• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Well Regulated Militia...

Wirey

Fartist
I'm Canadian (thank you, thank you) and I'd like an American perspective on something. The Second Ammendment appears to profer the right to bear arms in order to make sure that the citizens can protect themselves both from foreign invaders and a tyrannical government. Does anyone actually believe that? I mean, your semi-auto versus an armoured combat vehicle? A bunch of deer hunters against professional soldiers? Chev pickup with shotgun, meet Apache gunship. Realistically, isn't the concept of a well regulated militia about as valuable as protections for slavery?
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
I'm Canadian (thank you, thank you) and I'd like an American perspective on something. The Second Ammendment appears to profer the right to bear arms in order to make sure that the citizens can protect themselves both from foreign invaders and a tyrannical government. Does anyone actually believe that? I mean, your semi-auto versus an armoured combat vehicle? A bunch of deer hunters against professional soldiers? Chev pickup with shotgun, meet Apache gunship. Realistically, isn't the concept of a well regulated militia about as valuable as protections for slavery?

Yes, I think the idea was good in the days when the Constitution was written, but in modern times, it doesn't hold up. Back when muskets were high tech, you could reasonably expect to fight the government by owning muskets, should it turn tyrannical. Nowadays, a pistol or rifle isn't going to do much good against tanks, planes, and all the other high-tech stuff out military has. So, I don't think the idea really applies anymore.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
If we had to take on our own government, I think bombs, hit and run tactics, and other general acts of terrorism would be the most effective method. After all, that's what's used against the U.S. military when the enemy can't match their weaponry and technology. While "cowardly", direct combat would be futile and suicidal.

Also, the shotgun toting redneck militia types supported Bush during his administration, so even if they had the right weapons for the task, they still couldn't be relied upon if we actually needed to fight against a corrupt, tyrannical government. You know such a threat would come from the right, especially if it had the military's backing,
 
Last edited:

Wirey

Fartist
If we had to take on our own government, I think bombs, hit and run tactics, and other general acts of terrorism would be the most effective method. After all, that's what's used against the U.S. military when the enemy can't match their weaponry and technology. While "cowardly", direct combat would be futile and suicidal.

Also, the shotgun toting redneck militia types supported Bush during his administration, so even if they had the right weapons for the task, they still couldn't be relied upon if we actually needed to fight against a corrupt, tyrannical government. You know such a threat would come from the right, especially if it had the military's backing,

So, does this mean you agree that the notion of allowing gun ownership based on the idea of forming a militia is outdated?
 

4consideration

*
Premium Member
Congratulations on your status as Canadian. Perhaps when you grow up, we will let you be a U.S. citizen. :) (Tee, Hee)

Here's my take on it:

The Second Ammendment does not extend or offer the right to bear arms. The Second Ammendment recognizes that the right exists -- arising out of a Natural right of a person/group to defend oneself against harm, tyranny, etc. Part of the value in the document is that it establishes that there are rights that exist due to a person's Being a person -- and are not "granted" by some governing authority that may (and almost always has in history) eventually establish a perspective of a right to govern against the will of the people (i.e. Divine Right of Kings, or mob rule, etc.)

Since Rights are NOT established or granted by Government, those Rights cannot be taken away (or infringed.)

Yes. I believe that.

No. I do not think that a semi-auto is a match for an armoured combat vehicle. I don't own one, nor do I own a combat vehicle. Part of the value of an armed populace is that large numbers of people that are in the position to defend themselves, personally, in individual situations, are safer than large numbers of individuals not in a position to defend themselves. There are many more citizens than there are soldiers. Soldiers have bigger weapons. I understand that.

I am more interested in the IDEA that I may be armed remaining in place as a deterant to someone breaking into my home, than to have a criminal have a pretty safe bet that I am not. I also believe that a government that recognizes the rights of its citizens to bear arms is not likely planning to attack those citizens. Let's call it mutual respect.

As I see it, most people that I know that support the right to bear arms are not at all anti-government. They just have a perspective of humanity and the tendencies of organizations/governments that those entities are ever-growing, ever-self perpetuating -- and need to have their own power kept in check.
 

Wirey

Fartist
If the only thing keeping your elected officials from attacking and killing you is that you have guns that they have said you can have, what kind of society are you living in?
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
So, does this mean you agree that the notion of allowing gun ownership based on the idea of forming a militia is outdated?

Well, one would still want to be able to snipe at law enforcement and military convoys from a concealed location. ;) I don't know, guerrilla warfare in urban areas might make for an effective resistance, especially considering they wouldn't want to destroy their own cities. The irony is that these militia types like to gather and stock pile their weapons in fortified compounds out in secluded rural areas, which could be reduced to a crater with one missile.
 

4consideration

*
Premium Member
If the only thing keeping your elected officials from attacking and killing you is that you have guns that they have said you can have, what kind of society are you living in?

Who said that is the only thing?

Is the only thing that keeps you from electrocution that you are not standing in water while working with it?
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
If the only thing keeping your elected officials from attacking and killing you is that you have guns that they have said you can have, what kind of society are you living in?

The notion isn't that they would if they could. That's like saying your house would burst into flames the second you threw the extinguisher out, or that your car would crash the second you took your seat belt off.
 

Wirey

Fartist
The notion isn't that they would if they could. That's like saying your house would burst into flames the second you threw the extinguisher out, or that your car would crash the second you took your seat belt off.

Okay. That makes sense, I guess. But a seat belt or a fire extinguisher will work. Armed citizens overthrowing governments just isn't likely. Evemn in Egypt, or Syria, the rebels did very poorly until the military started switching sides.

I am in favour of people being allowed to own guns, but I think stating that it's for the purposes of armed defence by the populace is an outdated idea. Plus, untrained people make poor soldiers. During the First Battle of Bull Run, the militias cut and ran. The regular army stood and fought. Training matters. A bunch of accountants, plumbers, and dentists with guns doesn't seem like much of a deterent to a professional army.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Okay. That makes sense, I guess. But a seat belt or a fire extinguisher will work. Armed citizens overthrowing governments just isn't likely. Evemn in Egypt, or Syria, the rebels did very poorly until the military started switching sides.

I am in favour of people being allowed to own guns, but I think stating that it's for the purposes of armed defence by the populace is an outdated idea. Plus, untrained people make poor soldiers. During the First Battle of Bull Run, the militias cut and ran. The regular army stood and fought. Training matters. A bunch of accountants, plumbers, and dentists with guns doesn't seem like much of a deterent to a professional army.

yeah, it likely is just a romanticized notion.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
I'm Canadian (thank you, thank you) and I'd like an American perspective on something. The Second Ammendment appears to profer the right to bear arms in order to make sure that the citizens can protect themselves both from foreign invaders and a tyrannical government. Does anyone actually believe that? I mean, your semi-auto versus an armoured combat vehicle? A bunch of deer hunters against professional soldiers? Chev pickup with shotgun, meet Apache gunship. Realistically, isn't the concept of a well regulated militia about as valuable as protections for slavery?
*pshaw* They could buy weapons from the Syrians.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I'm Canadian (thank you, thank you) and I'd like an American perspective on something. The Second Ammendment appears to profer the right to bear arms in order to make sure that the citizens can protect themselves both from foreign invaders and a tyrannical government. Does anyone actually believe that? I mean, your semi-auto versus an armoured combat vehicle? A bunch of deer hunters against professional soldiers? Chev pickup with shotgun, meet Apache gunship. Realistically, isn't the concept of a well regulated militia about as valuable as protections for slavery?
I wonder how many people in the USA have gone out and obtained firearms for no other reason than to be armed in case they have to go up against the government?
 

Wirey

Fartist
I wonder how many people in the USA have gone out and obtained firearms for no other reason than to be armed in case they have to go up against the government?

That's my point. I'll bet the vast bulk of gun owners never even consider that, but it's the legal standard for gun ownership in America as far as I can tell.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
That's my point. I'll bet the vast bulk of gun owners never even consider that, but it's the legal standard for gun ownership in America as far as I can tell.
Perhaps because said outdated notion still works in the legal system?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That's my point. I'll bet the vast bulk of gun owners never even consider that, but it's the legal standard for gun ownership in America as far as I can tell.
Hold on there, buster.
You don't get to question our rights just cuz we don't understand them.
Heaven forbid that such a standard be applied to free speech.

Check out the documentary, Red Dawn.
Small arms might not guarantee success, but the even the odds up a bit.
 
Last edited:

Wirey

Fartist
Check out the documentary, Red Dawn.
Small arms might not guarantee success, but the even the odds up a bit.

As an aside, they're remaking that movie, I believe to be released this year.

I'm not saying don't own guns, I'm saying that using the excuse of forming a militia is pretty obviously facetious. There's no way that could reasonably be considered the actual reason Americans buy so many guns.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
As an aside, they're remaking that movie, I believe to be released this year.

I'm not saying don't own guns, I'm saying that using the excuse of forming a militia is pretty obviously facetious. There's no way that could reasonably be considered the actual reason Americans buy so many guns.
The reason for buying them isn't related to the existence of the right or its original basis.
If your point is that most gun owners are below average intelligence, well duuUUuuUUuuh!
Most citizens are dumber than a box of rocks....just look at how we vote.
 

4consideration

*
Premium Member
As an aside, they're remaking that movie, I believe to be released this year.

I'm not saying don't own guns, I'm saying that using the excuse of forming a militia is pretty obviously facetious. There's no way that could reasonably be considered the actual reason Americans buy so many guns.

It doesn't need to be the reason why people buy them. The desire for personal protection (self/family) and property is reason enough.
 
Top