BF2S Forums Gun politics, firearms ownership, and US 2nd amendment discussion

stab em with the bayonet

M.O.A.B wrote:

If shit went topsy turvy assault rifles aren't really much of a deterrent against tanks, gunships, drones etc tbh. The only real way a revolutionary war could be done today is through the kind of tactics you see used in Afghanistan, fighters in civilian garb blowing things up, and like that kind of war the fighters will turn on the supporters of their opponents, even if they are non-combatants. Fighters you see in places like Afghanistan and Iraq will be hardened from previous wars, fit and well-motivated. Their level of training is probably about par to your average milita-type and yet in a straight up fight they're history. The dangerously patriotic types will be severely outnumbered and outgunned.

Who do you think drives those tanks, gunships, and drones? You have to be really stupid to actually believe the military, of all people, who are having benefits taken away and all that shit, would back-up the government if it got to the point of tyranny or the need for a revolution.

Jay wrote:

If I cornered you and started poking you in the chest, yelling obscenities at you, calling your mother a pig etc. would you feel justified in hauling off and  punching me in the face? It's an escalation of the situation, but I've cornered you and the human fight-or-flight response has kicked in. I'd say you were justified and in most cases, you would call me the asshole for starting the incident, yes? We only change the narrative when politics are involved.

So now punching=shooting?

Jaekus wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

If shit went topsy turvy assault rifles aren't really much of a deterrent against tanks, gunships, drones etc tbh. The only real way a revolutionary war could be done today is through the kind of tactics you see used in Afghanistan, fighters in civilian garb blowing things up, and like that kind of war the fighters will turn on the supporters of their opponents, even if they are non-combatants. Fighters you see in places like Afghanistan and Iraq will be hardened from previous wars, fit and well-motivated. Their level of training is probably about par to your average milita-type and yet in a straight up fight they're history. The dangerously patriotic types will be severely outnumbered and outgunned.

Who do you think drives those tanks, gunships, and drones? You have to be really stupid to actually believe the military, of all people, who are having benefits taken away and all that shit, would back-up the government if it got to the point of tyranny or the need for a revolution.

The argument for tyranny is a moot point then because by your own admission there's no one to actually fight.

The white collars can make laws that are tyrannical. Some idiots would enforce those laws.

rdx-fx wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

The ones who are terrified of the government are in the bonkers minority, and their combined arms will be trumped by just a tiny portion of the military's firepower.

You're neglecting a critical detail.  Most of the people that make up the Army, Marines, National Guard and Reserves are pro-2nd Amendment.
A great many soldiers would likely regard any order to turn their weapons on US civilians as an unlawful order.  Enlistment oath for every soldier includes the phrase "support and defend the Constitution of the United States".

The argument should not be about the lunatic fringe's delusions of persecution, and fantasies of armed insurrection against 'da gubmint's jackbooted thugs'.  That silly argument is a false framework.  Frame the gunowners as obviously paranoid delusionals, then anything they offer in argument can be dismissed without consideration. No thought necessary...

The US used to have a tradition of hunters, sportsmen, outdoorsmen, and soldiers.  Marksmanship was a part of that tradition. Even as recently as just prior to Viet Nam, hunting, fishing, and outdoorsmanship was seen as a healthy and respectable pursuit.  Now we've got the cartoonish impression of Ted Nugent going full-auto on Bambi...

This (seemingly vanishing) tradition as outdoorsmen and hunters is what the Constitution is implying, in part, in the 2nd Amendment's a well regulated militia clause. If you have a population of skilled marksmen, hunters, and outdoorsmen - you can field an army in a very short period of time.  Teaching men to march, to wear a uniform, and to recognize rank is easy - teaching them outdoorsmanship, marksmanship, and hunting is difficult. 


Historically, armies were only raised in time of need. Standing armies were the showpiece playthings of the noble class officers.  If you needed to raise an army, the commanding officer paid for his troops out of his own pocket until reimbursed by the government.  If your recruits already knew how to shoot, hunt, and survive in the wilderness, your commander saved a bunch of money.

The other intent of the 2nd Amendment was that, if you have 300 million armed civilians, a standing Army of 1 million is going to have a very rough time subjugating them.

I've nothing against sport shooting or hunting, or even gun ownership. What I'm referring to is the kind of people who seem to believe in nothing but the 2nd Amendment, the types who have an unhealthy obsession with it and who also seem to be the same people with loud mouths and very acerbic views (your Alex Jones type, for exmaple). By and large I see no problem with firearms as long as they are regulated and some serious common sense is applied to their acquirement and usage. Also while the majority of military folk may be 2nd Amendment supporters, are the majority the kind of ultra-fanatical types who believe their own employer is about to strike them down and must be purged in a sea of patriotic fire, or the kind who enjoy shooting as an occasional hobby? My guess would be the latter.

Ultranationalist types would be as much an issue as any other kind of fundamentalist and I think that regardless of being fellow citizens, if they pose a threat to civilian or military (government personnel at large) lives, soldiers would be prepared to take them down, just the same as any law enforcement unit would tackle someone like McVeigh if alerted.

I bet if shifty were in the military and were commanded to attack americans he would follow those orders...

The American Revolution didn't start because of one act, but a combination of several. The straw that broke the camel's back wasn't the reason for the revolution, is the was the combo.

Whiteroom - Depends on the situation.

What situation? Do you really think it will be clear cut good and bad guys. No the civillians would be painted as the bad guys and I'm willing to bet you would enforce your commands without question.  You would be on the tyranny side...

Add what uncle said to that. Also, its not like they would say,"take some time, think your position over, then get back to us if you want to follow those orders."

Last edited by -Whiteroom- (2013-01-29 13:53:38)

Jaekus wrote:

It was so the colonies could secede from the British Empire and form their own governments.

What I don't think you foreigners get is that when someone replies with '2nd Amendment says so' to a question about why they own guns, it's a very polite way of heading off a debate and at the same time telling you they do not want to be bothered on the topic. Basically, it's a polite way to say mind your own business. They don't feel the need to justify themselves anymore than you do when it comes to your love life, your job, the color of your hair or any of the other myriad life choices you make on a daily basis that you don't want to be questioned on or about. To them, owning a gun is as natural as it is for you to own a car. It's not weird. It's not something they feel they should have to rationalize and justify to you, and efforts to do so just exasperate them.

Using the same car example, how would you feel if an environmentalist walked up to you as you were about to start your car and started questioning you about why you weren't using mass transit, or riding a bicycle or walking instead of polluting the environment and potentially causing someone to die or be physically impaired by your carbon monoxide emissions. You'd feel uncomfortable, yes? I'd tell them to fuck off. A more polite person might point out that there is no law limiting their freedom to possess and own a car for transportation. What if that environmentalist then went to the government and tried to have cars banned from the road? Would you be pissed off, or would you just go along with it?

Oh Jay, that's such a stupid example, cars can't be used for mass murder. More people die in car accidents every day from careless drivers than die in gun related incidents every year. Even with general licensure requirements, insurance requirements, seat belt requirements, speed limits, stop signs, etc. people still die. We take car accidents as part of living in modern society and, while we might dread it, it's not something we really worry about and it's not something the news even bothers reporting on unless it's a minivan packed to the gills with small children. Shootings make the news because they are more rare. Because they are so rare, it's largely a waste of time, effort and breath to try to ban them. It's like using a pebble to stem the tide of a river. People die. Kids dying in a school is a tragedy. Move on.


Now, as for guns themselves, well, it's not just the 2nd Amendment that props up private gun ownership, it's over 200 years of case law as well as multiple instances of the Supreme Court upholding and strengthening gun rights. The NRA has been the chief advocate of gun rights and gun owners for a while now, and you have to understand that in many cases they take what appears to be an extreme position, but it's just a negotiating tactic. If they take that extreme position, they end up with a more favorable outcome when gun laws do get placed on the books, one that is more to their side of the thought process than to the people who want them banned. They've advocated for gun control laws in the past, they've pushed for local background checks, and safety courses for concealed carry permits etc. They aren't the enemy by any means. Honestly I wish there was a well funded group that stood up for the other amendments just as heartily, but all we have is the pussy ass ACLU and their band of well-meaning misfits.


Lastly, regarding the lines about tyranny to justify gun ownership, it's an argument that is definitely on the weak side, but it all comes from a few famous quotes that Americans have had over two hundred years to digest and pass down.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington, 1st US President

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
-Thomas Jefferson, 3rd US President

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
― James Madison, 4th US President

So, yeah, that's where that line of thinking stems from. Call it outdated, call it stupid, call it whatever you want, but it is enmeshed in the fabric of what it is to be American. Good luck changing that, or convincing most people to think otherwise.

Jay wrote:

What I don't think you foreigners get is that when someone replies with '2nd Amendment says so' to a question about why they own guns, it's a very polite way of heading off a debate and at the same time telling you they do not want to be bothered on the topic. Basically, it's a polite way to say mind your own business. They don't feel the need to justify themselves anymore than you do when it comes to your love life, your job, the color of your hair or any of the other myriad life choices you make on a daily basis that you don't want to be questioned on or about. To them, owning a gun is as natural as it is for you to own a car. It's not weird. It's not something they feel they should have to rationalize and justify to you, and efforts to do so just exasperate them.

Then they should go to the ponies thread.

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

jay wrote:

What I don't think you foreigners get is that when someone replies with '2nd Amendment says so' to a question about why they own guns, it's a very polite way of heading off a debate and at the same time telling you they do not want to be bothered on the topic.

If you don't want to participate or be bothered....don't post in the thread in the "Debate and Serious Talk" section?  Just a thought.

I'm not talking about anyone in particular on this forum, just Americans in general.

So why have you said pretty much the same thing multiple times in the "2nd amendment discussion thread" if you don't want to discuss it, why click on the link .