6 ms·
We can argue about the implications all we want... but given the choice between sending an American soldier overseas to die or a robot to get destroyed... the c
by Eire_Banshee 9y ago
We can argue about the implications all we want... but given the choice between sending an American soldier overseas to die or a robot to get destroyed... the choice is pretty obvious to me.
- decebalus1 9y agohow about not sending anyone overseas? Why isn't this choice being presented? Let's draw up the stakeholders of 'sending entities abroad to kill' and find out why this choice is not considered in the first place instead of fighting over the philosophy of who or what kills to push forward a sick foreign policy. I see this every day in American politics. Couple of days ago people were fighting over what constitutes an 'assault riffle'. Mission accomplished: the actual original debate (banning guns) was already abandoned.
- pc86 9y ago"Banning guns" violates the USC and simply is not going to happen without a Constitutional amendment, which politically will never happen to 2A.
- Retric 9y agoBanning gun clips is viable, even cartridges seem to be optional as ball and powder is clearly a gun. Single shot weapons are good enough for home defense and vastly reduce the impact of gun violence.
- pc86 9y agoBanning magazines based on what? Any magazine ban that effectively bans a class of weapon (e.g. nearly every type of handgun currently manufactured) is no different than banning handguns.
- Retric 9y agoYou can't buy a belt-fed machine gun, so banning types of guns and ammunition are both constitutional. They are fairly simple to manufacture a single shot hand gun, and they are still plenty useful to hunt wildlife with just look at history. The clip is a weapon of war, just look at the impact repeating rifles had on the civil war for example. As to the reasoning, a single bullet is a threat, but far less useful for mass shootings. So banning them would save thousands of american lives over time and it's also constitutional.
- megaman22 9y agoActually, you can buy a machine gun. It just requires a fuckload of money, time, and the willingness to go under the microscope by the ATF in order to obtain the necessary licenses.
- AllegedAlec 9y ago> home defense But this is not what the second amendment is about. In the words of Hammilton: > This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens.
- Retric 9y agoA sufficient population with single use firearms could still overthrow the government. It would take more people, but that's about it. Just look at all those peasant revolutions which lacked training or weapons of war to start with.
- AllegedAlec 9y agoSure. Technically, they don't need arms at all. That doesn't mean that the 'well-armed' part of 'well-armed militia' should just be ignored.
- Retric 9y agoWe don't included Davy Crockett nuclear rocket in 'well-armed' or even a FIM-92 Stinger. So, it's clearly not simply a question of all military weaponry as long as it's usable by infantry.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- amalcon 9y agoPeople make this mistake a lot (anti-gun people make it, too). The point was never that the American people would be able to repel an oppressive force using only their personal weaponry. That was ludicrous even back in the 1700's. The key point is that, when the rebels inevitably capture weaponry or receive foreign assistance in that form, they would be generally familiar with its use. They would have skills like marksmanship, trigger discipline, and maintenance. They might need to learn the specifics, but these skills largely transfer. Edit: Now, I don't think banning breech-loaded firearms makes sense, but that is for reasons unrelated to the original purpose of the second amendment.
- leetcrew 9y ago> Single shot weapons are good enough for home defense source? one center mass shot from a 12 gauge or an ar would probably put down an assailant, but only if the person aims perfectly (easier said than done with a long gun inside a building in a stressful situation). and with a pistol, by far the most common firearm in the US, you are pretty unlikely to neutralize the threat with only one shot.
- Retric 9y agoAiming a gun at someone is a useful deterrent, actually firing is generally unnecessary. Plenty of cases of people using even empty guns in this role. As to being shot, even the 'Hollywood graze' is going to ruin your day and make a lot of noise. Actually killing someone is very rarely necessary.
- AstralStorm 9y agoPlease watch some recordings of happenstances in places where gun violence is rampant, such as Brazil. Intruders and robbers attack places clearly employing armed guards. That have their weapons visible. A graze is called that because it rarely kills - and adrenalin is one hell of a drug, trained people can resist for quite some time in life and death situations even after being shot and stabbed multiple times.
- Retric 8y agoI know someone that pays for an armed guard in Panama. Simply having the guy on the property without firing a shot has been extremely effective. You can always think about that last 0.0001% but 99% effective is where you see the vast majority of benefit. PS: Actually walking around with a loaded gun is fairly useless vs someone willing to sniper you from a distance. The simple truth is even criminals want to minimize risks.
- Clubber 9y ago>the actual original debate (banning guns) was already abandoned. I don't think an outright ban was ever really up for debate. A minority wants guns banned outright. Most people just want stricter laws. Also, "assault rifles," constitute a minority of homicides with firearms. It's mostly hand guns. Either way, gun violence is way down from it's historical peak during the early 90s. No one really knows why.
- GCU-Empiricist 9y agoI haven't kept the situational awareness bubble on the whys of today's wars, but generally it is or is supposed to be a case of 1. We need to beat up A to protect B or 2. we are eventually going to fight so lets do it in their yard and not mess up ours. These are generally morally good reasons to spend blood and treasure
- Tyrek 9y agoBut the counterpoint is that it's too easy to fall into a 'We MUST intervene to protect democracy/progress/freedom/whatever' if the only political cost is money (which is fairly easy to find for the military), as opposed to blood. Would the Vietnam withdrawal have happened if young Americans weren't dying? It's far too easy to grandstand politically at home while causing immense suffering to foreign populations if there's no blood on the line.
- Eire_Banshee 9y agoWell, believe it or not, not everyone wants to ban guns. Some of us really enjoy them. And Im not advocating sending more people overseas. Im saying when we do, Id rather it be a robot than a person... why is this about gun control now?
- NicoJuicy 9y agoWhat if a country hasn't got robots, but has nukes. Then the choice is not that obvious anymore.
- darkerside 9y agoThe path to Hell is paved with good intentions. You can make nothing but good decisions when considered individually, and yet, end up exactly where you don't want to be. It's no smarter than your typical greedy algorithm leading to a local maximum, or worse, once you get forced down a path you'd prefer not to be on.
- MarkMMullin 9y agoTo me as well - first it starts with "I don't want to lose any of my soldiers but I must be able to kill theirs" and then more and more questions about machine autonomy keep popping up and finally we've got machines capable of making the decision on their own, and then we're pretty much doomed - not the snazzy terminator robots, just a lot of dumb plastic machines lower on the intelligence level than a flatworm, however that won't make us any less dead as a species. If you aren't willing to risk lives you absolutely shouldn't be killing people, and we're getting to the point where we really need to give it up as a strategy before we do ourselves in.