It's time to show all you assault rifle hating flower weenies the truth!!!!

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Unarmed students at Kent and Jackson State Univerisites 34 years ago was the last time.

Wait, didn't those unarmed student fire first?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Straybow

Originally posted by Ned
And, what did I say? I said the purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide weapons for the citizen so that they could form military units, also known as militias, to defend the nation. Now, it seems on further inspection, that you agree with me.

Not so. The Constitution addresses the rights of two distinct groups: the States and the People. It's as deep as the bicameral structure of the legislative branch and the electoral college for the executive branch.

The right to a militia respects the States, the right to bear arms respects the People. The two distinct classes of rights cannot be conflated.

Yes they can, as the Amendment is directly only to the Federal Government. The Feds cannot pass a law either to restrict a State's right to form a militia, nor restrict the citizen's right to bear arms -- military weapons.

The Amendment is not addressed to the what the states may do or not do in these matters, as the 2nd Amendment has NOT been incorporated into the 14th Amendment to apply to the states. States can regulate the right to bear arms all they want.

Thus, there is no INDIVIDUAL right involved here -- that is, unless the States are restricted thru the 14th Amendment.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Wait, didn't those unarmed student fire first?

That would be impossible, since they were unarmed. No one alleges that students fired upon the soldiers. It is well recognized that in both cases, the NG opened fire for no reason.

[NeOmega]

Your understanding of revolution is extremely limited. No revolution against a strong state has succeeded . . . not ever. They are only possible when the system begins to break down.

WHat is your point chegitz, you seem to keep missing the subject of the debate. Did any of these revolutions occur with an unarmed populace? Bastille, Bolsheviks or Bostonians, they all were armed.

The U.S. Army is a part of the U.S. government. If the Army sides with the revolution, then the revolution didn't needs its own guns. If it sides against the revolution, it doesn't matter how many guns we have, we will lose.

Your profound statment misses if the army is split.

You undermine your argument here, that guns are necessary. What is necessar is not that the public has guns, but that we can win over a significant portion of the military to our cause.

Yes, and the point I am making is the amount of military needed to win over to "our" (perhaps only in a coutner- right wing coup, xcept you'll be out protesting and getting shot by the police) cause is inversely proportionate to the number of citizens that are armed.

There really shouldn't be any resistance in Iraq right now... but there is.

Why shouldn't there be any resistence? Only an idiot would think there wouldn't be any resistence, which is why we're in this mess in the first place! There is a resistence because our government isn't willing to be the bastards that it would be able to crush the rebellion.

This is following your logic. All they are armed with is small arms, a couple of rpgs and homemade bombs, yet they are proving, as history has time and time again, that assymetric warfare, especially when employed defensively, can be successful.

I know why there is resistance, but there wouldn't be one without an armed populace.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That would be impossible, since they were unarmed. No one alleges that students fired upon the soldiers. It is well recognized that in both cases, the NG opened fire for no reason.

oh man...

C'mon chegitz......

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That would be impossible, since they were unarmed. No one alleges that students fired upon the soldiers. It is well recognized that in both cases, the NG opened fire for no reason.

Other than they were being assaulted and they were in severe danger.

[chequita guevara]

Okay, first off, I'm an actual revolutionary. I study revolutions, who and why they happen, etc. In the West, an armed populace is no threat to a trained and well-equipped military. The only chance we have of making a revolution in this contry requires that we create an environment where soldiers themselves are caught up in the revolutionary ferver, as beganned to happen during the Vietnam War, and was one of the reasons the U.S. had to abandon the fight.

Originally posted by NeOmega

Your understanding of revolution is extremely limited. No revolution against a strong state has succeeded . . . not ever. They are only possible when the system begins to break down.

WHat is your point chegitz, you seem to keep missing the subject of the debate. Did any of these revolutions occur with an unarmed populace? Bastille, Bolsheviks or Bostonians, they all were armed.

All of the cases you mentioned, in two, France and Russia, the military switched sides. In the U.S., we were aided by an outside power, France. It was the French who defeated Britain, we just helped. Plus, the Brits were fighting a war of occupation in a colony, which isn't the same as fighting a revolution on your own soil.

And there have been non-violent revolutions. The Velvet Revolutions of 1989 involved no violence. The Revolution that ousted Marcos in the Philippines was mostly bloodless. If the military refuses to fight, i.e., it switches loyalties, then violence is unnecessary. In only one case was it necessary for the populace to have guns, the American War of Independence.

So yes, mostly those revolutions happened without an armed populace.

The U.S. Army is a part of the U.S. government. If the Army sides with the revolution, then the revolution didn't needs its own guns. If it sides against the revolution, it doesn't matter how many guns we have, we will lose.

Your profound statment misses if the army is split.

It is possible that in the case of a divided military and civil war, that irregulars could tip the balance.

Yes, and the point I am making is the amount of military needed to win over to "our" cause is inversely proportionate to the number of citizens that are armed.

This is incorrect. At best, irregularies would be auxilaries, who are used to harrass and interdict the enemy. They would not be used to fight battles, except maybe at the very end of the fight.

And we don't need to be armed now to form irregulars in the event of civil war.

I know why there is resistance, but there wouldn't be one without an armed populace.

But they won't win. And that's the real point, winning. We atheists don't get 72 virgins (and why would we want them? I want 72 women who know what they're doing!) for dying for our cause when it's hopeless.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Other than they were being assaulted and they were in severe danger.

No they weren't. There was quite a distnace between the soldiers and the students. No one was throwing anything and attacking the soldiers. They were just protesting and pretty much enjoying a sunny day. Stop making things up just cuz you don't want to believe the soldiers opened up on an unarmed crowd for no good reason.

[DinoDoc]

I can't speak for Kent but there was already a riot going on when police arrived at Jackson State. Which maybe what Ned is refering to.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No they weren't. There was quite a distnace between the soldiers and the students. No one was throwing anything and attacking the soldiers. They were just protesting and pretty much enjoying a sunny day. Stop making things up just cuz you don't want to believe the soldiers opened up on an unarmed crowd for no good reason.

Ditto. Stop making things up.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I can't speak for Kent but there was already a riot going on when police arrived at Jackson State. Which maybe what Ned is refering to.

From CNN http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/05/04/kent.state.02/

Gibbs and Green were killed after police in riot gear approached the protesters outside Alexander Hall, a women's dormitory. Police said they heard gunfire, but students maintained someone dropped or threw a bottle, according to the Web site.

edit: That was about Jackson State, but it was the police, and not the NG, that opened fire on the students. So I guess JSU is no longer relevent.

Ned

But Miller was 85 yards away from the guardsmen when he was shot and the other shooting victims, Allison Krause, William Schroeder and Sandy Scheuer were an even greater distance from the troops.

Explain to me why students so far from the troops were being shot?

The shootings followed days of anti-war protests in which the Army ROTC building was burned. The National Guard was sent in to quell the disturbances.

Is this what has your dander up?

[DinoDoc]

Mea culpa. I thought he was talking about Jackson State not Kent. That's what I get for not paying attention

[chequita guevara]

He never specified, so I'm trying to cover both bases.

Oops, realized pertinent info is missing.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

obviously, there was a lot of stuff going on, like angels dust, and that made the students all extermely strong, and the nation's guards felt threatened so they had to shoot and kill cuz otherwise they wouldnt have been able to control the crowd.

i mean it is a college campus. never know what those pink eyed no gooders are doing in between class.

[chequita guevara]

Apparently burning down a ROTC building.