The 2nd Amendment means the Government has to Think Twice

[cthulu2016]

Fear of an armed populace is a check on Federal power.

The government has to think twice before trying to do deeply unpopular things.

Like integrating the Universities of Arkansas and Alabama. (Or even seating Abraham Lincoln as President.)

Seriously, though... I do understand that an armed populace is, theoretically, an intangible check on government over-reach in some times and places.

But it doesn't seem to be a very good one. Everyone in Iraq had fully-automatic weapons that are illegal in America. Gun control was a limit of one fully automatic AK-47 per household. And we were always saying that Iraq was one bad week away from overthrowing Saddam Hussein... but somehow they never did, despite being armed to the teeth.

On the other hand, Saddam Hussein could not have survived a free press for very long at all.

Yes, an armed citizenry probably does weaken and disrupt government power to some intangible degree. People favoring an armed populace do seem to get preferential political treatment on a host of issues, so there may be something there.

In terms of effective bulwarks against tyranny, however, the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments seem to have a better track record.

That is not a call to repeal the 2nd Amendment... just noting that it's effect in limiting government over-reach is minor, and not necessarily benign. One man's over-reach is another man's sensible governance.

[Reasonable_Argument]

1. Well..

All of our fundamental rights are important. That's why an erosion of any of them should be prevented. Overreaction leads to things like the patriot act which harms us all. Using a tragedy to restrict any of our rights is an abomination.

[cthulu2016]

2. Joining DU the day after a gun tragedy to spam NRA talking points is also an abomination.

Not that anything like that could ever happen.

[Reasonable_Argument]

3. I'm not a member of the NRA

My point still stands. If there weren't so many posts about restricting gun rights right after this tragedy I'd happily discuss something else and look forward to doing so.

[Scuba]

7. Can't see the other posts? There's lots...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021005102

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014174014

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=greatest_threads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=latest_threads


So, what interests you besides erosion of our rights?

[Reasonable_Argument]

9. Well...

I have quite a few interests and as the insanity in GD goes down I'll check out some of the sub forums. Do those sub forums get nearly as much traffic as GD? When I would lurk I spent most of my time reading GD or Breaking News

[Scuba]

11. You might want to start with the Greatest Page. These posts have lots of recs...

... and usually lots of comments. Then check out the forums that interest you.

But if you limit yourself to one-sided comments on only one topic, you're likely to be labelled a troll and perhaps banned. DU members are typically interested in many topics and distrustful of "one issue" folks.

[DearAbby]

8. They have no qualms about restricting a woman's Constitutional rights

Or the right to vote...jes saying

[Scuba]

4. Yeah, we've really reined in the government. Yeah, that's it.

[Bragi]

5. Not really

The idea that a bunch of disorganized citizens with guns could take on a government that commands the largest, best equipped, most violent state security apparatus ever assembled in human history is as far-fetched a myth as one can imagine.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. It's not that simple.

I assume that by "state security apparatus" you're referring to the military (since the combined police forces would be nowhere near adequate). While it's true that the US military would be more than a match for any conceivable citizen uprising, that presumes an intact military willing to follow orders to suppress said uprising. I don't think that's a sound presumption.

In any plausible scenario of mass uprising, one that involved a substantial portion of the population, there is no reason to believe that members of the military wouldn't support an uprising in similar proportion. That would mean defections, with the defectors bringing whatever ordnance they could over to the other side.

More importantly, it would mean loss of unit cohesion and overall fragmentation. This is critical, because a fragmented military, with a badly disrupted logistics system can't operate and maintain complex, sophisticated systems (like communication networks, air and artillery support, etc.) for very long at all. These are the things that give a modern military its real advantage over insurgents.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. And the uprising in the south of iraq in 1991

Had the track record I expect in an uprising in the US..unless those revolting use asymmetrical warfare, like both Vietnam and Iraq against us...and are willing to suffer many tactical defeats, casualties, over and over decades, if need be.

But red dawn fantasies notwithstanding you will see them repeat them.

[Larkspur]

10. The US government will ALWAYS have more fire power than any citizen could hope to have

and of course the wealthy and powerful will always have or can obtain more fire power than the middle and working classes can ever obtain.

Guns are not the solution.

[rurallib]

13. We have a free press?

sure couldn't tell it