Without 2A, What Good Are the Other Amendments?

[doodle]

Sadly, it doesn't even matter. They could find the the bodies of 1000 missing persons locked away in his safe in Trump tower and the Techno's of the world wouldn't bat an eye. You ever tried to have a rational discussion regarding the Bible with a religious person? There is absolutely nothing you can say that will change their mind. Unfortunately, that is the state of politics in this country as well.

I'm an atheist but I would say it doesnt matter if the bodies of 1000 missing persons are locked away in Trumps safe because the other side wants to destroy the second amendment. To me, that's the most important of them all because it's the ones the rest are supported by.

What good does having a 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment do if the government has all the guns and can just change those on a whim too, once they get rid of the 2nd? First, they will have established a precedent to eliminating rights of the people and second, they will have removed the ability for people to fight for their rights.

Democrats are all fascists in my opinion due to their views on the second amendment. And I say that as someone who also dislikes Republicans. I say it as someone who doesn't watch Fox News. I say it as someone who has seen the democrats discuss gun control, not taken out of context, and they want to get rid of the second amendment entirely.

Perhaps some, not all. I think the party generally does want to implement stricter controls / regulations on guns...I think it's debatable whether that is a good idea or effective. Where I live plenty of hunters who don't seem all that concerned with Democrats taking their guns. I think the whole take your guns thing is mostly just hyperbole.

[doodle]

Perhaps on the subject of guns, one might question the logic of whether this man (former Trump campaign manager Brad Pascale who has barricaded himself in home with them) should be allowed to own an arsenal of them while living in a highly populated area.

https://www.local10.com/news/local/202 ... -called/

[doodle]

Perhaps some, not all. I think the party generally does want to implement stricter controls / regulations on guns...I think it's debatable whether that is a good idea or effective. Where I live plenty of hunters who don't seem all that concerned with Democrats taking their guns. I think the whole take your guns thing is mostly just hyperbole.

Here's the best way in my mind to see whether or not the democrats want to strip and eliminate the 2A. Look at states that are heavily democratic controlled and look at their gun control.

Chicago
California
New York City
New Jersey
Washington DC

Are those models of reasonable gun control that we should have for the entire country?

To me, the gun control in those places is virtually a complete firearms ban of anything that would be potentially useful to overthrow a tyrnaical government, which is the purpose of the 2A. No AR15s. Magazine caps of 7 to 10 rounds. The right to go hunting is not what George Washington fought a revolutionary war over.

We can disagree on whether or not it's possible or advisable to initiate an armed overthrow of a government in the year 2020.

But to me, there's no gray area as to what the intention of the 2A was to the founding fathers of our country. We can also disagree as to whether it's still a good idea to have the 2A as it was meant to be, but I refuse to believe there's any different interpretation of the intention of the 2A than to allow private citizens to keep arms to both deter the government from becoming tyrannical and to fight against them if they do.

I understand the intention of the 2A. It's odd the weight we ascribe to being governed by men who lived 200+ years ago. I don't think the second ammendant would have been conceived in the same manner should founders been aware of present realities. I don't think however there is any widespread traction to eliminate guns in this country... I believe the arguments concern the nuances of control, permitting, and type of weapons. I don't think it's unreasonable that as a society we restrict certain weapons (unless you believe private citizens should have access to full arsenal of latest technology military weapons)...what those are specifically can be debated.

[Libertarian666]

I understand the intention of the 2A. It's odd the weight we ascribe to being governed by men who lived 200+ years ago. I don't think the second ammendant would have been conceived in the same manner should founders been aware of present realities. I don't think however there is any widespread traction to eliminate guns in this country... I believe the arguments concern the nuances of control, permitting, and type of weapons. I don't think it's unreasonable that as a society we restrict certain weapons (unless you believe private citizens should have access to full arsenal of latest technology military weapons)...what those are specifically can be debated.

Personally I don't think there should be restrictions on types of firearms, but many would label me an extremist. My main rationale is that it becomes a slippery slope where the 2A gets neutered completely which is what we have now in many liberal states.

Why would I care if my neighbor has a Blackhawk helicopter with belt fed machine gun on it, as long as he stores it properly, doesn't create a noise nuisance, and doesn't shoot random people or threaten to rob a bank with it? Let him have it, and if he does anything wrong with it, then we arrest him and stop it then. And keep in mind this weapon system costs millions of dollars so my wealthy neighbor probably doesn't want to gun down random people anyway.

Think about 1A free speech, but you cant say X or Y or Z. It's no longer free speech.

The conversation invariably leads to "but you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" to which my response is, there's a direct harm that will arise from doing so. There is no direct harm that arises from possession of any firearm, regardless of lethal that firearm could be if used by a terrorist/criminal/psychopath. Possession of inanimate objects is not equivalent with harm. It's a victimless crime to possess something. And 2A restrictions become victimless crimes.

But we don't do that. We let people have the ability to perform free speech and if they misuse it to shout fire in a crowded theater we arrest them. Why not the same for guns? You have the ability to own it, but if you misuse it by shooting random people, you get arrested. Or very likely in an armed society, you get killed by a bystander who has a concealed carry firearm on them.

The better equivalent would be, we should surgically remove vocal cords of people so as they cannot shout fire in a crowded theater, because you're removing the access to the "weapon" to preclude the act from occurring.

Now the conversation might turn into - but letting people have Blackhawk Helicopters with belt fed machine guns, there would be blood in the streets! If you think about the reality, there are probably over 1 million AR15s in the US today. Or at least half a million. How many random mass shootings occur with them? Maybe a dozen a year at the most? So we're going to violate the rights of a million people to stop 12 people from killing a few hundred?

And then we can say, but what if it saves even one child's life, let alone a few hundred children a year! Well more children die in car accidents and swimming pool accidents than killed by mass shooters with AR15s each year. And there's no constitutional right to drive a car or own a pool. So if it's truly about saving lives then lets ban cars and pools.

But it's not about saving lives, it's about control and fear. Liberals don't want to live in a world where it would even be imaginable that it would be necessary to take over the government by force due to tyranny. So they pretend that can't happen here and lets ban AR15s. Liberals dont want to live in a world where a drug addict can hold you at gun point to steal your wallet and then shoot you anyway after you comply, so they ban concealed carry permits of handguns.

It's all about hiding their heads in the sand and wishing the world were different. I wish I didn't have to carry a gun with me every day, but it's the only way to ensure the safety and me and my family.

You’re way too generous to liberals. I don’t believe they are acting in good faith due to ignorance.

[doodle]

I understand the intention of the 2A. It's odd the weight we ascribe to being governed by men who lived 200+ years ago. I don't think the second ammendant would have been conceived in the same manner should founders been aware of present realities. I don't think however there is any widespread traction to eliminate guns in this country... I believe the arguments concern the nuances of control, permitting, and type of weapons. I don't think it's unreasonable that as a society we restrict certain weapons (unless you believe private citizens should have access to full arsenal of latest technology military weapons)...what those are specifically can be debated.

Personally I don't think there should be restrictions on types of firearms, but many would label me an extremist. My main rationale is that it becomes a slippery slope where the 2A gets neutered completely which is what we have now in many liberal states.

Why would I care if my neighbor has a Blackhawk helicopter with belt fed machine gun on it, as long as he stores it properly, doesn't create a noise nuisance, and doesn't shoot random people or threaten to rob a bank with it? Let him have it, and if he does anything wrong with it, then we arrest him and stop it then. And keep in mind this weapon system costs millions of dollars so my wealthy neighbor probably doesn't want to gun down random people anyway.

Think about 1A free speech, but you cant say X or Y or Z. It's no longer free speech.

The conversation invariably leads to "but you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" to which my response is, there's a direct harm that will arise from doing so. There is no direct harm that arises from possession of any firearm, regardless of lethal that firearm could be if used by a terrorist/criminal/psychopath. Possession of inanimate objects is not equivalent with harm. It's a victimless crime to possess something. And 2A restrictions become victimless crimes.

But we don't do that. We let people have the ability to perform free speech and if they misuse it to shout fire in a crowded theater we arrest them. Why not the same for guns? You have the ability to own it, but if you misuse it by shooting random people, you get arrested. Or very likely in an armed society, you get killed by a bystander who has a concealed carry firearm on them.

The better equivalent would be, we should surgically remove vocal cords of people so as they cannot shout fire in a crowded theater, because you're removing the access to the "weapon" to preclude the act from occurring.

Now the conversation might turn into - but letting people have Blackhawk Helicopters with belt fed machine guns, there would be blood in the streets! If you think about the reality, there are probably over 1 million AR15s in the US today. Or at least half a million. How many random mass shootings occur with them? Maybe a dozen a year at the most? So we're going to violate the rights of a million people to stop 12 people from killing a few hundred?

And then we can say, but what if it saves even one child's life, let alone a few hundred children a year! Well more children die in car accidents and swimming pool accidents than killed by mass shooters with AR15s each year. And there's no constitutional right to drive a car or own a pool. So if it's truly about saving lives then lets ban cars and pools.

But it's not about saving lives, it's about control and fear. Liberals don't want to live in a world where it would even be imaginable that it would be necessary to take over the government by force due to tyranny. So they pretend that can't happen here and lets ban AR15s. Liberals dont want to live in a world where a drug addict can hold you at gun point to steal your wallet and then shoot you anyway after you comply, so they ban concealed carry permits of handguns.

It's all about hiding their heads in the sand and wishing the world were different. I wish I didn't have to carry a gun with me every day, but it's the only way to ensure the safety and me and my family.

Ok, I can understand your logic. I might not agree entirely but again we are debating the edges. I think the type of weapons you can amass could in certain circumstances be cause for concern. Say a group of people with anti social cult like philosophies began amassing some serious military firepower and discussing crazy end of days scenarios...would you feel comfortable living within proximity to that? How would you propose addressing something like that?

Also, what about weapons ownership for mentally unstable / past criminals etc?

[doodle]

Also, I don't quite understand the protection from tyranny thing. Our military is comprised of civilians who have families and kids and live in neighborhoods etc. Our militaries allegiance is to constitution. They aren't a foreign group of mercenaries sworn to do the bidding of some particular ruler. I don't understand the scenario where we fight our government.

[glennds]

We can disagree on whether or not it's possible or advisable to initiate an armed overthrow of a government in the year 2020.

Do you believe it is?
Possible or advisable?

[I Shrugged]

Also, I don't quite understand the protection from tyranny thing. Our military is comprised of civilians who have families and kids and live in neighborhoods etc. Our militaries allegiance is to constitution. They aren't a foreign group of mercenaries sworn to do the bidding of some particular ruler. I don't understand the scenario where we fight our government.

Well it is a process. First they have to convince everyone that the opposition is comprised of horrible baby-butchers. Remember when Iraq invaded Kuwait? We had a supposed nurse testify that Iraq soldiers came into the hospital, ripped babies from ventilators so they could remove the equipment back to Iraq. There was only one problem. She was not a nurse; she was the daughter of some Kuwaiti ambassador, and it didn't happen.

Waco is another example. We all thought David Koresh was a pedophile and a huge danger.
The Vietnamese were subhuman dinks.
etc etc.

So by the time a fight comes, many in the military will be convinced of the rightness of their cause. This is as old as warfare.

OTOH I wouldn't want to take on the US military, what with their super advanced weapons and targeting and surveillance.

[Kriegsspiel]

Also, I don't quite understand the protection from tyranny thing. Our military is comprised of civilians who have families and kids and live in neighborhoods etc. Our militaries allegiance is to constitution. They aren't a foreign group of mercenaries sworn to do the bidding of some particular ruler. I don't understand the scenario where we fight our government.

It seems more likely to me that local police would be the tyrannical ones. Because it's the most recent thing that pops to mind, I'm thinking of the police who arrested the guy in Maryland for having people over to his house for some parties. Or a group of corrupt cops who are terrorizing citizens. I could imagine a situation where some people deciding that they've had enough and go after them, vigilante-style.

[pp4me]

The Vietnamese were subhuman dinks.

Brings back memories of my first night in the Danang compound. We got attacked that night and several times through the night we had to jump in the bunkers when the alarms went off. The first thing that was said was "any Vietnamese girls come out". As I eventually learned, these girls could be had for packs of cigarettes and when the alarm went off there were guys in the bunkers with them doing their thing. The guys were all black. The girls had to run for their lives crying and screaming while the rest of jumped in.

To a teenage boy raised in the "Society of Friends", aka the Quaker church I found this a bit .... words fail me right now.

[I Shrugged]

Here is a passage that fits into our discussion.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago

[vnatale]

Here is a passage that fits into our discussion.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago

How was Saddam able to reign over Iraq for so long? It seemed that after the United States took him out of commission every family possessed an AK-47?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/saddams-g ... -the-ak-47

Vinny

[I Shrugged]

Here is a passage that fits into our discussion.

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago

How was Saddam able to reign over Iraq for so long? It seemed that after the United States took him out of commission every family possessed an AK-47?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/saddams-g ... -the-ak-47

Vinny

I don’t see that in the article. He cached the rifles around the country, but in whose control? Plus we don’t know how the majority of Iraqis felt about him. At least I don’t.

[Kriegsspiel]

It seems more likely to me that local police would be the tyrannical ones. Because it's the most recent thing that pops to mind, I'm thinking of the police who arrested the guy in Maryland for having people over to his house for some parties. Or a group of corrupt cops who are terrorizing citizens. I could imagine a situation where some people deciding that they've had enough and go after them, vigilante-style.

I could imagine that too. But we don't have to imagine it, it's happening now in America where vigilantes are targeting cops. It's just not necessarily the kind of vigilantism that James Patterson or Tom Clancy would novelize.

BLM rioting and setting fire to structures demanding police be charged with crimes is vigilantism.

Random criminals approaching police in parked vehicles and shooting at them is vigilantism.

It's not yet spread to middle class folks with no criminal backgrounds who are targeting the families of police that are involved in door to door gun confiscation. Because we're not there yet. But vigilantism against police is happening, it's scary, I don't like it, I wish it wasn't necessary. I don't support BLM and think they are a terrorist organization.

If 2A gets revoked or stripped much further and door to door gun confiscations occur, then I would support vigilantism against police because the police are no longer upholding the constitution they swore to protect and are thus enemies of the country. No different than China or Russia soliders invading our borders doing the same thing. HOWEVER, I do not believe this will ever happen. Because every officer in America knows how dangerous structure clearing is, and if they tried door to door confiscations, they'll lose a few officers every single day until there's none left. And the problem fixes itself. They know that and would refuse to comply with such an order.

But instead what we're seeing is a boiling the frog scenario where we do things like institute red flag laws. So now police are kicking in doors of a handful of people to seize their guns. Not quite door to door yet, but as we expand the definition of a prohibited person, it might soon be that they've disarmed the entire country, one house at a time.

I'm kind of stunned at how completely you took the words out of my mouth in this post. Especially since I disagree pretty much wholesale with the one right before it.

[doodle]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you wrote, however some points...

The military as I understand it is under civilian control..congress holds purse strings..and is given control over defense matters, raising armies...and while I understand that police, military are not necessarily civilians they live amongst general population and have ties within our society...

I think BLM has legitimate grievances against the criminal justice system and cops. Their methods are random and poorly focused but I think their pushback is justified.

I'm not against guns, I have many myself. I do think however their ownership should entail more comprehensive training requirements especially as their ability to kill increases...in same way that driving a semi truck full of hazardous materials requires special trajning and I believe their should be restrictions placed on past violent offenders and people with mental health disorders. I don't think it's a good idea that someone who relies on medication not to hear voices in their head or who has extreme anger management issues be able to purchase a gatling gun with unlimited ammo.

[Xan]

I'm not against guns, I have many myself. I do think however their ownership should entail more comprehensive training requirements especially as their ability to kill increases...in same way that driving a semi truck full of hazardous materials requires special trajning and I believe their should be restrictions placed on past violent offenders and people with mental health disorders. I don't think it's a good idea that someone who relies on medication not to hear voices in their head or who has extreme anger management issues be able to purchase a gatling gun with unlimited ammo.

Looking at it from the perspective of fundamental rights, would you accept these conditions for any other Bill of Rights amendments? Should people have to apply for a license from the government in order to publish something, in order to make sure they aren't crazy?

[doodle]

I'm not against guns, I have many myself. I do think however their ownership should entail more comprehensive training requirements especially as their ability to kill increases...in same way that driving a semi truck full of hazardous materials requires special trajning and I believe their should be restrictions placed on past violent offenders and people with mental health disorders. I don't think it's a good idea that someone who relies on medication not to hear voices in their head or who has extreme anger management issues be able to purchase a gatling gun with unlimited ammo.

Looking at it from the perspective of fundamental rights, would you accept these conditions for any other Bill of Rights amendments? Should people have to apply for a license from the government in order to publish something, in order to make sure they aren't crazy?

That's the issue with these 'rights'....they don't really exist...they aren't subject to the unalterable laws of the universe. They are human conceptions that have upsides and downsides. In some cases I believe that certain rights come with stipulations. There are grey areas...unfortunately the world isn't just black and white. If you support allowing people with documented extreme anger management issues to own heavy artillery then maybe you should be responsible for burying the dead and consoling the families. America's extreme focus on the rights of the individual while ignoring the effects of that on our society is one of the shortcomings of our country. We are out of balance in my opinion

[doodle]

Do you believe these rights should be conscripted by age? Should a 10 year old be allowed to purchase a machine gun? If not then why should a 40 year old man whose has the brain development of a 10 year old be allowed to purchase one? If he goes on a killing spree should he be charged as an adult or a minor?

[Xan]

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong on any point, doodle, just that if you're going to make up arbitrary rules and take people's fundamental rights away from them, it should be a high bar to clear.

You may be right about these "rights" being human conceptions rather than unalterable laws of the universe. Okay. Even looking at it that way, these are things that we have agreed on, and that you're looking to change. There's a process for that, it's a constitutional amendment.

[Kbg]

Wow tomfoolery, if you are going to correct someone, your correction should be, well, correct.

Let's take them one by one.

1. Doesn't really matter

2. Incorrect. Military members are subject to both legal codes. UCMJ applies to "military stuff" first, foremost and always. The "oddities" primarily related to "good order and discipline" types of things that don't really exist in the outside world. There is a healthy does of shall we say traditional civil law as well to handle being overseas or being on a federal military installation where local law does not apply.

3. Completely incorrect. At 18 or 22 when the vast majority of people join no one is thinking about awesome benefits. Frankly, in my experience a huge majority join (initially) for the following; the adventure of it, love of country, get away from something. For sure, later on benefits become a significant component of why people stay in. By way of credentials...almost 30 years in of active duty.

4. Wrong...line 1 of both the officer and enlisted oath start with "I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States". This is unique to the US military and everyone gets educated on the significance of this line and what it means with regard to expected behavior and, personally, where I strongly advise anyone left or right to just keep the military out of political issues and things internal to the US.

5. Some don't for sure, but you would be quite surprised how many have excellent judgement in beyond difficult situations...and if they aren't sure there's usually someone pretty near by with a lot more experience they can ask.

6. I will concede I find the 2A arguments about I need a gun to fight tyranny kinda humorous. In my last war (and I was in 4), I was metaphorically stunned about how good we had become due to modern technology. Simply put, if the US military wants something dead, it will find it eventually and it will be destroyed. Additionally, it's not really about the guns. It's about organization. Anyone who knows Iraq knows pretty much every family had several AKs if they could afford one/them. They were ubiquitous and it mattered not at all as the security forces were way better organized, way better armed and utterly ruthless. When they came in the middle of the night one of two things was going to happen. The person was going to go away quietly with them or their family was going to be massacred right then and there or they were all heading to a prison for a truly awful experience. Most opted to go quietly to mitigate the damage to their loved ones. And this is the dynamic...terror. A gun or many guns isn't going to help you if you don't have numbers and organization. Finally, if someone spends time with the history and literature of these types of things there are certain elements that are relatively constant. A key one is that "the forces of oppression" are banking on civility and an inability or willingness to be completely ruthless like them.

What keeps society civil? A good and fairly applied legal system, civility and compromise. We should all remember this and be united in trying to achieve it the best we can.

[vnatale]

Wow tomfoolery, if you are going to correct someone, your correction should be, well, correct.

Let's take them one by one.

1. Doesn't really matter

2. Incorrect. Military members are subject to both legal codes. UCMJ applies to "military stuff" first, foremost and always. The "oddities" primarily related to "good order and discipline" types of things that don't really exist in the outside world. There is a healthy does of shall we say traditional civil law as well to handle being overseas or being on a federal military installation where local law does not apply.

3. Completely incorrect. At 18 or 22 when the vast majority of people join no one is thinking about awesome benefits. Frankly, in my experience a huge majority join (initially) for the following; the adventure of it, love of country, get away from something. For sure, later on benefits become a significant component of why people stay in. By way of credentials...almost 30 years in of active duty.

4. Wrong...line 1 of both the officer and enlisted oath start with "I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States". This is unique to the US military and everyone gets educated on the significance of this line and what it means with regard to expected behavior and, personally, where I strongly advise anyone left or right to just keep the military out of political issues and things internal to the US.

5. Some don't for sure, but you would be quite surprised how many have excellent judgement in beyond difficult situations...and if they aren't sure there's usually someone pretty near by with a lot more experience they can ask.

6. I will concede I find the 2A arguments about I need a gun to fight tyranny kinda humorous. In my last war (and I was in 4), I was metaphorically stunned out how good we had become due to modern technology. Simply put, if the US military wants something dead, it will find it eventually and it will be destroyed. Additionally, it's not really about the guns. It's about organization. Anyone who knows Iraq knows pretty much every family had several AKs if they could afford one/them. They were ubiquitous and it mattered not at all as the security forces were way better organized, way better armed and utterly ruthless. When they came in the middle of the night one of two things was going to happen. The person was going to go away quietly with them or their family was going to be massacred right then and there or they were all heading to a prison for a truly awful experience. Most opted to go quietly to mitigate the damage to their loved ones. And this is the dynamic...terror. A gun or many guns isn't going to help you if you don't have numbers and organization. Finally, if someone spends time with the history and literature of these types of things there are certain elements that are relatively constant. A key one is that "the forces of oppression" are banking on civility and an inability or willingness to be completely ruthless like them.

What keeps society civil? A good and fairly applied legal system, civility and compromise. We should all remember this and be united in trying to achieve it the best we can.

Don't immigrants becoming U.S. citizens also have to take this oath (along with agreeing to serve in the military if asked to serve)?

I don't think either was ever explicitly agreed to by me anytime in my life (as a natural born U.S. citizen).

Vinny

[vnatale]

Wow tomfoolery, if you are going to correct someone, your correction should be, well, correct.

Let's take them one by one.

1. Doesn't really matter

2. Incorrect. Military members are subject to both legal codes. UCMJ applies to "military stuff" first, foremost and always. The "oddities" primarily related to "good order and discipline" types of things that don't really exist in the outside world. There is a healthy does of shall we say traditional civil law as well to handle being overseas or being on a federal military installation where local law does not apply.

3. Completely incorrect. At 18 or 22 when the vast majority of people join no one is thinking about awesome benefits. Frankly, in my experience a huge majority join (initially) for the following; the adventure of it, love of country, get away from something. For sure, later on benefits become a significant component of why people stay in. By way of credentials...almost 30 years in of active duty.

4. Wrong...line 1 of both the officer and enlisted oath start with "I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States". This is unique to the US military and everyone gets educated on the significance of this line and what it means with regard to expected behavior and, personally, where I strongly advise anyone left or right to just keep the military out of political issues and things internal to the US.

5. Some don't for sure, but you would be quite surprised how many have excellent judgement in beyond difficult situations...and if they aren't sure there's usually someone pretty near by with a lot more experience they can ask.

6. I will concede I find the 2A arguments about I need a gun to fight tyranny kinda humorous. In my last war (and I was in 4), I was metaphorically stunned out how good we had become due to modern technology. Simply put, if the US military wants something dead, it will find it eventually and it will be destroyed. Additionally, it's not really about the guns. It's about organization. Anyone who knows Iraq knows pretty much every family had several AKs if they could afford one/them. They were ubiquitous and it mattered not at all as the security forces were way better organized, way better armed and utterly ruthless. When they came in the middle of the night one of two things was going to happen. The person was going to go away quietly with them or their family was going to be massacred right then and there or they were all heading to a prison for a truly awful experience. Most opted to go quietly to mitigate the damage to their loved ones. And this is the dynamic...terror. A gun or many guns isn't going to help you if you don't have numbers and organization. Finally, if someone spends time with the history and literature of these types of things there are certain elements that are relatively constant. A key one is that "the forces of oppression" are banking on civility and an inability or willingness to be completely ruthless like them.

What keeps society civil? A good and fairly applied legal system, civility and compromise. We should all remember this and be united in trying to achieve it the best we can.

Coming back to this portion of the above. I asked this last night....how Saddam able to be a dictator in a country where it seemed like every family owned an AK-47? Does that not undermine one of the main arguments for the 2nd Amendment - protection from government tyranny?

You actually further go on above to make the persuasive case that you are going to be a hopeless cause trying to fight the United States military.

Vinny

[Kbg]

+1 on doodle's last two comments. They are excellent points. By way of disclosure, I own several guns and grew up hunting.

[Kbg]

Vinny,

I answered your question...organization, more firepower, terror.

[vnatale]

Vinny,

I answered your question...organization, more firepower, terror.

Rereading it I see that you did.

However, when the first time I read it after you wrote: "Simply put, if the US military wants something dead, it will find it eventually and it will be destroyed. Additionally, it's not really about the guns. It's about organization. " I was interpreting your then following description as describing how the U.S. military security forces operated in Iraq!

Now after your response I understand you were referring to the security forces of Iraq!

But that then goes back to my first question I asked on all you wrote. What would prevent the United States military security forces from acting upon its citizens the same way the security forces of Iraq did? Therefore what good will be the 2nd amendment? One can say that would never happen in the United States but isn't that exactly what 2nd amendment proponents must be imagining to back up one of their reasons for U.S. citizens being armed?

Vinny