25 ms·

"The Second Amendment in Iraq, Combat Robotics, and the Future of Human Liberty" argues that combat robots are unconstitutional for the US to develop, because t

"The Second Amendment in Iraq, Combat Robotics, and the Future of Human Liberty" argues that combat robots are unconstitutional for the US to develop, because they render the second amendment useless. http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/bigdeal/the-second-amendment-in-iraq-combat-robotics-and-the-future-of-human-liberty-820 http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/bigdeal/the-second-amend...

merpnderp 5y ago
That's one heck of a stretch. The more reasonable interpretation would be that the 2nd simply means combat robots should be legal for citizens to own and operate. I mean who wouldn't sleep better at night knowing your XJ9000 Eviscerator brand murderbot is patrolling your home for unexpected guests? /s
- krapp 5y ago
  The only solution to a bad robot with a gun is a good robot with a gun.
oytis 5y ago
It is already pretty useless, because militia is not going to have tanks, bombers, fighter jets and nukes anyway. It was an alright idea when it was introduced, but is mostly obsolete today.
- Nbox9 5y ago
  Vietnam and Iraq are counter examples to this, they didn’t fight with tanks, bombers, fighter jets or nukes.
  - WFHRenaissance 5y ago
    Ding ding ding! Insurgencies that combine small arms, improvised explosives, clandestine cell social structures, fault-tolerant and encrypted communication methods, and distributed fundraising techniques can and have countered imperial military adventurism. This is not a libertarian fantasy; it happens every day.
- krapp 5y ago
  The Second Amendment was rendered obsolete once the US had a standing army and militias were no longer needed as the primary means of defending the country. FUD about the creeping authoritarian (probably leftist) menace coming to take your guns is great for scaring up NRA donations and Republican votes, but the only real utility the 2A itself has anymore is in allowing gun owners legal access to firearms for self defense, hunting or other non-militant activities.
  - dfilppi 5y ago
    Nope. Setting aside resistance to government, there is home defense, which is more practical.
  - ghufran_syed 5y ago
    It seems like you are arguing that 1) The second amendment is no longer relevant and that therefore there is no legal justification for US citizens to keep firearms, while simultaneously arguing 2) no-one is “coming to take your guns” Can you see how people in favor of gun rights might not find your second argument convincing, in light of the first?
    - krapp 5y ago
      It appears you didn't read my comment in its entirety. Nowhere did I claim there was no legal justification for US citizens to keep firearms - rather I listed several such justifications. I also never claimed no one is "coming to take your guns," although I do believe that is mostly just right-wing propaganda, and was referring to the propaganda value of that threat as being the only useful vestige of the revolutionary principle of the Second Amendment remaining, because the actual disparity in firepower between the populace and the US military renders the practical utility of it irrelevant.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > militia is not going to have tanks, bombers, fighter jets and nukes anyway One, guerrilla warfare works. Two, the point is to increase the cost of suppression to requiring U.S. tanks and bombers and jets deployed against the homeland. An unarmed population can be more casually suppressed.
  - k__ 5y ago
    If I look at the state of health care, education, and prisons in the US, the population seems quite suppressed to me even without any warfare.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      Yes, if we change the meaning of words we can change their meaning.
    - WFHRenaissance 5y ago
      Fortunately these problems have a military solution.

merpnderp 5y ago

That's one heck of a stretch. The more reasonable interpretation would be that the 2nd simply means combat robots should be legal for citizens to own and operate. I mean who wouldn't sleep better at night knowing your XJ9000 Eviscerator brand murderbot is patrolling your home for unexpected guests? /s

krapp 5y ago
The only solution to a bad robot with a gun is a good robot with a gun.

oytis 5y ago

It is already pretty useless, because militia is not going to have tanks, bombers, fighter jets and nukes anyway. It was an alright idea when it was introduced, but is mostly obsolete today.

Nbox9 5y ago
Vietnam and Iraq are counter examples to this, they didn’t fight with tanks, bombers, fighter jets or nukes.
- WFHRenaissance 5y ago
  Ding ding ding! Insurgencies that combine small arms, improvised explosives, clandestine cell social structures, fault-tolerant and encrypted communication methods, and distributed fundraising techniques can and have countered imperial military adventurism. This is not a libertarian fantasy; it happens every day.
krapp 5y ago
The Second Amendment was rendered obsolete once the US had a standing army and militias were no longer needed as the primary means of defending the country. FUD about the creeping authoritarian (probably leftist) menace coming to take your guns is great for scaring up NRA donations and Republican votes, but the only real utility the 2A itself has anymore is in allowing gun owners legal access to firearms for self defense, hunting or other non-militant activities.
- dfilppi 5y ago
  Nope. Setting aside resistance to government, there is home defense, which is more practical.
- ghufran_syed 5y ago
  It seems like you are arguing that 1) The second amendment is no longer relevant and that therefore there is no legal justification for US citizens to keep firearms, while simultaneously arguing 2) no-one is “coming to take your guns” Can you see how people in favor of gun rights might not find your second argument convincing, in light of the first?
  - krapp 5y ago
    It appears you didn't read my comment in its entirety. Nowhere did I claim there was no legal justification for US citizens to keep firearms - rather I listed several such justifications. I also never claimed no one is "coming to take your guns," although I do believe that is mostly just right-wing propaganda, and was referring to the propaganda value of that threat as being the only useful vestige of the revolutionary principle of the Second Amendment remaining, because the actual disparity in firepower between the populace and the US military renders the practical utility of it irrelevant.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> militia is not going to have tanks, bombers, fighter jets and nukes anyway One, guerrilla warfare works. Two, the point is to increase the cost of suppression to requiring U.S. tanks and bombers and jets deployed against the homeland. An unarmed population can be more casually suppressed.
- k__ 5y ago
  If I look at the state of health care, education, and prisons in the US, the population seems quite suppressed to me even without any warfare.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    Yes, if we change the meaning of words we can change their meaning.
  - WFHRenaissance 5y ago
    Fortunately these problems have a military solution.