Jason Moyer on 6/10/2017 at 12:42
Yeah, I'm sure the US government would be *really* concerned about small arms fire if they decided to turn on the populace.
SlyFoxx on 6/10/2017 at 14:18
The number of trained and armed federal agents pales in comparison to the number of "...well regulated Militia"
catbarf on 6/10/2017 at 15:08
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Yeah, I'm sure the US government would be *really* concerned about small arms fire if they decided to turn on the populace.
Well, yeah, they would. I mean, I'm not huge on the whole 'resisting tyranny' aspect of American gun ownership, but it's rather unreasonable to expect that police or Army regulars are going to be keen on going door-to-door on their former friends and neighbors pulling a Mujahideen 2: Electric Boogaloo. The government may have tanks and Hellfires, but those have much more significant repercussions to their use (eg the likelihood of mutiny when they're deployed against civilians) than just sending in riot police.
Gryzemuis on 6/10/2017 at 15:10
Quote Posted by Draxil
You're actually a pro-authority anarchist, in favor of state controlled or regulated weapons, media, and health care. I don't think you're an anarchist. I think you're actually quite the opposite, and I think there are a lot of ideas that you consider too crazy. Such as allowing an armed citizenry. To you, that's too crazy. I think you're honestly more comfortable with the idea of "subjects" than "citizens", to be ruled over, protected, and provided for by a strong and rather authoritarian government.
I support the freedom of the individual.
But I think corporations need to be kept in check. With all means possible, because corporations have no conscience. Most corporations will be as much scumbaggy as the law allows them to be scumbags.
I also think common goods should be managed by the people. Government is the representation of the common people. (Americans don't seem to get that anymore). Health-care, infrastructure, police, social security, etc, should all be handled by the government. By us. Not by greedy capitalistic bastards. Maybe schools too. These things are too important to give in the hands of people who's only goal is to make a profit. The issue is not the right of the people to chose between one scumbag or another scumbag. The issue is that the people have the right to basic needs, without being handed over to the mercy of capitalistic pigs.
Guns is something different. I don't see the point of citizens having guns. Neither does the rest of the world. Weapons are only an issue in the US.
Government, establishment, the 1%, the large corporations, don't care if citizens have guns or not. It doesn't impact them. They rather see the population constantly bicker about their right to carry guns, or bicker about abortion, or muslims. In stead of people protesting against more important issues, like how the 1% is getting richer, and everyone else is getting poorer. That's why they encourage you to fight for those unimportant things. So you forget the real fight.
Gryzemuis on 6/10/2017 at 15:15
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
With the current trend towards radical socialism in the US, ...
You are completely delusional. You have no idea what socialism or radical socialism is.
The US is an ultra-conservative, ultra-right-wing nation. Your utmost leftish commie politicians are still far right of European right-wing politicians.
If there is a trend in the US into any direction, it is in the direction of fascism.
Dahenjo on 6/10/2017 at 15:49
So then, should we think of Stephen Paddock and those like him as members of this "...well regulated Militia" gone wrong, and as the "necessary cost of freedom" as we become no longer free to circulate or assemble in public without the increasingly realistic fear of some homicidal-suicidal guy with a gun?
There's not agreement that this part of the 2nd Amendment should by default refer to all legal gun owners rather than something actually well-organized like the National Guard. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe nobody in the thread has implied that all guns should be banned, only that they need more effective regulation to accommodate other rights & freedoms we're supposed to have, nor have they said it's only gun control that's needed and some additional things have been mentioned. I still believe a lot could be done without banning all guns, and that we are coming to that consensus that will be acted upon post-Trump, provided we're lucky to survive that long.
Renzatic on 6/10/2017 at 16:30
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
The number of trained and armed federal agents pales in comparison to the number of "...well regulated Militia"
We're talking about our military, which is currently 1.5 million strong. Even if you were to lump every single militia group into a single entity, it wouldn't come close to matching that number. Hell, there are probably more people in the reserves alone than there are in our crazier militia groups.
Not that it would matter, considering the training and technological advantage our military has over these people. It's even more a moot point if you consider that if the government feels the need to deploy the military against the people, we'd probably no longer living in a country that'd be recognizable as the occasionally uptight, but generally happy-go-lucky US of old. We're either suffering under a tyrannical regime in Washington, or the paranoids have gotten so out of hand, they're actively terrorizing the populace to the point that Washington sees no other recourse but to throw its weight against them.
Fortunately for all of us, neither of these scenarios are yet likely, even with Neo-Nazis and Antifa marching, and Trump in office.
catbarf on 6/10/2017 at 17:01
Quote Posted by Dahenjo
There's not agreement that this part of the 2nd Amendment should by default refer to all legal gun owners rather than something actually well-organized like the National Guard.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
We're talking about our military, which is currently 1.5 million strong. Even if you were to lump every single militia group into a single entity, it wouldn't come close to matching that number. Hell, there are probably more people in the reserves alone than there are in our crazier militia groups.
Minor note: Madison wrote a lot about the 'militia' being called upon the citizenry, and this was formally established by the Militia Acts a few years later. The 'militia' as intended by the founders isn't the National Guard or volunteer groups, it's literally every able-bodied male of fighting age. This is where Selective Service originates from. The 'well-regulated militia' was an armed citizenry, expected to provide for the common defense against both internal and external threats.
Renzatic on 6/10/2017 at 17:27
Basically, they're meant to be armies of citizens, called upon on either the state or federal level, that groups when a threat arises, then disbands when its dealt with. The original vision was that the US would have no standing army, rather, we'd be a nation of Cincinnatuses that rise from their humble lives to heed the call when necessary.
Of course things didn't quite work out as intended. The tribulations of the 20th century proved the necessity of a professional military, and our militias are a bunch of anti-government guys with big beards who spend most of the time posing for pictures with their guns drawn in front of upside down American flags. Funny, that.
