Other Let’s Have a Meaningful Discussion on Gun Control

[Peacemaker .45]

I think something that was left out of this discussion was an explanation of why the 2nd Amendment exists at all. The purpose of putting that in the Bill of Rights during the drafting of the Constitution was not to allow people to go hunting or even to ensure a means of protecting against criminals. These purposes were all secondary to the purposes of the Founders.

Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 46 (The Avalon Project : Federalist No 46), in which he lays out why it is that in the new system of federal government that they were attempting to build, the idea that the central federal government would become destructive of the ends of the people is prevented by the existence of, to quote the Amendment directly, "a well regulated militia."

Quoting from Madison:



Notice here how he constructs a situation in which the people are being opposed and frustrated by the very federal government the founders were in the process of setting up. Much of what concerned the founders about the form and function of the government they were creating was that it concentrated power in too small of an area. The founders were primarily afraid not of crime, but of the tyrannical nature of governance itself. The Bill of Rights is there to safeguard against the power of federal government.

To continue with Madison:



His purpose is to illustrate the absurdity of the numbers game between an army controlled by the federal government being set against the people, and a militia (2nd Amendment) composed of the people, nearly all of whom he assumes to be capable and willing to bear arms, and who number many times the men of the standing army.


The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to provide the citizens of the United States with the ability to, in case the federal government were to become abusive, alter, abolish, and/or replace it with a new government better suited to the protection of their freedoms and liberty.

The Declaration of Independence says as much:



Jefferson makes it very clear that it is not only an option, but rather the DUTY of the people to remove such an abusive government.




Now having said that, I pose to you the absurdity of the notion that people of the United States today have as effective a means to accomplish this as they did in the year 1787. In a world where the US Armed Forces have attack helicopters, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and guided missiles, consider the disparity that has grown between the strength of the standing army (regardless of number of men) and the strength of the people armed with pistols, shotguns, and the oh-so-dreaded "assault rifle."

Does this concern you? Does it bother you to know that the intention was to provide the people the means to keep their government in check, yet now that seems almost laughable in the state of today's mechanisms of warfare? What of the US Military? Surely even a tyrant in office in government could not simply order rights abuses against the people and expect the rank and file to carry out such outrageous orders? What about when Japanese Americans were rounded up and detained in camps during World War II with no preservation of the right to a trial or other form of due process? Can you really convince yourself that the military always has a perfectly clear conscience?

Yet today we must endure and endless stream of argumentation about how we don't "need" an AR-15 or semi-automatic weapon. The average citizen is perfectly fine with a small pistol with 5 rounds, or no gun at all in most cases.
Not only does this seem to be a step in the wrong direction, it contradicts the very founding ideas of this country and the reason it was established.

Do you want a nation where you live at the behest of the government? Or would you rather have what the founders intended, which is a government that is YOURS. A government which is owned, operated, and controlled BY THE PEOPLE, and not the other way around.



Use wisely your power of choice.



Remember that the United States is, to borrow from Benjamin Franklin, "A Republic... if you can keep it."

Absolutely beautifully said. Admittedly, I learned some stuff here. I had been familiar with the historical arguments for the 2nd Amendment. Though I never really got this deep into it as explained here. That, or I maybe forgot some over the years.

Either way, the historical context and reason as to why it was written was actually something I had looked forward to potentially getting into, as well as other things. But as the issue is complex on its own, there are many different things to cover. Unfortunately we didn’t get to it before. But I’m really glad you added this into the thread, as the historical context, reasons and arguments for it are so vitally important. I don’t have anything to add to this. It was worded perfectly, and I don’t think I could add more to it.

Thanks for adding it! You learn something new everyday.

 

[Suum]

As someone living in England I do find the entire debate a little nonsensical, but I'll shelve that briefly and step into the shoes of someone who has been raised on the right to bear arms. I think one of the most important things to recognise is what has already been mentioned - the purpose of the right. The primary notion (as has been explained fully enough that I don't wish to repeat) is to be able to hold the government accountable, the ability to remove that government should the need arise, and effectively offer that personal security against government. But I think people are often forgetting the comparatives. You need to consider what arms represent, as well as what a government represents now, compared to then.

Looking at the case of arms, the term both now and then is used to refer to firearms, specifically guns which can be carried. More recently people seem to associate arms with smaller handheld firearms, but the general theme is quite consistent. However, what a firearm represents has changed drastically. Jump back in history and firearms were nigh-on the pinnacle modern weaponry - there was artillery, sure, but it was often unreliable and in traditional confrontations artillery was used more for the purpose of disruption to allow for more traditional arms to actually secure the battle, so to speak. The firearm had considerable power. With the evolution of modern weaponry, the firearm still maintains power in a person to person relationship, but compared to the modern weaponry and training now held in a government, it is a minute entity.

Looking at governments, upon the establishment of your government, there was considerable mistrust. Now, I don't mean in terms of comparatively small things like not investing enough into healthcare, but things like oppression and the establishment of a new dictatorship. Also, the government was significantly smaller and local government had a lot more independence from the main entity. There was also considerably less transparency amongst the electorate. People crying about politicians lying now need to remember that the transparency we have today thanks to the internet, media scrutiny, and the possibility of viral leaks, is vastly superior to what it was then. You can cite cases of why not to trust the government til the cows come home, but there are simply less valid reasons for that mistrust now than there were then - it's about comparatives.

Where I'm coming to is a position where you have less reason to need to hold the government to account with the threat of military response and your military response itself is insignificant in comparison to what it represented at foundation. You're debating over gun control as a traditional right in a world where that tradition no longer holds merit. I'm not saying you shouldn't fight for the right, but ultimately the hyperbole around the topic is absurd - the gravity of the scenario can be compared to campaigning for the right to own a horse. Sure, it's great to own a horse. Horses are great. But what a horse once represented was the means of transportation (the primary means for a long time) and now... it represents a hobby with an aspect of transportation but no longer represents transportation or freedom itself.

The metaphoric power you're investing into the idea of your arms is (to me) false, basically. Arms did represent what intelligent people claim, but my point is that it no longer represents that at all. All you are doing is focusing all your attention on fighting for an issue which no longer means a damn thing to the government itself - this right was something you had to fight for, because it was something which could threaten the government establishment but was a neccessary tool to inspire trust by giving power to the people, in some respects. But now? The government benefits from the enormous trade of arms and doesn't feel remotely threatened by you.

The fight for gun rights was effectively fighting for your right to do something which would put the government at some disadvantage. Now you're fighting for the right to make your government money. It's a common saying to choose your battles, and if you spend all your time trying to win a battle that the government actually benefits from you winning then you're just not going to be able to win the ones that actually do matter.

What I'm trying to get across, perhaps a little crudely, is that I ultimately wouldn't care either way on the gun control debate, but wish to simply highlight that the issue just isn't worth fighting over any more.

 

[thoughtless]

Now having said that, I pose to you the absurdity of the notion that people of the United States today have as effective a means to accomplish this as they did in the year 1787. In a world where the US Armed Forces have attack helicopters, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and guided missiles, consider the disparity that has grown between the strength of the standing army (regardless of number of men) and the strength of the people armed with pistols, shotguns, and the oh-so-dreaded "assault rifle."

Does this concern you? Does it bother you to know that the intention was to provide the people the means to keep their government in check, yet now that seems almost laughable in the state of today's mechanisms of warfare? What of the US Military? Surely even a tyrant in office in government could not simply order rights abuses against the people and expect the rank and file to carry out such outrageous orders? What about when Japanese Americans were rounded up and detained in camps during World War II with no preservation of the right to a trial or other form of due process? Can you really convince yourself that the military always has a perfectly clear conscience?

Yet today we must endure an endless stream of argumentation about how we don't "need" an AR-15 or semi-automatic weapon. The average citizen is perfectly fine with a small pistol with 5 rounds, or no gun at all in most cases.
Not only does this seem to be a step in the wrong direction, it contradicts the very founding ideas of this country and the reason it was established.

Do you want a nation where you live at the behest of the government? Or would you rather have what the founders intended, which is a government that is YOURS. A government which is owned, operated, and controlled BY THE PEOPLE, and not the other way around.



Use wisely your power of choice.



Remember that the United States is, to borrow from Benjamin Franklin, "A Republic... if you can keep it."

I find this argument to be rather confusing. You said it yourself "I pose to you the absurdity of the notion that people of the United States today have as effective a means to accomplish this as they did in the year 1787." What I don't understand how you go from this line of thought to arguing that we should still keep our guns "to protect the ideas that the country was founded on", but ignore the fact (a fact that you proposed yourself) that it's completely futile in the world we live in today.

If the government did want to become tyrannical and force us under a dictatorship, we have literally no way of fighting back against them. Not only do we have the military against us, but we also have our militarized police force to fight against as well.

Case in point, if the government wants to kill you, then you die.

Having an AR-15 isn't going to change that when drones can just bomb you from the sky, so I think the argument that you don't need a AR-15 is still stands.

The 2nd amendment has become outdated, as literally no one back then could've predicted the weaponry our governments would have now. Thankfully, there is still somewhat of a democracy in the USA. We can still vote on who we want to be President, and even then the President doesn't have total power because of our checks and balances system, which, besides the 2nd Amendment, was also put in place as a fail safe against a potential dictatorship.

Really, what I'm trying to say is that it's a little bit too late to worry about the fact that we live in a country that has the strongest military in the world largest military in the world, a title which we've been repping for quite some time now. AR-15s aren't going to help us, and from the little data that we have do to the fact that the CDC can't safely do any research on gun violence, I find it safe to say that they're actually doing more harm than anything.

EDIT: And just as an added point, giving up our guns isn't living at the behest at the government when we still have the power to vote their asses out of office the soonest that we can. I'd sooner argue that giving up our right to vote would be allowing the government to take over, since so many people are under the idea of "My vote won't change anything so why vote?"

 

[Suum]

I find this argument to be rather confusing. You said it yourself "I pose to you the absurdity of the notion that people of the United States today have as effective a means to accomplish this as they did in the year 1787." What I don't understand how you go from this line of thought to arguing that we should still keep our guns.

If the government did want to become tyrannical and force us under a dictatorship, we have literally no way of fighting back against them. Not only do we have the military against us, but we also have our militarized police force to fight against as well.

Case in point, if the government wants to kill you, then you die.

Having an AR-15 isn't going to change that when drones can just bomb you from the sky, so I think the argument that you don't need a AR-15 is still stands.

The 2nd amendment has become outdated, as literally no one back then could've predicted the weaponry our governments would have now. Thankfully, there is still somewhat of a democracy in the USA. We can still vote on who we want to be President, and even then the President doesn't have total power because of our checks and balances system, which, besides the 2nd Amendment, was also put in place as a fail safe against a potential dictatorship.

Really, what I'm trying to say is that it's a little bit too late to worry about the fact that we live in a country that has the strongest military in the world, a title which we've been repping for quite some time now. AR-15s aren't going to help us, and from the little data that we have do to the fact that the CDC can't safely do any research on gun violence, I find it safe to say that they're actually doing more harm than anything.

Just wanted to say I do agree with most of this but wanted to comment on the last part. The USA has the largest military budget I believe, but there really is very little evidence as to the country having the strongest military in the world. It's a topic for another debate perhaps, but US military history is really quite poor and lined with more shameful performances than praiseworthy victories. It would be more accurate to claim perhaps the best funded or largest military.

There is a reason why the glory of the USA, military might of the USA, beacon of freedom that the USA is, and more, is primarily taught in... the USA. Pinch of salt and all that.

 

[thoughtless]

Just wanted to say I do agree with most of this but wanted to comment on the last part. The USA has the largest military budget I believe, but there really is very little evidence as to the country having the strongest military in the world. It's a topic for another debate perhaps, but US military history is really quite poor and lined with more shameful performances than praiseworthy victories. It would be more accurate to claim perhaps the best funded or largest military.

There is a reason why the glory of the USA, military might of the USA, beacon of freedom that the USA is, and more, is primarily taught in... the USA. Pinch of salt and all that.

Fair enough, but I did mean to equate strongest with size and the equipment that our military has, more than anything else, so it was a lack of clarification on my part.

 

[Ghan]

Looking at governments, upon the establishment of your government, there was considerable mistrust. Now, I don't mean in terms of comparatively small things like not investing enough into healthcare, but things like oppression and the establishment of a new dictatorship. Also, the government was significantly smaller and local government had a lot more independence from the main entity. There was also considerably less transparency amongst the electorate. People crying about politicians lying now need to remember that the transparency we have today thanks to the internet, media scrutiny, and the possibility of viral leaks, is vastly superior to what it was then. You can cite cases of why not to trust the government til the cows come home, but there are simply less valid reasons for that mistrust now than there were then - it's about comparatives.

There's really nothing supporting this assumption. The argument contradicts itself. It is much easier to for a government to become abusive when it continues to concentrate power into a smaller and smaller area, which is a continuing trend in the United States. You are correct that the government was significantly smaller and more localized in the past. This was intended by the Founders, and movement away from that is more and more of a problem. It makes abuses of the federal government more varied as it continues to gain more and more influence in areas that previously would not have had any government involvement.

The media makes it more difficult, not easier, to discern the truth because they all have their own agendas they are trying to push. Accurate reporting of every fact and nothing more than the facts takes a back seat to partisan commentary and selective reporting everywhere you look. The massive size and scope of the US federal government means that it is more difficult than ever to understand the mechanisms and goings on. Though news traveled more slowly in the past, there was overall less of it, and government actions took much longer to happen. It also doesn't help that the people have become less and less aware of how their government operates over time.

Where I'm coming to is a position where you have less reason to need to hold the government to account with the threat of military response and your military response itself is insignificant in comparison to what it represented at foundation. You're debating over gun control as a traditional right in a world where that tradition no longer holds merit. I'm not saying you shouldn't fight for the right, but ultimately the hyperbole around the topic is absurd - the gravity of the scenario can be compared to campaigning for the right to own a horse. Sure, it's great to own a horse. Horses are great. But what a horse once represented was the means of transportation (the primary means for a long time) and now... it represents a hobby with an aspect of transportation but no longer represents transportation or freedom itself.

The metaphoric power you're investing into the idea of your arms is (to me) false, basically. Arms did represent what intelligent people claim, but my point is that it no longer represents that at all. All you are doing is focusing all your attention on fighting for an issue which no longer means a damn thing to the government itself - this right was something you had to fight for, because it was something which could threaten the government establishment but was a neccessary tool to inspire trust by giving power to the people, in some respects. But now? The government benefits from the enormous trade of arms and doesn't feel remotely threatened by you.

There is more need now than ever to hold the government to account. It continues to be more apparent that the US federal government oversteps its authority granted in the Constitution on a regular basis. This is not less reason to hold the government to account. It is more reason. The less the people are able to understand and direct the form and function of the government, the more than the founding principles of this nation are disappearing. Remember that the government is supposed to be of and by the people, not the other way around. It is designed for the protection of rights and enforcement of the rule of law, but it is ultimately answerable to the people. How can the people ensure, in the face of those actively working against the interests of the people and for their own gain, that the government maintains the boundaries set on it by the people? The final insurance against government overreach is the individual right to keep and bear arms.

What I'm trying to get across, perhaps a little crudely, is that I ultimately wouldn't care either way on the gun control debate, but wish to simply highlight that the issue just isn't worth fighting over any more.

To accept this is to concede that government may have free reign over the people to do with them whatever it pleases. Not only is it still worth the effort, it is now more critical than ever. The government belongs to the people. Not the other way around.

I find this argument to be rather confusing. You said it yourself "I pose to you the absurdity of the notion that people of the United States today have as effective a means to accomplish this as they did in the year 1787." What I don't understand how you go from this line of thought to arguing that we should still keep our guns "to protect the ideas that the country was founded on", but ignore the fact (a fact that you proposed yourself) that it's completely futile in the world we live in today.

I did not say that it was futile, nor do I believe that it is so. The scales have tipped somewhat, but it is far from being a completely one-sided affair. The point is that less ability for the people to bear arms is not the answer - that is moving in the wrong direction. In order for the people to properly maintain their government's operation, it is necessary that the 2nd Amendment be vigorously defended, especially against attack from officials inside the government itself. For such people, it is in their own selfish interest to deprive the people of their arms. For then, how would they be prevented from running the government as they please in opposition to the people?

Thankfully, there is still somewhat of a democracy in the USA. We can still vote on who we want to be President, and even then the President doesn't have total power because of our checks and balances system, which, besides the 2nd Amendment, was also put in place as a fail safe against a potential dictatorship.

Really, what I'm trying to say is that it's a little bit too late to worry about the fact that we live in a country that has the strongest military in the world largest military in the world, a title which we've been repping for quite some time now. AR-15s aren't going to help us, and from the little data that we have do to the fact that the CDC can't safely do any research on gun violence, I find it safe to say that they're actually doing more harm than anything.

EDIT: And just as an added point, giving up our guns isn't living at the behest at the government when we still have the power to vote their asses out of office the soonest that we can. I'd sooner argue that giving up our right to vote would be allowing the government to take over, since so many people are under the idea of "My vote won't change anything so why vote?"

The United States is not, and was never intended to be, a democracy. The Founders abhorred the idea of democracy and what it represents. Democracy is mob rule: Whatever the mob wants, the mob gets. The Constitution was designed to place the rule of law above the rule of the majority. Here, I turn again to James Madison, this time writing in Federalist No. 10, where he outlines the dangers of pure democracy compared to a republic:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

Also, there is no individual right to vote for US President. The US Constitution clarifies with regard to the Electoral College:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The US Supreme Court referenced this detail in the highly-covered Bush v. Gore case back in 2000 (BUSH v. GORE):

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.

Further, how do the people suppose to guarantee their voting privileges in the face of an oppressive government? A government abusive of its power is one most needing of the vote of the people to put things to rights, but at the same time is also a government most likely to ignore the text of the law and proceed on its own course, unheeded by a disarmed populace. The last and best protection against abuses of power and corruption in government is a strong and well-defended 2nd Amendment.

 

[Suum]

There's really nothing supporting this assumption. The argument contradicts itself. It is much easier to for a government to become abusive when it continues to concentrate power into a smaller and smaller area, which is a continuing trend in the United States. You are correct that the government was significantly smaller and more localized in the past. This was intended by the Founders, and movement away from that is more and more of a problem. It makes abuses of the federal government more varied as it continues to gain more and more influence in areas that previously would not have had any government involvement.

It is no assumption that there was mistrust in government at a point in time where a revolution occured to literally escape an oppressive government - the dictatorship example is also but an example to highlight the difference in gravity on the mistrust, rather than actually a claim being made. That aside, I think it may sound contradictory perhaps because the purpose of the point wasn't stressed enough. Whether or not government would be more or less abusive is... debateable on both sides, since you'd be comparing government corruption to local government corruption, and therefore government or individuals "representing" government. Both of these are known to be prone to corruption and I'm not sure I'd want to get into a debate over which is specifically more corrupt.

The point about local government is more to tie into the global argument presented, which is that in a local government scenario you would have had a lot more power to actually resist that corruption, which arms might proffer. In a national government power state, the arms do not have that same level of power as you are dealing with a national issue. To clarify, my argument is not for or against local government, or to compare which can be trusted more, but to highlight the move away from semi-autonomous local government to centralised government depreciates your ability to resist that government via arms. There's many reasons for this, but one of the most easily understandable is that your offering of a physical resistance to something which is unable to react on a local scale, and those which can react are too distanced from the problem itself to recognise the risk you pose.

It's perhaps my bad for not fully clarifying my point within that paragraph, and I can see why the mistrust and local/national points might seem linked in the way it's presented.

The media makes it more difficult, not easier, to discern the truth because they all have their own agendas they are trying to push. Accurate reporting of every fact and nothing more than the facts takes a back seat to partisan commentary and selective reporting everywhere you look. The massive size and scope of the US federal government means that it is more difficult than ever to understand the mechanisms and goings on. Though news traveled more slowly in the past, there was overall less of it, and government actions took much longer to happen. It also doesn't help that the people have become less and less aware of how their government operates over time.

On this point I need to return to my points on comparatives. We (more the USA than UK) criticise the media, and I can recognise there is certainly bias and often choice in what is or is not reported. I work in the media specifically. That said, what we presently have is a "pinch of salt" transparency. In most cases (though not all) the media will not directly lie, specifically because the punishments of doing so are quite severe. That said, the media does select what truths to share, share theories in too casual a manner, and often has an angle or bias. This doesn't take us away from the fact that there is a grain of truth in what's said, and if you filter that down (which the internet certainly allows for), then you can get a good grasp of events.

The comparative is not between a biased and unbiased media, but a biased and absolutely no media, or next to no media (I list both as there would have been loose forms, to some extent). The transparency we have now is far above and beyond what it was then. You, living on one side of the USA have... a vague idea of what's going on at the other. You have a biased but general overview of at least some of what the government is doing, and the internet can allow you to filter that and develop a loose understanding. Historically, you had next to nothing. As a comparative, we have far more transparency and knowledge now, and can keep a far closer eye on things. It's about comparatives.

There is more need now than ever to hold the government to account. It continues to be more apparent that the US federal government oversteps its authority granted in the Constitution on a regular basis. This is not less reason to hold the government to account. It is more reason. The less the people are able to understand and direct the form and function of the government, the more than the founding principles of this nation are disappearing. Remember that the government is supposed to be of and by the people, not the other way around. It is designed for the protection of rights and enforcement of the rule of law, but it is ultimately answerable to the people. How can the people ensure, in the face of those actively working against the interests of the people and for their own gain, that the government maintains the boundaries set on it by the people? The final insurance against government overreach is the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Whilst you are right in saying the government oversteps its authority, your point is actually enforcing my previous point. It becomes more apparent not because the government is doing more, but because you now know more about it. That's the transparency I'm getting at. There is a chance for people such as yourselves to learn these things because of the increased access to data, transparency, and perhaps most prominently, the internet. Governments have always and perhaps will always have corruption, and there are certainly periods of time when this is more than others. I think it would take some evidence to claim that present day is at the high end of the scale as a comparative - I can't specifically claim it's higher or lower in corruption, but all evidence I've seen does point towards it being average or less. The difference is the awareness of the corruption, which is higher than usual (back to my previous point).

That said, I didn't actually say less reason to hold the government to account, I said less reason to hold the government to acount with military action. Military action is a last resort, and with the abundance of information now at your disposal, other options are more feasible and readily available - this pushes you further and further away from the last resort to a point in time where military action is insanely unlikely because it's simply not needed to pressure government. Back to my point, also, it's less impactful too. This means you're left with more options and the military option has less of an effect.

The closest examples I can give for this (I say closest because we lack any actual american revolutions right now) would be traditional strikes and also the gun shootings. On the note on the strikes, this has also been a thing in the UK. Strikes no longer have a profound impact. See the strikes against Trump on his inauguration, it made waves, but it changed absolutely nothing. That's one example of many - historically those strikes would have had at least some kind of impact considering the scale. Then take the gun shootings, you have public outrage, but the government is very reluctant to react beyond sympathy and the usual policy theory. What's shocking people into action is not actually shocking the government into action there. That's part of the reason we have the whole gun debate, because people have voiced opinion and government is... happy to talk but reluctant to do, or says it would like to do, but also isn't doing... there's no urgency there.

The issue isn't even about extremes, hence the two examples, but simply that the conventional means of getting a reaction do not now get the reaction.

To accept this is to concede that government may have free reign over the people to do with them whatever it pleases. Not only is it still worth the effort, it is now more critical than ever. The government belongs to the people. Not the other way around.

I think unfortuntely my point did get lost a little. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't have weight over your government. What I'm arguing is that your arms have no weight. The arms trade benefits the government in giving you pseudo-security and a highly profitble arms trade. Arms do not represent what they once did. Hence my analogy of fighting for the right to have a horse. The analogy was not to cease fighting for the right to travel (the original purpose of the horse), but that the horse no longer represents that, and thus fighting for that right is meaningless, especially when there are more important fights to fight.

If your government moves with the times, and you do not, then that is the reality in which you are left powerless.

As a sidenote, the notion of a government for the people, by the people, is unfortunately a catchphrase. It would be dfficult to argue that the American government has ever really been for the people. Comparatively, at its establishment, it was far more for the people than under British rule (since that's how empires work), but that's a comparative. There are very few instances of modern governments which have ever really been for "the people".

 

[thoughtless]

Further, how do the people suppose to guarantee their voting privileges in the face of an oppressive government? A government abusive of its power is one most needing of the vote of the people to put things to rights, but at the same time is also a government most likely to ignore the text of the law and proceed on its own course, unheeded by a disarmed populace. The last and best protection against abuses of power and corruption in government is a strong and well-defended 2nd Amendment.

I don't find it necessary to reply to the rest of your post as it doesn't really address the main point of my argument, and a lot of it deals with my wording more than anything else. In essence, my argument is this; What is the point of defending the 2nd Amendment when it is already rendered useless in the USA as it stands today? The 2nd Amendment was to guarantee a free state. Yet, because of the power the USA military wields, we are unable to do this with the weapons that citizens have access to today. The advanced weaponry gap has grown exponentially, more so than there ever was between America and the British. In general, it's hard to argue for a stronger 2nd Amendment when we have exemplary evidence that guns are doing more harm than good.

The whole point of me bringing up voting was to say that it is one of the tools that we have in place to ensure that we never do come to have an oppressive government in the first place. I also don't think that it could ever fully become oppressive because we have a system of checks and balances. The only way I can see a complete oppressive government in the USA is if our Executive, Legislative and Judiciary branches all became corrupted, as one branch can not act without the other.

I'm of the mind that keeping 2nd Amendment so that we can fight against an oppressive state is fighting a losing battle. We'd do better if we tried to make sure there were other ways to keep our government from becoming oppressive.

EDIT: And this is more for clarifications sake than anything else, but when I say that civilians would lose to the army and police, I am talking about a civil war, Union vs Confederacy type of hypothetical scenario. Realistically, we would probably receive outside aid.

EDIT: It's also necessary to note that right now, the call for gun control is largely coming from citizens themselves. This isn't the big bad government trying to take away our rights, and honestly they've done little that would indicate them doing so. This is change the civilians themselves want to see, which I think is very much appealing to the "for the people, by the people."

 

[cl0ud]

clouds don't have arms so...

 

[tinywallfowergirl]

Hi