3 ms·

> Overall I would rather 2nd amendment would not exist and I don't think it belongs in a modern world Genuine question since I see this argument online with so

> Overall I would rather 2nd amendment would not exist and I don't think it belongs in a modern world Genuine question since I see this argument online with some regularity. Why don't you think the 2A belongs in a modern world? What does the time frame (modern vs not modern) have to do with human rights?

kmonsen 6y ago
Several reason: - Civilians today do not have the means to stand up to a modern state. For a minor example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege, note the outcome was never in any doubt just how much casualties the feds wanted to inflict - Weapons today have much larger damage potential - We live in a world that violence and weapons are not part of the way it used to be, for the better. I don't think we are ready to go back to having to defend ourselves - A strong and well armed democracy was hoped to be a better solution to this
- yters 6y ago
  Taliban didn't do too badly in afghanistan. We've never defeated them despite over a decade of the world's most advanced military. Sure, they've had help from iran and such, but still their armaments are mostly inferior to what the average US citizen can buy with the right license and enough money.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    Taliban doesn't get help from Iran. They get help from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Why don't you think the 2A belongs in a modern world? The forgotten premise of the 2A is that it would prevent tyranny by providing the tools so that the citizenry could demand that the government not form permanent external or internal security services beyond what was necessary for a minimal tripwire and training cadre force that would form the nucleus of an at-need force that would be sized up as situations presented with the militia and it's privately-owned arms. Liberty wasn't guaranteed by permitting the general citizeney arms to fight the central government at need, but by providing the tools so that the citizens could use the government to meet their security needs while keeping the general citizenry and not a distinct and separate peofessional warrior group as the necessary and essential component of the government providing that function. The development of standing armies scaled to fight major wars rather than serve as tripwire and cadre forces, professional paramilitary law enforcement services, the professionalization of not just standing military forces but even the ready reserves, culminating in the all-volunteer force, have all rendered that design outdated. The 2A might conceivably serve it's function in a modern world, but not in a country where the citizenry has accepted the changes the US has since roughly the second quarter of the 19th Century which have completely eradicated it's fundamental premise.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  Not just standing armies (but true that makes the argument much stronger), but also the militarized police force. A SWAT team is a mini army and the combined states police forces could easy invade many countries today if that was an option.
- yters 6y ago
  I would say an armed militia can still resist any industrialized nation. The US has lost numerous modern wars against minimally armed guerilla fighters. Pretty interesting such means of resistance has been so constantly successful.

kmonsen 6y ago

Several reason: - Civilians today do not have the means to stand up to a modern state. For a minor example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege, note the outcome was never in any doubt just how much casualties the feds wanted to inflict - Weapons today have much larger damage potential - We live in a world that violence and weapons are not part of the way it used to be, for the better. I don't think we are ready to go back to having to defend ourselves - A strong and well armed democracy was hoped to be a better solution to this

yters 6y ago
Taliban didn't do too badly in afghanistan. We've never defeated them despite over a decade of the world's most advanced military. Sure, they've had help from iran and such, but still their armaments are mostly inferior to what the average US citizen can buy with the right license and enough money.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  Taliban doesn't get help from Iran. They get help from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Why don't you think the 2A belongs in a modern world? The forgotten premise of the 2A is that it would prevent tyranny by providing the tools so that the citizenry could demand that the government not form permanent external or internal security services beyond what was necessary for a minimal tripwire and training cadre force that would form the nucleus of an at-need force that would be sized up as situations presented with the militia and it's privately-owned arms. Liberty wasn't guaranteed by permitting the general citizeney arms to fight the central government at need, but by providing the tools so that the citizens could use the government to meet their security needs while keeping the general citizenry and not a distinct and separate peofessional warrior group as the necessary and essential component of the government providing that function. The development of standing armies scaled to fight major wars rather than serve as tripwire and cadre forces, professional paramilitary law enforcement services, the professionalization of not just standing military forces but even the ready reserves, culminating in the all-volunteer force, have all rendered that design outdated. The 2A might conceivably serve it's function in a modern world, but not in a country where the citizenry has accepted the changes the US has since roughly the second quarter of the 19th Century which have completely eradicated it's fundamental premise.

kmonsen 6y ago
Not just standing armies (but true that makes the argument much stronger), but also the militarized police force. A SWAT team is a mini army and the combined states police forces could easy invade many countries today if that was an option.
yters 6y ago
I would say an armed militia can still resist any industrialized nation. The US has lost numerous modern wars against minimally armed guerilla fighters. Pretty interesting such means of resistance has been so constantly successful.