Yes, Paris was successful since the government is still for the people to some degree.

The point that they are making is just so that the people and state have the option to fight or check the federal government. This gives a power to the state. It gives the means for the state the option to secede from the Union.

Everything does not go as smooth as that, protesting does not work all the time. The Confederate States protested at first but was not heard by the federal government so they tried and failed to secede.

However, there is still a chance that the federal government can have too much power over the state, and it can become oppressive. It is better that you are prepared for the worse as the saying goes.

In the event that there was some sort of uprising, do you think that soldiers everywhere, who conceivably see themselves as patriots, would all be hunky-dory with slaughtering their neighbors?

This is a more complex issue than a show of force. In terms of numbers, we have the army beat. But we're not mobilized, and we're certainly not equipped and trained to try to fight anyone, even if it is on our own ground. Hell, a single tear gas shell into your home and you'd be ready to call it quits.

Union soldiers fought against their Confederate brothers and vice versa.

You should have more faith on war of attrition. They work sometimes.

Underdogs sometimes win if they think the cause is too noble.

Depends on what you are fighting for, I hope you do not quit.

Pathetic. If you really trust your lives to the federal government then so be it, but that is a very foolhardy thing to do considering the track records of the governments in power now across the world.

I love how your retort Arrowhead is that because it doesn't matter any more. What makes you so sure about that?

Dead Horse++ brings up a good point, why shouldn't I have the right to own a firearm? It is a right guaranteed by our constitution, which why I find it funny that all the foreigners are the ones telling us that we can't or shouldn't have guns. Maybe a touch of jealousy at our rights? I don't know, but the simple fact is if you are not American then you really have no say in what we choose to own or allow our people to own.

So basically you're telling me "It happened 200 years ago, and it's a shoe-in today" and "Have faith, because good guys always win in the end."

I am just saying that it still could happen so it is better to be prepared for the worst. Once something is gone like freedom to own a gun, it is very difficult to get back until it is too late.

Civil war isn't the same thing as a civil uprising anyways, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.

I mean, regardless of whether you have a gun or not, my point is that your ability to affect any change in the government (much less by force) is laughable. Most caretaking of the government is doen by watchdog groups and the media, since the government now (as opposed to 200 years ago) have to project a certain semblance of order if they don't want other countries trying to take advantage of civil disorder.

Should any civil uprising ever come about, I doubt very much that homeowner Bob and his 12-gauge will have any desire to meet even a street cop armed with riot gear.

Guns are fine. I'm not trying to pry them from your soon to be cold dead fingers. But the argument that you need guns to protect yourself from big brother is ludicrous.

I am just pointing out the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and why it should not be infringed. This is not my arguments but merely stating what the framers have in mind. If you have something against the framers intention, you can always propose an amendment to change it.

The point I made with the Civil War is just an example why owning a gun is important as the framers have intended. This gives a means for the state the defend what they think they need to do.

By the way, civil war is just basically civil uprising to a large scale.

If I am the only one doing it, yeah, there is no point. But, if the Southern States or Northern States or whatever tried doing it, they might have a chance. Wait, Southern State attempted that already and almost succeeded.

This works because the government still care for the people at some level, but to think about it, there is still a posibility that a powerful political person to take full control.

But, if there is 1 million Bob with a 12-gauge because the government is oppressing them, that is a force that is difficult to stop.

Again, these are not my arguments. I just quoted Mr. Lee, Mr. Madison, and the second amendment.

It's a hypothetical, maybe you've heard of them. As if the Right exists explicitly to fight King George.

On the other hand, having the world's strongest military power would make citizenry that much easier to suppress in the unlikely event of a Coupe de Tat. Not to mention that we have an overstretched Army, and don't have the proper deployment to protect ourselves from any kind of present invasion. Hell, the Mexicans could probably get as far as Arkansas at this point (if it weren't for those ignorant, gun-loving Texans rite).

Is Mexico likely to invade? Not at all. However, it's not entirely impossible for them not to in the course of future events. Not to mention the very real danger of the Chinese crossing the Bering Straits and invading North America through Alaska. Alaska would normally be easy to defend, if we had soldiers there to defend it. The argument that the United States Navy would intercept a Chinese fleet is also rendered moot by the fact that it can't be everywhere at once, and that China is rapidly modernizing its military force and attempting to construct a Blue Water Navy.

The likelihood of a Chinese invasion of North America is unlikely given present circumstances, but the energy crisis is only going to get worse. We have oil, the Chinese don't. Put two and two together and you're looking at a potential invasion.

I imagine a Meth Head can get a gun with the Government telling him not to already. Nevermind, either, that a Meth addict invading my home is looking for valuables he can pawn with which to buy more Meth. Sure it isn't threatening to me, but how would I have known that? I'd prefer to shoot first and ask questions later thx.

Exactly. If we did arm to protect ourselves against the government, the ATF would burn our house down.

The thought that a representative government will remain benevolent is naive at best. Nations don't last forever.

Not that I'm arguing for Rikimaru here, but have you seen Dr. Strangelove, Skate? The mad general who orders his bomber wing to attack Russia in the movie tells his base defense force that the Commies have attacked the United States, and that they would send themselves disguised as American soldiers to try and seize the Air Base. The soldiers, since they trusted their commander, hated Commies, and are willing to accept the idea of a Nuclear Exchange, readily comply and attack the Airborne troops that try and re-take the Air Base.

It's not exactly the same situation, but when you're placed in a command-control situation, and presented with highly unusual circumstances, soldiers tend to put their faith in their commanding officers. The idea of dissenters is rendered null, as dissenters are branded as Commies, or Terrorists, or Traitors, and shot. Dissent has to be in the majority, which is never a guarantee.

Okay, are you comfortable with the idea of practicality? Who's going to feed clothe and supply these one million angry homeowners? Who will lead them? Who will ensure they don't break and scatter at the first sight of a column of U.S. trained troops with a tank at their head?

Yeah, that's the rub, isn't it? Your arguments are outdated.

I understand the concept you're trying to get across, but I think face to face gunning down of American citizens will cause a lot of soldiers to start questioning exactly why the government feels that level of violence is necessary. Call me an idealist, I guess.

No, and you're perfectly right. The way things are now, American soldiers are independant enough to be instilled with a sense of morality that goes beyond the orders of a superior officer. If, for instance, a soldier thinks that a direct order defies something set in place by the Geneva Conventions, then he does not have to follow that order.

However, with the little, or no education concerning the rules of war being instilled in our soldiers at the present, I think you can see how things could change for the worst.

By what standard, exactly? Are Newtonian concepts of Gravity merely outdated because they were established a long time ago?

Not entirely, but Newtonian physics does become less and less certain at certain levels. Hence the theories of general and special relativity.

I have no idea where this will lead to. Why not just look through history? You will see that many angry people can do a lot of things against one government even though it is impractical.

Did you ever take history lesson?? (sorry, that was a cheap shot)

Since the Constitution was written by the people that I quoted which whose argument you said are already invalid, by continuing that logic, you are saying that we should scrap the Constitution.

I have nothing to say to that anymore. I have no idea where you got that idea that those arguments are outdated.

Because his interpretation of them remains grossly underdeveloped. It is hinging on the idea that technology has not changed.

The constitution is an expression of ideals. The idea that you can take back power from the government personally is very nice; it appeals to everyone's sense of individuality.

Putting this idea into action needs to consider a lot more than faith in your fellow man.

Well, the Bill doesn't explicitly mention the individualistic nature. In fact, a Militia would be a community of individuals. Regardless, over a hundred million firearm owners is supposed to act as more of a deterrent than a legitimate threat to the establishment. It only becomes a threat when people are like-minded in will, and it'd take quite a bit to push them over that edge.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to use the constitution as a source, just making a general comment on our desire for individual freedoms.

That's really what I want Riki to understand. Sure, it's always possible that you could form a people's army and contest government control. But how likely is it that they could create a self-sufficient rebellion using what they buy at wal-marts and gun catalogues?

I don't see how it is "common sense". The presance of a firearm is not was causes people to get hurt. It's people who do stupid things with firearms, for example leaving a loaded pistol within reach of a small child...

Well, here in the real world, the police don't actually catch all the bad guys. And even when they do, the bad guys don't go off to jail forever, they get let out sooner or later...

Actually it's not a "shoot first" law, it's a "stand your ground" law.

All that really means is that if you REASONABLY feel someone is about to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself. That doesn't sound so bad to me...

Actually, I believe that the word "criminal" refers to people of commit felonys. I don't think of someone who gets a parking ticket as a "criminal"...

I find this whole "cars have a nondangerous purpose" argument laughable. To those of you who are in favor of banning guns: why do you want them banned? I'm sure most of you would say "because they hurt/kill people", and that "fewer people would be hurt/killed if guns were banned". If your goal is to save lives by banning dangerous machines, then logically you MUST be in favor of banning cars. So why arn't you in favor of banning cars? You then use the "you can do things with them that don't involve anyone dying" argument. Again, guns are the same way, there are alot of things you can do with firearms that won't kill anyone. So please explain to me how they are different?

Thats exactly why they should teach kids NOT to shoot themselves in schools.

Why do people assume that the US is such a violent place? I don't believe that we are somehow more violent by nature than people from other nations. I'd still love to see those crime rate numbers... I could be wrong but I have a feeling that the numbers will back me up on this one...

You can't legislate saftey. Either people will be smart (and therefore safe) or they won't. Stupid people can find all sorts of ways to hurt themselves or others, with or without guns.

First off, the majority are gun owners (at least in the US).

Secondly, wouldn't you be pissed too if someone told you that you can't have something because you MIGHT do something bad with it? That would be like me saying that you shouldn't be allowed to own a computer, because you might use it pirate movies or music. Nevermind the fact that you've owned computers for X number of years and never done anything illegal with them. You MIGHT do something bad in the future, therefore you have no right to own a computer...

I've been shooting for nearly 20 years now. I've never once shot anyone or held up a bank or anything of the sort. Explain to me how taking away my firearms will make the world a safer place?

My point exactly. As long as people are responsible with them, why should anyone care if they have guns?

I don't recall anyone sujesting the use of a full auto for home defense... thats just plain stupid, as you've pointed out...

Again, all the more reason to have saftey classes in schools...

While technology has changed, human nature has not. I believe that the founders wisdom is just as valid today as it was 200 years ago...

Actually, I believe on of the reasons that the Japanese didn't invade hawaii or the west coast in WWII was because they knew that the citizens were well armed...

What if that same meth-head has a knife or bat? And what if I'm a 75 year old granny? Are you saying that a gun wouldn't be a good thing to have in that situation?

Also, the Meth-head is already breaking the law. What makes you think he (or she?) would obey a gun law when they won't obey other laws?

I think the goverment is more dangerous now than ever before. The current leadership seems determined to take away as many rights as possible in the name of "protecting" us from terrorists...

Not if you have a gas mask :p

I think I said this before, but I'll say it again: I bet the Jews would have fared better in Nazi Germany had they been armed...

There are many examples of powerful, organized armys being defeated by untrained locals with guns. Two that come to mind very quickly are the amerian war for independance, and the veitnam war...

This is not the 1700's, and Bumfuck, suburbia does not exactly facilitate guerilla warfare.

Stupid people will always be there. The entire point about considering the consequences of gun ownership is to reduce the means they have of amplifying their stupidity. They would have done something stupid yes, but the odds of it being a fatal stupid, would be reduced.

And I'm not promoting banning guns, only promoting people properly think about things before they do them. Arugments like 'We should have a milita', well fine, have a militia. Doesn't mean that those outside of the militia need a gun. 'The founding fathers had guns, I wanna be like them.'... Uh, ok. 'Only stupid people and criminals use guns with poor judgement', if this is true, then what's the solution? Kill/lock up all the criminals, stupid people, maybe those who are likely to be criminals or borderline stupid?

There are a precious few reasons to have a gun. There are piles upon piles of excuses to have them though.

Also, the issue with the 'stand your ground' law, is that there is are no ground rules as to what is reasonable. It's written in a manner to leave that up to the sole discretion of the court.

Criminals are those who have comited a crime. Just because you don't count some crimes, doesn't make it any less so.

You can legislate safety, traffic laws would be an example. Now again, I'm not suggesting that firearms need aditional legislation, only that people should take safety into their own hands and be more practicle/cautious. Oh, do you know why traffic laws had to be implimented? Because people were too impractical, wreckless, and stupid to be ressponsible with their vehicles.

People AREN'T responsible with them. Some are, some aren't. It's those that aren't responsible, that are a concern. Just because you may be trusted with a death dealing boomstick, doesn't mean that everyone will make choices as to it's use as well as you have.

Heh. An interesting conclusion. You'd be amazed at how many rights other countries have. There isn't exactly a monopoly on 'freedom' by the US, despite what headlines might say. And if others were jealous of the 'right to bear (fire)arms', I'd imagine they would look to changing their laws instead of speaking against yours. You have a point though, nobody but your countries own citizens have a right to set policy. And you have every right to plug your ears and pretend as though the rest of the hasn't a voice if you wish. But the jealousy thing is pretty laughable.

Rikimaru, no one is suggesting that your constitution be abandoned. What I personally suggest, is that whenever one consults a source, they should re-examine how appropriate it is today. To quote an old source, or a well respected source is nice, but shouldn't be the end. Otherwise it's blind faith that those that came before know better than those that are here now. Sometimes true, sometimes not.

Track records? There you go into history which is largely irrelevant.

Because, again, this isn't the XVIIIth century anymore. Guns or no guns, people in democratic nations are not afraid of their governments nor do they have reason to be.

Very funny!

You shouldn't have the right because of the danger it puts you all in.

Look at your stupid self: You argue that you have the right to bear arms which makes gun ownership good, but at the same time you admit that the danger is from other gun owners! That's absurd and a circular argument at best!

I don't dignify such "you're not American so you don't know what you're talking about" arguments with a retort. Keep that shit on the Jerry Springer show, thanks.

Double Post:
Replace the loaded pistol with a cauliflower sprout and the child isn't in danger now is he? Guns are very dangerous.

Semantics. Thanks to that law, it is no longer the judge and jury that decide whether the shooter's life was in danger if he/she pleads "self defense". Now all the shooter has to do is claim that he/she felt his/her life was in danger without any solid reason, e.g. the commission of a felony. In my opinion, that's just completely unacceptable.

Someone who commits a misdemeanor is also a criminal, in common English anyway - my dictionary doesn't make a distinction.

Then you, sir, are a loonie.

Because their SOLE purpose is to hurt/kill people.

Let me see you drive your handgun to work. Let me see your handgun carry the groceries home.

Because none of these "a lot of things you can do with firearms" are necessary parts of life by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, what you do with a car is very much necessary.

True, but in countries where people are not armed, that point is moot.

Guns make it a hell of a lot easier, and on top of that more likely that they'll kill rather than hurt.

That's as stupid as your previous car argument.

Computers have thousands of uses. Guns are made specifically with the intent of doing harm.

And I'd love to see you try to kill somebody with your computer.

Because the firearms are made to do harm. Because you can very easily accidentally injure/kill someone with them. Because somebody can steal your firearms from your house when you are away and hurt/kill with them. Because neighbourhood children may get a hold of one of your firearms and hurt/kill someone while playing with them.

How can we say that they are responsible?

So I suppose you could at least admit that there's no point for a private citizen to own a fully automatic weapon, then? And no I wouldn't take that as your stance slipping.

As I've already shown, the founders' wisdom is not as valid today as it was 200 years ago. The world is very different from what it was 200 years ago.

And you have nothing to back it up, so it remains just that: a belief.

How many 75 year old grannies do you know who are gun owners?

If the Meth-head has a gun, then for crying out loud don't put up a fight. You'll only get your dumb ass shot.

The government will be replaced in two years, so keep your safety on.

That's an interesting bit of "what if".

The Vietnamese were not "untrained", let me be the first to tell you that.

How does me having the right to own a firearm put everyone in danger?

Because people get shot by firearms.

I'm going to have to ask you to try again and this time actually make a connection between the rights of law-abidiing citizens and the fact that people get shot.

There's no need for a connection. People get shot by firearms. It's a simple fact nobody can deny.

Why should anyone have the right to have tanks? People get killed by tanks.

Of course no one can or is going to try to deny it....

But as such, you've shown me no compelling reason as to why law-abiding citizens should be stripped of their rights. And given that you've refused to do so, it leaves me to believe that there is no compelling reason why Americans should lose their 2nd Admendment rights other than you simply not liking the fact that people can own firearms.