"Well Regulated Militia"

[Au165]

Obviously, this came up in the other thread and I have seen it discussed often after shootings as a reason for why guns are such a necessity. My question is, do people actually think civilians with guns could stand any chance in overthrowing the U.S. government without gaining the backing of the U.S. military in a coup attempt? If you had the military then the need for your personal possession of said firearm would be moot in terms of rising up to fight tyranny.

When the constitution was written, it was obviously fresh in the founding fathers minds of what had to be done to get to where they were but we act as if they were all knowing. They had no way to know what the U.S. government would someday become and with it the insane weaponry they would posses. This was before the invention of long range artillery, flight, biological/chemical agents, nuclear weapons, drones, EMP's, etc. I often wonder, if they truly believed in the 2nd amendment, would they let the governments military become so powerful as a single entity like it is today?

In my mind the idea of the people in today's situation rising up is a delusion of grandeur fueled by nostalgia and bravado. The government could take down the internet and cell phones within a day, cutting off communication and limiting organization. They could have thousands of drones in the air within hours monitoring the skys with 8k cameras capable of using facial recognition thousands of feet in the air to locate the leaders. When they found the leaders stronghold they could bomb it back to the stone age and the people would never even know until it was too late. Unlike foreign campaigns, when the people calling the shots have everything to lose you don't just get pieces of the U.S. military might you get the entire enchilada.

...and in all of these cases that AR15 does nothing. I'm not saying take everyone's guns. For full disclosure my family owns guns, I shoot guns occasionally, the company I work for does work involving guns. I just am trying to wrap my head around how any person can actually rationalize in their mind that this specific reason is why we "need" guns. The ironic thing about all of this is that it would take the military backing of Russia or China to accomplish such a feat.

[Dill]

(08-06-2019, 08:44 AM)Au165 Wrote: Obviously, this came up in the other thread and I have seen it discussed often after shootings as a reason for why guns are such a necessity. My question is, do people actually think civilians with guns could stand any chance in overthrowing the U.S. government without gaining the backing of the U.S. military in a coup attempt? If you had the military then the need for your personal possession of said firearm would be moot in terms of rising up to fight tyranny.

When the constitution was written, it was obviously fresh in the founding fathers minds of what had to be done to get to where they were but we act as if they were all knowing. They had no way to know what the U.S. government would someday become and with it the insane weaponry they would posses. This was before the invention of long range artillery, flight, biological/chemical agents, nuclear weapons, drones, EMP's, etc. I often wonder, if they truly believed in the 2nd amendment, would they let the governments military become so powerful as a single entity like it is today?

In my mind the idea of the people in today's situation rising up is a delusion of grandeur fueled by nostalgia and bravado. The government could take down the internet and cell phones within a day, cutting off communication and limiting organization. They could have thousands of drones in the air within hours monitoring the skys with 8k cameras capable of using facial recognition thousands of feet in the air to locate the leaders. When they found the leaders stronghold they could bomb it back to the stone age and the people would never even know until it was too late. Unlike foreign campaigns, when the people calling the shots have everything to lose you don't just get pieces of the U.S. military might you get the entire enchilada.

...and in all of these cases that AR15 does nothing. I'm not saying take everyone's guns. For full disclosure my family owns guns, I shoot guns occasionally, the company I work for does work involving guns. I just am trying to wrap my head around how any person can actually rationalize in their mind that this specific reason is why we "need" guns. The ironic thing about all of this is that it would take the military backing of Russia or China to accomplish such a feat.

Loos like someone has never read the Turner Diaries.  

[*michaelsean*]

You can't even predict a scenario like that these days. How much of the military sides with one side versus the other? How do you occupy a nation with 300 or whatever million firearms?

[*Nately120*]

I never understood why people think we have the right or duty to overthrow the government when everyone caught assassinating or attempting to assassinate a politician is labeled a crazy criminal and put in jail.

I find it interesting asking people who are "ready to defend themselves from the government" what they are picturing in their minds.

[CJD]

I always viewed it as a talking point that is easily defensible because it's written in the constitution.

I don't think anyone actually believes that they could stop the Government from doing anything with civilian militias.

I've also heard arguments like "If the Mexican cartels knew Americans in Texas no longer had guns, they could storm the state and take over. Having guns stops them from taking action."

I don't agree with that point either, because I think the border police and the national military is a much larger deterrent to cartels invading America from the south, but at least it has a measure of realism to it. I think a Civilian Militia could realistically fend off drug dealers and criminals, to a degree. At least until the national military was able to get there to stop it.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2019, 09:19 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I never understood why people think we have the right or duty to overthrow the government when everyone caught assassinating or attempting to assassinate a politician is labeled a crazy criminal and put in jail.

I find it interesting asking people who are "ready to defend themselves from the government" what they are picturing in their minds.

Well it is criminal, and they aren't all labeled crazy.  It depends on their motivations.  

[Au165]

(08-06-2019, 09:29 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well it is criminal, and they aren't all labeled crazy.  It depends on their motivations.  

Depends if you are successful or not in the long term. We were traitors to the crown, but since we won we viewed our founders as patriots. One man's traitor is another man's founding father. 

[*Nately120*]

(08-06-2019, 09:34 AM)Au165 Wrote: Depends if you are successful or not in the long term. We were traitors to the crown, but since we won we viewed our founders as patriots. One man's traitor is another man's founding father. 

Ok, so the ruling class and officials have to be from another country, then.  I'm just of the mind that this whole "You have the right to overthrow the government" thing is a fake privilege the powers that be tell us we have to give the populace the illusion of being in power, but in the end it means nothing at all.  

If Joey Jo Jo Shabbado wins the presidency in 2020 and a group of people band together and shoot him are we just going to say "Welp, the people have spoken...who is next?"

[Au165]

(08-06-2019, 09:38 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Ok, so the ruling class and officials have to be from another country, then.  I'm just of the mind that this whole "You have the right to overthrow the government" thing is a fake privileged the powers that be tell us we have to give the populace the illusion of being in power, but in the end it means nothing at all.  

If Joey Jo Jo Shabbado wins the presidency in 2020 and a group of people band together and shoot him are we just going to say "Welp, the people have spoken...who is next?"

I'm just saying, victors write history and it has always been that way. We were English, they weren't another country at the time, so we were traitors who risked it all and won and so now we look back on history fondly of those who orchestrated the act. This is actually part of the problem. It is romanticized in our history that this was some sort of core tenet of the country that is always possible.

Obviously, I started the thread so the idea is comical to me that people think they can actually do it. I am focusing in on the practical side of it, but the actual "right" is in fact comical too.

[*Nately120*]

(08-06-2019, 09:43 AM)Au165 Wrote: I'm just saying, victors write history and it has always been that way. We were English, they weren't another country at the time, so we were traitors who risked it all and won and so now we look back on history fondly of those who orchestrated the act. This is actually part of the problem. It is romanticized in our history that this was some sort of core tenet of the country that is always possible.

Obviously, I started the thread so the idea is comical to me that people think they can actually do it. I am focusing in on the practical side of it, but the actual "right" is in fact comical too.

You make a good point.  The whole right to overthrow etc just seems like another one of those hero fantasies people have.  I had a fairly reasonable co-worker who goes through life with a good feeling because he knows that if/when the government comes for his guns he and his family are going to die fighting.  I guess we all have our feel-good fantasies.  Mine involve less of my own death, but to each his own.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to daydream about being the drummer for Pink Floyd.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2019, 09:34 AM)Au165 Wrote: Depends if you are successful or not in the long term. We were traitors to the crown, but since we won we viewed our founders as patriots. One man's traitor is another man's founding father. 

It's still a crime.

[Au165]

(08-06-2019, 10:02 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It's still a crime.

It's only a crime if you lose. 

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2019, 09:43 AM)Au165 Wrote: I'm just saying, victors write history and it has always been that way. We were English, they weren't another country at the time, so we were traitors who risked it all and won and so now we look back on history fondly of those who orchestrated the act. This is actually part of the problem. It is romanticized in our history that this was some sort of core tenet of the country that is always possible.

Obviously, I started the thread so the idea is comical to me that people think they can actually do it. I am focusing in on the practical side of it, but the actual "right" is in fact comical too.

It's not a right as it is illegal to rebel against our government.  But is it a duty to overthrow an oppressive government?  You can't just think of the United states in its current form to answer this.  

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2019, 10:03 AM)Au165 Wrote: It's only a crime if you lose. 

Nathan Hale has a different opinion.  But it was a crime against England to rebel.  Winning doesn't change that.

[Au165]

(08-06-2019, 10:05 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It's not a right as it is illegal to rebel against our government.  But is it a duty to overthrow an oppressive government?  You can't just think of the United states in its current form to answer this.  

This is where moral relativism comes in. Is a law that is unjust a law that must be followed? We have championed such actions of illegal activities in the past, from our own revolution to fighting Jim Crowe laws. Who decides what is oppressive? For someone to be oppressed another group is being pushed forward, which means not everyone will agree to the "duty". 

[Belsnickel]

I like to play devil's advocate on this a lot for a number of reasons. One of the things that people fail to take into account with the 2A is that the founding fathers had a deep mistrust of a standing army. This is why Congress can only appropriate funds for an army for two years but there is no limit for a navy. The intention was a reliance on militia forces for any defense needs for the country. There was also no police as we know them now. Keeping of the peace was a role of every citizen because the local constabulary was pretty much non-existent. For these reasons, the need for a well-regulated militia and personal firearm ownership were great.

If you take this argument with the historical context on its own, one can easily argue that our current society has moved beyond the need for such a thing and so the "well-regulated militia" is a vestigial part of our country. But those weren't the only reasons for the 2A. There are numerous contemporary sources showing that the framers saw an armed citizenry as a vanguard against tyranny and history has born this out to be the case, as well. When you see a people becoming oppressed, you see them being disarmed by the government as one of the first steps. Why is that? Do their armed forces not have superior firepower? History is also filled with examples of small, outgunned forces fending off larger ones. It's not always successful, but it has happened enough that autocrats know that disarming those they seek to oppress is necessary.

I'm liberal as hell; we all know this. I look for the government to get involved in creating equity in society. Taking away rights for the sake of security is not a liberal position, but that is what many gun control measures are about and they have been used in an unequal way. Reagan didn't want gun control until the Black Panthers started arming themselves against the government, then California really started down that path. Firearms laws at the federal level prevent many citizens from owning SBRs, suppressors, automatic weapons, etc. But who can still get these things? The people with money. With enough money you can own just about anything as far as firearms are concerned. So tell me, what are these gun control measures actually doing? Are they really making us safer, or are they creating inequality by disarming those already getting the shaft from our government and the wealthy elite making it more difficult for them to fight back?

I know that sounded kind of like a conspiracy nut, but in all seriousness this is how I think about these things. I don't even own anything that would be considered an assault rifle (unless you count my Winchester 1894 that was a cavalry gun, the assault rifle of its day), and don't ever plan on getting one. But I don't support many of the ideas thrown around when it comes to the discussion of gun control because a "well-regulated militia" is no longer necessary.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2019, 10:08 AM)Au165 Wrote: This is where moral relativism comes in. Is a law that is unjust a law that must be followed? We have championed such actions of illegal activities in the past, from our own revolution to fighting Jim Crowe laws. Who decides what is oppressive? For someone to be oppressed another group is being pushed forward, which means not everyone will agree to the "duty". 

I don't really think that's moral relativism as there is no moral duty to follow any law just because it's a law. 

Absolutely not everyone agrees, but if the people of North Korea revolt and overthrow that government, I believe most people in the world would regard that as justified.  

[Au165]

(08-06-2019, 10:12 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't really think that's moral relativism as there is no moral duty to follow any law just because it's a law. 

Absolutely not everyone agrees, but if the people of North Korea revolt and overthrow that government, I believe most people in the world would regard that as justified.  

Sure it is, Laws themselves are the result of moral positions that are being forced onto others. This is actually a really in depth philosophical discussion that has a lot of interesting twists and turns. 

...anyways, back on topic. Revolution, why do people think they can actually pull it off?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2019, 09:43 AM)Au165 Wrote: I'm just saying, victors write history and it has always been that way. We were English, they weren't another country at the time, so we were traitors who risked it all and won and so now we look back on history fondly of those who orchestrated the act. This is actually part of the problem. It is romanticized in our history that this was some sort of core tenet of the country that is always possible.

Obviously, I started the thread so the idea is comical to me that people think they can actually do it. I am focusing in on the practical side of it, but the actual "right" is in fact comical too.

Just a quick aside, history being written by the victors is usually because the losers have been wiped out.  We didn't exactly wipe out the English Empire.  

[*michaelsean*]

(08-06-2019, 10:19 AM)Au165 Wrote: Sure it is, Laws themselves are the result of moral positions that are being forced onto others. This is actually a really in depth philosophical discussion that has a lot of interesting twists and turns. 

...anyways, back on topic. Revolution, why do people think they can actually pull it off?

But there is no moral imperative to follow a law merely because it is a law.

They don't think they can pull off revolution, they feel they can attempt to resist in the case of tyranny.  No rational person at this point thinks we are under actual tyrannical rule, so these people would be pretty much by themselves.