Trump laments First Amendment: "Our press is allowed to say whatever they want"
144 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kigen;51255721]This country's revolutionary war started when Britain wanted to take the guns away from the colonists.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord[/url]
The simple fact of the matter is, all that really stands in the way of overturning the Bill of Rights is the courts. Particularly the Supreme Court. Last time the 2nd Amendment came up it was a split decision, 5-4. And one of those 5 judges is now dead. So that person's spot on the Supreme Court is up for grabs. The government can, and will, overstep its bounds. Most often on the proviso that they're doing it for safety and security. But that truly is the slippery slope. They will continue to push more and more legislation that says its for safety and security, like the Patriot Act (horribly named).
Turning to the gun is an absolute last resort a free people have when all others fail. When speech is curtailed, when the press is turned into propaganda machines, when voting is ignored. Governments have done this, REPEATEDLY, throughout history. Did you know [url=http://www.usconstitution.net/china.html#Article35]China has freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc[/url]? Does this translate into reality? Nope. Because the only organ for forcing those freedoms is the government. And when the government decides that those "freedoms" are inconvenient they will be ignored.
All laws are simply words on paper. The US Constitution is words on paper. If the Supreme Court decides to ignore it, if Congress decides to ignore it, and if the President decides to ignore it, what recourse is left to the people? That is why firearms ownership is so heavily protected. That is also why the founders of this country were very much against a standing army in peace time. Because that standing army can, and has, been directed against the people of the United States.
[B]Simply put, this stuff has happened before, and it will eventually happen again.[/B] Hopefully never, but human history is rife with repeats of the same old mistakes. I, for one, will not be apart of allowing those same mistakes to happen again.[/QUOTE]
Civil War is a pretty good example of why armed uprisings aren't as good as people make them out to be.
[QUOTE=plunger435;51255730]Civil War is a pretty good example of why armed uprisings aren't as good as people make them out to be.[/QUOTE]
The Civil War was a lot of things. And indeed not all armed uprising are just. But simply because some are not does not mean there never will be one. And yes, having an armed society comes with certain risks. This was well known when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. As George Washington had to put down some armed uprisings. But the point is, if enough people want to, they can force the government to back off. And that also has happened before.
The natural world is not orderly. Laws are an exercise in intellectual ideals. Nothing more. Laws are only translated to physical force by citizens, police, and military. In that order specifically. If at any point people decide not to obey a law there really isn't much that will stop someone except physical force. I mean just look at the drug laws. Weed is illegal federally. And that law says the entire country should be devoid of weed. But is it? Do all the State governments enforce that law?
[QUOTE=Kigen;51255758]The Civil War was a lot of things. And indeed not all armed uprising are just. But simply because some are not does not mean there never will be one. And yes, having an armed society comes with certain risks. This was well known when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. As George Washington had to put down some armed uprisings. But the point is, if enough people want to, they can force the government to back off. And that also has happened before.[/QUOTE]
I mean you put out the Revolution as a good reason for the 2nd amendment so you can't say the Civil War was 'a lot of things' and brush it off. Out of literally 2 well known examples of widespread use of domestic firearms against a supposedly tyrannical government, you can say one of them was for a good enough cause (seperating from Britain) and the other was for rich southern whites to continue owning people. You can't mention one without the other.
[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51255775]I mean you put out the Revolution as a good reason for the 2nd amendment so you can't say the Civil War was 'a lot of things' and brush it off. Out of literally 2 well known examples of widespread use of domestic firearms against a supposedly tyrannical government, you can say one of them was for a good enough cause (seperating from Britain) and the other was for rich southern whites to continue owning people. You can't mention one without the other.[/QUOTE]
And you tend to ignore the times governments have gone tyrannical. I'm simply pointing out the world is not perfect, and never will be. Everything has its pros and cons. But just trusting the government is bad. Power attracts those who are interested in using it for their own ends. As the Civil War was State governments, not a popular uprising.
And the 2nd Amendment was also used by Northern States to defend themselves during the Civil War.
[url]http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Squirrel_Hunters[/url]
I'd say the 2A applies much less to the political scene than it does in the context of self-reliance/self-defense.
Say, for instance, that the government gradually restricts firearm ownership in the name of domestic security. Say we have a scenario like the UK, where pretty much the only people allowed to personally own firearms are farmers, and people living in North Ireland who have received death threats. That sort of heavy restriction comes with the assumption that the government is quite capable of providing its citizens with all the protection they need.
The UK is quite capable of it. It's a relatively small, densely-populated landmass, geographically isolated from its neighbors. It's not quite a closed system, but the UK government has proven capable of protecting its citizens with minimal action on the part of the citizen.
The US is a different story. First off, this country is massive. Quite a bit more massive than I think some Europeans realize. This country is 2,680 miles (or 4313 kilometers) from coast to coast, and 1,582 miles (2545 km) from south to north. In that space, we have a little over 300 million people. While there are, for sure, plenty of dense population centers, the majority of our land is largely empty and unoccupied, with very long distances between neighbors.
There are parts of the country where you can go for considerable distance before coming across anything that could be remotely described as "civilization". It's an even further drive if you're looking for law enforcement. In some parts of the country, the response time can drag on as long as 45 minutes, if there are law enforcement available. In those parts of the country, if you are attacked and you call for help, all the Sheriff's deputy will be good for is snapping photos of what's left.
There's not even a guarantee that you'll be able to call for help with no cell service, and there's no guarantee of help arriving in time to save you. Why should the government have a monopoly on the use of force if they are incapable of employing it where it's needed, when it's needed?
I'm not arguing against sensible measures like licensing, mandatory training or proper storage. I'm arguing against stripping us of a right that has been a right for nearly the entirety of human history, and has been a right for a reason. I'm not arguing that it applies everywhere and all the time, far from it. I'm simply arguing that outright discarding the Second Amendment could hurt people with a genuine need for it.
It really confuses me when people think some AR15s are a protection against oppression by a government backed by the most powerful military in history. You're bringing a gun to a drone fight. I support gun rights because I like guns, that's it.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51255721]This country's revolutionary war started when Britain wanted to take the guns away from the colonists.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Lexington_and_Concord[/URL]
The simple fact of the matter is, all that really stands in the way of overturning the Bill of Rights is the courts. Particularly the Supreme Court. Last time the 2nd Amendment came up it was a split decision, 5-4. And one of those 5 judges is now dead. So that person's spot on the Supreme Court is up for grabs. The government can, and will, overstep its bounds. Most often on the proviso that they're doing it for safety and security. But that truly is the slippery slope. They will continue to push more and more legislation that says its for safety and security, like the Patriot Act (horribly named).
Turning to the gun is an absolute last resort a free people have when all others fail. When speech is curtailed, when the press is turned into propaganda machines, when voting is ignored. Governments have done this, REPEATEDLY, throughout history. Did you know [URL="http://www.usconstitution.net/china.html#Article35"]China has freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc[/URL]? Does this translate into reality? Nope. Because the only organ for forcing those freedoms is the government. And when the government decides that those "freedoms" are inconvenient they will be ignored.
All laws are simply words on paper. The US Constitution is words on paper. If the Supreme Court decides to ignore it, if Congress decides to ignore it, and if the President decides to ignore it, what recourse is left to the people? That is why firearms ownership is so heavily protected. That is also why the founders of this country were very much against a standing army in peace time. Because that standing army can, and has, been directed against the people of the United States.
Simply put, this stuff has happened before, and it will eventually happen again. Hopefully never, but human history is rife with repeats of the same old mistakes. I, for one, will not be apart of allowing those same mistakes to happen again.[/QUOTE]
first of all, that first sentence is just funny. you're making it sound as if everything was peaceful until the brits came to take away their guns just because. you're ignoring the fact that the tension between the brits & colonists were thick as fuck. the brits already declared them to be in a state of rebellion, they didn't want to take away the guns as if they're taking away toys from their kids, they were launching a strike against their logistics
to the rest: and yet despite these bold statements such as not allowing those same mistakes to happen again, the same mistakes have happened again with gun-owners either standing in the sidelines or supporting it
you need to stop thinking as if these presidents and congress people we have are simply there because they're there, they're there because the people of the united states elected them there. the people also include gun-owners who will ironically support measures that chips away at the constitution while living under a delusion that they're still small government
you're separating 'people' from 'government' as if they're two separate independent entities with the latter coming out of nowhere. in reality, the people is the government and the government is the people; they're elected into power and they're [B]allowed[/B] to continue with bad decisions because the people will continue to elect them. the gun-owners are part of these people.
lets put it this way; if you assume the government is so tyrannical that they want to take your guns away, they need a mechanism to do so. which would be the military or police coming to take them away. yet, the party that is famously pro-gun right has taken the side of military & police majority of the time with promises to expand their power. you look at despite all the terrible shit that the military & police has done, instead of healthy respectful but skeptic outlook on them they're idolized
mitch mcconnell is probably very pro-gun, so are his supporters, yet he would choose to reauthorize the PATRIOT ACT at every time with marco rubio wanting to expand NSA capabilities. you have ted cruz and paul ryan that's against it, but that's the point: owning guns are hilariously irrelevant in dictating how powerful a government can be because owning a gun that doesn't mean you're not susceptible to populism & fear to give up those rights
donald trump proposed banning the adherents of a major religion entering the country simply because of their religion which is wholly unconstitutional and against the spirits of the country, yet the ones supporting him & his policies are also pro-gun.
what makes the government stop overstepping the boundaries aren't guns because the gun-owners just like everyonee else are suspect to fear & populism which made them useless like the historical lists of outright government tyranny & oppression i listed
what makes them stop overstepping the boundaries are educated citizens who stop electing shitheads into office and realize checks & balances goes beyond guns
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;51255837]It really confuses me when people think some AR15s are a protection against oppression by a government backed by the most powerful military in history. You're bringing a gun to a drone fight. I support gun rights because I like guns, that's it.[/QUOTE]
Personally owned firearms would provide an initial starting point, but without a way to source new small-arms and ammunition, as well as AAA and AT weapons, armored vehicles, artillery, radar assemblies, medical supplies, food and water and all of the other myriad requirements for sustained, open warfare, any anti-government forces would be unable to fight anything larger than inconclusive guerrilla actions.
Warfare has moved far beyond long lines of dumb infantrymen popping shots into their own gunsmoke in hopes of getting a lucky hit. It requires extensive, oftentimes specialized training for everyone involved. It requires peak physical conditioning. It requires significant materiel investment, even at the level of individual, expendable soldiers. It requires logistics, intelligence, strategy and leadership. Above all, it requires a strong sense of discipline in all involved.
A loosely-organized force of self-supplied civilians would be no match for a modern, conventional military. In a stand-up fight, it would be much more massacre than fight. I think the idea of citizens overthrowing the US Gov. is laughable at best, and downright worrying when the talk turns serious.
[QUOTE=Zombinie;51254510]It was put in place to guard against tyranny. Looking at both Clinton and Trump, I think it is extremely relevant these days.[/QUOTE]
Turn off your computer and cancel your internet access if you think that's true. You're completely detached from reality.
[QUOTE=IrishBandit;51255837]It really confuses me when people think some AR15s are a protection against oppression by a government backed by the most powerful military in history. You're bringing a gun to a drone fight. I support gun rights because I like guns, that's it.[/QUOTE]
The citizens are not going to be standing on a hill screaming at the military. The military prefers bombing the shit out of the enemy. Even to the detriment of the civilian population. That cannot happen in the US without the government loosing all its credibility. Plus the only reason drones are so good is because the pilots can use those drones from the US. And be at less risk of being killed. Not so when they're firing that drone's missiles at targets inside the US. Because where our military controls those drones is known to be at certain bases in the US.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YxQhuUlznY[/url]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc2A6V5UabU[/url]
And yes, gun owners do scare the crap out of the police and military. Now I don't agree with Bundy. But yeah, it was the government that backed off.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Confrontations_and_protests_in_April_2014[/url]
The government obviously went after them in a less confrontational way after the 2014 standoff.
lolwutdude, the election process can and has been corrupted.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)[/url] <- Another use of civilian firearms to overthrow a corrupt government inside the United States.
And I never said that Republicans or pro-gun Senators or Representatives don't like picking apart other parts of the Bill of Rights. I said that government likes to overstep its bounds. And will continue to do so. The party system itself lends that hand. Because so many people will be voting in this election along party lines. Not because they believe in a particular candidate. Again, I point to China. They have freedoms in their constitution, they have elections laid out in their constitution. That doesn't prevent people from abusing power so very often. Mainly because you have one choice in China. The Chinese Communist Party or it'll be prison for you.
The fact that judges have political party affiliations is very bad for our system. And that is a requirement in the Chinese system, that judges are Chinese Communist Party members. That everyone in government is a member of the CCP. And that lends itself to the party having more power than the government.
And also, the Civil War was by vote before it became an armed conflict.
"The second amendment is needed in case the government violates our rights, so I'm going to vote for a government that violates our rights because they'll protect the second amendment"
what is this logic exactly
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51256131]"The second amendment is needed in case the government violates our rights, so I'm going to vote for a government that violates our rights because they'll protect the second amendment"
what is this logic exactly[/QUOTE]
Both sides will attempt to violate our rights. Because both major parties favor expanding government power. Hillary will just have an easier time doing so.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;51256027]Turn off your computer and cancel your internet access if you think that's true. You're completely detached from reality.[/QUOTE]
I don't trust them. Sue me.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51256106]
And yes, gun owners do scare the crap out of the police and military. Now I don't agree with Bundy. But yeah, it was the government that backed off.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Confrontations_and_protests_in_April_2014[/URL]
The government obviously went after them in a less confrontational way after the 2014 standoff.[/QUOTE]
they weren't fucking scared of hillbillies with guns lmao, they were more concerned with PR disasters such as opening fire on civilians in a controversial & nationally televised event. you think they'd go in guns blazing during this?
[quote]. “We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.” - Richard Mack , one of the protesters [/quote]
but hey, nevermind, these were brave freedom fighters, not some racist jackasses that liked to avoid responsibility.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51256106]lolwutdude, the election process can and has been corrupted.[/QUOTE]
and you think the people weren't involved in it lol? citizens united was supported by the people that believed corporations are people and money is speech. mitch mcconnell who is pro-gun right supported it by the way. civic apathy combined with populism & party loyalty corrupted the election process and guns wouldn't have done shit to stop it
[QUOTE=Kigen;51256106][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)[/URL] <- Another use of civilian firearms to overthrow a corrupt government inside the United States.[/QUOTE]
nice, so did this happen again when black people were still considered second class citizens, japenese being interned cause they're japanese, when kent state students were massacred, PATRIOT ACT was passed, NSA expanded their powers, and etc?
[QUOTE=Kigen;51256106][B]And I never said that Republicans or pro-gun Senators or Representatives don't like picking apart other parts of the Bill of Rights.[/B] I said that government likes to overstep its bounds. And will continue to do so. The party system itself lends that hand. Because so many people will be voting in this election along party lines. Not because they believe in a particular candidate. Again, I point to China. They have freedoms in their constitution, they have elections laid out in their constitution. That doesn't prevent people from abusing power so very often. Mainly because you have one choice in China. The Chinese Communist Party or it'll be prison for you.[/QUOTE]
that wasn't my point; my point was that regardless whether you own guns or not, it will do absolutely nothing to counter government aggression because gun-owners and gun right supporters are just as suspect to fear & populism as everyone else. owning a firearm doesn't automatically enlighten you but it can give you delusions that you're immune from government deception & trickery because they absolutely fear you
they don't, they don't need to take away your guns to take away your rights or oppress you, they just need to deceive & manipulate you that you need give up certain rights gradually over time using fear & populism. if all they have to do is let you have your guns to convince yourself you're free, they'll let you keep your guns. PATRIOT ACT wasn't passed by in secret nor by shadowy agencies, they were passed bipartisan by both anti & pro gun congressmen who elected by both anti & pro gun because they were scared of terrorists.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51256106]The fact that judges have political party affiliations is very bad for our system. And that is a requirement in the Chinese system, that judges are Chinese Communist Party members. That everyone in government is a member of the CCP. And that lends itself to the party having more power than the government.[/QUOTE]
and guess who agrees & supports the CCP? the majority of the chinese. i promise you that even if you gave them guns, they'll still support CCP.
Eughh I just want the election to be over and for Trump to stop being in the news
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;51256208]
and you think the people weren't involved in it lol? citizens united was supported by the people that believed corporations are people and money is speech. mitch mcconnell who is pro-gun right supported it by the way. civic apathy combined with populism & party loyalty corrupted the election process and guns wouldn't have done shit to stop it
nice, so did this happen again when black people were still considered second class citizens, japenese being interned cause they're japanese, when kent state students were massacred, PATRIOT ACT was passed, NSA expanded their powers, and etc?
that wasn't my point; my point was that regardless whether you own guns or not, it will do absolutely nothing to counter government aggression because gun-owners and gun right supporters are just as suspect to fear & populism as everyone else. owning a firearm doesn't automatically enlighten you but it can give you delusions that you're immune from government deception & trickery because they absolutely fear you
they don't, they don't need to take away your guns to take away your rights or oppress you, they just need to deceive & manipulate you that you need give up certain rights gradually over time using fear & populism. if all they have to do is let you have your guns to convince yourself you're free, they'll let you keep your guns. PATRIOT ACT wasn't passed by in secret nor by shadowy agencies, they were passed bipartisan by both anti & pro gun congressmen who elected by both anti & pro gun because they were scared of terrorists.
[/QUOTE]
You seem to labor under the misunderstanding that I support armed resistance for ever little issue our government has. Getting into armed conflict is the very last thing I want in this country. But I want it to be available as an option.
And yes, the government will deceive in order to deprive people of their rights. But that still doesn't make my argument any less valid. The government has for about a century now worked to erode the 2nd Amendment into a shell of its former self. This mostly while pulling out bullshit statistics that are manipulated into telling people that guns are the causes of all our ills. Or that the lack of surveillance allowed terrorist attacks to happen. They both used the fear of instability or insecurity to push for further government powers on the promise that they'd improve stability and security.
I simply do not trust the government. And I don't take what any representative of it says at face value. I like to dig, dig through all the evidence I can find to hopefully find the truth in the matter at hand.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51256154]Both sides will attempt to violate our rights. Because both major parties favor expanding government power. Hillary will just have an easier time doing so.[/QUOTE]
Why would Hillary have an easier time doing so? Are you one of the people that incorrectly think that because Republicans hate Trump, they won't pass bills that coincide with their interests?
The whole fucking Spanish-American war was started by journalists making baseless claims until people believed what they were saying. During the Ferguson riots and shit the media only made things worse and worse instead of keeping a cool, objective viewpoint. They bullshit based on their biases and agendas constantly in order to stir shit up in their favor, and that's a problem. I really feel that we need to at least do something like bring the Fairness Doctrine back, because the media saying whatever the fuck they want is a problem when average readers and listeners seem to be fucking idiots who can't take 3 minutes out of their day to do the bare minimum of research to form an opinion.
I don't like Trump. I don't like any of his politics, I don't think he'd make a good president, I don't like his personality, I don't like how much of an overpowering, overzealous, bigoted, racist human being he is, I don't like his hair, and imo the best part about Trump is the fucking Donald Trump pen I own that plays his dumbass "build a wall" statement and 7 more when you push down his sculpted head. I think he's a fucking joke and I'm clueless as to how he's made it this far,
but I do agree with all of what he's saying in that video.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51254319]Yes, because the reason the Founders ultimately added the Bill of Rights was to prevent government overreach. Obviously, the Bill of Rights is not the most important things to life. But they are the things governments go after when they want to restrict their citizens. Originally, there wasn't going to be a Bill of Rights because the Federalist argued that the Federal government was not granted the power to make laws on any of the items in the Bill of Rights. Which the Federal government's power is clearly laid out in Article I, Section 8. But the Anti-Federalist, now apparently wisely, knew that government would overstep its bounds. So they added clear language that specifically said these areas are out of bounds for the government. Its not an exhaustive list, and wasn't designed to be.[/quote]
No disagreements there, but this doesn't address my question. Through what mechanism would repealing one amendment lead to the others crashing down?
[quote]A President is not absolute power. No where in the world is this the case. He or she has to have multiple others in collusion with them in order to assert enough influence over the government to get it to do things. That's why our system of checks and balance exists. To prevent any one branch from having enough influence to overturn the Constitution.
In North Korea for example, Kim Jong Un could not rule the country by himself. He needs others in high places to back him. If those high officials, who get lavish treatment, ever turn on him he'd be gone.[/quote]
This seems like a misuse of the term 'absolute power'. A monarch or a dictator can't realistically do things solely by themselves, and they require at least partially the co-operation of others. That does not make any monarchy in history an oligarchy.
If Trump starts shit, you have to hope that a Republican-controlled house impeaches him, and that a Democrat or Republican-controlled senate does not acquit him.
[quote]Hillary Clinton is the one with people in high places already in government. Trump does not so his attempts will fail. Also a good chunk of the Republican party hates him so yeah, not getting far there.[/quote]
This is one of the most important elections in history, precisely because the President can appoint SCOTUS justices that fit their agendas. Not only can Trump appoint people who could possibly help restrict freedom of press and freedom of religion, he has clearly promised to do so.
It's absolutely ridiculous to argue for a man who wants to restrict the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of press (infinitely more important rights than the right to bear arms for the running of a democracy, as seen in the rest of the west), because he will simply just not have the influence to do so. Whereas Clinton will, apparently.
Not only will Trump have the power to do this, he will likely do it in a manner that is constitutionally valid, via the SCOTUS nominations.
[quote]And for the Constitution, it was known that there could be a day where all three branches become corrupted. That is why there is the split sovereignty with the States. That is also why the 2nd Amendment exists. As a doomsday provision.
[url]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16599538532304446493&q=kozinski&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33[/url][/QUOTE]
The three branches got corrupted alright, and the 2nd amendment can be misused just as easily. Arguably it already has. If you wish to argue that it [i]hasn't[/i], then consider the fact that we are non-jokingly talking about the possibility of an armed insurrection in the case that Clinton wins the presidency.
[QUOTE=Zombinie;51256170]I don't trust them. Sue me.[/QUOTE]
Not trusting them is not the same as insinuating that either will become tyrannical
[QUOTE=Kigen;51256106]The citizens are not going to be standing on a hill screaming at the military. The military prefers bombing the shit out of the enemy. Even to the detriment of the civilian population. That cannot happen in the US without the government loosing all its credibility. Plus the only reason drones are so good is because the pilots can use those drones from the US. And be at less risk of being killed. Not so when they're firing that drone's missiles at targets inside the US. Because where our military controls those drones is known to be at certain bases in the US.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YxQhuUlznY[/url]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc2A6V5UabU[/url]
And yes, gun owners do scare the crap out of the police and military. Now I don't agree with Bundy. But yeah, it was the government that backed off.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Confrontations_and_protests_in_April_2014[/url]
The government obviously went after them in a less confrontational way after the 2014 standoff.
lolwutdude, the election process can and has been corrupted.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)[/url] <- Another use of civilian firearms to overthrow a corrupt government inside the United States.
And I never said that Republicans or pro-gun Senators or Representatives don't like picking apart other parts of the Bill of Rights. I said that government likes to overstep its bounds. And will continue to do so. The party system itself lends that hand. Because so many people will be voting in this election along party lines. Not because they believe in a particular candidate. Again, I point to China. They have freedoms in their constitution, they have elections laid out in their constitution. That doesn't prevent people from abusing power so very often. Mainly because you have one choice in China. The Chinese Communist Party or it'll be prison for you.
The fact that judges have political party affiliations is very bad for our system. And that is a requirement in the Chinese system, that judges are Chinese Communist Party members. That everyone in government is a member of the CCP. And that lends itself to the party having more power than the government.
And also, the Civil War was by vote before it became an armed conflict.[/QUOTE]
If there was an uprising in the USA there'd be literally 0% chance of it succeeding without massive handicaps on the US military
We've had this discussion a thousand times before in SH and it's never going to be less ridiculous.
If you want gun rights because you like guns and shooting them that's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint. If you want the 2nd amendment because you feel like we the people gotta be prepared to step up and overthrow the US government then you're actually insane.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51255415]Wow, it's just libel/slander, he just wants to expand the definition of it. That doesn't seem like much.
[editline]24th October 2016[/editline]
It helps a lot better than not having a gun, which is the whole point. There's a symbolism in the 2nd amendment about the trust relationship between the government and the people.[/QUOTE]
if im not mistaken in england the burden of proof is on the accused not the accuser, quite a big difference in britain not to mention the massive differences in legal systems
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51256131]"The second amendment is needed in case the government violates our rights, so I'm going to vote for a government that violates our rights because they'll protect the second amendment"
what is this logic exactly[/QUOTE]
Well I mean both candidates have promised to violate our rights in one way or another. It's not like it's avoidable at this point.
[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51256353]If there was an uprising in the USA there'd be literally 0% chance of it succeeding without massive handicaps on the US military
We've had this discussion a thousand times before in SH and it's never going to be less ridiculous.
If you want gun rights because you like guns and shooting them that's a perfectly acceptable viewpoint. If you want the 2nd amendment because you feel like we the people gotta be prepared to step up and overthrow the US government then you're actually insane.[/QUOTE]
And you are insane. If you think it'll be that easy for the US military. You have ignored the previous debates because you believe the military is all powerful. The only option the military would have is to flatten the country. Which isn't very conductive to its continued existence.
Good luck with that.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YxQhuUlznY[/url]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc2A6V5UabU[/url]
[QUOTE=Kigen;51256412]And you are insane. If you think it'll be that easy for the US military. You have ignored the previous debates because you believe the military is all powerful. The only option the military would have is to flatten the country. Which isn't very conductive to its continued existence.
Good luck with that.[/QUOTE]
I have yet to hear a reasonable scenario where the whole of the US would rise up in arms. If an insurrection were to happen, it would most likely not have complete popular support.
[QUOTE=phaedon;51256445]I have yet to hear a reasonable scenario where the whole of the US would rise up in arms. If an insurrection were to happen, it would most likely not have complete popular support.[/QUOTE]
All I have to say, is I hope you never see it. When it happens, it will devastate the US, and lead to massive instability around the world. And our original revolution did not have "complete popular support." Its not necessary to revolution.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51256412]And you are insane. If you think it'll be that easy for the US military. You have ignored the previous debates because you believe the military is all powerful. The only option the military would have is to flatten the country. Which isn't very conductive to its continued existence.
Good luck with that.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YxQhuUlznY[/url]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc2A6V5UabU[/url][/QUOTE]
Why the fuck would the US military flatten the country lol
At most, at the most, the most people who would rise up against the US military would be less than a few thousand. They would have absolutely no organization or communication, and would most likely be put down by law enforcement. Your shitty sensationalist redneck ass Youtuber's you subscribe to aren't a valid substitute for an argument.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51256459] And our original revolution did not have "complete popular support." Its not necessary to revolution.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. I don't get the citizens vs military, or states vs feds scenario.
In a minor insurrection, only a few people would revolt. In a bigger scale one, states/cities/areas would secede or question the current POTUS' legitimacy. The military wouldn't stay intact in such a case.
[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51256471]Why the fuck would the US military flatten the country lol
At most, at the most, the most people who would rise up against the US military would be less than a few thousand. They would have absolutely no organization or communication, and would most likely be put down by law enforcement. Your shitty sensationalist redneck ass Youtuber's you subscribe to aren't a valid substitute for an argument.[/QUOTE]
Insults instead of actual arguments are the way those loosing a debate react.
Said YouTuber is former military and former federal law enforcement (all in good standing). And currently working on a medical doctorate. He just might have some knowledge there. You seem to believe that if the citizens do rise up against the government that the government would still be an effective entity afterward. At least half, if not more, of LEOs and military will defect if forced to fight against their fellow citizens over the Bill of Rights. Plus its not like the people rising up are not without military training on guerrilla warfare.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOBJsZOgN14[/url] <- Vice, very much anti-milita, anti-2nd amendment. They did a interview with a few militia groups.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15IqLYPXac[/url] <- Same, just the lady's take on it.
The most likely scenario is the military will refuse to fight the citizens, even at the orders of a President or Congress.
[editline]24th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=phaedon;51256482]Exactly. I don't get the citizens vs military, or states vs feds scenario.
In a minor insurrection, only a few people would revolt. In a bigger scale one, states/cities/areas would secede or question the current POTUS' legitimacy. The military wouldn't stay intact in such a case.[/QUOTE]
The States vs Feds was the civil war. The singular most devastating war this country has had. The civilians vs military was more of citizens on both sides defending themselves from the other side's military during the war.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51256496]The States vs Feds was the civil war. The singular most devastating war this country has had. The civilians vs military was more of citizens on both sides defending themselves from the other side's military during the war.[/QUOTE]
The ACW was northern states vs southern pro-slavery states. The northern states may have been under the administration of the federal government, but similarly, the South was under confederate administration, which wasn't exactly libertarian.
So no, you can't describe it as a feds vs states scenario, which would imply that the military or federal agencies are operating against state governments or civillians.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.