4 ms·

We have the right to bear arms for a reason. Governments will eventually push citizens to a breaking point.

thayne 6y ago
But we no longer have the right to bear the same arms as the government. Obviously, gun control is complicated, and I'm not advocating that anyone should be able to buy military grade armaments, but at the same time, it does concern me that the citizens last resort against tyranny becomes less and less viable.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  When things actually come to this, I don’t expect US military to actually use its superior equipment to mow down the opposition en masse: you’d more likely see various factions in military take it out one upon another.
- adventured 6y ago
  > But we no longer have the right to bear the same arms as the government. You hardly need it. You can see what guerrilla forces do to the standing army of a superpower, by looking at Iraq and Afghanistan. They can't stop it, its demoralizing, and even if the superpower kills at a 2 to 1 or greater ratio, the losses are considerable. And in this case that force would be domestic, so all the negative PR/image consequences are radically amplified (your army might kill at a 2 to 1 or 4 to 1 ratio, but every one of those citizens that you kill makes the general population hate you more and brings out more recruits for the opposition). The US has maybe 12 to 15 million functional, trained former soldiers, many of whom have been to war, they know everything the military knows, they have experience in every aspect of combat, and they have a vast number of arms and a hundred million sympathetic people behind them. It makes Afghanistan look like a cakewalk. A standing army trying that in the US would be butchered, they'd bleed like a stuck pig. And that's to say nothing of the vast internal sabotage and assassinations that would immediately begin to occur and would never cease; it would instantly split the military into factional pieces that would fight against eachother.
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    The kill ratio in Iraq is 100 to 1.
    - svieira 6y ago
      And we still haven't won
      - confidantlake 6y ago
        The side that is getting killed at 100x the rate isn't winning either.
        svieira 6y ago
        There's an old apocryphal story about the Chinese and the Japanese duking it out in the prelude to WWII that applies here, but there's also a poem far closer: > That though all lances split on you, > All swords be heaved in vain, > We have more lust again to lose > Than you to win again. ~ G. K. Chesterton - The Ballad of the White Horse - Book III https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm#link2H_4_0004 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm#link2... The side that is willing to loose one more time than the "winning" side is willing to win ... they win in the end.
  - bavell 6y ago
    I don't know why more people don't understand this. Is it because they have no exposure or experience in military matters? I don't understand how so many people think the 2A is obsolete... it's just as effective today as it ever was.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - asdff 6y ago
      It is obsolete since you are comparing apples to oranges. Comparing hardened people who have been fed arms and resources by various superpowers for decades vs. your average out of shape medicated American who buys their shotgun at the sporting goods store.
emptysongglass 6y ago
The right to bear arms was enshrined when the US didn't have a standing army. The military never dissolves back into the populace, rendering a few poorly trained people with a few guns (no APCs, no tanks, no hellfire drones) completely ineffectual. It's completely pointless today.
- ajmadesc 6y ago
  I have this argument a lot being a self identified liberal with liberal friends. Two points: 1. Although it wasn't the intention, the 2A creates the conditions for insurgency. Super powers don't do well against insurgency. 2. The military by nature is much much less likely to turn against the citizenry. The militarization of the police is much more likely.
  - _underfl0w_ 6y ago
    > 2. The military by nature is much much less likely to turn against the citizenry. While comforting, is this actually true? We have seen this happen very recently with protests occurring - yes the police were there and heavily armed, but so was the actual military, who came swiftly to the president's beckoning. It's an organization that prioritizes rank, the chain of command, and doing what you're told without question or hesitation. There even seems to be quite a lot of perks (think education, monetary reparations) to getting your hands dirty so that elected officials don't have to.
- curtainsforus 6y ago
  It's a matter of economics. The US government wants (has) to rule, not just nuke the country and call it a day. If the whole country's armed, it becomes more costly to have boots on the ground everywhere enforcing the occupation. It at least shifts the equation more in the direction of concessions from the occupying force.
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    It's the same economics for both sides though. A large-scale, protracted guerilla civil war would be economically devastating for both sides.

But we no longer have the right to bear the same arms as the government. Obviously, gun control is complicated, and I'm not advocating that anyone should be able to buy military grade armaments, but at the same time, it does concern me that the citizens last resort against tyranny becomes less and less viable.

xyzzyz 6y ago
When things actually come to this, I don’t expect US military to actually use its superior equipment to mow down the opposition en masse: you’d more likely see various factions in military take it out one upon another.
adventured 6y ago
> But we no longer have the right to bear the same arms as the government. You hardly need it. You can see what guerrilla forces do to the standing army of a superpower, by looking at Iraq and Afghanistan. They can't stop it, its demoralizing, and even if the superpower kills at a 2 to 1 or greater ratio, the losses are considerable. And in this case that force would be domestic, so all the negative PR/image consequences are radically amplified (your army might kill at a 2 to 1 or 4 to 1 ratio, but every one of those citizens that you kill makes the general population hate you more and brings out more recruits for the opposition). The US has maybe 12 to 15 million functional, trained former soldiers, many of whom have been to war, they know everything the military knows, they have experience in every aspect of combat, and they have a vast number of arms and a hundred million sympathetic people behind them. It makes Afghanistan look like a cakewalk. A standing army trying that in the US would be butchered, they'd bleed like a stuck pig. And that's to say nothing of the vast internal sabotage and assassinations that would immediately begin to occur and would never cease; it would instantly split the military into factional pieces that would fight against eachother.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  The kill ratio in Iraq is 100 to 1.
  - svieira 6y ago
    And we still haven't won
    - confidantlake 6y ago
      The side that is getting killed at 100x the rate isn't winning either.
      - svieira 6y ago
        There's an old apocryphal story about the Chinese and the Japanese duking it out in the prelude to WWII that applies here, but there's also a poem far closer: > That though all lances split on you, > All swords be heaved in vain, > We have more lust again to lose > Than you to win again. ~ G. K. Chesterton - The Ballad of the White Horse - Book III https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm#link2H_4_0004 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm#link2... The side that is willing to loose one more time than the "winning" side is willing to win ... they win in the end.
- bavell 6y ago
  I don't know why more people don't understand this. Is it because they have no exposure or experience in military matters? I don't understand how so many people think the 2A is obsolete... it's just as effective today as it ever was.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - asdff 6y ago
    It is obsolete since you are comparing apples to oranges. Comparing hardened people who have been fed arms and resources by various superpowers for decades vs. your average out of shape medicated American who buys their shotgun at the sporting goods store.

emptysongglass 6y ago

The right to bear arms was enshrined when the US didn't have a standing army. The military never dissolves back into the populace, rendering a few poorly trained people with a few guns (no APCs, no tanks, no hellfire drones) completely ineffectual. It's completely pointless today.

ajmadesc 6y ago
I have this argument a lot being a self identified liberal with liberal friends. Two points: 1. Although it wasn't the intention, the 2A creates the conditions for insurgency. Super powers don't do well against insurgency. 2. The military by nature is much much less likely to turn against the citizenry. The militarization of the police is much more likely.
- _underfl0w_ 6y ago
  > 2. The military by nature is much much less likely to turn against the citizenry. While comforting, is this actually true? We have seen this happen very recently with protests occurring - yes the police were there and heavily armed, but so was the actual military, who came swiftly to the president's beckoning. It's an organization that prioritizes rank, the chain of command, and doing what you're told without question or hesitation. There even seems to be quite a lot of perks (think education, monetary reparations) to getting your hands dirty so that elected officials don't have to.
curtainsforus 6y ago
It's a matter of economics. The US government wants (has) to rule, not just nuke the country and call it a day. If the whole country's armed, it becomes more costly to have boots on the ground everywhere enforcing the occupation. It at least shifts the equation more in the direction of concessions from the occupying force.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  It's the same economics for both sides though. A large-scale, protracted guerilla civil war would be economically devastating for both sides.