US 2nd Amendment - What weapons should and shouldn't be permissible?

originally posted by: Stevenjames15
a reply to: AnonymousCitizen

God has nothing to do with something a man wrote!

See my previous post. The rights are inherent upon birth. The government has the power to give/grant nothing. The Constitution merely outlines the protections the government must follow regarding those inherent rights. That is how our system works. It is a total 180 from all other systems of governing of the time, where the government was "ordained by God" and it decided what it would restrict for its governed. Our system turned that on it's head and gave the power to the people and put the restrictions on the government.

That is an important concept to understand in interpreting that document.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wayfarer

What is your suggesting to keeping the safeguard the 2nd represents for the social contract?

Serious question.

You can't simply take away the safeguard and assume authority won't take advantage of it.

I see people talk about muskets and such as the difference but that is a total lack of understanding of the philosophy behind our society.

Basically I see people saying roll over we have no power anyway. I don't see any theories of how we could have the safeguard the 2nd represents in another way that may be more modern.

Well, without diving too deep into it, I am inclined to think the very act of having an army comprised of sons, daughters, fathers and mothers of the people would be very unlikely to follow orders to kill their own family/loved ones. Second, that the government derives its power from the governed, and without the population funding it, would cease to exist in anything but name only. Lastly, if the government wanted us all dead, I think we are fairly well past the point of no return where the technology has eclipsed the ability of the population to fight back, and that attempting to solve that thought experiment is relatively futile.

Granted, I think there are more valid reasons for Gun ownership besides solely being defense against tyranny. I just can't really understand the concept of increasing the availability of lethality by orders of magnitude (to match what the most ardent supporters believe is a completely unrestricted access to any weapons whatsoever). To follow that line of thinking out to the most extreme extent, I think if every person in the country had a button that would detonate a nuke or pervasive biological weapon, that we would probably all measure our lives in minutes.

So no you don't have an answer..

Because my answer isn't to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If your only way of viewing the scenario is we have to be able to match firepower to firepower then you should have specified that in your query. Its not my fault for your question being worded incorrectly from your assumptive meaning.

If your only criteria is to empower the citizenry to withstand the full might of the US armed forces then you would have to make the citizenry into an equivalent of the armed forces. Since that wasn't the question you asked I'm not sure how you can posit such a response in good faith.

...It has to be something that hasn't already been proven by history to not work....

When else in history has a government had possession of weapons technology such as ours does now? Are you implying we must use historical examples to solve a scenario that has never existed before?

a reply to: Wayfarer

Your question is when else has an army had superior fire power to its enemy?

Constantly throughout history.

Again you haven't really thought past the political aspect of this.


Russia vs Germany

Russia vs the Taliban

Colonies vs the British.

It's a lack of asymmetrical warfare and guerrilla tactics you are presenting.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wayfarer

Your question is when else has an army had superior fire power to its enemy?

No, my question is: When else in history has a government had the wholesale ability to kill its citizens without putting itself in harms way?

How do Guerrilla tactics work when Uncle Same decides to drop a biologic weapon?

a reply to: Wayfarer

Yes in your rediculous premise the us could wipe out its entire citizenry. Including the government itself, their families, etc.


Any government in the world pretty much can do this.

However that is how you get people to turn against the leaders.

Government generally picks a group in a nationalist approach to garner support and keep its economy going to not be invaded by another force.

Of you are talking about genocide of the world sure you have a point however weak it's possibility is.

You haven't really thought this out and are grasping at straws.

Your solution is give in we don't have a chance. Just line up and let them put you in camps for scientific tests...

How about actually thinking about your argument.

FWIW, the 2nd Amendment gives the US the worlds largest militia. It would be effectively impossible to launch a ground invasion of the US. The only way in is through our minds.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Treat the gun issue like you treat the drug issue. Make them all legal so that people will stop using them illegally.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I agree. That's why the colonies never revolted against the British.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wayfarer

Yes in your rediculous premise the us could wipe out its entire citizenry. Including the government itself, their families, etc.


Any government in the world pretty much can do this.

However that is how you get people to turn against the leaders.

Government generally picks a group in a nationalist approach to garner support and keep its economy going to not be invaded by another force.

Of you are talking about genocide of the world sure you have a point however weak it's possibility is.

You haven't really thought this out and are grasping at straws.

Your solution is give in we don't have a chance. Just line up and let them put you in camps for scientific tests...

How about actually thinking about your argument.

So your answer to invalidate the criteria by which you asked me to give you a response to? Sounds like you're the one who needs to reign in the scope of your question if you don't like having an answer contradict your assumptive ideas.

Ironically, a 'weak possibility' is the entirety of what your whole argument hinges on as well.

a reply to: Wayfarer

My premise is based on actual history.

Your premise is what about ism that has never happened and makes no sense for the motive of the government to continue its own life.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wayfarer

My premise is based on actual history.

Your premise is what about ism that has never happened and makes no sense for the motive of the government to continue its own life.

Except that the US government has never tried to kill all its citizens before either. You can reference historical cases of other nations but end up omitting the relevant historical evolution that has made the US government unique among others.

What is your solution to safeguarding all civilians against the hypothetical tyranny from the US government? In the spirit of keeping it relevant to the OP, I would hope your answer is relational to gun ownership - and therefore can explain it in terms of the actual specifics of weaponry required.

a reply to: Wayfarer

First off no where do I say the US tries to kill all its citizens. That was your argument.


How about this the government tries to round up all the homosexuals and put them in camps.

In your scenario you have no way other than ied's and rocks.

So in guerilla warfare you don't face people on the battle field like red coats and line up in rows with fire arms.

You blend in and hiDE weapons cashes, you use weapons to take over power stations or the network you need to hack into, you strike comanders and leaders with small strike teams like the navy seals. Many of the leaders would be vets. You create distractions and misdirection to hide your actual targets, and most importantly you inspire defection and coup by letting those on the fence know there are people fighting for liberty.

What happens in the case with no means to fight back is the optic of reistence is never present. It's far easier to keep people in line if the subjects are willingly submissive.

Now like I said if there is an alternative to the 2nd that would keep authority in check I am open to that. I suggested mandatory regional guard. Like the national guard but arranged more like county sheriff's in territory. Then the citizens could have a "militia" and you could possibly control the amount of arms and amo regular citizens have similar to the Swiss. This guard could also be disaster response like fire fighters and flood relief.

Or maybe a militia of computer hackers. I don't know. My point is to look at the system of government like an equation. You can't erase a number without substitute for another that possibly give you a better result.

The social contract can't simply be ignored and expect to not have authority take advantage of that. The theories of government come from literally thousands of years of philosophy from the Greeks to the enlightenment Era.

Weapons changed. Mankind and their habits and greed not so much.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Wayfarer


...I suggested mandatory regional guard. Like the national guard but arranged more like county sheriff's in territory. Then the citizens could have a "militia" and you could possibly control the amount of arms and amo regular citizens have similar to the Swiss......

This is actually an interesting approach, insomuch as the guard commander or whomever would have the ammo sequestered in some location (ideally unknown to the Federal Gov) so that should the scenario arise the militia would meet to have the ammo dispersed. This would also safeguard from a militia member going 'crazy' and using their issued weapon since ideally the ammo wouldn't be easily/readily available to stock it and therefore reduce/help prevent the military grade weapon from being used in a mass shooting type scenario.

Am I understanding that correctly?

a reply to: Wayfarer

That is what the militarily does currently with ammunition


As far as regular citizens who have already served in the militia or at home they would also not be allowed to stockpile ammo like in Switzerland.

Now I am not offering this as my plan but how people could work to compromise and keep the safeguards of the social contract in place. At the same time have community building and organization during natural or man made disaster.

Surely I will take flack for even suggesting this but it's a conversation worth having.

"protect against a tyrannical government"......you can have all the automatic arms you want...but...if you do not control the skies, the government will be able to take you out....so let's leave this illogical argument out of the mix....home protection and self protection?.....6 or 8 shot 12 gauge and a 357 mag is all you need for home protection and CC.

a reply to: jimmyx

Your assuming a war between the citzens and the government as a whole. Which is unlikely. Even so the Taliban made Russia run away and Syrian farmers have wreaked havoc on the government.

So no. You are referring to actual wars sovereign nation to sovereign nation.

a reply to: jimmyx

Not sure how many flyboys would drop bombs at home.....

a reply to: carpooler

Thank you for that very interesting post. I am a big fan of history

a reply to: Fowlerstoad

Thanx for your recognition. Those Chinese Temple Boxers were mowed down like grain fields, by our troops during the 55 day long siege of Peking.
But maybe the best takeaway lesson is that the World Order at that time, was carving China up, terribly. It was the culmination of the Opium Wars. But now, finally, China has bid adieu to the Brits in Hong Kong, and are masters of their destiny again. Tis said that history repeats itself, and I'm wondering if the E.U. Bigshot, Juncker, isn't the new "Dowager Empress"?? If he goes too far, Putin will march right in and gobble up the E.U. If the Euro-ethno Whites, back this invasion from the East, there's not much Trump can do about it.

And taking it farther, who will be their Sun Yat Sen, to put things together again?? Russia is on the move, in the Mid East, in Turkey, and probably into Eastern Europe, once more. NATO, can only function when the populace puts their own lives on the line to back our troops up. If the Germans are up in arms over the Islamists' coming in and taking over, then U.S. and Brits, must try and make it back across the Channel, just like with Dunkirk, in 1940.

People might remember that the TSAR, followed up on Napoleon's heels, and walked the Streets of Paris, while Boni was being exiled to Elba. But the Russkies went back to mother Russia, before Napoleon's Hundred Days, and The Iron Duke, was left to deal with the much smaller Napoleonic Grand Armee. Thus he did, at Waterloo junction.

Add in one really big Volcanic eruption anywhere along the Ring of Fire, and the cooling climate will duplicate the Year without a Summer, which threw Napoleon's Russian invasion into a one in a hundred year, severe winter. That icicle party was caused by a large eruption of Tambura, in the South West Pacific. Bonaparte had made plans to deal with a one in fifty year winter, but not a one in one hundred year winter. Ergo, 750,000 French Soldiers froze to death in Russia.

He just didn't have enough troops at Waterloo, to make his tactics work against the Duke of Wellington. Partly since Wellington had hand picked Waterloo Junction for this battlefield. The Iron Duke had reconnoitered this battlefield a couple of years earlier, and devised specific tactics to use it's rumpled terrain to the Britishers' advantages.

The second time around, the Allies exiled Napoleon to the distant Island of St. Helena, in the South Atlantic, and kept Naval ships on picket duty, there. They never trusted the Frogs again. So the Napoleonic Continental System disappeared from Europe. First came the Nazis, and now the E.U., trying to put it back together once more. But Claude Juncker is no Napoleon Bonaparte.

a reply to: jimmyx

Yeah, so how do you explain Afghanistan? The Brits got mauled, back in the day. The Soviets got mauled. ...and the U.S. hasn't exactly had stellar results.

Then, of course, there's Syria. The various groups of farmers, and others, seem to be doin' a number on folks with air superiority... There are other instances that may occur to you, if you give it a bit of thought.

Before you make such certain pronouncements concerning the outcome of an asymmetric war between an angry populous, and a govt. bent upon subjugating them, it might help if you knew a bit more than you apparently do.

Those oh, so scary airplanes and drones aren't a whole lot of good, if you can't find the target. Those, oh so scary drones and airplanes have bases. The oh so scary tanks require fuel, which requires fuel trucks, and tank farms. Very soft targets.

Oh, a few angry shopkeepers and farmers can make a govt. sweat blood if properly lead, and motivated.