Members dravenzouk Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 First off, I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FL Knifemaker Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 Iran is the perfect example of why we have the 2nd amendment. Even Sadam let every household have one AK. Too bad Iran doesn't have the same law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thumper Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 If the citizens of Iran had the equivalent of Second Amendment rights, they wouldn't be in this fix... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dravenzouk Posted June 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 If the citizens of Iran had the equivalent of Second Amendment rights, they wouldn't be in this fix... I understand that this is a commonly held view. I'm not sure if I agree or disagree quite honestly (hence posting this thread for discussion). I certainly think it's much more complex than that, and that things aren't so cut and dried perhaps. Could you elaborate; explain more of why you think this? Also, some might argue (and I AM NOT saying I believe this) that the Basij Militia is essentially that equivalent. In one sense they are a "well regulated militia" made up of volunteer citizens. Their loyalty is to the Ayatollah, not necessarily "the government" -( which is of course sort of the same thing...... but not really...... but sorta.........although different.........kinda). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -Ryco Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 Kind of hard to speculate. I imagine there would be a lot of bloodshed.I imagine a lot of civilians would be killed and injured because they would probably not be wearing military issue protective gear like Kevlar. I'm thinking, "guns would not help this situation at all." In all of the demonstrations I've witnessed in my lifetime as a US citizen, I can't remember one where the US citizenry brought out guns in conflicts against the military and/or police. i can remember one incident where the Nat'l Guard did fire on unarmed college students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FL Knifemaker Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 Kind of hard to speculate. I imagine there would be a lot of bloodshed. I imagine a lot of civilians would be killed and injured because they would probably not be wearing military issue protective gear like Kevlar. I'm thinking, "guns would not help this situation at all." In all of the demonstrations I've witnessed in my lifetime as a US citizen, I can't remember one where the US citizenry brought out guns in conflicts against the military and/or police. i can remember one incident where the Nat'l Guard did fire on unarmed college students. It's not an issue of if they suddenly had guns now. It would have been a NON issue if they had them all along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thumper Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 Also, some might argue (and I AM NOT saying I believe this) that the Basij Militia is essentially that equivalent. In one sense they are a "well regulated militia" made up of volunteer citizens. Their loyalty is to the Ayatollah, not necessarily "the government" -( which is of course sort of the same thing...... but not really...... but sorta.........although different.........kinda). Not all Iranians have equal access to firearms. The Supreme Leader Khameni, (not the popularly-elected President) controls the military, and the Basij militia. The Supreme Leader determines who has access to arms, and excludes most Iranians from the right to keep and bear arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members s4001 Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 Kind of hard to speculate. I imagine there would be a lot of bloodshed.I imagine a lot of civilians would be killed and injured because they would probably not be wearing military issue protective gear like Kevlar.I'm thinking, "guns would not help this situation at all."In all of the demonstrations I've witnessed in my lifetime as a US citizen, I can't remember one where the US citizenry brought out guns in conflicts against the military and/or police. i can remember one incident where the Nat'l Guard did fire on unarmed college students. I'd hazard a guess that the 2nd amendment is to make sure that things didn't get to that point- or if they did, to give the citizenry some ability to solve the problem. After all, the Constitution is a document not designed to limit the citizens - it was designed to limit the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thumper Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 After all, the Constitution is a document not designed to limit the citizens - it was designed to limit the government. We often forget this. Thank you for the reminder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lonerstoenr Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 I certainly think it's much more complex than that, and that things aren't so cut and dried perhaps. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crescent Seven Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 This is why politicians want to control and regulate and eventually eliminate gun ownership in America, IMO. It's all about kontrol, with a backwards "R" and {censored}. Once they don't fear violent retaliation, they'll do anything they want. Not that anyone has really stood up to our government and their {censored}ed up decision making in recent years anyways. C7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lonerstoenr Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 Once they don't fear violent retaliation, they'll do anything they want. Not that anyone has really stood up to our government and their {censored}ed up decision making in recent years anyways. C7 Is the government that bad that many people in America want to violently retaliate? That's not the impression I get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bassman1956 Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 I'd hazard a guess that the 2nd amendment is to make sure that things didn't get to that point- or if they did, to give the citizenry some ability to solve the problem. After all, the Constitution is a document not designed to limit the citizens - it was designed to limit the government. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crescent Seven Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 Is the government that bad that many people in America want to violently retaliate? That's not the impression I get I think if you took away many of the things that make us complacent, and people started paying attention to what's really going on, then yeah, it would be different, especially if the media wasn't in the pockets. But hey, as long as I gots my PS360 with the nunchuk remotes, and everything else I'm totally like, entitled to, I won't complain about arcane and silly legislation and a president that just slapped my great great grandchildren with debt they'll never be able to pay off for programs that are destined to fail. It's all good. C7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members -Ryco Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 After all, the Constitution is a document not designed to limit the citizens - it was designed to limit the government. Yeah -- that worked out really well! Sometimes I get the feeling the Constitution was drawn up to protect "interests", not persons. There is a case to be made that the two previous US elections weren't quite on the up and up. I didn't see a lot of enraged citizenry racing out into the streets with guns drawn in protest. Of course I realize this would mean one would actually have to get up from in front of the TV set. And, I guess the majority of US gun owners agreed with the results. Still, in the spirit of patriotism and democracy they would have demanded the inaccuracies be investigated in the name of fair play. Oh well, back to speculating about Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crescent Seven Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 And, I guess the majority of US gun owners agreed with the results. Still, in the spirit of patriotism and democracy they would have demanded the inaccuracies be investigated in the name of fair play. Oh well, back to speculating about Iran. I would guess that the majority of gun owners didn't agree with the results of the most recent election, but that's a big ACORN to crack. C7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bluescout Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 I think if things were different, EVERYTHING would be different. Probably more citizens there would be armed than here. It would cause the government to take that into account and behave better to avoid violent protests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J. Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 It's impossible to say. It's a different culture, a different situation, and a different type of government against which the citizenry is protesting (can we call it 'rebelling' yet?). You've got so many variables, changing just one of them won't allow you to predict the outcome any more reliably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members In Absentia Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 I'd think that the situation would look worse, but end up better. I think the government would step up there attacks and the citizenry would respond in kind. However, I think that it would be much harder for the military to squash uprising, and the people would most likely have an outlet to express their political disenfranchisement. If this doesn't make sense, just ignore it. I'm way too tired to be getting political. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DevilRaysFan Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 After all, the Constitution is a document not designed to limit the citizens - it was designed to limit the government. Its amazing how well the ambiguity of that document has been combed over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lonerstoenr Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 I think if you took away many of the things that make us complacent, and people started paying attention to what's really going on, then yeah, it would be different, especially if the media wasn't in the pockets. Fair enough - I think you'd agree things are a lot better than they are in Iran, or another country with similar governmental problems. That's how I see it. But hey, as long as I gots my PS360 with the nunchuk remotes, and everything else I'm totally like, entitled to, I won't complain about arcane and silly legislation and a president that just slapped my great great grandchildren with debt they'll never be able to pay off for programs that are destined to fail. It's all good. C7 I think if you live somewhere were you have nunchuk guns all of life's problems disappear when you become a sniper ninja. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 I'd hazard a guess that the 2nd amendment is to make sure that things didn't get to that point- or if they did, to give the citizenry some ability to solve the problem. After all, the Constitution is a document not designed to limit the citizens - it was designed to limit the government. Exactly... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 There is a case to be made that the two previous US elections weren't quite on the up and up. Really??? - because I've never seen one, atleast a coherant one made to that effect... - georgestrings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members walkerci Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 We often forget this. Thank you for the reminder... Someone ought to remind the White House and Congress. And for that matter, the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hi.flyer Posted June 22, 2009 Members Share Posted June 22, 2009 I dunno. In some ways it doesn't seem that different than we have it in the US. There: rocks vs. guns... here: guns vs. big-ass guns. I mean, Uncle Sam could just bomb the {censored} out of your house if you were in his crosshairs. All the Constitutionally protected gats in the world aren't gonna help you then. BUT, w/ enough of a popular movement, the odds can be overcome. We just gotta always at least have rocks, I guess. AHMADENIJAD'S TRYIN' TO TAKE AWAY MAH ROCKS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.