• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

what kind of constitution do you wish to create...National or Federal.

natiuonal or federal?


  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
That is not born out by history, not universally anyway, history is full of examples of military officials not putting down rebellion. The October revolt in Russia, is the most prominent. The governor of Tennessee chose not to activate the national guard during the McMinn county war is another

I don't see what that has to do with the fact that

1) Using the militia to put down revolts, insurrections, etc is a part of the constitution
2) Soldiers would (and many times, have) put down insurrections when ordered to do so
3) The RKBA is not a check on a govt that has a powerful and professional standing army at its' service

The fact that some govt have chosen to not put down insurrections doesn't change the above. If the govt chooses to not put down an insurrection, then it makes no difference if the people have guns. They won't need to use them to fight a govt that is not resisting their insurrection.

PS - The McMinn county war wasn't an insurrection against the federal govt so the fact that the fed govt didn't put it down doesn't really make the point that RKBA is a check on the federal govt
 
IMO, that was a part of the intent but given how things have changed it doesn't really make sense any more. A bunch of people having guns is in no way a check on a govt that has a standing army of professional soldiers.
One sure way to dissolve the us military is if they are ordered to attack US citizens, because our military is made of US citizens. We as Americans are as many call us a gun nation, the government knows this all too well. The government could not expect for us Americans to go silently to the cattle cars. We would take up our arms and fight a government that has turned against its own people.

If I were to fight a revolutionary war against a corrupt government I would rather be armed even with the smallest firearm.
 
I don't see what that has to do with the fact that

1) Using the militia to put down revolts, insurrections, etc is a part of the constitution
2) Soldiers would (and many times, have) put down insurrections when ordered to do so
3) The RKBA is not a check on a govt that has a powerful and professional standing army at its' service

The fact that some govt have chosen to not put down insurrections doesn't change the above. If the govt chooses to not put down an insurrection, then it makes no difference if the people have guns. They won't need to use them to fight a govt that is not resisting their insurrection.

PS - The McMinn county war wasn't an insurrection against the federal govt so the fact that the fed govt didn't put it down doesn't really make the point that RKBA is a check on the federal govt

Plus, there are many examples of people taking arms up against the govt and being stopped. Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.

If the govt had chosen to shoot at the Bundy cattle grazing situation, the handful of people opposing them would have died. The govt. chose not to, which I think was a good decision. But that those particular people were well-armed didn't give them the power to overthrow the govt.

People are much better armed by having and using the vote.
 
One sure way to dissolve the us military is if they are ordered to attack US citizens, because our military is made of US citizens.

Our military is not made of US citizens who are attacking the govt. If the military is ordered to put down an insurrection, they will be taking actions against americans who are attacking the govt. You may believe the military won't do that, but history shows that they have and will.

We as Americans are as many call us a gun nation, the government knows this all too well. The government could not expect for us Americans to go silently to the cattle cars. We would take up our arms and fight a government that has turned against its own people.

If I were to fight a revolutionary war against a corrupt government I would rather be armed even with the smallest firearm.

The fact that you would rather go with a gun in your hand won't change the fact that your gun won't be able to stop the US military.

The military has thousands and thousands of highly trained young men in peak physical condition who work full time at maintaining their fighting skills and who have access to the most effective equipment and support systems in the history of the planet. If you think a few weekend warriors with pistols and rifles stand a chance against that, you are gravely mistaken.

There is only one way an insurrection has any hope of not being destroyed by the military and that is if their cause is so popular that the majority of americans, which include the soldiers, supports them. But in that case, it's not the guns of citizens that protect the revolt; it's the vote and support of citizens that protects it.

As I said, the RKBA is pretty much useless as a check against govt abuse. It gives us no protection that the vote hasn't already given us.
 
Our military is not made of US citizens who are attacking the govt. If the military is ordered to put down an insurrection, they will be taking actions against americans who are attacking the govt. You may believe the military won't do that, but history shows that they have and will.
That is way too broad of a statement to debate.

I think that you believe that our soldiers are mindless robots that have no feelings or education. Like I said the first order to attack citizens that are not extremists but just citizens going about their business, and the chain of command will be broken, including upper brass. Perhaps you do not have family and friends in the military? Havent been around that culture much? Well I have been around it quite a bit and one of those conversations that comes up is what they would do if ordered to attack civilians and they all after defining that they are innocents would refuse to follow our with their orders, period. That is because they are humans not monsters.

The fact that you would rather go with a gun in your hand won't change the fact that your gun won't be able to stop the US military.

The military has thousands and thousands of highly trained young men in peak physical condition who work full time at maintaining their fighting skills and who have access to the most effective equipment and support systems in the history of the planet. If you think a few weekend warriors with pistols and rifles stand a chance against that, you are gravely mistaken.

There is only one way an insurrection has any hope of not being destroyed by the military and that is if their cause is so popular that the majority of americans, which include the soldiers, supports them. But in that case, it's not the guns of citizens that protect the revolt; it's the vote and support of citizens that protects it.

As I said, the RKBA is pretty much useless as a check against govt abuse. It gives us no protection that the vote hasn't already given us.

Vietnam - Iraq - Afghanistan. How did some what primitive forces make things so hard for our superior military? The insurgents are still in Iraq. The Taliban are still giving the region trouble. What about all those young trained soldiers why cant they stop a rag tag bunch of thugs? Obviously you are not well educated about the dynamics of resistance to a oppressive government. But I never claimed that it would be easy, but be damned that i would roll over and die without making a attempt and I would rather have available weapons to start out with, rather than nothing at all.
 
That is way too broad of a statement to debate.

I think that you believe that our soldiers are mindless robots that have no feelings or education. Like I said the first order to attack citizens that are not extremists but just citizens going about their business, and the chain of command will be broken, including upper brass.

You see? Now you have changed it from "the military won't put down an insurrection" to "the military won't attack citizens who are not rebelling but are only "going about their business""
 
You see? Now you have changed it from "the military won't put down an insurrection" to "the military won't attack citizens who are not rebelling but are only "going about their business""

Dude WTF? SHow me a post that I made where I said that quote?

"the military won't put down an insurrection" ←The only person that said that quote was you.

I actually said this ► "One sure way to dissolve the us military is if they are ordered to attack US citizens, because our military is made of US citizens." I didnt say resurrection at all, so quit ****ing lying.
 
That is way too broad of a statement to debate.

I think that you believe that our soldiers are mindless robots that have no feelings or education. Like I said the first order to attack citizens that are not extremists but just citizens going about their business, and the chain of command will be broken, including upper brass. Perhaps you do not have family and friends in the military? Havent been around that culture much? Well I have been around it quite a bit and one of those conversations that comes up is what they would do if ordered to attack civilians and they all after defining that they are innocents would refuse to follow our with their orders, period. That is because they are humans not monsters.



Vietnam - Iraq - Afghanistan. How did some what primitive forces make things so hard for our superior military? The insurgents are still in Iraq. The Taliban are still giving the region trouble. What about all those young trained soldiers why cant they stop a rag tag bunch of thugs? Obviously you are not well educated about the dynamics of resistance to a oppressive government. But I never claimed that it would be easy, but be damned that i would roll over and die without making a attempt and I would rather have available weapons to start out with, rather than nothing at all.

Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting an invasive army, not their own govt. How well did the kurds do against their own govt (Saddam Hussein)?

You can choose (although it's illegal and I'm not advocating it) to storm "the govt" with your gun any time. You will lose, whether you are going against your local sheriff, the state militia or federal troops.

If you want to fight an oppressive US government (not that I think our government IS oppressive) use the ballot box.

Now - could there be a time for armed rebellion? sure. If our govt stops holding elections and starts throwing people in concentration camps - go for it. Doubt it will work, but if they start enforcing laws banning women from working, having credit, owning homes, I'll join you.

Remember Utah trying to keep polygamy? didn't work.

In our country - not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan or any other country - as the Tea Partiers have proven - the ballot box is a LOT more effective than guns.

And yes, those nice, clean cut army reserves? will take out a fellow citizen in a second if their superior orders them to do so.
 
Dude WTF? SHow me a post that I made where I said that quote?

"the military won't put down an insurrection" ←The only person that said that quote was you.

I actually said this ► "One sure way to dissolve the us military is if they are ordered to attack US citizens, because our military is made of US citizens." I didnt say resurrection at all, so quit ****ing lying.

You should go back further in the discussion. The claim was, and I believe it was you, was the RKBA was a check on the govt and I responded that with a standing army of professional soldiers, the RKBA does nothing to check the govt. That's when you brought up the "if the army was ordered to attack US citizens"

From the context (we were talking about people with guns, remember), it wouldn't be ordinary citizens going about their business that the army would be ordered to take action against - it would be the people who had guns and were using them to attack the govt

as far as the govt attacking people who were not attacking the govt, and were just going about their business - that's just "crazy talk". Why in the world would the govt just attack people who were not threatening the govt? And how does the 2nd prevent that?

The answers are "It wouldn't" and "if it did, and the army refused, then that would prove that it wasn't the 2nd that provided a check on govt"
 
Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting an invasive army, not their own govt. How well did the kurds do against their own govt (Saddam Hussein)?

You can choose (although it's illegal and I'm not advocating it) to storm "the govt" with your gun any time. You will lose, whether you are going against your local sheriff, the state militia or federal troops.

If you want to fight an oppressive US government (not that I think our government IS oppressive) use the ballot box.

Now - could there be a time for armed rebellion? sure. If our govt stops holding elections and starts throwing people in concentration camps - go for it. Doubt it will work, but if they start enforcing laws banning women from working, having credit, owning homes, I'll join you.

Remember Utah trying to keep polygamy? didn't work.

In our country - not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan or any other country - as the Tea Partiers have proven - the ballot box is a LOT more effective than guns.

And yes, those nice, clean cut army reserves? will take out a fellow citizen in a second if their superior orders them to do so.


Lol. Apparently any mention of hypothetical resistance to a fictional oppressive US government leads to a canned argument attacking Libertarians/militias nut jobs.

The fact is that our government indeed is not oppressive, and our Constitution enumerated gun rights. ANd the fact that you wish to write away gun rights in this fantasy constitution shows why it is a fools errand to write a new constitution (in reality).
 
You should go back further in the discussion. The claim was, and I believe it was you, was the RKBA was a check on the govt and I responded that with a standing army of professional soldiers, the RKBA does nothing to check the govt. That's when you brought up the "if the army was ordered to attack US citizens"

From the context (we were talking about people with guns, remember), it wouldn't be ordinary citizens going about their business that the army would be ordered to take action against - it would be the people who had guns and were using them to attack the govt

as far as the govt attacking people who were not attacking the govt, and were just going about their business - that's just "crazy talk". Why in the world would the govt just attack people who were not threatening the govt? And how does the 2nd prevent that?

The answers are "It wouldn't" and "if it did, and the army refused, then that would prove that it wasn't the 2nd that provided a check on govt"

My point is that for some hypothetical political group usurped power in our government and became a dictatorship. And the people resisted and revolted, large sections of the military would also be on the peoples side since our military are not robots. Our military is made of ordinary Americans our neighbors and families. So your scenario about not being able to the US military is misguided bs.

Of course if some militia nuts decided to have a armed revolution it would go nowhere. Any damn fool can see that. But that wasnt what I was talking about despite what you are attempting to make it look like. I am here for honest debate not this bs of you trying to make me say what you want me to have said. But that is your debate style so I expected nothing less. That doesnt mean that I have to let you do it though.
 
Lol. Apparently any mention of hypothetical resistance to a fictional oppressive US government leads to a canned argument attacking Libertarians/militias nut jobs.

The fact is that our government indeed is not oppressive, and our Constitution enumerated gun rights. ANd the fact that you wish to write away gun rights in this fantasy constitution shows why it is a fools errand to write a new constitution (in reality).

We have amended the constitution over the years. That it contains gun rights was relevant then, not relevant now. The 2nd amendment is not really guaranteeing us anything re protecting ourselves from the govt., as Sangha has pointed out.
 
Last edited:
. ANd the fact that you wish to write away gun rights in this fantasy constitution shows why it is a fools errand to write a new constitution (in reality).


I'm sorry - did you think we were writing a new constitution that would be adopted by the USA? That's not the purpose of this exercise. We are attempting this as an interesting exercise to see if a random group of people on a forum could work together and come up with a constitution.

If you don't want to participate, you don't have to. If you think it is a "fool's errand", then you are free to not come on this errand with us.
 
My point is that for some hypothetical political group usurped power in our government and became a dictatorship. And the people resisted and revolted, large sections of the military would also be on the peoples side since our military are not robots. Our military is made of ordinary Americans our neighbors and families. So your scenario about not being able to the US military is misguided bs.

If the military would not assist a dictator and instead take the side of the people, then you've explained why the 2nd amend is useless in protecting against a dictatorship. The wannabee dictator would fail, not because ordinary citizens have guns, but because the military would not support the dictator.

Of course if some militia nuts decided to have a armed revolution it would go nowhere. Any damn fool can see that. But that wasnt what I was talking about despite what you are attempting to make it look like. I am here for honest debate not this bs of you trying to make me say what you want me to have said. But that is your debate style so I expected nothing less. That doesnt mean that I have to let you do it though.

Actually it was what we were talking about. We weren't talking about a wannabee dictator ordering the military to attack civilians who were not rebelling.
 
We have amended the constitution over the years. That it contains gun rights was relevant then, not relevant now. The 2nd amendment is not really guaranteeing us anything re protecting ourselves from the govt., as Sangha has pointed out.

I'm sorry - did you think we were writing a new constitution that would be adopted by the USA?

That's not the purpose of this exercise. We are attempting this as an interesting exercise to see if a random group of people on a forum could work together and come up with a constitution.

If you don't want to participate, you don't have to. If you think it is a "fool's errand", then you are free to not come on this errand with us.
Lets see... this forum is in the game section of DB, did I think that it was going to be officially adopted? Now thats funny.
 
If the military would not assist a dictator and instead take the side of the people, then you've explained why the 2nd amend is useless in protecting against a dictatorship. The wannabee dictator would fail, not because ordinary citizens have guns, but because the military would not support the dictator.
AH but why hasnt a dictator taken over? It is because of the fact that the US Constitution was so well written that while intact there can be no take over. ANd that our culture forbids and is willing to fight against such a usurping of power. The 2nd Amendment offers a philosophical meaning that permeates American culture with a will to stop nobility and wannabe dictators. So yes you are correct no one really needs to fire a shot at anyone. No one actually needs to remove their guns from their homes for the threat to work. Because once we make it to the point of resistance, whoever was in office at the time would be a idiot to think that Americans would just let them get away with it.


Actually it was what we were talking about. We weren't talking about a wannabee dictator ordering the military to attack civilians who were not rebelling.
Really and here I thought that we were discussing the poll?
 
AH but why hasnt a dictator taken over? It is because of the fact that the US Constitution was so well written that while intact there can be no take over. ANd that our culture forbids and is willing to fight against such a usurping of power.

Yes, but not with guns. Our constitution is so well written that fighting with guns is not only unnecessary, it is superflous.

The 2nd Amendment offers a philosophical meaning that permeates American culture with a will to stop nobility and wannabe dictators. So yes you are correct no one really needs to fire a shot at anyone. No one actually needs to remove their guns from their homes for the threat to work. Because once we make it to the point of resistance, whoever was in office at the time would be a idiot to think that Americans would just let them get away with it.
No, it's not the 2nd Amend that creates the will to stop dictatorships. And if no one needs to fire a shot, then the 2nd doesn't provide any checks on govt.

The people do.
 
Yes, but not with guns. Our constitution is so well written that fighting with guns is not only unnecessary, it is superflous.


No, it's not the 2nd Amend that creates the will to stop dictatorships. And if no one needs to fire a shot, then the 2nd doesn't provide any checks on govt.

The people do.

FFS I didnt say that the 2nd Amendment alone does ****. Quit trying to put words in my mouth.
 
Back
Top Bottom