Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread 2

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

hahahahahahhahaha

Why are you laughing?

The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. The Second Amendment granted citizens that right giving them the ability to defend themselves and their property.

Remember this was in 1791 when the republic was still fragile, people had the right to defend their land. As an extreme example, if a president decided to be a dictator decided to go all Pol Pot and spring his army against a city, the people of that city have the right to form a militia with arms and fight back.

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Why are you laughing?

The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. The Second Amendment granted citizens that right giving them the ability to defend themselves and their property.

Remember this was in 1791 when the republic was still fragile, people had the right to defend their land. As an extreme example, if a president decided to be a dictator decided to go all Pol Pot and spring his army against a city, the people of that city have the right to form a militia with arms and fight back.

In the context of the 1700s absolutely

300+ years later and the thought of any regular citizens holding up against a military force intending to subjugate them is ####ing hilarious

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Scornfire

In the context of the 1700s absolutely

300+ years later and the thought of any regular citizens holding up against a military force intending to subjugate them is ####ing hilarious

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Why are you laughing?

The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. The Second Amendment granted citizens that right giving them the ability to defend themselves and their property.

Remember this was in 1791 when the republic was still fragile, people had the right to defend their land. As an extreme example, if a president decided to be a dictator decided to go all Pol Pot and spring his army against a city, the people of that city have the right to form a militia with arms and fight back.

Scornfire nails it.

In 1791 the majority of people knew weapons handling and living hard.

Today.....well the concept is laughable.

[GirlySports]

Sure but that's just one interpretation of the amendment, the military. MoneyGuy was asking, was the wording just for militias and I answered that no, the people can also form a militia with their guns

Certainly, the people would stand no chance against state of the art military drones but you can't just take that part out, the 2nd amendment is about the right to bear arms in all circumstances. It could be any threat such as police. What if the 8 man Podunk police force turned on it's town?

The debate is, would you want to just throw that entire right away? When you give up things, you never get them back.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Why are you laughing?

The Founding Fathers felt that citizens should be able to protect themselves against the government and any other threat to their wellbeing or personal freedom. The Second Amendment granted citizens that right giving them the ability to defend themselves and their property.

Remember this was in 1791 when the republic was still fragile, people had the right to defend their land. As an extreme example, if a president decided to be a dictator decided to go all Pol Pot and spring his army against a city, the people of that city have the right to form a militia with arms and fight back.

the 2nd amendment is clear, the purpose of the militia is to protect the state not the individual, the individuals right to own a gun is specific so that they can be used to protect the state, it was a half arsed attempt to avoid paying for an army and it didnt even work for that purpose.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Sure but that's just one interpretation of the amendment, the military. MoneyGuy was asking, was the wording just for militias and I answered that no, the people can also form a militia with their guns

Certainly, the people would stand no chance against state of the art military drones but you can't just take that part out, the 2nd amendment is about the right to bear arms in all circumstances. It could be any threat such as police. What if the 8 man Podunk police force turned on it's town?

The debate is, would you want to just throw that entire right away? When you give up things, you never get them back.

Uhm, yes? A logical society would. You build democratic institutions that can withstand threats, then you don't have to worry about the people deciding what is and isn't right through pew pewing everything.

[D as in David]

Clearly the answer is for citizens to purchase any military equipment they want. Drones, nuclear weapons, balloons, etc.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Sure but that's just one interpretation of the amendment, the military. MoneyGuy was asking, was the wording just for militias and I answered that no, the people can also form a militia with their guns

Certainly, the people would stand no chance against state of the art military drones but you can't just take that part out, the 2nd amendment is about the right to bear arms in all circumstances. It could be any threat such as police. What if the 8 man Podunk police force turned on it's town?

The debate is, would you want to just throw that entire right away? When you give up things, you never get them back.

Is it not clear to you that this so-called right isn't working?

[driveway]

While there is truth to the notion that a militia consisting of armed citizens wouldn't stand a chance against a modern military in open battle, the second amendment and the enormous number of weapons and ammunition in private hands has, in combination with geography and demographics, made the US more-or-less unconquerable.

Even if the States entire military simply vanished into the ether tomorrow, there is not a military force on the planet that could effectively subjugate and govern a landmass that size, with a population that size, with that many weapons and that ammount of ammunition.

The assymetric insurrection Americans would be able to mount against any occupying force would be astonishing.

All that said, as I am planning to move to the US soon and may one day become a citizen, I support the repeal of the second amendment and believe that is the only solution to the problem of the enormous number of gun deaths in America.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by driveway

While there is truth to the notion that a militia consisting of armed citizens wouldn't stand a chance against a modern military in open battle, the second amendment and the enormous number of weapons and ammunition in private hands has, in combination with geography and demographics, made the US more-or-less unconquerable.

Even if the States entire military simply vanished into the ether tomorrow, there is not a military force on the planet that could effectively subjugate and govern a landmass that size, with a population that size, with that many weapons and that ammount of ammunition.

The assymetric insurrection Americans would be able to mount against any occupying force would be astonishing.

All that said, as I am planning to move to the US soon and may one day become a citizen, I support the repeal of the second amendment and believe that is the only solution to the problem of the enormous number of gun deaths in America.

That depends on how brutal you are, if you just kill 60 or 70 million right off the bat the rest tend to quiet down after that

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by driveway

While there is truth to the notion that a militia consisting of armed citizens wouldn't stand a chance against a modern military in open battle, the second amendment and the enormous number of weapons and ammunition in private hands has, in combination with geography and demographics, made the US more-or-less unconquerable.

Even if the States entire military simply vanished into the ether tomorrow, there is not a military force on the planet that could effectively subjugate and govern a landmass that size, with a population that size, with that many weapons and that ammount of ammunition.

The assymetric insurrection Americans would be able to mount against any occupying force would be astonishing.

All that said, as I am planning to move to the US soon and may one day become a citizen, I support the repeal of the second amendment and believe that is the only solution to the problem of the enormous number of gun deaths in America.

Maybe, or maybe once the bodies start piling up the appetite to fight diminishes.


There is a saying in the military "Everyone wants to be infantry, until it is time to be infantry".

[Matata]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

That depends on how brutal you are, if you just kill 60 or 70 million right off the bat the rest tend to quiet down after that

But at that point, what are you even conquering? The charred remains of a great civilization that now requires extensive support just to survive? The point of conquest is to gain resources, not drain them. Spending a huge amount of resources to conquer something that no longer has value? That empire is going broke and imploding inside of a week. The roman empire largely collapsed just from having a lack of new easy land to conquer. The ideal method of conquering is having a tiny force that can control a huge population (ideally unarmed), anything more that than that quickly becomes too expensive to maintain. Every brutal dictatorship starts with stripping the citizens of their ability to defend themselves.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

That depends on how brutal you are, if you just kill 60 or 70 million right off the bat the rest tend to quiet down after that

Not sure that's true if history is a guide. Yahya Khan famously said about East Pakistan/Bangladesh before his genocidal Operation Searchlight that if you "kill 3 million of them, and the rest will eat out of our hands". He then lost power soon after doing just that when no one had much for weapons. It's a crazy and gross story not many know about

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by Scornfire

In the context of the 1700s absolutely

300+ years later and the thought of any regular citizens holding up against a military force intending to subjugate them is ####ing hilarious

Hmmm... Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, as just a few examples in recent history.

Before that, Bosnia, Vietnam?

All of those examples are civilians/insurgents/guerillas fighting and succeeding against an entrenched and superior fighting force with tanks, APCs, helicopters, bombers and fighter jets.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by Envitro

Hmmm... Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, as just a few examples in recent history.

Before that, Bosnia, Vietnam?

All of those examples are civilians/insurgents/guerillas fighting and succeeding against an entrenched and superior fighting force with tanks, APCs, helicopters, bombers and fighter jets.

If the American people revolt against the government it will be with weapons supplied by China or Russia. Let's not pretend that international interference has not been the norm since before 1700.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Envitro

Hmmm... Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, as just a few examples in recent history.

Before that, Bosnia, Vietnam?

All of those examples are civilians/insurgents/guerillas fighting and succeeding against an entrenched and superior fighting force with tanks, APCs, helicopters, bombers and fighter jets.

Siri, what are the collective military budgets and total troop counts of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan compared to that of the US...

...Siri stop laughing

[Scornfire]

Originally Posted by Envitro

Hmmm... Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, as just a few examples in recent history.

Before that, Bosnia, Vietnam?

All of those examples are civilians/insurgents/guerillas fighting and succeeding against an entrenched and superior fighting force with tanks, APCs, helicopters, bombers and fighter jets.

Aside from the fact they in no way "lost" any of those wars aside from being embarrassed by lack of capability within the context of those wars and retreating due to political pressure, in absolutely none of those did they actually use the full brunt of their force or "purposely" target civilian populations. If the American military decides tomorrow it's no longer going to abide by any rules of war you can have 5 billion guerilla fighters if you want, you'll be eating nothing but long range missile strikes and breathing in nerve agents, best case you're living in caves (which pretty much every one of the guerilla forces you named had to do) for the rest of your life unless you feel like surrendering

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Scornfire

In the context of the 1700s absolutely

300+ years later and the thought of any regular citizens holding up against a military force intending to subjugate them is ####ing hilarious

I suppose the argument would be that the military wouldn’t have any interest in fighting door to door across America against armed resistance.

Though, the American military already has no interest in that…

Fundamentally, the gun issue is a trust issue.

Putting down your weapon is the ultimate expression of trust, when you do it willingly.

America doesn’t trust itself, and doesn’t seem to want to.

It’s a problem everywhere, and the guns make it worse.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

I suppose the argument would be that the military wouldn’t have any interest in fighting door to door across America against armed resistance.

Though, the American military already has no interest in that…

Fundamentally, the gun issue is a trust issue.

Putting down your weapon is the ultimate expression of trust, when you do it willingly.

America doesn’t trust itself, and doesn’t seem to want to.

It’s a problem everywhere, and the guns make it worse.

It sure does seem like Americans don't trust Americans. That's what makes a country the greatest!

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by D as in David

It sure does seem like Americans don't trust Americans. That's what makes a country the greatest!

It’s hard to trust a man when you know he has a gun.

It’s harder when anyone can have one anywhere.

If I lived somewhere like that, not a chance would I be the only one walking around unarmed.

It’s a veritable positive void coefficient.