Need help countering my gun nut brother in law on the 2nd amendment

[johnpowdy]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by DonViejo (a host of the General Discussion forum).

I got into it on Facebook with him after he posted some pro-NRA stuff and we got into an argument.

I said something about hunting, he of course went the gun nut route saying that the 2nd amendment is there to fight against a tyrannical government

I said: "How is your assault rifle going to protect you against tanks, bombs and F16s??"

He said (paraphrasing): "Our military could not even defeat a bunch of poorly armed people in caves in nearly 20 years being in the middle east"

He also pointed to Dorner in California as someone with some training and an AR15 shut down an entire state and had everyone in fear. He said what if 1/10th of 1% of gun owners (100,00 people) revolted with Guerrilla Warfare and claimed it would shut down the country. He also said that part of the military would split up and fight for the right wingers too.

What is the best response to counter to this? I'm thinking of just telling him something like that would never happen in modern America? Or should I argue with the semantics of people with assault rifles going against an advanced military?

[HAB911]

1. There are no provisions in the Constitution for fighting against the government

The 2nd Amendment allows fighting FOR the government

ANY action against the government of the United States for any reason is sedition and treason

[AJT]

3. Exactly.

[johnpowdy]

4. Thanks I will mention this

[jberryhill]

11. Mention Article I section 8 clause 15

[pandr32]

13. Exactly

[aikoaiko]

16. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."

It's not necessarily about fighting FOR the government.

[Blue_true]

28. Yes it is. "State" by definition means an organized collective that is considered the leading

entity, i.e., government. The 2nd was written by landed and wealthy members of society who wanted to protect their position against encroachment by the British and French. Since there were relatively few of the wealthy, the means to an end for them was to allow the commoner to arm, with regulation from the wealthy. The goal was to have anyone that possessed a weapon that was capable of war fight FOR the government, that is why the term "regulated militia" is there.

[aikoaiko]

31. yes, an organized collective that is considered the leading entity, (e.g., not i.e., government).

Yes, the common consideration for most of our founding leaders was to have a militia to protect their system of government from outside invaders because their government was a free State for them, but they chose a civilian militia because of the threat of government tyranny.

The goal was to have anyone that possessed a weapon that was capable of war fight FOR a free State, that is why the term "regulated militia" is there.

[Blue_true]

40. You dance around flames well, Grasshopper.

But you seem to be having trouble showing that "State", regardless of what you put before it, does not mean government.

[aikoaiko]

56. OK.

#7: I would say that government is only a subset of "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory" or "nation"

I am a part of the State but not a part of the government

State
noun
1.
the condition of a person or thing, as with respect to circumstances or attributes:
a state of health.
2.
the condition of matter with respect to structure, form, constitution, phase, or the like:
water in a gaseous state.
3.
status, rank, or position in life; station:
He dresses in a manner befitting his state.
4.
the style of living befitting a person of wealth and high rank:
to travel in state.
5.
a particular condition of mind or feeling:
to be in an excited state.
6.
an abnormally tense, nervous, or perturbed condition:
He's been in a state since hearing about his brother's death.
7.
a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.

[HAB911]

30. LOL, try that in a court of law

[aikoaiko]

33. Depends on whose court.

[HAB911]

34. Not a court of sovereign citizens

[aikoaiko]

36. Depends who wins.

Our courts protect the 2nd Amendment because we won the Revolutionary War.

[Marengo]

44. The scholarship on the issue suggests that free state in the 18th context meant a nation free...

Of despotism, not free from the rule of another country. The founders most certainly meant for the people to have the means to overthrow a tyrannical state should it emerge, just as they had done. They were loyal to the concept of liberty, not to any nation state in absolute terms.

[HAB911]

60. Perhaps one day we get the chance to test your scholarship

in a real world scenario, only time will tell

[MichMary]

2. The nice thing about Facebook

is that you can choose to hide/unfollow/unfriend people. Or just ignore his posts. Don't bother to argue with him; you will never change his mind, and you will only get aggravated trying.

[Sherman A1]

15. Precisely

I know of no one who has changed another person's mind on Facebook. Simply walk away, hide their posts and unfollow them.

[mercuryblues]

5. so your brother likes

the kid killer.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. I wouldn't bother to argue because there's no way to persuade someone

whose mind is made up. They just dig in harder. There's that old saying about wrestling with a pig: Don't do it, because you'll just get dirty, and the pig likes it.

[hack89]

7. He has a point

In that, as we learned in Iraq and Afganastan, it might be easy to occupy a country but hard as hell to pacify it. Now imagine a much larger country with a much bigger population. When you consider how small the US military is now, they would only be able to occupy and control a small portion of the country.

[Blue_true]

32. So you are talking about society breaking down.

If that happens, all that is required is a small band of soulless, immoral people to end humankind as we know it, guns will not stop them because they will likely use weapons of mass murder (releasing toxins, viruses, poison gas clouds, poisoning drinking water and food supplies in selected locations). Now imagine your claim that a small band not being stopped being applied to the type of people that I just mentioned.

[hack89]

71. Perhaps

while the original right was perceived as having political overtones with an armed populous acting as a curb to a tyrannical king, one can argue that modern weaponry might make it a moot point. But the founding fathers did not see an armed populous solely from the perception of the militia. Their history as Englishmen and the history of the British Bill of Rights argue otherwise.

[jberryhill]

8. You are wasting your time

The Constitution authorizes Coongress to do the following:

———
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
———

The militia is for suppressing insurrections, not causing them.


The idea that the Constitution authorizes rebellion is so patently stupid that you are wasting your time.

[aikoaiko]

9. You are both right to a degree.

If there were enough people who took up arms against a tyrannical US government, they could wreak havoc.

The US Armed Forces could annihilate cities, but they need those cities so they might not level them.

Asymmetrical wars are hard to predict.

Most Americans with guns probably wouldn't rise up.

[backtoblue]

10. Please don't share this here

I'm tired of this crap. Sorry in advance if you're truly wanting answers. Im just weary and tired of those lame talking points johnpowdy.

[Fred Sanders]

39. Indeed, repeating lame talking points of gunners, again? And asking for a response seems like a

pattern for the OP writer.

[ChubbyStar]

72. Very tedious

A cursory glance confirms this.

[MaryMagdaline]

12. No government establishes a bill of rights so that its people can take down the government.

The militia was to fight Indians British or French from reclaiming American😐 Land.

Do these NRA people think they can have their own military? If this is your BIL's plan, he will never come around. But I applaud you for trying. The NRA gained converts by making it seem cool to be a gun-owner. We have to turn the tide somehow.

[DetlefK]

14. Ask him if he supports...

Ask him if he supports the right of Muslims, African-Americans, Latinos, Feminists, Homosexuals, Socialists, Atheists and Satanists to violently rise up against a US-government after declaring it tyrannical.

[johnpowdy]

17. That's a good one. Didn't think of that

I'll include that in my response thanks

[dhol82]

18. Yeah, that should make his head explode.

[Vinca]

19. Suggest he seek psychiatric help. I bet he checks under his bed every night for foreigners.

[TheCowsCameHome]

22. And have him ask for the NRA discount

when he schedules his appointment

[Fresh_Start]

20. ask where his cave is

and whether his family is willingly going to join him in the cave


or will it just be a cozy nuclear family of him and his guns

[hlthe2b]

21. Armed Drones n/t

[Downtown Hound]

23. Tell him the last time the military opened fire on its citizens

was at Kent State. And while I was not alive at the time, my understanding is most right wingers cheered them on. However we are having a mass shooting it seems like every week. So between the two, which is the greater threat?

I also like to show people who use that defense pictures of the armed militia in Charlottesville, and tell them them that I am way more afraid of people like that than I am of the government and their black helicopters.

Also, you can show him this. This is what happens when a militia takes over a town. It isn't pretty.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/the-town-the-militia-took_b_3694293.html

[LakeArenal]

24. Ask him if he read the second ammendment...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


It states that gun ownership for a well regulated militia.

Ask him what militia he belongs to and the regulations he is willing to abide by?

[mr_lebowski]

38. It doesn't even say 'private gun ownership' it says 'keep and bear arms' ... 95% of 'arms' in 1780's

were some form of bladed or horned implement made of iron or iron alloy.

The phrase 'keep and bear arms' is also a 'term of art' understood at the time to specifically refer 'performing military or military-style service, using weapons, IN SUPPORT of the government (or more commonly at the time, monarchy)'

It was NOT understood at the time to mean 'every single US person has a solemn right to own FIREarms, kept at their own home, without restriction of any kind'.

[Blue_true]

25. Tell him.

That if the situation of shutdown of government by force that he envisions can happen, society would have collapsed, along with the rules that keep society glued. What does that mean? It means mass murder is no longer taboo, and that means that all the guns he has would be useless against the weapons of mass murder that can and WILL be used against him.

People like your brother frustrate and anger me. They fail to realize that they can think and talk the nonsense that they do because society protects. They essentially dream of ripping apart the very thing that protects them from being wiped out.

In regards to the Constitution, it was written for a country that had just gained it's freedom from a superpower of that era. The new nation had a second superpower of that era creating mischief on it's doorstep from the north and southwest. Although the Founders, who were learned, well positioned men in society, were unsure of allowing the masses to arm, they knew that allowing AND controlling arming of the masses would protect them from the designs of England and France. If the Founders had another way, the masses would have never been allowed to own some types of guns, the ones that could be used for war.

[Lil Missy]

26. Don't respond/argue with him on this topic at all. Move on to something else or leave.

[onenote]

27. Here's what I would ask him:

Who decides when the government has become tyrannical. If someone (and there are people like this) thinks the income tax is a tyrannical imposition on individual freedom, can they just decide to shoot up their local IRS office and claim that they were just exercising their second amendment rights? Can a African American, fearful that the police are a tyrannical presence, open fire on a cop? If folks think the Trump administration is "tyrannical" are members of the administration fair game?

Regulated militia. Not yahoos individually "defending" themselves against the somewhat amorphous concept of a "tyrannical" government.

[Ohioboy]

29. The reason we haven't defeated people in caves in places like Afghanistan?

Easy answer...
Our military could totally wipe out any cave fighter, but there are rules of engagement that keep us from doing that.
We don't fight wars to gain territory and totally defeat our enemies anymore. We take a side of a conflict, and train one side to fight another and stand back. Our purpose in war has become keeping things like the flow of oil to the world markets open, not about totally defeating an enemy and making places like Afghanistan the 51st state.

[mr_lebowski]

41. Exactly. Anyone who thinks we couldn't have destroyed the Taliban or Al Qaeda or ISIS completely

Just because they have weapons with which to 'fight back with' ... is delusional.

The US military could completely destroy/crush/annihilate any of them if we were entirely unconcerned with sovereignty issues, int'l alliances, becoming an international pariah, destroying lives/private property of innocents and/or rich people/corps who don't want us blowing up their stuff, and other sundry collateral damages.

The only real 'effect' that the weapons of the Taliban or Isis or whoever HAVE against the US government is that they they manage to kill or maim a small % of American soldiers and Mercs ... while they go down/lose the overall battle. It gives them the 'power' to kill a few of our guys. Does the US government/military EVER just 'give up' because too many of our guys are dying due to the firepower of the Enemy? Of course not. We may give up for other reasons but NOT because 'd'oh, look the bad guys are armed, run away!!!'.

[chumpchange]

52. Pull the other one, its got bells on

Right, so Afghanistan (for us and the Soviets), Iraq, Viet Nam (for the French and the US), etc. were/are endless quagmires because of rules of engagement? Laughable.

[mr_lebowski]

66. Well, not Vietnam that was a long time ago ... but the rest? Yup ...

If we didn't care about indiscriminately killing, US absolutely has the firepower to wipe out the Taliban/Isis/Al Qaeda. Period.

It's not their piddly-ass AK-47s and RPG's (which private Americans don't even have in nearly as large of numbers) that protects/protected them from being annihilated by our forces. We're not 'backing down' cause we're outgunned, period.

Sure we call it a 'quagmire' cause it drags on, and they manage to kill a few of our soldiers once in a while with their weapons. But we never abandon a fight of this nature specifically for that reason. AND we rarely 'solve' the underlying problems that led to the creation of these groups with these mindsets, so they end up never running out of potential new members.

Your argument is the laughable one, IMHO.

[chumpchange]

67. So you are ignoring

All of the recent examples where ragtag guerillas armed mostly with rifles held off the world's largest/most expensive military and tell me that what I am saying is ridiculous? Riiiggghhhtt. Guessing you failed debate back in school.

Private citizens do not have RPGs, but firearms aplenty and IEDs cannot be that hard to make or they would not have been a widespread problem in Afghanistan. What exactly do you think an insurrection/civil war would look like in the US today? It would be messy and never ending, methinks.

[NickB79]

50. Would those ROE be lifted if fought on US soil?

If we're not lifting them overseas, why would you assume we'd lift them in a hypothetical domestic battle like the OP's brother in law postulated?

If anything, doing something like using military might to flatten entire US cities in a 2nd Civil War is a great way to lose the war.

[Ohioboy]

57. I'm not assuming anything

I'm just giving reasons I think our military looks as though it can't defeat a poorly armed adversary when they most likely could if unleashed. I put it forth to refute the idea that just because our military hasn't totally defeated people in caves recently doesn't automatically mean we can't or never will be able to.

[NickB79]

59. Understood

But we have those rules for a good reason, and I shudder to think what kind of nation we'd be if we ever got rid of them.

[Ohioboy]

63. I agree with you.

It may have seemed like I was complaining about ROE, but I assure you I am not. I'm just using them as one, not all, reasons why we don't practice all out war.

If we suddenly found ourselves living in a nation that wanted to go total all out war we would have to stand against it. The scary thing is there are people in this country that do complain about ROE and want total such a case.

[Takket]

35. ignore him

you are wasting your breath

The left will bring this country to prosperity and peace, and the deplorables will be dragged along with us, kicking and screaming.

[missingm]

37. "People" refers to the whole, not every single individual

It is nuts to think that every single individual has a right to arm himself with whatever weapons they want.

Once you recognize the "People" as a group and not an individual, their "shall not be infringed" argument goes out the window. Taking guns away from someone on probable cause is not an infringement on the rights of the "People" and does no harm to the security of the state, much less a well regulated militia.

He'll, the gun nuts want to force states to allow citizens of other states conceal carry. How is that for security?

[hexola]

42. Conflict with the 1st Amendment - "right of the people peaceably to assemble"

One right holding another hostage

[D_Master81]

43. in all seriousness

save your time and energy and let the guy be. People like this have made their mind up and arent going to change. If they truly think they are going to destroy the US military he's insane, beyond insane. It takes so long in Afghanistan b/c its 6000 miles away and we dont know the terrain, culture, language. Plus if you do "shut down the country" well my god the country would end up a hell hole b/c the economy would shut down w/ it and we'd likely spend a decade or 2 trying to pull out of it at least, to who or what you have no idea. These people act like another George Washington would just rise out of the ashes to restore a grand union, when in all likelyhood it would be some kind of repressive dictator in another form.

[GulfCoast66]

45. Welcome to DU

I hope you achieve all your goals here.

Off to a decent enough start.

Have a nice day

[kentuck]

46. The present gunowners would not be on the side of the people if the need arose to defend ourselves..

...from a tyrannical government.


They would be on the side of the tyrannical government.

[johnpowdy]

47. Good one. I responded and am waiting for his response.

I might just take the advice here and just block him. I'm done associating with Trumpers and gun nuts honestly. Not even worth the effort and gets me worked up arguing with them.

[NickB79]

55. Bingo.

Lots of goose-stepping brownshirts in that bunch.

[Ohioboy]

48. I think you are right to counter your brother on this.

I understand the people that are telling you to not expect to change his mind, but even if it doesn't change his mind, it's still good for him to hear facts and information he can think about for later.

[sarisataka]

49. AR-15 in action:

A man with one is unstoppable

[hunter]

51. That's disgusting.

I encourage everyone to reject gun fetishes just as they might reject drunk driving or smoking in the produce section of the grocery store.

The second amendment has no place in the 21st century. It's of the same ugly time when slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person.

[johnpowdy]

53. It is certainly outdated. The supporters of the 2nd still believe its the 1800s or something

The Constitution was meant to be a living document

If Europe and Australia can do it why can't the United States?

[chumpchange]

54. By the same token

The first amendment is really outdated as well. Let's scrap it. The press has far too much power.

[johnpowdy]

58. Wow stupid comparison n/t

[chumpchange]

61. Really?

These amendments both date from the era of slavery, after all.

[johnpowdy]

62. Doesn't matter

How many people is the 1st amendment killing?

We are not living in the 1800's anymore where we need to worry about the British invading

[chumpchange]

68. Not the British

Just our own government.

[hunter]

69. Let's bring back slavery! It's God's will!

Women must not vote!

The Constitution is a sacred document inspired by God!



Gundamentalism is disgusting.

[former9thward]

64. Sorry, your brother is correct about guerrilla warfare.

The U.S. could not defeat the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese in the Vietnam War. The U.S. has been unable to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. If you want to argue with your brother you should find other points.

Also in any revolt of any size it would not be "the military" against the people revolting. That is not ever what happens. The military and police forces are made up of people not robots. They are not in isolation of the rest of society, especially in the U.S. There would be revolts in both of them also. (see the acts of desertion and outright sabotage in our military during the Vietnam War). Not that it ended good, but in the Russian revolution of 1917 the military and police forces were on the side of the Czar, until one day they weren't. That is generally how these things go.

[Calculating]

65. He is probably correct

It would likely only take around 10,000 hardcore insurgents to completely shut out country down and spread terror through guerrilla style attacks. Target the electrical and communications infrastructure, energy/refining infrastructure, target politicians where they live, and start massive fires everywhere. The country would be in ruins in short order if such a thing happened.

[ollie10]

70. All rights have limits

The supreme court has ruled as such.

We cannot ride to work in a tank. nor can we brandish bazookas.

There is no need for anyone having an ar15, or other weapons of war.

Police are up against war weapons.....not right

[DonViejo]

73. Locking....

Discussion of guns (unrelated to the current high-profile news topic) should be posted in Gun Control & RKBA (Group).