Posted: Jan 28, 2013 9:13 pm
The idea of citizens holding arms to keep the government in check is paradoxical unless there are issues at the ballot box. Can anyone offer up a possible scenario where guns wielded by regular citizens could have a beneficial influence on how a country operates where those regular citizens also have adequate access to the ballot box?
At the time the second amendment was written the US was very new, lacked financial systems with which to fund a standing army, and was surrounded by well established nations with powerful militia - England, France, Holland. They were trying to form alliances to meet these needs without giving away the farm, literally. So they encoded the local citizenry to keep and bear arms to protect the constitution so the US could survive. It made sense then.
Now we have a failing Republican party struggling to gerrymander its electoral districts so it gets more influence than it deserves assuming each persons vote counts equally, and is now considering gerrymandering the electoral college to the same end.
If you ask me these Republicans are messing with the ballot box, and I for one can only see this ending in a civil war. But lets put that aside for now. Lets just try and come up with any possible scenario where a regular citizen could usefully raise up his weapons rather than deal with his issues at the ballot box?
Bear in mind, if any group of citizens were to take this step they would initially be opposed by their local police, who would then turn to the boys at the ATF, who would then turn to the full might of the strongest military force on the planet complete with nuclear capability. The only way to do this is under a civil war scenario where the government forces themselves are divided, which will only happen when there has been a failure at the ballot box.
So again I ask - can anyone offer up even one possible scenario where the citizens might meaningfully raise up against their own government?
And given all of this, WTF is left of the second amendment?
At the time the second amendment was written the US was very new, lacked financial systems with which to fund a standing army, and was surrounded by well established nations with powerful militia - England, France, Holland. They were trying to form alliances to meet these needs without giving away the farm, literally. So they encoded the local citizenry to keep and bear arms to protect the constitution so the US could survive. It made sense then.
Now we have a failing Republican party struggling to gerrymander its electoral districts so it gets more influence than it deserves assuming each persons vote counts equally, and is now considering gerrymandering the electoral college to the same end.
If you ask me these Republicans are messing with the ballot box, and I for one can only see this ending in a civil war. But lets put that aside for now. Lets just try and come up with any possible scenario where a regular citizen could usefully raise up his weapons rather than deal with his issues at the ballot box?
Bear in mind, if any group of citizens were to take this step they would initially be opposed by their local police, who would then turn to the boys at the ATF, who would then turn to the full might of the strongest military force on the planet complete with nuclear capability. The only way to do this is under a civil war scenario where the government forces themselves are divided, which will only happen when there has been a failure at the ballot box.
So again I ask - can anyone offer up even one possible scenario where the citizens might meaningfully raise up against their own government?
And given all of this, WTF is left of the second amendment?