Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (94608)	1/10/2005 9:56:08 PM
From: unclewest	Respond to of 793731

If Iraq was 10 times a big, even without being richer or more advanced, and the insurgency scaled with the increase in size, we probably couldn't put down the insurrection. Your last few posts are right on. And the reason imo the Iraqi insurgency is not doing better right now is likely that we disarmed so many of them initially and destroyed their ammo dumps. But new supplies are reportedly now pouring into the country from two directions, Syria and Iran. This war may indeed be won with rifles and small explosive devices. Many have been. The mighty Soviet Army was defeated in Afghanistan by similar lightly armed forces. Insurgencies including guerrilla warfare are not world wars in the sense of the first two. One side is usually terribly outgunned. But history provides many many examples of that side winning.

To: TimF who wrote (94608)	1/11/2005 7:02:22 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793731

We could kill most of the population and say the insurrection has ended, but it would be killing the population not controlling it. If the US wants to put down an insurrection badly enough to pull out all the stops, it can put down the insurrection. If some totalitarian government were to take over the US, do you really think it would stop at bombing the hell out of our insurgent strongholds? Tim, the reason I engage every now and again on this subject is because it interests me how people hold on to the second amendment as though it were the very essence of life. People who are not constitutional scholars by a long shot act like this is a monumental question. I find that curious. Regardless of what the second amendment means or doesn't mean, as a practical matter, life goes on unchanged. You, a "member" of the militia by virtue of gender and condition, and I, a "non-member" by virtue of gender and condition, get to keep a gun in the closet if we wish to. We also get to keep a chain saw in the closet if we wish to. And a bowling ball. (It's a big closet. <g>) How might that change? There's a soft way and a hard way. The hard way we've already discussed. Some really bad guys take over the government and weapons in the hands of citizens are a threat to them so they ban them using any means necessary. In that case, all the constitutional amendments in the world won't protect your right to bear arms. Do you really think they would care what the constitution says? They'd probably have already banned the constitution before then banned guns. Whatcha gonna do about it? The soft way is that we the people would choose it. We would install legislators and judges who were anti-gun and effect the change through democratic means. We might even amend the amendment to the constitition if we thought it helpful or symbolically important. Whatcha gonna do about it? In either case, you can stage an insurrection, I suppose. In the first case, your insurrection would be crushed mercilessly. In the second case, maybe you would be crushed, albeit not so mercilessly. Or maybe you would prevail and the voters would give in and re-authorize you to have your guns. And what role does the second amendment play in this? Absolutely none. If the first case, the totalitarian government ignores it. The the second case, the voters override it. So much for the mighty, mighty second amendment, whatever it may mean...