Trump laments First Amendment: "Our press is allowed to say whatever they want"
144 replies, posted
[QUOTE=phaedon;51256626]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.[/QUOTE]
The southern states voted to leave the US. This did not magically make a Confederate government. One had to be setup from the existing pool of the state resources available to those states. And any federal equipment and personnel that switched sides. The Confederate government was very much about nothing when compared to the Federal government. So it was mainly the states putting forth their state militaries into combined units to form the new Confederate army. Basically, it was States vs Feds, just the states grouped together under a different flag. Obviously, a new Confederate army could not magically come into existence out of nothing. It had to come from some where.
Some states still maintain their own independent militaries separate from the National Guard and answerable only to the state governor.
[url]https://tmd.texas.gov/texas-state-guard[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force[/url]
And the militia is all able bodied males between 17 and 45. Per [url=https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13-sec311.htm]10 U.S.C. 311[/url].
[quote]§311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) [b]The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years[/b] of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
[b](2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.[/b][/quote]
[QUOTE=Judas;51253656]its funny how people call hillary the facist trying to take away rights when trump activley says things like this all the time[/QUOTE]
I think it's funny that both politicians do the same thing and one is allowed to let it slide because the other one is a different breed of evil.
[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]
If you really want to go into this, one of the reasons that the "Americans" won the Revoloutionary War is because of French involvement towards the end of the war, the British were at one point absolutely crushing the colonists, a good example of this is the British fleet in New York, they were diverted to stop a possible French naval invasion. You are also forgetting that even with your freedom of guns, when a well trained military force (British and Canadian Troops, at the height of the Napoleonic Wars) went up against you, even though you attacked the Canadian troops managed to burn down the White House. A well regulated militia can do very little against a larger and better trained force, as depending on the environment, but especially in the U.S. with large Party Allignment within households, if not streets. As there will always be people willing to "rat out" those bearing arms, especially in the modern day with modern hardware.
Trump is delusional if he thinks the press is biased against him, he still has "control" over sites like breitbart, and there is fringe "News" sites like Infowars, which will alwaysnreport with a larger bias than major news sites. This is one of the good and bad things about the Internet, the ability to "Prive" a fact because one or two sites report on it. Even if the Government in this scenario cracks down on the U.S. Media, you would still have access to foreign Neutral News Sites.
You also forget that not all of the forces fighting the "Americans" we're regular troops, there were horse raiders like Tartletons Light Dragoons, and countless unauthorised loyalist regiments that fought outside the regular army structure. When the Constitution was drafted there was no guarantee of protection, and at that point guns were needed, that is Simply not the case anymore.
The U.S. has a well armed police force, with several neighbouring countries that could intervene if the Government turned into some sore of Authoritarian Nightmare, the U.S. is not a third world country, it would be more important for several countries to support those who would be hypothetically endangered. You also forget that those in the Army are humans, and many would not go through with the order to move against US citizens.
There is no liberal conspiracy against you, they are pushing for gun control, just as Trump is pushing for anti-gun control. The Constitution is a dated document. They are political standpoints, and so what if your little AR-15 is taken away, if you actually read Hilary's policies she is only pushing for restrictions on buying guns. You don't fucking need a AR-15 to hunt birds or protect your home, you don't need to hunt anymore, and there is this thing called the police to protect your home.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51256644]The southern states voted to leave the US. This did not magically make a Confederate government. One had to be setup from the existing pool of the state resources available to those states. And any federal equipment and personnel that switched sides. The Confederate government was very much about nothing when compared to the Federal government. So it was mainly the states putting forth their state militaries into combined units to form the new Confederate army.[/quote]
The same applies to the northern side too. There's no such as thing as federal GDP or industry. The northern states pooled together their resources. The tiny federal army (~16000 officers and enlisted men) in 1860 was nothing compared to the armies that the Union fielded by 1865.
The states under the CSA weren't fully sovereign, just as the Union states aren't.
A scenario where shit hits the fan and the US military turns against the people, without the support of at least a large part of the population/states is science fiction. But clearly this rhetoric plays on the narrative of a popular uprising against an oppressive federal government, discounting the fact that that administration derived its power from the majority, and is likely to be supported by a ton of people.
[quote]Basically, it was States vs Feds, just the states grouped together under a different flag. Obviously, a new Confederate army could not magically come into existence out of nothing. It had to come from some where.[/QUOTE]
It clearly was not, as there were plenty of states in the North, too.
Some states chose to stay in the union and operate under a federal administration, while other states decided to secede and operate under a confederate administration.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;51254270]What you're describing is already covered by existing law. Trump wants to go full retard and sue newspapers for offending him with the truth[/QUOTE]
Yes, as i said.
[QUOTE=Redcoat893;51256688]If you really want to go into this, one of the reasons that the "Americans" won the Revoloutionary War is because of French involvement towards the end of the war, the British were at one point absolutely crushing the colonists, a good example of this is the British fleet in New York, they were diverted to stop a possible French naval invasion. You are also forgetting that even with your freedom of guns, when a well trained military force (British and Canadian Troops, at the height of the Napoleonic Wars) went up against you, even though you attacked the Canadian troops managed to burn down the White House. A well regulated militia can do very little against a larger and better trained force, as depending on the environment, but especially in the U.S. with large Party Allignment within households, if not streets. As there will always be people willing to "rat out" those bearing arms, especially in the modern day with modern hardware.
Trump is delusional if he thinks the press is biased against him, he still has "control" over sites like breitbart, and there is fringe "News" sites like Infowars, which will alwaysnreport with a larger bias than major news sites. This is one of the good and bad things about the Internet, the ability to "Prive" a fact because one or two sites report on it. Even if the Government in this scenario cracks down on the U.S. Media, you would still have access to foreign Neutral News Sites.
You also forget that not all of the forces fighting the "Americans" we're regular troops, there were horse raiders like Tartletons Light Dragoons, and countless unauthorised loyalist regiments that fought outside the regular army structure. When the Constitution was drafted there was no guarantee of protection, and at that point guns were needed, that is Simply not the case anymore.
The U.S. has a well armed police force, with several neighbouring countries that could intervene if the Government turned into some sore of Authoritarian Nightmare, the U.S. is not a third world country, it would be more important for several countries to support those who would be hypothetically endangered. You also forget that those in the Army are humans, and many would not go through with the order to move against US citizens.
There is no liberal conspiracy against you, they are pushing for gun control, just as Trump is pushing for anti-gun control. The Constitution is a dated document. They are political standpoints, and so what if your little AR-15 is taken away, if you actually read Hilary's policies she is only pushing for restrictions on buying guns. You don't fucking need a AR-15 to hunt birds or protect your home, you don't need to hunt anymore, and there is this thing called the police to protect your home.[/QUOTE]
You clearly do not understand the American mindset. And I don't fucking support Trump, he is a piece of shit on almost the same level as Hillary.
We do NOT bow down to our government. It must bow down to the people of this country. That is why the Bill of Rights exists. That is why the Constitution exists. To tell the government exactly what its powers are and are not. To limit government power. And our federal government has been clearly overstepping its bounds, way past Article I, Section 8.
And the "hunter guns" that you so lovely compare the AR-15 to fire more powerful cartridges than the AR-15. The context the 2nd Amendment has for the US is so that we may at least attempt to kill off our government should it decide to no longer follow the Supreme Law of the Land. Because the government isn't interested in following the law. The police are not there to protect you, even in your country. They are there to make arrests, not to protect. The police can sit back, watch you get murdered, then go off for tea. There would be no legal repercussions for them. There might be administrative based on department policy.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia[/url]
[url]https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0043_Judgment.pdf[/url]
[url]https://www.quora.com/In-the-UK-are-the-police-legally-obliged-to-protect-you[/url]
And I don't care if the Constitution is dated. It still is the Supreme Law of the Land. That supersedes any federal, state, or local law. And unless, and until, it is Amended by Article V process then what it currently states is what will currently be enforced. I certainly cannot argue a law is "dated" to a court if I get brought up on a criminal charge. Neither should the government.
And do you seriously believe other countries are going to intervene in the US if the federal government becomes authoritarian? Have you heard that the federal government has just a few nuclear warheads? Just one of which will likely deter any interloper. If other countries were that concerned about the plight of those under authoritarian rule then would have done something about North Korea long ago, and China as well. But they didn't. Because at the heart of every country's decision is their own self-interests.
[QUOTE=plunger435;51254684]The second amendment arguments would be s lot more credible if people just admitted the reason it's still around is because shooting guns is fun and not because you have a right to rise up against the government.[/QUOTE]
You're allowed to be wrong
[QUOTE=plunger435;51254684]The second amendment arguments would be s lot more credible if people just admitted the reason it's still around is because shooting guns is fun and not because you have a right to rise up against the government.[/QUOTE]
The Deceleration of Independence actually stated that. Revolution will never be legal. But sometimes it will be justified.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence[/url]
[quote]That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 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.[/quote]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_revolution#Examples_as_positive_law[/url]
Some Constitutions do clearly state a "positive law" on the right of revolution. Including European countries. But even if the people invoked such provisions, the existing government, out of self-interest and self-preservation, will deem such revolutions as illegal.
The best guarantee that second amendment rights aren't needed is proper excercise of first amendment rights. But if people fail to use their first amendment rights, how can they hope to achieve anything with second amendment rights?
[QUOTE=Vlevs;51256986]The best guarantee that second amendment rights aren't needed is proper excercise of first amendment rights. But if people fail to use their first amendment rights, how can they hope to achieve anything with second amendment rights?[/QUOTE]
Because guns are much more scarier than words. Just like there is a difference between actions and talk. The government is made up of people as well. And the First amendment is being used every day.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jqpG9A---U[/url]
Another great video on the subject.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heLuBt_vHzI[/url]
Another example of armed citizens taking their government to task. Without a shot fired.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51257086]Guns arent scary without the threat. They know you cant shoot it. Kill a public official? That is detrimental, will invite federal law enforcement, so you wont do it, and they know it. Their talk got shit done. Not guns. Guns arent scary because everybody knows you wont use them. Using them is suicide.
[editline]25th October 2016[/editline]
Also you say Army isnt all powerful, you forget about the FBI, NSA.[/QUOTE]
That I can't shoot a gun? Its not hard to shoot a gun. You load it, turn the safety off (if it has one), chamber a round, point at your target, and pull the trigger. The point of it isn't that I or just one individual would be running around doing that. The point of the 2nd Amendment is that a LOT of other people would be doing that with me. That scares governments, and if you watched the second video you would see that. Even though no shots were fired, you will see a councilman for that city running from the chambers after he couldn't disarm a law abiding citizen. Tell me, why would he run out? And can you honestly tell me that the next council meeting didn't have any impact on the decision making process of those city councilmen. When the next meeting a LOT of citizens came with their firearms to that meeting. And very clearly told the city council that they had no authority to make gun laws.
The FBI is a much smaller organization. There are 35,104 employees of the FBI, not all of which are actual field agents, in fact, most are not. And the NSA has no police powers inside the US. They are a signal intelligence agency. And as such all they do is listen to electronic communications. The NSA has no more powers than the CIA does inside US borders. The FBI, and all federal police agencies, depend on support coming from local or state governments whenever they do an operation. Especially one that might lead to violent conflict.
the best example of a mass-uprising with firearms to repel government tyranny was the US civil war, where the southern US states seceded on the basis that the Federal government attempting to restrict slavery impinged on their rights in such a manner that it was considered tyrannical.
it failed miserably and led to the complete impoverishment of those who rebelled and military occupation
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51257229]the best example of a mass-uprising with firearms to repel government tyranny was the US civil war, where the southern US states seceded on the basis that the Federal government attempting to restrict slavery impinged on their rights in such a manner that it was considered tyrannical.
it failed miserably and led to the complete impoverishment of those who rebelled and military occupation[/QUOTE]
the US also didn't mean jack shit on the global scale at that time. if another uprising of similar scale happened today then the rest of the world will hurt badly from it
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51257229]the best example of a mass-uprising with firearms to repel government tyranny was the US civil war, where the southern US states seceded on the basis that the Federal government attempting to restrict slavery impinged on their rights in such a manner that it was considered tyrannical.
it failed miserably and led to the complete impoverishment of those who rebelled and military occupation[/QUOTE]
I see you ignored everything inconvenient to you again. Either that or you didn't read the thread. Did you happen to ignore the Revolutionary War? Parts of the Civil War that actually involved citizen militias? Battle of Athens? City of Oak Harbor? Not every "uprising" needs to involve bloodshed.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51257284]the rest of the world will hurt badly from it[/QUOTE]
nah.
we're talking about thousands of disorganised mentally ill people - not a mass revolt. there's no real reason that millions of americans are going to get up and rebel simply for gun restrictions being tightened
[editline]25th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kigen;51257317]I see you ignored everything inconvenient to you again. Either that or you didn't read the thread. Did you happen to ignore the Revolutionary War? Parts of the Civil War that actually involved citizen militias? Battle of Athens? City of Oak Harbor? Not every "uprising" needs to involve bloodshed.[/QUOTE]
the american independence war was largely won with the aid of french and german arms
militias were pretty much steamrolled in the civil war too
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51257320]nah.
we're talking about thousands of disorganised mentally ill people - not a mass revolt.[/QUOTE]
So all those active and former military people are "disorganized mentally ill people" now? Yeah, good luck with that. You live in a fantasy land if you seriously believe that armed citizens don't scare governments. Its kinda why its the first they dictators go after, disarming the citizens. Now why might that be?
[editline]25th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51257320]
the american independence war was largely won with the aid of french and german arms
militias were pretty much steamrolled in the civil war too[/QUOTE]
I see you first, misrepresented the Revolutionary War and Civil War, and then also ignored the other examples cited. If your not going to debate honestly, then I will not debate you further. As its pointless based on my past experience trying to debate you. The last thread we had such a conversation in you ended up leaving.
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1535538&p=51115433&viewfull=1#post51115433[/url]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51257229]the best example of a mass-uprising with firearms to repel government tyranny was the US civil war, where the southern US states seceded on the basis that the Federal government attempting to restrict slavery impinged on their rights in such a manner that it was considered tyrannical.
it failed miserably and led to the complete impoverishment of those who rebelled and military occupation[/QUOTE]
The French revolution???
[QUOTE=Kigen;51257332]So all those active and former military people are "disorganized mentally ill people" now? Yeah, good luck with that.[/quote]
yep
[quote]You live in a fantasy land if you seriously believe that armed citizens don't scare governments. Its kinda why its the first they dictators go after, disarming the citizens. Now why might that be?[/quote]
they don't do this as a rule. when adolf hitler got into power he actually relaxed gun-control legislation, which directly refutes your argument
[quote]I see you first, misrepresented the Revolutionary War and Civil War, and then also ignored the other examples cited.[/QUOTE]
so what was the US civil war really about then?
[QUOTE=phygon;51257338]The French revolution???[/QUOTE]
peasants with pitchforks having bread riots?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51257346]
they don't do this as a rule. when adolf hitler got into power he actually relaxed gun-control legislation, which directly refutes your argument
[/QUOTE]
You forgot the little star to that. *For Aryan/Nazi Germans. For Jews or other undesirables being caught with a weapon was a death sentence. To be executed immediately.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#Gun_regulation_of_the_Third_Reich[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews[/url]
[QUOTE=Kigen;51257355]You forgot the little star to that. *For Aryan Germans. For Jews or other undesirables being caught with a weapon was a death sentence. To be executed immediately.[/QUOTE]
except the holocaust was unconnected to german gun control policy. weimar germany was already strict on guns and when hitler came into power some of the regulations were loosened.
this directly contradicts the argument that dictatorships make gun regulations tighter as a rule.
reimagining a past where all of the jews were heavily armed and by implication were able to avoid the holocaust is intellectually dishonest and deeply disgusting
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51257362]
reimagining a past where all of the jews were heavily armed and by implication were able to avoid the holocaust is intellectually dishonest and deeply disgusting[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising[/url]
Look at how hard the Nazis had to fight to just kill a few hundred armed Jews. Wow, I guess history is full of lies.
Or maybe you are deluding yourself into thinking governments are all powerful. Which is the exact opposite view that Americans have of their government. The people are all powerful and it is the government that must bend to their collective will.
You should really read that nice quote from Judge Alex Kozinsk in my earlier post. Who's parents happen to have been Holocaust survivors, then survivors of Romania's communist party.
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1539007&p=51254319&viewfull=1#post51254319[/url]
[QUOTE=Redcoat893;51256688]If you really want to go into this, one of the reasons that the "Americans" won the Revoloutionary War is because of French involvement towards the end of the war, the British were at one point absolutely crushing the colonists, a good example of this is the British fleet in New York, they were diverted to stop a possible French naval invasion. You are also forgetting that even with your freedom of guns, when a well trained military force (British and Canadian Troops, at the height of the Napoleonic Wars) went up against you, even though you attacked the Canadian troops managed to burn down the White House. A well regulated militia can do very little against a larger and better trained force, as depending on the environment, but especially in the U.S. with large Party Allignment within households, if not streets.[/QUOTE]
The Viernam War disagrees with you
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;51255860]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.[/QUOTE]
You should quit generalizing. There's plenty of people who are pro-gun who consistently vote for Democrats. Ie: Me and my entire family. (While there's a handful of Republicans I find to be respectable enough there's almost no chance I'd ever actually vote for any of them anyways.) The only difference is that the ones you're talking about tend to be the uneducated people who don't realize the issues with blindly supporting and extending the powers of the police and military.
[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 every time it's come up, at least as far as I've seen, someone always points out the fact that the moment the US government opens fire on its own citizens during a noteworthy uprising (though even a tiny one would cause some really bad pr if handled badly) it's going to cause a massive clusterfuck that will probably result in many other nations getting involved. Plus an uprising doesn't need to succeed in crushing their opponents militarily in order to succeed at delivering a clear message.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51256999]Because guns are much more scarier than words. Just like there is a difference between actions and talk. The government is made up of people as well. And the First amendment is being used every day.
Another example of armed citizens taking their government to task. Without a shot fired.[/QUOTE]
What I meant that open discussion and public pressure works wonders on democratic governments, and democracies are highly unlikely to turn into dictatorships if citizenry maintains importance of free speech rights. If citizens themselves don't start giving up their free speech rights, the most likely alternative to turn into dictatorship is military coup, and how likely is that? And what good does gun rights do against that?
What you seem to be implying is that threat of force is a perfectly valid negotiation position with authorities and that whatever legal rights you have are weak without personally backing them up. While it may be valid in some places, I find that mindset to be overly cynical and one that makes escalation much more likely to happen. This is in turn detrimental to citizens as that creates situation where authorities have much higher tendency to shoot at people, leading to accidental deaths. Thus the overall increase to security of gun proliferation and mindset owing to easy escalation is debatable.
[QUOTE=Vlevs;51257527]What I meant that open discussion and public pressure works wonders on democratic governments, and democracies are highly unlikely to turn into dictatorships if citizenry maintains importance of free speech rights. If citizens themselves don't start giving up their free speech rights, the most likely alternative to turn into dictatorship is military coup, and how likely is that? And what good does gun rights do against that?
What you seem to be implying is that threat of force is a perfectly valid negotiation position with authorities and that whatever legal rights you have are weak without personally backing them up. While it may be valid in some places, I find that mindset to be overly cynical and one that makes escalation much more likely to happen. This is in turn detrimental to citizens as that creates situation where authorities have much higher tendency to shoot at people, leading to accidental deaths. Thus the overall increase to security of gun proliferation and mindset owing to easy escalation is debatable.[/QUOTE]
Free speech and free press are critical to attempting to avoid having to resort to force of arms to bring change. But free speech/press are not the guarantee of freedoms.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Marcos#Martial_Law_and_the_New_Society_.281972.E2.80.931981.29[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Rise_to_power[/url]
And many others.
All they need is an opportunity or enough support in government. Free speech will die generally after they gain power. Most often cited as stopping lies or some other such nonsense. As we have in the present day case.
And the threat of force is exactly what governments used to enforce compliance with laws. Police forces, after all, are para-military organizations that will physically enforce the laws or will of government on the populace they police. The point of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the government does not have that monopoly on violence.
As the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)]Battle of Athens[/url] demonstrates. There will come a time when the government will start shooting voters. And secreting away ballot boxes to announce themselves the victors.
[quote]Around 3:00 p.m. an elderly black man, Tom Gillespie, was denied the right, in racist terms, to vote by Cantrell guard "Windy" Wise at the Athens Water Works polling place. When Gillespie and a GI poll watcher objected, Wise struck Gillespie with brass knuckles. Gillespie dropped his ballot and ran away from the deputy. Wise pulled his pistol and shot the aged farmer in the back.[/quote]
[editline]25th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51257561]Warsaw uprising was a despicable failure that resulted in nothing for Germans & 13,000 for Jews
That is whats gonna happen if Veterans revolt. Not necessarily civilians like in Warsaw, but Veterans will die.
And get imprisoned. Charged with treason. Death sentence.
You said before "NSA is just taps". Yeah, disorganies revolts dont mean shit, and if they try to organize NSA will intercept and it will be cracked down upon. You said FBI is worth as much as local governments support them, whos to say local govts will side with veterans? Do you think states will secede?[/QUOTE]
Warsaw saw a disproportionate response to what was a couple of hundred fighters. There are some 20 million veterans in this country. Good luck killing them all with the about 700,000 active troops. And that is even if those active troops won't just turn on the government. Did you know our troops swear an oath to the Constitution, not the government?
And for your "treason" comment, all the reason more that they will fight that much harder. As it was during the Revolutionary War, either they will all hang separately, or they'll all hang together.
The NSA taps, and that is ALL they do. Its their job to tap. That doesn't mean they can tap into everything. Nor does it mean that they can direct the appropriate resources to go after said people. Especially since they'd be violating the 4th Amendment. Which they have been doing, but yeah, that doesn't exactly win them points with the public at large. Because you know hearts and minds do count in such situations.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;51257484]And every time it's come up, at least as far as I've seen, someone always points out the fact that the moment the US government opens fire on its own citizens during a noteworthy uprising (though even a tiny one would cause some really bad pr if handled badly) it's going to cause a massive clusterfuck that will probably result in many other nations getting involved. Plus an uprising doesn't need to succeed in crushing their opponents militarily in order to succeed at delivering a clear message.[/QUOTE]
That assumes that the press expresses any sympathy for said uprising. Knowing who has control over the popular press in this country, what do you think the chances of that are?
Face it. A hypothetical Second Revolution will be extremely difficult for the revolutionaries, [I]at best.[/I] The most likely outcome is crushing defeat, tactically, strategically and in the area of public opinion. Americans have grown to love their cushy lives, why would they interrupt them for the sake of centuries-old ideals? Bread and Circuses went a long way for the Ceasars of Rome, and nobody has ever had more Bread or better Circuses than the United States.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;51257582]That assumes that the press expresses any sympathy for said uprising. Knowing who has control over the popular press in this country, what do you think the chances of that are?[/QUOTE]
Twitter, 4chan, random internet forums, etc. It's not like the news media will be able to totally spin it against them.
[QUOTE]Face it. A hypothetical Second Revolution will be extremely difficult for the revolutionaries, [I]at best.[/I] The most likely outcome is crushing defeat, tactically, strategically and in the area of public opinion. Americans have grown to love their cushy lives, why would they interrupt them for the sake of centuries-old ideals? Bread and Circuses went a long way for the Ceasars of Rome, and nobody has ever had more Bread or better Circuses than the United States.[/QUOTE]
I never suggested it would be easy or even likely to happen in the first place?
[QUOTE=Kigen;51257567]Free speech and free press are critical to attempting to avoid having to resort to force of arms to bring change. But free speech/press are not the guarantee of freedoms.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Marcos#Martial_Law_and_the_New_Society_.281972.E2.80.931981.29[/url]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Rise_to_power[/url]
And many others.
All they need is an opportunity or enough support in government. Free speech will die generally after they gain power. Most often cited as stopping lies or some other such nonsense. As we have in the present day case.
And the threat of force is exactly what governments used to enforce compliance with laws. Police forces, after all, are para-military organizations that will physically enforce the laws or will of government on the populace they police. The point of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the government does not have that monopoly on violence.
As the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)]Battle of Athens[/url] demonstrates. There will come a time when the government will start shooting voters. And secreting away ballot boxes to announce themselves the victors.
[/QUOTE]
You're not making an argument how gun possession would cancel these developments. In the case of Philippines, an armed insurgency by communists was already underway and it was defeated by government, which in the process gave itself new powers. It's often armed insurgencies that allow governments to get public backing to extreme measures for maintaining order. Thus a placid population is more likely to retain democracy than a revolt-happy one.
In the case of Nazi Germany, people in essence voted their rights and democracy away because Weimar Republic's failure had made democracy an undesirable alternative, believing that dictatorship would solve their problems. Adding more guns to this equation would likely just add more bloodshed, since Nazi movement by this time had its established paramilitary forces SA and SS, while opponents didn't anything directly comparable. Legitimate government could have stopped them but chose to not do so.
Bottom line, I'm highly sceptical that second amendment prevents government failure better than constant attention to freedom expression and accountability.
[QUOTE=Vlevs;51257675]You're not making an argument how gun possession would cancel these developments. In the case of Philippines, an armed insurgency by communists was already underway and it was defeated by government, which in the process gave itself new powers. It's often armed insurgencies that allow governments to get public backing to extreme measures for maintaining order. Thus a placid population is more likely to retain democracy than a revolt-happy one.
In the case of Nazi Germany, people in essence voted their rights and democracy away because Weimar Republic's failure had made democracy an undesirable alternative, believing that dictatorship would solve their problems. Adding more guns to this equation would likely just add more bloodshed, since Nazi movement by this time had its established paramilitary forces SA and SS, while opponents didn't anything directly comparable. Legitimate government could have stopped them but chose to not do so.
Bottom line, I'm highly sceptical that second amendment prevents government failure better than constant attention to freedom expression and accountability.[/QUOTE]
You seem to think that I put all my "eggs" so to speak in the 2nd Amendment. I don't. It is not the end all be all. Because at the end of the day its only physical force. It does not by itself communicate complex ideals.
I look at the whole of our Bill of Rights. And I want the whole of our Bill of Rights to be intact. The Weimar Republic had a lot of issues. These contributed to the rise of Hitler. For the Philippines, the communists were not popular. But the resulting dictatorship even less so. But what recourse did they have? Not much.
Free speech and free press are very easy to suppress. All you have to do as a dictator is deploy your armed forces (police/military) to take over the TV stations, news papers, etc. Then arrest or kill off the dissidents. A very repeatable pattern. And one that has been repeatedly used throughout history. But a pattern that can be broken when you face armed resistance to that objective. Its not hard to hide executions in concentration camps. It is hard to hide raging gun battles in the streets of the cities.
The German public was completely unaware of the mass extermination in the concentration camps. But they were very much aware of any incidents in which the Nazis faced resistance in such a public manner.
The Bill of Rights is a very old document. I won't suggest tossing it entirely of course, but it was written before America was a superpower, before massive globalization occurred. Keeping it fully intact the way it is now means keeping America behind. All nations should review their constitutional documents every now and then to see if they're in line with the spirit of the time and the needs of the people.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.