Guns are NOT toys!

[Minimalist]

Remember that George Washington thought the militia was shit.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not without reason, either.  Trouble was, they couldn't afford a proper army of sufficient size...and so it didn't matter what he thought.
(with few exceptions, the militias were tactical failures, even if they were vital to strategic victory - british command didn;t worry about them on the battlefield, they worried about them in the dark of the night, as - essentially, bandits with a standing continental pardon)

[T.J.]

I think the two biggest arguments against guns are relevancy and efficiency if you really want to go down that road.

Relevancy: Back in the 1700s it was more likely they could fight back against the government because it was smaller and didn't have the resources it does now. Now, how do you go about overthrowing it, and if we succeeded, what would/could we replace it with that wouldn't fall to the same corruption that led to having to overthrow it in the first place? If that's your only reason for keeping guns it seems more like an illusion of security than any real security.

Efficiency: This would require being able to compare all the accidental deaths with success stories to see if the pros are worth accepting the cons. I'd be interested on the data of that if there is any.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that calling the british government "smaller", in context, is a gross misunderstanding of just what it was that the revolutionaries were up against.  Arguably, Colonial Britain was even more capable than our current government when it came to snuffing out dissenters.  It's not as if the US had a very good plan for replacing their colonial infrastructure in any case.  We didn't thrive, directly after the revolution.  We continued to be an irrelevance for some time.

The task (of rebellion) hasn't gotten any more difficult since then, quite the opposite.  We have, now, a goverment with the sort of military ability that would have made any nation in the world then tremble at the thought of it...and yet a tiny bunch of assholes with dated weapons hiding in caves got the better of us. The situation would be immeasurably worse if the tiny bunch of assholes were american, and the caves were here on the mainland.

[T.J.]

I actually meant the American government as it was first forged after the Revolutionary War, not the British government. Which is a moot point anyway considering what you said, but nevertheless I wanted to give clarification.

That's a good point on the technology vs. mainland front, though. I keep forgetting about Vietnam.

[The Grand Nudger]

They didn't have any ideas of revolution against the -american- government, when they wrote that amendment. They were thinking of "other". That it's come to be taken as applying to the american government is more to do with our experience -of- the american government since then. The ink had barely dried and we started to pull the same shit we claimed to be fighting to free ourselves from.

Today, in their darkest hearts, some americans take that amendment as a thinly veiled threat to their political superiors "cross one too many lines, and we reserve the right to fucking kill you". The thought being that should a political body fail to serve the interests of the people, it can -at least- be counted upon to act in it's own self interest, namely the interest of not getting strung up by the mob. Not a letter writing campaign, not protests, not debates, not votes....armed resistance.

[RetiredArmy]

Well, ok, I'll bite... Keep the government out of it.  A system where the government supplies the guns is a system where the government could someday NOT supply the guns.  That's the entire premise of the second amendment, to prevent tyranny.

No, it's not. The 2A was meant to allow people to assemble for militia training.

Now I know you're just trollin'... That's about the most incorrect evaluation of the 2nd Amendment I've ever heard.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, this is the version (there are 3 variances) ratified by the states and authenticated by the Secretary of State at the time, Thomas Jefferson.  Let's get that first part out in the open. 

"A well regulated militia" means a well regulated militia.  It means a chain of command, it means a more effective force for defense from both tyranny and invasion.  A structured force is certainly better than willy-nilly everybody with a gun.  Don't get me wrong, willy-nilly everybody with a gun is still effective, just not to the degree a structured force is. 
"Being necessary to the security of the free state," is plain enough, but we can dive in a bit for the sake of clarity.  This is referring to the security from both internal and external threats.  Obviously, any place on the planet has to worry about aggression and power struggles, either directly or indirectly.  Why would our founding fathers put something like this in our constitution?  Well, the American Revolution was still fresh on the mind, it being 1791 (only 8 years removed), and is there any doubt as to the religious tyranny of England at the time?  Let's put that back together and read it as the coherent thought it is... 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state,"  I certainly wish a word or two had been added to make it more clear for those wanting to ignore the meaning... "BECAUSE a well regulated militia IS necessary to the security of the free state,  the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  But, they didn't include those words and the intent is still clear.  We don't always have to go out, as citizens, and conduct military drills.  People do inherently know how to fight, and strong leaders can whip a force into effective shape rapidly.  Doing so without firearms is a silly notion, and that's the intent.  If and when the militia is needed, it's armed to the teeth. Ignoring the intent with an obtuse attitude, whining to get your way, does not work when an honest evaluation of the text is performed.  You may not like this interpretation, but it is accurate. 

If you have any further questions or doubt, I refer you to United States Supreme Court rulings District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and Ceatano v. Massachusetts (2016).

[T.J.]

Yeah, I just realized that and amended my post before I saw your reply.

So, the relevancy argument was pretty much debunked. Wait, I can't acknowledge being wrong on the internet. Fuck you, Rhythm! You Peach raping psychopath!

[The Grand Nudger]

She totally asked for it, always going out and getting herself kidnapped for me to come "rescue" her. 

[Drich]

I gleefully admit to knowing precious little about guns, so I have a few queries for the experts:

1.  Does a skull on your gun make it shoot better?

2.  Are women more attracted to men who have skulls on their guns?

3.  Should people who use their guns to hunt have the skull of their target animal represented on their weapon(s)?

4.  If the answer to 3# is 'Yes', does that mean a human skull on a gun is an intention to do homicide?

5.  Is the desire to have a skull on a gun reflective of the owner's penis size, and (if so) in what respect?

Boru

1. yes
2. hell yes!!
3. 'Merica! Yes! Which is why there is a human skull on that one!
4. Yes I mean 'lawful self defense.' or war..
5. Yes, In that It will vary from owner to owner.