Drones Tanks, we have no chance.... What liberals say.

[_krose]

I don't see any scenario in the USA where an overwhelming majority of the people would oppose our government and want it overthrown, while the military still supported it.

This has happened to numerous democratic governments with professional militaries around the world.

Can you give me some examples?

I'm still not thinking of examples. Care to elucidate?

[_ldsfaqs]

First off, imagined scenarios where we would have to put down a crazy right-wing revolution on our own soil (which would threaten our very existence as a nation) would be absolutely nothing like limited military operations half a world away. Bringing up the American Revolution is especially strange, given the fact that just getting reinforcements to this land at that time was a months-long proposition.

You seemed to have made a statement excluding the context. I don't understand what you are saying.

But I'm sure you guys will continue to indulge your nutty fantasies of killing your fellow American soldiers and police officers whenever an election goes the way you don't like.

Who's proposing that?

What I would like you to explain is the justification for the concept. Where do you get the notion that violently overthrowing the elected and constitutionally established government would be legal? Especially considering that very document's specific requirements to put down uprisings and punish treason, and the oaths to protect against domestic enemies?

When did "legal" equal "moral"?
If a state has become fascist, whether elected or not, the people have every "right" to rise up and stand against it.

The "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment is specifically for the protection ("security") of the state, not its overthrow.

Actually the "state" in this context was referring to the people itself, the "body politic".
The 2nd Amendment wasn't designed to protect the "Government". If you think that, then you're a moron.

[_ldsfaqs]

EAllusion....

It's nice to see correct argument from you, completely agree with what you have said.

[_Gadianton]

Democratically elected or not, if a government becomes sufficiently tyrannical, I see no problem with armed rebellion. And given that the country was founded by revolutionaries, it's not surprising that view was shared by the bulk of them. Comparing the American revolution, a war in which the colonies had near parity in arms with the British, were heavily backed by a military superpower in France, and had an opponent busy fighting a global war on a number of fronts, to what scattered gun owners can do against the US military is laughable, though.

Yeah. If tyrrany approached the right levels, then the only real hope would be to have some kind of inside, fifth-columnist presence. Instead of building a small arms stockpile, it would be more effective to simply work yourself into a good career where if called upon one day, you could contribute to the goals of a resistence group. In The Matrix, all the action scenes are eye candy, a graphical representation of looking for weaknesses in a system and exploiting them.

[Guest]

First off, imagined scenarios where we would have to put down a crazy right-wing revolution on our own soil (which would threaten our very existence as a nation) would be absolutely nothing like limited military operations half a world away. Bringing up the American Revolution is especially strange, given the fact that just getting reinforcements to this land at that time was a months-long proposition.

You seemed to have made a statement excluding the context. I don't understand what you are saying.

What? You're making no sense.

But I'm sure you guys will continue to indulge your nutty fantasies of killing your fellow American soldiers and police officers whenever an election goes the way you don't like.

Who's proposing that?

Who do you imagine would be defending the government against all the armed citizens who are rising up to fight against "tyranny," if not the police and military?

What I would like you to explain is the justification for the concept. Where do you get the notion that violently overthrowing the elected and constitutionally established government would be legal? Especially considering that very document's specific requirements to put down uprisings and punish treason, and the oaths to protect against domestic enemies?

When did "legal" equal "moral"?
If a state has become fascist, whether elected or not, the people have every "right" to rise up and stand against it.

You have failed to explain how the notion of using guns to overthrow the government is consistent with the Constitution's specific mention of stopping insurrections and protecting against domestic enemies.

The "well regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment is specifically for the protection ("security") of the state, not its overthrow.

Actually the "state" in this context was referring to the people itself, the "body politic".
The 2nd Amendment wasn't designed to protect the "Government". If you think that, then you're a moron.

Riiiight. I'm the moron here. Uh-huh.

Please explain how the words: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," mean something other than the ability to assemble state militias, whose job would be state protection from invasion.

[_krose]

EAllusion....
It's nice to see correct argument from you, completely agree with what you have said.

I'm glad to see you at least agreed with this:

Comparing the American revolution, a war in which the colonies had near parity in arms with the British, were heavily backed by a military superpower in France, and had an opponent busy fighting a global war on a number of fronts, to what scattered gun owners can do against the US military is laughable, though.

[_krose]

I never saw a response to my question about countries where an all-voluntary military remained loyal to a government that most of its citizens would overthrow if they just had the weapons.

Also, someone please point out to me the countries which turned fascist, despite being democracies throughout their history, and explain the conditions that led to that transformation.

[_Analytics]

Don't you see an incompatibility between "democratically elected" and "tyrannical"?

No. Majorities can get behind tyrannical actions....

Rephrasing what I believe is krose's point...

I agree that the majority can be tyrannical. But if the majority does happen to be sufficiently tyrannical, does a minority has the right to overthrow the majority and establish a new government? If so, the concept of popular sovereignty seems to be trumped by—what—the sovereignty of the self-appointed moral minority?

[_ldsfaqs]

EAllusion....
It's nice to see correct argument from you, completely agree with what you have said.

I'm glad to see you at least agreed with this:

Comparing the American revolution, a war in which the colonies had near parity in arms with the British, were heavily backed by a military superpower in France, and had an opponent busy fighting a global war on a number of fronts, to what scattered gun owners can do against the US military is laughable, though.

I don't agree with that however.
Further, in an actual event that a situation occurred and guns weren't banned, gun ownership wouldn't be so "scattered". Further, what is actually "scattered" is the U.S. military.

Arm even half of American's and the U.S. military wouldn't stand a chance.

[_ldsfaqs]

Please explain how the words: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," mean something other than the ability to assemble state militias, whose job would be state protection from invasion.

Easy.....

1. The next sentence which says "people to bear arms" not "militia". If it was talking about militia it would have said it.

2. Further proof of this is what the "militia" actually meant, and the intent behind the Amendment in the day's it was written by the founders.

Bottom line, the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms shall not be infringed, and it is more and more day by day.
Cry about "militia" all you want, but the PEOPLES rights are being infringed, which makes your argument FALSE.