NRA in turmoil, gun manufacturers going bankrupt, Thanks Trump

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jan 8, 2010
14,324
313
126
#54
Anything legal to own in the US is a small civilian arm.
point taken but assault rifles would be given to anyone they deemed worthy. They have no need for top of the line military grade equipment to push a coup along. We're not talking first world countries.

Go ask them. You obviously have a very low opinion of the intelligence and moral fiber of our military.

And predictions for society's doom have been around for almost as long as society itself. Usually from someone selling something. I have faith we can handle whatever challenges come our way, including climate change.
I'm prior and a vet. It's not about the opinion of the military but the people who control them. I'm not talking about some obvious coup. It all starts with the 'it's in your best interest and safety'.
 
Mar 5, 2004
4,182
238
126
#55
I know, I know, there is something amazingly special about the United States that means that what worked in every other country in the world won't work here.

I've said many times before that we don't need to repeal the 2A, all we need is to reinterpret it to it's original concept and make 'well regulated militia' an important requirement again.
Yes there is. We have far larger number of gun in existence, we have the right to gun ownership guaranteed by our constitution and we were founded on the ideals that this is a free, democratic country. For better or worse, that is who we are as a country and culture.

The well regulated militia was intended to be a STATE militia to protect against overreach by the federal government. So each state gets to decide it's own gun laws so they can have a group of armed individuals ready to serve if they deem it necessary to call them up. It was never a requirement that those armed individuals serve, just that there should be no federal prohibition to their right to be armed. Pretty much what we have now.

If you are going to fall back on the "original" intent of the 2A then at least be honest.

EDIT: but I do agree that the intent of all laws is what really matters. Not the letter or specific details often used to try and subvert the overall intent. The 2A was written to protect the states from the fed and to protect the individual from government. Arguing that it only extends to muskets or doesn't cover "assault weapons" is trying to subvert it's overall purpose.

"Here's a single shot shotgun that cost $25k per year in fees and licencing to use once a year to shoot pheasants with. You have to keep it locked in a gun club facility, but we haven't banned guns. There's your 2A rights for you. Happy?" doesn't cut it.
 
Last edited:
Mar 5, 2004
4,182
238
126
#56
point taken but assault rifles would be given to anyone they deemed worthy. They have no need for top of the line military grade equipment to push a coup along. We're not talking first world countries.



I'm prior and a vet. It's not about the opinion of the military but the people who control them. I'm not talking about some obvious coup. It all starts with the 'it's in your best interest and safety'.
So the reason the people shouldn't be armed is because you feel their constitutional rights and our democracy in general could be overthrown, but only slowly over time? I'm not sure what we are arguing here.

It was suggest that it's ridiculous to keep arms as a final check on government tyranny. I strongly disagree. But now it's sounds like you are arguing that since the military wouldn't be on our side, and could be basically tricked into going along with a gradual end to democracy, that we should ban civilian gun ownership because it won't help anyway?

It feels like we are going in circles and productive debate has ended.
 
Last edited:
Jan 8, 2010
14,324
313
126
#57
So the reason the people shouldn't be armed is because you feel their constitutional rights and our democracy in general could be overthrown, but only slowly over time? I'm not sure what we are arguing here.

It was suggest that it's ridiculous to keep arms as a final check on government tyranny. I strongly disagree. But now it's sounds like you are arguing that since the military wouldn't be on our side, and could be basically tricked into going along with a gradual end to democracy, that we should ban civilian gun ownership because it won't help anyway?

It feels like we are going in circles and productive debate has ended.
You misunderstood me, I should have clarified, I'm against gun banning. I was just discussing your take on the how it would go down and why I'm against taking weapons away from those who can handle it as most pro gun banning think of it as FUD because 'history' means nothing I guess. "Tricked' isn't really the word I would use though.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS