5 ms·

What I don't understand about it is that the right to bear arms was rooted in the desire to allow citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government so

What I don't understand about it is that the right to bear arms was rooted in the desire to allow citizens to arm themselves against an oppressive government so they could organize an effective overthrow if the need ever arose again (after the revolutionary war). Today, the government's military is so advanced that they'd quickly squash any kind of uprising even if you somehow managed to obtain every legally purchased firearm in the country. The right to privacy and encrypted communication would go a lot farther in that respect than the right to bear arms, putting aside self defense arguments, yet you don't hear much about that from the right wing groups touting this argument in favor of gun rights.

67726e 11y ago
That argument always presumes it is the entire military against civilians. One would think if things got that bad, there would be some manner of defections from the military into the rebelling side.
- 13years 11y ago
  The other check and balance was also that each state were to have militias. So it wouldn't be just citizens against 1 federally controlled military.
sebastianconcpt 11y ago
The political cost would be too high for the oppressing side. The military will not be homogeneously obedient to repress its own people that much
- douche 11y ago
  That was a big issue for the North in the early years of the Civil War. Southerners were disproportionately represented in the small pre-war standing army and West Point alumnae. So the war starts, and they mostly go home and switch sides; at the same time the northern armies are massively expanding, with a gutted officer pool.
  - aaronem 11y ago
    Linguistic quibble: "Alumnae" is the nominative feminine plural of the noun "alumnus", and thus refers specifically to a female graduate of some institution of higher learning, &c. In 1860, there was no such thing as an alumna of West Point, a school which at that time had only alumni (which is the nominative masculine plural, and the correct usage in this case).
joonoro 11y ago
>Today, the government's military is so advanced that they'd quickly squash any kind of uprising even if you somehow managed to obtain every legally purchased firearm in the country. You'd be surprised at how effective guerrilla warfare is.
- reagency 11y ago
  Guerilla warfare can change who wins, but it won't stop you from losing. A war has more than two sides.
  - leereeves 11y ago
    > it won't stop you from losing One counter-example: the Taliban
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      Not Vietnam?
      - vacri 11y ago
        Guerilla warfare in Vietnam was a major component, but the major gains on the ground were made by the North Vietnamese Army.
- aaronem 11y ago
  Only against an occupier unwilling to meet it with measures harsh enough to be effective. Historically speaking, I'd say it is more likely for US military forces to employ such measures against Americans, than against occupied foreign polities; as far as I can think of, we've actually never done the latter, while US history exhibits at least two instances of the former -- the Indian relocation, on the one hand, demonstrating the effectiveness of mass resettlement, and Sherman's March to the Sea, on the other, doing likewise for "scorched earth" techniques and reprisal killings of civilian hostages in response to guerrilla attacks.
freshhawk 11y ago
"Today, the government's military is so advanced that they'd quickly squash ..." Would they? They should try doing that now in all the various wars and police actions they are involved in.
- partisan 11y ago
  1. They can't, at least not as plainly as stated here. The wars being fought today are asymmetrical and, in many cases, ideological. You can take out a pocket of resistance here or there, but there are no huge battles like in a war between two nations. Victories are small, cost more, are not decisive, but are guaranteed due to the overwhelming strength of the weapons. 2. More importantly: they don't want to. long drawn out wars are profitable, numbing, and demoralizing. Most people don't care about them anymore. They just happen in the background. No thumbs up, no thumbs down. Go on about your business. That's the best type of reaction a government could ask for when pushing the agenda of lobbyists and the corporations they represent.
  - baddox 11y ago
    > The wars being fought today are asymmetrical and, in many cases, ideological. Yep, and an attempted takeover in the USA would also be asymmetrical and ideological.
    - partisan 11y ago
      People will beg the government to come in and save them from themselves. So the question, I suppose, is what could trigger the actual occupation? My guess is that it will be austerity measures that will come through widespread municipal bankruptcies. Pensions and disability checks will stop coming. Services will stop being provided. There is a whole section of the population that subsists on government provided benefits. Multiple generations, below the poverty line, directed acyclical graphs of income where the last person to have worked is a generation or two ago. When that lifeline goes away, then we will see unrest. Then the government will come in and occupy, providing basics. Give us your guns and we will protect you. Take this rice and this water and go home and watch TV.
calebrichardson 11y ago
Tell that to the Mujahideen, the Viet Cong, and the 2003- Iraqi Insurgency. You could make the case that in the latter two conflicts, the more mighty power was unwilling to commit total war [1], but I would like to believe that the US military would not commit total war against its own people. At some point there is nothing left to rule. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
- aaronem 11y ago
  There's a difference between "total war" and "nothing left to rule"; indeed, there's a difference between total war and merely executing civilian hostages in reprisal for acts of insurrection, although the taking of civilian hostages is often a feature of total warfare -- as, indeed, it was when Sherman employed the strategy against Confederate civilians, who had so recently been his fellow citizens and yet remained his fellow Americans, during his famous "March to the Sea". In fact, Sherman not only engaged in total war, but originated the idea that it should be used in that conflict; he had to sell it to Lincoln before he could get permission to employ it. I really don't think it's that much of a stretch to imagine such a thing happening again in the United States; all it'd need would be, on the one hand, another sufficiently bloodthirsty general, and on the other, another sufficiently widespread perception that those on the dirty end of the total-war stick had it coming.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

67726e 11y ago

That argument always presumes it is the entire military against civilians. One would think if things got that bad, there would be some manner of defections from the military into the rebelling side.

13years 11y ago
The other check and balance was also that each state were to have militias. So it wouldn't be just citizens against 1 federally controlled military.

sebastianconcpt 11y ago

The political cost would be too high for the oppressing side. The military will not be homogeneously obedient to repress its own people that much

douche 11y ago
That was a big issue for the North in the early years of the Civil War. Southerners were disproportionately represented in the small pre-war standing army and West Point alumnae. So the war starts, and they mostly go home and switch sides; at the same time the northern armies are massively expanding, with a gutted officer pool.
- aaronem 11y ago
  Linguistic quibble: "Alumnae" is the nominative feminine plural of the noun "alumnus", and thus refers specifically to a female graduate of some institution of higher learning, &c. In 1860, there was no such thing as an alumna of West Point, a school which at that time had only alumni (which is the nominative masculine plural, and the correct usage in this case).

joonoro 11y ago

>Today, the government's military is so advanced that they'd quickly squash any kind of uprising even if you somehow managed to obtain every legally purchased firearm in the country. You'd be surprised at how effective guerrilla warfare is.

reagency 11y ago
Guerilla warfare can change who wins, but it won't stop you from losing. A war has more than two sides.
- leereeves 11y ago
  > it won't stop you from losing One counter-example: the Taliban
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    Not Vietnam?
    - vacri 11y ago
      Guerilla warfare in Vietnam was a major component, but the major gains on the ground were made by the North Vietnamese Army.
aaronem 11y ago
Only against an occupier unwilling to meet it with measures harsh enough to be effective. Historically speaking, I'd say it is more likely for US military forces to employ such measures against Americans, than against occupied foreign polities; as far as I can think of, we've actually never done the latter, while US history exhibits at least two instances of the former -- the Indian relocation, on the one hand, demonstrating the effectiveness of mass resettlement, and Sherman's March to the Sea, on the other, doing likewise for "scorched earth" techniques and reprisal killings of civilian hostages in response to guerrilla attacks.

freshhawk 11y ago

"Today, the government's military is so advanced that they'd quickly squash ..." Would they? They should try doing that now in all the various wars and police actions they are involved in.

partisan 11y ago
1. They can't, at least not as plainly as stated here. The wars being fought today are asymmetrical and, in many cases, ideological. You can take out a pocket of resistance here or there, but there are no huge battles like in a war between two nations. Victories are small, cost more, are not decisive, but are guaranteed due to the overwhelming strength of the weapons. 2. More importantly: they don't want to. long drawn out wars are profitable, numbing, and demoralizing. Most people don't care about them anymore. They just happen in the background. No thumbs up, no thumbs down. Go on about your business. That's the best type of reaction a government could ask for when pushing the agenda of lobbyists and the corporations they represent.
- baddox 11y ago
  > The wars being fought today are asymmetrical and, in many cases, ideological. Yep, and an attempted takeover in the USA would also be asymmetrical and ideological.
  - partisan 11y ago
    People will beg the government to come in and save them from themselves. So the question, I suppose, is what could trigger the actual occupation? My guess is that it will be austerity measures that will come through widespread municipal bankruptcies. Pensions and disability checks will stop coming. Services will stop being provided. There is a whole section of the population that subsists on government provided benefits. Multiple generations, below the poverty line, directed acyclical graphs of income where the last person to have worked is a generation or two ago. When that lifeline goes away, then we will see unrest. Then the government will come in and occupy, providing basics. Give us your guns and we will protect you. Take this rice and this water and go home and watch TV.

calebrichardson 11y ago

Tell that to the Mujahideen, the Viet Cong, and the 2003- Iraqi Insurgency. You could make the case that in the latter two conflicts, the more mighty power was unwilling to commit total war [1], but I would like to believe that the US military would not commit total war against its own people. At some point there is nothing left to rule. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

aaronem 11y ago
There's a difference between "total war" and "nothing left to rule"; indeed, there's a difference between total war and merely executing civilian hostages in reprisal for acts of insurrection, although the taking of civilian hostages is often a feature of total warfare -- as, indeed, it was when Sherman employed the strategy against Confederate civilians, who had so recently been his fellow citizens and yet remained his fellow Americans, during his famous "March to the Sea". In fact, Sherman not only engaged in total war, but originated the idea that it should be used in that conflict; he had to sell it to Lincoln before he could get permission to employ it. I really don't think it's that much of a stretch to imagine such a thing happening again in the United States; all it'd need would be, on the one hand, another sufficiently bloodthirsty general, and on the other, another sufficiently widespread perception that those on the dirty end of the total-war stick had it coming.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]