I’m actually more confident that the military leaders would refuse to give the orders than I am that the solidiers would refuse to carry them out.
You don’t think the founders...who lived in the 1700s...where people still had duels...fathomed that these guns could be used against each other?
Maybe, but I don't think that was the true intent behind the amendment. I do believe that the reason we have a right to bears arms is to overthrow a tyrannical government or invading force. What I also believe though, is that the world powers military tech has advanced to such a level where it wouldn't matter much in the end. Just common sense really.
So banning what exactly? All semi-automatic weapons make it easy to run up a body count, so is that what you are talking about? Not in a head to head fight, but that wouldn't be the goal. You might be surprised what an armed insurgency can do.
That's not the only reason, but sure, that's one of them. It's generally best if the citizens of a nation can defend themselves to a certain extent and not rely completely on the government for that.
No, we're really not. First of all, I'm not just talking about defending themselves FROM the government, just defending themselves in general, but I think if it came to it, you'd be surprised what an armed insurgency can do. So even if you want to look past the idea of protection from tyranny aspects, it's still valid. You shouldn't be defenseless and just hoping the state will protect you. I mean, isn't it funny how some of the same people who argue to disarm the public are some of the same people who talk about racist cops running around murdering black people in the streets? It's funny how some people will have complete faith in the abilities of the government when it serves a narrative they support.
In general, no it's a terrible idea, but if the government truly turned tyrannical then that would change things. That said, I hope you know that in that scenario the armed insurgency wouldn't "fight fair", those situations are all about ambushes and the goal is a war of attrition against the tyrannical party. That said, I'm sure that kind of thinking is beyond you, so we can stick to the more likely scenarios where a person would have to defend themselves instead of waiting for the state to come save them.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. As I said earlier, there could be exceptions here and there, but I have more faith in the average volunteer enlisted men and women, and typical members of the officer corp of the armed forces, than I do in some of the upper echelon. The generals and admirals that cynically push weapon systems they know are overpriced or unneeded, because they have an eye on the "prize," that very highly paid gig after they retire as a "consultant" for one of the titans of the defense industry . Those men and women are already morally compromised. I don't think that description fits the typical graduate of West Point or Annapolis. I can easily imagine all kinds of dystopian scenarios, though, being an avid reader of science fiction and other related genres. It's also true that people can unknowingly be led astray by a host of lies fed to them using technology unimagined not so long ago. We see the result of that in the White House today. One could also cynically say that the bulk of the military is a "captive audience," an audience that could be kept away from the Fourth Estate, and an audience that could be fed lies wholesale. I find it easier to sleep at night having the opinion that the worst could never happen. One thing is absolutely true. The Founders of our country never imagined the technologies available today to those that wish to do others harm, whether it is to subvert the government, or to kill and maim as many people as possible because they are the undiscovered insane, able to drive to numerous gun shops and conventions to freely purchase weapons that go far beyond the "cutting edge" tech of the late 18th century, a rifled flintlock. I find it hard to imagine that the Founders would support the weapons technology of today being available to anyone with the money to purchase it. Yet that is exactly what organizations like the NRA, led by people more interested in their high salaries than the safety of the country, would have you believe. It's a kind of madness that has far too much influence on the politics of this country, in my opinion.
It's just brutal how you out yourself as stuck in the past and have lost any critical thinking because of living in your NRA bubble, but still stick to the holier than thou routine while trying to mock people.
It just is what it is, I understand that you are ignorant, and I'm trying to work past that while continuing the conversation. Only simpletons think that civil rights are antiquated and should be eliminated for convenience or to give the illusion of safety.
Really have to question which side is the "simpleton" when the vast majority of the world, basically anyone outside of your "FREEDOM" yelling bubble, thinks your 2nd amendment views are moronic and archaic. You still haven't even brought up a single valid argument besides a science-fiction scenario where the government wants to wipe out its citizens.
agreed. orders would never be given and thank goodness because "soldiers" are trained to execute orders.
The "vast majority" of the world live on 10 dollars a day or less and that's why we see something like 22,000 children dying every day due to poverty. Half of the world's population lives on 2.50 or less a day....yeah let's be like them. Let's not glorify "the vast majority" like they are something to aspire to.
So it turns out that he acted alone without helpers? No more conspiracy theories? Still no note except some numbers. Even if he was schizophrenic he should have left some rumblings I would think.
You'll never stop conspiracy theories once they start. I will say though, a new development was something that I was curious about. Apparently he attempted to buy tracer rounds but failed due to none being available. When I initially heard about the plan, it was one thing I was curious about. Given the ridiculous distance he was shooting from and the darkness, he'd have only a vague notion of where the rounds were landing. With tracer rounds mixed in, he would've had a much better idea of where they were falling. So I guess that was lucky. Of course, if he did have tracer rounds, it would have made it that much easier to identify where he was shooting from more quickly, which would have led to a quicker response by police, so...ya know it's a mixed bag.
I think you give us too much credit. I don't think it would be a simple scenario of the united people against the brutal dictator. In a case like that, you can probably count on the soldier being with the people. But, things don't usually work like that. Leadership divides the populace, so you have some who support the dictator who gives them protection/benefits/whatever and the people who oppose. And, if you draw your soldiers from the supportive populace, they absolutely will fire on the enemies of the state. When they established the Paris Commune in 1870, the national government didn't bring Parisian soldiers to take the city back, they brought country boys who thought the big city communists were the enemy. Look at Syria, where Assad relies on a base of Alawites; even though they are a minority, they give him enough support that he can build a coalition to fight terrorists and "terrorists" with extreme brutality. In Venezuela, Maduro leveraged a schism between the poor and the wealthy along with foreign antagonists to justify himself and his consolidation of power. That's what it would look like here. Some disfavored group -- BLM or neo-Nazis or antifa or California or whatever -- are not just protesting the actions of the President but have taken their protest too far and law and order must be restored. And as the government takes action to restore it, soldiers are tasked with police actions, this group gets more extreme (maybe now they are violent, a terror threat), and the protests are getting wider as sympathizers get more active and things are really getting out of control. BLM (or whomever) is a threat to law and order, they're dangerous, they're unreasonable, they engage in violence, they hate our country, and we've got to do something to take our country back. And you think the soldiers won't fire? The only reason we've been different from everyone else so far is that we haven't skated close to the edge. If we skate to the edge, I think we'll be like everyone else.
Perhaps I give our military too much credit, but we have a president who already skates close to the edge, in my opinion. Yes, our military people are trained to follow orders, and I totally get your examples of dictators who used minorities from outside the mainstream to keep themselves in power. Saddam would be another example of that, and it worked for a long time. One could give an example closer to home. Kent State. Those were members of the Ohio National Guard. I am trying to be optimistic here, JV. You aren't making it easy!
