[LyndsySimon]

> But it wont be so easy to kill so many people if guns are restricted to law enforcement officials.

Ever hear of Democide?

Far, far more people have been killed by their own government than at the hand of their fellow citizens. The American Second Amendment is designed to prevent just that.

[zhaphod]

So what you are saying is you are ok with 10000+ deaths year over year for many many decades to counteract an extremely remote chance of US federal government behaving like Saddam or Assad? On top of it even if US Feds wanted to murder their own citizens they would have to employ the Army as police are controlled by state government. We all know where the state govt will land if it comes down to killing their citizens. Also, another issue is that Army in US is not mindless enough to obey the Fed govt to kill 100s of 1000s of citizens. And even if they did taking on the US army by militias with their puny machine guns is laughable.

[LyndsySimon]

> So what you are saying is you are ok with 10000+ deaths year over year for many many decades to counteract an extremely remote chance of US federal government behaving like Saddam or Assad

The violent crime rate has been trending down in the US for decades, and continues to do so. You seem to be making the assertion that banning firearms would result in fewer deaths due to violent crime - an assertion that is not borne out by reality. Further, the number of people killed by government action in "peacetime" exceeds this number by many orders of magnitude.

> We all know where the state govt will land if it comes down to killing their citizens.

We do? I seem to recall several instances of states acting in exactly that manner. I'm originally from Arkansas... are you familiar with the "Little Rock Nine"? The governor called up the Arkansas National Guard to prevent desegregation in Little Rock's Central High School.

I have no idea why you would believe that the state government would protect unarmed citizens if the feds came calling.

> And even if they did taking on the US army by militias with their puny machine guns is laughable.

That's fantasy. No one is proposing this. Any action that brought the US military to bear against the American people would be met with a great deal of resistance from all corners of society - including from within the military itself.

[waps]

You don't get it. The entirety of (current) leftist ideology falls apart if force is ever used on any large scale. So "it can't happen", right ?

The same goes for intelligentsia's hate for violenc. Keep history in mind, intelligentsia will order "their" forces to do horrible things on their behalf against defenseless people, but touching a weapon themselves, no no no no no. What should be understood is that they have nothing against violence. They just want the guarantee that the plebs can't use violence against them, and that they, personally, can never be forced to commit violence, so they cannot be directly blamed for things, even things that are obviously their fault. Like, say, you will not find a single French philosopher accepting responsibility for the French revolution's aftermath, despite the fact that they were very, very much responsible for it.

What should be understood as well is that figures like Gandhi epitomize this behaviour. He's commonly misunderstood. He's a very religious Hindu man from a Brahmin family. His hatred for violence does NOT come from a desire for peace (no more than any other human, he wants a peaceful city to live in, like anyone else, but he certainly does not want peace at any price), it comes from being raised to never, under any circumstances do any work, certainly not manual labour, and certainly not risky work, like committing violence against other human beings. Such a thing would massively lower his karma, it'd be like forcing a jew to celebrate his birthday with a pig barbecue. He has, however, ordered large numbers of both soldiers and civilians to commit violence on others, or threaten them, he even ordered genocides. And even more often, he has often created or contributed to situations that he knew perfectly well would erupt in violence. He is at least partially responsible for the tens of millions of deaths during India's partition.

This person is celebrated by leftists, by the lower ranks because "he is a man of peace" and they can just deny real history because they're 15 years old and haven't ever touched a history book with more than 50 pages (they also revere complete monsters like Che Guevara of course). The higher ranks are well aware of history, yet they love him for his cunning use of violence. How he caused huge battles while moving his forces right under the nose of the enemy. How he created situations that got millions of muslims killed (in revenge for what they did - not saying there wasn't any justification) without ever ordering anyone to fire a gun (he did make sure they had more guns than the enemy of course). How he kept getting his way by creating situations that were completely intolerable for his enemy, e.g. preventing villages from getting food, preventing government departments from operating by cutting communications, destroying the means of escape for refugees by sabotaging train lines, ... Thereby forcing his adversaries to start the attack, usually at a disadvantage. But he is no more a man of peace than Adolf Hitler, and for the same reason. Which is another reason they revere him. This guy killed millions, maybe more than Hitler ever did, because they disagreed with his ideology. He did so without so much as ordering a single person killed. And of course, they revere him because he won.

No matter how pure your leftist ideology, you will be skinned alive by intelligentsia if you don't achieve leftist policy being imposed. E.g. the kibbutzim movement in Israel is widely reviled by leftists ? Why ? I've never met people more dedicated to living as leftist ideology dictates. They failed to take over Israel, that's why. Their failures made Israel a more rightist state than any rightist politician could ever have achieved.

Violence, arms and people choosing for themselves is just completely and utterly incompatible with leftist ideology on pretty much any level you can imagine.

Leftist policy, enforced sharing, massive government expansion, ... can only work if it's imposed from above by a privileged group of rulers (and intelligentsia would quickly leave leftism if this ever changes). But it's not just that. Generally leftism requires that large scale violence doesn't exist, or doesn't matter.

For example, obviously if war threatening America is a real risk, then a large well-funded military is an investment you can't seriously criticize.

If a large internal threat is possible, whether government or otherwise, then you can't argue against gun ownership. Hell, you might even advocate a DUTY to bear arms, something along the line of what Switzerland does [1]. You should see foreigners panic to the most normal of things there : someone comes to work with an assault rifle in his backpack, casually put beneath their desk, lots of ammunition in the same bag, because they leave for mandatory training that evening. Not easy on American nerves that one, let me tell you.

Generally most big government policies would never succeed if there is a serious risk of a large part of the population resisting force. Which is of course exactly the point of the second amendment, but a byproduct is that it makes leftist policies very, very hard to implement.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

[glimmung]

I don't really understand in what way people working in government are not also fellow citizens.

You're dead wrong about the second amendment, or at least you are if you read it in its entirety.

[LyndsySimon]

Whenever you set it up so that one group of people are armed and another group is defenseless, the second group exists entirely at the mercy of the first.

That's really the problem here - not that government isn't made up of citizens (obviously, it is), but that the act of banning firearms sets up a major inequity in terms of real power. No one is saying "no one should have guns", they're saying "Only these people should have guns". That's a recipe for tyranny.

As for the purpose of the 2A, it's not exactly a long amendment. "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."

The verbiage was revised multiple times to make it more clear that the purpose was military, and applied to protection against internal threats as well as external. For example, take Tench Coxe's words printed in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette in June 1789:

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Noah Webster argued in support of this stance as well:

"Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

While obviously tyranny was not the only concern addressed by the amendment, it was absolutely an integral part of its original purpose.