[jjjensen90]

Generally I am against loss of human life, be it in war or gun violence, but I'm not sure how I would have felt at the time of the Revolution, and I'm not sure you do either.

But really, that is just a weak strawman. The US government/military is MANY orders of magnitude more powerful than the British vs the colonists. The US military could nuke every single state capital in a few minutes, for example. If you take the argument to it's logical conclusion, we should have legal access to weapons equivalent to that of the military, which we already definitely do not.

I am just pointing out that an untrained populace armed with even military-style assault weapons is really just laughable if your enemy is the largest military that has ever existed with technology and weapons that could annihilate humanity. I just don't agree that it is productive to use that as an excuse against thoughtful regulation in the face of the actual, currently occuring epidemic of gun violence (accidents, suicides, school shootings, domestic violence, gang violence, etc) where people are really losing their lives.

[nbdev]

You missed the part where I mentioned Vietnam, and the part where I asked what if half the military defects?

I'm against loss of human life too, that's why I'm pro-2nd Amendment. People can defend themselves. People can fight off tyranny. Given enough time, people will need to do that again.

[pasquinelli]

what if half the military and all the gun nuts decide this country is for whites only? the people can fight for tyrrant as well as against it.

[DuskStar]

Well, that would be why we have an amendment to the constitution that says 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' As long as we follow that, guns won't be whites only.

[pasquinelli]

what kind of magical thinking is that, that what the constitution says determines who has guns? anyway, it isn't the point. the point is that the majority are if anything more likely to support a tyrant than not, so the idea that gun nuts will save us from a tyrant they have at least a 50/50 shot of supporting is silly, and that's without considering the possibility that they'll save us from a tyrant who actually isn't a tyrant at all.

[nbdev]

Pretty much anyone can get a gun, right? Because of the Constitution, right? Where's the magic thinking?

You say most people would support a tyrant, which may not be true but let's go with that. Given that, why wouldn't you want the opposition to that tyrrany to have guns? Your take seems defeatist. You want to just try to live peacefully as tyranny spreads?

[krapp]

One doesn't need a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in order to keep and bear arms, only to do so legally. Expecting a tyrannical US regime to respect the 2nd Amendment in order to legitimize the means of its own demise seems shortsighted, and other countries manage to have revolutions and coups without a legal firearms market.

[jakeogh]

"It was good to have a gun when the Clansmen came." -Antonin Scalia

You really should take a moment to listen to Heller(2008).

[reitanqild]

> I am just pointing out that an untrained populace armed with even military-style assault weapons is really just laughable if your enemy is the largest military that has ever existed with technology and weapons that could annihilate humanity.

Tell that to the Nazis. They were the military superpower of their time.

Except for the nuclear option every armed enemy can tie up >10 soldiers if they are going to try to keep people alive for slave labour/selective genocide/etc.

Edit: my point is that the Nazis had a giant technological advantage as well as a giant army and even powerful allies and still they were vulnerable to all kinds of sting operations.

Edit2: a little more context.

[watwut]

Third reich army was trained. It was army. This is not an example of "untrained populace". This is example of well trained army from country with great military tradition.

The fight against nazi was ultimately won by armies, not by "untrained populace".

All in all, this is really odd example.

[reitanqild]

> Third reich army was trained. It was army. This is not an example of "untrained populace".

Yep. That is my point.

> The fight against nazi was ultimately won by armies, not by "untrained populace".

Also true. But local groups (and of course SOE operations) helped tying up their resources so they couldn't help on the eastern front or start the invasion of Britain.

From Wikipedia[0]: The following afternoon, on 8 May, ... At this time there were no fewer than 400,000 German troops in Norway, which had a population of barely three million.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Norway

[watwut]

I don't really find this convincing as far as original discussion goes.