Trump Thread 2.0

[CarpHunter]

I think people are missing a major component of an armed uprising. You state it's too protect the country from a tyrannical government. Your missing the part where once armed resistance is necessary, it's already too late. The country your "defending" is already gone. Thus the reason for armed conflict. Anything created after the conflict is no longer the country it was before hand. Look at our own civil war. If you want to protect the country, then vote in the right people.

R3v3n, what exactly would you define as tyranny? Would slavery fall in there, or Jim crow, or the genocide, relocation and stripping of freedoms of the native americans? How bout not allowing LGBTQ people the same rights as others? Or how bout ignoring the 14th amendment, which states people seeking asylum are granted due process regardless of citizenship? Or creating a special protected class based on religious beliefs, i.e. "religious freedom" bill's?

The point is tyranny is subjective to which side your on. You happily ignore, and advocate for tyranny as long as it's directed at the "other". Only taking issue when said tyranny comes to your door.

You also started making the argument that the average citizen could be considered part of "a well regulated militia". In that case, the government isn't infringing on any right by banning or outlawing certain weapons. It's doing exactly what the 2a calls for, "regulating the militia". You just don't like what they regulate, basically screaming like a child cause they took your toys away. And then threatening violence because of it. (Not a personal attack, just an analogy) Again this can all be avoided by simply voting.

[coldweatherblue]

I think people are missing a major component of an armed uprising. You state it's too protect the country from a tyrannical government. Your missing the part where once armed resistance is necessary, it's already too late. The country your "defending" is already gone. Thus the reason for armed conflict. Anything created after the conflict is no longer the country it was before hand. Look at our own civil war. If you want to protect the country, then vote in the right people.

The United States was formed by gun-owning colonists defending and protecting their new country from a tyrannical government.

You cannot separate the literal *creation* of the USA and it's subsequent settlement across the continent to the Pacific from the second amendment and traditional American views on firearms. They are firmly intertwined. I think this is a common failing of gun control advocates; they just do not understand the history and talk down to 2A supporters while being fairly ignorant of firearms in general.

Personally I own a few firearms but have a "reasonable" view of gun control, meaning in general I support the laws in place by my *State* (another key American concept) to encourage responsible firearm ownership. Other states, imo, have less "reasonable" restrictions, but I don't live there.

Regarding dystopian hypothetical futures:

I agree with cale that US firearm ownership is, in fact, a significant deterrent. Simply because the first general measure of a tyrannical dictator is to disarm those who oppose him. The most murderous leaders of the 20th Century all did this. If you need to kill a lot of people to keep power, this is just a smart move. The American people have been groomed for hundreds of years to be wary of such an act, and there are probably 50-100 million armed citizens who would actively resist a gun grab if they thought it would lead to tyranny.

From an absolute perspective, no, armed citizens are not going to be effective against nuclear/biochemical warfare, however see the US military oath as follows:

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

which follows that US military would be unlikely to take up arms against a legitimate civilian uprising.

What circumstances would lead to such an event?

Well I don't know, it sounds like a pretty crappy situation, I'm sure things would really suck, etc, and it definitely doesn't seem to be happening any time soon, because, imo despite opinions of the current political administration, America is a pretty awesome place to live right now, and remains amazingly free in a global context.

however, it has happened in the past, and per Santayana,

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

etc

[Exodus_2pt0]

Personally, I read the 2a as the armed population being the regulation of the militia (military).

As long as the people bear arms, then the power stays in their hands.

[parkerbink]

Wait, are we back to people like yourself thinking that your 1911 and AR could actually stop ACTUAL government tyranny?

This is great because every single 2A zealot gets into the same circular logic loop.

If the government actually went tyrannical (healthcare for everyone isn't tyranny) you and your other middle-aged bros in the neighborhood wouldn't even get to pull your weapons because you wouldn't see or hear the drone until it dropped bombs on your neighborhood.

"But the military is made up of Americans and they would never do that."

What's the name and training ground for your militia?


The next question will be do, "Do you own any guns libtard?"

To which I answer:

1. Not a liberal or a republican.
2. Walk in my backyard at 3am and see what me and my pit bull think about it.

QFT, thank you.

[Wschnitz]

The Most enjoyable part about this thread is looking up every event or person Rezen references and finding out they are borderline crazy or lied about statistics.

the 3M events where 'good guy with a gun' prevented a crime is hilarious. There are not even over 500K gun related incidents mentioned in police reports but there is somehow 3M good Samaritans putting down or deterring the bad guy without reporting it to police?

[parkerbink]

The Most enjoyable part about this thread is looking up every event or person Rezen references and finding out they are borderline crazy or lied about statistics.

the 3M events where 'good guy with a gun' prevented a crime is hilarious. There are not even over 500K gun related incidents mentioned in police reports but there is somehow 3M good Samaritans putting down or deterring the bad guy without reporting it to police?

It's Trump math.

[parkerbink]

Emoluments Clause projected onto Trump's DC hotel

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/333546-emoluments-clause-projected-onto-trumps-dc-hotel

'SHITHOLE' PROJECTED ONTO TRUMP HOTEL IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-shithole-slur-projected-trump-hotel-washington-780897

[z31maniac]

Personally, I read the 2a as the armed population being the regulation of the militia (military).

As long as the people bear arms, then the power stays in their hands.

No, it's not.

If you think an armed populace is a deterrent against tyranny in the US, I'd say quit bogarting the blunt and pass.

[z31maniac]

Stepping in from the sidelines for this one.

The sheer number of privately owned firearms in the US and the number of people semi-competent to use them (10x more veterans than active duty & reserve), and the huge group of firearms enthusiasts, yes the odds are overwhelmingly in the favor of the citizens. America's military is such a strong adversary because it's technological capabilities, which only count for so much in guerrilla warfare. The will to fight would disappear in weeks for any of the few service members who actually agree to turn their guns on the people.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

If you want use the ME as a barometer for "guerilla warfare" being successful against the US military, I'd say look at the numbers we send and the restrictive rules of engagement.

LEO's IN the US have far less restrictions than military members.

Sure, people have handguns and rifles, think you can shoot the drone, tank, F-22 with a handgun and do anything? You can't.

Will to fight is speculation.

[mrsleeve]

The Most enjoyable part about this thread is looking up every event or person Rezen references and finding out they are borderline crazy or lied about statistics.

the 3M events where 'good guy with a gun' prevented a crime is hilarious. There are not even over 500K gun related incidents mentioned in police reports but there is somehow 3M good Samaritans putting down or deterring the bad guy without reporting it to police?

while I agree the 3m is a bit over stated, the more generally accepted stat is about 2M a year and that came from the CDC as well... And yes thats an estimated number of both reported and UNREPORTED incidences.....

Wait, are we back to people like yourself thinking that your 1911 and AR could actually stop ACTUAL government tyranny?

This is great because every single 2A zealot gets into the same circular logic loop.

If the government actually went tyrannical (healthcare for everyone isn't tyranny) you and your other middle-aged bros in the neighborhood wouldn't even get to pull your weapons because you wouldn't see or hear the drone until it dropped bombs on your neighborhood.

"But the military is made up of Americans and they would never do that."

What's the name and training ground for your militia?


The next question will be do, "Do you own any guns libtard?"

To which I answer:

1. Not a liberal or a republican.
2. Walk in my backyard at 3am and see what me and my pit bull think about it.

Dammit buddy why do I have to keep quoting my self every time you try this line of reasoning that is factually and historical incorrect. As to US forces not firing on the general citizenry..... Most wont some will, look at how things are going with the LEO comunity and the us vs them mentality. Also when you have drone tech, you can get around this whole citizen strike issue, by having some stooge in Bulgaria piloting the dam thing via sat uplink.

the militia and shall not be infringed.

The feds define all able bodied men 17-45 and not in the military and former military up to age 64 as part of the Militia. There for if shit hits the fan an organization is called every one in that demographic is expected to show up "Bearing ARMS" You must provide your own weapons. And since you have been called up it would not be a good Idea to show up with a fucking musket when the forces you will be facing have modern weaponry to the time. This is why its implied that we have the ability to own what ever is available to the modern foot solider, as general issue. As during the revolution, the Patriots had arguably better arms than did the British, Rifles in many cases vs the brits and their smooth bore muskets.

Now as to the "regulated" part. This does not mean you go out a play army in the woods of southern MI with your buddies on the week end. Regulated in the instance of the 2a, as written means disciplined in the use of your own arms, or proficient and know how to use them.
( Regulate 3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <IE regulate the pressure of a tire> - Websters)

So to close "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" Means that Personal gun owner ship is necessary right for with out it there would be no Militia at all, and you argue that a Militia is NECESSARY to a free state so there for personal gun ownership is necessary to the security of a free state right. These provisions go hand in hand for with out one there would not be the other and Vice Versa.

Both historicity and constitutionally the militia argument both you and the gun grabbers are trying to use to quantify the 2a holds no water what so ever, Please try again

[Exodus_2pt0]

No, it's not.

If you think an armed populace is a deterrent against tyranny in the US, I'd say quit bogarting the blunt and pass.

I'm referring to the original intentions.

[parkerbink]

No, it's not.

If you think an armed populace is a deterrent against tyranny in the US, I'd say quit bogarting the blunt and pass.

You mean I can't fight off a Marine division with my AR15 & three glocks?

Damn.

[z31maniac]

while I agree the 3m is a bit over stated, the more generally accepted stat is about 2M a year and that came from the CDC as well... And yes thats an estimated number of both reported and UNREPORTED incidences.....

Accepted by those with an agenda.

I'm referring to the original intentions.

Well, it's not 1776 anymore when the citizens had the same weapons.

Drones, fighter jets, bombers, logistical training, supply lines, etc.

The average TGIF eating, America's got talent watching American is going to sit down and shut up when they see the neighborhood across the street destroyed.

[z31maniac]

Dammit buddy why do I have to keep quoting my self every time you try this line of reasoning that is factually and historical incorrect. As to US forces not firing on the general citizenry..... Most wont some will, look at how things are going with the LEO comunity and the us vs them mentality. Also when you have drone tech, you can get around this whole citizen strike issue, by having some stooge in Bulgaria piloting the dam thing via sat uplink.

This made no sense, gather your thoughts and try again.

US citizens haven't tried to rise up against the government in modern times. I'm sorry you can't see the distinction in training and weapons from 250 years ago to now.

[mrsleeve]

You mean I can't fight off a Marine division with my AR15 & three glocks?

Damn.

the Afghani's have had some pretty good success doing just that nearly continuously for the last 40 years or so, faced against the 2 largest and well equipped regular military's in the world....