaded, or at least to the point where every householder will need to rush out and fight off the enemy. Cruise missiles, MAD, those huge expanses AKA the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and such.

Also equally unlikely is the need to overthrow a tyrannical government. If the government gets enough of the Armed Forces on its side, they defeat the remainder, and are safe, but are left with a nation they can't control (until they start er... cleansing towns...). If they don't get enough, the Armed Forces overthrow the government and their followers. What happens next, anyone's guess.

SO! While there is a chance of the above taking place, we can agree that it's unlikely enough not to factor in.

Thus the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in today's America becomes the right to bear arms (as it stands today) in order to greater ensure personal safety, and inflict greater damage to attackers/criminals, as guns' use in sports and pest control is normally licensed to some degree in other countries, and could be to achieve the same effect in the US.

Whether or not this right to bear arms is a good thing, I do not pretend to know, coming from a country with extensive gun control.

Opinions, anyone?

From my position of admitted ignorance it seems that the US people (or, more realistically, the section of it that might want to overthrow its government) would have difficulty fighting against their armed forces.

I can see how the logic would work when the constitution was written, as you'd basically have one group of people with guns (citizens) against another group of people with better guns (the military). But surely if a revolt were to occur today, you'd have one group of people with guns (citizens) against a group of people with better guns, tanks, planes, subs, missiles, nukes, the communications systems and basically all the useful things with which to smack your enemy into oblivion.

If the army was on the side of the government, how would grandpa's hunting rifle help to significantly even the odds?

And how can freedom of speech and protest stop a government tank as well? Banish that as well! :rolleyes:

Actually, the Armed Forces would most likely break down. Its hard to get people to fire on people, example is found in French History, and also in many times during the American Civil War. The local Armed Forces would most likely close up and defend the local populace, most likely declareing Martial Law and such.

The upper branches would be a different story. It would depend on who they talked to first. If it were loved ones back home, then they would mostly side with the people. If the government got there first, then it would the be the other side around.

Also, if the USA were to ever fall into a Cival War again, I think there are many nations out there that would use it as a chance to attack. Then the government would be faced with either turning on the populace and risking enemies from without, or turning on the outside forces and risk inner turmoil getting larger.

In any of those ideas I would rather have a gun at my side. Though after any prolonged Civil uprising I think ammo would get scarce, so it would get more primative in the Urban areas, with most ammo being used in combat.

Laws have been passed in the past to control guns, or ban certain kinds, and they have had extremely dissapointing results (some have been shown to have little to no effect on the crime that they were meant to prevent).

Simply put, people who use guns for criminal purposes will find some way to obtain them, regardless of any laws passed to "crack down on gun violence". If criminals knew that any potential victim may or may not have a gun, they would be a bit more reluctant to commit their crimes. Gun laws only affect those who follow the laws, criminals know this and enjoy it when governments disarm their victims for them. This is one of the major reasons why the Second amendment was added. The two things that must be guaranteed for a civil government to survive is the protection of private property and the protection of basic human rights. The Second Amendment gives citizens the ability to protect their private property (not only from criminals, but also from corrupt governments).

....
The Second Amendment gives citizens the ability to protect their private property (not only from criminals, but also from corrupt governments).

Actually it doesn't. In Iowa, and many other states no one has the right to protect property, only lives.

And how can freedom of speech and protest stop a government tank as well? Banish that as well! :rolleyes:Either I've misunderstood your comment or you're attempting to rebut an argument which nobody has made...

First of all, I would like to address the issue about the armed citizen versus a modern invading coalition. There is currently an estimated, if I remember correctly, 8 million civilians with firearms in the United States. That becomes a potential force of 8 million partisans. Any nation or, most likely a group of nations, wishing to invade the United States, would have to consider the 8 million potential partisans in their calculations for victory. Has anyone played the boardgame, "Fortress America"?
:sniper:

Secondly, the so called "American Civil War", from the outset, had a majority of the Southern-born officers of the Regular Armed Forces defecting to the Confederacy. A small minority of Southern-born enlisted personnel also defected when they had the opportunity. The bulk of the Confederate army was composed initially of Militia. Fast forward into modern times, and you will find State Troops, AKA, the National Guard and the Air Guard. The reality here is obvious. If the people get fed up with a bureaucratic federal government and revolt, a rebel victory is possible. Has anyone played the boardgame, "Crisis 2000" ?
:mp5:

Because everyone's allowed one risque thread ;)

Anyway. Reading the discussions on the right to bear arms got me thinking on the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in today's America.

Realistically, I don't think America will ever be invaded, or at least to the point where every householder will need to rush out and fight off the enemy. Cruise missiles, MAD, those huge expanses AKA the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and such.

Also equally unlikely is the need to overthrow a tyrannical government. If the government gets enough of the Armed Forces on its side, they defeat the remainder, and are safe, but are left with a nation they can't control (until they start er... cleansing towns...). If they don't get enough, the Armed Forces overthrow the government and their followers. What happens next, anyone's guess.

SO! While there is a chance of the above taking place, we can agree that it's unlikely enough not to factor in.

Thus the relevance of the 2nd Amendment in today's America becomes the right to bear arms (as it stands today) in order to greater ensure personal safety, and inflict greater damage to attackers/criminals, as guns' use in sports and pest control is normally licensed to some degree in other countries, and could be to achieve the same effect in the US.

Whether or not this right to bear arms is a good thing, I do not pretend to know, coming from a country with extensive gun control.

Opinions, anyone?

So this is what you are saying? Because we don't think it will be necessary to defend ourselves, let's just make sure we can't. Maybe the resistance/revolt forces would never be able to win in a direct battle, but don't you think they could harass conventional forces enough to just make them quit? There's more than one terrorist in Iraq that feels that way.

I'm not quite sure what your point is about crime and personal protection. I do know that whenever gun registration has started, confiscation hasn't been too far behind.

I think the second amendment needs to be preserved. Hell, I'm all for law abiding citizens owning automatic weapons, tanks, fighters...As long as they use them legally and provide adequate means to prevent them from being used illegally.

First of all, I would like to address the issue about the armed citizen versus a modern invading coalition. There is currently an estimated, if I remember correctly, 8 million civilians with firearms in the United States. That becomes a potential force of 8 million partisans. Any nation or, most likely a group of nations, wishing to invade the United States, would have to consider the 8 million potential partisans in their calculations for victory. Has anyone played the boardgame, "Fortress America"?
:sniper:

I've never heard of Fortress America, though now I want to find out more. I have been trying to find a place to try out Axis and Allies myself, though all the free version trial versions aren't long enough to run a full game..

a bit off topic I know, but oh well.

Actually, the Armed Forces would most likely break down. Its hard to get people to fire on people, example is found in French History, and also in many times during the American Civil War. The local Armed Forces would most likely close up and defend the local populace, most likely declareing Martial Law and such.

Historically that's because people are loathe to shoot their friends and neighbors.

You might then be interested to know that the US government is stepping up its recruitment of non-citizen soldiers. They are being enticed with promises of immediate citizenship applications and a waiver of the standard 5 year residency requirement. There are currently almost 40,000 serving non-citizen soldiers, and at least 60,000 who have just recently been given citizenship through the program. There is even a push gaining ground in some areas of the country to allow illegal immigrants to join the military as a way to legalize themselves.

So what happens when your Army no longer considers your citizens to be their "friends and neighbors"? What happens when your Army is just as foreign as your "enemies"? Will that hesitation still be there, especially when a non-citizen soldier is facing deportation for refusing their orders?

History tells us that revolutions tend to rise suddenly and be brutally violent. Iraq shows us the devastation that small arms and improvised weaponry can inflict on a modern Army. The newspapers every day tell us how the threats to our freedom aren't just from foreign terrorists, but from those within our own government who would use fear to form this nation to their own will. Personally, I'll keep my guns. I doubt that the US will see a revolution in my lifetime, but if it happens I'd rather be in a position to protect my family and fight for my freedoms than be forced to cower unarmed and in fear. The cost of freedom is vigilance.

And how can freedom of speech and protest stop a government tank as well? Banish that as well! :rolleyes:

What you stand face to face with a tank and you are armed with a gun, I can guaratee you that you have larger possibility of talking you way out of there than defeating that tank... :headbang:


Laws have been passed in the past to control guns, or ban certain kinds, and they have had extremely dissapointing results (some have been shown to have little to no effect on the crime that they were meant to prevent).

Simply put, people who use guns for criminal purposes will find some way to obtain them, regardless of any laws passed to "crack down on gun violence". If criminals knew that any potential victim may or may not have a gun, they would be a bit more reluctant to commit their crimes. Gun laws only affect those who follow the laws, criminals know this and enjoy it when governments disarm their victims for them. This is one of the major reasons why the Second amendment was added. The two things that must be guaranteed for a civil government to survive is the protection of private property and the protection of basic human rights. The Second Amendment gives citizens the ability to protect their private property (not only from criminals, but also from corrupt governments).

So what you are saying is that it isn't the laws that's the problem, it's the guns themselves? So what should be done is disarm the entire people and as soon as you hear about anyone having a gun you call the SWAT, wouldn't that solve the problem?

Historically that's because people are loathe to shoot their friends and neighbors.

You might then be interested to know that the US government is stepping up its recruitment of non-citizen soldiers. They are being enticed with promises of immediate citizenship applications and a waiver of the standard 5 year residency requirement. There are currently almost 40,000 serving non-citizen soldiers, and at least 60,000 who have just recently been given citizenship through the program. There is even a push gaining ground in some areas of the country to allow illegal immigrants to join the military as a way to legalize themselves.

So what happens when your Army no longer considers your citizens to be their "friends and neighbors"? What happens when your Army is just as foreign as your "enemies"? Will that hesitation still be there, especially when a non-citizen soldier is facing deportation for refusing their orders?

History tells us that revolutions tend to rise suddenly and be brutally violent. Iraq shows us the devastation that small arms and improvised weaponry can inflict on a modern Army. The newspapers every day tell us how the threats to our freedom aren't just from foreign terrorists, but from those within our own government who would use fear to form this nation to their own will. Personally, I'll keep my guns. I doubt that the US will see a revolution in my lifetime, but if it happens I'd rather be in a position to protect my family and fight for my freedoms than be forced to cower unarmed and in fear. The cost of freedom is vigilance.


That, my friend, is disturbing. I don't think non-civilians should serve in the military. No one knows where there true alligence lies. And it would allow someone to use the Military against the people. Though I think in a situation like that the local Military like the National Guards would still defend the people, even against the Armed Forces. Though it would be a much bigger fight, and I think it would crush both government and citizens.

I agree with the right to keep arms, I always have, and I always will. After learning more about my family history, I see the idea repeated over and over. I had family fight the British in all the seas of the world. I had family members dispose kings through assassination, and I've had family members set up huge underground operations, keeping out of sight of the government. My past shows the same thinking that made this great nation, so its my thoughts now that will perserve the idea of this free nation in time of civil uprising. I hope that it never happens in my life or in my children's lives, but if its needed, then its needed, only time will tell.

What you stand face to face with a tank and you are armed with a gun, I can guaratee you that you have larger possibility of talking you way out of there than defeating that tank... :headbang:

That's not what I'd do. It's not what the Allied resistance did in World War II. It's not what the Islamic terrorists are doing in Iraq today. I'd be annoying, set ambushes, blow up supply vehicles. If I got some LAWs, maybe then I'd look for tanks. Same thing with Stinger missiles and aircraft.

This was a long time ago 10+ years maybe, but wasn't there a notorious picture of an Israeli officer stopping a column of American tanks with a .45? Anyone remember? Maybe that guy could pull off your stunt.

So this is what you are saying? Because we don't think it will be necessary to defend ourselves, let's just make sure we can't. Maybe the resistance/revolt forces would never be able to win in a direct battle, but don't you think they could harass conventional forces enough to just make them quit? There's more than one terrorist in Iraq that feels that way.

I'm not quite sure what your point is about crime and personal protection. I do know that whenever gun registration has started, confiscation hasn't been too far behind.

I think the second amendment needs to be preserved. Hell, I'm all for law abiding citizens owning automatic weapons, tanks, fighters...As long as they use them legally and provide adequate means to prevent them from being used illegally.

Hmmm?

I think you have me wrong.

I'm not advocating any particular stance on the 2nd Amendment with this topic. What I AM doing is wondering if the way it is used should change due to changing relevance.

Arguing a right to have lethal weaponry to defend against a extremely-low odds threat seems to make less sense than arguing the same right for issues of personal protection and general law and order, to me, and I made this thread to see if anyone else agrees, since I see some people using the militia idea to support full gun rights.

This isn't a ZOMG 2ND AMENDMUND IS OUTDATAED BAN ITT AN GUNZ!! thread.

Hmmm?

I think you have me wrong.


Okay. But I still think law abiding citizens should own nuclear subs, if they can maintain and protect them as well as the government. And use them lawfully.

*massive evil grin*

I've never heard of Fortress America, though now I want to find out more. I have been trying to find a place to try out Axis and Allies myself, though all the free version trial versions aren't long enough to run a full game..

a bit off topic I know, but oh well.

"Fortress America", is currently out of print/production. Although it might be possible to obtain the game parts, including the mapboard, cards, markers, and plastic game pieces from Milton/Bradley.
:sniper:

As you rightly surmised, "Axis and Allies", is also a Milton/Bradley product. A technicologically updated version of A&A, to simulate a multinational invasion of the USA, in the early 21st century, would be interesting.
:mp5:

Good gaming.

I'm not advocating any particular stance on the 2nd Amendment with this topic. What I AM doing is wondering if the way it is used should change due to changing relevance.

Arguing a right to have lethal weaponry to defend against a extremely-low odds threat seems to make less sense than arguing the same right for issues of personal protection and general law and order, to me, and I made this thread to see if anyone else agrees, since I see some people using the militia idea to support full gun rights.



I feel your confusion and the answer is NO! Because, Switzerland maintains, or allows, a
large number of armed citizens for two reasons: 1) To aid in the common defence, and 2) to deter criminal activity. Switzerland has not been involved in a hot war for over 200 years. The last known conflict, involving Swiss soldiery, to my reckoning, was the Seven Years War. Furthermore, the majority of the crimes committed in Switzerland are "cold" burglaries; which means the victim(s) are not present. Also consider that,Switzerland's crime rate, the last time I checked, was 1%. Increase the civil liberties, and Switzerland would be a microcosm of the USA, without the burgeoning crime-rate.
;)

You know what else I hear Switzerland has?

Complete neutrality.

That's sorta handy to stability.