Is threatening to nuke your own civilians going too far?

[HumbleDuck]

Do you cry when you look in the mirror? I hope you do.

[Jimmy Woods]

Are you retarded? Thats not what he says.

It's what Right-Wing media has spun this tweet into saying and of course Right-Wingers can't think for themselves and now the media spin IS their opinion.

This is why Republicans lost over 400 local and federal seats just a few weeks ago and how it will be much worse in 2 years if you keep up this BS culture war everyone is sick of.

[Spectral]

People also tend to glaze over the "well regulated" part of it, and instead use it as "everybody has a right to guns". The 2A is badly outdated, and needs further work to bring it up to modern times... The King of England isnt about to invade, and your AR-15s are laughably pathetic against a squad of Seals or Marines....

The definition of the phrase "well regulated" at the time isn't what the plain meaning of the phrase is now. The elaboration here is helpful:

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.[1]

So, if something is “well regulated”, it is “regular” (a well regulated clock; regular as clockwork).

In the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. [2] [emphasis added]

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

Finally, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, from The Federalist Papers, #29,

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

From this quote we can deduce two things:

If the Founders meant for government to control the militia, they would have used the verb “to discipline”, as in “a well disciplined militia” (an objective Hamilton described as “futile” and “injurious”).
As Hamilton observes, well regulated meant the people were responsible for training themselves to arms, as well as supplying and equipping themselves. Though Hamilton thought this onerous, by demanding the Second Amendment, the States devolved this responsibility to the People.

[helebelemon]

That's a dumb thing to say in this social climate. Fuel those conspiracy theories even more...

[ohiostate124]

So many edgelords voting yes.

[Dhrizzle]

Is Reddit pushing out patches to its NPCs without /pol/ beta testing them properly? Even complete morons understand that Swalwell wasn't literally endorsing nuclear war against American civillians.

[helebelemon]

Is Reddit pushing out patches to its NPCs without /pol/ beta testing them properly? Even complete morons understand that Swalwell wasn't literally endorsing nuclear war against American civillians.

Of course he wasn't but he should know damn well how the right likes to run shit into conspiracies.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Is Reddit pushing out patches to its NPCs without /pol/ beta testing them properly? Even complete morons understand that Swalwell wasn't literally endorsing nuclear war against American civillians.

Looking through this thread that statement seems inaccurate :P

[Ehrenpanzer]

<snip>:

Okay, even bearing in mind that "only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline" is what they meant, you cannot possibly argue that every Tom, Dick and Cletus having semi-automatic rifles is what they had in mind. This is also still the "bring a rifle to a drone fight" argument. Unless you are going to say that every American citizen should have an armed drone?

[Spectral]

Okay, even bearing in mind that "only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline" is what they meant, you cannot possibly argue that every Tom, Dick and Cletus having semi-automatic rifles is what they had in mind. This is also still the "bring a rifle to a drone fight" argument. Unless you are going to say that every American citizen should have an armed drone?

I'm saying that the historical context is plainly that civilians should be capable of forming an armed fighting force. As to the "you can't beat tanks and drones", I think the commentary that I quoted earlier applies (note that this isn't my writing, I'm not calling you retarded):

Listen, you fantastically retarded motherfucker. I’m going to try to explain this so that you can understand it.

You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships and drones or any of these things that you so stupidly believe trumps citizen ownership of firearms.

A fighter jet, tank, drone, battleship or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce “no assembly” edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick down your door at 3AM and search your house for contraband.

None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington D.C. into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit.

Even putting this in historical context, no one would be delusional enough to believe that a farmer with a musket would succeed against an army of cannons, warships, and cavalry. That doesn't matter. An armed populace is a populace that's impossible to occupy or subjugate.

[Collegeguy]

So the left wants to nuke their own citizens. Why not surprised?

[muto]

Why are the republicans threatening their own country with nukes?

Democrats*

Cause they’re out of their mind. Also it would never happen not only cause that’s a bat shit insane idea, but also because most people in the military are republican.

- - - Updated - - -

I love it when right wing rednecks give the "but we needz dem gunz ter pertect urselves frum de guberment!!"... Its literally arguing to bring a rifle to a drone fight...

You do realize the Vietnam war happened right?

[Ehrenpanzer]

I'm saying that the historical context is plainly that civilians should be capable of forming an armed fighting force. As to the "you can't beat tanks and drones", I think the commentary that I quoted earlier applies (note that this isn't my writing, I'm not calling you retarded):

<snip>.

No, I take no offence. And actually I think a civilian trained fighting force is a GOOD idea, but properly directed. Lots of ex-Seals out there, having them run training and safety courses would go a LONG way to preventing issues, as well as a National registry and closing the loopholes in individual states gun sales laws (for example, as a Canadian, I could fly to Arizona, buy as many guns as I want at a private gun show, then drive to Washington and start opening fire at Congressmen/women as they go to work... does that sound insane? because it should...) Again, ZERO issues with the general population having guns, but it needs to be properly regulated and supervised

- - - Updated - - -

Democrats*

Cause they’re out of their mind. Also it would never happen not only cause that’s a bat shit insane idea, but also because most people in the military are republican.

- - - Updated - - -



You do realize the Vietnam war happened right?

My history must be a bit rusty.. remind me which part of the Vietnam war the US government deployed missile/bullet/weapon equipped drones against civilians?

[muto]

No, I take no offence. And actually I think a civilian trained fighting force is a GOOD idea, but properly directed. Lots of ex-Seals out there, having them run training and safety courses would go a LONG way to preventing issues, as well as a National registry and closing the loopholes in individual states gun sales laws (for example, as a Canadian, I could fly to Arizona, buy as many guns as I want at a private gun show, then drive to Washington and start opening fire at Congressmen/women as they go to work... does that sound insane? because it should...) Again, ZERO issues with the general population having guns, but it needs to be properly regulated and supervised

- - - Updated - - -



My history must be a bit rusty.. remind me which part of the Vietnam war the US government deployed missile/bullet/weapon equipped drones against civilians?

Use your head smartass. My point is an inferior foe using inferior weapons defeated the U.S.

[Natta Lmo]

So many edgelords voting yes.

i voted yes before i realized the question is not if its going too far in the poll... i voted yes based on thread title...

[Ehrenpanzer]

Use your head smartass. My point is an inferior foe using inferior weapons defeated the U.S.

I'll tell you what... you round up... oh... I dont know.... 5 or so of your buddies... We'll give you AR-15's with any modifications the rifle can support... and we'll pit you against a single Seal Commando team.. anyone wanna lay wagers on who will win? Hell, I'll go farther... I will wager *I*, by MYSELF, could easily trounce you and your buddies in a paintball match by virtue of actual training... If I win, I get your citizenship.. you win.. you dictate to me what you get...... deal?

[helebelemon]

I'll tell you what... you round up... oh... I dont know.... 5 or so of your buddies... We'll give you AR-15's with any modifications the rifle can support... and we'll pit you against a single Seal Commando team.. anyone wanna lay wagers on who will win? Hell, I'll go farther... I will wager *I*, by MYSELF, could easily trounce you and your buddies in a paintball match by virtue of actual training... If I win, I get your citizenship.. you win.. you dictate to me what you get...... deal?

Sad, but this was on display in the Dallas shooting.

[muto]

I'll tell you what... you round up... oh... I dont know.... 5 or so of your buddies... We'll give you AR-15's with any modifications the rifle can support... and we'll pit you against a single Seal Commando team.. anyone wanna lay wagers on who will win? Hell, I'll go farther... I will wager *I*, by MYSELF, could easily trounce you and your buddies in a paintball match by virtue of actual training... If I win, I get your citizenship.. you win.. you dictate to me what you get...... deal?

I’ll up you even further. 1.3 to 2 million vs 320+ million. Who wins? The Special Forces arguement isn’t realistic. There’s probably less than 1000 people in the Special Forces.

[Liarparadox]

Are you retarded? Thats not what he says.

This pretty much sums of almost every political (and moral) conversation I've seen/heard/been a part of in the last 5 years. Some people seem to be fully committed to the culture of purposefully misrepresenting the "other side". It really is a douche bag move and also makes the people doing it look very stupid.

[helebelemon]

I’ll up you even further. 1.3 million vs 320+ million. Who wins? The Special Forces arguement isn’t realistic. There’s probably less than 1000 people in the Special Forces.

The whole debate is dumb itself because it would never come to it. You're not going to get a majority conservative military to attack its own people. It's like nitpicking who is best at this point, 1.3M or 320M, AR15's or nuke? That's why taking Swalwell's statement at face value is so stupid--some other idiot posed the dumb scenario and he actually entertained it.