Connecticut (et al)

[Warren Dew]

The second amendment is about preserving the ability to overthrow tyrants or prevent them from coming to power.

Funnily enough, most other modern democracies manage to muddle along quite nicely, letting the normal political and legal processes do the job without relying on crazed individual gunmen to protect them from tyrants...

To the contrary: most of Europe was under the control of a tyrant only a few decades ago - and not for the first time since our second amendment was written.

But in the end, all those tyrants were sorted out, not by armed civilians, but by mass political and military action.

They were sorted out by military action from nations which had rights to bear arms, yes.

[JimC]

The second amendment is about preserving the ability to overthrow tyrants or prevent them from coming to power.

Funnily enough, most other modern democracies manage to muddle along quite nicely, letting the normal political and legal processes do the job without relying on crazed individual gunmen to protect them from tyrants...

To the contrary: most of Europe was under the control of a tyrant only a few decades ago - and not for the first time since our second amendment was written.

But in the end, all those tyrants were sorted out, not by armed civilians, but by mass political and military action.

They were sorted out by military action from nations which had rights to bear arms, yes.

And any rights for civilians to bear arms had absolutely nothing to do with the military success of the allies in WW2. Neither did it have anything to do with the break up of the Warsaw Pact, or the demise of the Soviet Union, or anything that can be given an example of the end of tyranny in the modern era.

No heroic Russian Seths overthrowing the heirs of Stalin with their private stash of survivalist AK 47s, I'm afraid...

[aspire1670]

Living in a society that will jail or kill you for criticizing the government should be no big deal, because there really is no necessity to criticize your government as long as you are kept safe and supplied with enough food to survive. Ask any North Korean.

You mean ask one of the survivors after incompetent government in North Korea starved the rest to death?

Afraid your examples are meaningless, Laklak.

The second amendment is quite different to any other human 'right'. The second amendment is about preserving tools for killing people. Can you not see how this is harmful?

The second amendment is about preserving the ability to overthrow tyrants or prevent them from coming to power.

*Gasp* But Obama is a tyrant! Oh Warren, what sort of a patriot are you? Here you are talking the the talk on Rationalia while the Republic crumbles under the heel of a tyranny. Shame on you.

[aspire1670]

The second amendment is about preserving the ability to overthrow tyrants or prevent them from coming to power.

Funnily enough, most other modern democracies manage to muddle along quite nicely, letting the normal political and legal processes do the job without relying on crazed individual gunmen to protect them from tyrants...

To the contrary: most of Europe was under the control of a tyrant only a few decades ago - and not for the first time since our second amendment was written.

But in the end, all those tyrants were sorted out, not by armed civilians, but by mass political and military action.

They were sorted out by military action from nations which had NO rights to bear arms, yes.

FIFY

[MrJonno]

Real tyrants tend to shoot 100 or so civilians for every soldier killed by the resistance. end of rebellion generally , you may want to risk your own neck when you start risking everyone elses you tend to rapidly run out of support. This was why generally the French resistance was limited to helping escaped airmen, reconnaisance and attacks at D-day (German forces were a bit busy then). The few other times they attacked it was normally on the lines of the Allies were going to carpet bomb a target killing 1000's of civilians but you can have a go instead

If they arent shooting innocent people in retaliation for your rebellion they arent tyrants, if forces in Iraq or Afghanistan starting murdering entire villages in this way there wouldnt have been such a rebellion but then you would have been the tyrants

[pErvinalia]

Bit simplistic. That didn't work for the US in Vietnam.

Just to be clear, though, I'm not into the whole 2nd amendment to overthrow tyrants thing.

[pErvinalia]

No heroic Russian Seths overthrowing the heirs of Stalin with their private stash of survivalist AK 47s, I'm afraid...

[MrJonno]

Bit simplistic. That didn't work for the US in Vietnam.

Just to be clear, though, I'm not into the whole 2nd amendment to overthrow tyrants thing.

The US didnt have a policy of deliberate targetted mass murder of civilians in Vietnam, local soldiers might have taken them out but it was never sanctioned

[Warren Dew]

But in the end, all those tyrants were sorted out, not by armed civilians, but by mass political and military action.

They were sorted out by military action from nations which had rights to bear arms, yes.

And any rights for civilians to bear arms had absolutely nothing to do with the military success of the allies in WW2. Neither did it have anything to do with the break up of the Warsaw Pact, or the demise of the Soviet Union, or anything that can be given an example of the end of tyranny in the modern era.

Actually it had a lot to do with both. If we hadn't had the second amendment, we would have had a tyrant making deals with Hitler just as Stalin did. If we hadn't had the second amedment, we wouldn't have had the successful free society that caused Gorbachev & co. to lose faith in their own statist sysem.

*Gasp* But Obama is a tyrant! Oh Warren, what sort of a patriot are you? Here you are talking the the talk on Rationalia while the Republic crumbles under the heel of a tyranny. Shame on you.

Correction: Obama would like to be a tyrant, but the large number of people exercising their right to bear arms deters and prevents him from becoming one. Good on you for understanding where Obama is coming from, though.

[Blind groper]

Seth destroyed his own case about overthrowing American tyrants quite some time back. He pointed out that the American military swear an oath to uphold the constitution, not to loyalty to any leader.

No tyrant can survive without the support of the military. We have seen that in the Arab Spring. Where the military did not support, the dictator was overthrown quickly and cleanly. However, in Syria, for example, where the military support the asshole dictator, the revolution is long, and bloody, and very possibly unsuccessful.

In the USA, with a military sworn to the constitution, it will oppose any tyrant, and no tyrant can exist. So civilians bearing arms are totally and utterly unnecessary.

[Blind groper]

Warren, like many Americans, you utterly exaggerate the impact of the USA on the war in Europe. To make it clear. The USA defeated Japan, and the USA was needed to win the Pacific war. But in Europe, Hitler was defeated by the USSR more than any other nation. By comparison, America's contribution was minimal. Important, but not of the same impact as in the Pacific. The turning point of WWII is widely recognised by historians as the Battle of Stalingrad, where Soviets stopped Hitler's armies, and sent them packing. 25 million Russians died in WWII - the greatest sacrifice of any nation. We should not belittle their amazing contribution as some less than well informed Americans try to do.

[Svartalf]

Grouper, without Merkin help, I'd be fluent in German, or worse, Russian... assuming I'd been born at all since I'm not sure the circumstances leading to my parents meeting could have happened.

[klr]

But in the end, all those tyrants were sorted out, not by armed civilians, but by mass political and military action.

They were sorted out by military action from nations which had rights to bear arms, yes.

And any rights for civilians to bear arms had absolutely nothing to do with the military success of the allies in WW2. Neither did it have anything to do with the break up of the Warsaw Pact, or the demise of the Soviet Union, or anything that can be given an example of the end of tyranny in the modern era.

Actually it had a lot to do with both. If we hadn't had the second amendment, we would have had a tyrant making deals with Hitler just as Stalin did. If we hadn't had the second amedment, we wouldn't have had the successful free society that caused Gorbachev & co. to lose faith in their own statist sysem.

*Gasp* But Obama is a tyrant! Oh Warren, what sort of a patriot are you? Here you are talking the the talk on Rationalia while the Republic crumbles under the heel of a tyranny. Shame on you.

Correction: Obama would like to be a tyrant, but the large number of people exercising their right to bear arms deters and prevents him from becoming one. Good on you for understanding where Obama is coming from, though.

WTF ??????

How do you explain the great many other countries where the populace is not armed as it is in the USA, yet have governments and leaders coming and going every few years as part of the democratic process? Give me a break ...

EDIT: I see JimC made much the same point already.

[aspire1670]

But in the end, all those tyrants were sorted out, not by armed civilians, but by mass political and military action.

They were sorted out by military action from nations which had rights to bear arms, yes.

And any rights for civilians to bear arms had absolutely nothing to do with the military success of the allies in WW2. Neither did it have anything to do with the break up of the Warsaw Pact, or the demise of the Soviet Union, or anything that can be given an example of the end of tyranny in the modern era.

Actually it had a lot to do with both. If we hadn't had the second amendment, we would have had a tyrant making deals with Hitler just as Stalin did. If we hadn't had the second amedment, we wouldn't have had the successful free society that caused Gorbachev & co. to lose faith in their own statist sysem.

*Gasp* But Obama is a tyrant! Oh Warren, what sort of a patriot are you? Here you are talking the the talk on Rationalia while the Republic crumbles under the heel of a tyranny. Shame on you.

Correction: Obama would like to be a tyrant, but the large number of people exercising their right to bear arms deters and prevents him from becoming one. Good on you for understanding where Obama is coming from, though.

I bow to your superior knowledge of teh stupid, Warren.

[Blind groper]

Grouper, without Merkin help, I'd be fluent in German, or worse, Russian.

Sorry to have to say this, Svartalf, but that is total and utter bullshit.

Without American help in Europe, the war would have been longer and more costly, but the Germans were turned and defeated mainly by non Americans.

If you want to give credit to the USA in WWII, look to the war against Japan, where the American input was vital, and dominant.