4 ms·

The idea that a dude with an AR will take on a platoon of MRAPs is comical. The founding fathers were talking about the ability to raise a well regulated militi

The idea that a dude with an AR will take on a platoon of MRAPs is comical. The founding fathers were talking about the ability to raise a well regulated militia when there was no standing army, not kids shooting a schools.

a4a4a4a4 4y ago
Did you follow any part of the last X years in Afghanistan and Iraq? Seemed to work out for them -> the US left. Edit: I always find the type of argument in the parent comment to be intellectually dishonest. "You're not going to beat the US military, they have tanks and planes!". Sure, maybe, but can we agree that if we ever got to the point where the US military is killing civilians, that you might rather have a rifle than nothing?
- rayiner 4y ago
  Folks should watch the TV show Jericho. It’s not about being able to overthrow a uniformed military. In a domestic context, it’s about keeping the resistance alive long enough to secure outside support, turn units of the military to their side, etc.
rayiner 4y ago
Sure, but “raising a well regulated militia” involved mobilizing armed civilians. This is quite clear from the quoted portion of the federalist above—which refers to “being armed” as an advantage possessed by “Americans,” and criticizing European governments for being “afraid to trust the people with arms.” The individual right to bear arms ensures that an armed militia can be raised when needed. A far better argument for gun control advocates, in my view, would be that (1) the Second Amendment doesn’t protect handguns, which aren’t weapons that would typically be used in war; and (2) the Second Amendment doesn’t preclude regulation that is consistent with being able to raise an armed militia from among citizens, like the Swiss have. The problem is that a handgun ban is the least popular gun control measure, even though it would be the most effective. Only 20% of people supported a handgun ban in 2021: https://news.gallup.com/poll/357317/stricter-gun-laws-less-popular.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/357317/stricter-gun-laws-less-p...
- a4a4a4a4 4y ago
  > the Second Amendment doesn’t preclude regulation that is consistent with being able to raise an armed militia from among citizens, like the Swiss have. You might be very disappointed to know that Swiss gun control is very very liberal. Permits for must guns are "shall issue", and with a little bit more work (e.g. a safe and a slight longer 2 page application) you can buy whatever you want, including new fully automatic weapons. The implementation of Swiss-style gun laws would never work in the US, because they depend on the government not intentionally making things harder than they need to be (something the US is exceptional at, especially with gun control in states like NY)

a4a4a4a4 4y ago

Did you follow any part of the last X years in Afghanistan and Iraq? Seemed to work out for them -> the US left. Edit: I always find the type of argument in the parent comment to be intellectually dishonest. "You're not going to beat the US military, they have tanks and planes!". Sure, maybe, but can we agree that if we ever got to the point where the US military is killing civilians, that you might rather have a rifle than nothing?

rayiner 4y ago
Folks should watch the TV show Jericho. It’s not about being able to overthrow a uniformed military. In a domestic context, it’s about keeping the resistance alive long enough to secure outside support, turn units of the military to their side, etc.

rayiner 4y ago

Sure, but “raising a well regulated militia” involved mobilizing armed civilians. This is quite clear from the quoted portion of the federalist above—which refers to “being armed” as an advantage possessed by “Americans,” and criticizing European governments for being “afraid to trust the people with arms.” The individual right to bear arms ensures that an armed militia can be raised when needed. A far better argument for gun control advocates, in my view, would be that (1) the Second Amendment doesn’t protect handguns, which aren’t weapons that would typically be used in war; and (2) the Second Amendment doesn’t preclude regulation that is consistent with being able to raise an armed militia from among citizens, like the Swiss have. The problem is that a handgun ban is the least popular gun control measure, even though it would be the most effective. Only 20% of people supported a handgun ban in 2021: https://news.gallup.com/poll/357317/stricter-gun-laws-less-popular.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/357317/stricter-gun-laws-less-p...

a4a4a4a4 4y ago
> the Second Amendment doesn’t preclude regulation that is consistent with being able to raise an armed militia from among citizens, like the Swiss have. You might be very disappointed to know that Swiss gun control is very very liberal. Permits for must guns are "shall issue", and with a little bit more work (e.g. a safe and a slight longer 2 page application) you can buy whatever you want, including new fully automatic weapons. The implementation of Swiss-style gun laws would never work in the US, because they depend on the government not intentionally making things harder than they need to be (something the US is exceptional at, especially with gun control in states like NY)