3 ms·

The government of the United States is not going to be held in check by people with rifles and canned goods. We are past the point where the weaponry available

The government of the United States is not going to be held in check by people with rifles and canned goods. We are past the point where the weaponry available to the average civilian is sufficient to form a militia capable of holding back the armed forces, should the armed forces choose to cooperate in suppression of the civilian population. Syria doesn't have the capabilities the US forces do, and it shows. So if the point of the 2nd Amendment is to defend the people from the government through the threat of the people taking up arms against the government, it can be deemed a failure.

zaroth 12y ago
As others have said, it's largely an academic debate, but I choose to think that things are not so clear cut; that liberty would not go quietly into the night, that people do have powerful tools and have shown a remarkable ability to organize, and ultimately defend themselves if necessary against great odds. The government is not a single perfectly cohesive faction. In extraordinary situations, people will do extraordinary things. Surely if you believe such a future is at all possible, then it would be pure insanity to relinquish the 2nd. But even if you concede such a future is impossible and government is perfectly benevolent, it is the 2nd Amendment, it should be respected or repealed by proper vote, or else in defacing it you deface the whole document. The reality is that these terrorist attacks (purposely inflicted mass civilian casualties) are horrible and appalling, but thankfully at least incredible rare, shocking, abhorrent events. This is not an excuse for indoctrinating fear into schoolchildren. The response to terrorism must be measured, considered, and appropriate. Or else the 'Terrorists Won', right? I see TFA, to some extent, as the terrorists have one.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  > that liberty would not go quietly into the night Liberty never will but terrorism will. Anyone opposing will be classified as a terrorism, and trust, most people will believe that. People can be very easily controlled. And rifles and will to nothing here. Think how many wanted to go to war and agreed to fight in Iraq. How many believed and still believe that Saddam was alqaeda. Or think about people consistently voting against their own interest.

zaroth 12y ago

As others have said, it's largely an academic debate, but I choose to think that things are not so clear cut; that liberty would not go quietly into the night, that people do have powerful tools and have shown a remarkable ability to organize, and ultimately defend themselves if necessary against great odds. The government is not a single perfectly cohesive faction. In extraordinary situations, people will do extraordinary things. Surely if you believe such a future is at all possible, then it would be pure insanity to relinquish the 2nd. But even if you concede such a future is impossible and government is perfectly benevolent, it is the 2nd Amendment, it should be respected or repealed by proper vote, or else in defacing it you deface the whole document. The reality is that these terrorist attacks (purposely inflicted mass civilian casualties) are horrible and appalling, but thankfully at least incredible rare, shocking, abhorrent events. This is not an excuse for indoctrinating fear into schoolchildren. The response to terrorism must be measured, considered, and appropriate. Or else the 'Terrorists Won', right? I see TFA, to some extent, as the terrorists have one.

rdtsc 12y ago
> that liberty would not go quietly into the night Liberty never will but terrorism will. Anyone opposing will be classified as a terrorism, and trust, most people will believe that. People can be very easily controlled. And rifles and will to nothing here. Think how many wanted to go to war and agreed to fight in Iraq. How many believed and still believe that Saddam was alqaeda. Or think about people consistently voting against their own interest.