3 ms·

Depending on the scenario, but I'd want a rifle in a lot of self-defense scenarios against humans. Attacker has a rifle? I want a rifle. Multiple attackers? I

by mod 5y ago

Depending on the scenario, but I'd want a rifle in a lot of self-defense scenarios against humans. Attacker has a rifle? I want a rifle. Multiple attackers? I want a rifle. Attacker is extremely motivated to hurt me and won't quit until they're dead? I want a rifle. One guy breaks in my house with a knife? I guess a handgun will do, or preferably a shotgun. You interestingly just chose a rifle that is a semi-automatic rifle like most other long guns in the US (those that aren't bolt guns). An AK-47 is comparable to an AR15 is comparable to a Remington 742 Woodmaster, which is a nice deer rifle. It's unclear if you think the caliber is a problem, or if you've just decided they're all full-auto or something. I guess it sounded scarier. More importantly, self-defense is not the reason for the amendment. Gun classification is not mentioned. At the time, the founders wanted the citizens to have equal access to arms as the government. I'm not sure they could foresee tanks and fighter jets, so it's hard to say where they would have drawn the line if we asked them.

graderjs 5y ago
> I'm not sure they could foresee tanks and fighter jets, so it's hard to say where they would have drawn the line if we asked them. An interesting thought exercise. I wonder how that would have played out, had it been anticipated: changing the nature of the defense contractor market, and maybe Ford would have ads for "SUV APC" or "Sport Model Tank". On some level the mental demarcation between "civilian tech" and "military tech" is so visually clear for me, it's hard for me to imagine a world where those things are fluidly interchanged, that doesn't seem satirical or dystopian. Doesn't mean it would be tho...Strange utopian possibility is, post WWII with civilian market for military armaments exploding, maybe the "start more wars, sell more weapons" motive for war (if that's a real thing) would have disappeared, and US wouldn't have been in any war in 70 years, because the defense industry would be too busy reaping profits from the consumer sector.

by mod 5y ago

graderjs 5y ago

> I'm not sure they could foresee tanks and fighter jets, so it's hard to say where they would have drawn the line if we asked them. An interesting thought exercise. I wonder how that would have played out, had it been anticipated: changing the nature of the defense contractor market, and maybe Ford would have ads for "SUV APC" or "Sport Model Tank". On some level the mental demarcation between "civilian tech" and "military tech" is so visually clear for me, it's hard for me to imagine a world where those things are fluidly interchanged, that doesn't seem satirical or dystopian. Doesn't mean it would be tho...Strange utopian possibility is, post WWII with civilian market for military armaments exploding, maybe the "start more wars, sell more weapons" motive for war (if that's a real thing) would have disappeared, and US wouldn't have been in any war in 70 years, because the defense industry would be too busy reaping profits from the consumer sector.