I'm tired of hearing this particular argument against the Second Amendment:

[Brawndo]

An armed citizenry in the United States cannot stand up to tyranny of government in today's day and age. Our AR-15s and handguns are useless against AC-130s and cruise missiles and Predator drones and F-16s! If the government wants to oppress you, they will.

There are several things that immediately come to mind whenever I hear or read this:

1) This is equivalent to telling a child that he is banned from owning baseball bats for the rest of his life because he sucks at baseball.

2) What will this hypothetical tyrannical government use to oppress the people? The military of course! Who is the military? The people themselves! Who do you think flies those planes and pilots those tanks? Your neighbors, your friends, your former classmates from high school. I think people overestimate the willingness of the National Guard and U.S. armed forces to massacre their fellow citizens. Keep in mind - the enemy in this situation would not be "brown people" (as George Carlin put it) with a foreign culture and religion in a part of the world most Americans know nothing about - but rather the enemy would be us.

3) Finally, people making this argument severely underestimate the effectiveness of low-tech, leaderless resistance. Look at Vietnam, look at Iraq, look at Afghanistan - in all cases the U.S. military had superior technology but nevertheless got locked in a quagmire that sapped their will to fight. In Iraq, militants armed with little more than with assault rifles, cell phones, and improvised explosives did serious damage to the most powerful armed force the world has ever seen.

 

[Random Fella]

Yet normally in a battle between terrorists and US military 100 terrorists die and 1 US soldier dies so the terrorists will call it a victory.
Even though the US military suck "Hmm who do I shoot? Oh right my own troops" 0.o

 

[frozen_scarecrow]

Ain't that the truth. I liked your second point. It's an idea I hadn't thought of. I know that dictators from by-gone ages have said the best way to oppress the people is to keep them from defending themselves. Guns are a great protection. On a related note, my brother loves a quote from a Japanese General who said, "WE will never invade America as there is a gun behind every blade of grass." A nation's best defense is its people.

 

[Brawndo]

Yet normally in a battle between terrorists and US military 100 terrorists die and 1 US soldier dies so the terrorists will call it a victory.
Even though the US military suck "Hmm who do I shoot? Oh right my own troops" 0.o

Yes, in a straight up fight with air and armor support the insurgents always got whooped.

But what about all those roadside bombs that were so effective? US causalities: 3 killed, 5 wounded with 2 crippled for life, $3.16 million M2 Bradley damaged beyond repair. Insurgents: some 155mm shells or whatever, a Nokia cell phone, no personnel losses.

 

[Random Fella]

Yet normally in a battle between terrorists and US military 100 terrorists die and 1 US soldier dies so the terrorists will call it a victory.
Even though the US military suck "Hmm who do I shoot? Oh right my own troops" 0.o

Yes, in a straight up fight with air and armor support the insurgents always got whooped.

But what about all those roadside bombs that were so effective? US causalities: 3 killed, 5 wounded with 2 crippled for life, $3.16 million M2 Bradley damaged beyond repair. Insurgents: some 155mm shells or whatever, a Nokia cell phone, no personnel losses.

That is in my opinion because the insurgents are allowed to, the US military aren't allowed to blow up expected bases or attack people without authorization due to the 'Human rights protesters' and the such meaning this gives a major disadvantage and allows for ambushes on them.

 

[Mcface]

The Taliban use old rusty WW2 guns and AK-47s, they put up a well enough fight.

Look at the Chechen v Russian wars, the chechens have slightly better equipment than taliban, (not nearly as good as some american civilians) and they inflicted thousands of casualties on the Ruskies.

 

[Random Fella]

the US military aren't allowed to blow up expected bases or attack people without authorization due to the 'Human rights protesters'

Oh horseshit. Human rights protestors have about zero effect on how the US military conducts itself in the field.

Sorry I meant the US law, which was influenced by these people in the past my bad.

 

[Mcface]

Anyway, you're assuming that the foreign bad people who want to spread their culture find the terrain of the US inhospitable. But to my knowledge, there are few deserts as harsh as those in the middle east and the closest thing to dense jungles are a few swamps. I'm pretty sure that tanks would have an easier time on YOUR soil then theirs.

Sorry but bad point.


Wrap your mind around how awful a battle for new york would be. Gunners in every window, millions of windows to check. a sniper could take out hundreds of people before he is ever even properly engaged.

if there is a tree in the way, you run it down. if there is a giant concrete building.. different story.

 

[viranimus]

I will just cut to the quick and say I am tired of all the competing US needs gun control threads that keep popping up this week.

Honestly if its that big of an issue, perhaps a more productive use of time would be to voice your opinion to .. i dunno, a lobbist, A congressman, a senator, etc. Because honestly one way or another, nothing is going to get accomplished on this forum about it.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Two problems.

1) Not a very good metaphor since the ability to defend against the government was one of the primary reasons for the Second Amendment.

2) Granted, in a government take-over a portion of the military would refuse, but it wouldn't be enough to take down the armed forces.

In terms of roadside bombs and the like, well....... Have you looked at the American people recently? The majority are not exactly guerrilla fighters.

Now, do I think the Second Amendment should be abolished? No. Guns are very necessary. However, clip sized and weapons should be heavily restricted.

 

[Drummodino]

I'm confused... sorry can someone explain the second amendment to me? I'm an ignorant Australian

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

the US military aren't allowed to blow up expected bases or attack people without authorization due to the 'Human rights protesters'

Oh horseshit. Human rights protestors have about zero effect on how the US military conducts itself in the field.

Bullshit. Who orders the generals in charge of leading those men and in charge of the rules of engagement? Politicians. What do politicians care most about? Re-election! How do you get re-elected? Appease everybody! Sell out your beliefs!! Actually listen to those human rights activists that everyone knows didn't get enough attention as children!!!

See what I'm getting at?

 

[BabyRaptor]

I'm still waiting for actual proof behind the "OMG, they're trying to take away our gunz!" screaming going on. I mean, actual facts have never stopped the Right Wing in America from whipping the masses into a frenzy, but...

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

I'm confused... sorry can someone explain the second amendment to me? I'm an ignorant Australian

Long story short: The right to bear all arms, to regulate a militia, and to rise up against tyranny.

I'm still waiting for actual proof behind the "OMG, they're trying to take away our gunz!" screaming going on. I mean, actual facts have never stopped the Right Wing in America from whipping the masses into a frenzy, but...

Do you live in California? They're actually banning guns in certain districts. I believe they're completely outlawed in San Francisco right now...

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I hate guns with a passion, but they're just the latest evolution in mankind's still-active predatory nature. If you take them away, something else will replace them. There's no abolishing violence from human interaction.

More than that: bad things WILL happen. With a population of 300+ million people, the odds against terrible happenings are basically nil. You're going to have awful killings and violence and crime - all on an extremely small scale relative to the total population. You'll read about this stuff all the time because it's interesting and extreme and it sells media. But violence along the lines of school shootings and the Arizona massarcre isn't the norm - and we should legislate accordingly. That means NOT succumbing to our kneejerk reactions.

 

[Fenring]

I'd argue a weaker argument is the use of weapons in crimes. If guns weren't legal, most gangs and other groups would just acquire illegal arms pretty easily.