5 ms·

The one part of the gun debate I don't understand is that the 2nd amendment was only added to prevent the government of overreaching as it gives the citizens th

The one part of the gun debate I don't understand is that the 2nd amendment was only added to prevent the government of overreaching as it gives the citizens the right to form armed militias to combat that. But realistically speaking, in a time where police forces are using military equipment, is it even possible to fight against them when/if push come to shove?

ceilingcorner 5y ago
The actual military couldn’t make a dent in Afghanistan after twenty years. What makes you think they will be any more effective against local Americans who are more familiar with the terrain, have access to better tech, and often are of the same socioeconomic background of the soldiers themselves?
- vcavallo 5y ago
  aren’t the weapons a bit different? or do you think rural americans are stockpiling rocket launchers and AK47s?
  - ceilingcorner 5y ago
    IEDs are the more commonly used weapons, and they aren’t hard to make. I also have zero doubts that if the military actually started fighting the civilian populace, more powerful weapons would get introduced (possibly by other states, as with in Afghanistan.)
    - natmaka 5y ago
      ... and, just like in Afghanistan (especially during the Soviet invasion in the 80's), rebels will ambush convoys/advanced bases and steal weaponry and associated material.
    - nickthemagicman 5y ago
      Military defection as well. The military has a lot of conservative pro-gun people.
    - cko 5y ago
      Yup. And the heavier the equipment used against civilians, the greater the anti government resistance. The military will run out of Apaches and Abrams long before the people run out of ideology/anger.
cko 5y ago
It's not possible to out-tech or overpower the US military, but tell that to the guys fighting against our troops overseas with Toyotas and IEDs. An armed (and determined) populace is quite a good deterrent.
- simonh 5y ago
  Is it actually a deterrent in the USA though? Do you see signs of a heavily armed populace actually deterring lethal shootings and paramilitary action by the police in the US? If anything it seems to me that what is happening in the US is a cycle of increasing armed escalation. Mass shootings lead to people getting guns for home defence and personal carry. An increasingly armed populace leads police officers to be more prepared for gun violence and more willing to shoot where there is a perceived threat or risk. Increasing police shootings lead to violent protests and 'reprisal' attacks against police. More guns generally means unstable personalities are more likely to have access to powerful weapons, so more mass shootings. And so it goes on. An armed society is a polite society? Really?
  - natmaka 5y ago
    It isn't a deterrent against local abuses, however well-armed civilians are a deterrent against massive and nationwide attempts (a pure tyranny trying to establish itself, or some foreign invading force). The societal problem created by unstable personalities is due to... unstable personalities, and unstable personalities tend to boost other's instabilities, a retro-action quickly escalates the problem into major ordeals: the society (armed or not) progressively becomes something else and crumbles. Someone wanting to destroy/maim/kill will do so (armed or not), and civilians weapons rarely are the best tool for it (check, for example, the Oklahoma City bombing '1995). Arson as a weapon substitute is common, especially in no-weapon zones. Solving the main causes of tensions (dumb dispositions addicting many citizen to very dangerous drugs, race-related hate, extreme poverty, education and economic conditions letting youngsters leading nowhere...) would reduce the will to destroy/maim/kill. Weapons don't do anything by themselves.
    - simonh 5y ago
edanm 5y ago
Any kind of armed conflict, including war, is a tool of politics. While theoretically speaking, no armed militia will ever be able to beat the US Army, that's not the question. The question is, will an armed resistance change the politics of the conflict enough to not engage in it. For example, let's say you want to send the army or police to (let's say) take control over some city and implement a curfew. If the populace is armed and decides to oppose you, your calculus now includes whether it's worth killing many people to get your aims. That might make it politically impossible to do, either because it's now no longer worth it, or because the army itself might resist you. Obviously those are extreme scenarios. You can see many, many cases where a small armed populace managed to "win" against a much larger army, because unlike what some people think, war is very rarely an all-out "get your way at any cost" affair.
busymom0 5y ago
That argument has been raised many times many times "oh your guns won't stand a chance against military bombers and tanks" but that is logically flawed for two reasons: 1. If that were the case, then what's even the point of freedom of speech or any individual liberty either since the government can always trample them without a problem? You could use that reasoning to argue against literally anything that the government would oppose. 2. That's actually not the case as has been proven several times in history - including recently in Afghanistan as of this moment. The ground troops of Taliban haven't been able to be defeated - neither by USA (for 20 years) nor by the Soviets few decades ago. Another example would be USA losing to Vietnam. In a war scenario where the guns are used, both sides do not simply line up & start shooting and whoever has the biggest guns wins. Guerrillas can beat massive armies and ammo. If inferior forces couldn't defeat bigger stronger ones, then the Arabs and British would still be ruling everywhere. As someone mentioned this in another post: "The argument is generally that a well-armed civilian populace is ungovernable without their consent. Could a modern army nuke them or firebomb them into oblivion? Sure. But then they'd be "governing" a burnt-out husk of a country and likely have become an international pariah to boot. Occupying a hostile territory while keeping the population alive and productive involves having a relatively small number of soldiers on the ground managing things and keeping people in line, and that system rapidly becomes infeasible if the locals are far more numerous and armed with semi-automatic weapons. Of course the odds of a situation like that happening are extremely low, but then again my grandparents never imagined the possibility of their country being occupied during WW2 either, so who knows what the future can bring."

ceilingcorner 5y ago

The actual military couldn’t make a dent in Afghanistan after twenty years. What makes you think they will be any more effective against local Americans who are more familiar with the terrain, have access to better tech, and often are of the same socioeconomic background of the soldiers themselves?

vcavallo 5y ago
aren’t the weapons a bit different? or do you think rural americans are stockpiling rocket launchers and AK47s?
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  IEDs are the more commonly used weapons, and they aren’t hard to make. I also have zero doubts that if the military actually started fighting the civilian populace, more powerful weapons would get introduced (possibly by other states, as with in Afghanistan.)
  - natmaka 5y ago
    ... and, just like in Afghanistan (especially during the Soviet invasion in the 80's), rebels will ambush convoys/advanced bases and steal weaponry and associated material.
  - nickthemagicman 5y ago
    Military defection as well. The military has a lot of conservative pro-gun people.
  - cko 5y ago
    Yup. And the heavier the equipment used against civilians, the greater the anti government resistance. The military will run out of Apaches and Abrams long before the people run out of ideology/anger.

cko 5y ago

It's not possible to out-tech or overpower the US military, but tell that to the guys fighting against our troops overseas with Toyotas and IEDs. An armed (and determined) populace is quite a good deterrent.

simonh 5y ago
Is it actually a deterrent in the USA though? Do you see signs of a heavily armed populace actually deterring lethal shootings and paramilitary action by the police in the US? If anything it seems to me that what is happening in the US is a cycle of increasing armed escalation. Mass shootings lead to people getting guns for home defence and personal carry. An increasingly armed populace leads police officers to be more prepared for gun violence and more willing to shoot where there is a perceived threat or risk. Increasing police shootings lead to violent protests and 'reprisal' attacks against police. More guns generally means unstable personalities are more likely to have access to powerful weapons, so more mass shootings. And so it goes on. An armed society is a polite society? Really?
- natmaka 5y ago
  It isn't a deterrent against local abuses, however well-armed civilians are a deterrent against massive and nationwide attempts (a pure tyranny trying to establish itself, or some foreign invading force). The societal problem created by unstable personalities is due to... unstable personalities, and unstable personalities tend to boost other's instabilities, a retro-action quickly escalates the problem into major ordeals: the society (armed or not) progressively becomes something else and crumbles. Someone wanting to destroy/maim/kill will do so (armed or not), and civilians weapons rarely are the best tool for it (check, for example, the Oklahoma City bombing '1995). Arson as a weapon substitute is common, especially in no-weapon zones. Solving the main causes of tensions (dumb dispositions addicting many citizen to very dangerous drugs, race-related hate, extreme poverty, education and economic conditions letting youngsters leading nowhere...) would reduce the will to destroy/maim/kill. Weapons don't do anything by themselves.
  - simonh 5y ago

edanm 5y ago

Any kind of armed conflict, including war, is a tool of politics. While theoretically speaking, no armed militia will ever be able to beat the US Army, that's not the question. The question is, will an armed resistance change the politics of the conflict enough to not engage in it. For example, let's say you want to send the army or police to (let's say) take control over some city and implement a curfew. If the populace is armed and decides to oppose you, your calculus now includes whether it's worth killing many people to get your aims. That might make it politically impossible to do, either because it's now no longer worth it, or because the army itself might resist you. Obviously those are extreme scenarios. You can see many, many cases where a small armed populace managed to "win" against a much larger army, because unlike what some people think, war is very rarely an all-out "get your way at any cost" affair.

busymom0 5y ago

That argument has been raised many times many times "oh your guns won't stand a chance against military bombers and tanks" but that is logically flawed for two reasons: 1. If that were the case, then what's even the point of freedom of speech or any individual liberty either since the government can always trample them without a problem? You could use that reasoning to argue against literally anything that the government would oppose. 2. That's actually not the case as has been proven several times in history - including recently in Afghanistan as of this moment. The ground troops of Taliban haven't been able to be defeated - neither by USA (for 20 years) nor by the Soviets few decades ago. Another example would be USA losing to Vietnam. In a war scenario where the guns are used, both sides do not simply line up & start shooting and whoever has the biggest guns wins. Guerrillas can beat massive armies and ammo. If inferior forces couldn't defeat bigger stronger ones, then the Arabs and British would still be ruling everywhere. As someone mentioned this in another post: "The argument is generally that a well-armed civilian populace is ungovernable without their consent. Could a modern army nuke them or firebomb them into oblivion? Sure. But then they'd be "governing" a burnt-out husk of a country and likely have become an international pariah to boot. Occupying a hostile territory while keeping the population alive and productive involves having a relatively small number of soldiers on the ground managing things and keeping people in line, and that system rapidly becomes infeasible if the locals are far more numerous and armed with semi-automatic weapons. Of course the odds of a situation like that happening are extremely low, but then again my grandparents never imagined the possibility of their country being occupied during WW2 either, so who knows what the future can bring."