Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting comment, but its worth noting that you still abide by a copy of our common law. Maybe it will come to pass that your country will follow suit on our approach to firearms eventually.
Common law is just that "common".
Maybe you should read up on what the state of Montana did for a brief for the DC vs Heller case.
I do not think our country will ever follow your countries gun laws, as we are way too many for the socialists of this country to ignore.
Passing gun laws here is a sure way for the liberals to lose both houses as they did in the 90's, and they do not want a repeat of that.
Well they knew I'm sure that overthrowing the government may result in civil war as it had in other countries. And the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make such rebellion possible.
I don’t quite understand what exactly you are saying. I just can’t imagine that you are saying that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make a rebellion against the government possible with the goal to have a Civil War.
So Ill take it that you meant that the 2nd amendment was created to makes rebellion against the government possible. At least a lot of people in this tread think so.
So let’s take our present situation and make it hypothetical situation.
There were 55 million people who didn’t vote for Obama. Let’s say there are 10% or 5.5 million extremely unhappy people. And let’s say that they find a leader who can organize them, they rebel and overthrow the government.
THEN WHAT???
What kind of government are they going to install? And how are they going to do it. Obviously free elections won’t be acceptable to them, because free elections were used before and they didn’t like the results. So what else is there… military government, because let’s face it – without the military they wouldn’t be able to succeed.
Or maybe dictatorship. The leader who organized them will be a good candidate for a strong man leading the country. What else. I’m open for ideas. Feel free to suggest.
My point is that it will be anything BUT DEMOCRACY. Why? Because the history say so. There is not one case when an armed overthrow of a government resulted in democratic or better replacement. It usually results in much bigger misery and oppression.
And please don’t give me as example the American Revolution. We didn’t overthrow our own government. We overthrow the British. Besides we are kind of short on people like Washington, Franklin or Jefferson.
Last edited by Hate Shrubs; 12-02-2008 at 06:16 PM..
Suppose you get your wish. All guns have been outlawed and confiscated. We are now a gunless society.
Then let's suppose that all the nonsense about Bush being a fascist, turning the US into a police state, etc. became true. The government has declared martial law and suspended the Bill of Rights. Federal agents routinely perform random searches of homes, churches and places of business. Anyone suspected of plotting against the government or even disagreeing with their new doctrine is summarily executed on the spot, without a trial.
What are your options?
I don’t think that even Cheney could do this (not that he would mind), even if there wasn’t a single gun in private citizen’s hands (which by the way nobody is suggesting). There are too many checkandbalances built in to our democratic system, for something like this to happen. Our government is set in such a way that there is not one person or one institution with enough power to do this what you are suggesting.
But a dictator who can came in power after armed overthrow of the government can do every one of them.
I don’t think that even Cheney could do this (not that he would mind), even if there wasn’t a single gun in private citizen’s hands (which by the way nobody is suggesting). There are too many checkandbalances built in to our democratic system, for something like this to happen. Our government is set in such a way that there is not one person or one institution with enough power to do this what you are suggesting.
But a dictator who can came in power after armed overthrow of the government can do every one of them.
I'm no longer debating you in public - I thought that was clear.
If you'd care to debate me in private, all you need to do is reply to the DM I sent you yesterday.
Have a nice day!
Last edited by swagger; 12-02-2008 at 06:50 PM..
Reason: correction
I don’t quite understand what exactly you are saying. I just can’t imagine that you are saying that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to make a rebellion against the government possible with the goal to have a Civil War.
So Ill take it that you meant that the 2nd amendment was created to makes rebellion against the government possible. At least a lot of people in this tread think so.
So let’s take our present situation and make it hypothetical situation.
There were 55 million people who didn’t vote for Obama. Let’s say there are 10% or 5.5 million extremely unhappy people. And let’s say that they find a leader who can organize them, they rebel and overthrow the government.
THEN WHAT???
What kind of government are they going to install? And how are they going to do it. Obviously free elections won’t be acceptable to them, because free elections were used before and they didn’t like the results. So what else is there… military government, because let’s face it – without the military they wouldn’t be able to succeed.
Or maybe dictatorship. The leader who organized them will be a good candidate for a strong man leading the country. What else. I’m open for ideas. Feel free to suggest.
My point is that it will be anything BUT DEMOCRACY. Why? Because the history say so. There is not one case when an armed overthrow of a government resulted in democratic or better replacement. It usually results in much bigger misery and oppression.
And please don’t give me as example the American Revolution. We didn’t overthrow our own government. We overthrow the British. Besides we are kind of short on people like Washington, Franklin or Jefferson.
The Second Amendment was put in to overthrow the government should it become tyrannical, besides also improving national defense against invaders. The founders were very smart people, they knew full well such a rebellion would likely lead to civil war. We had a civil war during the revolution, literally neighbors and relatives attacked each other over loyalty to the British government or to the rebels. Every revolution usually includes a component of civil war in varying degrees.
You give an example in your own post: we overthrew the British government in place in the colonies and got something much better. The British government was our government, it just didn't treat us well. The ones who would rise up lean conservative and libertarian and aren't the types to like dictators. An overthrow of the federal government would likely result in one of a couple things happening as far as government goes: the Constitution, with a bit of tweaking (end income tax, make the interstate commerce clause more clear limiting the government, etc.), is used again (it surely is not used now), or, a loose confederacy is organized, more like the Articles of Confederation.
Democracy is mob rule, we don't need that. We saw that in this past election.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
