Again, I think you are overestimating the impact a right to bare arms would have. Even baring arms like these would have little impact.

Is that a fucking tumor???

I think guns are like power in that the people that want them the most are the people that should have them least. The people I see proudly bearing arms are sure as hell not the people I would want creating a revolution and taking over the country, it would not better the country. I don't really mean this as a commentary as to whether or not the second amendment is good or bad, merely that the ideology that people invoke of it does not match up in any way to reality. The NRA is supposedly about protecting civil liberties with the idea that if they take our guns, what's next? But really they just like guns. During the Bush administration when he was vastly over extending his power by being able to listen to any phone conversation, or detain anyone in the world for any reason indefinitely without trial, they essentially were like "Wait, but we can still have guns right? Ok, fuck the rest."

We have to take school courses, and pass tests to get behind the wheel of a car, and regularly renew this liscense by passing more tests, and then there is an abundance of laws on how where and when to use cars, but to carry the power of life in death in your hands you only need wait two weeks....sometimes. What we need isn't to ban all guns, but to greatly restrict who has access to them. Make people take a psych evaluation to see if they have aggressive or violent tendencies, make them take training courses on how to use them properly emphasizing safety, put them in mock situations where they are defending their house from a burglar or somebody starts shooting everyone up in a resteraunt, don't just hand them a fire arm and a box of bullets from a drive through window.

The problem isn't the fact that in America we allow civilians to have guns, but that we have such an ridiculously lax view of what makes a person qualified to handle a gun.

The Iraq is actually a quite good example - but for the opposite. Ever heard of a person called Saddam Hussein and his regime which lasted fairly long?

The reason, why the US can't control Iraq, is because: they went in without a plan, ignorance of the culture there and because they are seen as an agressor from outside by many different groups (Before anybody jumps on that: yes, I hope Iraq is going to be a real democratic country one day). Armed citizens do shit as long as you feed them with enough patriotism or/and a national identity.

I can understand, that you don't want your rights to be castrated (I can imagine a major uproar in Southern Germany, if they would really ban drinking in public i.e.), but I don't think, that bearing arms is really that important.

The anger should have come along, as they took some basic rights away and where able to keep you in interrogation as long as they want without a trial, but to be honest, has there even been some plans to ban arms anyway recently? I haven't heard of any.

fmc -

AWB (Assault Weapons Ban)
Various city-wide handgun/firearm bans

They are quite common in the US - to ban all firearms in particular areas.

You can argue as you like about the importance of one civil liberty over another, but the fact is, if guns are taken away, then it proves that other things can be taken, and vice versa. The removal of one liberty doesn't mean any less if it's taken away - guns or privacy.

And my point about Iraq is that since they have a strong saturation of guns, it does make it easier for insurgents to fight. The same would go for any other country.

Let me ask you this: If Bush would have continued to erode rights, how would you plan on fighting him and the government? Write them? Start a hunger strike? It's not like dictators really get dissuaded from such things. Look at Iran. You think that, for all their rioting, it has done any good? The military and police have been able to jail and rape whomever they wish because they know the populace won't fight them.

So do you think that the government should never take away the right to abortion then? Because that is also a civil liberty.

Not all civil liberties are equal, things like gun rights, abortion and even same-sex marriage are on a lower teir than life, freedom of speech or freedom of conscience. In my opinion the right to bear arms hugely contravines the right to security - which I consider a far more important civil liberty.

In any case, nobody here is arguing that guns should just 'be taken away', just that they should be limited in what you are allowed and should be kept at home when not being actively used.

@mrstickball

Your still thinking from the humanitarian mindset. Your still thinking as a American with liberty. The truth is in a dictatorship the government doesn't give a crap about public perception, or about the value of human life. A dictator will nerve gas a city to quash and and all resistance, and to send a message to the public at large. Harbor resistance fighters, and I will kill everyone. The dictator is also happy to torture and execute your entire family in your stead. They just keep expanding the circle to you give yourself up, or until a member of your family turns you in.

Iraq is simply a poor example, because the United States government must restrain itself. Though if it used the tactics I just outlined the country would be subjugated in less then two weeks. You might lose a couple million citizens, but those that remained would actually reinforce your order. They would put down insurgents or report them in their communities.

I know, that it's a speciality of Arizona, that you can carry assault weapons with you.

The only thing I don't agree with you here is, that I simply don't think, that you could in theory fight the government with weapons, nor do I think you could fully succeed. Why's that?

1.) As mentioned above by others: the army and the secret service(s)

2.) Even more important the cause: do you really think that in modern society groups of one or more common interests could actually gather together and produce a coup d'etat? I'm talking about sweeping away a democratically elected government and retain one nation to be exact. I can't recall any examples (there might be some) in the last century, where the uproar came from the country itself without any military intervention or help from outside.

3. )Following to 2.: As you know, every political view just be it pure existance creates a contra product. Muslim Fundamentalism is an answer to our western culture spreading out in the world, etc. If some people would try to get rid of a government there will always people there as well who fight for the government. May it be either they profit from the governments action or they think it's just doing the right thing. This might lead to a civil war, which is in Iraq one of the mayor problems.

This 3.) point actually might apply to Iran as well. There even more, because how ridiculous it might look for us - the majority (or if they really faked the elections at least many people) think, that the government there is doing a good job(and sorry just by that it's not a dictaturship).

Keep in this special case in mind: If you look at New York, your biggest city voted more than 3:1 for Kerry in 2004 (source: http://www.vote.nyc.ny.us/pdf/results/2004/general/g2004recaps.pdf ) Teheran is the New York of Iran for that matter.

So, again in the highly theoretically case, that people stand up and take their arms to get rid of the government this leads to a civil war. And that's what your founding father surely didn't have in mind. You could go further and think about, what a civil war in the USA would cause worldwide, but that takes it too far^^

Just to make more points directly towards your question - there would have been one point, where the population really would have gathered together and that would have been the point where, he would've changed your system from a democracy into a dictatorship. But I really believe, that your checks and balances still work. You might not agree on everything a government does, but you're always free to promote the opposite in a democracy. That's why Obama won with a slogan called change. If you like that specific change or not - he's without a doubt an answer to the Bush years and therefore, what I wrote in 2.)

I'm going to bed now, but it would be great to have further discussions with you on this matter tomorrow.

i'm just here for the chick. Again.

^^

Oh wow. I just realised you necro bumped a 2.5 year old thread lol.

Ban who? Me?