Should the Second Amendment be revisited?

[JDHURF]

From what I've seen of this particular thread, I'm the only one being serious. This is such a ridiculous thread that many of the people having serious arguments about gun control won't even post in it. I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time with you guys, who are either just trolling or being obstinately dumb.

You think a massive armed revolt, much larger than the Michigan militia, is just going to spontaneously emerge and the Feds are just going to be caught by surprise, even though they are more than capable of sniffing out little Christian militias full of jackasses in Michigan? I mean come on. This is retarded.

[The Comrade]

so those idiots in michigan constituted an armed rebellion?

thank god we lived through the second american revolution.

[JDHURF]

I will repeat: You think a massive armed revolt, much larger than the Michigan militia, is just going to spontaneously emerge and the Feds are just going to be caught by surprise, even though they are more than capable of sniffing out little Christian militias full of jackasses in Michigan? I mean come on. This is retarded.

[The Comrade]

because that militia posted about it openly on the internet lol.

but yes, if the US was in such a position that armed revolts were likely people who post about it on the internet are likely to get caught. by the FBI. which no other nation, like syria for example, has. secret police only exist in the US.



also lol at the belief that the US has somehow transcended the issue of civil disorder.

[WizardfromOz]

[JDHURF]

Well I'm in favor of socialist transformation. But I'm not so naive to think that the 2nd amendment allows for an "irregular force" to overthrow the largest, most sophisticated military to ever exist.

The Michigan militia was under surveillance before any internet shenanigans.

I don't know who com thinks he's talking to, but I would love for him to quote where I ever said the U.S. "has somehow transcended the issue of civil disorder." I'm quite sure I said no such thing. But I will go ahead and say right now that the U.S. is nowhere near an armed insurrection and if there were to be one it would be virtually immediately eviscerated.

[exploited]

It is pretty clear you have very little understanding of how revolution works. You seem to be under the impression that they appear fully armed and trained out of nowhere, and that we are somehow confusing fringe militias with a force capable of harming the US military. These things take time. It is true that we are nowhere close to that point, but that is about the extent of the logic in your argument.

The basis of your argument is that people are too stupid to figure out how to harm the US government, and that the military is a totally unified, omniscient force capable of squashing any rebellion, when that just isn't the case. The US military could be paralyzed by an attack upon infrastructure, both hard and soft, which is why people are making such a big deal about cyber warfare. It could also be divided pretty easily, as not many soldiers are eager to unleash force against American towns and cities, especially against a hypothetical movement that has far, far more justification and support than your run of the mill Christian militia.

No one is arguing we have the capability now, or even the desire to revolt. But I can assure you that the Second Amendment would go a long ways to protecting the initial state. If having an assault rifle is a crime in and of itself, that has an undeniably negative impact on the potential for revolution. Anybody can see that. You can't rationally argue otherwise, unless you are of the opinion that not having arms makes an armed rebellion easier... which is, of course, totally illogical.

Now you can continue to call everyone dumb, and express your hilarious flabbergasted opinions all you want. Just be aware that you look like a tool. You want a socialist transformation, perhaps you should read up on the likelihood of that happening without a sustained rebellion. The historical record shows that revolutions start peacefully, transform into belligerence, evolve into open hostility, and finally, if they are to succeed, direct action against political authority.

This typically takes place after years of organizing, and is really the tip of the iceberg. The fact that you don't get this really indicates a lack of intellectual honesty, as does your implication that we think an IED campaign is enough, or that the Michigan militia is how such a revolution would be organized.

Everybody is aware of the difficulties a revolution would face. It is only you who thinks it is impossible. Even the federal government knows its possible... why do you think they are dedicating so many resources to infiltrating protest groups, militias, political movements, etc.? For fun? Because they aren't threatened? Or is it because such groups represent what the ruling class fears most?

The whole idea that the US military, composed of volunteers, would unleash even a fraction of its power on American civilians and cities is simply laughable. Such an act would drive thousands of soldiers to the other side, a phenomenon witnessed in just about every successful revolution in the past two hundred years. It would also harm their own capabilities more than that of the rebellion, as American financial strength is the bedrock of its military power, and the strength of any irregular force is goading the big boss into doing something stupid.

Being difficult does not mean being impossible, and the idea that people having access to assault rifles, explosives and other lethal weapons isn't crucial for the initial stages is, to put it simply, delusional.

[eynon81]

[Medius]

[The Dharma Bum]