The origin of the Second Amendment

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 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

 

What about the Walmarts?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Swordfish said:

What about the Walmarts?

 They can have the fucking Walmarts. Except the ones that have McDonalds in them. Those are right out.

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 They can have the fucking Walmarts. Except the ones that have McDonalds in them. Those are right out.

They can also have all the Subways.  

And I would be sad if they took all the Burgervilles.  But I would not cry.

[Altherion]

On 7/10/2016 at 7:05 PM, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

There absolutely are ways of ensuring that leadership and training exist. As an example, both Switzerland and Israel require everyone to have enlisted in armed forces for a certain period of time and then afterwards keep their skills refreshed.

While it is certainly possible to require training and effectively make the entire population a reserve and it would certainly help, it is not necessary.

Quote

That you think supply support is easier to obtain means you really don't understand logistics at all. You won't be able to call in to Amazon fresh to get delivery of food during a war. And if you're fighting against your own government, you'll need supply depots with food, ammunition, you'll need to have manufacturing that won't be susceptible to simple disruption, you'll need your own supply chain, etc. Or at least ideas on what to do if you do need them. 

You and I are thinking of very different scenarios. In the scenario you are thinking of, the rebels have already accomplished far more than I think they'll ever accomplish (i.e. they have disrupted the national supply chains). I don't think it will ever go that far.

Quote

Electronic equipment isn't just encryption (and no, it doesn't have military-grade encryption). It's being able to have communication with others that can't be disrupted easily, signal systems that allow you to determine if nodes are compromised, intelligence that you can actually control (such as satellite systems and the like), networks that aren't immediately compromised, etc.

This is actually not that hard assuming that one can get a bit of help from abroad. I can think of at least one country that would be absolutely delighted to provide covert assistance.

Quote

I have. Have you noticed that the Middle East opposition is largely made up of Iraqi military, or Syrian military?

Are you sure? The leadership of these groups undoubtedly includes ex-military personnel, but I don't think the rank and file are dominated by the ex-military. In fact, this is the usual structure of rebellions: you need some military expertise, but most of the recruits are from the general population.

Quote

That said, the results not being immediate doesn't mean they haven't been hugely effective. It also depends heavily on what the goal of the forces are; if they're trying to take out military threats and political threats they are naturally restrained. If they're simply trying to wipe you out, they need not be nearly so much. While they're freer to destroy and cause collateral damage, the US military is by far the most restrained military currently existing.

I don't know what the goal was, but what they've accomplished so far is to make significant areas of that region a reasonable approximation of hell on Earth and create a huge stream of refugees. I don't think the elites are interested in doing that at home.

Quote

My suspicion is that any tyranny that was needed to fight would not be paying a whole lot of attention to the insurrection acts or their legality. You are right that it is unclear if the military soldiers would choose to fight against their own countrymen; it's also unclear if they wouldn't absolutely relish it (at least some of them). Ultimately consider that we are talking first about a tyranny that is arising in the government itself, and it would be something that happens over some time. As a thought experiment, let's take an authoritarian president. The first thing they do is get rid of any senior military that are not willing to do what they want, and have specific ideas on how to combat something (say, Islam). They then tell said seniors to trim out any military that aren't willing to back them either. You purge the military first. Then you start with actions designed to keep the peace - things like having military presence in Islamic neighborhoods, curfew for anyone Islamic, restrictions on when worship can happen (and military presence there). Perhaps you implement an ID system that allows you to indicate who is Islamic. Restrictions on arms sales to known Islamic people.

Eventually this gets bad enough that the populace wants to fight back. But how do they do so? Certainly not with the pitiful rights that the 2nd amendment allow.

Your thought experiment is in fact the scenario to which the Second Amendment is ideally suited for. If the President decides to oppress a certain sufficiently large group and this oppression gets past the balance of power (which it almost certainly would not -- the actions in your example are blatant violations of the First Amendment and would be smacked down hard by both the courts and the legislature), then it would not take a full-scale rebellion to stop this. It would take only one well-armed individual.

On 7/11/2016 at 0:53 AM, James Arryn said:

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.

This is unlikely when a substantial fraction of the population is armed (note that historically, this was definitely not the case). Currently, roughly a third of Americans possess a firearm.

11 hours ago, sologdin said:

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.

Thanks for the recommendation. I've started reading The Power Elite and it more or less describes the elites as I was thinking of them except that, being written half a century ago in the aftermath of WWII, it includes the military as a first-tier power whereas today I believe they are somewhat less influential.

[James Arryn]

18 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

1) No books! I intend to be the first history post-grad to base my f.o.s. entirely on intuition. 

As mentioned, these unmentioned examples do not account for force disparity, and usually involved outside supply. I assume. 

2) A- drones don't stand.

    B-back to 1.

    C-We are, to a degree, talking cross purposes. Guerilla wars can materialize without the 2nd Ammendment...I heard someone who once read a book mention it...and my point being that truth won't slow down w/e evil scheming against democracy Alth. thinks might be in the works. And if any such plot unfolds, chances are the powerful/wealthy will make greater use of the ability to exchange currency for arsenals than your wolverines will, and/or just hire those wolverines. Again, I cite my literate friend; he mentions Keegan, Fuller and something called CVC.

 Therefore, given that guerilla wars are not contingent upon the right to bear people-hunting arms, and given the force disparity, and given that the r.t.b.p.-k.a. can (at least) just as easily be exploited the other way, this hypothetical Bruce Willis end game is not worth the daily death dues we rack up in the meanwhile.

[Swordfish]

5 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

1) No books! I intend to be the first history post-grad to base my f.o.s. entirely on intuition. 

As mentioned, these unmentioned examples do not account for force disparity, and usually involved outside supply. I assume. 

2) A- drones don't stand.

    B-back to 1.

    C-We are, to a degree, talking cross purposes. Guerilla wars can materialize without the 2nd Ammendment...I heard someone who once read a book mention it...and my point being that truth won't slow down w/e evil scheming against democracy Alth. thinks might be in the works. And if any such plot unfolds, chances are the powerful/wealthy will make greater use of the ability to exchange currency for arsenals than your wolverines will, and/or just hire those wolverines. Again, I cite my literate friend; he mentions Keegan, Fuller and something called CVC.

 Therefore, given that guerilla wars are not contingent upon the right to bear people-hunting arms, and given the force disparity, and given that the r.t.b.p.-k.a. can (at least) just as easily be exploited the other way, this hypothetical Bruce Willis end game is not worth the daily death dues we rack up in the meanwhile.

Which is a completely different argument than whether or not such an effort COULD be successful.  

Which it most assuredly could.

 

[James Arryn]

21 minutes ago, Altherion said:

This is unlikely when a substantial fraction of the population is armed (note that historically, this was definitely not the case). Currently, roughly a third of Americans possess a firearm.

 

That's simply not true. For example, at the time of the triumvirate, a much much much greater % of the citizens were ex-military than are now. At the time of the livery system, all English males were required to practice archery for 2 hours/week, and every town/village had butts. Etc. None of this overcame gravity (ie attraction of lesser to greater).

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

31 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

 Therefore, given that guerilla wars are not contingent upon the right to bear people-hunting arms, and given the force disparity, and given that the r.t.b.p.-k.a. can (at least) just as easily be exploited the other way, this hypothetical Bruce Willis end game is not worth the daily death dues we rack up in the meanwhile.

/Obligatory

 

[Kalbear]

32 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Which is a completely different argument than whether or not such an effort COULD be successful.  

Which it most assuredly could.

 

I care less about whether it could or could not be successful. What I wish to know is whether or not it would be a successful deterrent. 

Given the Patriot Act, the massive incarceration due to the drug war, the disparity of rights between citizens based on ethnic and sexual traits - it seems very clear that the 2nd amendment as written is not enough of a deterrent for casual removal of rights. The threat is simply not there. Whether that is because the armaments aren't sufficient or the willingness to deploy them isn't present I don't want to hypothesize, but the actual threat of stopping tyranny does not appear to be particularly large. 

Quote

Are you sure? The leadership of these groups undoubtedly includes ex-military personnel, but I don't think the rank and file are dominated by the ex-military. In fact, this is the usual structure of rebellions: you need some military expertise, but most of the recruits are from the general population.

Per most analysis I've read the bulk of the insurgents in Iraq were ex-military. It's possibly changed a bit, but they're the ones that joined and maintained ISIS early on, they're the ones that caused major issues in Iraq. If the US hadn't disbanded the Iraqi military there is a lot of evidence that things would be massively different now. 

And of course, the biggest difference now vs. then is that the US military isn't particularly present in Iraq. 

[Swordfish]

28 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

I care less about whether it could or could not be successful. What I wish to know is whether or not it would be a successful deterrent. 

Given the Patriot Act, the massive incarceration due to the drug war, the disparity of rights between citizens based on ethnic and sexual traits - it seems very clear that the 2nd amendment as written is not enough of a deterrent for casual removal of rights. The threat is simply not there. Whether that is because the armaments aren't sufficient or the willingness to deploy them isn't present I don't want to hypothesize, but the actual threat of stopping tyranny does not appear to be particularly large. 

Perhaps not currently, though there is some evidence to the contrary.  There is the problem of how to quantify when something is prevented, but that aside....

I don't think the 2nd amendment is a rock solid deterrent against all tyranny.  That seems like a pretty high standard, TBH.  I don't think the level of tyranny is quite high enough at the moment to provoke any large scale violent resistance.

Probably it would be if the government stated confiscating guns, but than that argument gets fairly circular, fairly fast.

Or iPhones.  or something that affected larger numbers of people in essentially the same negative way.

 

 

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

Which is a completely different argument than whether or not such an effort COULD be successful.  

Which it most assuredly could.

 

It's not a different argument.

1) it was cited re: juice and squeeze in the list you objected to.

2) they are interdependent because I'm talking about how the ~ in projected irregular warfare impedes the elites Alth. references from going down that path. That's all that ought to concern us. If we're ever at the point where we're trying to decide how many days of g.e.w. the 2nd Ammendment added, we're well past the point of it standing, hence it does not self-justify except as a deterrent. 

Any comment on the other 95% of my post?

[Swordfish]

5 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

It's not a different argument.

1) it was cited re: juice and squeeze in the list you objected to.

2) they are interdependent because I'm talking about how the ~ in projected irregular warfare impedes the elites Alth. references from going down that path. That's all that ought to concern us. If we're ever at the point where we're trying to decide how many days of g.e.w. the 2nd Ammendment added, we're well past the point of it standing, hence it does not self-justify except as a deterrent. 

 

 

I was specifically addressing the point being made about whether or not an armed rebellion by the US populace could ever be successful.  it's obviously dependent on a whole shit ton of variables, but it certainly could be. 

Whether or not such a thing is desirable, or worthwhile as a possibility is a related, but separate argument.

 

Quote

Any comment on the other 95% of my post?

Not really, no.  Whether or not such an uprising could occur without the second amendment is, again, a tangential argument and one I'm not particularly interested in.

As for the assertion that these kinds of uprisings are never successful in the case of force disparity, i would again refer you to history for your guidance on that one.

You could start relatively late in these kinds of conflicts at say, the american revolution and move forward until you get to Vietnam and Afghanistan.  if you find these examples unconvincing, then I fear nothing I can say here would convince you.

 

[Tywin et al.]

20 hours 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.

 

While, true, it does become irrelevant at a certain point. Practically all of the examples come from times when there was a relatively even level of arms, where as in our modern society that ceases to be the case. If the government didn't pull any punches, a civil uprising would not last very long or be very effective.

Plus, there is this thing called the USAF, which makes this all a moot conversation. 

[Swordfish]

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

While, true, it does become irrelevant at a certain point. Practically all of the examples come from times when there was a relatively even level of arms, where as in our modern society that ceases to be the case. If the government didn't pull any punches, a civil uprising would not last very long or be very effective.

 

You guys keep adding qualifiers as if that hand waves it all away and means it's not possible under any circumstance. it doesn't.  

Pressure for the government to pull punches is absolutely part of the equation.  Again, this isn't about two standing armies battling it out in traditional military engagements.  

Frankly, i don't know why this is so important to you guys.

 

 

Quote

Plus, there is this thing called the USAF, which makes this all a moot conversation. 

 

No.  It doesn't.  Just ask the afghanis. or ISIS.  Or the north Vietnamese. or......  etc etc etc....

And those are examples where we pretty much were willing to not pull any punches. Which likely would not be true in the US.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

No.  It doesn't.  Just ask the afghanis. or ISIS.  Or the north Vietnamese. or......  etc etc etc....

And those are examples where we pretty much were willing to not pull any punches. Which likely would not be true in the US.

Umm, not really. The U.S. military most certainly did pull punches in Vietnam. They never even invaded the North for starters. They were limited to fighting a defensive war due to the political doctrine.

Afghanistan is pretty unique geographically. There is really almost no way for a conventional force to take off the gloves when dealing with that sort of topography. Certainly there are parts of the U.S. that might create the same sort of issues, but they are few and far between, methinks.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Umm, not really. The U.S. military most certainly did pull punches in Vietnam. They never even invaded the North for starters. They were limited to fighting a defensive war due to the political doctrine.

Afghanistan is pretty unique geographically. There is really almost no way for a conventional force to take off the gloves when dealing with that sort of topography. Certainly there are parts of the U.S. that might create the same sort of issues, but they are few and far between, methinks.

Utah comes to mind. Fear the mormons, y'all. 

But yeah, places like Kansas? Or even most of the East coast? Total crap fest defensively. 

Add to that that unlike the US, Afghanis have been living with largely low tech and a fairly consistent way of life for a while. They have subsistence farming, ranching, and are used to it, and for the most part that's how they have lived for generations. They've also been invaded like 20 times in the last 300 years. That isn't remotely true about US citizens. There might be a few that are comfy roughing it up in Bryce Canyon, but largely they won't be.

[Swordfish]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Umm, not really. The U.S. military most certainly did pull punches in Vietnam. They never even invaded the North for starters. They were limited to fighting a defensive war due to the political doctrine.

 

if you think they pulled more punches in Vietnam than they would inside the US... We will just agree to disagree.  

As I said, political doctrine would also certainly come into play domestically.

 

Quote

Afghanistan is pretty unique geographically. There is really almost no way for a conventional force to take off the gloves when dealing with that sort of topography. Certainly there are parts of the U.S. that might create the same sort of issues, but they are few and far between, methinks.

 

Again, we'll disagree on this.  There are a lot of factors that would come into play here, including the presence of large cities, and a reluctance to burn them to the ground.