How to defend the military argument for the 2A?

[Tnichols00]

You can buy all 3 that you mentioned if you have the funds.

And didnt the british have better weapons and more money than us when we revolted?

 

[mrjarrell]

Those "liberals" sometimes go as far to mention ICBMs with nukes. It's all an exercise in 'reductio ad absurdum'. These are also people who don't know anything about guns and they don't know anything about tactics either. Guerilla war/insurgency doesn't require going toe-to-toe with tanks and aircraft, that's why it's called 'asymetric' war not 'conventional' war.

Don't blame that argument solely on "liberals". I've seen "conservatives" make the same argument right here on INGO against libertarians. It's a statist argument and statists use it all the time.

 

[SmileDocHill]

Great thread by the way, I hear this argument all the time and I'm so dumbfounded that I freeze up at it also. The problem is that due to normalcy bias people don't see the fundamental reasoning behind why the Gov. should not be doing much more than dabbling in gun regulation and even that is a compromised fall back position.

 

[mk2ja]

You can buy all 3 that you mentioned if you have the funds.

And didnt the british have better weapons and more money than us when we revolted?

And didn't every military that ever tried to defeat a guerrilla campaign have better weapons than the guerrillas?

In my mind, that point is sufficient to defeat remarks like "well, the military will have better weapons than you anyway."

And then by extension, why do we need "military style" weapons? If the government gets to the point where armed resistance becomes necessary, the citizenry must have the arms to organize and begin to resist!

Additionally, even when the government is not the most imminent threat, "military style" weapons allow citizens to maintain order when the police and military are not present, such as during the Koreatown riots in LA in 1992.

 

[MP43]

Exactly MK two thumbs up

 

[finnegan]

What many of them don't understand is that it wouldn't be citizens fighting the military, it'd be citizens fighting the police/ security forces; and only long enough for the military to step in and protect them; I.E; Egypt.
I can't name one person I know who has served in the military that would fire on people waving cardboard signs, or obey an order to carry out a drone strike on a Little Debbie bakery in Evansville.
I cannot, unfortunately, say the same about the Law Enforcement personnel I've known. I grew up in a police station. My mother was the dispatcher for the city police force on 2nd shift. As a side-effect, I got away with A LOT of stuff (speeding tickets? Never had one.) and got to see a different side of small-town law enforcement; even some of the bad stuff. I'd say 4 out 5 were top notch individuals, but some... not so much.

 

[Hop]

Show your libtard buddies this Youtube video. It's my buddy Steve in Oklahoma. They will shat themselves.

[ame]http://youtu.be/OMqOlL5HSLA[/ame]

 

[PowerShot]

You can buy most of that though, just need enough money.

 

[mk2ja]

What many of them don't understand is that it wouldn't be citizens fighting the military, it'd be citizens fighting the police/ security forces; and only long enough for the military to step in and protect them; I.E; Egypt.
I can't name one person I know who has served in the military that would fire on people waving cardboard signs, or obey an order to carry out a drone strike on a Little Debbie bakery in Evansville.
I cannot, unfortunately, say the same about the Law Enforcement personnel I've known. I grew up in a police station. My mother was the dispatcher for the city police force on 2nd shift. As a side-effect, I got away with A LOT of stuff (speeding tickets? Never had one.) and got to see a different side of small-town law enforcement; even some of the bad stuff. I'd say 4 out 5 were top notch individuals, but some... not so much.

Do people really want to have guys like THESE be the only ones with guns?


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4[/ame]


An important thing to remember is that a cop is still just another civilian. If they aren't military, they're civilian. So if you're arguing with an Anti who's talking about restricting military-style weapons to military, make sure they understand that cops better not have them either.

 

[hooky]

I've made the argument a couple of times that when the Constitution was ratified, citizens had the same military firepower as the troops who just fought off the Crown...Muskets and black powder cannons. That's the way it was intended, because they feared tyrannical government.

 

[Captain Morgan]

I purposefully stated the originally post using the term "assault weapon" because that's how those who are unfamiliar with guns begin their argument. My first response to that is always to let them know there is no that there is no such criteria to define one gun as an "assault weapon" while others not.

A) I don't see any reason why the populace in general SHOULDN'T have access to "military" weapons.

B) And, in response to the OP, we do. Machine guns are perfectly legal, as are tanks, and lots of other interesting items.

Remember, the 2nd is about defending ourselves from a corrupt government. The citizenry NEEDS the same tools (or as close as they can get).

I just had about a 3 hour discussion with a guy I've known for 25 years. He says there is no way the gov't would try to oppress us so the 2nd amendment argument is nothing more than an excuse to have guns that we think are cool. And those guns have no purpose but to kill people. We have no real need for military style weapons.He says if we want to use the 2A argument, then there should be 2 classes of people, those who are "permitted" to be in the militia, who can have one "assault rifle" each, that must be stored where it can only be accessed when truly needed if we feel we really need to take up arms against the gov't, and one hunting rifle and one handgun for personal defense. The second class of people would not be permitted to have an "assault weapon," but could have a handgun for defense. Everyone would be required to have a psych eval every 6 months in order to own guns.

There were many other things discussed, but these were his major "rules" for owning guns. I was able to argue each point, but he kept coming back to "the 2nd amendment is just a crutch" argument and nobody needs "assault weapons." I tried pointing out there is no real difference in the guns, that most just look like military, but function the same as a hunting rifle, but he countered with the fact that he doesn't know anything about guns and doesn't care to know the mechanics. I tried to point out that he needs to understand the mechanics if he wants to say they're not needed. He asked if a detachable magazine is even needed to hunt (after I explained what that is), and then argued that if it's not truly needed, we shouldn't even have detachable magazines. Again, this came back to the argument that now the people have even less ability to fight an oppressive gov't and he says, "yeah, but that's not even going to happen in this day and age."

I guess you just can't get through to some people. Nearly every argument he had was based on a lack of knowledge of guns. Maybe I can get him to the range and teach him something.

 

[Tnichols00]

I had to explain it to someone like this the other day.

The second amendment is there for two reasons, now you might not need either of these reasons today but nobody knows what the future holds
#1 For the people to protect themselves from criminals (This seems to be the only one ppl care about, I think because crimes are shown all over the news daily)
#2 to protect ourselves from the government.

Remember we dont know what the future hold (I always like to use christianity to finish explaining this because most of these liberals are "Pro rights" until it comes to traditional morals)

So I then give them the example of what if the government told us that we all had to be roman catholic and practice as we are devote roman catholics, then on top of that they made us all learn to badmitten and compete against one another 2x a week. I know it sounds silly but that is what the german gov kinda did right after they took the gun away from the germans. I know it sounds bloody and its not fun but we need our guns to insure something like that doesnt happen and if it does happen it will be at that time we will need to revolt.

See this is we might not need them today but we dont know when we will need them in the future and should always be prepared.

 

[Trooper]

I just had about a 3 hour discussion with a guy I've known for 25 years. He says there is no way the gov't would try to oppress us so the 2nd amendment argument is nothing more than an excuse to have guns that we think are cool. And those guns have no purpose but to kill people. We have no real need for military style weapons.He says if we want to use the 2A argument, then there should be 2 classes of people, those who are "permitted" to be in the militia, who can have one "assault rifle" each, that must be stored where it can only be accessed when truly needed if we feel we really need to take up arms against the gov't, and one hunting rifle and one handgun for personal defense. The second class of people would not be permitted to have an "assault weapon," but could have a handgun for defense. Everyone would be required to have a psych eval every 6 months in order to own guns.

There were many other things discussed, but these were his major "rules" for owning guns. I was able to argue each point, but he kept coming back to "the 2nd amendment is just a crutch" argument and nobody needs "assault weapons." I tried pointing out there is no real difference in the guns, that most just look like military, but function the same as a hunting rifle, but he countered with the fact that he doesn't know anything about guns and doesn't care to know the mechanics. I tried to point out that he needs to understand the mechanics if he wants to say they're not needed. He asked if a detachable magazine is even needed to hunt (after I explained what that is), and then argued that if it's not truly needed, we shouldn't even have detachable magazines. Again, this came back to the argument that now the people have even less ability to fight an oppressive gov't and he says, "yeah, but that's not even going to happen in this day and age."

I guess you just can't get through to some people. Nearly every argument he had was based on a lack of knowledge of guns. Maybe I can get him to the range and teach him something.

If you can not trust someone with a gun then you can not trust them with anything, especially voting. Why not psych evals for voting? Most democrats would never pass.

frankly most Americans seem to not even trust themselves these days. Especially the educated democrats (ie journalists and professors). It might be better once the Baby Boomers are gone. I think that the Generation after next (those 12 and younger) will reject the stupidity of their grandparents (ie the Boomers) just as the Victorian Age was born out of the rejection by the grand daughters of those in the Regincy Period (1790 to 1830) which was a very libertine period.

 

[Tnichols00]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

Someone help me make this viewable

 

[hooky]

[ame]http://youtu.be/M1u0Byq5Qis[/ame]

There ya go

 

[kawtech87]

It has happened many times before, and with any luck, will NOT happen again.

What has it, something like 3% that took up arms in the Revolutionary War? That turned out pretty well.

About 3 million fought in the Civil war, which was about 13% of the population.

13% of our current population would be more than enough.

How many people could deal with a conflict that lasted more than three days? Americans tend to tire of war quickly (even in WW2 FDR had problems with the people not supporting the war after a few years). Think of having war on US soil that lasted five to ten years with millions dead. Think that you could fight that long without just giving up?

YES. Wouldnt you? This isnt about gun laws its about freedom.

How long did Scotland tolerate fighting aginst the English before they were free? 32 years the first time, 25 years the second. 57 years total.

 

[gglass]

If you have to argue with a Liberal about the 2nd Amendment, it would be best to let the founders speak on your behalf... They really had a way with words.

TENCHE COXE, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

TENCHE COXE,
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people, duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which shall be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Tench Coxe was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789. He wrote under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian".

PATRICK HENRY
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

GEORGE WASHINGTON
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

GEORGE MASON, Virginia Constitution Convention
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."

It is clear to me that the founders would be fully in favor of every citizen's right to KEEP and BEAR every instrument of war, and they wanted WE THE PEOPLE to be as capable to wage war as any state or federal army.

 

[Trooper]

13% of our current population would be more than enough.



YES. Wouldnt you? This isnt about gun laws its about freedom.

How long did Scotland tolerate fighting aginst the English before they were free? 32 years the first time, 25 years the second. 57 years total.

The Scots of the 1700s were a far tougher lot than most Americans today. We are soft, too comfortable and have not faced hardship in decades. Too many pussies these days who say that they are men.

 

[kawtech87]

The Scots of the 1700s were a far tougher lot than most Americans today. We are soft, too comfortable and have not faced hardship in decades. Too many pussies these days who say that they are men.

Yeah, I have to agree with you. I know there would be pockets of fighters that would pop up every now and again but the masses would disperse with in the first few months.

Maybe we need to live under brutal dictorial rule for a few years before people will start to stand up and fight.

Hopefully it doesnt come to that.

 

[singlestacksig]

The Federalist #46