World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[MrPopo]

I can't help but laugh at that misstatement that 93 million Americans die each day to gun violence.

The Congressman is right; just like you can say terrible things but we still allow it because that's enshrined in the First Amendment. And just as you can still get in trouble for actually doing damage with your words (libel, slander, fire in a theater) had this man lived he would obviously have been charged with a variety of crimes for causing harm with his weapon.

[marurun]

I think the response of one of the congressmen who was there was on-point:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/33775 ... f-shooting

I like his response. I don't agree that the Second Amendment is any longer necessary to preserve the Republic, but I like that he's being consistent and expressive and nuanced in his response.

[marurun]

For anyone who is interested in Constitutional law and current events, Radiotopia has launched a new podcast called "What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law." Basically, Roman Mars and Constitutional law professor Elizabeth Joh look at Constitutional law using Trump's tweets as a topical starting point. Some folks have referred to the Trump presidency as a stress test of the Constitution. Will this podcast bear that out? Their first episode is up and it looks at the relationship between the presidency and the courts.

https://trumpconlaw.com/

[Speedy-Mcspeedz]

I can't help but laugh at that misstatement that 93 million Americans die each day to gun violence.

The Congressman is right; just like you can say terrible things but we still allow it because that's enshrined in the First Amendment. And just as you can still get in trouble for actually doing damage with your words (libel, slander, fire in a theater) had this man lived he would obviously have been charged with a variety of crimes for causing harm with his weapon.

lol, yeah im glad he clairified that 98 million americans dont die each day. That would give us approx...4 days before we are completely wiped out. Anyways I still think mental illness needs to be assesed and followed more closely in this country. I know that obviously raises some ethics problems but there were some big red flags with this guy and apprantly he was just left alone.

[Ack]

I think the response of one of the congressmen who was there was on-point:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/33775 ... f-shooting

I like his response. I don't agree that the Second Amendment is any longer necessary to preserve the Republic, but I like that he's being consistent and expressive and nuanced in his response.

I also like his response. I would argue the opposite with you about the necessity of the Second Amendment to preserve the Republic, but this stems from my concern about our weakening position in the world as a result of this administration's isolationist-leaning policies and the rising competition we face abroad from rising powers looking to supplant us.

[marurun]

I also like his response. I would argue the opposite with you about the necessity of the Second Amendment to preserve the Republic, but this stems from my concern about our weakening position in the world as a result of this administration's isolationist-leaning policies and the rising competition we face abroad from rising powers looking to supplant us.

I guess I'm not sure what the 2nd Amendment does for us in that situation. Yes, we're becoming more isolationist. Trump also wants to spend more money on the military. I don't understand how that relates to citizen firearm ownership. We're not in danger of being invaded.

[Ack]

Perhaps, but that does not mean that we will always be free of that threat, either from external foes or internal insurrection.

[marurun]

Perhaps, but that does not mean that we will always be free of that threat, either from external foes or internal insurrection.

OK, the internal insurrection is the only thing I think individual gun ownership would do anything about. The problem is that those most likely to foment internal insurrection are the ones most likely to stockpile guns. Unless you are suggesting some folks ought to be stockpiling more guns because an internal insurrection may be the only way forward.

[Ack]

Take a moment to look back at your recent post offering up a podcast about whether the Trump administration actually threatens constitutional law and therefore stability of our nation. In the 2016 election, we faced an external threat from the Russian government which has managed to at least partially erode trust in our public institutions or our views on rights once held sacred, such as a free press. If such a threat is further capitalized on in the next few years, it is potentially possible for our democracy to collapse, especially if combined with a further strengthening of the executive branch at the expense of the rest of government, which President Trump seems willing to do.

While yes, those who are more willing to foment insurrection are also more likely to stockpile arms, that does not mean that all who stockpile arms are intending insurrection (it's also worth considering the definition of a "stockpile." I own three firearms. Do I possess a stockpile?). And just because some people do stockpile arms and may cause an insurrection, that does not mean the average citizen should not consider acquiring arms for various purposes, be it home defense, hunting, hobby shooting, historical preservation, continued readiness training such as my father engages in as a military veteran, or other reasons that do not immediately come to mind. It is also worth considering owning a firearm in the event of an insurrection from some kind of internal force as a means to fight back against said force, even if such an insurrectionist threat seems negligible. I'm not saying you all need to go purchase assault rifles, but owning a shotgun or handgun is not a terrible thing.

It is worth noting that an armed civilian populace does serve as the basis for a guerrilla force in the wake of external invasion and can be an effective means of confusing and terrorizing an occupying force while a main army is prepared.

Many of the arms that the Viet Minh used to face off against Japanese occupation forces were provided by US OSS Deer Teams. Those arms were then repurposed after World War II against the French(alongside arms taken from the Japanese), and French weapons were employed alongside those provided by either the USSR or China by the People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam. The PLAV managed to stay in the fight against the combination of South Vietnamese and US forces until the Tet Offensive, by which point the People's Army of Vietnam was able to take over the majority of combat roles.

In Vichy France, the French Resistance conducted campaigns of intelligence gathering, sabotage, assassination, and terrorism at the behest of Allied forces in the hopes of distracting and hindering German forces and operations. These forces often acquired their equipment on the battlefield, though some weapons were provided from Allied nations or were already in the possession of citizens during the time of occupation. The Resistance did its best to sow chaos and protect Allied agents until such time as the Allies were able to liberate the nation.

In China, Mao Zedong formed the Chinese Workers' and Peasants' Red Army, starting with uprisings and rural-based guerrilla tactics by peasants farmers against the better trained and equipped Kuomintang forces. While not initially successful, Mao's Red Army proved itself a capable force against the invading Japanese in the Second Sino-Japanese War, then renamed itself the People's Liberation Army and pushed the Kuomintang out of mainland China to Taiwan.

Individual gun ownership may be a minor contribution, but it can help in both internal and external invasion, and our democratic institutions are unfortunately not so stable that we can set aside our arms and think we will never be under threat.

[marurun]

Individual gun ownership may be a minor contribution, but it can help in both internal and external invasion, and our democratic institutions are unfortunately not so stable that we can set aside our arms and think we will never be under threat.

That was well-thought and well-worded, but the scenarios proposed seem apocalyptic and highly hypothetical. Yes, liberal democracies are proving less resilient than previously expected, in part because of modern advances in disinformation. Should our democracy fail, however, it's hard to know what happens next. If our military steps in the officers will be painfully aware of how easily military governments fail without popular support and will be in a hurry to put in something more democratic, or at least popular, in its place. In the meanwhile, a military government would be well-equipped to deal with insurrectionists. If there's a military coup that starts at the middle or lower levels of the military, where personnel are less likely to have a good handle on history and politics, small arms will be of very little use against the equipment available to the military. I'm sure there are dozens of ways our government or society could collapse that I can't predict, but there's little evidence, via analogous cases in a modern context or otherwise, that the Second Amendment would have a positive impact on the outcome.

And truth told, I don't think most Americans WANT to own a gun. Gun ownership in the US is at a 40 year low (in terms of how many people own a gun or live in a household with someone who owns a gun). Having one in my house puts me and my family in greater danger, statistically speaking, regardless of how responsible a gun owner I may be. (http://annals.org/aim/article/1814426/a ... systematic) The primary reason the NRA managed to successfully lobby the Federal government to prohibit the CDC from studying firearms in the context of public health is that almost every reputable study performed examining the relationship between firearms and public health, in the US and internationally, comes to the conclusion that firearms are a burden on public health (eg. death and injury rates) and not a boon.

Do we even have a model for a modern nation where small arms ownership by the general populace was used to good effect to avert or reverse some political crisis?

Basically, while I understand the historical importance of the Second Amendment, I can't say you've managed to change my opinion of its continuing relevance to American democracy.

And no, stockpiling is those people who have like 50 guns and a half-ton of ammunition.