Hillary Clinton’s push on gun control marks a shift in presidential politics

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
a reply to: AlexJowls
If you knew the bloody history of government, you would be scared and wanting to hold on to your guns as well. Thankfully our founding fathers understood the extreme danger of government, hence the 2nd A.

'Constitutions' cobbled together centuries ago are about as applicable as edicts made by Pharaohs: They might have some loose, notional relevance today, but their verbatim implementation makes as much sense as going back to the mortar and pestle.

a reply to: AlexJowls

What would you have in their stead then?

Just curious, as to what you'd replace the First Amendment with?

Or the Fifth?

Constitution

Here, help yourself...

originally posted by: seagull
Not hardly.

Yes it is. The right to bear arms was meant so that the citizens could fight back against the military, that was back in a time where a person signed up for the army and took their family musket with them. The military and the citizens were using the exact same weapons. Today there are more powerful weapons restricted only to the military, then there is body armor that only the military gets. More advanced medical procedures that only the legitimate government gets. On top of that there are items which are simply priced out of the ordinary citizens grasp, surface to air missiles, aircraft carriers, fighter jets, attack helicopters, tanks, guided missiles, and predator drones. Then once we get beyond those weapons we get into cyber weapons such as the ability to shut down online funding and freeze assets.

The arms gap is too big, it has rendered the second amendment obsolete.

All that you've said is true, as far as it goes. In a straight up shootin' contest, civilians are going to come out on the losing side. No doubt of that.

There are two strategies that work. Assassinations and causing economic damage using IED's, neither is impacted by any gun control legislation that isn't already in place. The citizens cannot win a battle against the government, that has already been decided. The only thing the citizenry can do is to escalate security costs to the point where the government is forced economically to split the rebels off to their own country. Certain types of attacks can generate 100:1 ratios of damage:expense and are difficult to defend against. Al Qaeda for example has used this exact same strategy against us.

Guns are mostly only good for straight up fire fights, and that's not where you're going to be winning any battles. I would wager that if people were to rebel, outside of the occasional person with a handgun shooting someone important while they're in public (which gun control really wouldn't stop), you could win just as many battles with zero guns as with unlimited guns.

All this said, I think gun control is a failed concept. 3d printing is getting better, you can already make guns that get off a couple shots. When everyone can 3d print weapons, and this will be the case within 20-30 years, gun control simply can't exist. The whole thing seems to me like a meaningless battle, on one side it's a lost cause while on the other side it's irrelevant to the scenario it was originally intended.

originally posted by: seagull
What would you have in their stead then?

Awww... I dunno... common sense, perhaps?

a reply to: AlexJowls

You're the one who wants to replace 'em...

Enlighten us with your "common sense". Surely you've given is enough thought, haven't you?