As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The feasibility of armed revolution against the government

electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
edited April 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
For the purposes of discussion we'll limit this to the US government, but that's the only limitation. We are not pre-supposing that for some magical reason it's an instant "troops in the streets shooting civilians everywhere" style deal where it's patently obvious someone should probably shoot someone else for a good cause.

The questions I pose are:

1) What shape would a future apparently tyrannical US government take? What would it be doing? Why is it tyrannical?

2) Would an armed populace be of any use opposing such an entity?

3) In lieu of an armed populace, would such opposition be equally effective?


This is the discussion we always have in gun control threads, and frankly it should have it's own thread because way too many people are way too happy about how they'll totally gun down the stormtroopers in the streets, but man those terrorists they arrested probably shouldn't have the right to a fair trial - they'll just terrorize us some more.


I am hoping this won't be a thread about guns so much as a thread about the future shape of an oppressive government, and if force has any real role in it's prevention or, much more likely as I see it, such thing will in fact only be prevented by a populace with an active interest in the affairs of their government and that in the case of any type of armed rebellion after the fact, the fundamental point will be that most people will still have too much to lose to consider trying anything.

Discuss.

electricitylikesme on
«1

Posts

  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I'll start by saying what I brought up in the gun control thread: any totalitarian government the US has in the future is most likely to be one that gets there by degrees. The country wouldn't stand for a coup and no-one would bother attempting one since it's much easier and less risky to obtain your means more subtly. Thus, we'd have a situation where a government was simply tending more and more towards authoritarianism. The problem you have then is deciding exactly when the government has become a 'fascist' regime - if you're going to revolt, you'd better be damn sure everyone else also thinks the government is worth fighting against. I just don't see there being a cut-and-dried situation where everyone can happily fight against an obviously evil regime.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I think that if we became a totalitarian regime, everyone would just bomb the fuck out of us. Don't they kinda want to do that anyway?

    Drez on
    Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    Aside from totalitarian government, what about a scenario where, say, the fundies got together and tried to secede south carolina or somewhere by force? Do you think they'd succeed? What if they were some kind of pagans instead? I know the joke response in 'breathe a sigh of relief and build a wall around them', but it comprises an armed rebellion against the government, and likely would involve forcing thousands of non-believers from their homes.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I don't think that's especially likely; fundies live to extend their own rules over other people - why would they want to secede?

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    1. Umm... well political oppression backed by popular public support. You know... like those Germans but probably involving the christian right.
    2. Well... yes. Because freedom is kinda important, and we have a fair amount of it. Open opposition? A stand up fight? Naw... but terrorism would work pretty well.
    3. If not terrorism by killing people, economic or technological terrorism would work too. Cause runs on banks. Fuck over the stock market. Massive counterfeiting operations(paper and digital(hacking fednet)). Fuck over the internet and wireless communication. Hack communications and gps statilites. Cause ecological disasters by attacking petro chemical distribution(as fucks over the economy). Attacks on the national power grid, or really disrupt any service that the people take for granted dispite totally relying on(garbage collection, sewage, water supplies, traffic signal control).

    while it is possible to combat some of this stuff, nothing is totally secure and with enough people working on it you could do a lot of damage. The government would crack down and take away freedom from even the people that support it. Over enough time, you could drive the government to the bargaining table.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    I think that Iraq (and Afganistan against the Russians) provides a good historical example of how an underequiped and undercoordinated but determined force of partisans can have effect against a much more powerful military force.

    However, if a tyrranical government took over in the US, there are probably two likely situations. First, like France and Germany before us, we could elect tyrants and as a whole accept them with open arms. At the beginning at least. Second, if there is a collapse of civil order into anarchy due to some catastrophe, then a strong man could come into power with an iron fisted promise to restore order.

    An armed populace populace probably wouldn't help in the initial stages, as they have a good chance of alligning with the tyrant. However, if the tyrant isn't a tyrant to begin with but starts to clamp down later on, or there are other groups of opposition then an armed populace could serve to oppose, deter, or even overthrow the tyrant. It would likely be costly, but it would be possible for them to bring an end to a stronger tyrant.

    Also, in the case of the US, it is likely that a tyrant wouldn't be able to secure the entirety of our military machine. They could only reasonably accomplish this if there was strong popular support for them.

    Savant on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2007
    When you get the revolution stage, you're pretty much boned. Either the revolution gets crushed, or you end up with a civil war. Occasionally, something else happens.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • MalaysianShrewMalaysianShrew Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Historically our country hasn't put up with seceding. I mean, we fucking raped, pillaged and torched a lot of the South for the crime of deciding they didn't want to be part of the Union. Also for the crime of defending their homes and winning. So no, I don't see any part of the US breaking off successfully. Also, people's lives are too comfortable currently to rebel. Around the turn of the century, I think we got about as close as we were going to get. Anarchists and socialists gained support and the government put down their (admittedly, not so) peaceful gatherings with lethal force.


    So I guess for a rebellion to take place, the economy would have to be in the pooper and people would have to blame the government for it, corruption would have to be clearly evident, and laws being backed up with lethal police force would have to be fucking over a lot of people for the benefit of the rich/government. And, looking back on history, without support from other nations, no rebellion would be successful.

    MalaysianShrew on
    Never trust a big butt and a smile.
  • ALockslyALocksly Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Æthelred wrote: »
    I don't think that's especially likely; fundies live to extend their own rules over other people - why would they want to secede?
    Well, a number of them seem more happy when they are able to divide the world into us vs. them where they get to look down on all the ignorant, heathen "thems". Note the group that protests at funerals, they are definitly not going about winning converts, they just seem to relish how "right" they are as evidenced by how much us "wrongs" condemn them.

    That said I'm sure they would love a little corner of the US to call their own and make all the rules for.

    ALocksly on
    Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Like I said in the gun control thread, it's not really about what the government turns into but how the people feel about it. If the majority of the populace is strongly against the government and there are no peaceful ways of bringing about change, then they'll rise up in arms. The viability of an armed revolt completely depends on the extremes each side is willing to go to. It would be a fight over who has the power to assert control. If it's a fascist regime that is willing to make concessions to appease the populace, then the populace will feel they have some measure of control over government and won't be that strongly against it.

    Of course, the more important issue is the prevention of falling into an unpopular fascist regime. The gun debate is a paradox. The gun owners want to keep their weapons so they can deter the loss of their freedoms, and you can't disagree with their conclusions and take away their right to bear arms at the same time. They don't want to budge to "gun control" because a good portion of Americans want the outright ban of handguns:
    pr070417cv.gif

    How would you feel to political movements for "speech control" in media if one-third of Americans thought it necessary to ban free speech altogether? Maybe it's just bad political wording, but it makes even some liberals flinch.

    Hoz on
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Aside from totalitarian government, what about a scenario where, say, the fundies got together and tried to secede south carolina or somewhere by force? Do you think they'd succeed? What if they were some kind of pagans instead? I know the joke response in 'breathe a sigh of relief and build a wall around them', but it comprises an armed rebellion against the government, and likely would involve forcing thousands of non-believers from their homes.

    better yet. California and the left pulling it. They would actually have the economic base to be able to pull it off.

    I don't think they could stand against the military. I think it would depend mainly on political will, and because it is soo far from being a reality, I can't say. Under the right circumstances, I think it would be possible. From a legislature stand point, they have taken a lot of steps to separate themselfs from normal federal norms. Ecological stuff.. medical weed... other stuff I can't think of... some slightly hairy establishment act stuff involved.

    If enough folks could get together to pass legislation separating a state from the government, I doubt the political will to oppose them would exist.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    1) I think the US is large enough and diverse enough that a tyrannical government probably wouldn't get far. We also have far too much power at the state level, as well as far too much armament* at the state level for a tyrannical government to get far. At least the kind of tyrannical government that you'd need an armed rebellion to really effect.

    As it is, I think we're moving in a bad direction. Anytime you have a US citizen being detained for several years without trial, that's a bad thing. Anytime you start deciding to go around some of the most basic rights citizens are supposed to have in the name of fear, that's also not so good. But I don't think anything going on at this point is the kind of thing armed rebellion would solve. I'm hopeful that instead the people will simply pull their head out of their ass and start demanding that their government not be douchebags. At least not giant douchebags.

    2) I think an armed populace would be of use in such a situation. No, rifles aren't much good against tanks and planes...but wars aren't fought with tanks and planes alone. And assuming that the military splits (as it's likely to) the "rebels" would have some tanks and planes of their own. But having plenty of "infantry" never hurts, and they need to be armed. The US is a large country, and the military doesn't really have enough tanks and armored vehicles to really control it...so the government would be using "infantry" as well, either actual military infantry or law-enforcment personnel.

    TL;DR: Yes, I think having an armed populace could be of use in such a situation.

    3) Probably not. Of course, part of the problem is that some portion of that armed populace would probably side with the tyrannical government. Which is why (and I know I do probably sound like the idiotic redneck so common on the pro-gun side) everybody should be armed. Because do we really want rednecks to be the only ones with guns if "the shit" went down? Some liberals need to start buying some AR-15's too, dammit.

    But yes, I think active involvement in the government to prevent such a thing from every happening is probably the best choice.

    * - Ranging from the SWAT teams that every podunk town has to the brigades of combat-arms soldiers (including armored vehicles, anti-armor weaponry, anti-air weaponry, etc.) in the states' National Guards. And maybe up here is just an anomaly, but I don't think most National Guard soldiers would fall on the side of the federal government in such a case; most people up this way seem to have more allegiance to their state than their nation.

    mcdermott on
  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    Vermont keeps talking about it as well, last I heard.

    siliconenhanced on
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Vermont keeps talking about it as well, last I heard.

    I doubt we would let them leave the union. They have a lot of strategic resources like maple syrup and Killington.


    aren't they landlocked?

    Supposing sanctions by the US, what are they going to do? Trade with Canada?

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Well, in relation to gun control: I dont think handguns would be terribly effective in fighting against a tyranical government. You need rifles, heavy weapons, explosives. But mostly rifles, they are the staple of every army for a reason.

    [Tycho?] on
    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    1) What shape would a future apparently tyrannical US government take? What would it be doing? Why is it tyrannical?

    It would slowly be voted into office over years or as a result of some cataclysmic event.
    T.S. Eliot wrote:
    This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper
    2) Would an armed populace be of any use opposing such an entity?

    A Yes, if: the rebellion is dispersed enough, as either separate factions united against the common enemy or an actual organized federation, and using proper guerilla tactics over a long enough period slowly wearing down on the government's ability to ensure security. A totalitarian regime will cave and liberalize itself thanks to internal pressures. See: Latin America somewhat recently, Eastern Bloc nations under Gorbie, China somewhat recently.

    B No, if: the despotic government is run by someone sociopathic enough to dispense with Geneva accords against their own populace and force the decimation of towns in the classic 'kill off 1/10th of everybody' sense and acting essentially in whatever way they perceive will put down any uprisings. See: Eastern Bloc pre Gorbie, China a little while back, Colonial Phillipines, any distopian story worth its salt.
    3) In lieu of an armed populace, would such opposition be equally effective?

    If A, yes. If B, it doesn't matter.

    moniker on
  • siliconenhancedsiliconenhanced __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2007
    mcdermott wrote:
    Probably not. Of course, part of the problem is that some portion of that armed populace would probably side with the tyrannical government. Which is why (and I know I do probably sound like the idiotic redneck so common on the pro-gun side) everybody should be armed. Because do we really want rednecks to be the only ones with guns if "the shit" went down? Some liberals need to start buying some AR-15's too, dammit.

    Yes and fucking yes. If you've watched Jesusland or listened to any of the rhetoric of these idiots, they're strong because Jesus is with them and they can't lose. They're not expecting to die, or even a fight - they're expecting a bunch of bearded secular humanists to eat their granola and go willingly to the slaughter. If you ban all firearms, you're just shoving the weapons underground into the hands of the religious militias, who are busy hoarding already.

    So yeah, if you're that worried about a religious takeover, learn how to own and operate a pump action shotgun, and keep a few boxes of double aught buckshot around. If they want to die for Jesus, that'll do it.

    siliconenhanced on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The thing is that our government has learned the art of "guerrilla tyranny," which makes it extremely difficult for there to be an actual "enemy" you can defeat, thus limiting the possibility of resistance.

    I don't know that any party with enough power is stupid enough to make themselves distinct from the system.

    Incenjucar on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Well, in relation to gun control: I dont think handguns would be terribly effective in fighting against a tyranical government. You need rifles, heavy weapons, explosives. But mostly rifles, they are the staple of every army for a reason.

    You'd want both. There are situations where handguns are preferable to rifles; hence the reason so many in the Army carry both.

    mcdermott on
  • urbmanurbman Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The questions I pose are:

    1) What shape would a future apparently tyrannical US government take? What would it be doing? Why is it tyrannical?

    2) Would an armed populace be of any use opposing such an entity?

    3) In lieu of an armed populace, would such opposition be equally effective?

    1) The government would be a giant corporation, probably media. It would use television, movies and radio to stupefy the populace. It would use various different networks to show different views of the same ideals. Then it would lower the standards of education to keep the people stupid and there would always use scare tactics of a foreign enemy to keep the populace in place. Then any sign of going against their ideals would be eliminated and none would be the wiser.

    2)If they used Intellectual warfare and only used guns to defend themselves. If they flooded the streets would information and knowledge that showed the corruption of the government and showed the people a better way then yes they could win out if they where underground enough.

    3)Depends on how well the government would take care of its armed forces. If they treated them as all the others which would be most likely in this scenario there would be little resistance for the rebellion.

    If they took care of their forces then it would be a very long and hard battle.

    urbman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    mcdermott wrote:
    Probably not. Of course, part of the problem is that some portion of that armed populace would probably side with the tyrannical government. Which is why (and I know I do probably sound like the idiotic redneck so common on the pro-gun side) everybody should be armed. Because do we really want rednecks to be the only ones with guns if "the shit" went down? Some liberals need to start buying some AR-15's too, dammit.

    Yes and fucking yes. If you've watched Jesusland or listened to any of the rhetoric of these idiots, they're strong because Jesus is with them and they can't lose. They're not expecting to die, or even a fight - they're expecting a bunch of bearded secular humanists to eat their granola and go willingly to the slaughter. If you ban all firearms, you're just shoving the weapons underground into the hands of the religious militias, who are busy hoarding already.

    So yeah, if you're that worried about a religious takeover, learn how to own and operate a pump action shotgun, and keep a few boxes of double aught buckshot around. If they want to die for Jesus, that'll do it.

    Christians are zombies now? I mean, I realize that Christ is a zombie, but I'll be damnded.

    @ Shrew: Read this. It wasn't a war of Northern aggression.

    moniker on
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Well, in relation to gun control: I dont think handguns would be terribly effective in fighting against a tyranical government. You need rifles, heavy weapons, explosives. But mostly rifles, they are the staple of every army for a reason.

    You'd want both. There are situations where handguns are preferable to rifles; hence the reason so many in the Army carry both.
    They're effective to guerrilla/militia fighters even more because they're concealable.
    moniker wrote: »
    @ Shrew: Read this. It wasn't a war of Northern aggression.
    My history teacher talked about how the democrats in the south demonized reconstruction efforts. They portrayed all northerners as wanting to rape and pillage, causing the premature end to reconstruction and giving the south an opening to exploit blacks for almost another century after.

    Hoz on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Well, in relation to gun control: I dont think handguns would be terribly effective in fighting against a tyranical government. You need rifles, heavy weapons, explosives. But mostly rifles, they are the staple of every army for a reason.

    You'd want both. There are situations where handguns are preferable to rifles; hence the reason so many in the Army carry both.
    They're effective to guerrilla/militia fighters even more because they're concealable.

    That would depend on the setting. In an urban area, yeah due to the enhanced numbers of police/soldiers and the tighter quarters. In a rural area, not so much since there wouldn't be many checkpoints and you could keep out of the way so that range is the only real issue.

    moniker on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    The definition most hardcore pro-gunners use to define "tyranny" is "any government that would take my guns away." This definition is not explicit; they simply believe that any potential despotism would start by confiscating guns prior to enacting any really tyrannical policies. But the result is entirely circular - "I won't let the government take my guns away because I need them to protect myself from a government that might take my guns away."

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Well, in relation to gun control: I dont think handguns would be terribly effective in fighting against a tyranical government. You need rifles, heavy weapons, explosives. But mostly rifles, they are the staple of every army for a reason.

    You'd want both. There are situations where handguns are preferable to rifles; hence the reason so many in the Army carry both.
    They're effective to guerrilla/militia fighters even more because they're concealable.

    That would depend on the setting. In an urban area, yeah due to the enhanced numbers of police/soldiers and the tighter quarters. In a rural area, not so much since there wouldn't be many checkpoints and you could keep out of the way so that range is the only real issue.

    err.... right... so with them being legal, the intelligent gorilla has more situations where he is dangerous. Tycho is wrong. Handguns would be pretty useful in urban environments and stuff like assignations.

    Yeah, a terrorist would want both and make due with what he had, but clearly they would be terribly effective if used properly fighting against a tyranical[sic] government.

    Yay!!! guns!!! woo!!

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    But the result is entirely circular - "I won't let the government take my guns away because I need them to protect myself from a government that might take my guns away."
    And their argument is wrong how? Pointing out circular logic doesn't magically destroy it.

    1. I need my gun to protect me from governments that want to take away my constitutional freedoms.

    2. Owning a gun is my constitutional freedom.

    3. I need my gun to protect me from governments that want to take away my gun.

    The only way to dispel the logic is proving that owning a gun has nothing to do with protecting constitutional freedoms, which they would have to be retarded to believe. Because owning a gun is a constitutional freedom.

    Hoz on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    But the result is entirely circular - "I won't let the government take my guns away because I need them to protect myself from a government that might take my guns away."
    And their argument is wrong how? Pointing out circular logic doesn't magically destroy it.

    1. I need my gun to protect me from governments that want to take away my constitutional freedoms.

    2. Owning a gun is my constitutional freedom.

    3. I need my gun to protect me from governments that want to take away my gun.

    The only way to dispel the logic is proving that owning a gun has nothing to do with protecting constitutional freedoms, which they would have to be retarded to believe. Because owning a gun is a constitutional freedom.

    Only thanks to tradition and current jurisprudence. That can (very unlikely) be overturned. If you'd recall Jim Crow laws were a constitutional freedom granted to the states. If a tyrannical government gets control of all 3 branches they'd outlaw guns, and the NRA would either have to rebel or lose their guns which they would then be unable to use to fight against the government that took away their guns.

    moniker on
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Only thanks to tradition and current jurisprudence. That can (very unlikely) be overturned. If you'd recall Jim Crow laws were a constitutional freedom granted to the states. If a tyrannical government gets control of all 3 branches they'd outlaw guns, and the NRA would either have to rebel or lose their guns which they would then be unable to use to fight against the government that took away their guns.
    You would have to destroy the constitution to change it, because it's in the bill of rights. I mean the 2nd amendment is entrenched, they'd probably want to strip away the easier targets first then go for the bill of rights because that would be the most likely thing to force a confrontation, they'd probably want to save it for last.

    Hoz on
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    so... if congress passes an act repealling the second amendment, you will no longer have a need to own a gun.

    Then everyone would be happy.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Only thanks to tradition and current jurisprudence. That can (very unlikely) be overturned. If you'd recall Jim Crow laws were a constitutional freedom granted to the states. If a tyrannical government gets control of all 3 branches they'd outlaw guns, and the NRA would either have to rebel or lose their guns which they would then be unable to use to fight against the government that took away their guns.
    You would have to destroy the constitution to change it, because it's in the bill of rights. I mean the 2nd amendment is entrenched, they'd probably want to strip away the easier targets first then go for the bill of rights because that would be the most likely thing to force a confrontation, they'd probably want to save it for last.

    28th amendment.

    Or, the restricting of gun ownership to that of a regulated militia such as the National Guard rather than that of individuals. Going off the notion that arms do not apply to modern weapons but only black powder muzzle loaders. Etc.

    moniker on
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    redx wrote: »
    so... if congress passes an act repealling the second amendment, you will no longer have a need to own a gun.

    Then everyone would be happy.
    Except that itself would be an unconstitutional act, congress can't repeal anything in the bill of rights.

    Edit: Amendments can't contradict each other or interpret each other. You can't write an amendment that says "oh these words in the bill of rights mean this", it's the supreme court decides what it means.

    Hoz on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    But the result is entirely circular - "I won't let the government take my guns away because I need them to protect myself from a government that might take my guns away."
    And their argument is wrong how? Pointing out circular logic doesn't magically destroy it.

    It does illustrate how it's silly.

    You can have a government that suspends habeas corpus, whittles away at search & seizure rights, and engages in secret wiretapping, but the hardcore pro-gunners will just sit back and watch as long as the government does it in such a way to avoid direct confrontation with armed citizens.

    See, there's the rub. Anybody power-hungry enough and smart enough to enact any kind of tyranny is going to know that they're a heavily armed, relatively trigger-happy segment of the populace. They're not going to stick their dick in that hornet's nest, they're going to try to get those people on their side... or, at the very least, not piss them off enough to push them over the edge. But what the fuck pushes them over the edge? Waco didn't, Ruby Ridge didn't, Wounded Knee (1973, not 1890) didn't. Kent State didn't. WTO conference in Seattle 1999 didn't. The shit that's going on in our government right now doesn't. The assault weapons ban didn't. The Brady Bill didn't.

    It really looks like the only thing that will is widespread, systematic, obvious confiscation of firearms. As long as our potential neo-Hitlers whittle away at all the other rights first, our Founding-Fathers-loving gun-toting last defenders of freedom will sit and polish their barrels and go, "Well, it's just not time yet." By the time they're actually driven to the point where they're going to make do on all these promises of watering the tree of freedom with the blood of tyrants, what the hell is going to be left to defend, and what is going to end up in its place?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Only thanks to tradition and current jurisprudence. That can (very unlikely) be overturned. If you'd recall Jim Crow laws were a constitutional freedom granted to the states. If a tyrannical government gets control of all 3 branches they'd outlaw guns, and the NRA would either have to rebel or lose their guns which they would then be unable to use to fight against the government that took away their guns.
    You would have to destroy the constitution to change it, because it's in the bill of rights. I mean the 2nd amendment is entrenched, they'd probably want to strip away the easier targets first then go for the bill of rights because that would be the most likely thing to force a confrontation, they'd probably want to save it for last.

    28th amendment.

    Or, the restricting of gun ownership to that of a regulated militia such as the National Guard rather than that of individuals. Going off the notion that arms do not apply to modern weapons but only black powder muzzle loaders. Etc.

    I hear that sort of argument a lot, and it is sort of silly. Saying that guns have changed so much so the intent of the Constitution wouldn't protect bearing modern arms. Remember the sort of people the founding fathers were. At least some of them would probably be formenting insurrection if they could see how powerful and widespread the federal government is in its current form. And they would want to be armed in that sort of a situation.

    Savant on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    All they would have to do is interpret it away...

    Incenjucar on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    so... if congress passes an act repealling the second amendment, you will no longer have a need to own a gun.

    Then everyone would be happy.
    Except that itself would be an unconstitutional act, congress can't repeal anything in the bill of rights.

    Edit: Amendments can't contradict each other or interpret each other. You can't write an amendment that says "oh these words in the bill of rights mean this", it's the supreme court decides what it means.

    Wrong.

    EDIT: Well, you're right that Congress alone can't do it. But amendments can be repealed. And nothing in the Constitution sets the first ten aside as somehow "special" and unable to be repealed in the same way.

    mcdermott on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    so... if congress passes an act repealling the second amendment, you will no longer have a need to own a gun.

    Then everyone would be happy.
    Except that itself would be an unconstitutional act, congress can't repeal anything in the bill of rights.

    Edit: Amendments can't contradict each other or interpret each other. You can't write an amendment that says "oh these words in the bill of rights mean this", it's the supreme court decides what it means.

    Exactly. Which is why I have to go to a speakeasy for my Tom Collins or else the damn untouchables will nail me for breaking the prohibition of alcohol in the 18th amendment.

    moniker on
  • HozHoz Cool Cat Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    All they would have to do is interpret it away...
    If the Supreme Court willfully interprets it in an obviously biased way then they basically destroy all the credibility that their branch has.

    Hoz on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    All they would have to do is interpret it away...
    If the Supreme Court willfully interprets it in an obviously biased way then they basically destroy all the credibility that their branch has.

    If the rest of the government is already corrupted enough, it won't matter.

    Incenjucar on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Savant wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Hoz wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Only thanks to tradition and current jurisprudence. That can (very unlikely) be overturned. If you'd recall Jim Crow laws were a constitutional freedom granted to the states. If a tyrannical government gets control of all 3 branches they'd outlaw guns, and the NRA would either have to rebel or lose their guns which they would then be unable to use to fight against the government that took away their guns.
    You would have to destroy the constitution to change it, because it's in the bill of rights. I mean the 2nd amendment is entrenched, they'd probably want to strip away the easier targets first then go for the bill of rights because that would be the most likely thing to force a confrontation, they'd probably want to save it for last.

    28th amendment.

    Or, the restricting of gun ownership to that of a regulated militia such as the National Guard rather than that of individuals. Going off the notion that arms do not apply to modern weapons but only black powder muzzle loaders. Etc.

    I hear that sort of argument a lot, and it is sort of silly. Saying that guns have changed so much so the intent of the Constitution wouldn't protect bearing modern arms. Remember the sort of people the founding fathers were. At least some of them would probably be formenting insurrection if they could see how powerful and widespread the federal government is in its current form. And they would want to be armed in that sort of a situation.

    It's only as silly as the proposition that the US suddenly becomes a despotic and tyrannical government intent on taking away people's guns.

    moniker on
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    redx wrote: »
    so... if congress passes an act repealling the second amendment, you will no longer have a need to own a gun.

    Then everyone would be happy.
    Except that itself would be an unconstitutional act, congress can't repeal anything in the bill of rights.

    Edit: Amendments can't contradict each other or interpret each other. You can't write an amendment that says "oh these words in the bill of rights mean this", it's the supreme court decides what it means.

    errr.... yes they can.

    duh.

    there is already precedence.

    And unless you can point to something, I am calling bullshit on your assertion that the first 10 amendments are immutable due to anything other than tradition.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
Sign In or Register to comment.