4 ms·

It could be argued that the 2nd amendment was put in place to ensure a means of the citizenry to overthrow the government (as an absolute check on an unjust gov

It could be argued that the 2nd amendment was put in place to ensure a means of the citizenry to overthrow the government (as an absolute check on an unjust government). Unfortunately it's now just a vestige of an older time and the 2nd amendment only serves to protect the rights of gun hobbyists. The guns that a person are allowed to bear are nowhere near sufficient to take on the US military, and the modern arms such as encryption and freedom from surveillance are not even guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

reitanqild 9y ago
> The guns that a person are allowed to bear are nowhere near sufficient to take on the US military, I'm tired of reminding HNers about Aghanistan.
- gfo 9y ago
  Can you elaborate?
  - alistairSH 9y ago
    I believe he's referring to the Taliban's ability to hold off two modern armies (USSR in the 80s, USA in the 00s) with a much more basic arsenal than either super-power brought to bear.
- laurencerowe 9y ago
  IEDs were far more of a problem in Afghanistan than small arms.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    Yep. And who do you think have the easier time getting ingredients for an IED, the person with a gun or the person without a gun? Who has the better chance at ambushing and getting away with the enemys weapons: the one with the gun or the one without a gun?
    - chrischen 9y ago
      You can do a lot of damage with IEDs, but you can’t overthrow the government with IEDs. Look at Turkey. The primary tool was encrypted communications and information dissemination. That’s modern power that citizens should have. Right now power comes from information and the preservation of speech and private communications, not a few handguns and rifles (or IEDs). When the 2nd amendment was written a gun was relatively way more powerful than it is in today’s world. If you had a group of men with guns you were basically on par with the government military.
      - reitanqild 9y ago
        IMO Turkey has mostly failed now. However, I'm not saying I'd want them a civil war, just that it failed despite doing everything "right" it seems.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- quickthrower2 9y ago
  That's an away match.
wang_li 9y ago
>The guns that a person are allowed to bear are nowhere near sufficient to take on the US military, You're getting into spherical cow[1] territory if you think the US citizenry couldn't defeat the US military. The US military will not be fighting the US citizenry in a hypothetical clean room, it'll be fighting in America. Who are you going to bomb, who are you going to strafe, when your opposition can quietly fade into the populace that provides your material? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow
briandear 9y ago
380 million Americans, 2 million members of the military. Unless the US were to nuke itself, given the geography, a motivated citizenry could easily take on the US military. Not a scenario I want to imagine, but the US military has troubles in Afghanistan and Iraq — imagine that kind of conflict in the US. Just look at rebels in Syria to see this on a smaller scale.

reitanqild 9y ago

> The guns that a person are allowed to bear are nowhere near sufficient to take on the US military, I'm tired of reminding HNers about Aghanistan.

gfo 9y ago
Can you elaborate?
- alistairSH 9y ago
  I believe he's referring to the Taliban's ability to hold off two modern armies (USSR in the 80s, USA in the 00s) with a much more basic arsenal than either super-power brought to bear.
laurencerowe 9y ago
IEDs were far more of a problem in Afghanistan than small arms.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  Yep. And who do you think have the easier time getting ingredients for an IED, the person with a gun or the person without a gun? Who has the better chance at ambushing and getting away with the enemys weapons: the one with the gun or the one without a gun?
  - chrischen 9y ago
    You can do a lot of damage with IEDs, but you can’t overthrow the government with IEDs. Look at Turkey. The primary tool was encrypted communications and information dissemination. That’s modern power that citizens should have. Right now power comes from information and the preservation of speech and private communications, not a few handguns and rifles (or IEDs). When the 2nd amendment was written a gun was relatively way more powerful than it is in today’s world. If you had a group of men with guns you were basically on par with the government military.
    - reitanqild 9y ago
      IMO Turkey has mostly failed now. However, I'm not saying I'd want them a civil war, just that it failed despite doing everything "right" it seems.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
quickthrower2 9y ago
That's an away match.

wang_li 9y ago

>The guns that a person are allowed to bear are nowhere near sufficient to take on the US military, You're getting into spherical cow[1] territory if you think the US citizenry couldn't defeat the US military. The US military will not be fighting the US citizenry in a hypothetical clean room, it'll be fighting in America. Who are you going to bomb, who are you going to strafe, when your opposition can quietly fade into the populace that provides your material? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

briandear 9y ago

380 million Americans, 2 million members of the military. Unless the US were to nuke itself, given the geography, a motivated citizenry could easily take on the US military. Not a scenario I want to imagine, but the US military has troubles in Afghanistan and Iraq — imagine that kind of conflict in the US. Just look at rebels in Syria to see this on a smaller scale.