America's Darkest Days II: Blackest Night

[QualityChimp]

I imagine Trump wants to arm dinner ladies next because he saw a documentary about this chef who was a navy seal and opened a cake with a sexy woman in it or something.

[charlesr]

Quality QC

[Asura]

I've yet to hear a solid argument for civilians owning automatic or semi-automatic rifles, let alone an arsenal of them.

The argument, irrespective of whether it's "solid" or not, is for normal people to be able to form a militia should another country invade or their own government turn against them. It's so that if Americans ever felt their freedom threatened, they could respond with deadly force.

It goes back to the foundation of the country; the idea that it was originally intended to be a place where people could settle across a new continent and be "free" (once they'd driven off the people who were already there).

It created a self-reinforcing problem; the purpose of the guns is to allow people to fight back if the government tries to take away their guns. That's what the second amendment is all about and that's what makes this such an unsolvable problem.

And it's daft; the whole point of having amendments is so that the constitution can adapt to fit the times.

[Dogg Thang]

Well except you had to dismiss the question of whether it is solid or not right at the start. Don't dismiss that and it's not in any way an unsolvable problem.

[MartyG]

The notion of forming a militia against the government and its army falls down at the first hurdle - small arms will not defeat the massively funded and well equiped and trained military. As much damage as an AR15 does to a human, the tanks will roll right over any civilian militia and the drones won't even be seen as they destroy from a remotely piloted office. If they couldn't, then the residents of the US need to ask why the massive budget afforded by congress is being wasted.

It's another nonsense excuse for owning weapons that are utterly useless for their stated need. So no, it's not a solid argument.

[Dogg Thang]

That's exactly it. We've seen numerous sieges in the US with the government versus some holed-up group of 'civilians' and it's no contest. The idea doesn't hold up and therefore needs to be dismissed. If it doesn't serve its purpose (and it doesn't) then it's not a valid argument.

[Brad]

I imagine Trump wants to arm dinner ladies next because he saw a documentary about this chef who was a navy seal and opened a cake with a sexy woman in it or something.

I have seen that scene so many times...

[charlesr]

Someone pointed out that the main issue (with actually making any progress) is the presidency. It has too much power. And thus there is a need for the 2nd amendment. If you ditched the king-like status of the president and made it more like our House of Commons and Prime Minister, especially those daft "executive hissy fit orders" that just undo loads of good work in moments without anyone being able to intervene, you have a chance of ditching the 2nd amendment.

Revolution!!!

[Mayhem]

The notion of forming a militia against the government and its army falls down at the first hurdle - small arms will not defeat the massively funded and well equiped and trained military. As much damage as an AR15 does to a human, the tanks will roll right over any civilian militia and the drones won't even be seen as they destroy from a remotely piloted office. If they couldn't, then the residents of the US need to ask why the massive budget afforded by congress is being wasted. Its another nonsense excuse for owning weapons that are utterly useless for their stated need. So no, it's not a solid argument.

The argument I repeatedly here against this notion is that we assume the US army will be on the side of the government. Which is true, it is an assumption, however one generally based in prescience of history and various other cultures and countries. Nor how large an uprising might be, if we're talking millions of people potentially, then that's a serious offensive capability in general, assuming all of them have weapons.

Or not. Apparently only about 10 million people in the US own half the weapons, so maybe they will have to become the armoury for the revolution...

[Asura]

That's exactly it. We've seen numerous sieges in the US with the government versus some holed-up group of 'civilians' and it's no contest. The idea doesn't hold up and therefore needs to be dismissed. If it doesn't serve its purpose (and it doesn't) then it's not a valid argument.

I just don't think you can dismiss it out-of-hand like that.

For the record, I don't believe civilians should have guns, save for those who have the genuine need of things like hunting rifles in far-flung places.

However, when the technologically advanced US army has invaded countries in the past, the guerillas there haven't just laid down their arms because they think it's pointless. People fight over ideologies, and they're often prepared to die for them. There are hardcore groups of people in the US for whom, if they try to take those guns away, will basically do the Waco thing. They'll hole up in their communities and, true, they will fail, but a lot of people will probably get killed in the process.

Those people believe in an ideology, one that can't just be explained away. It's worrying.

[Dogg Thang]

I’m not just dismissing it out of hand. But I am dismissing it. As you say, trying to take the guns results in Waco rather than being able to stand up to their government - that shows the guns do not serve the purpose this argument says they should and so it is an invalid reason to accept the endless death of civilians, the endless death of kids. If they fail, and you accept they will, the argument just doesn’t work and must be dismissed because an invalid argument does not justify the current deaths in any way.

[Asura]

My point is that if reason was a big part of this debate then it would be over pretty quickly, so it likely isn't. Those people are welded to the ideology, not the logic that originally fuelled it.

[Dogg Thang]

Oh yes, i see you point and I totally agree. So if logic is gone, we can still reject the ideology. The idea of so many companies dumping the NRA was unthinkable a month ago. Kids were slaughtered several times over (not the same kids, obvs) and it didn’t seem to make a difference. And yet here we are today with a large number of huge US companies cutting ties with the NRA because survivor kids came out and said “this is bull”. Many have said the same thing but this time it made a difference. False logic or ideologicy that has lost the logic it may once have had needs to be called out. It may seem like things won’t change. Until one day they do.

[fishbowlhead]

No, this article isn't from The Onion, this really happened: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-the-internet/

I’m officially giving up on the USA. I’m done. Wall the place up and leave them to their fate. End of.

[wakka]

No, this article isn't from The Onion, this really happened: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-the-internet/

Hahaha this is absolutely tremendous. Incredible.