How to explain the Second Amendment to the ignorant, ill-informed and volitionally stupid. (Pelosi, Afghanistan)

[rstevens62]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

Well then the 2nd has failed, because we are not, nor will we ever be, as equally armed as the government.

Yep and we wonder why Govt keeps going the way it has/ does?!


The people would be UNABLE to remove govt from power if it became necessary (that is a BIG problem).

[Mikala43]

Originally Posted by rstevens62

Yep and we wonder why Govt keeps going the way it has/ does?!


The people would be UNABLE to remove govt from power if it became necessary (that is a BIG problem).

I'm good. I certainly don't want most of the people to have access to bazookas, tanks, mustard gas, or nukes.

[NVplumber]

Originally Posted by rstevens62

Yep and we wonder why Govt keeps going the way it has/ does?!


The people would be UNABLE to remove govt from power if it became necessary (that is a BIG problem).

Unable? Hmmm. Well in a full blown the government is shelling and bombing the whole countryside in a scorched earth campaign most certainly. I find it unlikely that they would do so or even want to do so. Small arms equipped citizen could raise hell with loyal government forces which would be thinned a lot by desertions and falling in with the citizens bringing higher end equipment with them.


Organization and communication would be a way bigger problem than arms.

[Volobjectitarian]

You need to know a couple things:

• The 9th Amendment.
• The 10th Amendment.
• The Federalist Papers.
• The Antifederalist Papers.
• The speeches of Patrick Henry on behalf of the VA anti-Constitutionalists prior to the Constitution's passage.
• The recent history of the Colonies in the 10 years prior to Lexington and Concord, during the Revolution itself, and the years that led to the Constitutional Convention circa 1787.

When you actually know all that, the 2nd Amendment is plain, simple and direct. It was added to give explicit mention of and protection for the natural individual right to keep and bear arms as a bulwark against future tyranny. Not for hunting, not for protection, not for sports...but to stand guard 24/7/365 over a government becoming tyrannical, or at least doing so without any sort of reprisal from the People or the States.

That is THE main purpose of the 2nd Amendment - ensuring the citizens remain ready and capable such "that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

You have to be utterly and completely ignorant of the history of this nation's founding to have any confusion whatsoever about the 2nd Amendment.

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

I'm good. I certainly don't want most of the people to have access to bazookas, tanks, mustard gas, or nukes.

This just gets better and better, don't ya think? I guess I was somewhat naive in not realizing that they want personal capability to launch an all-out military assault on the Federal government....and defeat them!

[Volobjectitarian]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

I'm good. I certainly don't want most of the people to have access to bazookas, tanks, mustard gas, or nukes.

Thing is, the citizen having nothing more than infantry arms and even homemade anti-personnel devices is sufficient to defeat the government military and their bazookas, tanks, mustard gas and nukes. "Success" in warfare is measured one way - your opponent either choosing or being forced to stop waging war against you. So how do the people, with just infantry arms and whatever anti-personnel devices they can craft/acquire/scrounge up, either make Leviathan unwilling or unable to wage war against them? Well, a few things off the top of my head, in no particular order:

1. The military itself is all volunteer. Any member of the military that has family almost certainly has family that are not military. There is some percentage of the military that will simply refuse to wage war against their own families and neighbors. Leviathan loses manpower right off the bat.
2. The military's zomgwtf weapons are all made by citizens, not government. General Patton din't build his tanks, Rosie the Riveter did. GI Grunt_01 doesn't manufacture his weapons, his ammunition or his gear...Rosie the Riveter does. All the People have to do dent the ever living crap out of Leviathan's material advantage is stop going to work where those weapons are made, or at least stop taking what was made and giving it to Leviathan, and instead give it to the People.
3. The military's food is grown, harvested, packaged and transported to them by the People. Wan to dent Leviathan's supply lines even more? Have the farmers redirect their output away from Leviathan and towards the People.

Now, just those three points alone, without a single bullet being fired by either side, has severely damaged Leviathan's manpower and supply chain & logistics, and make no mistake - manpower and supply & logistics matter a great deal in waging war. Now toss in this simple number - just the armed citizen outnumbers the entire military by ~30:1 and the actual combat trained military by ~150:1. In terms of existing weapons and ammunition, it isn't even close, and again, the citizen owns and operates the manufacture of weapons and ammunition, not the military.

The armed citizen matters. That's why the right of the citizen to be armed matters.

[Mikala43]

I think those points are valid..... but overly optimistic.

[Volobjectitarian]

Originally Posted by Mikala43

I think those points are valid..... but overly optimistic.

Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. - Mike Tyson.

It's not overly optimistic. It's a quick bullet point explanation of the reality that is government in a country of 330 million people. It is existent and has power because the People have faith and belief in it. Take away that faith and belief and what do you have on each side? On one side, you have a few thousand lawyers, accountants and administrators that nobody likes thinking they have the power, ability and wherewithal to subjugate the 330 million people on the other side, among whom about 120 million are each individually well armed enough to kill hundreds.

On one side, you have those same lawyers, accountants and administrators TOTALLY DEPENDENT on the 330 million people on the other side for their food, clothing, shelter, and security. The ONLY reason they currently enjoy their power and the lifestyles that come with it are because we GIVE it to them. If we stop giving them that power by simply saying no, they are vastly numbered and literally helpless before the sheer numbers and volume of force we actually possess.

It's all about belief and faith. Take that away from them and they are destroyed. It doesn't take much to wreck faith and belief. You cannot rule a people who will not be ruled. Ask the pajama clad NVA soldier or an Afghani mujahadeen. When a people refuse to buy into the nonsense of those seeking to oppress them, the oppressor has a really tough go of it. And it always comes down to faith and belief, not nukes and mustard gas.

How does the armed citizen factor into this? They say enough, and even small individual actions against the tyrant erode faith and belief in the tyrant's legitimacy. If the narrative begins shifting away from that tyrant to the People...faith and belief go away, and Leviathan is screwed. Faith and belief are remarkably fragile things and depend a great deal on propaganda. It doesn't take nearly as much as people think to create vast change in a people's national psyche.

[Mikala43]

But isn't yours the plan, before the punch in the mouth?

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by rstevens62

I strongly disagree, they are a deterrent.


How likely would a govt encroach on the peoples freedoms, if they knew people had access to rocket launchers?!

I don't think we'd need our own personal rocket launchers if government leaders ordered the military to attack America citizens if they resisted the governments efforts to forcibly dis-arm us. More than likely they would join forces with us and use that hardware on those who ordered them to do so.

We have to keep in mind that the military would have to destroy their own family, friends, and neighborhoods in the process. There would be absolutely nothing for them to come back to. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional law. After all they have taken an oath to; support and defend the Constitution, against all enemies both foreign and domestic and that they will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." We have to keep in mind that both the president and military officers are also sworn to uphold and follow the Constitution when issuing any orders.

About the only way they could possibly do it would be to go on house to house searches where they would be met with overwhelming and fierce resistance. Not only that but it would be clearly unconstitutional. Even if they tried, the armed civilian population at around 100 million or so would vastly outnumber government forces, even if only 10% of that number resisted. The United States of America with it's superior military force couldn't beat back the North Vietnamese, short of using nuclear weapons. In which case there would have been a third world war and the end of all life as we know it.

I would think that the cost of having your own private rocket launchers, tanks, artillery, nuclear weapons, warships, fighter planes/bombers and the crews that are required to operate and maintain them is well beyond the reach of the average American citizen. I could never understand why that is even brought up when discussing the 2nd Amendment and the lawful possession of firearms? Besides the Supreme Court has already settled what types of arms are protected under the 2nd Amendment. Agree with it or not, as of now it is settled law.

"Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that can not be hand carried--It's to keep and 'bear' so it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."-- "The 2nd Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."--- Antonin Scalia (Heller vs DC) www.law.cornell.edu/suplt