If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RamblingBeachCat.com)   Why do all these gun nuts keep saying the Second Amendment is there to protect us from a tyrannical government? It's not like American citizens have had to take up arms to defend their rights in the last century...except that one time they did   (ramblingbeachcat.com) divider line 410
    More: Interesting, Government Issue, outer wall, political scandal, Boss Hogg, McMinn County  
•       •       •

6997 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jan 2013 at 9:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



410 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-14 08:48:15 AM
FTA: Great story...so what does it all mean for the gun control debate?To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. We can't have armed rebellion every time we disagree with local government; otherwise the entire country would be in absolutely anarchy.There's also a big difference between well trained soldiers operating guns and an individual stockpiling for his or her own personal armageddon...hence the "well regulated militia" part of the second amendment.

This, folks, is the type of rationality we need to hear significantly more often.
 
2013-01-14 08:58:17 AM
If you want the Second Amendment to work like that, we're going to need to drastically downscale our military.  If an armed rebellion were ever needed to secure the rights that the 'founding fathers' intended us to have, that rebellion would be swiftly annihilated by our incredibly affective (effective?) military.

And don't give me that 'our military would never fire on our fellow Americans' bullshiat.  It's all a matter of how the armed insurrection is portrayed by those in power.  If they can spin the propaganda machine properly, our soldiers will simply see them as 'the enemy' rather than their fellow Americans.
 
2013-01-14 09:18:12 AM

Cythraul: And don't give me that 'our military would never fire on our fellow Americans' bullshiat.


I wasn't going to.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-14 09:31:47 AM
I'll forgive the spelling and grammar mistakes, but why does he keep linking to the exact same article over and over again?
 
2013-01-14 10:04:43 AM
i.cdn.turner.com
"The person I voted for president wasn't elected!!! That means this is a TYRANNY!"
 
2013-01-14 10:05:07 AM
Who can forget in 1860 when us proud and noble Southerners defended our heritage and traditions from crude and tyrannical Yankees? I cannot and never will forget! The South will rise again and defeat the tyrannical usurpers that forced us to allow black people in our swimming pools!
 
2013-01-14 10:05:29 AM
How gun nuts see themselves:
www.carolinashootersclub.com

Reality:
www.flicklives.com
 
2013-01-14 10:06:33 AM
-Working with a friend of his in the state legislature to drastically redistrict McMinn County so that all opposition to him would be silenced.

-Making sure that during the next five election cycles (all of which Cantrell or one of his allies won), ballots were counted in secret by his men at the county jail.

-Refusing to adopt voting machines and insisting on hand counting ballots for the sake of "saving the county money."

-Making sure that his deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected to the position of sheriff in 1942 and 1944 while he was elected to that state legislature.


This all sounds like boilerplate republicanism today.
 
2013-01-14 10:07:21 AM
The second amendment was written when wars were decided by muskets, horses, and cannons. There is no chance, whatsoever, that armed Americans could hold their own against the US military today.

So either start insisting on the right to own satellite networks and stealth bombers, or admit the whole check-on-tyranny thing is bullshiat.
 
2013-01-14 10:07:26 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: How gun nuts see themselves:


Reality:


This is like two consecutive months where you've posted something that I agree with. I think thats a record for us.
 
2013-01-14 10:09:08 AM
I think armed insurrection is illegal, too...so if it came to that owning some illegal guns would be the least of your worries.

People always say that making guns illegal won't stop violent crime because if killers want to kill badly enough they'll find a way.

I suppose making guns illegal won't prevent Real'Muricans™ from stopping an evil, tyrannical mooslin usurper invasion because, like they say, they'll find a way.
 
2013-01-14 10:09:31 AM
It's not 1936 anymore. And they used dynamite because the guns weren't working.
 
2013-01-14 10:10:39 AM
None of this story involved the federal government as far as I can see, thus it doesn't really change the debate at all.
 
2013-01-14 10:10:45 AM

goodbomb: The second amendment was written when wars were decided by muskets, horses, and cannons. There is no chance, whatsoever, that armed Americans could hold their own against the US military today.

So either start insisting on the right to own satellite networks and stealth bombers, or admit the whole check-on-tyranny thing is bullshiat.


This too.
 
2013-01-14 10:13:10 AM

goodbomb: The second amendment was written when wars were decided by muskets, horses, and cannons. There is no chance, whatsoever, that armed Americans could hold their own against the US military today.

So either start insisting on the right to own satellite networks and stealth bombers, or admit the whole check-on-tyranny thing is bullshiat.


goodbomb: The second amendment was written when wars were decided by muskets, horses, and cannons. There is no chance, whatsoever, that armed Americans could hold their own against the US military today.

So either start insisting on the right to own satellite networks and stealth bombers, or admit the whole check-on-tyranny thing is bullshiat.


Meh, there's a lot of people with guns, and a lot of territory in the US. An armed resistance could hold out against the military for a long time.

But seriously, you think we're going to get our Army to start rounding up citizens? And our police? Just ready to go all black-helicopter on us?
 
2013-01-14 10:13:22 AM
If we put the same restrictions on voting that we put on guns then I think this discussion would go a lot smoother.
 
2013-01-14 10:14:25 AM

ghare: Meh, there's a lot of people with guns, and a lot of territory in the US. An armed resistance could hold out against the military for a long time.

But seriously, you think we're going to get our Army to start rounding up citizens? And our police? Just ready to go all black-helicopter on us?


You're suggesting rag-tag guerilla terrorism, but you'd be shocked to see the army fight back? You're not exactly high on anyone's "nice" list when you start shooting.
 
2013-01-14 10:15:18 AM
It also doesn't help my stance on gun control one bit. But rather than shouting and calling each other commies and rednecks, we need to look at both sides of this issue if we're ever going to resolve it.

Unfortunately, trying to see both sides of the situation gets you labeled by the anti gun people as a soulless inhuman moron. Strangely, the pro-gun people(Staunch conservatives who don't like moderate viewpoints) are a lot more welcoming of moderates in this debate.
 
2013-01-14 10:15:24 AM
ummm...

White and a few other men raided the National Guard armory, armed themselves along with several other fellow veterans, and marched down to the county jailhouse.

So meaningful gun control wouldn't have changed this story at all.
 
2013-01-14 10:15:48 AM

Krieghund: Cythraul: And don't give me that 'our military would never fire on our fellow Americans' bullshiat.

I wasn't going to.
[i.imgur.com image 712x450]


Ohio National Guard:

blogs.e-rockford.com

Panicky deferment -seekers aint exactly the military concerned.
 
2013-01-14 10:16:44 AM

LasersHurt: ghare: Meh, there's a lot of people with guns, and a lot of territory in the US. An armed resistance could hold out against the military for a long time.

But seriously, you think we're going to get our Army to start rounding up citizens? And our police? Just ready to go all black-helicopter on us?

You're suggesting rag-tag guerilla terrorism, but you'd be shocked to see the army fight back? You're not exactly high on anyone's "nice" list when you start shooting.


Once the military is used on its own people that "rosy" image many people have will diminish quickly.
 
2013-01-14 10:17:18 AM

Cythraul: If you want the Second Amendment to work like that, we're going to need to drastically downscale our military.  If an armed rebellion were ever needed to secure the rights that the 'founding fathers' intended us to have, that rebellion would be swiftly annihilated by our incredibly affective (effective?) military.

And don't give me that 'our military would never fire on our fellow Americans' bullshiat.  It's all a matter of how the armed insurrection is portrayed by those in power.  If they can spin the propaganda machine properly, our soldiers will simply see them as 'the enemy' rather than their fellow Americans.


This. If there were an armed rebellion, the US military would be on one side or the other. And that side would win. Your badass AR-15 would not affect the equation in anyway.

And to those who say "yeah but a bunch of farmers with guns beat a professional army in 1776", that professional army also had guns as its most effective tool. The fact that the two sides had the same weapons was enough to make home field advantage prevail.

And to those who say "yeah but Iraqi guerrillas beat the US" no, they didn't. They simply made us lose more than we would have liked, and took advantage of the US being constrained by rules of engagement that presumably a corrupt regime targeting its own citizens would not be constrained by. You don't want a "victory" like that.
 
2013-01-14 10:18:07 AM

ghare:
But seriously, you think we're going to get our Army to start rounding up citizens? And our police? Just ready to go all black-helicopter on us?


We might if they're Japanese and those no good Japs just bombed Pearl Harbor. You can't trust the Japs, you know. The say "I am loyal citizen", but you know they don't mean it.
 
2013-01-14 10:18:20 AM
The ones claiming that we need guns to protect us from the government also seem to have a huge overlap with the ones who refuse to discuss reducing the military budget.

Seems like a conflict of interest...
 
2013-01-14 10:19:11 AM
Fascinating story.

Still doesn't prove we need to respond to government tyranny with guns, just because these guys chose to handle it that way. In fact ...

Here's How Occupy Proved We Don't Need Guns Against The Government
 
2013-01-14 10:19:40 AM

HotWingConspiracy: -Working with a friend of his in the state legislature to drastically redistrict McMinn County so that all opposition to him would be silenced.

-Making sure that during the next five election cycles (all of which Cantrell or one of his allies won), ballots were counted in secret by his men at the county jail.

-Refusing to adopt voting machines and insisting on hand counting ballots for the sake of "saving the county money."

-Making sure that his deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected to the position of sheriff in 1942 and 1944 while he was elected to that state legislature.

This all sounds like boilerplate republicanism today.


I have absolutely no love for the GOP at all, but it's worth pointing out that Cantrell was a Democrat
 
2013-01-14 10:19:46 AM

Fail in Human Form: LasersHurt: ghare: Meh, there's a lot of people with guns, and a lot of territory in the US. An armed resistance could hold out against the military for a long time.

But seriously, you think we're going to get our Army to start rounding up citizens? And our police? Just ready to go all black-helicopter on us?

You're suggesting rag-tag guerilla terrorism, but you'd be shocked to see the army fight back? You're not exactly high on anyone's "nice" list when you start shooting.

Once the military is used on its own people that "rosy" image many people have will diminish quickly.


Yes, of course everyone will rally around the private citizens who start killing their neighbors. The Rebels will be as popular as great American heroes like Tim McVeigh.
 
2013-01-14 10:20:03 AM
So apparently in the 1940's, the state of Tennessee had no functioning government at all. If was nothing but a collection of county sized fiefdoms ruled like the wild wild west. No governor, no state police, no state election board. Nothing.

Seriously, why didn't the people who lived there go the capital and complain? I know things were different than today, but this pissant sheriff couldn't have had the whole state in his pocket, could he?
 
2013-01-14 10:20:29 AM

ghare: But seriously, you think we're going to get our Army to start rounding up citizens? And our police? Just ready to go all black-helicopter on us?


It's a worst case scenario. Could it happen now? Not likely. But the defense against a tyrannical government argument used by a lot of second amendment proponents assumes that at some point in the future, such a dystopian situation could be possible. And yeah, it could happen. It could happen to any nation, given the right conditions.
 
2013-01-14 10:20:41 AM

goodbomb: The second amendment was written when wars were decided by muskets, horses, and cannons. There is no chance, whatsoever, that armed Americans could hold their own against the US military today.

So either start insisting on the right to own satellite networks and stealth bombers, or admit the whole check-on-tyranny thing is bullshiat.


An insurgency could last for some time against the US military. But that said, I don't think the various militias are all that organized or smart, especially compared to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
 
2013-01-14 10:21:19 AM
It's not about 200 guys taking on the army. You people strawmanning the idea of "resistance" are the ones making ridiculous arguments.
 
2013-01-14 10:21:36 AM

Hollie Maea: Cythraul:
And don't give me that 'our military would never fire on our fellow Americans' bullshiat.  It's all a matter of how the armed insurrection is portrayed by those in power.  If they can spin the propaganda machine properly, our soldiers will simply see them as 'the enemy' rather than their fellow Americans.

This. If there were an armed rebellion, the US military would be on one side or the other. And that side would win. Your badass AR-15 would not affect the equation in anyway.


The teabagger fantasy is that the military will side with them because they're saving the country and the constitution from the evil socialist fartbongo.
 
2013-01-14 10:23:07 AM
First off, as has been noted, these guys were trained soldiers who got their weapons from the National Guard Armory, so it's already not a great analogy for the argument.

Secondly, the problem was not one that couldn't have been solved without weapons, since it was only a local government which was corrupt, state and federal governments could have been called upon to investigate and crack the corruption racket. It was harder then, but today all it would take is for one twitter post with pictures of armed officers blocking the polling station to bring everyone down on their heads. So no, arming civilians is still not shown to have ever been a good way of protecting the American people from tyrannical government.
 
2013-01-14 10:23:10 AM

jillwklausen: Fascinating story.

Still doesn't prove we need to respond to government tyranny with guns, just because these guys chose to handle it that way. In fact ...

Here's How Occupy Proved We Don't Need Guns Against The Government


Wow That whole article was one big example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Saying income inequality was only a campaign issue because of the occupy movement or that progressive candidates one because of it is a form of mental gymnastics rarely seen outside of fox news.
 
2013-01-14 10:23:21 AM

ghare:
Meh, there's a lot of people with guns, and a lot of territory in the US. An armed resistance could hold out against the military for a long time.

But seriously, you think we're going to get our Army to start rounding up citizens? And our police? Just ready to go all black-helicopter on us?


They could hold out a while I agree. But as I understand the check-against-tyranny meme, its basically about being able to carry out violent revolution. Bringing down the King kind of thing. And THAT, they certainly couldn't do (unless maybe half the army defected, which has nothing to do with gun control).

And no! Of course not. But its not nonsense. We base our government on John Locke and he said people have a right to revolt against a tyrannical government. The American Revolution wouldn't have worked if the British Empire had meaningful gun control.

But still, taking it seriously, I reject it. I'd rather significantly reduce gun crime than insist on my right to an Iraq-style bloody and ultimately pointless insurgency if I don't like my democratically elected government.
 
2013-01-14 10:23:41 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Fail in Human Form: LasersHurt: ghare: Meh, there's a lot of people with guns, and a lot of territory in the US. An armed resistance could hold out against the military for a long time.

But seriously, you think we're going to get our Army to start rounding up citizens? And our police? Just ready to go all black-helicopter on us?

You're suggesting rag-tag guerilla terrorism, but you'd be shocked to see the army fight back? You're not exactly high on anyone's "nice" list when you start shooting.

Once the military is used on its own people that "rosy" image many people have will diminish quickly.

Yes, of course everyone will rally around the private citizens who start killing their neighbors.


To some yes, as the government makes mistakes or over reacts. To others no, they'll side with the government and hate the rebels. Some would look at all the devastation and hate both sides.
 
2013-01-14 10:23:50 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Philip Francis Queeg: How gun nuts see themselves:


Reality:

This is like two consecutive months where you've posted something that I agree with. I think thats a record for us.


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-01-14 10:24:17 AM

Serious Black: goodbomb: The second amendment was written when wars were decided by muskets, horses, and cannons. There is no chance, whatsoever, that armed Americans could hold their own against the US military today.

So either start insisting on the right to own satellite networks and stealth bombers, or admit the whole check-on-tyranny thing is bullshiat.

An insurgency could last for some time against the US military. But that said, I don't think the various militias are all that organized or smart, especially compared to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.


Not to mention the local militias haven't spent the last few centuries fending off foreign invaders and local warlords.

Generally, the people good at insurgency have had a lot of practice.

We have TV and blocked arteries.
 
2013-01-14 10:24:24 AM
Because Tyranny by the well connected could never happen on a national level. Our government is clear of corruption of this type. No stolen elections. No corporate fascism. Nothing even came of that Citizens United case.


/Obvious troll is obvious.
 
2013-01-14 10:24:54 AM

Nickster79: HotWingConspiracy: -Working with a friend of his in the state legislature to drastically redistrict McMinn County so that all opposition to him would be silenced.

-Making sure that during the next five election cycles (all of which Cantrell or one of his allies won), ballots were counted in secret by his men at the county jail.

-Refusing to adopt voting machines and insisting on hand counting ballots for the sake of "saving the county money."

-Making sure that his deputy, Pat Mansfield, was elected to the position of sheriff in 1942 and 1944 while he was elected to that state legislature.

This all sounds like boilerplate republicanism today.

I have absolutely no love for the GOP at all, but it's worth pointing out that Cantrell was a Democrat


I figured as much, but it doesn't change what I posted.

Gerrymandering, "cost concerns", cronyism, this is all celebrated today.
 
2013-01-14 10:26:46 AM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net

Just sayin'...
 
2013-01-14 10:27:02 AM

Fail in Human Form: Philip Francis Queeg: Fail in Human Form: LasersHurt: ghare: Meh, there's a lot of people with guns, and a lot of territory in the US. An armed resistance could hold out against the military for a long time.

But seriously, you think we're going to get our Army to start rounding up citizens? And our police? Just ready to go all black-helicopter on us?

You're suggesting rag-tag guerilla terrorism, but you'd be shocked to see the army fight back? You're not exactly high on anyone's "nice" list when you start shooting.

Once the military is used on its own people that "rosy" image many people have will diminish quickly.

Yes, of course everyone will rally around the private citizens who start killing their neighbors.

To some yes, as the government makes mistakes or over reacts. To others no, they'll side with the government and hate the rebels. Some would look at all the devastation and hate both sides.


And of course the Patriot Rebels won't be making a mistake or overreacting when they start killing their fellow citizens. Every American they kill will be a victory for freedom!
 
2013-01-14 10:27:12 AM
That was a pretty reasonable argument and a good read. I disagree with his position on gun control, but at least he stated it in a calm, reasonable manner without resorting to stereotypes and name calling. We need more people like that on both sides of this issue. Sadly, I don't see that happening.
 
2013-01-14 10:27:51 AM
Couldn't they have just gotten the FBI involved?
 
2013-01-14 10:28:02 AM

iollow: It's not about 200 guys taking on the army. You people strawmanning the idea of "resistance" are the ones making ridiculous arguments.


Okay, so what is the correct, non-strawman argument for individual gun ownership with respect to the second amendment?
 
2013-01-14 10:28:36 AM

Testiclaw: Generally, the people good at insurgency have had a lot of practice.


Do you think most football fans look like this?
ideaelevator.co
 
2013-01-14 10:28:42 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: And of course the Patriot Rebels won't be making a mistake or overreacting when they start killing their fellow citizens. Every American they kill will be a victory for freedom!


It's all about the realness of their Americanicity. Patriot Rebels are simply Realer Americans, therefore it's okay when they kill less Real Americans.
 
2013-01-14 10:30:00 AM

cabbyman: If we put the same restrictions on voting that we put on guns then I think this discussion would go a lot smoother.



zappaisfrank: [sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 400x400]

Just sayin'...


See? Reagan did try to make gun and voting restrictions the same: whites only states' rights
 
2013-01-14 10:30:09 AM

Serious Black:
An insurgency could last for some time against the US military. But that said, I don't think the various militias are all that organized or smart, especially compared to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.


An insurgency that could last, underground, in the hills, I don't think that's a real check on tyranny.
 
2013-01-14 10:32:01 AM

nmrsnr: Okay, so what is the correct, non-strawman argument for individual gun ownership with respect to the second amendment?


The part where is says "the right of the people" and not "the right of the militia".

Militia = need.
The people = Us.

/not a gun owner
 
Displayed 50 of 410 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report