Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is there any reasonable argument that the second amendment is actually a good thing? [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)147. Quick! Divert again!!!!!
Why did the US see it as so important for us to arm the Libyan rebels?
Because once the Europeans had eliminated Libya's tanks, an armed citizenry could fight their revolution.
The military in Egypt just ended up siding with the people.
No, they sat it out. They didn't really choose one side or the other. Making an armed citizenry irrelevant.
You don't think that something similar might happen in the United States?
You really should pay attention to your own argument when you try to defend it.
The reason for your revolution is tyranny of the federal government. That requires the military to participate in the tyranny - if the military nor law enforcement participates, the tyranny disappears the next election.
So your claim is you need a gun to fight the US military. That precludes having the US military fight alongside you.
Why do you think we have a National Guard set up in each of the 50 states instead of being centralized under the Federal gov't?
They are routinely federalized and receive significant federal funding. To call them state-only entities is to ignore what has happened in the last couple decades.
You still haven't explained what happened in Vietnam.
That's because Vietnam wasn't an internal revolution. You know, the thing you're actually trying to talk about.
Again, no revolution has succeeded against a military with tanks. Either:
- the tanks were neutralized by other countries
- the military joined the revolution
- the military didn't pick sides in the revolution
- the revolution was crushed.
The purpose of an armed population isn't just to prevent a tyrannical federal gov't, it was designed also to make invasion by a foreign power almost impossible.
No, it was necessary to protect against invasion in 1789 when we did not have a standing federal army.
We have a standing federal army now. It isn't 1789 anymore.
When you can effectively turn every single citizen into a soldier, it makes it very difficult to subjugate them.
It takes much more than handing out guns to turn citizens into soldiers. Which is why if you want to require militia membership in order to own a gun, you might have a point. But you're handing out guns to anyone who says "I Wanna!!"
So you don't think an armed citizenry hasn't stopped tyranny. Hmm. Why do you think when business leaders developed The Business Plot, they tried to get WW1 veterans to help them?
You know, if it was remotely as effective as you claim, you wouldn't have to resort to conspiracy theories for examples. After all, there's been plenty of attempted revolutions in the time period I'm talking about.
How bout the one in Hungary in the 50s? Oh wait...crushed by tanks. Well, how 'bout the one in China in the 90s? Oh wait...crushed by tanks. How 'bout the ones in Chile or Argentina.? Oh wait....crushed by tanks.
Did I claim that gun ownership stopped all crime in my neighborhood?
Well, you claimed there was tons of crime, then you got a gun, then it was all better. While that's not coming out and saying your gun ended all crime in your neighborhood, it's obvious that you wanted to convey that message.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
204 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Is there any reasonable argument that the second amendment is actually a good thing? [View all]
DanTex
Apr 2013
OP
But tobacco is not constitutionally protected, and nobody thinks it should be. (AFAIK)
DanTex
Apr 2013
#4
I see. Well, tobacco kills by a different mechanism. And it does not kill right away.
geckosfeet
Apr 2013
#82
"Guns sre designed to kill. It is their only reason to exist." Yet millions of Democrats disagree.
AnotherMcIntosh
Apr 2013
#186
You say "Millions of Americans believe the earth is flat." Good luck with your flat-earth meetings.
AnotherMcIntosh
Apr 2013
#197
You say, "Guns exist for one reason and one reason only." Yet millions of Democrats don't agree.
AnotherMcIntosh
Apr 2013
#185
That's wonderful. Is it regulated by the state, according to federal guidelines?
jmg257
Apr 2013
#204
You're aware, aren't you, that the Vietnamese say that war as a war for independence, right?
Alva Goldbook
Apr 2013
#137
You can't apply a broadly general statistical probability to a specific individual.
Lizzie Poppet
Apr 2013
#69
Even without any further information, I can tell you it's not improving your survival prospects.
2ndAmForComputers
Apr 2013
#195
There is a difference between a reasonable argument and a convincing argument.
ZombieHorde
Apr 2013
#3
Understand you'd still have the Navy, the Marines (part of the Navy),
Benton D Struckcheon
Apr 2013
#17
But for Iraq, Bush did use the National Guard as though they were regular Army,
tblue37
Apr 2013
#77
Yeah, but that came later in the war, when they were having trouble replacing the ones who...
Benton D Struckcheon
Apr 2013
#78
A professional, standing army is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid
davidn3600
Apr 2013
#18
Dan, consider what your statement's consequences have had for our past, and for...
Eleanors38
Apr 2013
#53
Well, my read of the constitution says gun owners are part of a well regulated militia
XRubicon
Apr 2013
#58
And neither do you. Except for a bunch of historically ignorant claims about the second amendment.
DanTex
Apr 2013
#35
Umm, all of them except for the right-wingers. Did you actually read the Stevens dissent?
DanTex
Apr 2013
#38
And all 4 very clearly stated that it's about militia participation, and it does not protect
DanTex
Apr 2013
#49
No, Stevens is talking about the purpose. Are you asserting that he contradicted himself?
X_Digger
Apr 2013
#43
Lol, he says it's an individual right, then talks about the level of permissible regulation.
X_Digger
Apr 2013
#52
...and he's saying that it has nothing to do with private civilian use of firearms.
DanTex
Apr 2013
#55
Short answer: Yes, there are many reasonable arguments in favor of the second amendment.
Demo_Chris
Apr 2013
#32
Some people have the idea that insurection means engaging authority in pitched battles. nt
Demo_Chris
Apr 2013
#95
It's an over age Sacred Cow on it's last legs whose usefulness died long ago.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Apr 2013
#50
I don't know about all that, but I'll keep the .38 by the bed, thank you. nt
Eleanors38
Apr 2013
#62
Every challange to the Second Amendment strengthens opponents of reasonable gun safety laws
Tom Rinaldo
Apr 2013
#100
We can't know how our political culture would have evolved without the Second Amendment
Tom Rinaldo
Apr 2013
#105
Is the second ammendment a good thing? No. Hand me my black Sharpie marker. I'll take care of it.
hunter
Apr 2013
#117
I support allowing firearm ownership though federal law, not as a "constitutional right"
NYC Liberal
Apr 2013
#122
So you honestly think we are more similar to El Salvador than Canada or the UK?
DanTex
Apr 2013
#177
You continue to ignore the point that in other categories of violent crime, we much more closely
DanTex
Apr 2013
#180
Our life expectancy is closer to Mexico's than Canada's. And our Gini coefficient leaves me no doubt
Recursion
Apr 2013
#181
Looks like old data. And you don't list any link, and there are no references.
baldguy
Apr 2013
#190