The origin of the Second Amendment

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 I agree with Altherion that guerrilla warfare can be very effective against a modern army. That said, Kalbear's point that the 2nd Amendment does very little to make effective resistance viable is a good one.

 In my hometown there is a large National Guard/Army reserve armory. They store automatic weapons, grenades, armored vehicles, jeeps, trucks and the like there. That armory is staffed mostly by local reservists. I would think that these depots would likely to become a more effective source of equipment and material should a conflict of the nature you guys are describing should break out. And in that instance I imagine you would likely have a fair percentage of these reservists and guardsmen (who are mostly local) stand with a local insurgency. Or at the very least they would be reluctant to engage with their neighbors.  

[DunderMifflin]

The government ensuring that citizens possess the leadership, organization, and supplies to conduct a resistence is in no way a parallel to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee that government buys you a gun and forces you to learn how to use it. 

But again, I'm all in favor of government giving people the right to organize themselves, choose their own leaders and to provide electronics for themselves.

I mean the right for people to do these things for themselves if they choose, not the right for government to provide and force people to have these things.

[Kalbear]

27 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

The government ensuring that citizens possess the leadership, organization, and supplies to conduct a resistence is in no way a parallel to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee that government buys you a gun and forces you to learn how to use it. 

No, it doesn't guarantee those things.

But that was the original purpose of the 2nd amendment. The goal was to ensure that every state had a militia that could be used to fight tyranny, both foreign and domestic. And the way in which they believe they could best guarantee that would be to specify that everyone could have arms for the purpose of having a well-regulated militia. (Regulation in this case means well-taken care of and trained, not restricted via regulations). 

27 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

But again, I'm all in favor of government giving people the right to organize themselves, choose their own leaders and to provide electronics for themselves.

I mean the right for people to do these things for themselves if they choose, not the right for government to provide and force people to have these things.

But it also means that the government should not restrict those rights. IE, if you want to have a personal satellite system, you should be able to. If you want to have your own network free of government intervention, you should be able to. If you want to be able to keep your information hidden and encrypted you should be able to. These are emphatically NOT rights given and can be removed per the government's whim. 

[DunderMifflin]

2 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

No, it doesn't guarantee those things.

But that was the original purpose of the 2nd amendment. The goal was to ensure that every state had a militia that could be used to fight tyranny, both foreign and domestic. And the way in which they believe they could best guarantee that would be to specify that everyone could have arms for the purpose of having a well-regulated militia. (Regulation in this case means well-taken care of and trained, not restricted via regulations). 

But it also means that the government should not restrict those rights. IE, if you want to have a personal satellite system, you should be able to. If you want to have your own network free of government intervention, you should be able to. If you want to be able to keep your information hidden and encrypted you should be able to. These are emphatically NOT rights given and can be removed per the government's whim. 

Im in favor of these things becoming rights. I mean if that's really is the spirit if the 2nd amendment.

 I don't think these things can be so easily removed via the government's whim anyway. Might as well say - the government doesn't grant citizens the right to drive automobiles so the government could easily on a whim prevent people from access to them.

If the technology and idea exists then government isnt easily going to be able to shut it down. 

 

Why doesn't the US military just prevent ISIS from recruiting on the internet if it's so easy to just shut it down like that.

 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Im in favor of these things becoming rights. I mean if that's really is the spirit if the 2nd amendment.

 I don't think these things can be so easily removed via the government's whim anyway. Might as well say - the government doesn't grant citizens the right to drive automobiles so the government could easily on a whim prevent people from access to them.

That is 100% true, actually. Driving a car is not a right. It can be taken away from you. And this is precisely what the founders cared about - preventing  the government from having the power to remove things that were necessary for preventing tyranny. 

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

If the technology and idea exists then government isnt easily going to be able to shut it down. 

Why doesn't the US military just prevent ISIS from recruiting on the internet if it's so easy to just shut it down like that.

 

They do at times, but they do not control things like foreign servers for starters. The other issue is that the US has broadly freedom of speech, meaning that they cannot restrict the rights of the media except in very narrow circumstances. This would again be an example of a right vs. a non-right. 

[DunderMifflin]

17 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

That is 100% true, actually. Driving a car is not a right. It can be taken away from you. And this is precisely what the founders cared about - preventing  the government from having the power to remove things that were necessary for preventing tyranny. 

But there's a huge difference between government saying you can't have something and them actually stopping you from having something.

In the event of some sort of organized revolt, I don't think the government is going to easily do anything. It's likely going to be a nightmare for everybody. Including people who can afford to retreat to a private island.(which could probably be spun as de facto deportation)

And there would be nothing stopping say Iran from harboring and aiding people who revolt against US government. With things like the use of servers and such.

 

 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

But there's a huge difference between government saying you can't have something and them actually stopping you from having something.

And there's an even bigger difference between the entire government system being unable to prevent you from legally having something. 

You're thinking way too short-term. Imagine if the US outlawed cars to be made any more. Yes, there would be cars on the roads for a while. And even some enterprising people would be able to manufacture them, for a time (though that would be illegal). But they'd start to disappear, or stop working, or the roads would stop being repaired, and the government would be legally able to arrest you and imprison you for having a car. And that's all without any tyranny or anything. In 20 years time, there aren't going to be a whole lot of cars left. If cars were necessary for freedom from tyranny, what would you be able to do about it in 20 years?

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

In the event of some sort of organized revolt, I don't think the government is going to easily do anything. It's likely going to be a nightmare for everybody. Including people who can afford to retreat to a private island.(which could probably be spun as de facto deportation)

And there would be nothing stopping say Iran from harboring and aiding people who revolt against US government. With things like the use of servers and such.

 

I really don't get this point at all. I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say. 

Why wouldn't the US government be able to do anything? In the case of a tyrannical US government, how are US citizens going to even get to Iran? Are you going to fly there via government-regulated and restricted air space? Are you going to boat there? When you're dealing with the US military what, precisely, is a safe space to go to? How would Iran be able to communicate with the US network, or anyone in the US be able to communicate with Iran? 

Right now, if the above occurred - the US government could essentially shut down every single part of your modern life. You could not travel anywhere. You could not get fuel, or electricity, or internet access that the government didn't want you to see. You could not travel outside the country without massive risk, and that assumes somewhere like Canada would be friendly to you (chances are good they would not). You could not pay anyone or even likely have access to your funds. You probably can't make a call on a cell phone, at least not one you own. And the US government can do all of these things and you cannot oppose them because you are not a threat to them. 

[DunderMifflin]

15 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

And there's an even bigger difference between the entire government system being unable to prevent you from legally having something. 

You're thinking way too short-term. Imagine if the US outlawed cars to be made any more. Yes, there would be cars on the roads for a while. And even some enterprising people would be able to manufacture them, for a time (though that would be illegal). But they'd start to disappear, or stop working, or the roads would stop being repaired, and the government would be legally able to arrest you and imprison you for having a car. And that's all without any tyranny or anything. In 20 years time, there aren't going to be a whole lot of cars left. If cars were necessary for freedom from tyranny, what would you be able to do about it in 20 years?

I really don't get this point at all. I'm not at all sure what you're trying to say. 

Why wouldn't the US government be able to do anything? In the case of a tyrannical US government, how are US citizens going to even get to Iran? Are you going to fly there via government-regulated and restricted air space? Are you going to boat there? When you're dealing with the US military what, precisely, is a safe space to go to? How would Iran be able to communicate with the US network, or anyone in the US be able to communicate with Iran? 

Right now, if the above occurred - the US government could essentially shut down every single part of your modern life. You could not travel anywhere. You could not get fuel, or electricity, or internet access that the government didn't want you to see. You could not travel outside the country without massive risk, and that assumes somewhere like Canada would be friendly to you (chances are good they would not). You could not pay anyone or even likely have access to your funds. You probably can't make a call on a cell phone, at least not one you own. And the US government can do all of these things and you cannot oppose them because you are not a threat to them. 

So you think that all citizens, even those not involved in a revolt are just going to be fine with the government banning the manufacture of automobiles?

Are they going to be cool if the government shuts down international travel?

Are citizens going to just roll over and trust in government when their electricity and internet is gone?

That's how it would have to be done, there couldn't be any picking and choosing of who gets their neccesities turned off.

Theres no way to know how many more people you are going to push to the side of revolt if you pull off this type of mass shutdown of basic neccesities.

And how many internet and travel related businesses are going to survive  after a few days of not getting paid?

 

 

[Kalbear]

I think history has shown that as long as a specific person's life isn't hurt too badly they'll put up with an awful lot.

More importantly, I think that even if the population does resist, simply wanting to resist isn't the same thing as putting up actually adequate resistance. 

[DunderMifflin]

What you are suggesting is a near shut down of the entire economy.

The economy that allows government the money and power to have killer robots and tanks. The very economy that provides the government the power to control nearly everybody's internet.

How much American business will get done without the internet, automobiles, or international travel?  Not much.

No one wants that, least of all government elites. They are still going to need tax dollars that come with thriving businesses and workers.

[Kalbear]

18 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

What you are suggesting is a near shut down of the entire economy.

The economy that allows government the money and power to have killer robots and tanks. The very economy that provides the government the power to control nearly everybody's internet.

How much American business will get done without the internet, automobiles, or international travel?  Not much.

No one wants that, least of all government elites. They are still going to need tax dollars that come with thriving businesses and workers.

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I'm stating that the populace has no real way of opposing it, currently. 

And you're also arguing against some kind of mythical 'government elites' that Altherion talks about. I'm not at all. I don't think there's some bullshit illuminati going on. I'm saying that the 2nd amendment, as written and interpreted, does virtually nothing to stop any kind of tyranny. And that was the entire point of the 2nd amendment. 

I don't know what you're arguing about at this point; you appear to be wondering what would happen if all cars were taken away as a right or something. I am pointing out that you owning or having a car is not a right you have, can be taken away from you specifically as a right you have. But it really doesn't matter. 

It is an interesting point that the fragility of the economy and the global interconnectivity implies a certain opposition to tyranny as a default. At the same time, as China is pointing out happily, you can have a police state with massive restrictions on freedoms, repression and violence against the populace and be a thriving economy. As long as you don't have protests, the economy with massive restrictions can not only do okay, it can flourish. 

[DunderMifflin]

55 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I'm stating that the populace has no real way of opposing it, currently. 

And you're also arguing against some kind of mythical 'government elites' that Altherion talks about. I'm not at all. I don't think there's some bullshit illuminati going on. I'm saying that the 2nd amendment, as written and interpreted, does virtually nothing to stop any kind of tyranny. And that was the entire point of the 2nd amendment. 

I don't know what you're arguing about at this point; you appear to be wondering what would happen if all cars were taken away as a right or something. I am pointing out that you owning or having a car is not a right you have, can be taken away from you specifically as a right you have. But it really doesn't matter. 

It is an interesting point that the fragility of the economy and the global interconnectivity implies a certain opposition to tyranny as a default. At the same time, as China is pointing out happily, you can have a police state with massive restrictions on freedoms, repression and violence against the populace and be a thriving economy. As long as you don't have protests, the economy with massive restrictions can not only do okay, it can flourish. 

Give China 200+ years of a comparable democracy first and suddenly take it away, then we MIGHT be able to draw some sort of comparison.

We know there are elaborate underground facilities that higher ups will immediately hole up in if some sort of chaos erupts. There's nothing illuminati or mythical about that.

 

If populace has no way to prevent the government from massively stripping away rights, that doesn't make it an easy solution for the government.

There's no way for anyone to prevent me from going out and killing a random person right now, that doesn't make it productive decision for me just because I could easily do it. There's a good chance prison would be in my future and the quality of my life goes down the drain.

 

The point of speculating what might happen in a modern  US revolt came from the notion that there's no way the modern US army could be defeated(and the idea that even right to gun ownership would offer zero aid for a rebellious force). Goliath doesn't always beat David, that epiphany is as old as written history.

If you're point is that weaponry rights aren't enough in the modern day then yeh I'm all for changing the constitution to specifically grant rights of organization, leadership, and supplies.

Hell even throw in the right to make and drive automobiles while we are at it.

 

[James Arryn]

On July 9, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Altherion said:

I'm just going to copy my answer from here:

When I say the elites, I mean government leaders as well as leaders and largest shareholders of major (usually transnational) corporations. There is considerable overlap between all of these categories. By "government leaders", I mean not just presidents and prime ministers, but also the more powerful cabinet members, governors of important states/provinces/etc., mayors of the mega-cities, the more powerful legislative, judicial, military and bureaucratic officials and so on. Every once in a while, a member of academia or the media is so influential upon some of these groups that he or she can also be considered part of the class. The Bilderberg Group is a fairly decent cross section of the ruling elite of Western countries, although there are obviously many more of them than that.

They're dangerous because a substantial fraction of them is insatiable: no matter how much power they have, they always want more. Of course, there are ordinary people who are like that too, but unlike the latter, the elites have the power to keep squeezing everyone else and carrying out all of the auxiliary procedures (e.g. divide-and-conquer). They won't stop until they encounter sufficient resistance to frighten them or until the system falls apart (which is highly unpleasant for everyone). The people who wrote the Constitution were themselves the 18th century version of these elites, but they understood the problem and tried to keep the government from acquiring enough power for the issue to snowball and to prevent it from suppressing signs of discontent. Unfortunately, the world did not evolve as they expected and their modern successors lack their understanding.

Okay, firstly thanks for the detailed response. Appreciated.

What confuses me is that you think private arms would be an obstacle, as opposed to an aid to these elites sustaining/gaining power. Suppose for instance we accept your version...the nature of political control masquerading as representation at least needs to go through the masquerade, limiting it somewhat. But historically, representative governments have fallen to groups/individuals wealthy/influential enough to raise their own armed forces.

From Milo/Clodius through the Condottieri wars, the Livery system, etc...private military power concentrates along the same lines as any other power, only it's under much less restraint if it's legal. All these weapons being horded in private hands in the U.S...I'm not sure why you have more faith in their being the exception to the rule of gravity.

Come the Revolution, the gun nuts might either be bought by or turn out to already be the establishment.

[sologdin]

On 7/9/2016 at 0:02 PM, Altherion said:

I'm just going to copy my answer from here:

When I say the elites, I mean government leaders as well as leaders and largest shareholders of major (usually transnational) corporations. There is considerable overlap between all of these categories. By "government leaders", I mean not just presidents and prime ministers, but also the more powerful cabinet members, governors of important states/provinces/etc., mayors of the mega-cities, the more powerful legislative, judicial, military and bureaucratic officials and so on. Every once in a while, a member of academia or the media is so influential upon some of these groups that he or she can also be considered part of the class. The Bilderberg Group is a fairly decent cross section of the ruling elite of Western countries, although there are obviously many more of them than that.

They're dangerous because a substantial fraction of them is insatiable: no matter how much power they have, they always want more. Of course, there are ordinary people who are like that too, but unlike the latter, the elites have the power to keep squeezing everyone else and carrying out all of the auxiliary procedures (e.g. divide-and-conquer). They won't stop until they encounter sufficient resistance to frighten them or until the system falls apart (which is highly unpleasant for everyone). The people who wrote the Constitution were themselves the 18th century version of these elites, but they understood the problem and tried to keep the government from acquiring enough power for the issue to snowball and to prevent it from suppressing signs of discontent. Unfortunately, the world did not evolve as they expected and their modern successors lack their understanding.

althy--

you may appreciate c. wright mills' power elite, which is a weberian analysis of US society with attention to these concerns.  it's got some frankfurt marxist influence, at no extra cost.  

less abstract and more recent is holly sklar's trilateral commission text.

[Swordfish]

On 7/8/2016 at 9:32 PM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The point is that the sort of people who think their little rifle can defend against Government tanks don't seem to realise that things they take for granted in their day to day lives (internet, hot water) are part of a wider socio-economic infrastructure that they'd suddenly have to do without.

The people think that there are a bunch of people out there who think their rifles can defeat tanks in head to head combat  are being highly reductionist to the point of absurdity in order to avoid a nuanced conversation and score a cheap talking point victory.

A refutation of a caricature is nothing more than a caricature of a refutation. (or however that quote goes)

IMHO, naturally.

[James Arryn]

3 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

The people think that there are a bunch of people out there who think their rifles can defeat tanks in head to head combat  are being highly reductionist to the point of absurdity in order to avoid a nuanced conversation and score a cheap talking point victory.

A refutation of a caricature is nothing more than a caricature of a refutation. (or however that quote goes)

IMHO, naturally.

It's not so much nuanced as nonsensical. It would be a speed bump at best. The juice just isn't worth the squeeze.

And I refer you to my earlier post that it's premised on the naive assumption that it's the one thing immune to the corrosive effect of power/elites/government/cabals, whereas history shows that private martial power breaks much more against representative government than for it. 

[Swordfish]

On 7/8/2016 at 9:32 PM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

The point is that the sort of people who think their little rifle can defend against Government tanks don't seem to realise that things they take for granted in their day to day lives (internet, hot water) are part of a wider socio-economic infrastructure that they'd suddenly have to do without.

 

16 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

It's not so much nuanced as nonsensical. It would be a speed bump at best. The juice just isn't worth the squeeze.

 

As a rebuttal, all I can offer you is the many many times throughout human history where it has been successfully accomplished.

I think my reality trumps your hypothetical, but I've been told I'm too much of a realist.

Quote

And I refer you to my earlier post that it's premised on the naive assumption that it's the one thing immune to the corrosive effect of power/elites/government/cabals, whereas history shows that private martial power breaks much more against representative government than for it. 

Sorry, but I don't know what this means.

[James Arryn]

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

 

As a rebuttal, all I can offer you is the many many times throughout human history where it has been successfully accomplished.[/quote]

I am agog with anticipation. I suspect your comparisons will lack sufficient disparity, but I'll put my thesis on hold until I hear back.

 think my reality trumps your hypothetical, but I've been told I'm too much of a realist.

Sorry, but I don't know what this means.

quick version: why won't the rich elites be the ones stockpiling private arms, and/or just hiring out those who do if/when this great resistance begins? The ability for powerful individuals to amass private military power has sounded the death knell of many representative governments throughout history, and has upheld...help me out, here? Osama?

 

[Swordfish]

45 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I am agog with anticipation. I suspect your comparisons will lack sufficient disparity, but I'll put my thesis on hold until I hear back.

Consider me highly unmotivated to engage in discourse where you've dismissed any evidence that contradicts your existing opinion in advance of having seen it.

Suffice it to say, that if you are unaware of any instances throughout history where smaller, less heavily armed forces have been successful against more well equipped, well trained standing armies, then you should maybe open a book sometime.

 

Quote

quick version: why won't the rich elites be the ones stockpiling private arms, and/or just hiring out those who do if/when this great resistance begins? The ability for powerful individuals to amass private military power has sounded the death knell of many representative governments throughout history, and has upheld...help me out, here? Osama?

 

They certainly could.  It would all come down to the math on how many people are involved.

I'm not sure how this is a rebuttal to a discussion about guerilla warfare vs standing armies though.

 

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Suffice it to say, that if you are unaware of any instances throughout history where smaller, less heavily armed forces have been successful against more well equipped, well trained standing armies, then you should maybe open a book sometime.

 We shall fight them at the Best Buys, we shall fight them at the Foot Lockers, we shall fight them at the Chipotles and the Del Tacos, and God help them if they fuck with our McDonalds...

 http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/wp-content/Images/red_dawn_mcdonalds.jpg