Which is more evil?

[mrnoodle]

Dismissing the importance of the 2nd amendment because you don't own a gun is like dismissing the 1st amendment because you don't own a television station. Don't ever think that you can attack the constitution on one front, and have it held sacred on the others. It's either [capital]The Constitution[/capital], or a flimsy set of guidelines written in pencil. No middle ground. We're not talking about some "no donkey riding on Sunday" law in some backwater -- these are the basics upon which all of this country's laws are based.

And the 2nd amendment guarantees the safety of the rest, in the final analysis.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Dismissing the importance of the 2nd amendment because you don't own a gun is like dismissing the 1st amendment because you don't own a television station. Don't ever think that you can attack the constitution on one front, and have it held sacred on the others. It's either [capital]The Constitution[/capital], or a flimsy set of guidelines written in pencil. No middle ground. We're not talking about some "no donkey riding on Sunday" law in some backwater -- these are the basics upon which all of this country's laws are based.

And the 2nd amendment guarantees the safety of the rest, in the final analysis.

I'm not dismissing the importance of the second amendment because I don't own a gun. I'm saying the 2nd Amendment is at best a tool to guarantee the other amendments. If you had to choose between owning a gun and freedom of assembly, speech, religion, the press and petitioning of grievances, which would you choose?

The guns that actively protect the Constitution are in the hands of the soldiers who have taken an oath to do so. Civilians who are not naturalized citizens have not taken that oath. The guns might be nice to have. They may even provide protection in the event of a breakdown of society, but they would not provide protection againsts tanks and automatic weapons.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I'm not dismissing the importance of the second amendment because I don't own a gun. I'm saying the 2nd Amendment is at best a tool to guarantee the other amendments. If you had to choose between owning a gun and freedom of assembly, speech, religion, the press and petitioning of grievances, which would you choose?

The guns that actively protect the Constitution are in the hands of the soldiers who have taken an oath to do so. Civilians who are not naturalized citizens have not taken that oath. The guns might be nice to have. They may even provide protection in the event of a breakdown of society, but they would not provide protection againsts tanks and automatic weapons.

I certainly wouldn't want to have to make that choice.

Actually, the guns that protect the constitution are in the hands of the citizens. The gov't has a certain impetus to avoid living by the constitution in some ways, after all it is a significant check on its powers. It was the possession of those firearms by the civilians and used by them against the monarchy that made the constitution possible. And as to the tanks and automatic weapons those aren't necessarily as much of an advantage as you might think. At least not in a stand up fight. Just ask the Mujahideen. Throw in the factor of a much more likely unified and supplied resistance. There are a lot more guns available to citizens than the military can bring to bear. Especially if that military is going to spend all of its time elsewhere...

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's why the military is spending umpteen billions on robots and autonomous fighting machines........quickly destroy ANY group of people, even Americans.

[Troubleshooter]

And let's not forget about monkeywrenchers and the 5th column too.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

Just ask the Mujahideen.

Who fought in inaccesible regions. The US highway system was designed for the rapid deployment of forces.

Also notice that most of the damage done by insurgents is from bombs, not guns. Any group of insurgents who attempted to fight using guns would be wiped out by artillery, helicopters, or unmanned drones.

The whole point of an insurgency is not to get in a stand up fight. The guns that do the most damage are used by snipers. The only defense insurgents have is to blend in to the population. That's hard to do carrying a rifle. Handguns might be useful. Shotguns would be suicide.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a heroic struggle, just a doomed one unless there was a split in the military or the intervention of an outside nation.

Also consider that an oppressive government would be backed by a significant portion of the population, either Red or Blue depending on which fringe took power, who would be equally armed.

UG was right in that the only way to prevent the rise of an authoritarian government is to watch for it and stop it before it forms. That means paying attention to what is happening in Washington. Right now because of 9/11 and a one party government, we are putting a lot of unchecked power back into the executive branch. Fear makes us do things like that.

[Troubleshooter]

Oh I didn't say it wouldn't be ugly.

I think that unless it happens quite a way down the road after significant changes in the US population it might not turn out like anyone expects, even me. Can anyone out there do a comparison of our current civilian vs gov't arms levels against any other times in history? I know guns and swords aren't the same thing but it's a same vs same comparison as long as you don't consider nukes.