3 ms·

I've seen arguments like this before. It boils down to "the second amendment gives me the right to own/buy/manufacture any weapon I need to defend myself agains

by berbec 8y ago

I've seen arguments like this before. It boils down to "the second amendment gives me the right to own/buy/manufacture any weapon I need to defend myself against tyranny." The problem is to maintain the private citizen/armed forces of a cou try balance of power is ludicrous. What exactly do you need to buy to defend yourself against a troop of Navy Seals? OK, training and gear. For a start: Teflon coated bullets, high velocity rounds, grenades, land mines, high explosives. OK next step. What do you need to defend yourself from an armored tank division? The 82nd airborne? A harrier jet? Sorry, but once the military reached a certain point, it's impossible. And trying makes you sound like a madman.

pdonis 8y ago
> It boils down to "the second amendment gives me the right to own/buy/manufacture any weapon I need to defend myself against tyranny." At the time the amendment was passed, privately owned warships, comparable in power to those available to governments, were common. In fact the use of such warships as privateers was a key component of the United States' strategy in both the War of Independence and the War of 1812. The current situation, where governments have a level of force available to them that is much, much greater than that available to any private entity, is a large change from the situation throughout most of human history. That might indeed make it a good idea to talk about a further amendment to balance the right to keep and bear arms with the realities of current weaponry; but unless and until that happens, the second amendment says what it says and you can't just ignore that because you don't like the implications.
- pas 8y ago
  > but unless and until that happens, the second amendment says what it says and you can't just ignore that because you don't like the implications. People are not ignoring it. And a lot of people think that the SC has the duty and responsibility to [re]interpret the Constitution every time they consult it. Therefore there might not be a need for a new Amendment. Of course, cleaning up the mess would be great with a new Constitution. But the time is not right for that, reason is not hip enough nowadays.
cpr 8y ago
There are 300M guns in the USA spread across 3.8M m^2. 1M soldiers (O(current armed forces)), armed with all the equipment they have (unless they decide to nuke the whole country) could not take down a rebel force spread across most of the US (concentrated away from the coasts, of course ;-). It's not just theoretical.
- dblotsky 8y ago
  By “could not take down” do you mean “could not occupy the space of”, or “could not overcome in a battle”? If occupation, there’s more to it than guns. If battle: the military has tanks, which are highly resistant to small arms.
jcstryker 8y ago
Of course an average civilian wont be able to match the training and resources of a soldier. The idea is to raise the cost of engaging the civilian populace. No government wants to rule over piles of ruble and streets full of corpses. Occupation is already expensive and essentially temporary. Look at the situation in Afghanistan, the US invades and occupies the country. As they begin to withdraw, territory is taken back by the Taliban and warlords, they simply bide their time and wait for an opportunity to return. An armed populace changes the math around occupation and engaging in violence. Of course this also leads to other oppressive mechanisms like propaganda and manufacturing concent, but at least people aren't dying. Its a step in the right direction.
AstralStorm 8y ago
High yield explosives, shovels and demolitions training. The actual force that is impossible to repel with typical means is naval and air force. (though you can still attack the logistics of those operations)

by berbec 8y ago

pdonis 8y ago

> It boils down to "the second amendment gives me the right to own/buy/manufacture any weapon I need to defend myself against tyranny." At the time the amendment was passed, privately owned warships, comparable in power to those available to governments, were common. In fact the use of such warships as privateers was a key component of the United States' strategy in both the War of Independence and the War of 1812. The current situation, where governments have a level of force available to them that is much, much greater than that available to any private entity, is a large change from the situation throughout most of human history. That might indeed make it a good idea to talk about a further amendment to balance the right to keep and bear arms with the realities of current weaponry; but unless and until that happens, the second amendment says what it says and you can't just ignore that because you don't like the implications.

pas 8y ago
> but unless and until that happens, the second amendment says what it says and you can't just ignore that because you don't like the implications. People are not ignoring it. And a lot of people think that the SC has the duty and responsibility to [re]interpret the Constitution every time they consult it. Therefore there might not be a need for a new Amendment. Of course, cleaning up the mess would be great with a new Constitution. But the time is not right for that, reason is not hip enough nowadays.

cpr 8y ago

There are 300M guns in the USA spread across 3.8M m^2. 1M soldiers (O(current armed forces)), armed with all the equipment they have (unless they decide to nuke the whole country) could not take down a rebel force spread across most of the US (concentrated away from the coasts, of course ;-). It's not just theoretical.

dblotsky 8y ago
By “could not take down” do you mean “could not occupy the space of”, or “could not overcome in a battle”? If occupation, there’s more to it than guns. If battle: the military has tanks, which are highly resistant to small arms.

jcstryker 8y ago

Of course an average civilian wont be able to match the training and resources of a soldier. The idea is to raise the cost of engaging the civilian populace. No government wants to rule over piles of ruble and streets full of corpses. Occupation is already expensive and essentially temporary. Look at the situation in Afghanistan, the US invades and occupies the country. As they begin to withdraw, territory is taken back by the Taliban and warlords, they simply bide their time and wait for an opportunity to return. An armed populace changes the math around occupation and engaging in violence. Of course this also leads to other oppressive mechanisms like propaganda and manufacturing concent, but at least people aren't dying. Its a step in the right direction.

AstralStorm 8y ago

High yield explosives, shovels and demolitions training. The actual force that is impossible to repel with typical means is naval and air force. (though you can still attack the logistics of those operations)