On 3/17/2024 11:22 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:28:10 -0600, Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2024 6:31 PM, X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:13:54 +0000, in talk.politics.guns Mitchell
>>> Holman <noemail@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where is THAT in your understanding
>>>> of the Second Amendment?
>>>
>>> Before I read the second amendment, I read the proceedings of the 1788
>>> Richmond Ratification Convention.
>>>
>>> (It is *way* too long to post, so I'll paste a link. It took me
>>> almost a full year to read it; although, I wasn't reading full-time.
>>> See the collection: "Documentary History of the Ratification of the
>>> Constitution".)
>>>
>>> You can find the transcripts here:
>>> https://csac.history.wisc.edu/publications-2/dhrc/
>>>
>>> The bottom line is that nobody even *mentioned* keeping arms to
>>> overthrow the government. When you think about it, it's utterly
>>> absurd to think that a group of dedicated people would spend *years*
>>> on a founding document, and then write in a way to facilitate a few
>>> disaffected people violently attacking it.
>>>
>>> Central to the thesis of the Richmond Convention was, first, last,
>>> always, and only: slavery! (Period) The southern delegates wanted
>>> slavery encoded into the constitution and pro-abolition states
>>> refused. The compromise was to protect the state militias (... which
>>> is why it is written in such a convoluted sentence.) When you boil it
>>> down, that's what it says.
>>>
>>> I think that it will eventually go into history's dust bin; however,
>>> the US may well not survive its passage.
>>>
>> The purpose of 2A is to ensure that government does not disarm
>> the people. One reason the people are entitled to be armed is
>> explained quite well in the Declaration of Independence.
>
> That was valid when the playing field was equal, when the populace
> had access to the same sort of weaponry as the government but that
> is far from true today.
>
As demonstrated by events in North Vietnam and Afghanistan?

If there was an actual popular attempt to overthrow the federal
government by force of arms, what do you think would happen?
The populace outguns the military in conventional arms and ammo
by a thousand to one. A hefty chunk of the military might well
side with the people, or at least refuse to take up arms against
them. The first to fall would be government leaders - cut off the
head and the snake dies. Only a minority of the adult population
would actually battle, and would largely be embedded among the
noncombatants. What's the government gonna do, order Air Force
Bombers to reduce Philadelphia to rubble, rinse and repeat?
Use fighter jets to strafe the streets of St. Louis?

None of this is going to happen, and one reason it won't
happen is the 400 million firearms and ten billion rounds
of ammo in civilian hands.

On 3/18/2024 11:58 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote in news:FI_JN.86274$Wbff.77982@fx37.iad:
>
>> On 3/17/2024 11:22 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:28:10 -0600, Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/16/2024 6:31 PM, X, formerly known as "!Jones" wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:13:54 +0000, in talk.politics.guns Mitchell
>>>>> Holman <noemail@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is THAT in your understanding
>>>>>> of the Second Amendment?
>>>>>
>>>>> Before I read the second amendment, I read the proceedings of the
> 1788
>>>>> Richmond Ratification Convention.
>>>>>
>>>>> (It is *way* too long to post, so I'll paste a link. It took me
>>>>> almost a full year to read it; although, I wasn't reading full-time.
>>>>> See the collection: "Documentary History of the Ratification of the
>>>>> Constitution".)
>>>>>
>>>>> You can find the transcripts here:
>>>>> https://csac.history.wisc.edu/publications-2/dhrc/
>>>>>
>>>>> The bottom line is that nobody even *mentioned* keeping arms to
>>>>> overthrow the government. When you think about it, it's utterly
>>>>> absurd to think that a group of dedicated people would spend *years*
>>>>> on a founding document, and then write in a way to facilitate a few
>>>>> disaffected people violently attacking it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Central to the thesis of the Richmond Convention was, first, last,
>>>>> always, and only: slavery! (Period) The southern delegates wanted
>>>>> slavery encoded into the constitution and pro-abolition states
>>>>> refused. The compromise was to protect the state militias (...
> which
>>>>> is why it is written in such a convoluted sentence.) When you boil
> it
>>>>> down, that's what it says.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that it will eventually go into history's dust bin; however,
>>>>> the US may well not survive its passage.
>>>>>
>>>> The purpose of 2A is to ensure that government does not disarm
>>>> the people. One reason the people are entitled to be armed is
>>>> explained quite well in the Declaration of Independence.
>>>
>>> That was valid when the playing field was equal, when the populace
>>> had access to the same sort of weaponry as the government but that
>>> is far from true today.
>>>
>> As demonstrated by events in North Vietnam and Afghanistan?
>>
>> If there was an actual popular attempt to overthrow the federal
>> government by force of arms, what do you think would happen?
>> The populace outguns the military in conventional arms and ammo
>> by a thousand to one. A hefty chunk of the military might well
>> side with the people, or at least refuse to take up arms against
>> them. The first to fall would be government leaders - cut off the
>> head and the snake dies. Only a minority of the adult population
>> would actually battle, and would largely be embedded among the
>> noncombatants. What's the government gonna do, order Air Force
>> Bombers to reduce Philadelphia to rubble, rinse and repeat?
>> Use fighter jets to strafe the streets of St. Louis?
>>
>> None of this is going to happen, and one reason it won't
>> happen is the 400 million firearms and ten billion rounds
>> of ammo in civilian hands.
>>
>
> The Whisky Rebellion challanged
> the US government and lost.
>
Blown way out of proportion. There were only a few hotheads,
there were no battles, and the protesters (for that was all they
were) weren't punished.

> The Indians challenged the US
> government and lost.
>
Minor skirmishes compared to a national uprising against
a tyrannical central government. And "the Indians" wasn't
a unified opposition. There were literally dozens of small
tribes, only a few of which were warlike.

> Even the Confederacy challenged
> the US government and lost.
>
Barely, and a the cost of 750,000 lives and the virtual
suspension of the Constitution by Lincoln in the process,
not to mention his own assassination.

> No domestic rabble is armed with
> pistols and shotguns is going to
> take on the US Army and win.
>
The North Korean army took on the US Army and won.
The Taliban took on the US Army and won.

Since its founding the USA has never seen a popular
uprising against a tyrannical central government.
Thanks to 2A it is unlikely to ever happen.

On 3/19/2024 5:48 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:58:19 -0600, Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
>
>> Since its founding the USA has never seen a popular
>> uprising against a tyrannical central government.
>> Thanks to 2A it is unlikely to ever happen.
>
> You mean
what I said, yes.

On 3/19/2024 5:46 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>> If there was an actual popular attempt to overthrow the federal
>> government by force of arms, what do you think would happen?
>> The populace outguns the military in conventional arms and ammo
>> by a thousand to one. A hefty chunk of the military might well
>> side with the people, or at least refuse to take up arms against
>> them. The first to fall would be government leaders - cut off the
>> head and the snake dies. Only a minority of the adult population
>> would actually battle, and would largely be embedded among the
>> noncombatants. What's the government gonna do, order Air Force
>> Bombers to reduce Philadelphia to rubble, rinse and repeat?
>> Use fighter jets to strafe the streets of St. Louis?
>>
>> None of this is going to happen, and one reason it won't
>> happen is the 400 million firearms and ten billion rounds
>> of ammo in civilian hands.
>
> Fantasy. To start with, it isn't ever going to get that
> bad because Americans can vote.
>
That doesn't change what I wrote. I said ONE reason things won't
escalate to a hot war between citizens and their government
is because of the hundreds of millions of firearms and tens
of billions of rounds of ammo in civilian hands, thanks to 2A.
There could be a dozen other reasons, none of which would
contradict that one thing that protects us from a too-
tyrannical government is an armed citizenry.

> This civil war you dream about at night
>
I don't dream about it. I seldom think about it. And if it
came to that it would be a revolutionary war not a civil war.

On 3/20/2024 9:04 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:24:17 -0600, Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
>> On 3/19/2024 5:48 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:58:19 -0600, Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Since its founding the USA has never seen a popular
>>>> uprising against a tyrannical central government.
>>>> Thanks to 2A it is unlikely to ever happen.
>>>
>>> You mean
>> what I said, yes.
>
> I think you believe it, but that doesn't make it true.
>
Well, it's either true or it isn't. Do YOU believe
that an armed citizenry has nothing to do with keeping
a central government from becoming too tyrannical?

On 3/20/2024 2:20 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:15:41 -0600, Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
>> On 3/20/2024 9:04 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:24:17 -0600, Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
>>>> On 3/19/2024 5:48 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:58:19 -0600, Just Wondering <JW@jw.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since its founding the USA has never seen a popular
>>>>>> uprising against a tyrannical central government.
>>>>>> Thanks to 2A it is unlikely to ever happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean
>>>> what I said, yes.
>>>
>>> I think you believe it, but that doesn't make it true.
>>>
>> Well, it's either true or it isn't. Do YOU believe
>> that an armed citizenry has nothing to do with keeping
>> a central government from becoming too tyrannical?
>
> Bingo! Congress is more afraid of votes than bullets.
>
Probably, but that doesn't make those bullets irrelevant.

On 3/21/2024 1:23 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:46:09 Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 3/20/2024 2:20 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:15:41 Just Wondering wrote:
>>>> On 3/20/2024 9:04 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 00:24:17 Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/19/2024 5:48 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:58:19 Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since its founding the USA has never seen a popular
>>>>>>>> uprising against a tyrannical central government.
>>>>>>>> Thanks to 2A it is unlikely to ever happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean
>>>>>> what I said, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you believe it, but that doesn't make it true.
>>>>>
>>>> Well, it's either true or it isn't. Do YOU believe
>>>> that an armed citizenry has nothing to do with keeping
>>>> a central government from becoming too tyrannical?
>>>
>>> Bingo! Congress is more afraid of votes than bullets.
>>>
>> Probably, but that doesn't make those bullets irrelevant.
>
> It does if they never get fired.
>
Just like insurance policies and fire extinguishers are
irrelevant if they never get used.

Just Wondering wrote:

> On 3/19/2024 5:46 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>>> If there was an actual popular attempt to overthrow the federal
>>> government by force of arms, what do you think would happen?
>>> The populace outguns the military in conventional arms and ammo
>>> by a thousand to one. A hefty chunk of the military might well
>>> side with the people, or at least refuse to take up arms against
>>> them. The first to fall would be government leaders - cut off the
>>> head and the snake dies. Only a minority of the adult population
>>> would actually battle, and would largely be embedded among the
>>> noncombatants. What's the government gonna do, order Air Force
>>> Bombers to reduce Philadelphia to rubble, rinse and repeat?
>>> Use fighter jets to strafe the streets of St. Louis?
>>>
>>> None of this is going to happen, and one reason it won't
>>> happen is the 400 million firearms and ten billion rounds
>>> of ammo in civilian hands.
>>
>> Fantasy. To start with, it isn't ever going to get that
>> bad because Americans can vote.
> >
> That doesn't change what I wrote. I said ONE reason things won't
> escalate to a hot war between citizens and their government
> is because of the hundreds of millions of firearms and tens
> of billions of rounds of ammo in civilian hands, thanks to 2A.
> There could be a dozen other reasons, none of which would
> contradict that one thing that protects us from a too-
> tyrannical government is an armed citizenry.

>> This civil war you dream about at night
> >
> I don't dream about it. I seldom think about it. And if it
> came to that it would be a revolutionary war not a civil war.

Supposing they knew what would happen after the war, in hindsight that is, what should they have done?
What were the reasonable courses of action possible for the parties?