I think a lot of this discussion has really gone off into irrelevant tangents. A few points that I think are useful and representative:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tarcone
the leadership of the military that was against the government, if this happened, would have plenty of support from the masses to bear arms against the government.
You would also have pockets of resistance throughout the land. That would perform guerilla warfare against the military.
Counter insurgency is a losing game. It never goes away.
Take guns away from everyome and things just got a lot easier.
|
This. It would be about resistance, not a 'conventional war'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thesloppy
The zero allowance for the fact that there's been no relevant act of revolution or government suppression in the last 100 years of US history, and/or anything like the kind of calamity y'all are predicting ever having affected the rest of the developed world with much stricter gun control, is what makes it hard for the rest of us to take all the impassioned 2nd amendment rhetoric seriously.
|
Huh? There's all kinds of examples of that kind of calamity. Are you arguing that there are no dictators in the world? Seriously??
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Isiddiqui
I simply don't buy it for a second. People like shooting guns or think they need them to defend their homes/person. I don't believe the vast majority of gun owners own them because of ideas of overthowing a tyrannical government.
|
Why does this kind of thing even matter? Lots of people advocate lots of things for various reasons and they often don't say what the 'real' or most important ones are. I'm a lot less concerned with the why they really want it stuff versus the actual purposes of the amendment and how it should be changed, if at all.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arles
If people think millennials are going to take up arms against the government - good luck.
|
Whether they will or not(I agree they won't) is a separate question than whether or not they should have the right to.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arles
In 20 years, I think the 2nd amendment will be interpreted very different than it is today.
|
This right here is the scariest part. Far worse than anything else being discussed in this thread. The fact that it's no longer even a big deal to change the way the Constitution is understood in significant ways without actually, you know, changing the Constitution.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thesloppy
How much REAL damage to your friends & neighbors would it take to make y'all consider moving your stance on a hypothetical threat to yourself even a fucking fraction of an inch?
|
** it's not hypothetical
** if gun violence reduction is the goal, the focus on so-called 'assault weapons' is misplaced since most gun homicides in America don't result in those. Similarly, the level of attention given to mass shootings is greatly disproportionate to the number of deaths involved.
** I'm very willing to have my tax dollars go to having multiple armed guards at all schools at all times when children are there. I think that's likely to be a lot more effective.
** I'm also open to the idea of debating revisions in the 2nd Amendment.
** I'm not open to to just deciding to ignore the 2nd Amendment because we don't like it anymore or think it's archaic. There's a process for that, and not following it has had and will continue to have far worse consequences for our nation.