New 2a argument to use against elitist snobs


PDA






Jnitti1014
December 27, 2012, 12:24 AM
Bear with me....
Went to see Les Miserables tonight with the wife and in laws and was struck by a 2a argument that could be made from an example in the movie. Especially when dealing with elitist types who think we are all uneducated rednecks.

Towards the end of the story the french revelutionaries have constructed a barricade against the brutal and fascist government forces. It remains at a stalemate (both sides using small arms and edged weapons for the most part) until the govt brings in superior firepower in the form of heavy cannons.

My inlaws are very anti-gun and can't figure out why anyone on earth NEEDS an ar-15. My point is the cannons were the ar-15 of that era and the peasants didn't have them. Not having them allowed the tyrannical forces to triumph and overrun the freedom fighters, killing 99% of them. A free people need to be armed (somewhat) equally for effective self defense.

Comments?

If you enjoyed reading about "New 2a argument to use against elitist snobs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sleepyone
December 27, 2012, 01:01 AM
I can see that analogy. I think a more accurate one might be comparing heavy cannons to tanks, and I still don't like my chances with my AR against a tank. :eek:

hso
December 27, 2012, 01:30 AM
You're not going to get anywhere with your in-laws using revolution and battles with government forces as the basis of your argument.

Jnitti1014
December 27, 2012, 01:34 AM
Actually I didn't use that argument, they know my position and I know theirs, thankfully neither of us brought it up. I'm not calling for revolution either.

Just appeared to me as an example of why the forces of good need equal firepower to the forces of evil. Whether it was in 1815 or 2013, the technologies change, the reasons do not.

leadcounsel
December 27, 2012, 01:39 AM
Lightly armed unedcuated "pheasants" in Afghanistan and Iraq bogged down the mightiest standing Armiest in the history of the world for a collective 30 years (10 for the USSR)(8 years in Iraq, 12 in Afghanistan for the USA), pheastants in Vietnam drove the US out after a bloody decade-long stalemate (a generous characterization). All the technology, tanks, bombs, and modern weaponry did nothing to move the ball forward for these hardened fighting forces.

gunNoob
December 27, 2012, 04:39 AM
Would the outcome be the same for all those jews that got killed if they had their own guns? Probably not.

JFtheGR8
December 27, 2012, 06:55 AM
^^^^ This. I ask anyone that wants to debate with me about my pro gun stance if they would rather die in a gas chamber or if they would rather die fighting. Nobody ever picks the gas chamber.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Buck Kramer
December 27, 2012, 09:18 AM
well that escalated quickly...
You're not going to get anywhere with your in-laws using revolution and battles with government forces as the basis of your argument.


I agree here.

JustinJ
December 27, 2012, 10:23 AM
Towards the end of the story the french revelutionaries have constructed a barricade against the brutal and fascist government forces. It remains at a stalemate (both sides using small arms and edged weapons for the most part) until the govt brings in superior firepower in the form of heavy cannons.

My inlaws are very anti-gun and can't figure out why anyone on earth NEEDS an ar-15. My point is the cannons were the ar-15 of that era and the peasants didn't have them. Not having them allowed the tyrannical forces to triumph and overrun the freedom fighters, killing 99% of them. A free people need to be armed (somewhat) equally for effective self defense.

How can you conclude that the cannon of then would be the AR15 of today if it was the weapon available only to the government forces? The disparity between modern military weapons(tanks, planes, artillery, etc) and AR15's is infinitely wider than that between cannons and muskets. No offense but your thinking is blatantly backwards. Rather than looking at a scenario and then forming your opinion you have formed your opinion and then tried to twist the scenario to support it.

josiewales
December 27, 2012, 10:48 AM
Lightly armed unedcuated "pheasants"

Well, have you ever seen a heavily armed, educated pheasant? :)

trook
December 27, 2012, 10:55 AM
I like the argument about the gas chamber...

Do you remember hearing about the millions of Jews who died in the gas chambers?............ Don't you think the outcome might have been a little different if they had used AK-47's to defended themselves from the Germans?

TX1911fan
December 27, 2012, 03:13 PM
Yep, we'd be toast against government weaponry anyway, tanks, planes, missiles, etc. This in fact is one liberal argument against the 2A. They say, "what good will your rifle be against a tank, so the government will still win." However, this is why it is vitally important for the National Guard to remain state organizations. I understand they can be controlled by the Feds, but I have confidence that the Texas National Guard would stand with Texas and not with the Feds should a fight come. That would at least give us some chance.

I think the Holocaust is a much better argument. Also, the TV show "Revolution" is a good argument as well. The "government" bans gun ownership for civilians, and then runs rampant over the population. It's a crap show, but from a 2A standpoint, very good.

Or, you can always use Harry Potter. Ask them how the good wizards would have been able to triumph over the bad if their wands were banned? It was not the wand that was evil, but the person using it.

holdencm9
December 27, 2012, 03:27 PM
Yep, we'd be toast against government weaponry anyway, tanks, planes, missiles, etc. This in fact is one liberal argument against the 2A. They say, "what good will your rifle be against a tank, so the government will still win."

I disagree. Not to derail the thread, but how many defectors from the military would there be if something like that went down? Last I checked, officers in the military swear an oath to protect the constitution. How about supply chains and logistics? The military certainly has stockpiles of arms and ammo but private companies supply them with everything they have, if they continued to supply them then they would become likely targets of sabotage. But again, don't want to derail the thread or get it closed talking about revolution, which I am against, for the record.

However I'd like to mention, the argument (even if it were true) is silly. It's like saying, you won't stand a chance, so therefore you need LESS well-armed. :banghead:

Hunger games is another pro-2a movie believe it or not. The wife took me to that one. I didn't complain as I am a fan of J-Law.

TwoEyedJack
December 27, 2012, 05:41 PM
When I argue with someone who is really adamant about gun control and uses emotion instead of logic, sometimes I regrettably stoop to their level and tell them "there are more of us, and we have the guns". Pretty much a conversation killer, but it does give them something to think about.

oldbear
December 27, 2012, 05:48 PM
I can see that analogy. I think a more accurate one might be comparing heavy cannons to tanks, and I still don't like my chances with my AR against a tank.

Neither does anyone else with common sense.

oldbear
December 27, 2012, 05:53 PM
New 2a argument to use against elitist snobs My inlaws are very anti-gun

Jnitti1014, I hope you haven't told your wife that you believe her Mother and Father are elitist snobs, unless you are fond of sleeping in the garage.

MachIVshooter
December 27, 2012, 05:54 PM
Lightly armed unedcuated "pheasants" in Afghanistan and Iraq bogged down the mightiest standing Armiest in the history of the world for a collective 30 years (10 for the USSR)(8 years in Iraq, 12 in Afghanistan for the USA), pheastants in Vietnam drove the US out after a bloody decade-long stalemate (a generous characterization). All the technology, tanks, bombs, and modern weaponry did nothing to move the ball forward for these hardened fighting forces.

Well, thank goodness I don't hunt Afghani or Vietnamese pheasants. The ones out here in CO are unarmed, usually just try to fly away.

Asherdan
December 27, 2012, 05:57 PM
On teh internet, I've taken to posting this and departing.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/d2bac1a51163fbf2ff8fb22a269a7eec/tumblr_mfpm2qkOWR1rdzdxlo1_250.jpg

JustinJ
December 27, 2012, 06:00 PM
However I'd like to mention, the argument (even if it were true) is silly. It's like saying, you won't stand a chance, so therefore you need LESS well-armed.

The fact that a bunch of civilians with privately owned weapons would not stand a chance against a modern military is true regardless of one's stance on gun control. I don't believe that fact is a reason to disarm people but only that it's not a valid argument to make against gun control.

People who believe otherwise do so because they want to. They refuse to look at it objectively and accept the idea that their guns could defeat the government because they are seeking additional rationalizations for their position. Its adopting views to support a belief rather than to form it.

I believe we should have a right to AR's, AK's, etc but not because i think they are a defense against a tyrannical government backed by a modern military. When we use weak arguments that most find absurd to argue against gun control it hurts us more than helps as we are not taken seriously.

Do you remember hearing about the millions of Jews who died in the gas chambers?............ Don't you think the outcome might have been a little different if they had used AK-47's to defended themselves from the Germans?

No, i don't. They were largely tricked by believing in false hopes of the future. If they had known or accepted their fates would they not have fought by whatever means available? Instead they incrementally accepted more and more in an attempt to endure their situation and avoid a fight. Even if they had not surrendered their weapons long before they would have stood no chance against the German military as they were not organized in any effective manner.

In many instances in which people's were exterminated there was first a civil war in which both sides did have guns. Obviously their guns failed to prevent what eventually did happen.

Guillermo
December 27, 2012, 06:04 PM
remember, the person asking the questions can control the conversation.

Ask them why they trust the government more than the people.

If they do, they do, there is no point in discussing anything with them. They believe that they are peasants that the government rules. If that is not the case, you have a chance.

oldbear
December 27, 2012, 06:05 PM
Would the outcome be the same for all those jews that got killed if they had their own guns? Probably not.
__________________

Yes it would have been. The only differences would have been, a quick death after, hopefully, killing a some Germans.

Hapworth
December 27, 2012, 06:28 PM
Went to see Les Miserables tonight with the wife and in laws and was struck by a 2a argument that could be made from an example in the movie.

Towards the end of the story the french revelutionaries have constructed a barricade against the brutal and fascist government forces. It remains at a stalemate (both sides using small arms and edged weapons for the most part) until the govt brings in superior firepower in the form of heavy cannons...

...the peasants didn't have them. Not having them allowed the tyrannical forces to triumph and overrun the freedom fighters, killing 99% of them. A free people need to be armed (somewhat) equally for effective self defense.

Comments?It's an interesting tact you take, but limited because the French revolutionaries did ultimately win. How would you reply to your in-laws countering that victory was achieved by the underdogs, minus the "AR-15 of the time"?

berettaprofessor
December 27, 2012, 06:44 PM
This discussion was over on post #11 when trook invoked Godwin's Rule of Nazi analogies.

suemarkp
December 27, 2012, 08:16 PM
You can start with sharpened sticks if you have to. Its just a matter of how far down the weapons line do you have to begin. You can take what you need after you can have a victory. Works the same way with ambushing cops in a gun banning state -- they get ambushed and their guns taken. Now the bad guys have handguns and maybe a shotgun or AR15.

9MMare
December 27, 2012, 09:38 PM
I've been using that argument since the beginning....mostly on FaceBook with people that insist the 2A only applied to muskets. @_@

holdencm9
December 28, 2012, 11:32 AM
The fact that a bunch of civilians with privately owned weapons would not stand a chance against a modern military is true regardless of one's stance on gun control. I don't believe that fact is a reason to disarm people but only that it's not a valid argument to make against gun control.

People who believe otherwise do so because they want to. They refuse to look at it objectively and accept the idea that their guns could defeat the government because they are seeking additional rationalizations for their position. Its adopting views to support a belief rather than to form it.

I believe we should have a right to AR's, AK's, etc but not because i think they are a defense against a tyrannical government backed by a modern military. When we use weak arguments that most find absurd to argue against gun control it hurts us more than helps as we are not taken seriously.

Sure, the full military might of the United States with the support and backing of the PEOPLE could easily wipe out a bunch of misfit hillbillies trying to overthrow the government. They could do that with one or two drone strikes with such precision it wouldn't even make the national news because it would just be sold to the media as a gas leak explosion. That's not what this (totally hypothetical) thought exercise is about though. That's also not what would happen in real life and what the 2nd amendment is for.

Amb
December 28, 2012, 11:51 AM
Well, have you ever seen a heavily armed, educated pheasant? :)

When pheasants start bearing arms, I'll be all for gun control.

CraigC
December 28, 2012, 12:34 PM
They say, "what good will your rifle be against a tank, so the government will still win."
The question is, what can tanks do against millions of free men willing to fight them with rifles?

JustinJ
December 28, 2012, 12:37 PM
The question is, what can tanks do against millions of free men willing to fight them with rifles?

Blow them up, run them over, incinerate them, mow down with machine gun fire, call in air support, direct artillery fire...um, that's all i can think of at the moment.

DammitBoy
December 28, 2012, 12:53 PM
People armed only with molotov cocktails have taken out tanks.

Fryerpower
December 28, 2012, 12:57 PM
Blow them up, run them over, incinerate them, mow down with machine gun fire, call in air support, direct artillery fire...um, that's all i can think of at the moment.
They are going to have to outlaw glass bottles, gasoline, and rags if they want to keep people from destroying tanks. And they are going to have to bring in the UN or some other mercenary force to fight US citizens since it is highly unlikely that you will be able to maintain a political narritive of American soldiers shooting American citizens.

More likely the government will just place anyone they don't like in indefinate detention and not bother to tell anyone where they are, since that is "legal" as of last year.

Jim

JustinJ
December 28, 2012, 12:57 PM
People armed only with molotov cocktails have taken out tanks.

Well, if the US military suddenly decides to start using WWII era tanks instead of the M1 Abrams that might work. Do you really believe a modern tank, which is capable of taking multiple RPG strikes, can be taken out by a molotov cocktail? No, no way, no how.

DammitBoy
December 28, 2012, 01:12 PM
Tanks are driven and operated by people. people cannot stay in tanks forever, they have to eat, sleep, urinate, defecate, etc. at some point or another.

zxcvbob
December 28, 2012, 01:14 PM
Well, if the US military suddenly decides to start using WWII era tanks instead of the M1 Abrams that might work. Do you really believe a modern tank, which is capable of taking multiple RPG strikes, can be taken out by a molotov cocktail? No, no way, no how.


How many tanks do they have? How do they plan to move them around the country?

9MMare
December 28, 2012, 01:20 PM
Lightly armed unedcuated "pheasants" in Afghanistan and Iraq bogged down the mightiest standing Armiest in the history of the world for a collective 30 years (10 for the USSR)(8 years in Iraq, 12 in Afghanistan for the USA), pheastants in Vietnam drove the US out after a bloody decade-long stalemate (a generous characterization). All the technology, tanks, bombs, and modern weaponry did nothing to move the ball forward for these hardened fighting forces.

This is what I believe too, as well as believing many soldiers will not fight against us. Altho I did read, in fact-based fiction considering such a situation, that the govt realized that and would bring in NATO or other foreign troops.

9MMare
December 28, 2012, 01:27 PM
The fact that a bunch of civilians with privately owned weapons would not stand a chance against a modern military is true regardless of one's stance on gun control. I don't believe that fact is a reason to disarm people but only that it's not a valid argument to make against gun control.

People who believe otherwise do so because they want to. They refuse to look at it objectively and accept the idea that their guns could defeat the government because they are seeking additional rationalizations for their position. Its adopting views to support a belief rather than to form it.

.

Sorry, but I'm not delusional. And I dont necessarily think we'd win. But the US govt hasnt 'won' anything in quite awhile so that's not saying much. "Victory in Iraq" got us exactly what? We could make it so that it wasnt worth the fight. The US govt doesnt do carpet bombing, village bombing, etc action against civilians, even armed civilians because the American people dont have the stomach for it. They wont tolerate it against their own, rebellious or not.

And guerrilla warfare consists of alot more than firearms. I think the problem is people think it would be loud and fast and glorious when instead it would be starvation, hiding, refugee camps, and economic hardship....with long-term resistance and an American army (what did remain) with little or no heart to continue a battle. And a govt with no $$ and way less taxes coming in.

Skribs
December 28, 2012, 01:31 PM
I like that "wands don't kill people"...although the difference is in the Harry Potter universe, wands actually had temperments and choices, so it is entirely possible that a wand could do something all on its own. That is not true of guns.

It would have taken time travel for the Jews in WW2 to use AK-47s ;)

JustinJ
December 28, 2012, 01:51 PM
Sorry, but I'm not delusional. And I dont necessarily think we'd win. But the US govt hasnt 'won' anything in quite awhile so that's not saying much. "Victory in Iraq" got us exactly what? We could make it so that it wasnt worth the fight.

First off, when invading foreign countries there is always the option to return home. What we did or did not get in Iraq has nothing to do with it. A tyrant looking to retain power is a completely different thing. For a tyrant facing opposition it is always worth the fight to retain control or he wouldn't be a tyrant. Because he a tyrannical government facing opposition at home has no place to retreat to they historically have been willing to do just about anything they can to win.

Governments backed by a modern military are only defeated when the opposition has outside military support or a sufficient part of the military defects. In either case the necessary weapons are then provided. Necessary weapons are far more than just rifles.

The US govt doesnt do carpet bombing, village bombing, etc action against civilians, even armed civilians because the American people dont have the stomach for it. They wont tolerate it against their own, rebellious or not.

If the US government were abiding by the will of the people why would we fighting against them in the first place?

And guerrilla warfare consists of alot more than firearms. I think the problem is people think it would be loud and fast and glorious when instead it would be starvation, hiding, refugee camps, and economic hardship....with long-term resistance and an American army (what did remain) with little or no heart to continue a battle. And a govt with no $$ and way less taxes coming in.

Of course a government can not exist if the entire population refuses to abide by their rule. If nobody is following them they're not in power to begin with. But in a civil war, even when a tyrant leads one side, there are still some followers to provide the infrastructure to wage ware. If not then they aren't in power and there is no need to fight in the first place.

9MMare
December 28, 2012, 02:05 PM
First off, when invading foreign countries there is always the option to return home. What we did or did not get in Iraq has nothing to do with it. A tyrant looking to retain power is a completely different thing. For a tyrant facing opposition it is always worth the fight to retain control or he wouldn't be a tyrant. Because he a tyrannical government facing opposition at home has no place to retreat to they historically have been willing to do just about anything they can to win.

Governments backed by a modern military are only defeated when the opposition has outside military support or a sufficient part of the military defects. In either case the necessary weapons are then provided. Necessary weapons are far more than just rifles.

If the US government were abiding by the will of the people why would we fighting against them in the first place?

Of course a government can not exist if the entire population refuses to abide by their rule. If nobody is following them they're not in power to begin with. But in a civil war, even when a tyrant leads one side, there are still some followers to provide the infrastructure to wage ware. If not then they aren't in power and there is no need to fight in the first place.

You have your perspective, I have mine. Both are valid.

Tirod
December 28, 2012, 02:43 PM
Would the outcome be the same for all those jews that got killed if they had their own guns? Probably not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising

The sad part is that the Jews took the Nazi's explanation at face value, and when things became desperately clear, the Polish Resistance was less than forthcoming with assistance.

We've already suffered thru one AWB, and the better argument with those who would like to see it imposed again is to ask what good it did. Back there desire with documented instances and figures to show it did any good.

Tell them that since less than 1% of crime is committed with socalled assault rifles, how will banning them or putting them on the NFA list do any more than reduce crime 1%? You can get more results installing a breathalyzer in every car. Then, drunken driving would be essentially eliminated, saving thousands of lifes.

Let's also point out that school age children are actually more likely to drown in their own swimming pool, while "supervised" by their mother, rather than be shot in a school. Or killed in an accident while she's driving the car.

Plus, under the old AWB, these guns didn't go away, and neither did the magazines. They are still here to this day. Banning them did NOTHING. It's part and parcel of Constitutional law. Despite what some propose, confiscation isn't going to happen. That's already been stopped once before, in New Orleans during Katrina.

If you need to use arguments, there's plenty of stuff out there, what's needed is the willingness to do some research, and then get your opinion expressed where others can read it. Comment on editorials or opinion pieces in the paper. The LITERATE read them, and those are more likely to be decision makers in your life.

When you turn the tables and insist that others need to do things like install breathalyzers - because if one life is saved, your inconvenience means nothing - then it brings home the point that a lot of the outrage lacks balance and perspective. That's exactly why certain politicians want immediate action, to take advantage of the swell in public opinion, and why the press is keeping the story on the front burner. It suits their agenda.

Match it comment for comment in a reasoned and impartial way, and those who lack the information will see there's more to it than "Let's pass a law." It's called American Government, the rule of the peoples will, not our overseers, and there are three branches to the Government to have checks and balances.

It's worked before, don't give up now.

CraigC
December 28, 2012, 04:28 PM
Blow them up, run them over, incinerate them, mow down with machine gun fire, call in air support, direct artillery fire...um, that's all i can think of at the moment.
If you honestly believe all that crap then we do not need the 2nd Amendment anyway. For I guess it would be too hard for us to defend our liberty. We'll all just give up right now and let them have what they want. Sorry but you're seriously deluded and if you truly believe that, you need to stop quoting Thomas Jefferson in your signature.

JustinJ
December 28, 2012, 05:12 PM
If you honestly believe all that crap then we do not need the 2nd Amendment anyway. For I guess it would be too hard for us to defend our liberty. We'll all just give up right now and let them have what they want. Sorry but you're seriously deluded and if you truly believe that, you need to stop quoting Thomas Jefferson in your signature.

So what you're saying is i need to just pretend something is true so that i can justify my belief in gun rights? And i have to delude myself into believing something in order to quote Jefferson when i like his perspective on a different topic? That's utterly ridiculous. Regardless of what i think about Jefferson's reasoning for the second amendment and it's application today, how does that mean i can or can't appreciate his views on other topics? That's like saying unless you believe in slavery you can't quote a founding father. Jefferson also strongly opposed a standing army. So i guess you believe its impossible to serve in time of peace and still believe in the second amendment, right?

Jefferson lived in Jefferson's time, not ours. Preserving gun rights, in addition to a number of other things, was a good way in his day to help protect liberty. Does that mean i don't believe the second amendment is still valid? Of course not, only that one reason for it does not currently stand. The founders created a method for the constitution to be amended so unless that happens the second amendment is still law, regardless of it's initial purpose.

What i find disturbing is that you seem to essentially be saying we should just accept arguments just because they lend support to preserving the second amendment regardless of their validity. Sorry but i've never thought intellectual laziness is a good way to win a fight.

9MMare
December 28, 2012, 05:17 PM
Jefferson lived in Jefferson's time, not ours. Preserving gun rights, in addition to a number of other things, was a good way in his day to help protect liberty. Does that mean i don't believe the second amendment is still valid? Of course not, only that one reason for it does not currently stand. The founders created a method for the constitution to be amended so unless that happens the second amendment is still law, regardless of it's initial purpose.

.

I'm only aware of one reason for the 2A, well 2 if you count foreign and domestic separately. If anything is outdated, it's the necessity for private citizens to be prepared to defend the country against foreign enemies.

How is it still valid in your perspective?

CraigC
December 28, 2012, 05:27 PM
Intellectual laziness??? And yet you seem to think those people fought and died for freedom because it was easy??? In turn, you think we should NOT fight for ours because it's too hard??? Sorry but no, I don't think anyone should be quoting Jefferson if they think we shouldn't fight for our liberty because it's too hard or because we might not win. Please. If he had thought that way, defeated before the first shot was fired, we wouldn't be having this discussion but would be living under a UK gun ban as "subjects".

Do you have any concept of a million men? Do you understand that our combined armed forces number less than 1.5million? Do you understand that many of those will not fight against their own people? Do you understand that there are 80million gunowners in the country? Do you understand that tanks and planes do not fuel, fly and fix themselves? Do you understand that they are operated by people who have to eat and sleep? Do you understand that they require fuel and maintenance? Do you understand that WE actually have the advantage, as "We the people..." are supposed to???

zxcvbob
December 28, 2012, 05:28 PM
ETA: we had an armed uprising right here in the US of A in 1946 to oust a corrupt sheriff who tried to suspend free elections.
http://www.americanheritage.com/content/battle-athens

JustinJ
December 28, 2012, 05:29 PM
I'm only aware of one reason for the 2A, well 2 if you count foreign and domestic separately. If anything is outdated, it's the necessity for private citizens to be prepared to defend the country against foreign enemies.

How is it still valid in your perspective?

My primary belief in gun rights is stemmed in the right of self defense and defense of one's family. I believe that is a natural right that we all posses. While I do believe guns other than the AR15 are sufficient for that purpose in every day america there is always the potential for a temporary or even long term collapse of society.

In the absurdly unlikely event of a foreign invasion those who fight would be issued weapons by the government military.

In addition i am troubled by the notion that my right to guns should be infringed because of the actions of another. However, i can understand the opposition's position that the right of people to not be murdered is already being infringed upon at an alarming rate with firearms. Obviously murder will never be stopped completely but attempts to reduce it are certainly understandable, if often misguided.

Warp
December 28, 2012, 05:38 PM
In the absurdly unlikely event of a foreign invasion those who fight would be issued weapons by the government military.


I'd rather have mine, thanks.

JustinJ
December 28, 2012, 05:47 PM
Intellectual laziness??? And yet you seem to think those people fought and died for freedom because it was easy???

Um, it wasn't the fighters of the revolution that i accused of intellectual laziness. Intellectual laziness is one accepts what is only convenient to believe rather than assessing things objectively.

In turn, you think we should NOT fight for ours because it's too hard??? Sorry but no, I don't think anyone should be quoting Jefferson if they think we shouldn't fight for our liberty because it's too hard or because we might not win. Please. If he had thought that way, defeated before the first shot was fired, we wouldn't be having this discussion but would be living under a UK gun ban as "subjects".

What? You talk as if there is some civil war going on right now that i'm saying not to fight. I have no idea what you are trying to convey.

Regarding the American revolution, you seem to believe that a bunch of colonialists just grabbed their muskets and managed to defeat the British army. Sorry, but no. The Americans received huge financial and military support from France. Both direct and indirect support was also received from a number of other nations.

Do you have any concept of a million men? Do you understand that our combined armed forces number less than 1.5million? Do you understand that many of those will not fight against their own people? Do you understand that there are 80million gunowners in the country? Do you understand that tanks and planes do not fuel, fly and fix themselves? Do you understand that they are operated by people who have to eat and sleep? Do you understand that they require fuel and maintenance? Do you understand that WE actually have the advantage, as "We the people..." are supposed to???

I've already addressed just about everything above. I'm not going to just keep rebuffing the same arguments.

JustinJ
December 28, 2012, 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinJ
In the absurdly unlikely event of a foreign invasion those who fight would be issued weapons by the government military.

I'd rather have mine, thanks.

In the event that this Red Dawn fantasy comes true good luck convincing your CO to let you use your own person weapons.

Fryerpower
December 28, 2012, 06:16 PM
@zxcvbob Post #45
I don't think anyone is going to take time and read your link without some context. I toured the area a couple of years ago when I was working at Watts Bar nuclear plant. The short of it is that there was a justified armed uprising here in the US in the last 75 years, right here in Tennessee.

-Jim

JustinJ
December 28, 2012, 06:30 PM
I don't think anyone is going to take time and read your link without some context. I toured the area a couple of years ago when I was working at Watts Bar nuclear plant. The short of it is that there was a justified armed uprising here in the US in the last 75 years, right here in Tennessee.

I started but decided to do the cliff notes on wiki instead. The article also seems to have a very heavy political slant. Anyways, yes, firearms were used to defeat a corrupt local government in 1946. However, if such a thing happened today its hard not to imagine the state police or feds would be swooping in quickly. The question is which side they would side with. Regardless, the local police fought against were not armed with modern military weapon so i don't think this in any way provides evidence that privately owned weapons could be used to defeat a military backed US government in modern times.

9MMare
December 28, 2012, 06:39 PM
My primary belief in gun rights is stemmed in the right of self defense and defense of one's family. I believe that is a natural right that we all posses. While I do believe guns other than the AR15 are sufficient for that purpose in every day america there is always the potential for a temporary or even long term collapse of society.

In the absurdly unlikely event of a foreign invasion those who fight would be issued weapons by the government military.

In addition i am troubled by the notion that my right to guns should be infringed because of the actions of another. However, i can understand the opposition's position that the right of people to not be murdered is already being infringed upon at an alarming rate with firearms. Obviously murder will never be stopped completely but attempts to reduce it are certainly understandable, if often misguided.

Your right to self-defense would be covered by your right to Life.

The 2A has nothing to do with self-defense (IMO but others as well). It is about defending our nation ...against the govt (domestic) or foreign enemies.

And that is why I wrote that perhaps the part about defending against foreign enemies was outdated....because NOW we have a much larger and widespread military. I dont think you understood that from what you wrote.

So it sounds like you no longer see a need for the 2A. That's certainly your perogative. It's true that we gun-owners benefit in other ways from our Constitutional right to being armed...but that is not the reason for that amendment and except for that, there is no Constitutional right to bear arms. (Because there are many methods and tools you can use for self-defense to uphold your right to Life.)

DaisyCutter
December 28, 2012, 06:43 PM
I don't necessarily consider elitist snobs to be anti-gun.



Anti gunners are generally liberal.



People with disposable income, who buy guns, pay taxes, etc., are generally conservative.


I said "generally".

There are rich liberals. *BUT* Overwhelmingly, this president wasn't voted in by elitist snobs, it was the 47% Romney alluded to , who are leeches.



Elitist snobs hunt pheasant using purebred Brittany Spaniels and a Perazzi O/U shotgun.



Don't give the mouthbreathing degenerates the label of elitist snob, they haven't earned it and they never will.

9MMare
December 28, 2012, 06:48 PM
I don't necessarily consider elitist snobs to be anti-gun.



Anti gunners are generally liberal.



People with disposable income, who buy guns, pay taxes, etc., are generally conservative.

I said "generally".

There are rich liberals. *BUT* Overwhelmingly, this president wasn't voted in by elitist snobs, it was the 47% Romney alluded to , who are leeches.

Elitist snobs hunt pheasant using purebred Brittany Spaniels and a Perazzi O/U shotgun.

Don't give the mouthbreathing degenerates the label of elitist snob, they haven't earned it and they never will.

47% isnt 'generally' and if you are claiming that 47% of this country are leeches or even close to that I'd be interested in seeing the data.

Even Romney had to backtrack on that statement....but he said it for the same reason you did...he didnt like the FACT that half the country didnt agree with him.

DanTheFarmer
December 28, 2012, 06:58 PM
One thing to consider in the "AR15's in the hands of civilians stand no chance against tanks, etc.".

This is true but doesn't tell the whole story. Consider Bosnia: ethnic cleansing was accomplished by police pulling people out of their homes armed with nothing but a revolver. 100 policemen = 50 families pulled from their homes each night. If the "ethnically undesirables" were armed it would have required a planned operation to pull them from their homes. 100 police + 1 tank + 1 APC + 1 fuel truck + ... = 1 family pulled from its home each night.
Obviously my numbers are just made up but I think the point is made that the more resources the oppressors need the less oppression that can take place at any given time.

I believe it is FantasyLand to be considering the US Army taking on its citizens but both pro and anti gun supporters are using the idea to justify their positions. I hadn't seen my topic discussed so I toss it out their for your consideration.

Dan

JustinJ
December 28, 2012, 07:03 PM
Your right to self-defense would be covered by your right to Life.

The right to life as outlined in the constitution was written to prevent the federal government from depriving me of it at will. Second, if i do have a right to life, and to defend it, then i'm entitled to the means to do so. Are you saying right to life by default guarantees a right to firearms?

The 2A has nothing to do with self-defense (IMO but others as well). It is about defending our nation ...against the govt (domestic) or foreign enemies.

I don't read the second amendment to say it is solely for defense against tyranny and there are strong arguments to be made that it was not intended for this sole purpose. Realistically its pretty much impossible to say this one amendment was written for this one sole purpose as there were quite a few different mean who signed off on it, each with his own thoughts and reasons.

In addition, the constitution does not say "these rights are valid so long as all of their original purposes remain". There is no provision that limits a right to one application only.

So it sounds like you no longer see a need for the 2A. That's certainly your perogative. It's true that we gun-owners benefit in other ways from our Constitutional right to being armed...but that is not the reason for that amendment and except for that, there is no Constitutional right to bear arms. (Because there are many methods and tools you can use for self-defense to uphold your right to Life.)

I don't think our privately owned firearms would allow us to defeat our military today but as i've already said i still see a need for the second amendment. Firearms, especially for weaker individuals, are the most effective and reliable tool available for one to defend his or her life. No law could remove all firearms from the hands of criminals in the foreseeable future so what other tool is available to effectively defend against them in the hands of criminals? Or what tool could effectively defend a 100 lbs woman from a 250 lbs male attacker?

SharpsDressedMan
December 28, 2012, 07:04 PM
If you want to look at inferior armed "patriots" standing up to an enemy, look to the Afghanis when they battled the Russians, and later, us. They use whatever they have, and do not quit. They shoot their enemies and use their weapons. Should the necessity of arise in a "free" country, I'm sure it will happen that way also. The Afghanis chased out the Russians, and now we are leaving.

JustinJ
December 28, 2012, 07:29 PM
If you want to look at inferior armed "patriots" standing up to an enemy, look to the Afghanis when they battled the Russians, and later, us. They use whatever they have, and do not quit. They shoot their enemies and use their weapons. Should the necessity of arise in a "free" country, I'm sure it will happen that way also. The Afghanis chased out the Russians, and now we are leaving.

First, they have not defeated us. However, in both situations they were fighting an invading army with the option to leave. The Russians left because it cost too much for too little gain to stay. Again, that is very different from a dictator trying to retain power in his home country.

Two, against the russians they were getting slaughtered until we began providing them with military aid and weapons.

Jnitti1014
December 28, 2012, 07:57 PM
As the OP,

Wow! Didn't mean to cause this firestorm! Let me answer a few things....

1) I did not mean to imply my inlaws are snobs just cause they saw the movie. I saw the movie (and the musical). And liked both. Just that the stereotype of us by the anti's would seem to run contrary to Les Miserables target audience.

2) I forget who said it, but I misspoke or was outright wrong in comparing a cannon to an ar-15. Obviously it is not a fair comparison. I guess I was just trying to make an argument for why parity in the small arms category would be one of the founding fathers intents in the second amendment.

3) I harbor no fantasies about an overthrow of the government and find it a horrid thought that US troops would be used against the populace. Although I do believe if the unimaginable were to occur and somehow we were either invaded or even worse, somehow the constitution gets tossed and we get a dictator, that the millions of small arms in the hands of the civilians would be a key factor in getting the country back. Not the main factor, an ar-15 can't kill a tank, as many have stated. But to say they wouldn't be a part of it is just being obtuse.

4) to the moderators, this is veering pretty close to a SHTF thread, which wasn't my intent. I apologize, as my intent was to start a discussion about stereotypes and parity of small arms ownership. In other words, why we need 30 round mags and semi auto weaponry for defense( from whomever).

PLEASE DELETE THIS THREAD IF POSSIBLE.

Warp
December 28, 2012, 10:30 PM
In the event that this Red Dawn fantasy comes true good luck convincing your CO to let you use your own person weapons.

What CO would that be?

9MMare
December 28, 2012, 11:43 PM
The right to life as outlined in the constitution was written to prevent the federal government from depriving me of it at will. Second, if i do have a right to life, and to defend it, then i'm entitled to the means to do so. Are you saying right to life by default guarantees a right to firearms?



I don't read the second amendment to say it is solely for defense against tyranny and there are strong arguments to be made that it was not intended for this sole purpose. Realistically its pretty much impossible to say this one amendment was written for this one sole purpose as there were quite a few different mean who signed off on it, each with his own thoughts and reasons.

In addition, the constitution does not say "these rights are valid so long as all of their original purposes remain". There is no provision that limits a right to one application only.



I don't think our privately owned firearms would allow us to defeat our military today but as i've already said i still see a need for the second amendment. Firearms, especially for weaker individuals, are the most effective and reliable tool available for one to defend his or her life. No law could remove all firearms from the hands of criminals in the foreseeable future so what other tool is available to effectively defend against them in the hands of criminals? Or what tool could effectively defend a 100 lbs woman from a 250 lbs male attacker?

While I have seen most of that before, the majority of interpretations I've read dont support it. I also dont believe it that way, altho I agree that the Constitution is not set in stone, that it may be changed.

Warp
December 28, 2012, 11:57 PM
While I have seen most of that before, the majority of interpretations I've read dont support it. I also dont believe it that way, altho I agree that the Constitution is not set in stone, that it may be changed.

If I am not mistaken the Constitution may be changed...by vote of 2/3 of the states

9MMare
December 29, 2012, 01:03 AM
If I am not mistaken the Constitution may be changed...by vote of 2/3 of the states

Exactly, there are provisions for that.

bldsmith
December 29, 2012, 02:05 AM
Takes a 2/3 majority vote in congress to even propose a constitutional amendment then it takes 3/4 of the states ratifying it with a 2/3 majority to make the actual change.

Warp
December 29, 2012, 02:11 AM
Takes a 2/3 majority vote in congress to even propose a constitutional amendment then it takes 3/4 of the states ratifying it with a 2/3 majority to make the actual change.

Pretty tall order.

As it should be.

If you enjoyed reading about "New 2a argument to use against elitist snobs" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!