4 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
A 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 ago
  Sure. 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 ago
    We 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 ago
People 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.
- AllegedAlec 9y ago
  Fair enough. Granted, the quote I throw at OP also included the words 'little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms', which isn't all that applicable either...

Retric 9y ago

A 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 ago
Sure. 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 ago
  We 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 ago

People 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.

AllegedAlec 9y ago
Fair enough. Granted, the quote I throw at OP also included the words 'little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms', which isn't all that applicable either...