If it wasn't for guns, would we be speaking British? (Details )

The government should fear it’s people because they vote. More people in the US exercise the one ammendment and not the one that act ally holds the power. Hash tag false sense of security.

Access to suitable firearms to defend against threats both foreign and domestic is written into the fucking constitution. What we have here in the US is a massive population of people who own and know how to operate firearms. If something really bad happened, invasion, a gov’t that is overtaken and becomes tyrannical, freaking aliens or whatever we have a way to react. Ever screw with a nest of hornets?

Our gun laws are a tangled mess and don’t make a whole lot of sense. Revision needed but those revisions should not remove the rights to them.

I can hear the black gangsta gangs…“I say Leroy, that was a jolly good shot old bean, spiffing good show”

It has more to do with direct military assistance by France and The Empire being a bit busy in India.
And defence against a tyrannical government? HA! The self proclaimed “patriots” have been doing squiddiddly since 2001.
“Patriot Act? Great Idea!”
“A concentration camp on Cuba for muslims? Hell yeah!”
“Secret torture camps in Iraq? Who cares!”
“Invasive patdowns by TSA perverts? Eh.”
“Large scale warrantless wiretapping and NSA spying on everyone? All to keep us safe!”
“Deliberately lying to the public about nonexistant WMDs to justify invading Iraq? LALALA I can not hear you!”
“Look, a wildlife refuge that is empty for the holidays, let us storm the place and show how brave and badass we are!”

There hasn’t been arms parity with our government and it’s people since the advent of the Gatling Gun. So, forget that. Your Colt .45 semi auto, or plastic Glock .40 or even your fully automated assault rifle will not help you against RPGs, 20mm automatic cannons, 40mm M19 automatic grenade launchers that can spew up to 375 rounds per minute—each explosive round with a kill radius of 3 meters, or choppers bristling with M60s and rocket launchers or a wing of fighter aircraft that can vaporize south Chicago in seconds. So forget about instilling fear in your government with your measly toy guns. Anybody who thinks otherwise is flat fucking out of their mind. The only blood that will fertilize the tree of liberty will be theirs.

Your power of intimidation lies in your vote as stated above by @cazzie. Just remember to vote and if you feel strong enough about a cause, become an activist. You really do live in a free country compared to many, many others out there. You are very lucky.

You made the point that armed rebels revolted and gained independence from tyrannical rulers and they accomplished this because they had weapons that were similar to the Government they wanted independence from and made it almost a fair fight.

The second Amendment was written and worded specifically to ensure we do have a well armed Militia and today at the very minimum that would entail Military style rifles and IMHO as long as the Second amendment stands so will access to assault rifles. Bushmaster rifles are the modern day equivalent to the Colonial Musket.

@Cruiser flutherites would be shocked at the number and demographics of people I know who own an AR of some type. They are ubiquitous.

@ARE_you_kidding_me Even to me the number of firearms owned by Americans is truly staggering.

…....and for the most part are kept rather responsibly by the vast majority of owners.

Doesn’t the ammunition used in those assault rifles ruin game meat due to their high impact?

Not really, those rifles accept any ammo you want them to…hence the popularity. Also the “assault rifle ammo” is really medium impact. I know people who hunt feral pigs with .223 though. Never heard any complaints about the meat.

So because everyone having guns was useful at one specific point in the past everyone should continue to have guns?
Owning slaves was useful back then too so why don’t y’all bring that back.

and America won the war of independence because the Britain was busy conquering the rest of the world and didn’t give too hoots about a small colony that barely produced anything of worth…

Our defeat of the British required the private ownership of firearms. However, that was because we didn’t have a standing army.
The Second Amendment was created to prevent the creation of a standing army.

@filmfann “The Second Amendment was created to prevent the creation of a standing army.”

Except that text of the Constitution itself directly contradicts this notion before we even get to the various amendments (Article 2, Section 2).

“If it wasn’t for guns, would we be speaking British?”

No. That is not how language works.

We are speaking “British” now

@ARE_you_kidding_me Would you explain that, please?

If it wasn’t for guns we wouldn’t be here at all. Just Indians.

Thanks for all of your contributions.

So. The consensus answer is ‘no?’

The guns don’t help protect us from our government.

That’s what I thought too.

@Sneki95 . The question was worded that way to mock those who think guns prevent our government from putting us in death camps….

I haven’t read the above answers.

I grew up in a place where guns were never talked about, my parents didn’t own a gun, and now that I have lived in a part of the country that is very fun oriented I can say that I much much prefer the culture of no gun talk and less ownership. However, I do see why gun oriented parts of the country feel they need a gun to protect themselves, because once your community has a shitload of guns, and you feel a clear and present danger that a lot of bad people own guns, you logically feel you need one to protect yourself. It is very very different living in a place with a lot of violence and crime. Your perspective is very different than a safe, low crime, culturally void of gun talk, place.

Do we need guns to fight against the government and can a private militia stand up to the government? Well, with everything I said above about much preferring living in a place that is not gun oriented, at the same time I have been told my whole life Nazi Germany can happen anywhere if it can happen there. Do I wish more Jews and parents of disabled children, and Christians who tried to help the Jews, would have had the chance to kill a few Nazis? Yeah I think so.

Imagine if everyone on those trains to the camps had had guns? Lots of people would have died, some people who survived might have wound up dead, but a whole bunch of Nazis would have been dead too. Maybe, just maybe, the Nacis who didn’t really have their heart in it would have been more likely to defy the government if there had been more violent resistance. Who knows. I much much prefer helping the Jews out of the country like Denmark did, rather than some bloody battle, but if push came to shove I’m on board with kill the killers. Sure, it sucks to be displaced, but avoidance of violence and war sounds better to me when at all possible.

@Sneki95 We are speaking english. The modded post was a quote from pulp fiction and not an attack.

^Yes it was a quote from PF. Even censored it.

I saw it.

As far as the question I would say “not right now” I’m sure places like North Korea would treat their citizenry a little better if they were armed, educated and aware. We don’t know what the future holds. I’m not in any way for eliminating gun rights.

@Darth_Algar You are misreading the Constitution. Again, the Second Amendment is meant to prevent the creation of a STANDING army.

In Syria, the rebels are armed and that’s working out real well for everyone, isn’t it?

@filmfann are you sugesting that the United States Army is unconstitutional?

@filmfann

The Second Amendment, indeed the Constitution on the whole, says nothing whatsoever about preventing a standing army. It does, however, explicitly mention the United States Army and the United States Navy. So how exactly am I misreading it?

@Darth_Algar Though the Constitution does not specifically mention the prevention of a standing Army…it does/did specifiy that there will be no standing army in peacetime and the duration of a standing army shall not exceed 2 years. It also required Congress to pass a budget for the funding of the standing army which provided additional control to the people to control the size and duration of the existence of the standing army.

The authors of the Federalist Papers argued not only for the utility of a small, permanent army but, further, that the militia would always be great enough to overcome a usurpation of the people’s liberties by the national government. Madison, for example, argues that the standing army which the nation could support would not exceed twentyfive or thirty thousand men and could never conquer the militia, “near half a million citizens with arms in their hands . . . fighting for their common liberties. . . . ” Among the numerous advantages of the militias Madison refers to “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.”

This was the whole reasoning against a standing army as the King wanted to disarm the Colonists and the founders knew that the minute they relied on a standing army for protection, a foreign invader (the King) could wipe out the standing army and then what? So the founders made it clear that a well armed militia would be part of our nations constitution.

@Cruiser

It states that money appropriated for the purpose of maintaining an army shall not be collected for longer than two years (I suppose this is easily gotten around by not imposing a tax specifically for the funding of an army). It does not state that an army shall not be standing for longer that two years. Nor am I aware of any prohibition against maintaining a standing army during peacetime.

In fairness, while the Federalist Papers might give a glimpse into the minds of some of the framers of the Constitution they are not the Constitution itself. Indeed the Federalist Papers argue against somethings that ended up in the Constitution (such as the Bill of Rights).

Just to be clear @Darth_Algar Article 1, Section 8, line 12 of the Constitution states:

12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

IMO this makes it clear that the writers of the Constitution were pretty specific that they did not want a standing army inexistence for more than 2 years and gave that power to Congress who controls the purse of our country. Plus in their original thinking the Militias that were controlled by individual states would be doing most of the protecting of our nation and furthermore few people recognize these state controlled militias are actually today our National Guard.

Yes, I know the article, section and line, that’s exactly what I was referring to in my post above. Personally I think it’s quite the opposite of clear. One thing I’ve noticed in my own readings of the Constitution – the writers were wonderfully vague and non-specific, thus allowing the document to be read in quite a number of ways. Very clever for a document of law, considering that law hinges on exact wording.

@Darth_Algar I will admit I am not a chapter and verse scholar of the Constitution but what I have seen and read is the foundation of the Constitution was solid but many doors left intentionally open (as you said very cleverly) with remedies available to those that follow to make amendments as seen fit by later sessions of Congress. Also why IMO the Federalist Papers are so important and also fascinating to read as that is where the writers of the Constitution put their reasons for what they wrote and where I believe interpretations for the Bill of Rights should have their genesis.

Yeah, I’m not exactly a Constitutional scholar myself. I’ve read through it a handful of times in my adult life (plus the requisite study of it we had to do in 8th grade), but I couldn’t cite a whole lot, chapter-and-verse, off the top of my head. I’ll admit my ignorance on the Federalist Papers. I’ve read about them, but haven’t actually read them.

The Federalist Papers was written by those who directly influenced the drafting of the Constitution.
So, what does it say about the Second Amendment? Not a word.
Why? Because the founding fathers couldn’t agree, and they compromised on a vague wording.
Read the minority opinion from the Supreme Court on the recent Second Amendment decision. It’s very clear.

Yes. The constitution was left vague,in parts, to be molded by patriots with the good of the people in mind.

Unfortunately, mostly crooked political agendas, and lawyers used the vague wording as loopholes to bend the law to their will.

Perhaps this possibility was foreseen by the writers of the constitution. That’s in part why they gave us the rights to bare arms in the first place.

The men who crafted our Constitution were true patriots. And most importantly, they didn’t trust men, or politicians. You have to admire their intentions, and how they tried to make this country special.

I imagine that if the founding fathers knew of our current “election,” they’d be smacking their foreheads in disgust, and frustration.

@filmfann

And the minority opinion in a recent SCOTUS ruling has what to do with standing armies?

@MrGrimm888 “I imagine that if the founding fathers knew of our current “election,” they’d be smacking their foreheads in disgust, and frustration.”

Or maybe they, with their 1790 worldview and not knowing or understanding the world of 2016, wouldn’t come to a conclusion one way or the other.

^I disagree. I think they wanted the best for this country. If they had even a vague understanding of this ‘election, ’ and what it potentially means to the world, they’d have to be frustrated.

They planted seeds that should have grown a strong oak.

I am not sure my point was made well enough…The second amendment states that we shall have a well armed militia and some 240 years later we still have a well armed militia…the National Guard that is under the control of each individual state. That in itself provides the check and balance against a standing army the writers of the Constitution desired then and I believe hoped would hold true in future years. Add to that a few tens of millions of individual gun owners who not only believe they are the militia but also outnumber our standing army both in numbers and numbers or guns 10 times over. IMO just how the founders wanted it to be.

@MrGrimm888

Certainly. Who doesn’t want what’s best for this country? Thing is – it’s hard to come to a consensus about what’s best. Not even the holy Founding Fathers could manage that. Unlike most folks I won’t presume to know what the Founding Fathers would think now. I’ll only presume that they were not so arrogant to believe that what they felt best in their generation would be best for all subsequent generations.

@Cruiser that is very much indeed what the gameplan was.

Well. There are definitely a shit ton of weapons in circulation.

If you go to a gun show where I live, you witness first hand, just how many. When standing in line to enter, you may see several hundred people leaving with guns. About half are AR style platforms.

There’s NO WAY any other country could invade us on foot. Going house to house, in a search and destroy would be impossible.

@Darth_Algar That opinion was a good historical reviews of different states views and intentions.

@filmfann

Perhaps you’d care to link to the minority opinion, or at least cite the case you’re referring to, in order to provide context.

@MrGrimm888 it may come as a bit of a shock but it isn’t the the 18th century. No one is going to invade you on foot. They’re going to nuke you. From orbit.

^I don’t see invasion as a realistic threat. I brought it up in regards to the founding father’s desired future outcome.

Out of all the wars currently going on right now how many involved nukes and did not involve any sort of invasion.

Nuking us is in theory not an option. The USA has the most fertile lands and some of the largest fresh water supplies in the world and some of the most gullible humans on the planet. Even the most evil of dictators would not be that insane to sully the spoils of war in such a fashion…or would they?

If enough nukes hit here to wipe out the US, it would ruin the planet. That type of nuclear attack isn’t really a plausible option.

just enough nukes dropped on major cities to force an unconditional surrender

@ragingloli

Or, more realistically, to ensure your own destruction.

^Yeah. You can’t just drop a few dozen nukes…

@Darth_Algar The dissenting opinion is quite long, but here is a link to a pdf file for it. The Heller case was, I recall, from 2008.

@MrGrimm888 why not? The last (and only) country to deploy nuclear weapons against another country only had to drop 2 before they unilaterally surrendered.

^Completely different. First of all, Russia was ruthlessly pushing through Japanese forces, at the time. The two nukes dropped were tiny in comparison to nukes from even 30 years ago. Today’s arsenal is quite ridiculous. The weapons now are quite capable of apocalyptic damage. Realistically, we’re only talking about Russia. Other countries are potential threats,but not like Russia. A Russian military advisor during the Crimea ‘incident ’ mentioned strategically striking Yellowstone, setting off the super volcano under it. A small exchange, or so would change the world for the worse,for the foreseeable future.

Let’s say North Korea got their nukes successfully mounted to successfully accurate missiles. They strike (somehow through our air defense systems ) LA, Sacramento, and Hawaii. Would the US surrender to N. Korea as a result? Of course not.

The only nukes that will be detonated in the future, will be by terrorist attacks, or maybe an exchange between India,and Pakistan. Until Iran becomes a nuclear power. Then ,maybe they try to nuke Israel.

Bottom line is that nukes have one purpose, when it comes to current military strategy. They Are a mutual deterent ,as they ensure mutual destruction of not only the countries involved, but the world itself.

Do some research on the capabilities of nukes now compared to the ones used in WWll. They are only a tool of cataclysm. Not a realistic, deployable weapon.

Plus, let’s say hypothetically, the US surrender’s to your hypothetical attacker. I would wager most gun owners wouldn’t give up. A lot of them would fight their own government. Let alone some foreign invader. The only way to take out America, is to wipe it off the map. Or maybe a chemical, or biological weapon. Weather it nukes, chemical weapons, or biological weapons, the results would be catastrophic for the entire world.

Our forefathers saw the United States as separate, independent states, like small individual countries. That all changed when the Civil War ended.
Things change. People change. Governments change, adapt to new circumstances, evolve. Every single democracy throughout history has only lasted about 200 years before evolving into something else.
Change is inherent, inevitable. Adapt or die.

@Lightlyseared “why not? The last (and only) country to deploy nuclear weapons against another country only had to drop 2 before they unilaterally surrendered.”

And at that time they were the only country to have nukes. Now several countries do. If you attack them with nukes, you can bet your ass that they’ll repay you in kind. And if they don’t have nukes then they have an ally who does, and will use them. Mutually Assured Destruction – “if they use their nukes on us, we will use ours on them. If we use our nukes on them, they will use theirs on us”. It’s what kept the Cold War cold. It’s actually kinda scary just how close we’ve come to nuclear holocaust before.

@kritiper “Our forefathers saw the United States as separate, independent states, like small individual countries. That all changed when the Civil War ended.”

Actually that all changed when the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution. They realized within a few years the problems inherent in the nation’s original pact, the Articles of Confederation, and the idea of many quasi-independent states attempting to function as a unified nation under a weak federal government. The Constitution, contrary to restraining the power of the federal, as the popular narrative goes, was actually a massive expansion of federal power.

No. There is a world of difference between the Revolution, with both sides pretty much equally armed, and the weapons a government has as its disposal today. King George did not have fighter jets, tanks, automatic weapons, drones. Anyone who thinks they could launch a successful revolt against the US Government is a fool. As a matter of fact, things didn’t go so well for the Confederacy. Less than 200 years after the Revolution.

Our military has nukes, missiles, tanks, jets, bombs, and weapons the likes we never dreamed of, yet the Taliban forced us into a humiliating retreat with their muskets. It seems you don’t need to defeat the army but only replace the leader with an idiot. I don’t see a reason to eliminate my ability to defend myself just because the fed has nukes.

Good luck with that.

@Jaxk You’re right. Too bad Trump made stupid promises to the Taliban about us getting out!

I actually believe the 20 year on-going war in Afghanistan was a failure on the part of both Republican and Democratic Presidents.

@janbb – Nice try. Saying “the devil made me do it”, does not absolve the idiot that did it.

@janbb Nah, it’s all the Dems fault, as usual. The Republicans accomplished so much during our 20 year, multiple administration tenure. And after all, it was Bush 2 who proclaimed, Mission Accomplished!

@Jaxk So, you are characterizing Trump as the Devil…

This is beginning to sound like Jeffery Dahmer explaining why eating all those people, wasn’t his fault. I can understand eating one, maybe two people but after that, you’re just eating to be eating.