6 ms·
Not to sound like a gun nut, although in some more liberal areas of the country I might qualify as one, how do you propose protecting the other amendments witho
by steverb 13y ago
Not to sound like a gun nut, although in some more liberal areas of the country I might qualify as one, how do you propose protecting the other amendments without the right to keep and bear arms?
Whether the gun control legislation possibly violates those rights is a different question, and frankly is pretty silly considering how easy it is to manufacture many of the things that legislation attempts to control.
- wvenable 13y agoHow to propose to use arms to protect the other amendments? What would you do with a gun to protect us from CISPA?
- hga 13y agoThere's a maxim with many variations, I'll use "soap box, ballet box, jury box, bullet box". If a government abuses such legislation in a sufficiently intolerable way, and our exercise or attempt to exercise the first three fail, we have not just the right but the duty to use the force of arms to overthrow it. Well, at least if you believe in the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence, e.g. "But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government...."
- OpieCunningham 13y agoThe British gov't didn't have tanks in 1776. You'll need to start demanding the right to bear nuclear weapons if you want to throw off the U.S. gov't.
- hga 13y agoDid you know that there are things as anti-tank weapons, or that it's official US Army doctrine that an armored force that attacks a city will get its posterior kicked (they're useful in supporting infantry in urban warfare, and infantry close support is required to keep tanks safe from a lot of the former). And you're betraying more than you realize by focusing on weapons as a proxy for tactics; professionals focus on logistics, and I would hope its relevance in supporting armored forces in this context is obvious. As it was, I've read about, and am about to read a book that covers this, that after we chased the British out of Boston, when they returned in force and landed in New York we got a most unpleasant surprise from their new mobile artillery forces. We proceeded to lose very badly for quite some time. As for nuclear weapons, they're only relevant if you expect the government's response to be the nuking of opposition cities. If you think that's likely, you've certainly made the case that our government could get evil enough to require its (very careful) overthrow.
- OpieCunningham 13y agoAnd you're betraying more than you realize by focusing on weapons as a proxy for tactics; professionals focus on logistics Oh, ok then you shouldn't mind eliminating some types of weapons like assault rifles. Any revolutionary force attempting to throw off a tyrannical U.S. gov't will just use tactics and logistics. As for nuclear weapons, they're only relevant if you expect the government's response to be the nuking of opposition cities. Exactly. So nukes should be legal to own just as much as assault rifles. There is no other way to throw off the U.S. gov't. But only crazy people would think nukes should be legal - so that whole throw off the gov't argument is rubbish, and assault rifles won't help there either. to require its (very careful) overthrow My point was in fact that there is no such thing as an armed "very careful" overthrow of the U.S. gov't. Such a thing is complete nonsense, like unicorns.
- mgarfias 13y agoLike the Vietnamese had?
- OpieCunningham 13y agoIf the Vietnamese were invading the U.S. and about to eliminate the U.S. gov't from existence, they would have been nuked.