University of Chicago cancels all Monday 11/30 classes over credible shooting threat - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Anderan;49218122]I only remember one instance of fresh militias actually being used in a way that didn't result in them fleeing in terror and it was one battle where they were allowed to march forward, fire one volley, and then retreat to make the British think they routed the Americans which resulted them walking face first into the actual Continental army while chasing the "retreating" militias. Cannot for the life of me remember which battle it was though.[/QUOTE] Good call. That was the Battle of Cowpens. The worst part about the militias then, and really even today, was the lack of consistency. You had some men that were, yeah, very experienced and could hold their own in a fight; but then, you had others who weren't and pretty much useless. Training varied, experience varied, weapons and proficiency varied. Trying to patch together brigades and groups out of this clusterfuck of humanity was nightmarish when reorganization attempts were made. I mean, in that one particular case at Cowpens, yeah, things worked out well and this wasn't an issue; in fact, it was actually something that was very skillfully utilized by Gen. Morgan. But there were numerous other instances throughout the war beforehand (particularly before American forces started receiving professional European drill instruction and advice) where things went to shit repeatedly all because there was no uniformity, no cohesion, no discipline or loyalty, a lack of necessary equipment which militiamen simply couldn't acquire in the necessary quantities. Washington's forces almost fell apart several times before the Battle of Trenton.

[QUOTE=vodka quest;49214058]no I sincerely do not get why americans have guns, or rather, why they have automatic assault rifles in the living room in my experience of the news it brings nothing but suffering and harm, accidental or otherwise [editline]30th November 2015[/editline] when trying to list pros, remember that shooting cans and defending against communist invaders are not good points[/QUOTE] I guarantee almost no one that legally owns an automatic weapon keeps it in their living room. It takes a LONG ass time to acquire one, and are usually insanely expensive. Plus there are very few legal auto weapons in comparison to handguns and rifles/shotguns. [editline]1st December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=St33m;49214084]Your nation is a corporate oligarchy and your guns didn't save you from it. You try 'standing your ground' or whatever you call it, and watch the swat team scrape clumps of you off the tank-threads of their 'law enforcement vehicle' So why exactly do you have guns again?[/QUOTE] Fuck off with that, your country has tactical police teams and I bet they have treaded vehicles or big wheeled surplus APC's for very dangerous situations. Get off your bullshit moral high horse.

[QUOTE=Squidman;49215902]I guess my whole point about saying that was to emphasize that I come from a part of the US where gun culture isn't too prevalent (in the South no less), and that being from this area shapes how I feel about them. It's essentially the same sort of culturally-centric view that makes it hard for people who don't live in that sort of culture to understand gun culture. I'm just a big, dumb American with opinions that don't matter[/QUOTE]I understand that, I really don't expect somebody from the UK or Australia or even from places like you're from to fully get it. I'm willing to suffer all sorts of people bumbling along in ignorance who are willing to stop and listen to reasonable discourse, that I have no problem with at all and if their observations are reasonable criticism I can respect that. What I refuse to endure is people talking out of their ass trying to browbeat me into accepting their point of view as fact when, clearly, they were fucking wrong even before they started. [QUOTE=Govna;49218077]Odds are, they're not going to try anything anyway. And if they do, they'll just get-- as you put it-- curbstomped. Fucking obliterated.[/QUOTE]Aren't you the same fucking guy who tried to school me about how ISIS came from the Iraqi insurgency that the US fucking military never put down? They didn't even have access to a fraction of the shit US gun owners can and do have, so your point about how the common people would be obliterated in a fight against the government doesn't hold up to real-world scrutiny. [QUOTE=Govna;49218077]why aren't any of you doing anything about it then? If that's what the amendment is for, why aren't you using it like you're supposed to be doing lol?[/QUOTE]Why? Oh, well because contrary to popular belief, starting a civil war is actually not a good fucking idea; it's one of those holy shit this is a last resort things. Nobody in their right mind honestly believes that the government needs to be overthrown, all the issues in our government can be solved through legislation and cultural changes. What the fuck. Let me reiterate that since you seem to have difficulty with this in every thread: [B]There is no need to violently overthrow our government, it may have problems but holy shit that is not the way to solve them.[/B] Jesus Christ.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49218879]Aren't you the same fucking guy who tried to school me about how ISIS came from the Iraqi insurgency that the US fucking military never put down? They didn't even have access to a fraction of the shit US gun owners can and do have, so your point about how the common people would be obliterated in a fight against the government doesn't hold up to real-world scrutiny.[/QUOTE] I didn't realize that the common US citizen has access to shoulder launched anti-air missiles, machine guns, and T-54s/T-72s. You'd be surprised what groups in the areas have access too after being sold equipment by various governments over the years. Seriously, ISIS isn't even comparable to a civil uprising. It's been around for over a decade gathering equipment in an area that's been in near constant turmoil. How is that even remotely similar to a bunch of US citizens rising up against the central government? Even if it was the only reason they've had any success is because they've been fighting against very weak or fragmented regimes.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49218879]Aren't you the same fucking guy who tried to school me about how ISIS came from the Iraqi insurgency that the US fucking military never put down? They didn't even have access to a fraction of the shit US gun owners can and do have, so your point about how the common people would be obliterated in a fight against the government doesn't hold up to real-world scrutiny.[/quote] Who tried and succeeded? Yes, same person. Also, the fact you're trying to compare ISIS/al-Qaeda/the Taliban/all related Middle Eastern terrorist organizations to United States gun owners is hilarious. The majority of gun owners in this country have nowhere near the training and combat experience nor the access to the kinds of equipment that those people are using. More importantly, they have completely different backgrounds. Insurgents in the Middle East, in particular the Taliban and al-Qaeda (the ones from an Afghani background), were spawned out of a history of active warfare on their native soil during the Soviet-Afghan War which they spent years fighting in and in which 200,000+ of them committed themselves to as mujahideen (trained by the Pakistani government and supported financially, with military resources, and with military intelligence by the United States, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt... even China, Iran, and Czechoslovakia contributed to the mujahideen). Nowhere here in the United States have such massive numbers of people had to undergo such experiences, much as they might like to think otherwise. The thing that's made fighters from those regions so tenacious (although not enough to avoid being slaughtered in massive numbers by, again, a modern first-world military power) is overwhelmingly due to the fact that they live and breath hardship and suffering, and they have had to do so for years now. Their countries are third-world hellholes. Your average Afghan male will live to see maybe 59, has at least a basic competency in reading and writing (although only 43% are officially considered literate), and will have maybe 8-11 years of educational experience (rural males don't receive much beyond a junior high education on average). There's approximately 13 million+ children in the country who are no more than 14-years-old, and about 3.25 million children between 7 and 14 are already working jobs to support their families (especially, again, in rural areas; more girls on average work than boys, but a lot of boys are expected to work hard nevertheless); ~33% of the children that are 5-years-old or younger there additionally are underweight and not receiving proper nutrition. Poverty is incredibly high (Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world), ~36% of the national population doesn't have access to improved drinking water sources, 71% don't have access to improved sanitary facilities and infrastructure, diseases like typhoid and bacterial infections are common, there aren't enough physicians to attend to patients... ...Americans are incredibly spoiled by comparison and live a much more comfortable existence-- which is exactly the reason why you don't see them actually getting up and ever doing anything in this country. You hear a lot of threats about how "Well we'll rebel against the government/Obama! Don't tread on me!", see people marching around in public with AR-15s and hunting rifles and whatever other shit they've managed to wrangle up to look tough, waving flags and trying to show off to the world how patriotic they are, etc., but that's all any of that is: it's bullshit. It's a tough-talk "look at me!" act with nothing to support it consisting of a bunch of insecure wannabes who have no clue what real hardship in the world is like and what real war is like either; they've never had to fight brutally on their own home soil before for the lives and families and beliefs against... well, anybody (nevermind a modern militarized nation), and that's that. Your average American "rebel" is an adult child with access to firearms in a first-world Western nation that enjoys a very comfortable standard of living (compared to most other people out there) and an overzealousness for right-wing politics and religion-- not a rough and tough, battle-hardened warrior who has been forced to endure a life of hardship in a third-world hellhole and hasn't got much left to lose anyway except his life. The fact you and so many others also believe that rebels here in the United States would only have to hold up against our government is hilarious too. There's way too many would-be hyped-up freedom fighters here in this country that seem to think Red Dawn was a documentary that don't understand that the rest of the world isn't just going to sit around in the event of a civil war/rebellion/whatever here in the United States and not do anything. We're the world's sole-remaining superpower, the backbone of the global economy and extremely important to maintaining international stability. If we started falling apart for whatever reason, the first thing other countries are going to do (especially our allies and closest business partners) is get involved. Whether that means direct military intervention, financial aid and resource support, etc., ultimately it means the end of whoever they choose to support, and there isn't much evidence to suggest they'd support a bunch of right-wing militiamen over the established powers that be. But whatever. The anti-government civil war rhetoric you see them running on here in the United States is nothing but fantasizing anyway. Thank fuck we've got the FBI to keep watch on the serious nutters. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49218879]Why? Oh, well because contrary to popular belief, starting a civil war is actually not a good fucking idea; it's one of those holy shit this is a last resort things. Nobody in their right mind honestly believes that the government needs to be overthrown, all the issues in our government can be solved through legislation and cultural changes. What the fuck. Let me reiterate that since you seem to have difficulty with this in every thread: [B]There is no need to violently overthrow our government, it may have problems but holy shit that is not the way to solve them.[/B][/QUOTE] ...this is the exact fucking point I've been making in "every thread" on this matter, genius: the majority of Americans are not now nor are they in the foreseeable future going to attempt to overthrow our government, so the argument about firearms being a necessary check against tyranny is absurd. Not only could militias and other paramilitary groups not stand up to them successfully because of a lack of professionalism (which has been a consistent problem throughout history for such groups), resolve, and experience, there's just not anywhere near the motivation to do it either, and there won't be at the rate things are going (because although things suck in this country for a lot of people, they still aren't that bad). The rhetoric about how civilian access to firearms keeps them in check is a fantasy; it always has been based off what past historical events on this subject have occurred, and that's going to continue to be the case.

Good to see schools are taking a more preemptive manner in terms of stopping violent acts

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;49214181]It's weird because most American posters here are usually so quick to comment on Muslim culture and immigrants despite having absolutely no fucking idea what they're talking about.[/quote] lmao holy shit can we stop with the wide sweeping generalizations. I see just as much Islamophobia from non-American posters so I don't get your point here. [quote] But that's fine, I'll leave you and people like Gunfox to live out their paranoid delusions of overthrowing their george Orwellian government one day with guns and "spilling a great deal of blood to resolve the issue" - because that's the type of person I'd want to own guns.[/QUOTE] You seem to be under the impression that because the reason we have the rights to have guns is to "overthrow the government" that everyone who supports gun rights is some delusional nutjob who wants to overthrow the government. I support gun rights yet I don't even own a fucking gun lol. I haven't even shot one. Do I want to use my non-existent guns to overthrow the government? No lol. [editline]1st December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;49215689]Letting weapons define you as a people seems pretty fucking stupid tbh.[/QUOTE] If you think weapons define us as people then quite clearly you've never been to America. [editline]1st December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;49214170]It's really weird and downright creepy to see Americans post about their own nation and its gun laws because what transpires is that they're usually either so negative about their country it sounds like they've been living in a war zone for years or they're so positive they sound like brainwashed drones.[/quote] That's because people tend to resort to hyperbole when they describe things. I can assure you that I do in fact not live in a warzone (Considering I live in LA, one of the cities often shown as being gang central, that should tell you something). Furthermore how exactly do people sound like brainwashed drones? Sure you get a few loonies spouting overly patriotic nonsense (Even a few of them in this thread) but those are usually the minority compared to the well thought out posts. [quote] The entire education system and the media of the United States is built around bashing the shit out of the government and glorifying the shit out of the nation and its history.[/quote] You clearly know nothing of what you're talking about here. Are there schools who's curriculum is a bunch of patriotic hogwash? Most certainly. But there are also schools that teach actual history and don't whitewash everything. I'm sure there are schools in France that spout overly patriotic drivel all the time. [quote] Guns are just a consequence, and perhaps the most visible aspect of this.[/quote] Guns are not a consequence of US schools "glorifying the government" or anything of that sort. [quote] At its core the US is an incredibly insecure nation about itself and about its history to the point where a large portion of its (white) citizens need to remind themselves and the world about how great they are on a regular basis.[/QUOTE] I'm sure a large portion of the (white) french population does the exact same thing. All nations have overly patriotic loonies. The vast majority of people I know are highly critical of the US government and most certainly don't go off spouting nonsense about the US being "the greatest country ever!!!" or anything of that nature. It seems to me like most of what you know about America is from shit you see in the media or things you see on the internet.

I don't get why it either has to be "take all the guns away" or "everyone should be able to have guns with barely any regulation". In Canada you do a safety course, apply for a license, and then you just have to present it when purchasing. Anyone with a brain can pass the safety course, and having to go through the course and apply for the license means a lot of people who are irresponsible will just not bother. I'm not saying the US should adopt this system in its entirety or anything like that, I'm just saying you don't have to "tale away all the guns" to reduce misuse and accidents.

[QUOTE=Anderan;49219191]I didn't realize that the common US citizen has access to shoulder launched anti-air missiles, machine guns, and T-54s/T-72s. You'd be surprised what groups in the areas have access too after being sold equipment by various governments over the years.[/QUOTE]Wait, wait, wait, the insurgents in Iraq had all that stuff for ten whole years and our military somehow missed it!? Shit, if there ever is a revolution in this country we could just dump out a box of banana peels and let the problem sort itself out. Why didn't you say something sooner? [QUOTE=Govna;49219992]The majority of gun owners in this country have nowhere near the training and combat experience nor the access to the kinds of equipment that those people are using.[/QUOTE]Haha, [U]what?[/U] So all those military veterans who are total gun nuts just forgot all the shit they learned and all that experience the moment they got their EAS papers? As for the equipment, I'm pretty sure AKs, pipe bombs, and Toyotas are totally within the capabilities of the American population bro. Oh, and just so I'm [B]crystal fucking clear:[/B] I was talking about the insurgency in Iraq while we were occupying the country, not ISIS/ISIL/IS/daesh/or any other acronym or group or entity or anything else currently fighting in the Syrian civil war. By the way, they didn't [I]start out[/I] with all of that shit they're using now, which I would think lends credibility to my argument especially considering that the military fully expects high desertion rates if there ever is some sort of armed revolution in the country. Then again both you and Anderan seemed to have missed that very obvious point so I'm not really sure what's obvious anymore. [QUOTE=Govna;49219992]...this is the exact fucking point I've been making in "every thread" on this matter, genius: the majority of Americans are not now nor are they in the foreseeable future going to attempt to overthrow our government, so the argument about firearms being a necessary check against tyranny is absurd.[/QUOTE]I'm sure you feel the same way about car, house, and life insurance too. I mean why do we even have fire departments when we have smoke alarms anyway??? [editline]1st December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Elspin;49221868]I don't get why it either has to be "take all the guns away" or "everyone should be able to have guns with barely any regulation". In Canada you do a safety course, apply for a license, and then you just have to present it when purchasing. Anyone with a brain can pass the safety course, and having to go through the course and apply for the license means a lot of people who are irresponsible will just not bother. I'm not saying the US should adopt this system in its entirety or anything like that, I'm just saying you don't have to "tale away all the guns" to reduce misuse and accidents.[/QUOTE]Honestly? At this point? I'm in favor of dropping all restrictions on guns and shifting all that focus on completely free education for mandatory ownership IDs that are only restricted by the same guidelines used now to prevent people from getting a firearm, such as violent felons and the mentally unstable. The purpose of that training would be so they could properly exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. We have an education system already that is by design geared toward making sure people's 1st Amendment rights can be properly exercised, right? This would be across the board, no state-by-state shit, everyone's got the same rules and the same conditions so goodbye nanny state laws in all those vehemently anti-gun states. I mean the NICS is already a de facto check to see if you are allowed your 2nd Amendment rights, so as far as I'm concerned this isn't any different than that aside from making sure everyone who has guns is educated and capable. I think that settles it on both sides, but I can guarantee that once anti-gun people realize the stupid feel-good legislation goes away and everyone can legally own big scary black rifles with drum magazines and bayonets they'll refuse. Which is why gun owners refuse to budge further, we've already moved enough.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49222503]Wait, wait, wait, the insurgents in Iraq had all that stuff for ten whole years and our military somehow missed it!? Shit, if there ever is a revolution in this country we could just dump out a box of banana peels and let the problem sort itself out. Why didn't you say something sooner?[/QUOTE] I'm not entirely sure the point you're trying to make. Either you're trying to be condescending for no apparent reason to avoid actually addressing the point or have literally no understanding of military intelligence/counter-intelligence. Various resistance movements over the years have hidden equipment right under the eyes of an active military, it has nothing to do with competence. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49222503]Oh, and just so I'm [B]crystal fucking clear:[/B] I was talking about the insurgency in Iraq while we were occupying the country, not ISIS/ISIL/IS/daesh/or any other acronym or group or entity or anything else currently fighting in the Syrian civil war. By the way, they didn't [I]start out[/I] with all of that shit they're using now, which I would think lends credibility to my argument especially considering that the military fully expects high desertion rates if there ever is some sort of armed revolution in the country. Then again both you and Anderan seemed to have missed that very obvious point so I'm not really sure what's obvious anymore.[/quote] Unless you're advocating that US citizens be allowed to own military grade vehicles, that they store massive amounts of food, ammo, and water, that they all go through compulsory military training we aren't going to "start out" with anything that actually successful guerrilla movements have had access to. You don't win wars with small arms. You win them with training, manpower, and good leadership. In the event of a civil uprising one of three things will happen. 1) The military stays loyal to the government. Rebels get stomped, regardless of if you have access to an AR-15 or not they simply would not have the firepower to combat the military without external aid. 2) Military response is split. Begin civil war. 3) Military sides with the uprising, govt. gets btfo. Seriously, you apparently cannot see the "obvious" point yourself, guerrilla movements have rarely if ever succeeded under their own power, guns or no guns. There so much more to fighting a war than just having access to small arms. Sure it might make supplying arms a little bit easier, but it will not in any way be the deciding factor. [quote] I'm sure you feel the same way about car, house, and life insurance too. I mean why do we even have fire departments when we have smoke alarms anyway???[/QUOTE] I'm sure you think you can fight a house fire purely with a group of people with fire extinguishers.

[QUOTE=Anderan;49222817]I'm not entirely sure the point you're trying to make. Either you're trying to be condescending for no apparent reason to avoid actually addressing the point or have literally no understanding of military intelligence/counter-intelligence. Various resistance movements over the years have hidden equipment right under the eyes of an active military, it has nothing to do with competence.[/QUOTE]My sarcasm aside, my point was that [I]no the Iraqi insurgency did not have fucking tanks and all the other shit you described[/I] and yet they persisted. After we left, that same insurgency developed into something entirely different. [QUOTE=Anderan;49222817]Unless you're advocating that US citizens be allowed to own military grade vehicles, that they store massive amounts of food, ammo, and water, that they all go through compulsory military training we aren't going to "start out" with anything that actually successful guerrilla movements have had access to.[/QUOTE]Again, the insurgency in Iraq had access to none of those things, yet they still eventually acquired them and they outlasted US military presence. I remain unconvinced by your argument. [QUOTE=Anderan;49222817]2) Military response is split. Begin civil war.[/QUOTE]Well considering that the fucking Department of Defense actually anticipates this scenario as a likely and credible concern, I'm going to have to go with their judgement on this one. [QUOTE=Anderan;49222817]There so much more to fighting a war than just having access to small arms. Sure it might make supplying arms a little bit easier, but it will not in any way be the deciding factor.[/QUOTE]So you admit it would help then? Okay, I guess that was easy. Nobody said a bunch of AR-15s, some WWII-era NFA items, and M1911s were all anyone needed to win a revolution against tanks, helicopters, laser-guided munitions, and all sorts of other really neat stuff, but when you have everyday people taking pot-shots at the troops occupying their towns it's often enough to keep things going until a real resistance can be formed. (this would be the rebel military elements, by the way) [QUOTE=Anderan;49222817]I'm sure you think you can fight a house fire purely with a group of people with fire extinguishers.[/QUOTE]Depends on the house fire, doesn't it?

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;49214037]I don't know if you were trying to defend your culture or if you were trying From what I've seen of American gun culture, it's often not even about self defense with a concealed carry, it's about self defense with a f[B]ucking machine gun and going out to the countryside and shooting at rocks[/B] and no, that's not because "We were born fighters bald eagle and american flags yeehaw" it's because American culture is gun crazy. The fact your country was born in conflict like every other country in the world isn't an excuse.[/QUOTE] What the fuck are you even talking about You have OBVIOUSLY never been to America.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49223040]My sarcasm aside, my point was that [I]no the Iraqi insurgency did not have fucking tanks and all the other shit you described[/I] and yet they persisted. After we left, that same insurgency developed into something entirely different.[/quote] From the start attacks included RPGs and military grade firearms, and it's already been stated that these are conflicts occurring in areas that have been in constant turmoil for a while with groups that have been fighting each other for decades. At no point has any of these groups developed into a credible threat capable of utterly defeating the US military and overthrowing the government. Hell every time there has been a concerted effort by the military to do damage to the insurgency it suffered significant damage. Anyways I was referring to the equipment of ISIS, which had origins well before the US invasion of Iraq and received equipment and training from larger organizations. Even if they didn't start out with tanks they sure as hell have had access to far more than what any US citizen, even without restrictions on gun ownership, would ever be able to get a hold of. [quote] Again, the insurgency in Iraq had access to none of those things, yet they still eventually acquired them and they outlasted US military presence. I remain unconvinced by your argument.[/quote] Again, they had access to far more than the average US citizen and even if they've "lasted" this long it's just barely, all the while getting slowly ground into the dirt. Unsurprisingly when movements like this attempt to try conventional warfare they get their asses handed to them, with their only hope being that the attackers decide to cut their losses and go home or they receive external help. At no point does their ability to own guns prior to the conflict come into play. It's not like they just hold out long enough then suddenly turn into a full army capable of fighting on equal ground with major powers. [quote] Well considering that the fucking Department of Defense actually anticipates this scenario as a likely and credible concern, I'm going to have to go with their judgement on this one.[/quote] I don't even know what point you're trying to make here. How is this relevant to you owning guns? The US government decided long ago that civilian militias are worth literally nothing in a war, this is the whole reason the National Guard exists, as an explicit replacement to the militia system. The concern is from the threat of military joining the rebels, not the rebels being armed with small arms. [quote] So you admit it would help then? Okay, I guess that was easy. Nobody said a bunch of AR-15s, some WWII-era NFA items, and M1911s were all anyone needed to win a revolution against tanks, helicopters, laser-guided munitions, and all sorts of other really neat stuff, but when you have everyday people taking pot-shots at the troops occupying their towns it's often enough to keep things going until a real resistance can be formed. (this would be the rebel military elements, by the way)[/quote] "Help" in the same way that spitting on a fire helps put it out. I've already stated that civil uprisings have a notoriously low success rate historically. You've consumed too much media if you think the "heroic militias will stand up to the big bad while [i]The Resistance[/i] forms to lead us all to victory". Unless external help is received or part of the military defects whether or not you have the right to own guns means nothing. [quote] Depends on the house fire, doesn't it?[/QUOTE] No, it doesn't. A kitchen fire, maybe. But attempting to fight a full on house fire with fire extinguishers will just result in you getting killed. If you really do think you can then I can only assume you've literally never used a fire extinguisher.

[QUOTE=Anderan;49223730]Anyways I was referring to the equipment of ISIS, which had origins well before the US invasion of Iraq and received equipment and training from larger organizations. Even if they didn't start out with tanks they sure as hell have had access to far more than what any US citizen, even without restrictions on gun ownership, would ever be able to get a hold of.[/QUOTE]Mm, pretty sure from 2004-2006 there was almost without exception small arms and IED attacks in Iraq, both of which are available to US citizens, the first by default and the second isn't hard to figure out. (I mean, come on, OKC could fall under the very vague definition of IED) Again, I wasn't talking about ISIS. I made that clear. Twice. Stop responding to me like I was talking about ISIS. [QUOTE=Anderan;49223730]I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.[/QUOTE]Read what I quoted I guess, I can't explain it any further than that. [QUOTE=Anderan;49223730]The concern is from the threat of military joining the rebels, not the rebels being armed with small arms.[/QUOTE]Rebels who, let's face it, wouldn't even be considered rebels without those small arms they'd just be rioters or disgruntled protesters, nobody gives a shit about them and they never will. I'm pretty sure I made it explicitly clear that the military and ex-military would be vital in a revolution but whatever, I'm seeing a pattern here and I'm getting sick of it. [QUOTE=Anderan;49223730]"Help" in the same way that spitting on a fire helps put it out.[/QUOTE]Boer War lasted pretty long and got pretty intense despite most of the population fighting against the British having nothing but small arms, so that's a pretty good example of that help you're completely dismissing. [QUOTE=Anderan;49223730]You've consumed too much media if you think the "heroic militias will stand up to the big bad while [i]The Resistance[/i] forms to lead us all to victory".[/QUOTE]Woah woah, settle down kiddo, [U]what[/U] are you even talking about? What media, nobody's ever given positive attention to "the militia" ever. Actually fuck it, you're just not even reading my posts and responding to whatever you thought I said so I'm pretty tired of this. [editline]1st December 2015[/editline] Either way the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is clear. I don't care if you think it wouldn't matter or things won't work or what the fuck else you have in your head, the fact of the matter is we have a right to be armed specifically because the armed citizenry is the last check against tyranny from both at home and abroad.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49223040]So you admit it would help then? Okay, I guess that was easy. Nobody said a bunch of AR-15s, some WWII-era NFA items, and M1911s were all anyone needed to win a revolution against tanks, helicopters, laser-guided munitions, and all sorts of other really neat stuff, but when you have everyday people taking pot-shots at the troops occupying their towns it's often enough to keep things going until a real resistance can be formed. (this would be the rebel military elements, by the way)[/QUOTE] why would the army rebel? think about how it looks from their perspective. there's a bunch of videos and social media and (probably biased) news reports about cops getting shot, widespread looting, government buildings on fire, and tear gas and corpses and MRAPs in the streets. believing in the cause isn't enough to get them to basically leave their lives behind, they have to be 100% certain it'll actually go anywhere. i just don't get how "wouldn't actively shoot American civilians = perfectly willing to give up their whole lives for what could very possibly be an offhand spate of violence that won't get any further than riots in a few cities, means dedicating themselves to insurgent activities for the next dozen years, and probably looks amazingly disagreeable on the news anyway." i mean sure if they get deployed they would refuse, but who's to say it would get that far? don't count your eggs before they hatch. i mean all it took for people to completely disregard BLM and start openly supporting police militarization was looting and molotovs, some dumb facebook videos, and some misspelled graffiti on war monuments. i shudder to think how a straight up armed revolution, complete with dead cops and car bombs, could be strangled in the crib.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49223940]Mm, pretty sure from 2004-2006 there was almost without exception small arms and IED attacks in Iraq, both of which are available to US citizens, the first by default and the second isn't hard to figure out. (I mean, come on, OKC could fall under the very vague definition of IED) Again, I wasn't talking about ISIS. I made that clear. Twice. Stop responding to me like I was talking about ISIS. [/quote] I was clarifying who I was talking about in my other post which I think is fair considering you did it as well. [quote] Boer War lasted pretty long and got pretty intense despite most of the population fighting against the British having nothing but small arms, so that's a pretty good example of that help you're completely dismissing. [/quote] They also lost so that doesn't exactly help your point. [quote] Woah woah, settle down kiddo, [U]what[/U] are you even talking about? What media, nobody's ever given positive attention to "the militia" ever. [/quote] Oh please, there are countless movies, games, books, you name it about small resistance movements standing up to the big bad tyrant and winning. [quote] Actually fuck it, you're just not even reading my posts and responding to whatever you thought I said so I'm pretty tired of this.[/quote] Funny from someone cherry picking parts of my posts and ignoring 2/3rds of them. [quote] Either way the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is clear. I don't care if you think it wouldn't matter or things won't work or what the fuck else you have in your head, the fact of the matter is we have a right to be armed specifically because the armed citizenry is the last check against tyranny from both at home and abroad.[/QUOTE] The purpose of the 2nd amendment does not depend on what you think or want it to mean. It had a clear purpose in a historical context that has become utterly irrelevant in the time since, that purpose being citizen militias in an era where the militias were a major part of the US military. Fuck, the amendment itself even states "A well regulated militia", keyword being "regulated" which would imply some state or federal control.

[QUOTE=Anderan;49224341] The purpose of the 2nd amendment does not depend on what you think or want it to mean. It had a clear purpose in a historical context that has become utterly irrelevant in the time since, that purpose being citizen militias in an era where the militias were a major part of the US military. Fuck, the amendment itself even states "A well regulated militia", keyword being "regulated" which would imply some state or federal control.[/QUOTE] This is a common misconception, but it is not the case. I know, you are in a debate, and I'm of the opposing side, so you are unlikely to actually rectify your opinion, but I shall try and hope you recognize the merits of this argument. I'm not asking you to change your opinion on the second amendment, but rather that you understand the original intent. Whether or not that intent holds merit today is most certainly for you to decide. To start, we need to cover this: historically standing armies are rare. At the time of the constitution, a military was raised when a need arose. The framework for an army, the arms and command structure, generally stuck around, but the actual soldiers were trained and paid only when necessary. The primary means of enforcing government control domestically was a militia. The militia was the enforcement arm of the government. During the revolutionary war we fought against militiamen and regulars. The militia were British loyalists, of which there were many because many people just viewed themselves as British, while the iconic regulars were soldiers raised and trained by the British empire as temporary soldiers. We see this mirrored in Article One of the US constitution: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" Congress can RAISE and support an army, but the intentionally limit budgeting lengths in order to force them to review the budget regularly to see if they still need to exist. An army was a temporary thing. Meanwhile, in the same article, the militia are referenced: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" The militia, meanwhile, is the arm of the government used to enforce their rules. The militia is framed not only as the arm of the government, but the responsibility of the government. It is literally the arm used to put down insurrections both for the federal and state governments. They are required, by article one, to arm them. Then, in article two, it lays out the president's relation to the militia: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" When he needs to utilize the militia, he is the commander of the militia, because the militia is an arm of government. So now we come to the first ten amendments. The bill of rights. The bill of rights, is a collection of personal freedoms that were enacted in order to appease the anti-federalist factions who feared government control. We have the first amendment, which is all about freedom of speech and the practice of religion by individuals. We have the third amendment, which points out that no individual shall be forced to quarter soldiers in their residence. Sandwiched between these two individual freedoms we have the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Which people read as pointing out that the militia is necessary and has to be armed, but how does that make any sense? We have to ignore a number of things here in order to accept that interpretation. Chief among them, we have to ignore that the bill of rights is all about individual freedoms and that the militia has already been clearly outlined as an arm of the government. Why would the [I]government[/I] need an amendment telling the [I]government [/I]that it can't disarm the [I]government [/I]in the middle of the amendments detailing the rights reserved by the [I]people[/I]? That makes little sense. It makes even less sense given that article one already points out that congress is obligated to provide for the arming of the militia. The constitution itself points out that the militia has to not only be armed, but armed by the federal government. So what does it mean? They just finished fighting a force composed, in part, of a government militia. The militia were the oppressors and an obstacle to freedom. They were also kinda necessary to actually have a government. This is an easier way to interpret the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being [I]a necessary evil[/I], the right of the [I]individual[/I] to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. What they are saying is that they have to have a militia. A government without teeth is worthless, but because they have to have a militia, they also want to make sure that the people under that militia have a right to keep armaments in the event that militia ever does precisely what just happened to them. The modern militia is the national guard. They are armed by the federal government, trained according to federal standards, and can be placed under the control of the President when necessary. What happens when riots break out? The guard are called to suppress the insurrection. We are armed to defend against the national guard. We only have a standing army because, despite alluding to armies being a temporary thing, the constitution doesn't flat out forbid having a standing army.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49222503]Haha, [U]what?[/U] So all those military veterans who are total gun nuts just forgot all the shit they learned and all that experience the moment they got their EAS papers? As for the equipment, I'm pretty sure AKs, pipe bombs, and Toyotas are totally within the capabilities of the American population bro.[/quote] Most people in the military don't even see combat. You're acting like they've all got the skills to be fucking beasts, when the reality is no, they don't. Congratulations; once, at the beginning of everything, you went through BCT. Good for you. There's a bit of a difference between boot camp and actual war, as if I needed to state the obvious. You think shooting at a range/in your backyard/in the woods all day and playing with firearms is going to make you formidable enough to take on professionals who have years of real world experience with fighting and access to everything from tanks, jet aircraft, drones, helicopters...? That's a hilarious overestimation of your abilities. And for the ones who actually did see combat, how many of them are actually in fit fighting shape? This is speaking from experience here; the vets from the Marine Corps I know who went to Iraq and Afghanistan back when they got out of high school around 2003/2004 and who did actually see and do stuff when they were over there are falling apart. Not all are, but most are. One of the most annoying fuckers out of that bunch, who is a big supporter of the militias and a general Libertarian moron (right-wing Baptist, thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old, men and dinosaurs lived together, aliens are actually satanic demons, etc.), still thinks he's competent enough to fight-- despite having an enlarged heart and a screwed up brain from abusing synthetic steroids, lungs shot to hell from years of smoking... he's also overweight. These people aren't getting any younger either, and as the years go by, they're going to die off/only get worse. People like that who seriously think they could fight in a modern war and actually be victorious are delusional. Maybe they have got the mental pep at least, but they do not have the physical ability to fight a long and brutal war again their own government, nor the combined forces of our American allies/business partners who, again, aren't just going to sit back and do nothing and just watch our country skullfuck itself into oblivion. At best, these veterans would amount to younger versions (in their 30s) of what the German First World War veterans that were drafted into the Volkssturm in 1944-45 were: [t]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_oIAhQMTG-dU/S9KQnTT9A6I/AAAAAAAAEKE/ejli9vo0oxI/s1600/volkssturm-ww2-second-world-war-history-pictures-incredible-amazing-images-photos-003.jpg[/t] The age-old problems with militias are not going to disappear in these modern times: a lack of uniformity and standardization, lack of experience, lack of proper equipment, a lack of group cohesiveness, etc. There's a reason why militias aren't the backbones of proper nations anymore: they suck. The only countries/groups/whatever that rely on them are the ones that can't afford to do any better, and it shows in the fact they're slaughtered time and time again by professionals. [url=http://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/30/back-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-wild-rumors-fly]One of the most hilarious examples with militia incompetence just happened here recently with the Bundy Ranch Standoff when they started fighting with each other lol, the Oath Keepers vs. everyone else over paranoid rumors that the government was going to hit them with a drone strike[/url]. What a bunch of fucking imbeciles. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49222503]Oh, and just so I'm [B]crystal fucking clear:[/B] I was talking about the insurgency in Iraq while we were occupying the country, not ISIS/ISIL/IS/daesh/or any other acronym or group or entity or anything else currently fighting in the Syrian civil war. By the way, they didn't [I]start out[/I] with all of that shit they're using now, which I would think lends credibility to my argument especially considering that the military fully expects high desertion rates if there ever is some sort of armed revolution in the country. Then again both you and Anderan seemed to have missed that very obvious point so I'm not really sure what's obvious anymore.[/quote] The Iraqi insurgency was a failure. That's exactly why they had to go deep underground, and that's exactly why ISIS was spawned out of them. [url=http://thevelvetrocket.com/2009/11/06/how-many-insurgents-killed-in-iraq]Between 20,000 and 50,000 were slaughtered by coalition forces and Iraqi security forces[/url]. They weren't able to stand up to professional military forces in a conventional manner. This is the same thing that's happening with ISIS today, and we haven't even intervened with large numbers of ground forces being deployed-- just with drones, aircraft, and specops. Again, militias and these kinds of people cannot stand up to professional armies in conventional warfare, and even unconventional warfare doesn't bode well for them. As far as supposed desertion rates go for the United States, there's no consensus amongst experts. You've neglected to mention arguments that a lot of people would be retained if revolution broke out because the military offers them payment, food, shelter, opportunities for education and personal advancement... basically stability and comfort and power, which is a strong argument since this is what most people want out of life. We don't know what would happen, because it hasn't happened and it isn't going to happen to us anytime soon (or more likely, ever; unless there's some major catastrophe that completely decimates us, in which case there's no point to much of anything anymore because we'll be basically nonexistent as a country and as a unified people). You've made arguments about ISIS and the Boers here about their militia/guerrilla tactics. Whatever. I don't give a shit anymore, and I doubt Anderan does either. ISIS is in the process of losing its war against... well pretty much everyone, and they would, as I've consistently argued, lose a lot faster if us Western powers would intervene directly already and do more to help the Kurds, Iraqi military, etc. The Boers lost against the British. The Volkssturm failed completely to stop the Allies and the Soviet Union from defeating Germany; even the units that were made up of experienced veterans (although some were able to put up minor resistance) failed. The Japanese Volunteer Fighting Corps was equally worthless. Etc. Militias do not work. They are not capable of performing the kinds of feats that professional armies can. History has repeatedly proven this to be the case. Modern history, within the last 100ish years, confirms this to be the case. The Founding Fathers knew it to be the case as well, hence their expressions of contempt for militias and ultimately why the United States established a professional national military. [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49222503]I'm sure you feel the same way about car, house, and life insurance too. I mean why do we even have fire departments when we have smoke alarms anyway???[/quote] Your argument is retarded. Insurance for basic essentials isn't required (well it is by law for car owners in like 49 of the 50 states in the Union), it's just strongly encouraged because those basic essentials are... both basic and essential. You will need to use them repeatedly in your daily life to live. It's important to have plans surrounding them to ensure you have access/coverage for them. Militias are not essential. They have not been essential for an extremely long time now. Firearms out the wazoo for militias are not essential either by extension. That's how simple it is.

[QUOTE=St33m;49213796]Get rid of the guns already, you obviously cant handle them.[/QUOTE] Always. It never fails. It's always one of these ignorant comments that kick the whole damn thing off, get your popcorn ready for another 20 pages of the same old arguments we've all seen before in every thread before this

[QUOTE=GunFox;49224894]To start, we need to cover this: historically standing armies are rare. At the time of the constitution, a military was raised when a need arose. The framework for an army, the arms and command structure, generally stuck around, but the actual soldiers were trained and paid only when necessary. The primary means of enforcing government control domestically was a militia. The militia was the enforcement arm of the government. During the revolutionary war we fought against militiamen and regulars. The militia were British loyalists, of which there were many because many people just viewed themselves as British, while the iconic regulars were soldiers raised and trained by the British empire as temporary soldiers. We see this mirrored in Article One of the US constitution: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" Congress can RAISE and support an army, but the intentionally limit budgeting lengths in order to force them to review the budget regularly to see if they still need to exist. An army was a temporary thing. Meanwhile, in the same article, the militia are referenced: "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" The militia, meanwhile, is the arm of the government used to enforce their rules. The militia is framed not only as the arm of the government, but the responsibility of the government. It is literally the arm used to put down insurrections both for the federal and state governments. They are required, by article one, to arm them. Then, in article two, it lays out the president's relation to the militia: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" When he needs to utilize the militia, he is the commander of the militia, because the militia is an arm of government. [/quote] While interesting and an important thing to remember, none of this is relevant to whether or not the 2nd amendment was intended as a way to facilitate the US citizenry being able to revolt against the government. All it really does is add to my statement that it was to facilitate having a functional militia. Something with has long since been functionally supplemented by the national guard. [quote] So now we come to the first ten amendments. The bill of rights. The bill of rights, is a collection of personal freedoms that were enacted in order to appease the anti-federalist factions who feared government control. We have the first amendment, which is all about freedom of speech and the practice of religion by individuals. We have the third amendment, which points out that no individual shall be forced to quarter soldiers in their residence. Sandwiched between these two individual freedoms we have the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Which people read as pointing out that the militia is necessary and has to be armed, but how does that make any sense? We have to ignore a number of things here in order to accept that interpretation. Chief among them, we have to ignore that the bill of rights is all about individual freedoms and that the militia has already been clearly outlined as an arm of the government. Why would the [I]government[/I] need an amendment telling the [I]government [/I]that it can't disarm the [I]government [/I]in the middle of the amendments detailing the rights reserved by the [I]people[/I]? That makes little sense. It makes even less sense given that article one already points out that congress is obligated to provide for the arming of the militia. The constitution itself points out that the militia has to not only be armed, but armed by the federal government. So what does it mean? They just finished fighting a force composed, in part, of a government militia. The militia were the oppressors and an obstacle to freedom. They were also kinda necessary to actually have a government. This is an easier way to interpret the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being [I]a necessary evil[/I], the right of the [I]individual[/I] to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. What they are saying is that they have to have a militia. A government without teeth is worthless, but because they have to have a militia, they also want to make sure that the people under that militia have a right to keep armaments in the event that militia ever does precisely what just happened to them. The modern militia is the national guard. They are armed by the federal government, trained according to federal standards, and can be placed under the control of the President when necessary. What happens when riots break out? The guard are called to suppress the insurrection. We are armed to defend against the national guard. We only have a standing army because, despite alluding to armies being a temporary thing, the constitution doesn't flat out forbid having a standing army.[/QUOTE] This is 100% personal interpretation. The 2nd amendment's position in the bill of rights has literally no relevance, for all I'm concerned it's where it is for no reason other than there was no better place to put it. As for why it's needed it's likely there to prevent a part of the government, be it the executive branch or the legislative branch, from shooting itself in the foot and making the, at the time, integral militias even less useful than they already were. That, or the more likely option, it was included to appease the states, some of which had already declared at one point or another their right to bear arms and codified into law as a formality.

[QUOTE=Anderan;49225723]While interesting and an important thing to remember, none of this is relevant to whether or not the 2nd amendment was intended as a way to facilitate the US citizenry being able to revolt against the government. All it really does is add to my statement that it was to facilitate having a functional militia. Something with has long since been functionally supplemented by the national guard. This is 100% personal interpretation. The 2nd amendment's position in the bill of rights has literally no relevance, for all I'm concerned it's where it is for no reason other than there was no better place to put it. As for why it's needed it's likely there to prevent a part of the government, be it the executive branch or the legislative branch, from shooting itself in the foot and making the, at the time, integral militias even less useful than they already were. That, or the more likely option, it was included to appease the states, some of which had already declared at one point or another their right to bear arms and codified into law as a formality.[/QUOTE] Orrrr it is well documented fact that not only did the men of the day explicitly state that it was why they were doing it: James Madison: " Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of" But several states ratifying the constitution requested specific amendments to this effect: New Hampshire: "It is the Opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alteration in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this State & more effectually guard against an undue Administration of the Federal Government—The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution. Twelfth Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion" Then you have folks like Noah Webster, a state representative at the time: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” Patrick Henry: "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?" I can keep going.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49225859]Orrrr it is well documented fact that not only did the men of the day explicitly state that it was why they were doing it: James Madison: " Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of" [/quote] He's saying the fact that the states can call on an armed force acts as a counter to the tyranny of the of central government, not that the citizens themselves being armed is a counter. If the states for some reason had standing armies at the time I can guarantee he would have said their ability to have a standing army was a counter instead. [quote] But several states ratifying the constitution requested specific amendments to this effect: New Hampshire: "It is the Opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alteration in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this State & more effectually guard against an undue Administration of the Federal Government—The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution. Twelfth Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion" [/quote] So basically the states wanted specific rights codified into law, in this case one that protected their own interests. I stated this already. It's not about personal liberties, it's about the states seeing it as a method to protect their own interests [quote] Then you have folks like Noah Webster, a state representative at the time: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" [/quote] Wasn't even elected to the state legislature until nearly a decade after the bill of rights was ratified. Played no role whatsoever in the creation of the Bill of Rights. [quote] Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” [/quote] Was secretary of the state at the time and I can't find anything indicating he played any actual role in the actual creation of the amendments. Jefferson was well known opponent of a strong central government, which was hardly an opinion shared by all politicians at the time. You can't really take two steps without finding some quote from him warning against a strong central government. Most of his arguments for "the people" were referring to the states themselves which were considered more in tune with the will of the people. [quote] Patrick Henry: "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?" [/QUOTE] Someone actually relevant to the bill of rights but I don't see how a quote from one person is proof of an entire convention, made up of several people whom all did not share the same opinions, intending something a certain way.

Oh, so we are restricting it to people at the convention? Sure, why not. Gerry saw standing armies and the potential of government tyranny as a real threat. He viewed the militia as the defense against this: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." Madison, who had a massive influence on the document, and is considered one of the two individuals predominately responsible for the bill of rights, being relatively clear on the subject: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." And Mason, who was Madison's counterpart on the bill of rights: "to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Ben Franklin was relatively amusing on the topic "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Arming the people was a defense against tyranny. Sorry.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49226221]Oh, so we are restricting it to people at the convention? Sure, why not. Gerry saw standing armies and the potential of government tyranny as a real threat. He viewed the militia as the defense against this: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." [/quote] Fair enough, but again just one person. [quote] Madison, who had a massive influence on the document, and is considered one of the two individuals predominately responsible for the bill of rights, being relatively clear on the subject: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."[/quote] Can't find this exact quote but I can find a similar one that just seems to suggest that Madison wanted to prevent the govt from creating too large of a standing army that could later be used for nefarious purposes. Not exactly arming the citizens to prevent tyranny by enabling them to rise up later but to limit the power of the central government and keep it in the hands of the states, not surprising considering Madison was part of the Democratic-Republican party which was opposed to the idea of a large central government. [quote] And Mason, who was Madison's counterpart on the bill of rights: "to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." [/quote] The full quote to this seems to indicate Mason believed the militias to be a power part of the US military against invasion and that the militias were the true strength of the military. [quote] Ben Franklin was relatively amusing on the topic "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"[/quote] "Widely attributed to Franklin on the Internet, sometimes without the second sentence. It is not found in any of his known writings, and the word "lunch" is not known to have appeared anywhere in English literature until the 1820s, decades after his death. The phrasing itself has a very modern tone and the second sentence especially might not even be as old as the internet. Some of these observations are made in response to a query at Google Answers" Congrats on citing a misquote. [quote]Arming the people was a defense against tyranny. Sorry.[/QUOTE] All I'm drawing from any of this is that the Democratic-Republicans preferred strong states of a strong central government, accomplished in part by advocating militias as an important part of the military to prevent standing armies from being relevant enough to be a threat, which is something I was already well aware of. Hell, Madison was originally against the idea of a bill of rights because he believed it set a precedent that anything not explicitly declared legal was illegal.

Remember that the use of guns in defence against tyranny isn't always in full revolution. If the government decides one day to make Islam illegal and that all Muslims will be gathered up and arrested, then Muslims would have every right to do their best to defend themselves. Guns allow for both individual and group resistance.

Clearly this is a waste of time. Fucking sad.

[QUOTE=GunFox;49226221]Oh, so we are restricting it to people at the convention? Sure, why not. Gerry saw standing armies and the potential of government tyranny as a real threat. He viewed the militia as the defense against this: "What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." Madison, who had a massive influence on the document, and is considered one of the two individuals predominately responsible for the bill of rights, being relatively clear on the subject: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." And Mason, who was Madison's counterpart on the bill of rights: "to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Ben Franklin was relatively amusing on the topic "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Arming the people was a defense against tyranny. Sorry.[/QUOTE] No, sorry, it wasn't about arming people to overthrow the government when it "needed to be overthrown" (to state plainly what you're claiming). Quoting Thomas Jefferson: [quote]"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so."[/quote] The statement above was written by him in 1814, in the middle of the War of 1812, in a letter to his friend Thomas Cooper. The Founding Fathers were basically scared stupid of the concept of standing armies, because they thought that they were a potential instrument of oppression. Military coups had occurred in European history before, and they were well aware of this fact. They did not embrace the concept of standing armies in times of peace early on as a result of this; instead, the idea was the militias would form the backbone of American defense. Hence the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This was the alternative to having a standing army. And this concept is also reinforced throughout the Constitution. Congress doesn't have any limits on its power when it comes to raising and maintaining and paying for anything, including the Navy and anything that supports and promotes the "general welfare" of the people and the nation, [i]except[/i] on the army. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically says the government has limits imposed on its ability to create a standing army. They can... [quote=Line 12]"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."[/quote] ...and they can... [quote=Line 16]"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."[/quote] They were basically pushing for the creation of the National Guard that we have today before it was a standardized thing like it is now. It was not intended to be a check against government tyranny and enable gun nuts to try and overthrow the government whenever they so pleased. In fact, Article 1, Section 8 also states that as far as these aforementioned militia forces go, Congress is free to use them to: [quote]"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, [b]suppress insurrections[/b] and repel invasions"[/quote] Again, this is exactly what was done in 1794 to crush the armed insurgents of the Whiskey Rebellion. Honestly, that's the best demonstration of what the Second Amendment was intended to be about in the history of the United States. And this is exactly what is supposed to be done today, as it could have been done in the past, if gun nuts ever attempted to overthrow the government "because tyranny lol". It was about the defense of the state, not defense [i]against[/i] the state. [editline]2nd December 2015[/editline] Anderan is 100% correct on what he's been saying. Just deal with it.

I already pointed out those lines and what they mean. I don't know that you have read all the posts here. They fought a rebellion, formed a new untested system of government because all of the previous forms were highly objectionable to them, said repeatedly that the liberty of the people was their primary goal, and constantly espoused the dangers of tyrannical government, but no, they clearly didn't choose to permit the arming of the entire civilian population in order to safeguard against the government that they had no idea would even work. They totally, in the middle of the section of the constitution that protects individual rights, elected to reinforce that the government can't disarm the militia, which is under the control of the government. You know, the arms that they are obligated to provide to the militia? They can't take those away. Yeah [I]that[/I] makes sense. Next lets make sure we make an amendment telling them that they can't disarm the army.