RancidSumo
Member
I am just wondering what is going to happen should the SCOTUS rule against it being an individual right. Will it bring about the uprising that some people on this board talk about of will people just sit there and take it?
True. I pretty much only think about my firearms for my self-defense. Even though I know they put it there for defense against a tyrannical government, I don't believe we, as a people, can win that fight. Especially with inferior weapons against what they could yield on me. Call me a wuss as I don't care. That's just how I see it.
Sadly, I think most people won't do anything more than grumble on an internet forum.
The ones that do speak out and/or resist will be labeled right wing wackos and cataloged with the likes of Randy Weaver, The Unibomber and the Waco types.
No, because the internet is a form of speech, but you don't have a 'right' to access the internet. Nor can you just start a TV station without licenses and government supervision. Speech is a right, internet and TV are priveledges.
RancidSumo said:Well I have a hard time seeing myself actually going to "war" with the government but I know that I definetly wouldn't give them any of my guns.
Really? What would you do if they come door to door, armed to the teeth, wearing body armor with armored vehicles mounted with crew served weapons as backup? Would you resist? If so, you'd be dead. Look at the Katrina aftermath and subsequent confiscation. Don't think it can't happen again even thought "they" say it won't.
Guten tag Herr RancidSumo, zen vee vill search zee premeziz. Zurely yu donz minz, ja? Nein? Vut yu hav to hidez? They'll get 'em one way or the other.
The same argument applies to poison gas, or to an airborne ebola that he wants to keep in his refrigerator. His right to keep these weapons infringes on everyone else's right to life and happiness.
This is one of the common arguments I hear from people that feel the 2nd amendment as a means to overthrow a corrupt US government is outdated and no longer applicable. It also is completely false. The US military has great technology and can flatten anything, but modern conflicts go much deeper than that. You can't destroy everything in a 15 mile radius because there are bad guys there. When you lose the ability to do to that and the bad guys blend into the good guys, things get much harder and less decisive. You only need to look at Iraq and see how things are going despite great technology and amazing commitment and work from our soldiers. Today's revolution would't be about a battle field and facing off against a regiment of redcoats or forming a rebel compound or forming the rebel alamo for a fortified hold out to the end.Well, it's a little too late to oppose standing armies now, is it? We can't fight that superior hardware and I'm not going to get into a discussion over how the police/military wouldn't fire on innocent civilians and/or obeying an unlawful order. No matter what, we'd still be in a world of hurt either way. All the ARs/AKs/.50 BMG, whatever are no match for what the military has to offer.
Why and by who? The realistic view is that the mexicans here left mexico because it sucked, usually economically at least. I doubt many of them would want to return to the situation they were wanting to escape. Even if you take the view that mexicans are nothing but mooches, what is the motivation to split off the gravy train that is the US compared to mexico?It is not unlikely to that we will see Mexico annex portions of the US that are predominantly populated by Mexicans anyway.
Why and by who? The realistic view is that the mexicans here left mexico because it sucked, usually economically at least. I doubt many of them would want to return to the situation they were wanting to escape. Even if you take the view that mexicans are nothing but mooches, what is the motivation to split off the gravy train that is the US compared to mexico?
I don't know that I love the idea of romanticizing a policy like Japan's, it seems a bit like saying "boy that berlin wall was great."liked Russia's idea against illegal immigration: they shot you.
I liked how Burma protected their rainforests against people sneaking in to trap severely endangered animals as food: they shot you.
I liked how Japan dealt with anyone trying to enter and/or leave the country for most of their history: they shot you (or decapitated you, since they didnt have guns for quite awhile)
man, such simpler times...
I think I just don't like the idea of it being a two way street. What can effectively keep people out, can also keep people in. I don't think a border wall could effectively keep people out anyway, but thats not really relevant. After hearing the stories of, in this case, koreans that had to risk death to sneak across the border to get to freedom in south korea I find that I have a really hard time warming up to iron fist border policies. The same goes for the Berlin wall and keeping East Germans from leaving. Perhaps the idea of the iron curtain is no longer fresh in the minds of people. I'm not sure thats the sort of thing we should be admiring if we're as freedom loving of a people as we say we are.Soybomb, that's completely different. If "los persanos de meh-hee-co" want into the US, they can do it legally and NOT get shot. The problem is they can do it much easier the illegal way and still NOT get shot for it. At least with the Berlin Wall, people knew what they were dealing with and, right or wrong, armed border presence combined with "Achtung! Zee paperz pleez, jetzt!" You were given a chance and no comply while still trying to cross? You got shot. Call me a xenophobe, but I'd REALLY like to see that instituted along our southern border. If it becomes a problem later on in the north, same thing.