Support NeoGAF

[appaws]

Funny that the people most likely to use that argument of needing their guns to battle the boogeyman government are the guys typically most drawn to fascist style leaders.

Just a stray observation.

I don't think I have met any libertarian/minarchist who would support a fascist style leader, or supports Trump. We can hardly put up with the soft corporate tyranny we have now.

Of course the dumbass dupes of Conservative, Inc. can sometimes be a different story. People like me try to keep them inoculated with enough Lockean philosophy to counter the soft lullaby of a center-right national security state. The left is just so riddled with statism now that they end up being unwitting allies of people like Bush 43 and Trump.

Neocon. Cries against tyrannical government. Supports fascistic government leadership.

Who's a neocon? I am saying I would expect them to join me in the resistance against Trump, and I'll have extra weapons in my arsenal for the lefties who though a disarmed populace was a great idea.

 

[Coolluck]

I just don't understand how people think it's ok to give up all the guns and leave law enforcement with lethal weapons. I'd never be okay with that. If we'ere talking about getting rid of guns then police need to have their guns removed too. How can you just expect people to give up their power when the people who are supposed to protect them aren't any better than legally sanctioned gangs.

To me, those who cling to their guns are doing so because they fear the government is going to get tyrannical, not necessarily the police. And guess what? If the government wanted to take on the citizens, our guns wouldn't do much against their advanced weaponry.

 

[Beartruck]

I just don't understand how people think it's ok to give up all the guns and leave law enforcement with lethal weapons. I'd never be okay with that. If we'ere talking about getting rid of guns then police need to have their guns removed too. How can you just expect people to give up their power when the people who are supposed to protect them aren't any better than legally sanctioned gangs.

I don't understand how people think owning a pistol is a suitable defense against the US government. You have a gun, they have 20 aircraft carriers. You couldn't win if you tried.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

To me, those who cling to their guns are doing so because they fear the government is going to get tyrannical, not necessarily the police. And guess what? If the government wanted to take on the citizens, our guns wouldn't do much against their advanced weaponry.

Not the Federal government I worry about. But the State and County level. History has taught me that. Not gonna Rosewood me.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

I don't understand how people think owning a pistol is a suitable defense against the US government. You have a gun, they have 20 aircraft carriers. You couldn't win if you tried.

Well there are a few things to consider. Do you think US soldiers would automatically follow orders to take out citizens if some sort of revolution happened? Fire upon their own houses, communities, families, etc.

Second, the US military has shown pretty profound weaknesses against unorganized/guerrilla forces - even when those forces have significantly less firepower and technology.

But of course the idea of something like this happening is nonsensical in general.

 

[BokehKing]

You missed that poster's point. It won't. Based on statistics. It will make you more likely to die actually if that somehow happens.

Idk, that sounds like fear mongering to me
If someone wants to break into my house and get hit by a shotgun, that's fine with me.

I don't want a gun because I like them, I hate them...
But I will learn to respect it and learn how to use it because there are too many people out there with illegal guns

 

[GaimeGuy]

If the point does come where the government becomes tyrannical and the people want to rise up against it, then it doesn't matter if the people are or are not allowed to bear arms. The government at that point will not allow for it, and the people will not abide by it. If we consider the "need" for the second amendment under that kind of interpretation, it's at a point where no one gives a damn what the government should or shouldn't be allowed to do (within the government or outside of it).

It's fucking pointless to make it legal to arm the population in preparation for a revolution which will only occur when the population and the law are no longer on the same side. The whole point of the militias were that they fell under the control of the states, rather than the federal government, as a check against centralized military might.

We realized it was a terrible idea after the war of 1812. We never repealed the 2nd amendment but everyone understood that militias were fucking terrible at securing the peace. Militias became bounty hunters/mercenaries who caught escaped slaves and monitored the activity in the fields of plantations. Until the slaves were freed. Then the gun manufacturers started using the second amendment as a marketing tool for business around the turn into the 20th century. Which eventually created the illogical interpretation of the second amendment we have today that hobbyists hide behind because they have no argument.

 

[HyperionX]

Well there are a few things to consider. Do you think US soldiers would automatically follow orders to take out citizens if some sort of revolution happened? Fire upon their own houses, communities, families, etc.

The police does that already. It's not a stretch of the imagination to think that soldiers can be convinced to do the same thing on a larger scale.

Second, the US military has shown pretty profound weaknesses against unorganized/guerrilla forces - even when those forces have significantly less firepower and technology.

They win every fight, they just aren't willing to fight it long enough or with enough boots on the ground to completely wipe out the insurgents. The recent wars are all cases of the US not wanting to continue fighting rather than any real inability to win.

 

[Jonm1010]

Not the Federal government I worry about. But the State and County level. History has taught me that. Not gonna Rosewood me.

Oh jesus, not this shit again.

 

[Jonm1010]

I don't think I have met any libertarian/minarchist who would support a fascist style leader, or supports Trump. We can hardly put up with the soft corporate tyranny we have now.

Of course the dumbass dupes of Conservative, Inc. can sometimes be a different story. People like me try to keep them inoculated with enough Lockean philosophy to counter the soft lullaby of a center-right national security state. The left is just so riddled with statism now that they end up being unwitting allies of people like Bush 43 and Trump.



Who's a neocon? I am saying I would expect them to join me in the resistance against Trump, and I'll have extra weapons in my arsenal for the lefties who though a disarmed populace was a great idea.

If there were that many libertarians and minarchists out there maybe so. But as Trump's, Cruz's and other fascist-esque candidates have shown, most of the conservative party is very happy throwing support behind the people most likely to lead us down the path they claim they need their guns for.

The biggest threat it seems in this country currently is from the right and not the left. Meaning a lot of the gun totting 2nd amenders would act more like fascist pawns then noble revolutionists. I mean, look at the rhetoric against minorities and Muslims.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

The police does that already. It's not a stretch of the imagination to think that soldiers can be convinced to do the same thing on a larger scale.



They win every fight, they just aren't willing to fight it long enough or with enough boots on the ground to completely wipe out the insurgents. The recent wars are all cases of the US not wanting to continue fighting rather than any real inability to win.

Hah, you have a point on the first one. Although I still think it's a different situation/circumstances that lead to that.

For the second, really just about every conflict since Korea has been questionable. Even that was a stalemate at best. And most of these wars were driven by deeply held ideologies regarding halting the progression of communism/non-democratic movements, and spreading freedom everywhere for all the kiddos. I mean massive items that have shaped post-WWII US politics. Vietnam had a WWII-style draft attached to it!

Sure the thought is well, "we just don't want to spend any more money and soldiers," but you can't deny even being put into that decision making process caught leaders completely off-guard and left them scrambling. When you have to think about political perception when you're making a decision in war because you ran into much more shit than expected, you've about lost.

 

[The Mule]

FUUUUUCK

The prophecies are true! Obama coming to take our guns.

You'll see, third term incoming.

Sort off like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo4cFViNLes&t=1m

Emperor Obama has a certain ring to it, don't you think?

 

[flyover]

Idk, that sounds like fear mongering to me
If someone wants to break into my house and get hit by a shotgun, that's fine with me.

I don't want a gun because I like them, I hate them...
But I will learn to respect it and learn how to use it because there are too many people out there with illegal guns

It sounds like you're arguing for why you want a gun in good faith. So, I'll ask you a question in the same vein. How do you see a scenario playing out in which having a gun would help you? Will it just make you feel more secure; will you somehow advertise that you have a gun to prevent theft; or do you envision a scene in which you have the gun in the right place at the right time, and the potential thieves act in a predictable enough manner that you're able to prevent the crime?

My personal perspective, which obviously is only anecdotal... When I was younger I lived in a crap neighborhood where my house and car were robbed a few times (both with me at home and away) and I was held up at gunpoint. When I lived at home with my parents, a crazy neighbor fired a rifle through a sliding glass door into my family's living room at my mom (who wound up okay). In none of these cases can I envision how a gun would have helped. If anything, I can only see how the the gun itself could've been stolen (putting another illegally owned gun in circulation), or I think a shitty situation may have been elevated into a deadly one (maybe for me).

Being a victim of burglary makes you feel weak and violated; it really does. But it looks like under than a quarter of one percent (733/350000 in 2012) of all reported robberies in the US in 2012 also ended in homicide. It could be even lower, since so many robberies go unreported. As much as the possibility of getting robbed sucks, I figure better to lose my stuff than to lose a life (or have another gun out there in circulation).

 

[Jisgsaw]

Well there are a few things to consider. Do you think US soldiers would automatically follow orders to take out citizens if some sort of revolution happened? Fire upon their own houses, communities, families, etc.

Well, if they don't (which I agree with)... what do you need a gun for again?

 

[Peltz]

The proposed executive order is absolutely fascinating from a legal perspective.

What precedents are there for such an order from the Executive Branch?

(Sometimes I wish I were still in law school)

 

[Cybit]

You just sound insane to me.

It's worth remembering that for a lot of first generation immigrants - there's a large chunk of the world where armed resistance against the government is a thing. I am pretty pro gun control (sensible gun control, admittedly) - but I have two coworkers who immigrated here recently who are very anti gun control; both of them come from areas where they wish they had guns to protect themselves (Middle East and Balkans).

I don't know if the poster you are referring to is from a situation like that; but with the unrest of the Middle East (especially the Arab Spring) - there's some precedent for fear of the government and an armed uprising.

 

[lednerg]

This is wrong. Militia at that time universally meant an armed population...not something controlled by the state. That is why the language of the amendment says "the people" and does not reference state governments.

The founders believed in an armed citizenry as a bulwark against tyranny. Period. Any attempt to make it seem like they didn't is just a lie.

Also, at the time "well regulated" meant well trained. The word had a different meaning then. Basically, they wanted an adult male population that was armed and well trained in the use of arms.

Of course, those who want to take away individual liberties love nothing more than to twist and play word games and remove the historical context. They ignore all other writings of the founders, and the state constitutions of the time which demonstrate that the right was universally believed to reside in individuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

President Washington lead a force of local militiamen to squash the Whiskey Rebellion, a revolt against taxing whiskey. This happened shortly after the Second Amendment was put into place -- done by the very same founding fathers who wrote it. The militias were absolutely entities of the State. If the militias were supposedly there to protect against 'tyranny', then they sure had their guns pointed the wrong way.

 

[Scrooged]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

President Washington lead a force of local militiamen to squash the Whiskey Rebellion, a revolt against taxing whiskey. This happened shortly after the Second Amendment was put into place -- done by the very same founding fathers who wrote it. The militias were absolutely entities of the State. If the militias were supposedly there to protect against 'tyranny', then they sure had their guns pointed the wrong way.

Uh, the Constitution gives Congress the power to utilize militias. Nobody ever said that militias were completely separate from the federal government. The point is that they can be used against tyranny. How do you think the Confederates and the Union got their armies in the Civil War? They called on the militia.

 

[lednerg]

Uh, the Constitution gives Congress the power to utilize militias. Nobody ever said that militias were completely separate from the federal government. The point is that they can be used against tyranny. How do you think the Confederates and the Union got their armies in the Civil War? They called on the militia.

The person I was responding to said they weren't controlled by the State.

 

[Scrooged]

The person I was responding to said they weren't controlled by the State.

And the person he was responding to was saying that militias needed to be associated with the State to be a thing. The militia itself is just the people.

 

[lednerg]

And the person he was responding to was saying that militias needed to be associated with the State to be a thing. The militia itself is just the people.

From that same Wiki page:

"...Because relatively few men volunteered for militia service, a draft was used to fill out the ranks. Draft evasion was widespread, and conscription efforts resulted in protests and riots, even in eastern areas. Three counties in eastern Virginia were the scenes of armed draft resistance. In Maryland, Governor Thomas Sim Lee sent 800 men to quash an antidraft riot in Hagerstown; about 150 people were arrested."​

If the militias were "just the people", then why was there a draft?

 

[televator]

Hey there my fellow militias. This thread still going?

I call people militias. That's not weird at all.

 

[Rusty "Two Shacks" Elford]

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Sup, my militias?

 

[sprsk]

We all militias now

 

[appaws]

Well fuck, I can't be in a militia? Fuck you, 10 U.S. Code § 311.


...but seriously, has he made an actually Order yet? This thread is still weird with people arguing about something that hasn't happened yet.

No, he hasn't yet. This is something that has been kicking around the administration's legal advisors for a few years now. I don't think they saw it as something that would stand up, or make much of a practical difference, and that is why we haven't heard much about it until now.

There are a few very liberal legal scholars out there who make a strong case against executive orders being pushed forward as a way to circumvent a recalcitrant Congress, of course noting that when the pendulum swings you might have a President Cruz or Rubio using that same expanded authority.

I would think that the current Supreme Court would strike this down under Youngstown Steel's reasoning. Definitely 5-4, and maybe even with some of the liberal justices coming over because they do not want to broaden executive power.

My guess is (and I admit fully that I am speculating) is that this is political. Maybe a price paid to Michael Bloomberg to endorse Hillary Clinton, something like that. He is, after all, ostensibly an independent.

 

[RustyNails]

We all militias now

I am signing up for DJ Khaled's militia.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

This is not a healthy way to be going about this and will damage the gun control debate in the long run.

 

[Limited Edition]

Well fuck, I can't be in a militia? Fuck you, 10 U.S. Code § 311.

Not to worry, they made another law letting women in also.