Skip to main content

View Diary: Do you own a gun? (poll/inspired by devilstower on Pombo) (141 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Are you a person of good repute? (0+ / 0-)

    Psst, I've got one for sale for only 12 million US dollars, comrade.

    More realistically, each of the rights in the Bill of Rights represents a balance between the interests of the individual and the society at large.  I suspect that if it's not okay to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater (sans fire, of course), that a pretty strong case could be made for not allowing you the ability to capriciously erase cities.

    The proper question to ask is: What is necessary to accomplish the goal of the right espoused?.  For example, the 1st amendment doesn't protect profanity.  Rather, it protects the "Marketplace of Ideas" (though I find plenty of wingnut ideas plenty profane).  Thus, laws restricting speech are not inherently unconstitutional, as long as they don't infringe upon this particular form of speech (i.e., laws restricting the use of profanity have been routinely upheld).

    So, in the case of the 2nd amendment, just how much fire power is necessary to maintain the possibility of an armed resistance?  As military technology advances this becomes a more and more uncomfortable question to answer.  But as of today, a shotgun or deer rifle is more than adequate.  The reality is that any armed revolt will likely begin with substantial, if not majority, support from the uniformed military.  Civilians, like me, would probably be relegated to rear echelon duties, such as protecting supply depots, etc.  For these purposes extensive firepower is not required.

    •  A shotgun is more than adequate? (0+ / 0-)

      The military will help?
      You'll get a cushy job in a supply depot?
      This isn't a comic book.
      The world doesn't work this way.

      •  Okay... (0+ / 0-)

        You tell me how the world works.

        You explain how a large fraction of the populous will rise up without the support of a good fraction of the uniformed military?  Even when people knew that Germany was in trouble in the 30's they didn't rise up.  It was the uniformed military who made an attempt at a coup.  Hell, even in the revolution it was the uniformed military that led the charge, albeit those who resided in the colonies.

        Secondly, placing untrained people on the front lines is not productive.  Just look at what the contractors are doing in Iraq, and I mean contractors not "contractors".  By taking over the support roles they allow the military to move enlisted soldiers to the front lines (though a cook in the Army is only slightly more qualified to be on patrol than a cook at the local dinner).

        Do you read many comic books?  I mean "graphic novels" (isn't that what you call them these days?).  But you'll tell me how the world works.

        •  They won't rise up. (0+ / 0-)

          That's my explanation.

          It isn't going to happen.

          •  I certainly (0+ / 0-)

            would be a very happy person if it never did.  Sometimes action isn't as important as the threat of action.  Besides, I'm no Patrick Swayze.

            I should also mention that we are still quite far from any need for violence.  Our democratic institutions are still functioning (though some might argue imperfectly), and through them we find our best chance to secure our future.  I wonder though if you are shocked at how rapidly they have been threatened?

            Also, this is not 1930's Germany.  While my profession makes me very portable, I cannot just leave.  I cannot leave the most fearsome nuclear arsenal on the planet to a bunch of zealots.  What would you do to keep them from using it?  How far would you go?  Or are you already resigned to defeat if they "win" at the ballot box (even the Saddam had elections!)?

            •  Pretty much resigned to defeat to be honest. (0+ / 0-)

              If they win again, I'm going to start looking for a home and a job in another country. I don't see any hope left if that happens.

              •  And (0+ / 0-)

                when they "praise the lord and let the eagles fly"?  I don't believe that Bush is a Christian for a moment.  Not that I don't think his actions are very Christian, rather I don't believe that he really believes.  It looks too staged and is abandoned too quickly when monetary interests arise.

                BUT he does reveal a lot about what this country is willing to accept.  What happens when someone who really is crazy (as opposed to just evil) gets into office?  When someone who thinks that he/she has been elected to facilitate the apocolypse?  If you listen to the idiots around Bush, they are certainly there, waiting.  If we don't nip this in the bud, sooner or later one will have their finger on the button.  

                Sure, there's a difference between claiming they'll do it, and actually ending civilization as we known it.  But that's a hell of a risk to take.  And it isn't one that we can run away from (at least not yet!).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site