When is it right to avail oneself of the 2nd amendment?

[^_^ 5,021]

Probably not, because even if you start a revolution to overthrow the Republican-Democrat regime,

who do you replace them with?

The alternative isn't going to be pretty.

This country can't survive as one if they go. It will be split up and I'm not convinced that would be a bad thing.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This country can't survive as one if they go. It will be split up and I'm not convinced that would be a bad thing.

Republics are historically short lived, and we are getting long in the tooth as a nation, but I would rather we devolve cooperatively, than go through another armed insurrection.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We will never willingly give up our rights to own firearms. We can regulate them, put limitations on how many rounds of ammunition they can fire off before needed to be reloaded, but we'll never see outright bans on ownership of firearms. You can argue over what the intent was with the 2nd Amendment, but the right to own a firearm is so inbred in the American psyche that it any argument for restricting ownership is fruitless, IMO.

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't think anyone in a free society like the UK or USA genuinely believes that the 'government' (elected representatives of 'we the people') fear the people on the back of the fact that some of them carry weapons.

I do. History offers plenty of examples of what happens when citizens are stripped of the means to defend themselves.

[chri'stina 190]

We also don't own any guns and it's hard for me to picture needing to have one to overthrow the government - but that doesn't mean it could never happen in this country again. There are places in the world where elections are held and I wouldn't call them fair - I wouldn't be surprised if uprisings occur even with the ability to vote, when your vote is ignored or bribed for. I realize that's not "free and fair".

[^_^ 5,021]

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that I will stick to my answer. If the government doesn't let people leave the country or take assets out of the country, then we are no longer free.

[Danno 1,228]

We also don't own any guns and it's hard for me to picture needing to have one to overthrow the government - but that doesn't mean it could never happen in this country again. There are places in the world where elections are held and I wouldn't call them fair - I wouldn't be surprised if uprisings occur even with the ability to vote, when your vote is ignored or bribed for. I realize that's not "free and fair".

And theoretically thinking... a fair and free election could be held and with enough votes the very constitution could be properly modified to become any thing.

[mawilson 2,133]

And theoretically thinking... a fair and free election could be held and with enough votes the very constitution could be properly modified to become any thing.

The Soviet Union had fair and free elections. Of course, only Communist party members were

ever nominated, similarly to the Republican-Democrat regime candidates in this country.

[^_^ 5,021]

The Soviet Union had fair and free elections. Of course, only Communist party members were

ever nominated, similarly to the Republican-Democrat regime candidates in this country.

How do you explain this guy? He was on the ballot and even showed up on TV for a major debate. The voters had the opportunity to vote for him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0

Edited January 10, 2011 by \

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that I will stick to my answer. If the government doesn't let people leave the country or take assets out of the country, then we are no longer free.

I think you loose your freedom when freedom of expression vanishes - even if you're still free to leave. Being free to leave the country doesn't really mean you're free. Just ask any one of the refugees around the world.

[^_^ 5,021]

I think you loose your freedom when freedom of expression vanishes - even if you're still free to leave. Being free to leave the country doesn't really mean you're free. Just ask any one of the refugees around the world.

The most repressive regimes on the planet don't let you leave and if they do let you leave, they don't let you take your assets. It takes a 'regime' very secure in itself to let you leave with all your bling; it is highly unlikely a 'regime' of that confident will result in an unfree state.

[mawilson 2,133]

How do you explain this guy? He was on the ballot and even showed up on TV for a major debate. The voters had the opportunity to vote for him.

He didn't get very far, did he? A Republican-Democrat regimer was elected. Which is just as well, because JM is a total idiot.

[^_^ 5,021]

He didn't get very far, did he?

He was on the ballot. The voters could have elected him if they wished to. They didn't. How is that not free?

Which is just as well, because JM is a total idiot.

The rent is too damn high.

Which is to say, housing in NYC is too damn expensive.

Edited January 10, 2011 by \

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Soviet Union had fair and free elections.

There is terminology to describe the elections in the Soviet Bloc countries. "Fair" and "Free", however, are not exactly terms that would well describe what was called elections in those days. I've been there and I've seen it. Nothing free and nothing fair about it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem is that arguments around the second amendment rely less on practical definitions of what it means in real terms and instead rely almost entirely on half-assed platitudes.