Without 2A, What Good Are the Other Amendments?

[yankees60]

Better to have and not need than need and not have. Rarely if ever conceal carry...but always quickly accessible from where I sleep. No children so not a worry in that regard. Although thinking bear spray and goggles might be better option. Less messy than putting holes in things.

Still no answers to my very simple question. I can see why getting anything done legislatively in this country with regards to taxes, healthcare or immigration or anything else for that matter...can't even address simple questions.

What was / is the "very simple question"?

Vinny

[doodle]

The simple question:


where does the definition of arms or 'armaments' stop for you then? Landmines? Tanks? Missiles? Is there no line to what weapons a civilian can own? Can they build their own personal nuclear arsenal should they have resources?

Techno responded:

"My answer to that is "Any weapon that has defensive uses is included under the 2nd Amendment".
I'm not aware of any such uses for nukes, even the jokingly referenced "Recreational McNukes", so they wouldn't be included."

Defensive uses...that is kind of a broad definition. Missiles, landmines, heavy artillery all fall under defensive uses. Under theory of mutually assured destruction nukes also have a defensive component.

[Kriegsspiel]

I want the freedom to own whatever armament I desire! The Founders were cool with civilians owning military-grade equipment way back when, like any real American.

[doodle]

I want the freedom to own whatever armament I desire! The Founders were cool with civilians owning military-grade equipment way back when, like any real American.

I think I'd rather have a club than a 1780s military grade flintlock rifle.

So just to clarify for you Krieg, biological, chemical and nuclear is ok for civilian ownership?

[doodle]

The trouble with this question is that a serious response is an immediate concession to the principle of limitations which starts the ball rolling. This presents a check mate position, so the only available alternative is the absurd answer of no limitations whatsoever which no rational sane person believes.

[Kriegsspiel]

I want the freedom to own whatever armament I desire! The Founders were cool with civilians owning military-grade equipment way back when, like any real American.

I think I'd rather have a club than a 1780s military grade flintlock rifle.

18th century warships were privately owned. They were, in fact, called privateers.

So just to clarify for you Krieg, biological, chemical and nuclear is ok for civilian ownership?

Hell yea, all of them. You want the government to be the only ones who own them? That's insane, they fuck up everything.

just in case the anti self-defense anti second amendment folks are not aware, civilians can own tanks and artillery and old fighter planes, it only tends to be done by collectors because of the cost and hurdles you must jump through, but it does exist...

[doodle]

I want the freedom to own whatever armament I desire! The Founders were cool with civilians owning military-grade equipment way back when, like any real American.

I think I'd rather have a club than a 1780s military grade flintlock rifle.

18th century warships were privately owned. They were, in fact, called privateers.

So just to clarify for you Krieg, biological, chemical and nuclear is ok for civilian ownership?

Hell yea, all of them. You want the government to be the only ones who own them? That's insane, they fuck up everything.

So Cleetus down the street who talks to the voices in his head and has the mental capacity of a third grader can theoretically legally have a garage full of enough sarin gas to wipe out an entire city. That's the position you are taking?

[doodle]

I want the freedom to own whatever armament I desire! The Founders were cool with civilians owning military-grade equipment way back when, like any real American.

I think I'd rather have a club than a 1780s military grade flintlock rifle.

18th century warships were privately owned. They were, in fact, called privateers.

So just to clarify for you Krieg, biological, chemical and nuclear is ok for civilian ownership?

Hell yea, all of them. You want the government to be the only ones who own them? That's insane, they fuck up everything.

So Cleetus down the street who talks to the voices in his head and has the mental capacity of a third grader can theoretically legally have a garage full of enough sarin gas to wipe out an entire city. That's the position you are taking?

Also can you clarify who the 'government' is exactly? If I'm the mayor of my town am I then the 'government'?

[Kriegsspiel]

So Cleetus down the street who talks to the voices in his head and has the mental capacity of a third grader can theoretically legally have a garage full of enough sarin gas to wipe out an entire city. That's the position you are taking?

Yes. If Cleetus is able to produce sarin gas, or he accumulates enough money to buy it, I'll bet he actually has a higher mental capacity than you give him credit for.

[doodle]

This is stupid..lol. I have enough sense to realize when I being trolled. I had a momentary flashback to old forum where people had honest interactions. I forgot this is the year of the troll.

[Kriegsspiel]

Also can you clarify who the 'government' is exactly? If I'm the mayor of my town am I then the 'government'?

Whichever one you're talking about, as being the only ones who should have X.

[Kriegsspiel]

This is stupid..lol. I have enough sense to realize when I being trolled. I had a momentary flashback to old forum where people had honest interactions. I forgot this is the year of the troll.

Well it's all in good fun. Where's that bogleheads smiley with the mug of beer?

[doodle]

So Cleetus down the street who talks to the voices in his head and has the mental capacity of a third grader can theoretically legally have a garage full of enough sarin gas to wipe out an entire city. That's the position you are taking?

Yes. If Cleetus is able to produce sarin gas, or he accumulates enough money to buy it, I'll bet he actually has a higher mental capacity than you give him credit for.

Maybe he is the tool of another organization...say the one Vladamir Putin belongs to... That is delighted that he can give Cleetus the funds to legally purchase sarin gas and then release it into an American city

[doodle]

This is stupid..lol. I have enough sense to realize when I being trolled. I had a momentary flashback to old forum where people had honest interactions. I forgot this is the year of the troll.

Well it's all in good fun. Where's that bogleheads smiley with the mug of beer?

It would be except 2A types that they get all fired up veins a bulging about their guns immediately backpedal to 'im just joking around' when you try to ask a serious question about limitations. Don't you find that a bit obnoxious?

[yankees60]

The simple question:


where does the definition of arms or 'armaments' stop for you then? Landmines? Tanks? Missiles? Is there no line to what weapons a civilian can own? Can they build their own personal nuclear arsenal should they have resources?

Techno responded:

"My answer to that is "Any weapon that has defensive uses is included under the 2nd Amendment".
I'm not aware of any such uses for nukes, even the jokingly referenced "Recreational McNukes", so they wouldn't be included."

Defensive uses...that is kind of a broad definition. Missiles, landmines, heavy artillery all fall under defensive uses. Under theory of mutually assured destruction nukes also have a defensive component.

My simple answer would then be no more expansive than current laws allow.

I understand the self-defense argument....though I also deeply appreciate Cortopassi's pointing out all the limitations of owning a gun for those purposes.

However, you have to be a fool to think anything you own will be able to protect you from the government if the government is out to get you. You are probably going to better off surrendering than trying to "defend" yourself. I predict almost certain death in the latter case. Remember even the police are trained not to just shoot in the leg but to incapacitate the perceived perpetrator, no matter how much damage may occur to the perceived perpetrator.

Vinny

[Libertarian666]

I want the freedom to own whatever armament I desire! The Founders were cool with civilians owning military-grade equipment way back when, like any real American.

Yep.

[yankees60]

Remember even the police are trained not to just shoot in the leg but to incapacitate the perceived perpetrator, no matter how much damage may occur to the perceived perpetrator.

The police aren't trained to shoot in the leg because it's a stupid idea that no one should ever do for any reason and is highly illegal throughout the United States. It's NEVER justified to shoot someone in the leg unless they are standing behind cover and the only part of their body exposed is their leg. Under what circumstances would shooting someone in the leg to punitively injure them be allowed?

It won't stop them from doing whatever bad action they were just doing. Even people shot in the chest can still fight for another 30 seconds in many cases. Only a very specific head shot will stop someone instantly, and that's assuming the bullet penetrates the skull properly and doesn't deflect the angle of penetration into the head.

However, you have to be a fool to think anything you own will be able to protect you from the government if the government is out to get you. You are probably going to better off surrendering than trying to "defend" yourself. I predict almost certain death in the latter case.

The Vietnam War was fought by locals weilding nothing more than AK47s, which are equivalent to AR15s.
The dozens of different wars we fought in the middle east over the last 19 years have been fought by locals weilding nothing more than AK47s.

Would you say that those conflicts were a fools errand on the part of the locals fighting against the US?

1) First point was to say that the police are not aiming to use the minimum amount of force to minimize the damage to you. Instead, they use whatever extreme measures they can to minimize the possibilities of you escaping from them.

2) Big difference with the second examples you cite is that in the Viet Nam War the Viet Cong were united as a people and an army to fight us. Plus, it was on their home territory and we all know that the defense has the advantage over the offense.

If the government is coming after you and me at the same time, how are you and I organized in any way to collectively fight against the government? How are all the gun owners in my town (which I was told has the highest rate of gun ownership in the state) going to unite to fight the United States military. What percentage of the gun owners in my town know one another and can organize any form of effective resistance? None of my neighbors have every told me whether or not they own a gun nor have I ever disclosed anything to them.

Finally, how long did it take Nazi Germany to defeat France? I can confidently state that the U.S. military is far more powerful than the Nazi's were and that the French were far more powerful than any segment of armed citizens in the United States. And, how effective was the French resistance during World War II? Helpful. But not significant in turning the tide of the war.

Vinny

[glennds]

However, you have to be a fool to think anything you own will be able to protect you from the government if the government is out to get you. You are probably going to better off surrendering than trying to "defend" yourself. I predict almost certain death in the latter case.

The Vietnam War was fought by locals weilding nothing more than AK47s, which are equivalent to AR15s.
The dozens of different wars we fought in the middle east over the last 19 years have been fought by locals weilding nothing more than AK47s.

I don't think the locals fared too poorly in those conflicts.

Dude, if you characterize the Viet Cong and the PAVN as "locals weilding (sic) nothing more than AK47s", then you've got some reading to do. Specifically look up information about General Vo Nguyen Giap.
A quote about him from Wikipedia (for whatever that may be worth):

He oversaw the expansion of the PAVN from a small self-defense force into a large conventional army, equipped by its communist allies with considerable amounts of relatively sophisticated weaponry, although this did not usually match the weaponry of the Americans.

The determination, tactical training, intelligence and communication systems that the Vietnamese utilized were remarkable, and worth a read.

I have to agree with Vinny. It's an alluring idea to think that individuals could take up arms effectively against their government. But there is a big difference between simply owning guns, even lots of them, and being trained how to use them professionally in combat.

Most people who get into the fantasy of taking up arms against their tyrannical government see themselves as the righteous one(s) in the dream. However as far as the platoon of Marines, DHS police or whatever trained Federal or State force is concerned, you may as well be Timothy McVeigh and your guns will be about as useful as the leftover bones from last night's rotisserie chicken.

The 2nd Amendment is all well and good, and the right to bear arms is what it is, and I for one am not on a mission to take it away from you or anyone else. But to think it exists in this day and age as a practical defense against the US government is a hallucination.

[yankees60]

i don't know that it is all fantasy to think that armed citizens could take on a government, i would guess that most ideas of what it would be like would vanish quickly "“No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.”
however total occupation everywhere all at once is also unrealistic if everybody owns guns and refuses to submit...

it certainly isn't a sure thing, but i think if I placed a bet, it would be on American guerilla ingenuity and and the defense of freedom over authoritarian rule...

But who are going to be these occupiers? If it is the police, while many police don't live where they work, many do or near where they do. Are they going to be occupiers against their neighbors, friends, relatives?

The military? They are trained to obey but I hope we have many in the military like the helicopter pilot who finally put an end to Lt. Calley and what his fellow soldiers were doing. In other word, the right thing. The only way I could see the military becoming occupies is if our military progressed from an all-volunteer army to an all mercenary army.

We have several former military here. Could you see yourself obeying the orders to be an occupier of your own country? What percentage of those you served with would be willing to be occupiers?

[Libertarian666]

However, you have to be a fool to think anything you own will be able to protect you from the government if the government is out to get you. You are probably going to better off surrendering than trying to "defend" yourself. I predict almost certain death in the latter case.

The Vietnam War was fought by locals weilding nothing more than AK47s, which are equivalent to AR15s.
The dozens of different wars we fought in the middle east over the last 19 years have been fought by locals weilding nothing more than AK47s.

I don't think the locals fared too poorly in those conflicts.

Dude, if you characterize the Viet Cong and the PAVN as "locals weilding (sic) nothing more than AK47s", then you've got some reading to do. Specifically look up information about General Vo Nguyen Giap.
A quote about him from Wikipedia (for whatever that may be worth):

He oversaw the expansion of the PAVN from a small self-defense force into a large conventional army, equipped by its communist allies with considerable amounts of relatively sophisticated weaponry, although this did not usually match the weaponry of the Americans.

The determination, tactical training, intelligence and communication systems that the Vietnamese utilized were remarkable, and worth a read.

I have to agree with Vinny. It's an alluring idea to think that individuals could take up arms effectively against their government. But there is a big difference between simply owning guns, even lots of them, and being trained how to use them professionally in combat.

Most people who get into the fantasy of taking up arms against their tyrannical government see themselves as the righteous one(s) in the dream. However as far as the platoon of Marines, DHS police or whatever trained Federal or State force is concerned, you may as well be Timothy McVeigh and your guns will be about as useful as the leftover bones from last night's rotisserie chicken.

The 2nd Amendment is all well and good, and the right to bear arms is what it is, and I for one am not on a mission to take it away from you or anyone else. But to think it exists in this day and age as a practical defense against the US government is a hallucination.

How about the Afghan War vs. the Soviets? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War)

[glennds]

i don't know that it is all fantasy to think that armed citizens could take on a government, i would guess that most ideas of what it would be like would vanish quickly "“No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.”
however total occupation everywhere all at once is also unrealistic if everybody owns guns and refuses to submit...

it certainly isn't a sure thing, but i think if I placed a bet, it would be on American guerilla ingenuity and and the defense of freedom over authoritarian rule...

Well at the very least I think we can agree that it would take a very coordinated, unified effort and a broad degree of consensus. Just looking at the simple things we have enormous difficulty agreeing upon....

Thinking about it, yes, everyone or nearly everyone would have to own guns. And be competent and skilled at using them (in combat). And we'd all have to be in agreement. And organized. With leadership apparatus and strategy. There would need to be communication systems that were secure. And no leaks. And financing. We'd need broad geographic coverage to avoid being divided and conquered, or cornered.

Did you know only 30% of the adult US population owns a gun? https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06 ... ownership/
So if this effort relies on everybody owning guns, a significant number of people are going to have to become new gun owners and get trained.

I think I'll just hope it never becomes necessary.

[Hal]

My thoughts from the Queens colony of Australia

You can have all the weapons you want, but you have to have the will to use them, and a purpose to fight for.
If your society is divided, well......
Suggest a listen to Yuri Bezemenov.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgmg2VFX058

[yankees60]

i don't know that it is all fantasy to think that armed citizens could take on a government, i would guess that most ideas of what it would be like would vanish quickly "“No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.”
however total occupation everywhere all at once is also unrealistic if everybody owns guns and refuses to submit...

it certainly isn't a sure thing, but i think if I placed a bet, it would be on American guerilla ingenuity and and the defense of freedom over authoritarian rule...

Well at the very least I think we can agree that it would take a very coordinated, unified effort and a broad degree of consensus. Just looking at the simple things we have enormous difficulty agreeing upon....

Thinking about it, yes, everyone or nearly everyone would have to own guns. And be competent and skilled at using them (in combat). And we'd all have to be in agreement. And organized. With leadership apparatus and strategy. There would need to be communication systems that were secure. And no leaks. And financing. We'd need broad geographic coverage to avoid being divided and conquered, or cornered.

Did you know only 30% of the adult US population owns a gun? https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06 ... ownership/
So if this effort relies on everybody owning guns, a significant number of people are going to have to become new gun owners and get trained.

I think I'll just hope it never becomes necessary.

Looks like my state, Massachusetts, has the lowest (tied) gun ownership rate in the country.

Vinny

49 (TIE). Massachusetts
An estimated 14.7% of Massachusetts adults have a gun in their home.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ow ... y-state/2/

[Hal]

Out of curiosity, a question for the US forum members....

If a law was enacted where you could be detained indefinitely without trial, what do you think would happen across various states ?
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/inte ... ll-rights/

[boglerdude]

Bookmarked this for when the libs say cops should shoot a leg
https://old.reddit.com/r/ActualPublicFr ... icers_and/
Warning: disturbing