[vowelless]

> For example, guns. Very few people die because of mass shootings.

Adjusted for how armed Americans are, gun violence in this country is tiny. And seeing what an armed citizenry can do against the full American force (Afghanistan), an armed population is a necessity against tyranny in America.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

The highest death rate in 2019 is Alaska (TIL) with 24.4 deaths per 100,000 people. The lowest is Massachusetts with 3.4 deaths per 100,000 people.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/...

There is approx. 393,000,000 firearms owned by civilians in the US. About 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership

Handguns accounted for 91% of firearm homicides.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

[mkr-hn]

The ongoing and ramped up tyrannies don't affect the people with guns, so it's not doing much good so far. When the oppressed arm themselves, people who claim opposition to gun control suddenly become very pro-gun control.

[pope_meat]

It was all guns rights until the black panthers started arming up, and all the sudden it was "perhaps some sensible limits might be wise"

Pretty hard to miss the intent.

Arm the homeless is what I say when I'm feeling spicy.

[lostapathy]

This shouldn't be downvoted - the roots of control in the US are absolutely rooted in this kind of racism, whether it be "modern" gun control as mentioned by parent, or the Sullivan Act over a hundred years ago.

[splitstud]

Why shouldn't it? It's a complete and total fabrication used to smear a segment of the population.

[Clubber]

Yup, California was an open carry state until the GOP assemblyman Mulford and GOP Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law banning the legal carry of loaded firearms. History is indeed stranger than fiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching.[1][2] They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.

[AniseAbyss]

Yeah armed black militias marching through white suburban America will get the FBI interested.

[collegeburner]

Very pro-2A people agree that gun control is racist though. Mainstream republican party (what people think of as pro-2a) isnt very. Trump implemented bump stock restrictions, hell, reagan signed 86 new machine gun ban. If you talk to very pro-2a people you will hear them agree that armed minorities are harder to oppress; gun control is indeed very racist going back to army/navy laws and other restrictions on former slaves owning arms.

[sellyme]

> an armed population is a necessity against tyranny in America.

Why are we comparing to Afghanistan? You can look much closer to home - at America - and see that this specific armed population just spent half a decade doing absolutely jack shit about tyranny.

[ineptech]

The assumption that the armed population and the forces trying to impose tyranny will be on opposite sides is looking pretty tenuous.

[pklausler]

As well as the assumption that the kind of weaponry available to the population is effective against that available to the "tyrants".

[da_chicken]

We just spent 20 years in Afghanistan proving how effective and potent a modern military is against guerilla tactics. I think it's become pretty clear that if you're not willing to ignore the generally accepted rules of engagement, they will just outlast you.

[ineptech]

The notion that the primary threat to American democracy is an invading army seems comforting but unrealistic.

[godelski]

Not to mention the Vietnam war or any of the other wars we've been involved with in the Middle East. Not to mention drug cartels in Mexico and Latin/South America.

I'm not sure how anyone can argue that a population with weapons can't hold off a tyrannical government. It is the same reason Marx said that under no means should we disarm the populous. I think people often forget that a government can't just kill all its population. Not only can you not rule over the dead but you also are going to have a hard time interacting in global trade (thanks globalism, but this even held true in the 1700's). It is kinda odd that this sentiment also often comes out of a country where some farmers fought off the country with the biggest navy and had an empire so great that the sun never set on it. Civil wars are extremely costly to countries. Also I'm not sure why everyone thinks that people from the military (including generals and entire battalions) wouldn't defect. That's also pretty common when looking at history.

[dragonwriter]

> It is kinda odd that this sentiment also often comes out of a country where some farmers fought off the country with the biggest navy

With help from the country with the biggest army and the biggest ongoing beef with the country with the biggest navy.

But, I guess, its still a little surprising, since that part gets minimized in the farmers national mythology.

[godelski]

Which has also been common throughout history. Same thing happened during the US civil war, Europe got involved. Of course other countries would get involved. Why would it be different this time?

[AtlasBarfed]

Pea shooters will allow you to stop the US Army on home soil? They have total information awareness, tanks, space/air power, snipers, GPS bombs, etc.

Afghanistan was lost because of our tolerance of corruption and intolerance for spending money on a speck of dirt. Oppression of the US will be far more worth the money to a tyranny.

If the second amendment actually said what gun people say it does (literalist/"strict constructionalist"), then I can use these arms as well:

- grenades?

- bazookas?

- artillery?

- explosives?

- chemical weapons?

- biological weapons?

- nuclear/dirtynuke weapons?

Where are you, as an apparently ardent 2nd amendment person likely living in at least a suburban population density comfortable with allowing your fellow Americans to arm themselves with?

At somewhere along that chain, almost all non-crazy 2nd amendment people "nope out" of allowing those arms. Maybe your typical gun rights person would allow grenades, MAYBE bazookas.

Major explosives or anything else? Nope.

But you'd need to get to the chem/bio/nuke arms to have any real deterrent to the US Army.

Your pea shooter militia is a fantasy. The US army has more than cannons, horses, and muskets now.

[Y_Y]

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

That's the whole thing. I think the most literal interpretation is that people have a right to bear arms, and you cant infringe that, by telling them they can't bear any arms. Obviously reasonable people will differ here, but I don't think it's fair to say that it unambiguously grants the right to bear any kind of arms at all.

[maxwell]

The 18th century "regulated" means "well trained" today. What implies that any restrictions on the type of arms which may be possessed would be Constitutional? Where is the ambiguity outside of misunderstanding the contemporary meaning of "regulated"? "Bearing" doesn't mean using/firing weapons, of course, it's about preventing any authority from monopolizing violence.

Certainly the founders—you know, the violent, enlightened revolutionaries who lead the first colonial overthrow in history—wouldn't have favored limiting certain arms to only thugs of a future tyrannical government. Why would they write the first Constitution in history to enable future state-sponsored goons to persecute the people of the United States?

After McDonald v. Chicago, no restrictions on arms appear Constitutional (hence the collapse of intrastate weapon laws over the past decade), except, I suppose, as punishment for a crime due to the 13th.

[cogman10]

The way the US government works today is VERY different from the government setup by the founders. Trying to divine what they would and wouldn't have wanted (understanding that they were all over the board on opinions) isn't a useful exercise.

The founders didn't want a federal military, they wanted each state to run their own military.

The founders didn't want a strong federal government, they wanted to states to be highly sovereign.

The founders put in the bill of rights to limit the federal government's actions, not state government actions.

The government completely changed after the civil war with the 14th amendment. The constitution was written primarily to limit the powers of the federal government. States were free to put, for example, requirements on religion to run for office.

McDonald v. Chicago would have been appalling to the founders, because it's the federal government trampling over the rights of a state government.

[maxwell]

I agree on divining intent, but I'm not aware of any founder endorsing any form of arms control. I'd be interested to see any references suggesting otherwise. Are you aware of any meaningful debate on what became the Second?

I'm mostly going off Jefferson's "tree of liberty" letter [1], maybe there was dissent amongst other founders?

As far as federal vs. state military, I dunno, references? Each state would have their own navy...? Doesn't seem to fit with Jefferson's willingness to launch a preemptive strike on African pirates at the beginning of his presidency [2].

Agreed on strong states, hence the Tenth, and the impact of the Fourteenth, though I'm actually currently trying to get a better handle on that one (e.g. not entirely clear on equal protection yet).

Disagree on McDonald, doesn't seem like the design allows for states to pass laws that take away rights explicitly enumerated in the federal Constitution. States can "exceed" enumerated rights (like California's affirmative right to free speech), but can't cancel them out. Any sources suggesting otherwise?

1. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html#105

2. https://www.city-journal.org/html/jefferson-versus-muslim-pi...

[Clubber]

>The founders didn't want a strong federal government, they wanted to states to be highly sovereign.

Depends on which founding father you were talking about. Jeffersonians preferred weak central government and autonomous states while Hamiltonians preferred strong central government. It's what lead to the creation of political parties in Washington's administration.

>The founders put in the bill of rights to limit the federal government's actions, not state government actions.

The Bill of Rights limits both, that's why both state, local and federal laws can be deemed unconstitutional.

[dragonwriter]

> > The founders put in the bill of rights to limit the federal government's actions, not state government actions.

> The Bill of Rights limits both

No, it doesn’t.

Guarantees equivalent to most provisions of the Bill of Rights have been applied to the States through the 14th Amendment under the Incorporation Doctrine.

[dragonwriter]

> The founders didn't want a strong federal government

The founders very much didn't at the time of the founding. The framers by the time of the Constitution (a little over a decade later, and many of the same people) had moved quite a bit toward a strong central government based on the immediately-revealed practical problems with the abstract vision at the founding in functioning in the real world. Woth more experience, more practical problems were revealed; the Civil War being a key, but far from the only important, point in that process.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

The United States Constitution was not "the first constitution in history". For earlier, famous, instances of actual "constitutions" rather than codes of law (such as that of Urukagina of Lagash) see for example Solon's constitution of ancient Athens:

The Solonian Constitution was created by Solon in the early 6th century BC.[1] At the time of Solon the Athenian State was almost falling to pieces in consequence of dissensions between the parties into which the population was divided. Solon wanted to revise or abolish the older laws of Draco. Solon promulgated a code of laws embracing the whole of public and private life, the salutary effects[2] of which lasted long after the end of his constitution.

Under Solon's reforms, all debts were abolished and all debt-slaves were freed. The status of the hectemoroi (the "one-sixth workers"), who farmed in an early form of serfdom, was also abolished. These reforms were known as the Seisachtheia.[3] Solon's constitution reduced the power of the old aristocracy by making wealth rather than birth a criterion for holding political positions, a system called timokratia (timocracy). Citizens were also divided based on their land production: Pentacosiomedimnoi, Hippeis, Zeugitae, and Thetes.[4] The lower assembly was given the right to hear appeals, and Solon also created the higher assembly. Both of these were meant to decrease the power of the Areopagus, the aristocratic council. The only parts of Draco's code that Solon kept were the laws regarding homicide. The constitution was written as poetry, and as soon as it was introduced, Solon went into self-imposed exile for 10 years so he would not be tempted to take power as a tyrant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solonian_Constitution

See also Aristotle's "Constitution of Athens", on the constitutions of Athens, Sparta and Thebes, and with a title that makes it clear that "constitution" was an established term at least since Aristotle's times.

Finally see wikipedia's article on pre-modern constitutions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#Pre-modern_consti...

Modern constitutions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#Modern_constituti...

And (modern) democratic constitutions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#Democratic_consti...

For more examples of constitutions before the United States Constitution.

[maxwell]

Right, I should have said "first codified Constitution that's still in use today".

Sort by "date ratified": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions

[YeGoblynQueenne]

That's more accurate :)

[AtlasBarfed]

At the time of writing, "Arms" was muskets.

So you've already stated that it isn't reasonable to allow the other "arms". So why is anything more than a single shot barrel-loaded rifle allowed?

Of course the reason is that there is a massive industry in making guns and a rabid source of people that can be scared into buying their wares. The reason the laws are the way they are is because of the economics of the lobby and not any principle.

[maxwell]

What about e.g. https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2018/03/14/multi-shot-assault-... ?

It's unreasonable to restrict ownership of arms unless you want to restrict violence to the government and organized criminals, which the founders most certainly did not intend.

Police killed more Americans in 2019 than mass shooters, how can you make an argument in favor of the cops and courts controlling weaponry? Did you miss the police brutality protests last summer?

[YeGoblynQueenne]

I'm not a citizen of the US so I don't really have a horse in this race (about "gun rights") but I am curious about your comment. I don't understand how the right to bear arms has kept police from killing any Americans in 2019 and how it will keep them from killing more in 2021. Can you explain?

I also don't understand how citizens of the US are meant to protect themselves against police with the weapons they're free to carry. Is the idea that US citizens are going to use their weapons to resist the police from arresting them? Isn't that just going to cause no end of bloodshed?

[anonfornoreason]

If you look at police shootings, the bulk are police killing people brandishing guns or other weapons, who express intent to or are in the process of using those weapons on either the police or other people.

The vast majority of these incidents happen to hardened criminals that almost no one in their right mind would support. A small fraction of these incidents involve innocent people, or people involved in situations where violence is not the answer and de-escalation would have been a better outcome.

The police have a large amount of support because the people involved in these incidents are, generally speaking, bad people that the majority would prefer to be in prison. Most people don't think the police are an oppressive force that should be fought against with lethal violence.

[splitstud]

The right is codified law. It is not up to citizens to argue this. It is up to to those who need to control others to make these arguments. Yours are hncompelling, and have been swatted away by courts for decades.

[t-writescode]

The guns that Lewis and Clark used on their expedition were decidedly quite fast firing. Yes, it was short after the 2nd Amendment and certainly in the founders' sites of possible.

[Tostino]

Mustard gas for the masses!

Absolutely agreed though, it's a very internally inconsistent viewpoint from my perspective.

[Clubber]

Technically you can buy chlorine and turn it to gas at any place that sells pool supplies.