Dec 20th 2012, 4:14:44
Originally posted by Supertodd:
Originally posted by UBer Bu:
Bonus post, here's a question! How many assault rifles (by any name) and high capacity magazines are required to defend yourself from tyranny, when the military has cruise missiles, drones, armored vehicles, and nuclear weapons? If some tyrannical government force truly wanted you dead, no amount of armor-piercing rounds would save you! Does the second amendment, in this particular interpretation, therefore allow me to seek anti-aircraft artillery or RPGs to fully defend myself?
I'm sorry, but a "militia" in the traditional has been utterly obsolete since the dawn of mechanized warfare, an age into which every person reading this has been born. Do you really think the National Guard, the Reserves, and all those active military people are going to sit on their asses while this tyrannical government sweeps in to power?
Nobody is trying to take all your guns away, give up with this obnoxious strawman for crying out loud. What I'd like is for somebody to please explain to me how assault rifles and high-capacity magazines are required for sport shooting, hunting, or self defense.
I'm sorry, but a "militia" in the traditional has been utterly obsolete since the dawn of mechanized warfare, an age into which every person reading this has been born. Do you really think the National Guard, the Reserves, and all those active military people are going to sit on their asses while this tyrannical government sweeps in to power?
Nobody is trying to take all your guns away, give up with this obnoxious strawman for crying out loud. What I'd like is for somebody to please explain to me how assault rifles and high-capacity magazines are required for sport shooting, hunting, or self defense.
First off.. Strawman? Seriously? You do know what a straw man argument is, don't you? And that just declaring someone else's point of view to be a strawman argument does not automatically make it invalid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
What you are calling an obnoxious strawman argument - the desire to create as many barriers to tyranny as possible - was a driving force behind the creation of The Constitution.
So, since the military has terrible weapons that could overwhelm me, or vaporize entire cities in the blink of an eye, my 2nd amendment right to own whatever weapon you deem unneccessary no longer applies? You're right that if I had an assault rifle (I don't) I wouldn't be of much use with it if I were alone. But the first few words of the 2nd amendment clearly reveal that the founders didn't expect a single person to thwart tyranny alone: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".. etc etc (I hope you know the rest already). From those words it seems clear to me that the founders were thinking in broader terms than just one guy trying to protect his personal interests from tyranny.
Now, I have a question for you. If 10,000 people stood together against tyranny, facing an army of 1000 opponents with tanks and rockets, do you think the 10,000 would have a better chance of succeess with semi automatic rifles, or with muzzle loaders?
"Do you really think the National Guard, etc, would just stand by?"..
Well, has it happened before? I would argue that it has. And you don't have to look to foreign shores for an example. Throughout our history, the Federal Government HAS committed tyrannical acts, and I can't think of an example where the military stood up to and stopped them. Genocide of Native Americans, sending Japanese Americans to concentration camps, the immoral seizing of private property by a local government in order to give that property to another private citizen... Did the military step in and stop any of these things?
And finally, you ask for an explanation of how assault rifles are required for self defense.. The answer here seems incredibly obvious, but I'll go ahead and type it out anyway. I think this one is best answered by requesting that you answer the following question for yourself: Are "assault" rifles more dangerous than "regular" rifles? If so, then it would seem to follow logically that someone trying to do me or my loved ones harm would be worse off if I did have an "assault" rifle. And if "assault" rifles are not more dangerous, then why do we need to ban them?
Your constitution was written in 1787. It is no longer 1787.