Originally posted by NewDustin: My point is that the Second Amendment is insufficient to protect citizens' rights from a contemporary government with a modern military. IE, you aren't go to rise up against your government with hobby rifles.
It took me awhile, I was looking for a word.
"Aghast" is the closest word I can think of. Your thoughts remind me of a old boss's saying "It may not help but it sure won't hurt." He said that every time I told him what he wanted to do, was worthless. He also had a phrase, ... "it is what it is". Every time he said that I told him "it is what you make it".
My point is that the Second Amendment is sufficient to protect citizens' rights from a contemporary government with a modern military. "It may not help but it sure won't hurt."
You speak of modern militaries. Do they have computers ? They rely on them. Hacking cripples nations. Hobby rifles help.
You say " Ukraine/Russia seems a poor example of this, given it's two modern militaries fighting, one with a much large military and one with multiple nations supporting it. The militias' goals there were never to defeat us; that would have been impossible. Rather, they looked to influence our actions/drive us out by attrition and losses. That's what the Russians couldn't counter in Afghanistan, I believe.
Zhit happens more than once.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: That's why one of our primary goals was to turn the private militias to our side. One of the big outcomes of Najaf was turning the 1920s Revolutionary Brigades to the Coalition forces side. We turned a large number of the rest of them to our side too, via concessions to their individual causes and support against common enemies.
Zhit happens more than once.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: The militias winning the conflict? Was never going to happen. Them forcing concessions via prolonged conflict? Yeah, absolutely.
What's that joke phrase ? "We have already determined you are prostitute, now we are negotiating price."
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I do think it would fail, and I think the best outcome the rebels could hope for would be a dissolution of the US as a federal entity rather than an overtaking of it. Again, though, the best weapons available to the militias are going to be IEDs and the second amendment does nothing to ensure access to high explosives.
Think harder ! The colonies did not want to overtake England. How did the colonies become a federal entity ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: ... the second amendment does nothing to ensure access to high explosives.
My my, gasp, "ensure access" ? Tell us about the Chicago gun laws not allowing access to guns.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: The South had an Army, with experienced generals, developed logistics, and all the bells and whistles. The Civil War also occurred between two non-modern combatants, when the gulf between armament between what a civilian militia had and what a military had was not as massive as it is now.
Where did the South get their experienced generals, developed logistics, and all the bells and whistles ?
"Non modern" is a dodge. It was modern then.
My my, gasp, "ensure access" ? Tell us about the Chicago gun laws not allowing access to guns.
That was not a gun.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: As far as the roles allies would play, I'm not sure how to answer that without it being pure conjecture. As a potential dictatorship, are the alliances of the US still standing, or did they fail long ago? Did we form new ones with other repressive powers? I'm sure there would be influence on both sides, but I don't think we can look to a the Revolution -a time before airplanes- as an apples-to-apples logistics comparison.
Last point, and it's semantics: Marines don't come in squadrons.
Last point. not semantics, Marines do come in squadrons.
Originally posted by cliffw: It took me awhile, I was looking for a word.
"Aghast" is the closest word I can think of. Your thoughts remind me of a old boss's saying "It may not help but it sure won't hurt." He said that every time I told him what he wanted to do, was worthless. He also had a phrase, ... "it is what it is". Every time he said that I told him "it is what you make it".
My point is that the Second Amendment is sufficient to protect citizens' rights from a contemporary government with a modern military. "It may not help but it sure won't hurt."
You speak of modern militaries. Do they have computers ? They rely on them. Hacking cripples nations. Hobby rifles help.
I'm good to assume they could be used as part of a larger number of actions. I'm not sure how they'd help in the cybersecurity example. Nobody sends phishing emails via .223.
quote
Think harder ! The colonies did not want to overtake England. How did the colonies become a federal entity ?
A US rebellion would not be fighting a geographically distant England in a time with no airplanes. State succession is a very different conversation than what we've discussed so far.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Where did the South get their experienced generals, developed logistics, and all the bells and whistles ?
"Non modern" is a dodge. It was modern then.
That was not a gun.
...which illustrates my point about the use of IEDs.
It isn't a dodge when it's a core premise of my argument. Modern armaments and training are what make the difference. I've been saying that since the beginning of this conversation.
I think I already linked to the Confederate Army in this thread once...but I don't have to think where they came from, we know.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Last point. not semantics, Marines do come in squadrons.
I suppose that's true during joint exercises with the Navy and Air Force, but that seems a vulgar way to describe those services people. They can't help it, our uniforms really do look the best.
You and I share a very different perspective on the world. A hypothetical dictatorship in the United States, and whether or not the modern military will crush the civilian population as a decision on whether or not we should even bother continue to owning guns ... is not something I generally think about, or an argument that I routinely get into with people. Your argument is quite basically, suggesting that we shouldn't have the right to bear arms because they won't do any good anyway. Which is completely absurd. Why should I even bother entertaining your fallacy? The fact that I even went down this rabbit hole with you speaks much more about how I've allowed myself to waste time on something so absurd.
I didn't say we shouldn't have the right to bear arms. There's a large number of legitimate reasons to keep firearms.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: What possible good could come from this discussion?
You nailed it earlier: "You and I share a very different perspective on the world." I don't see things the way you do, but I accept that you are a reasonably intelligent person who looked at the same set of circumstances I did and came to different and often well-reasoned conclusions. There's not just one way to look at any of this, and being able to pick at your take, examine its parts and ask questions about them gives me information I'd never get without engaging with you. Cliff, for example, appears to be making a good point about firearms role in larger actions, and I'm excited to see where he goes with it.
My goal isn't to change your minds or bring you over to my way of thinking, and it isn't to say "hooray for our side." I've been overly tenacious on some of what I perceive as shortcomings in them; that's something I'm going to try to be better about. Like I said to Willie in the other thread (though I said it with more frustration than I should have), I want to encourage and engage in critical thinking with you all.
What's the point otherwise? To echo chamber a unified opinion and share memes?
Originally posted by NewDustin: Like I said to Willie in the other thread (though I said it with more frustration than I should have), I want to encourage and engage in critical thinking with you all.
No. What you did was suggest that because I came to a different conclusion than you, I wasn’t thinking critically.
You never considered that I have been following Arizona politics longer than you have been alive. I just don’t have the need, desire or obligation to write paragraph after paragraph of history, just so you can find something to use to try and prove me wrong.
You are doing the same thing as Toast. The only difference is that you are more polite and articulate.
You nailed it earlier: "You and I share a very different perspective on the world." I don't see things the way you do, but I accept that you are a reasonably intelligent person who looked at the same set of circumstances I did and came to different and often well-reasoned conclusions. There's not just one way to look at any of this, and being able to pick at your take, examine its parts and ask questions about them gives me information I'd never get without engaging with you. Cliff, for example, appears to be making a good point about firearms role in larger actions, and I'm excited to see where he goes with it.
My goal isn't to change your minds or bring you over to my way of thinking, and it isn't to say "hooray for our side." I've been overly tenacious on some of what I perceive as shortcomings in them; that's something I'm going to try to be better about. Like I said to Willie in the other thread (though I said it with more frustration than I should have), I want to encourage and engage in critical thinking with you all.
What's the point otherwise? To echo chamber a unified opinion and share memes?
I'm looking at this (at least I believe I am) holistically... you're imagining (I assume) a bunch of farmers with hunting rifles versus a completely decked out military with MRAPs and 50 cals, and everyone has an M4/M5 with a scope on it.
But that's not realistic.
A realistic situation is that the "modern military" would be severely degraded by the fact that the country would have a huge number of people who would defect. You'd likely even have entire military bases that I suspect would go one way or the other. To that point, if we're imagining a left vs right as it currently exists right now. The left would have the cities, and the right would have the majority of the states. I suspect allegiance would break along state lines... and you'd have many of the major military bases being subsumed by the conservative side. I think that pretty much defines the outcome.
But, let's say for a moment that all the military bases stayed, and no one defected. It was just populace vs military. I think you underestimate the access people have to guns. They aren't hobby guns, there are many people out there who have fully automatic weapons, the least of which are semi-automatic AR-15s (which you'd really rather have than a fully automatic M4/5 anyway). There's a lot of exotic weaponry out there. If we believe the police would also stay with the Federal government... those would be the first sites to be overrun by citizens, and they have nearly the same small-arms as the military does, along with plates and other gear.
The government would have MQ9s... but again, I don't think they want the wholesale destruction of the populace... because then there's no one to govern. They may use them for reconnaissance, but eventually they'll quickly run out of munitions... and building new Hellfire and Brimstone missiles would not reasonably occur because the supply chain would be interrupted. A modern military requires components that are global (unfortunately). There are almost 900k registered drones in the United States, in civilian ownership. Think about that for a minute... I own three drones and I've never registered one of them because they aren't of that capacity. There are millions more drones that people just have, that can still be used for anything from reconnaissance to carrying small explosives.
The modern U.S. military requires the support of the U.S. citizenry to maintain it's power. If the citizenry turns against it, it will fail... and that's not even considering what happens as the civilian force overwhelms a military base by sheer numbers.
All of that said... the right to own a gun is a part of that. If the citizenry does not have guns, the chance that the populace even attempts to overthrow the government is significantly less... because the casualties would be so much more significant. Having guns maintains a constant threat to would-be dictators that it's a tall hill to climb should they want to dramatically change the landscape of the United States.
No. What you did was suggest that because I came to a different conclusion than you, I wasn’t thinking critically.
You never considered that I have been following Arizona politics longer than you have been alive. I just don’t have the need, desire or obligation to write paragraph after paragraph of history, just so you can find something to use to try and prove me wrong.
You are doing the same thing as Toast. The only difference is that you are more polite and articulate.
Willie don’t play that.
I engaged with your ideas until you shut down any further conversation. Again, I'm not trying to talk you over to my way of thinking, I'm trying to show you where your stances need further consideration. Your unwillingness to challenge any portion of your own initial take on the idea is why I said you weren't thinking critically. It's in the thread.
The US military swears an oath to the Constitution.
All enemies, foreign and domestic.
An attempt to subvert the Constitution by a dictator would put the military solidly with the populace.
How do you think a "dictator" would come to power in the US today? Are you assuming it couldn't happen in a constitutional or legal way? If what you considered to be a "dictator" was elected constitutionally what implications are there for those who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: there are many people out there who have fully automatic weapons, the least of which are semi-automatic AR-15s (which you'd really rather have than a fully automatic M4/5 anyway).
I'm still reading through and digesting the rest, but this part gave me a great mental image. Even 3-round burst is stupid ineffective and you aren't going to see it used much. 30 round mags go FAST, and you're going to be loaded down carrying more than 6-7 of them. You know those first engagements would go exactly like this (but with way more awkward reloading): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK1B9b_0Z2Y&t=54s And end with the one experienced person yelling "NO DAMMIT SAVE YOUR ROUNDS WHAT ARE YOU DOING"
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 09-20-2024).]
Originally posted by olejoedad: I see no sense to your question, so I can't give you an answer.
Maybe more direct, then: Who would be responsible for deciding what constitutes standing up to a dictator vs overthrowing a Constitutional government? If a Constitutionally-elected dictatorship is in place, would you be defending the Constitution by attacking it?
edit: fixing my random capitalization because it's driving me nuts.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 09-20-2024).]
The likelihood of the two other branches of our government being in step with a dictator is extremely unlikely. Impeachment is the solution to a rogue President.
The Democrats abused their responsibility in exercising the impeachment power granted to Congress in the Constitution.
The likelihood of the two other branches of our government being in step with a dictator is extremely unlikely. Impeachment is the solution to a rogue President.
I agree; this sounds very reasonable. What role does the 2nd Amendment play in this?
Originally posted by olejoedad: You didn't respond to the last paragraph of my statement.
I'm not sure how to reply to that within the context of the conversation...but maybe, kinda, sometimes? I really want to avoid turning this into an argument about Trump because I don't think he plays a role here, and I worry my opinions on Jan 6 would derail the conversation.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad: FYI, proper Forum etiquette includes using (snip) when using partial quotes from other members.
That has not been a universal preference on forums I've posted on, but I understand it and don't have a problem with it! I'll make that adjustment
Practical question: Is the above ok, or would an ellipses have been preferred when breaking the comment up?
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 09-20-2024).]
He wants POSITIVE ratings, I'm helping him get them.
I was mostly being facetious about that. I do care about following etiquette though. I'm going to ruffle you alls feathers enough by poking at your arguments, but I don't need/want to be rude about it.
Originally posted by NewDustin: I'm not sure how to reply to that within the context of the conversation...but maybe, kinda, sometimes? I really want to avoid turning this into an argument about Trump because I don't think he plays a role here, and I worry my opinions on Jan 6 would derail the conversation.
This was never considered an "overthrow" of the government, or even a coup. At worst, the goal was to delay the electoral vote until a full investigation could take place. At best, it was a protest regarding the manipulation of the voting laws under the guise of COVID that allowed Democrats to obtain votes that would normally have been considered illegal.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Maybe more direct, then: Who would be responsible for deciding what constitutes standing up to a dictator vs overthrowing a Constitutional government? If a Constitutionally-elected dictatorship is in place, would you be defending the Constitution by attacking it?
It's simple... it would be the people. A "sea change" or movement occurs most often because one thing sparks an event which cascades throughout. Like a ripple in the water. It's usually a sentiment that builds over time, and then there's ONE thing that leads to a point where the population collectively puts their foot down. It's a hard thing to judge because humans are very much "pack animals" if you will. The mindset changes when a person is part of a group... personal responsibility usually takes a backseat to that of a larger movement because... "odd in numbers" from everything to getting arrested to getting caught. More than likely though, it could be instigated by something that everyone has access to. People generally don't want to act alone, but if they know that others are doing the same thing elsewhere, there's a "strength in numbers" mentality.
The feds published the bounty note that Routh left behind. So the whole world knows there is a $150,000 bounty on Trump's head. I would bet the Iranians would be happen to add a few zeroes to it.
On Saturday, October 5th, 2024, President Donald J. Trump will return to Butler, Pennsylvania to hold a rally on the very same ground where he came within a quarter of an inch of losing his life less than three months ago.
