@ Shrew: Read this. It wasn't a war of Northern aggression.
While, no, it wasn't a war of Northern Aggression and it was in fact about slavery, it did mark an important turning point in our country. When the war started, our country stopped being a voluntary union of people. Our government effectively said, we will kill to keep what we see as ours. While it's why the South broke away, I don't for a moment think that the North declared war to free the slaves, just as I don't believe our current war is about any of the reasons that we have heard.
RE: Nazi Germany...
This I saw in the middle of the prairie states. I think it was South Dakota. It says "GUN CONTROL WAS HITLER'S PLAN"
I tried to find it but I was wrong. Nothing in the constitution says the U.S. bill of rights can't be changed. So the second amendment can be removed without any contradictions with democratic process. So the gun debate paradox isn't really very concrete.
Edit: I'm feeling a weird sensation from realizing that nothing commonly human is guaranteed to indefinitely be human. Something really scary about not having the security of thinking that the preservation of my ideals is absolute.
err... whoever you are quoting didn't actually say that democratic governments haven't done that.
He said that it was silly to think that the US would do it suddenly.
You know... kinda how it is silly to think that the US would suddenly do much of anything the German Nazis did, other than maybe build some highways.
Well, we are talking about hypothetical situations where the US government lapsed into tyranny, so presumably some other crazy shit would have gone down first. Since there is a historical example of a tyrannical government arising from a democratic one using gun control in such a way, it being silly by way of impossibility is disproven.
But really, if he thinks that hairbrained speculation over what a tyrannical US government would do is silly, why is he even in this thread?
I tried to find it but I was wrong. Nothing in the constitution says the U.S. bill of rights can't be changed. So the second amendment can be removed without any contradictions with democratic process. So the gun debate paradox isn't really very concrete.
err... well your defense of it actually kinda is, all you have to do is take out the word constitutional.
1. Guns are important tools for defending personal freedom from those who would seek to take those freedoms away.
2. Gun ownership is a freedom.
3. Guns are important tools for defending their legal ownership from those who would seek to impinge on the right to own them.
bamf!
Really, getting off your ass and voting, assembling peacefully and speaking freely are going to be better tools, but when push comes to shove, the "they can pry this gun from my cold dead hands" approach would work in a pinch.
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.
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.
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.
:?:
What are you talking about? That doesn't make any sense.
I said that interpreting that the founding fathers meant for the Second Ammendment to only apply for a sanctioned military is silly, due to their views about rebellion against an overbearing central power. By their standards our modern federal government could quite easily qualify for something that needed to be rebelled against. And if a revolution was necessitated, why the hell would they only want modern weapons in the hands of those sanctioned by the oppressive government?
Edit: if all you wanted to do was repeal the 2nd ammendment, you would just need to make another one saying explicitly that it is repealed. See the prohibition argument earlier.
I said that interpreting that the founding fathers meant for the Second Ammendment to only apply for a sanctioned military is silly, due to their views about rebellion against an overbearing central power. By their standards our modern federal government could quite easily qualify for something that needed to be rebelled against. And if a revolution was necessitated, why the hell would they only want modern weapons in the hands of those sanctioned by the oppressive government?
ORLY? And I had said that it is only as silly as the notion that a tyrannical despotic government in control over the US would be bogged down by any concern like that. It's as silly as the premise this thread was made to discuss, so where is the issue you seem to have? Unless you were just trying to be witty rather than making a point.
Edit: if all you wanted to do was repeal the 2nd ammendment, you would just need to make another one saying explicitly that it is repealed. See the prohibition argument earlier.
That, or have SCOTUS interpret it into meaninglessness. Which, ironically, were my exact points which you seemed to have issue with.
I said that interpreting that the founding fathers meant for the Second Ammendment to only apply for a sanctioned military is silly, due to their views about rebellion against an overbearing central power. By their standards our modern federal government could quite easily qualify for something that needed to be rebelled against. And if a revolution was necessitated, why the hell would they only want modern weapons in the hands of those sanctioned by the oppressive government?
ORLY? And I had said that it is only as silly as the notion that a tyrannical despotic government in control over the US would be bogged down by any concern like that. It's as silly as the premise this thread was made to discuss, so where is the issue you seem to have? Unless you were just trying to be witty rather than making a point.
They'd be bogged down by the concern of a lot of pissed off people with guns, as they hadn't been taken away prior to that. Repealing the Bill of Rights could easily be justification for an open revolution, at which point you get into 'cold dead hands' territory.
And anyway, although we are getting into off topic country, the 2nd ammendment does not prevent any sort of gun control, just like the 1st ammendment doesn't protect someone's right to run into a movie theater yelling 'fire!' when there is no fire. The 'well regulated militia' part allows for that. However, banning guns outright or de facto banning of guns is prevented by it unless you do a serious retcon on the intent of the law.
That, or have SCOTUS interpret it into meaninglessness. Which, ironically, were my exact points which you seemed to have issue with.
If SCOTUS did that they would probably just be ignored by other branches of the government. It's happened before.
I said that interpreting that the founding fathers meant for the Second Ammendment to only apply for a sanctioned military is silly, due to their views about rebellion against an overbearing central power. By their standards our modern federal government could quite easily qualify for something that needed to be rebelled against. And if a revolution was necessitated, why the hell would they only want modern weapons in the hands of those sanctioned by the oppressive government?
ORLY? And I had said that it is only as silly as the notion that a tyrannical despotic government in control over the US would be bogged down by any concern like that. It's as silly as the premise this thread was made to discuss, so where is the issue you seem to have? Unless you were just trying to be witty rather than making a point.
They'd be bogged down by the concern of a lot of pissed off people with guns, as they hadn't been taken away prior to that. Repealing the Bill of Rights could easily be justification for an open revolution, at which point you get into 'cold dead hands' territory. And anyway, although we are getting into off topic country, the 2nd ammendment does not prevent any sort of gun control, just like the 1st ammendment doesn't protect someone's right to run into a movie theater yelling 'fire!' when there is no fire. The 'well regulated militia' part allows for that. However, banning guns outright or de facto banning of guns is prevented by it unless you do a serious retcon on the intent of the law.
A retcon similiar to what past despotic tyrannical governments have done in their countries?
We're too large a country. Both geographically and in population. I agree with most here that we'd likely become a more authoritarian or totalitarian governed country. However, it could happen that a large state like California could become so ideologically opposed to our federal government that it would want to secede. Granted, this would be a long ways off but financially California has the populace and finance to really give the US a go at say a civil war.
Such a war wouldn't be any Marxist Revolution. The prolitarians of the world are too easily trounced and fooled by our larger governments of the world.
If the US were to ever find itself in civil war, it would not be a war of the people. But of organized political heavy weights.
And anyway, although we are getting into off topic country, the 2nd ammendment does not prevent any sort of gun control, just like the 1st ammendment doesn't protect someone's right to run into a movie theater yelling 'fire!' when there is no fire. The 'well regulated militia' part allows for that. However, banning guns outright or de facto banning of guns is prevented by it unless you do a serious retcon on the intent of the law.
No, the "well-regulated militia" part has nothing to do with that. It's a statement of purpose, not a burden to be placed on ownership or a suggestion that such ownership should be regulated. But you're correct in that the 2nd doesn't prevent gun control; just that it's the vague definitions of "arms," "bear," and "infringed" that allow for this. That, and of course the whole "compelling public interest" factor.
EDIT: Sorry, I know there's another gun control thread. It's just that the mangling of that phrase, as well as the refusal by some to admit that there may be alternate interpretations of it, really gets annoying sometimes.
That, or have SCOTUS interpret it into meaninglessness. Which, ironically, were my exact points which you seemed to have issue with.
If SCOTUS did that they would probably just be ignored by other branches of the government. It's happened before.
No, they wouldn't, because SCOTUS would be acting in concert with those other branches of government. Just with their own despotic flair. Rehnquist's gold stripes might make a comeback, for instance.
For someone who linked to Nazi Germany you don't seem to have a great grasp over what constitutes a tyrannical government.
Does the second amendment even matter? It seems like we're all assuming that a tyrannical government would want to appear tyrannical, which I doubt they would. I don't think any government would be dumb enough to openly repeal the bill o' rights, when ignoring them is so much easier.
Does the second amendment even matter? It seems like we're all assuming that a tyrannical government would want to appear tyrannical, which I doubt they would. I don't think any government would be dumb enough to openly repeal the bill o' rights, when ignoring them is so much easier.
Ignoring it would inevitably lead to legal battles culminating in a SCOTUS trial which would require an interpretation that toes the totalitarian line, regardless of how mangled the phrasing becomes.
The issue is more or less what kind of authoritarian government we're going to get. If it's a semi-benign one that just has extremely limited (but existing) civil liberties, with CCTV cameras everywhere and up your colon then this likely wouldn't come about. If you have one where citizens are being picked up and sent to concentration camps it might be an issue.
Does the second amendment even matter? It seems like we're all assuming that a tyrannical government would want to appear tyrannical, which I doubt they would. I don't think any government would be dumb enough to openly repeal the bill o' rights, when ignoring them is so much easier.
Ignoring it would inevitably lead to legal battles culminating in a SCOTUS trial which would require an interpretation that toes the totalitarian line, regardless of how mangled the phrasing becomes.
The issue is more or less what kind of authoritarian government we're going to get. If it's a semi-benign one that just has extremely limited (but existing) civil liberties, with CCTV cameras everywhere and up your colon then this likely wouldn't come about. If you have one where citizens are being picked up and sent to concentration camps it might be an issue.
The SCOTUS has been ignored before. Remember all of those Indian treaties?
No, they wouldn't, because SCOTUS would be acting in concert with those other branches of government. Just with their own despotic flair. Rehnquist's gold stripes might make a comeback, for instance.
For someone who linked to Nazi Germany you don't seem to have a great grasp over what constitutes a tyrannical government.
So now we are assuming all branches of government are in collusion to necessitate a take over? I don't think that is necessary, but let's run with it for a bit.
When guns are banned through whatever means, there is still the issue of the large population of pissed off gun holders, who were previously lawbiding but are now criminals. If that population doesn't exist or is in collusion with the would be tyrant then that fits into the category of the populace willingly devolving into fascism or despotism. I don't really see how that population would up and disappear given their prevalence throughout US history in some form or another, and if they are in league with the tyrant then they still have their guns, which isn't really a true prohibition.
Now, I would assume some of this group would back down and hand over their guns, but it is very likely that a substantial portion will be pushed underground. And this underground would be a potential fount for insurrection against the tyrant, which is a threat that the tyrant must keep in mind if he decides to ban guns. Because banning guns won't magically make them disappear, they will just make it so you have to be a criminal to have them.
And anyway, although we are getting into off topic country, the 2nd ammendment does not prevent any sort of gun control, just like the 1st ammendment doesn't protect someone's right to run into a movie theater yelling 'fire!' when there is no fire. The 'well regulated militia' part allows for that. However, banning guns outright or de facto banning of guns is prevented by it unless you do a serious retcon on the intent of the law.
No, the "well-regulated militia" part has nothing to do with that. It's a statement of purpose, not a burden to be placed on ownership or a suggestion that such ownership should be regulated. But you're correct in that the 2nd doesn't prevent gun control; just that it's the vague definitions of "arms," "bear," and "infringed" that allow for this. That, and of course the whole "compelling public interest" factor.
EDIT: Sorry, I know there's another gun control thread. It's just that the mangling of that phrase, as well as the refusal by some to admit that there may be alternate interpretations of it, really gets annoying sometimes.
Fine. I've heard it argued other ways, but I don't take issue with your interpretation of it.
Does the second amendment even matter? It seems like we're all assuming that a tyrannical government would want to appear tyrannical, which I doubt they would. I don't think any government would be dumb enough to openly repeal the bill o' rights, when ignoring them is so much easier.
Ignoring it would inevitably lead to legal battles culminating in a SCOTUS trial which would require an interpretation that toes the totalitarian line, regardless of how mangled the phrasing becomes.
The issue is more or less what kind of authoritarian government we're going to get. If it's a semi-benign one that just has extremely limited (but existing) civil liberties, with CCTV cameras everywhere and up your colon then this likely wouldn't come about. If you have one where citizens are being picked up and sent to concentration camps it might be an issue.
The SCOTUS has been ignored before. Remember all of those Indian treaties?
they wouldn't, because SCOTUS would be acting in concert with those other branches of government. Just with their own despotic flair. Rehnquist's gold stripes might make a comeback, for instance.
Tyrannical. American. Government.
ty·ran·ni·cal
–adjective
1. of or characteristic of a tyrant.
2. unjustly cruel, harsh, or severe; arbitrary or oppressive; despotic: a tyrannical ruler.
What part of that meshes with other branches of government checking and balancing each other? Also, you proved that SCOTUS could simply become irrelevant and Congress and the Executive get to go buck wild destroying the checks and balances anyhow with the removal of judicial review.
That, or have SCOTUS interpret it into meaninglessness. Which, ironically, were my exact points which you seemed to have issue with.
If SCOTUS did that they would probably just be ignored by other branches of the government. It's happened before.
haven't they already done just that. Like, that is why there are all sorts of laws impinging on folks right to bear arms.
shit... I thought he was being ironic when he said that.
It's already been established the 2nd amendment does not mean that you cannot have any gun control. Just like the 1st amendment really doesn't protect free speach no matter the consequences. Stop being facetious.
That, or have SCOTUS interpret it into meaninglessness. Which, ironically, were my exact points which you seemed to have issue with.
If SCOTUS did that they would probably just be ignored by other branches of the government. It's happened before.
haven't they already done just that. Like, that is why there are all sorts of laws impinging on folks right to bear arms.
shit... I thought he was being ironic when he said that.
It's already been established the 2nd amendment does not mean that you cannot have any gun control. Just like the 1st amendment really doesn't protect free speach no matter the consequences. Stop being facetious.
established by whom?
also, I'm not being facetious. You might want to look up what that means.
What are the limits on the laws the congress can pass restricting people's rights to bear arms? They can limit specific weapons. They can limit it based on what weapons look like. They can limit it based on who the people are. They limit what can be done to the weapons after they are purchased. Did they get the stuff through that limited what they can fire? I forget.
I believe that the second is also used in state court cases, so... it is some ways applies to them. But there are plenty of state restrictions too...
so... how has it not already been interperted to the point of being meaningless?
We're indoctrined to believe that it is impossible and essentially segregated in a way that prevents this. So, nope not going to happen without some excessive and drastic events.
Most of Africa at various times too. Remember that probably about the majority of totalitarian states have a pretty decent state of public support, or at least apathy.
If you think about it, arms can apply to shit like hacking software. It's really just the ability of the people to fight government in a conflict.
I think this is a really really good point that should be brought up more often, especially in relation to things like the US government controls on the export of very secure encryption software and various attempts by law enforcement to require backdoor keys into encryption routines be built in.
Because all of a sudden that seems damned important to me in terms of the ability to oppose attempts subtle or unsubtle which lend themselves away from values I hold as a citizen. We live in a connected world, and our ability to be connected is a major factor in our inability to be controlled. The internet is a major mechanism in that it is essentially uncontrollable thus far and every attempt to control it has been heavily fought in the name of free speech, and it's quite true that in the interests of opposing a potentially tyrannical/oppressive government that access to essentially unbreakable cryptography would be much more vital then access to any amount of firepower - the ability to reach the people >> the ability to kill some of the people.
EDIT: Also, as I said in the OP - this thread wasn't supposed to start with an absurd notion of a tyrannical government, just pre-suppose that is the destination for the purposes of the discussion and then ask "how could this happen to us?" with the intent of discussing whether gun ownership is really the real fundamental issue or in fact, as I personally feel, a red herring which has conveniently allowed much greater moves against the freedom of citizens to be made.
also, I'm not being facetious. You might want to look up what that means.
What are the limits on the laws the congress can pass restricting people's rights to bear arms? They can limit specific weapons. They can limit it based on what weapons look like. They can limit it based on who the people are. They limit what can be done to the weapons after they are purchased. Did they get the stuff through that limited what they can fire? I forget.
I believe that the second is also used in state court cases, so... it is some ways applies to them. But there are plenty of state restrictions too...
so... how has it not already been interperted to the point of being meaningless?
I'll ask you a counter question. Does Clear and Present Danger make the 1st Ammendment meaningless? I mean, it restricts what you can say based on the public interest. If it does not, where do you draw the line on what defines meaningless?
I think this is a really really good point that should be brought up more often, especially in relation to things like the US government controls on the export of very secure encryption software and various attempts by law enforcement to require backdoor keys into encryption routines be built in.
Because all of a sudden that seems damned important to me in terms of the ability to oppose attempts subtle or unsubtle which lend themselves away from values I hold as a citizen. We live in a connected world, and our ability to be connected is a major factor in our inability to be controlled. The internet is a major mechanism in that it is essentially uncontrollable thus far and every attempt to control it has been heavily fought in the name of free speech, and it's quite true that in the interests of opposing a potentially tyrannical/oppressive government that access to essentially unbreakable cryptography would be much more vital then access to any amount of firepower - the ability to reach the people >> the ability to kill some of the people.
EDIT: Also, as I said in the OP - this thread wasn't supposed to start with an absurd notion of a tyrannical government, just pre-suppose that is the destination for the purposes of the discussion and then ask "how could this happen to us?" with the intent of discussing whether gun ownership is really the real fundamental issue or in fact, as I personally feel, a red herring which has conveniently allowed much greater moves against the freedom of citizens to be made.
I think Feral addressed this quite well.
Internet's all well and good, but if things go to shit I wouldn't rely on it being able to save us. What if we are hit with an EMP? What if the tyrant decides to institute North Korea style restrictions on it? What if our infrastructure degrades to the point we can't support it?
Communication is necessary for an effective resistence movement, but you need more than just that depending upon what you are resisting.
I always wonder how many military men and women would actually open fire on American citizens.
I sure as hell wouldn't have, unless there was a DAMN good reason for it.
Nor would I. The Constitution came before the President and the officers above me in my oath.
The problem you run into is when soldiers are put into situations where they think they have to do so to defend themselves. Take Kent State. The soldiers in question really were at risk of injury, and had nothing but lethal means to defend themselves. So bad things happened. I could see that happening in other circumstances as well.
But as far as using soldiers to actually oppress the people, I think most would desert first.
I always wonder how many military men and women would actually open fire on American citizens.
I sure as hell wouldn't have, unless there was a DAMN good reason for it.
Nor would I. The Constitution came before the President and the officers above me in my oath.
The problem you run into is when soldiers are put into situations where they think they have to do so to defend themselves. Take Kent State. The soldiers in question really were at risk of injury, and had nothing but lethal means to defend themselves. So bad things happened. I could see that happening in other circumstances as well.
But as far as using soldiers to actually oppress the people, I think most would desert first.
Well, you can use a lethal weapon like a rifle in a non-lethal manner. Take the bullets out and whack 'em with the stock.
Randomtask on
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it.
- Soren Kierkegaard
I always wonder how many military men and women would actually open fire on American citizens.
I sure as hell wouldn't have, unless there was a DAMN good reason for it.
Nor would I. The Constitution came before the President and the officers above me in my oath.
The problem you run into is when soldiers are put into situations where they think they have to do so to defend themselves. Take Kent State. The soldiers in question really were at risk of injury, and had nothing but lethal means to defend themselves. So bad things happened. I could see that happening in other circumstances as well.
But as far as using soldiers to actually oppress the people, I think most would desert first.
Well, you can use a lethal weapon like a rifle in a non-lethal manner. Take the bullets out and whack 'em with the stock.
Of course you can. But when people are lobbing heavy things at my face, I may or may not count on myself to think of that. Seriously, when put in a position where they have to defend themselves, some people are going to use what they consider to be the most effective means at hand. Which is why soldiers make bad peacekeepers/police.
Of course you can. But when people are lobbing heavy things at my face, I may or may not count on myself to think of that. Seriously, when put in a position where they have to defend themselves, some people are going to use what they consider to be the most effective means at hand. Which is why soldiers make bad peacekeepers/police.
Marines, on the other hand, would leap at the opportunity to toss their rifles aside and get into a good tussle.
Randomtask on
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it.
- Soren Kierkegaard
Posts
ORLY? Democratic governments haven't fallen into despotism or fascism and decided to take away people's guns?
Oh wait, they have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Weapons_Law
While, no, it wasn't a war of Northern Aggression and it was in fact about slavery, it did mark an important turning point in our country. When the war started, our country stopped being a voluntary union of people. Our government effectively said, we will kill to keep what we see as ours. While it's why the South broke away, I don't for a moment think that the North declared war to free the slaves, just as I don't believe our current war is about any of the reasons that we have heard.
RE: Nazi Germany...
This I saw in the middle of the prairie states. I think it was South Dakota. It says "GUN CONTROL WAS HITLER'S PLAN"
err... whoever you are quoting didn't actually say that democratic governments haven't done that.
He said that it was silly to think that the US would do it suddenly.
You know... kinda how it is silly to think that the US would suddenly do much of anything the German Nazis did, other than maybe build some highways.
Edit: I'm feeling a weird sensation from realizing that nothing commonly human is guaranteed to indefinitely be human. Something really scary about not having the security of thinking that the preservation of my ideals is absolute.
Well, we are talking about hypothetical situations where the US government lapsed into tyranny, so presumably some other crazy shit would have gone down first. Since there is a historical example of a tyrannical government arising from a democratic one using gun control in such a way, it being silly by way of impossibility is disproven.
But really, if he thinks that hairbrained speculation over what a tyrannical US government would do is silly, why is he even in this thread?
1. Guns are important tools for defending personal freedom from those who would seek to take those freedoms away.
2. Gun ownership is a freedom.
3. Guns are important tools for defending their legal ownership from those who would seek to impinge on the right to own them.
bamf!
Really, getting off your ass and voting, assembling peacefully and speaking freely are going to be better tools, but when push comes to shove, the "they can pry this gun from my cold dead hands" approach would work in a pinch.
So you're saying that you disagree with this:
And agree with this:
:?:
What are you talking about? That doesn't make any sense.
I said that interpreting that the founding fathers meant for the Second Ammendment to only apply for a sanctioned military is silly, due to their views about rebellion against an overbearing central power. By their standards our modern federal government could quite easily qualify for something that needed to be rebelled against. And if a revolution was necessitated, why the hell would they only want modern weapons in the hands of those sanctioned by the oppressive government?
Edit: if all you wanted to do was repeal the 2nd ammendment, you would just need to make another one saying explicitly that it is repealed. See the prohibition argument earlier.
ORLY? And I had said that it is only as silly as the notion that a tyrannical despotic government in control over the US would be bogged down by any concern like that. It's as silly as the premise this thread was made to discuss, so where is the issue you seem to have? Unless you were just trying to be witty rather than making a point.
That, or have SCOTUS interpret it into meaninglessness. Which, ironically, were my exact points which you seemed to have issue with.
They'd be bogged down by the concern of a lot of pissed off people with guns, as they hadn't been taken away prior to that. Repealing the Bill of Rights could easily be justification for an open revolution, at which point you get into 'cold dead hands' territory.
And anyway, although we are getting into off topic country, the 2nd ammendment does not prevent any sort of gun control, just like the 1st ammendment doesn't protect someone's right to run into a movie theater yelling 'fire!' when there is no fire. The 'well regulated militia' part allows for that. However, banning guns outright or de facto banning of guns is prevented by it unless you do a serious retcon on the intent of the law.
If SCOTUS did that they would probably just be ignored by other branches of the government. It's happened before.
A retcon similiar to what past despotic tyrannical governments have done in their countries?
Such a war wouldn't be any Marxist Revolution. The prolitarians of the world are too easily trounced and fooled by our larger governments of the world.
If the US were to ever find itself in civil war, it would not be a war of the people. But of organized political heavy weights.
No, the "well-regulated militia" part has nothing to do with that. It's a statement of purpose, not a burden to be placed on ownership or a suggestion that such ownership should be regulated. But you're correct in that the 2nd doesn't prevent gun control; just that it's the vague definitions of "arms," "bear," and "infringed" that allow for this. That, and of course the whole "compelling public interest" factor.
EDIT: Sorry, I know there's another gun control thread. It's just that the mangling of that phrase, as well as the refusal by some to admit that there may be alternate interpretations of it, really gets annoying sometimes.
No, they wouldn't, because SCOTUS would be acting in concert with those other branches of government. Just with their own despotic flair. Rehnquist's gold stripes might make a comeback, for instance.
For someone who linked to Nazi Germany you don't seem to have a great grasp over what constitutes a tyrannical government.
haven't they already done just that. Like, that is why there are all sorts of laws impinging on folks right to bear arms.
shit... I thought he was being ironic when he said that.
Hasn't SCOTUS interpreted what constitutes interstate trade in a way that is so broad as to make the term almost meaningless?
Ignoring it would inevitably lead to legal battles culminating in a SCOTUS trial which would require an interpretation that toes the totalitarian line, regardless of how mangled the phrasing becomes.
The issue is more or less what kind of authoritarian government we're going to get. If it's a semi-benign one that just has extremely limited (but existing) civil liberties, with CCTV cameras everywhere and up your colon then this likely wouldn't come about. If you have one where citizens are being picked up and sent to concentration camps it might be an issue.
The SCOTUS has been ignored before. Remember all of those Indian treaties?
So now we are assuming all branches of government are in collusion to necessitate a take over? I don't think that is necessary, but let's run with it for a bit.
When guns are banned through whatever means, there is still the issue of the large population of pissed off gun holders, who were previously lawbiding but are now criminals. If that population doesn't exist or is in collusion with the would be tyrant then that fits into the category of the populace willingly devolving into fascism or despotism. I don't really see how that population would up and disappear given their prevalence throughout US history in some form or another, and if they are in league with the tyrant then they still have their guns, which isn't really a true prohibition.
Now, I would assume some of this group would back down and hand over their guns, but it is very likely that a substantial portion will be pushed underground. And this underground would be a potential fount for insurrection against the tyrant, which is a threat that the tyrant must keep in mind if he decides to ban guns. Because banning guns won't magically make them disappear, they will just make it so you have to be a criminal to have them.
Fine. I've heard it argued other ways, but I don't take issue with your interpretation of it.
Tyrannical. American. Government.
ty·ran·ni·cal
–adjective
1. of or characteristic of a tyrant.
2. unjustly cruel, harsh, or severe; arbitrary or oppressive; despotic: a tyrannical ruler.
What part of that meshes with other branches of government checking and balancing each other? Also, you proved that SCOTUS could simply become irrelevant and Congress and the Executive get to go buck wild destroying the checks and balances anyhow with the removal of judicial review.
It's already been established the 2nd amendment does not mean that you cannot have any gun control. Just like the 1st amendment really doesn't protect free speach no matter the consequences. Stop being facetious.
established by whom?
also, I'm not being facetious. You might want to look up what that means.
What are the limits on the laws the congress can pass restricting people's rights to bear arms? They can limit specific weapons. They can limit it based on what weapons look like. They can limit it based on who the people are. They limit what can be done to the weapons after they are purchased. Did they get the stuff through that limited what they can fire? I forget.
I believe that the second is also used in state court cases, so... it is some ways applies to them. But there are plenty of state restrictions too...
so... how has it not already been interperted to the point of being meaningless?
You do realize we basically have Alabama II once you get far enough from the ocean, right?
True, but most of the laws are statewide, and driven by the coastal cities.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Saddam.
Because all of a sudden that seems damned important to me in terms of the ability to oppose attempts subtle or unsubtle which lend themselves away from values I hold as a citizen. We live in a connected world, and our ability to be connected is a major factor in our inability to be controlled. The internet is a major mechanism in that it is essentially uncontrollable thus far and every attempt to control it has been heavily fought in the name of free speech, and it's quite true that in the interests of opposing a potentially tyrannical/oppressive government that access to essentially unbreakable cryptography would be much more vital then access to any amount of firepower - the ability to reach the people >> the ability to kill some of the people.
EDIT: Also, as I said in the OP - this thread wasn't supposed to start with an absurd notion of a tyrannical government, just pre-suppose that is the destination for the purposes of the discussion and then ask "how could this happen to us?" with the intent of discussing whether gun ownership is really the real fundamental issue or in fact, as I personally feel, a red herring which has conveniently allowed much greater moves against the freedom of citizens to be made.
I think Feral addressed this quite well.
I'll ask you a counter question. Does Clear and Present Danger make the 1st Ammendment meaningless? I mean, it restricts what you can say based on the public interest. If it does not, where do you draw the line on what defines meaningless?
Internet's all well and good, but if things go to shit I wouldn't rely on it being able to save us. What if we are hit with an EMP? What if the tyrant decides to institute North Korea style restrictions on it? What if our infrastructure degrades to the point we can't support it?
Communication is necessary for an effective resistence movement, but you need more than just that depending upon what you are resisting.
I sure as hell wouldn't have, unless there was a DAMN good reason for it.
- Soren Kierkegaard
Nor would I. The Constitution came before the President and the officers above me in my oath.
The problem you run into is when soldiers are put into situations where they think they have to do so to defend themselves. Take Kent State. The soldiers in question really were at risk of injury, and had nothing but lethal means to defend themselves. So bad things happened. I could see that happening in other circumstances as well.
But as far as using soldiers to actually oppress the people, I think most would desert first.
Well, you can use a lethal weapon like a rifle in a non-lethal manner. Take the bullets out and whack 'em with the stock.
- Soren Kierkegaard
Of course you can. But when people are lobbing heavy things at my face, I may or may not count on myself to think of that. Seriously, when put in a position where they have to defend themselves, some people are going to use what they consider to be the most effective means at hand. Which is why soldiers make bad peacekeepers/police.
Marines, on the other hand, would leap at the opportunity to toss their rifles aside and get into a good tussle.
- Soren Kierkegaard