9 ms·

>The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles. Let me make sure I understand your basic pre

by daenz 7y ago

>The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles. Let me make sure I understand your basic premise: the ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical dictatorship made sense until the government developed better technology, now it's pointless so just give up your guns? Aside from being completely contrary to the American spirit of defending yourself from tyranny, it's based on the bogus premise that the advanced military technology can be used effectively against its own people. Where is the military going to fire those "computer guided missiles?" Into every rural home and every urban apartment window of everyone they suspect has guns, with thousands of civilian collateral casualties? Are tanks and fighter jets going to roll in and level entire economic hubs like cities? Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure? Are you envisioning "the rebellion" would set up a nice neat base in some remote location for the military to aim its tech at? Do you think the real men and women of the military would follow orders to destroy its own hometowns and families? How long before regional coups? How big do you think the US military is, relative to the armed civilian population? You are also aware that soldiers and police wear recognizable uniforms, while "the rebellion" doesn't? I don't think you've thought this through.

slg 7y ago
Isn't this basically what the fascist in Germany, the communists in China and the Soviet Union, and countless other examples did? It is weird that people think that Americans are somehow a morally superior people to all the other countries that had already fallen down that path. I mean we are already locking up toddlers in cages and I haven't heard a single report of any push back from the people who are controlling those detention camps. World history has taught us that people are perfectly willing to betray or even kill their neighbor as long as you give them a believable enough reason. If anything, I think the overabundance of guns makes things more likely to go to shit quicker rather than less.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  Surprised you're downvoted. The U.S. already has one civil war in its history, conducted when the 2nd amendment was in force and even more people owned guns than do today. It played out exactly like what the grandparent said was ridiculous: the respective militaries fired into every rural and urban home, set whole plantations on fire, destroyed their own infrastructure, killed their brothers and extended families, fought over their hometowns, and caused thousands of civilian casualties. There were in fact regional coups - really, the whole thing was one big regional coup, with some fractal splitting in the borderlands - but that didn't stop the bloodshed. And eventually, the guy who nobody in the rebellious states voted for won. War is not rational. People will destroy all sorts of stuff if something close to their identity is under threat.
  - diminoten 7y ago
    The second amendment was nothing then like it is today; until 2008 it has been interpreted to mean the states have a right to raise a militia, not as an individual mandate to possess firearms.
    - nostrademons 7y ago
      And yet people did possess firearms - it was pretty necessary when living an agrarian life on the frontier, then as now. Curious how you think that would alter the conclusion? If anything organized resistance would be more effective then, because you already had state militias and rough technological parity with the military.
      - diminoten 7y ago
        I'm not sure what your point is... both the Union and the Confederacy were "well regulated" armies which issued weapons to their soldiers, in great numbers, and even by then military technology was beginning to outpace simple farm muskets. I feel like you're treating all guns as equal, when that wasn't true in the civil war and is completely not true now.
    - rjf72 7y ago
      This is the text of the second amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." From its advent until somewhere around the mid to late 20th century it was interpreted universally as an individual right. The founding fathers and others of the time wrote extensively on this and it was not controversial for centuries. Wiki provides numerous examples of early commentary here. [1] I find the most compelling and clear to be that of Judge Thomas M. Cooley, which I'll include at the bottom due to its length. In brief form: he posits that if the law were constrained only to the militia, and not the masses of people that may comprise it, then it would be quite a pointless amendment as the very government it seeks to protect individuals from could undermine it by inaction or neglect in regards to the formation of that militia. What happened in 2008 was DC vs Heller. [2] After DC banned guns in 1975, a police officer found himself in a situation where he was able to have a gun during his line of duty but was left unarmed in the increasingly dangerous and deteriorating neighborhood that he lived in. He petitioned the NRA for help fighting the law. They refused, so he went to the Cato Institute. They (Heller along with 5 other citizens) filed suit, it made its way to the supreme court, and the supreme court unambiguously affirmed that it's indeed an individual right. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Early_commentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller Full quote of Judge Cooley: "It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."
- rjf72 7y ago
  In the instances you mention, the government tended to pass gun control or confiscation before engaging in widescale tyranny. In 1938 Nazi Germany passed a gun control law that effectively gave 'true Germans' vastly more gun rights (which had been compulsory rescinded at the end of WW1) yet, they it simultaneously prohibited Jews from owning any weapon - even knives. [1] The holocaust began in 1941. In 1924 in the Soviet Union all firearms were banned except for smoothbore shotguns which pose minimal In the danger outside of close range. [2] This was greatly expanded with increased penalties and also eventually applied to knives as well. The culling of opponents and directed starvations began around 1929 leading to the deaths of millions of Soviets. In 1966 China laid out the foundation of their now famously strict gun laws. That was the same year that Mao began the "Cultural Revolution" leading to the deaths of millions of Chinese. Ultimately their civilians, by the time the worst came, had no way to pose any resistance. And so they died. --- As for our situation, I think we can appeal to the declaration of independence: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." You're comparing a transient discomfort for a relatively tiny number of people entering the country illegally, to events where millions of citizens were systematically and intentionally killed or starved to death by their governments. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_the_Soviet_Unio... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_China
  - slg 7y ago
    Directly from the Wikipedia article you linked: >The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country's population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson's suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on. You could even argue that armed push back from the Jews would have resulted in more popular support for their extermination and would have hastened and worsened the Holocaust. >As for our situation, I think we can appeal to the declaration of independence... The Declaration of Independence is irrelevant here. We aren't talking about any legal, moral, or ethical reason for opposing despots. We are talking about it from a practical perspective. It is wildly less practical today than it was in the 18th century because the growth in military might of today's government has far outpaced the firepower available to the citizenry. >You're comparing a transient discomfort for a relatively tiny number of people entering the country illegally, to events where millions of citizens were systematically and intentionally killed or starved to death by their governments. And just like with the earlier examples, things start slow. The temperate of the political water in the US is rising and like a frog, no one has yet jumped out of the pot. That doesn't spell doom yet, but it also doesn't forecast great things if the political environment continues to worsen.
Ancalagon 7y ago
Well said, I am very tired of these blasé remarks about the second amendment. Sure, the people don’t have tanks, but when the people and the guns out number the tanks 1000:1, and the tank driver doesn’t really want to fight, and those 1000 guns are all playing geurrilla tactics, I like to imagine the people stand a chance.
- sjwright 7y ago
  And if you could keep all your guns safely locked away until then, that would be great. –thanks, everyone else.
  - Ancalagon 7y ago
    I know you were being funny, but I actually wholly agree with this statement. Every gun owner should have safes/locks for their guns.
    - sjwright 7y ago
      I was being serious. I don’t have a problem with responsible gun ownership. Switzerland is a good model. The NRA loves to point at rates of Swiss gun ownership. If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws I think you’d be okay.
      - bdowling 7y ago
        If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws, a citizen who passes a background check would be able to buy a newly-made full-automatic machine gun that is not allowed in the US outside of law enforcement or military. I’m not sure that is what you’re implying that you’d want.
        behringer 7y ago
        He's saying he wants to have the 2nd amendment while simultaneously having sane gun laws that are also enforced.
Sandman 7y ago
> the ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical dictatorship made sense until the government developed better technology, now it's pointless so just give up your guns? Basically, yes. Do you honestly think people would have any chance against probably the most powerful army in the world? Sure, they could try fighting a guerilla warfare, they'd even inflict some casualties against the enemy but it's unlikely that in the end they'd succeed against an army that is professional, highly skilled, better equipped, has better offensive and defensive capabilities, knows a lot more about tactics and logistics and has trained for this type of situation on a daily basis. > Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure? Would they even consider it their own infrastructure? Or would they consider it infrastructure currently held by rebels, which needs to be either seized or destroyed? > Do you think the real men and women of the military would follow orders to destroy its own hometowns and families? I suspect a lot of them would destroy towns if they we're told that these are now enemy bases. This has been repeated in many parts of the world throughout the history, even recent one. If they wouldn't, they'd be defectors and it really wouldn't matter whether the war was fought with modern weapons or sticks and stones.
- huntie 7y ago
  It wouldn't work as you imagine because it would be far too expensive for the government. In the Middle East it works out because none of our infrastructure is affected by the war; so our GDP, and thus tax revenue, is still strong. In a civil war where the government is bombing its own infrastructure the cost for each kill will skyrocket and the effect on the economy will be catastrophic. Fighting a defensive war is immeasurably cheaper than an offensive war as the defenders value the lives of their soldiers much less than the offenders do. Also keep in mind that a rebel faction could very easily sabotoge critical infrastructure like electricity which would be very difficult to repair in a timely manner. Relying on very expensive advanced weaponry is the modern equivalent of relying on mercenaries, and Machiavelli told us why mercenaries are bad.
- CapricornNoble 7y ago
  >>>Do you honestly think people would have any chance against probably the most powerful army in the world? You are placing waaaay too much faith in technology. Look at the Saudis: one of the worlds highest military budgets, and stockpiles of first-rate western hardware.....they are getting absolutely routed by Houthis, who run up desert mountains with just sandals, an AK, and a mouth full of stimulants. >>>Sure, they could try fighting a guerilla warfare, they'd even inflict some casualties against the enemy but it's unlikely that in the end they'd succeed against an army that is professional, highly skilled, better equipped, has better offensive and defensive capabilities, knows a lot more about tactics and logistics and has trained for this type of situation on a daily basis. What is the data that is driving you to this conclusion? Are you ignoring pretty much every counter-insurgency experience the US has had for the last 50 years? [2][3] >>>I suspect a lot of them would destroy towns if they we're told that these are now enemy bases. I suspect you don't know actual American military personnel very well, especially officers and NCOs, and how seriously we take the Laws of Warfare, AND the Constitution. [1]https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2019/09/pics-of-houthi-rebels-destroying-saudi.html https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2019/09/pics-of-houthi-rebels-... [2]https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/05/why-america-lost-in-afghanistan-counterinsurgency-cords-vietnam/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/05/why-america-lost-in-afg... [3]https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2015-02-16/why-counterinsurgency-doesnt-work https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2015-0...
UnFleshedOne 7y ago
Not everyone who has guns, but everyone who resists. Even worst tyranny has some public support usually. And if people who tend to have guns are more inclined to support your flavor of tyranny (because you purpose-built it that way), you side step most of those problems.
- munk-a 7y ago
  > Even worst tyranny has some public support usually. Tyranny always has public support. The evil wizard lord of a kingdom scenario has never and will never occur in reality - someone despised by everyone cannot come into power... That doesn't mean the tyrant has the majority of public support, but I'd find it hard to believe any tyrant has less than 30% when coming to power.
  - dmurray 7y ago
    Someone despised by everyone can come into power when they are born into it. King John of England is a common example, though I don't know how historically accurate. That said, your point is important and something many people don't seem to understand: those foreign leaders we in the West like to describe as tyrants, dictators, despots, strongmen, etc, are generally at least popular at home, and often adored.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      I don't really accept King John as a counter example. I'd revise my statement above to clarify that only someone with popular support can usurp power - unpopular monarchy can inherit power either because (1) the monarchy as an institution is more regarded than individual monarchs (2) once seizing power a tyrant can usually reduce their popular support and retain that power - the same holds for institutions of power, so the monarchy might not be popular but enough power is gained from and invested in it's continuance that no one wants it to go away[1]. John also may have been a desirable monarch because he was initially a useful idiot and managed to ride luck to transform that initial investiture of some power into a stronger reign. Lastly, popular support is from the factions, not the people - in medieval europe most of the people had no factional representation politically, all the power had been entirely concentrated in the various estates. 1. See Lord Vetinari in like every discworld book ever.
coryfklein 7y ago
> Where is the military going to fire those "computer guided missiles?" Blowing up a home or two harboring a "terrorist cell" during a meeting I'm sure will be deterrence enough for a lot of those gun owners. > Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure? The infrastructure is the exact kind of ground that can be held much more securely against pistols and rifles using the U.S.'s advanced weaponry. > Do you think the real men and women of the military would follow orders to destroy its own hometowns and families? See the Arab Spring for reference on this one > How long before regional coups? I'm sure a civilian populace will experience war fatigue waaay before a trained, well paid, well fed military. You're coming up with a hypothetical scenario where it's the entire US government against the entire populace. In the real world it doesn't happen that way - the populace is divided between the rebels and the government supporters. Besides, look at today's political climate: most of the gun owners are the one's backing our most authoritarian leader! If, somehow, we were to slide into dictatorship you can be sure the leader would make whatever promises necessary to get the gun toters on his/her side.
- daenz 7y ago
  >If, somehow, we were to slide into dictatorship you can be sure the leader would make whatever promises necessary to get the gun toters on his/her side. This demonstrates to me that you understand the political power of an armed citizenry, the same group that you used the first half of your post to discredit by suggesting "blowing up a home or two" would be enough to suppress them.
  - coryfklein 7y ago
    It's reductionist to say the armed civilians have no effect whatsoever. But my last point was to emphasize that "armed civilians" are not a protection against dictatorship. I still believe that, even if he failed to persuade the gun owners, a dictator's armies win against an armed populace.
    - Clubber 7y ago
      You are talking about war like it's like a football game. You have one, and when the time's up, it's over. You have a clear winner and a clear loser based on the scoreboard. Wars are comprised of many battles, which may or may not cause one side to "win." Wars are over when both sides agree to stop. What compels a side to agree to stop? Many, many things. The US won every major battle in Vietnam, yet there isn't a clear cut winner. The CSA probably would have been an independent nation had Lincoln not been reelected in 1864, a victory Lincoln himself didn't think would happen. The point being, an insurgency, yes, ultimately wants to "win", but winning includes things like protecting food / water, freer movement, slowing down an advance, creating safe areas, disrupting the enemies ability to wage war as effectively, or just general annoyance of the enemy. If this can go on until the opponent ultimately loses the will to fight, or offers acceptable concessions, it's a victory. It doesn't have to be an overwhelming, parade-in-the-streets type victory, it just has to make the enemy lose the will to fight the insurgency.
diminoten 7y ago
I don't think you've thought this through; you won't be fighting soldiers in your little quest for rebellion, you'll be fighting your neighbor, because your neighbor thinks you're a fucking dumbass who he'd rather kill than reason with, because of how little you've respected honest discourse and conversation over a long period of time. To create an American insurgency would be to threaten everyone around you, and no one would tolerate you or it for even a moment. There is absolutely no such thing as the "American spirit of defending yourself from tyranny", whoever told you that sold you a lie. The Revolutionary War was not a precedent, it was a single violent act by a unified people. What you're talking about is literally the opposite of unification. The second amendment has nothing to do with individuals overthrowing anyone, it was never meant to be interpreted that way, and the current belief that it is is much more dangerous than any threat of an oppressive American regime. What you're actually suggesting is that state National Guards fight the US Army. Good fucking luck. Your complete lack of understanding about history makes this whole conversation pointless. There is no best version of your argument (so it's hard to follow HN rules), there is just racist, nationalistic anger that you will be forced to get over with eventually. Edit: It's an actual attack on me, personally, to claim I specifically am thinking about hurting anyone, when I'm responding to a comment suggesting an American insurgency; keep in mind that it was easier for 'daenz to go there than it was to actually refute anything I wrote. This is despicable behavior, a real low point for HN.
- daenz 7y ago
  >you'll be fighting your neighbor, because your neighbor thinks you're a fucking dumbass who he'd rather kill than reason with, because of how little you've respected honest discourse and conversation over a long period of time. I normally wouldn't respond to a post like this, but if you are thinking about hurting people that you disagree with, please seek out some help. This sentence honestly reads like a warning flag to me for someone who has reached their limit for debating peacefully with others.
  - diminoten 7y ago
    I feel bad for someone like you; needing to twist reality to get somewhere. You realize everyone in this comment thread can see my comment, right above yours, right? Willfully misinterpreting what I've written to seem hostile when in reality it's you who suggested Americans should kill each other. You must need a win, and we've all been there, but insurgency isn't what the 2nd Amendment was about, it never was, and lying won't change that fact.
josephdviviano 7y ago
Yes, I do think that a gap in weapons technology is meaningful. I love numbers so let's talk about those using the Iraq war as an example. Here's an estimate of the number of casualties in the Iraq war: https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Roughly 200k civilians, 90k combatants. According to wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq#Deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93... 5k western coalition forces died. Even if these numbers are wildly inaccurate, I don't like those odds. Yes, it is difficult for the army to actually completely squash the insurgency, but there is a very messy grey zone between "winning" and "losing" where those in power relentlessly oppress the rest at relatively little cost to themselves. I'm not saying, by the way, not to resist oppression, I am simply saying that the weapons that civilians cannot buy are very very scary, and it is probably wise to pick one's battles.
- throwaway8879 7y ago
  It may be wise to pick ones battles, but it certainly is braver to pick one knowing you will lose. Stupid, but brave.
Retric 7y ago
Insurgents who don’t attack, don’t accomplish anything That’s why civilian insurgents have a horrible track record historically. They need to go on the offensive using poorly trained and poorly equipped troops. A small armed resistance in the US would be incredibly ineffectual. At best preforming unless but inspiring attacks, but more realistically simply dying in droves. You can look at hundreds of past insurrections for inspiration, but grassroots military might has almost nothing to do with their success. PS: Just look back on the US Civil war which included actual defection of large chunks of the military etc. They started with territory and an actual military including trained officers, cannons, and warships yet still lost. Now picture what would have happened if the southern military had stayed with the north.

by daenz 7y ago

slg 7y ago

Isn't this basically what the fascist in Germany, the communists in China and the Soviet Union, and countless other examples did? It is weird that people think that Americans are somehow a morally superior people to all the other countries that had already fallen down that path. I mean we are already locking up toddlers in cages and I haven't heard a single report of any push back from the people who are controlling those detention camps. World history has taught us that people are perfectly willing to betray or even kill their neighbor as long as you give them a believable enough reason. If anything, I think the overabundance of guns makes things more likely to go to shit quicker rather than less.

nostrademons 7y ago
Surprised you're downvoted. The U.S. already has one civil war in its history, conducted when the 2nd amendment was in force and even more people owned guns than do today. It played out exactly like what the grandparent said was ridiculous: the respective militaries fired into every rural and urban home, set whole plantations on fire, destroyed their own infrastructure, killed their brothers and extended families, fought over their hometowns, and caused thousands of civilian casualties. There were in fact regional coups - really, the whole thing was one big regional coup, with some fractal splitting in the borderlands - but that didn't stop the bloodshed. And eventually, the guy who nobody in the rebellious states voted for won. War is not rational. People will destroy all sorts of stuff if something close to their identity is under threat.
- diminoten 7y ago
  The second amendment was nothing then like it is today; until 2008 it has been interpreted to mean the states have a right to raise a militia, not as an individual mandate to possess firearms.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    And yet people did possess firearms - it was pretty necessary when living an agrarian life on the frontier, then as now. Curious how you think that would alter the conclusion? If anything organized resistance would be more effective then, because you already had state militias and rough technological parity with the military.
    - diminoten 7y ago
      I'm not sure what your point is... both the Union and the Confederacy were "well regulated" armies which issued weapons to their soldiers, in great numbers, and even by then military technology was beginning to outpace simple farm muskets. I feel like you're treating all guns as equal, when that wasn't true in the civil war and is completely not true now.
  - rjf72 7y ago
    This is the text of the second amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." From its advent until somewhere around the mid to late 20th century it was interpreted universally as an individual right. The founding fathers and others of the time wrote extensively on this and it was not controversial for centuries. Wiki provides numerous examples of early commentary here. [1] I find the most compelling and clear to be that of Judge Thomas M. Cooley, which I'll include at the bottom due to its length. In brief form: he posits that if the law were constrained only to the militia, and not the masses of people that may comprise it, then it would be quite a pointless amendment as the very government it seeks to protect individuals from could undermine it by inaction or neglect in regards to the formation of that militia. What happened in 2008 was DC vs Heller. [2] After DC banned guns in 1975, a police officer found himself in a situation where he was able to have a gun during his line of duty but was left unarmed in the increasingly dangerous and deteriorating neighborhood that he lived in. He petitioned the NRA for help fighting the law. They refused, so he went to the Cato Institute. They (Heller along with 5 other citizens) filed suit, it made its way to the supreme court, and the supreme court unambiguously affirmed that it's indeed an individual right. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Early_commentary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller Full quote of Judge Cooley: "It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."
rjf72 7y ago
In the instances you mention, the government tended to pass gun control or confiscation before engaging in widescale tyranny. In 1938 Nazi Germany passed a gun control law that effectively gave 'true Germans' vastly more gun rights (which had been compulsory rescinded at the end of WW1) yet, they it simultaneously prohibited Jews from owning any weapon - even knives. [1] The holocaust began in 1941. In 1924 in the Soviet Union all firearms were banned except for smoothbore shotguns which pose minimal In the danger outside of close range. [2] This was greatly expanded with increased penalties and also eventually applied to knives as well. The culling of opponents and directed starvations began around 1929 leading to the deaths of millions of Soviets. In 1966 China laid out the foundation of their now famously strict gun laws. That was the same year that Mao began the "Cultural Revolution" leading to the deaths of millions of Chinese. Ultimately their civilians, by the time the worst came, had no way to pose any resistance. And so they died. --- As for our situation, I think we can appeal to the declaration of independence: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." You're comparing a transient discomfort for a relatively tiny number of people entering the country illegally, to events where millions of citizens were systematically and intentionally killed or starved to death by their governments. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_the_Soviet_Unio... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_China
- slg 7y ago
  Directly from the Wikipedia article you linked: >The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country's population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson's suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on. You could even argue that armed push back from the Jews would have resulted in more popular support for their extermination and would have hastened and worsened the Holocaust. >As for our situation, I think we can appeal to the declaration of independence... The Declaration of Independence is irrelevant here. We aren't talking about any legal, moral, or ethical reason for opposing despots. We are talking about it from a practical perspective. It is wildly less practical today than it was in the 18th century because the growth in military might of today's government has far outpaced the firepower available to the citizenry. >You're comparing a transient discomfort for a relatively tiny number of people entering the country illegally, to events where millions of citizens were systematically and intentionally killed or starved to death by their governments. And just like with the earlier examples, things start slow. The temperate of the political water in the US is rising and like a frog, no one has yet jumped out of the pot. That doesn't spell doom yet, but it also doesn't forecast great things if the political environment continues to worsen.

Ancalagon 7y ago

Well said, I am very tired of these blasé remarks about the second amendment. Sure, the people don’t have tanks, but when the people and the guns out number the tanks 1000:1, and the tank driver doesn’t really want to fight, and those 1000 guns are all playing geurrilla tactics, I like to imagine the people stand a chance.

sjwright 7y ago
And if you could keep all your guns safely locked away until then, that would be great. –thanks, everyone else.
- Ancalagon 7y ago
  I know you were being funny, but I actually wholly agree with this statement. Every gun owner should have safes/locks for their guns.
  - sjwright 7y ago
    I was being serious. I don’t have a problem with responsible gun ownership. Switzerland is a good model. The NRA loves to point at rates of Swiss gun ownership. If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws I think you’d be okay.
    - bdowling 7y ago
      If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws, a citizen who passes a background check would be able to buy a newly-made full-automatic machine gun that is not allowed in the US outside of law enforcement or military. I’m not sure that is what you’re implying that you’d want.
      - behringer 7y ago
        He's saying he wants to have the 2nd amendment while simultaneously having sane gun laws that are also enforced.

Sandman 7y ago

> the ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical dictatorship made sense until the government developed better technology, now it's pointless so just give up your guns? Basically, yes. Do you honestly think people would have any chance against probably the most powerful army in the world? Sure, they could try fighting a guerilla warfare, they'd even inflict some casualties against the enemy but it's unlikely that in the end they'd succeed against an army that is professional, highly skilled, better equipped, has better offensive and defensive capabilities, knows a lot more about tactics and logistics and has trained for this type of situation on a daily basis. > Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure? Would they even consider it their own infrastructure? Or would they consider it infrastructure currently held by rebels, which needs to be either seized or destroyed? > Do you think the real men and women of the military would follow orders to destroy its own hometowns and families? I suspect a lot of them would destroy towns if they we're told that these are now enemy bases. This has been repeated in many parts of the world throughout the history, even recent one. If they wouldn't, they'd be defectors and it really wouldn't matter whether the war was fought with modern weapons or sticks and stones.

huntie 7y ago
It wouldn't work as you imagine because it would be far too expensive for the government. In the Middle East it works out because none of our infrastructure is affected by the war; so our GDP, and thus tax revenue, is still strong. In a civil war where the government is bombing its own infrastructure the cost for each kill will skyrocket and the effect on the economy will be catastrophic. Fighting a defensive war is immeasurably cheaper than an offensive war as the defenders value the lives of their soldiers much less than the offenders do. Also keep in mind that a rebel faction could very easily sabotoge critical infrastructure like electricity which would be very difficult to repair in a timely manner. Relying on very expensive advanced weaponry is the modern equivalent of relying on mercenaries, and Machiavelli told us why mercenaries are bad.
CapricornNoble 7y ago
>>>Do you honestly think people would have any chance against probably the most powerful army in the world? You are placing waaaay too much faith in technology. Look at the Saudis: one of the worlds highest military budgets, and stockpiles of first-rate western hardware.....they are getting absolutely routed by Houthis, who run up desert mountains with just sandals, an AK, and a mouth full of stimulants. >>>Sure, they could try fighting a guerilla warfare, they'd even inflict some casualties against the enemy but it's unlikely that in the end they'd succeed against an army that is professional, highly skilled, better equipped, has better offensive and defensive capabilities, knows a lot more about tactics and logistics and has trained for this type of situation on a daily basis. What is the data that is driving you to this conclusion? Are you ignoring pretty much every counter-insurgency experience the US has had for the last 50 years? [2][3] >>>I suspect a lot of them would destroy towns if they we're told that these are now enemy bases. I suspect you don't know actual American military personnel very well, especially officers and NCOs, and how seriously we take the Laws of Warfare, AND the Constitution. [1]https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2019/09/pics-of-houthi-rebels-destroying-saudi.html https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2019/09/pics-of-houthi-rebels-... [2]https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/05/why-america-lost-in-afghanistan-counterinsurgency-cords-vietnam/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/05/why-america-lost-in-afg... [3]https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2015-02-16/why-counterinsurgency-doesnt-work https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2015-0...

UnFleshedOne 7y ago

Not everyone who has guns, but everyone who resists. Even worst tyranny has some public support usually. And if people who tend to have guns are more inclined to support your flavor of tyranny (because you purpose-built it that way), you side step most of those problems.

munk-a 7y ago
> Even worst tyranny has some public support usually. Tyranny always has public support. The evil wizard lord of a kingdom scenario has never and will never occur in reality - someone despised by everyone cannot come into power... That doesn't mean the tyrant has the majority of public support, but I'd find it hard to believe any tyrant has less than 30% when coming to power.
- dmurray 7y ago
  Someone despised by everyone can come into power when they are born into it. King John of England is a common example, though I don't know how historically accurate. That said, your point is important and something many people don't seem to understand: those foreign leaders we in the West like to describe as tyrants, dictators, despots, strongmen, etc, are generally at least popular at home, and often adored.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    I don't really accept King John as a counter example. I'd revise my statement above to clarify that only someone with popular support can usurp power - unpopular monarchy can inherit power either because (1) the monarchy as an institution is more regarded than individual monarchs (2) once seizing power a tyrant can usually reduce their popular support and retain that power - the same holds for institutions of power, so the monarchy might not be popular but enough power is gained from and invested in it's continuance that no one wants it to go away[1]. John also may have been a desirable monarch because he was initially a useful idiot and managed to ride luck to transform that initial investiture of some power into a stronger reign. Lastly, popular support is from the factions, not the people - in medieval europe most of the people had no factional representation politically, all the power had been entirely concentrated in the various estates. 1. See Lord Vetinari in like every discworld book ever.

coryfklein 7y ago

> Where is the military going to fire those "computer guided missiles?" Blowing up a home or two harboring a "terrorist cell" during a meeting I'm sure will be deterrence enough for a lot of those gun owners. > Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure? The infrastructure is the exact kind of ground that can be held much more securely against pistols and rifles using the U.S.'s advanced weaponry. > Do you think the real men and women of the military would follow orders to destroy its own hometowns and families? See the Arab Spring for reference on this one > How long before regional coups? I'm sure a civilian populace will experience war fatigue waaay before a trained, well paid, well fed military. You're coming up with a hypothetical scenario where it's the entire US government against the entire populace. In the real world it doesn't happen that way - the populace is divided between the rebels and the government supporters. Besides, look at today's political climate: most of the gun owners are the one's backing our most authoritarian leader! If, somehow, we were to slide into dictatorship you can be sure the leader would make whatever promises necessary to get the gun toters on his/her side.

daenz 7y ago
>If, somehow, we were to slide into dictatorship you can be sure the leader would make whatever promises necessary to get the gun toters on his/her side. This demonstrates to me that you understand the political power of an armed citizenry, the same group that you used the first half of your post to discredit by suggesting "blowing up a home or two" would be enough to suppress them.
- coryfklein 7y ago
  It's reductionist to say the armed civilians have no effect whatsoever. But my last point was to emphasize that "armed civilians" are not a protection against dictatorship. I still believe that, even if he failed to persuade the gun owners, a dictator's armies win against an armed populace.
  - Clubber 7y ago
    You are talking about war like it's like a football game. You have one, and when the time's up, it's over. You have a clear winner and a clear loser based on the scoreboard. Wars are comprised of many battles, which may or may not cause one side to "win." Wars are over when both sides agree to stop. What compels a side to agree to stop? Many, many things. The US won every major battle in Vietnam, yet there isn't a clear cut winner. The CSA probably would have been an independent nation had Lincoln not been reelected in 1864, a victory Lincoln himself didn't think would happen. The point being, an insurgency, yes, ultimately wants to "win", but winning includes things like protecting food / water, freer movement, slowing down an advance, creating safe areas, disrupting the enemies ability to wage war as effectively, or just general annoyance of the enemy. If this can go on until the opponent ultimately loses the will to fight, or offers acceptable concessions, it's a victory. It doesn't have to be an overwhelming, parade-in-the-streets type victory, it just has to make the enemy lose the will to fight the insurgency.

diminoten 7y ago

I don't think you've thought this through; you won't be fighting soldiers in your little quest for rebellion, you'll be fighting your neighbor, because your neighbor thinks you're a fucking dumbass who he'd rather kill than reason with, because of how little you've respected honest discourse and conversation over a long period of time. To create an American insurgency would be to threaten everyone around you, and no one would tolerate you or it for even a moment. There is absolutely no such thing as the "American spirit of defending yourself from tyranny", whoever told you that sold you a lie. The Revolutionary War was not a precedent, it was a single violent act by a unified people. What you're talking about is literally the opposite of unification. The second amendment has nothing to do with individuals overthrowing anyone, it was never meant to be interpreted that way, and the current belief that it is is much more dangerous than any threat of an oppressive American regime. What you're actually suggesting is that state National Guards fight the US Army. Good fucking luck. Your complete lack of understanding about history makes this whole conversation pointless. There is no best version of your argument (so it's hard to follow HN rules), there is just racist, nationalistic anger that you will be forced to get over with eventually. Edit: It's an actual attack on me, personally, to claim I specifically am thinking about hurting anyone, when I'm responding to a comment suggesting an American insurgency; keep in mind that it was easier for 'daenz to go there than it was to actually refute anything I wrote. This is despicable behavior, a real low point for HN.

daenz 7y ago
>you'll be fighting your neighbor, because your neighbor thinks you're a fucking dumbass who he'd rather kill than reason with, because of how little you've respected honest discourse and conversation over a long period of time. I normally wouldn't respond to a post like this, but if you are thinking about hurting people that you disagree with, please seek out some help. This sentence honestly reads like a warning flag to me for someone who has reached their limit for debating peacefully with others.
- diminoten 7y ago
  I feel bad for someone like you; needing to twist reality to get somewhere. You realize everyone in this comment thread can see my comment, right above yours, right? Willfully misinterpreting what I've written to seem hostile when in reality it's you who suggested Americans should kill each other. You must need a win, and we've all been there, but insurgency isn't what the 2nd Amendment was about, it never was, and lying won't change that fact.

josephdviviano 7y ago

Yes, I do think that a gap in weapons technology is meaningful. I love numbers so let's talk about those using the Iraq war as an example. Here's an estimate of the number of casualties in the Iraq war: https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ https://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Roughly 200k civilians, 90k combatants. According to wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93_Iraq#Deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93... 5k western coalition forces died. Even if these numbers are wildly inaccurate, I don't like those odds. Yes, it is difficult for the army to actually completely squash the insurgency, but there is a very messy grey zone between "winning" and "losing" where those in power relentlessly oppress the rest at relatively little cost to themselves. I'm not saying, by the way, not to resist oppression, I am simply saying that the weapons that civilians cannot buy are very very scary, and it is probably wise to pick one's battles.

throwaway8879 7y ago
It may be wise to pick ones battles, but it certainly is braver to pick one knowing you will lose. Stupid, but brave.

Retric 7y ago

Insurgents who don’t attack, don’t accomplish anything That’s why civilian insurgents have a horrible track record historically. They need to go on the offensive using poorly trained and poorly equipped troops. A small armed resistance in the US would be incredibly ineffectual. At best preforming unless but inspiring attacks, but more realistically simply dying in droves. You can look at hundreds of past insurrections for inspiration, but grassroots military might has almost nothing to do with their success. PS: Just look back on the US Civil war which included actual defection of large chunks of the military etc. They started with territory and an actual military including trained officers, cannons, and warships yet still lost. Now picture what would have happened if the southern military had stayed with the north.