Beto says the quiet part out loud.

[Robovski]

There is certain part that is left out when talking about the Second Amendment. You know part about well regulated militias. Besides the Second Amendment was written long before automatic weapons were even thing and musket that had only on shot and took time to reload was latest in firearms technology. And to be fair I don't buy claim that messing with it would some how risk other two.

The militias should allow for top spec military tech to be held by civilians. You know, the tanks, jets, choppers, nukes...

[CmdrKing]

I wouldn't be too surprised if the case law there is fairly mixed really.

The larger trouble is a private citizen can't actually use those things. Even if they had the technical knowhow to operate them (dicey, but hey, it would probably create a market for vets teaching people to run tanks) the sheer cost to maintain the damn things is utterly unsustainable for a non-government agency.

I mean. I guess if you wanted Cyberpunk? Google could probably float a small air force.

Edit: this of course is why the Second Amendment is moot as a check against government tyranny of course, technology has evolved such that a citizen militia quite simply cannot actually compete with the government in force of arms.

[Admiral X]

Few people are really keen to challenge the full-auto restrictions. Full-auto isn't much use in hunting or sport shooting, nor is it a good choice for home defense. They're really only good, as the man said,"when you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherfucker in the room". That's not an argument that plays well in front of a judge.

Good thing the Second Amendment isn't about hunting or "sporting." As for what it's good for, I hold that what's good for thee is good for me.

[Admiral X]

The larger trouble is a private citizen can't actually use those things. Even if they had the technical knowhow to operate them (dicey, but hey, it would probably create a market for vets teaching people to run tanks) the sheer cost to maintain the damn things is utterly unsustainable for a non-government agency.

Only the really old tanks are all the difficult to operate. They really made it easy starting in WWII with most of them, particularly the American tanks, and it's only gotten easier and standardized from there thanks to NATO. As for the cost to maintain them, that's hardly an reason for making the private ownership of them illegal (and in fact it's not). Personally I'd rather have RPGs or other such arms capable of killing tanks rather than actual tanks, but YMMV.

I mean. I guess if you wanted Cyberpunk? Google could probably float a small air force.

You jest, but we're already basically living in that cyberpunk dystopia thanks to the likes of Google and Facebook.

Edit: this of course is why the Second Amendment is moot as a check against government tyranny of course, technology has evolved such that a citizen militia quite simply cannot actually compete with the government in force of arms.

I'll keep saying this, but this is hardly any rational against the Second Amendment, because it basically amounts to: "you wouldn't have much of a chance, so why not make sure you have zero chance instead?" I will never understand this rationale. It'd be like suggesting all those resistance movements that fought the Nazis just not even bother trying. I know a lot of it stems from a lack of understanding what asymmetrical warfare is, and that you probably imagine people still lining up in ranks like the Napoleonic Era or something, but there are plenty of examples of asymmetrical warfare being used against the American military quite successfully in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. But then, the point isn't to win exactly, at least not in straightforward military terms. The Second Amendment could also be viewed as something of a deterrent for anyone thinking of doing something, because the quote often distributed to Admiral Yamamoto holds true - a rifle behind every blade of grass. Hopefully that thought would be enough, but if the shit hits the fan, I guess we'll just have to go back to the fine tradition of hiding behind stuff and shooting at people, and then running away when they try to engage us.

[CmdrKing]

You jest, but we're already basically living in that cyberpunk dystopia thanks to the likes of Google and Facebook.

Oh, I should clarify, since we do indeed have a variant Cyberpunk Dystopia in all but aesthetic.

Unless we want Cyberpunk 2020 with literal corporate militias, rather than our current Stupid Cyberpunk 2019.

I'll keep saying this, but this is hardly any rational against the Second Amendment, because it basically amounts to: "you wouldn't have much of a chance, so why not make sure you have zero chance instead?" I will never understand this rationale. It'd be like suggesting all those resistance movements that fought the Nazis just not even bother trying.

Because the people hoarding guns would be siding with the government and shooting at me? Y'know, that thing they do now.

Edit: Well that's unfair, there are left-wing folk with guns. They're just more respectful of them and far less likely to be open carry nutjobs and reckless hoarders.

[Admiral X]

Stereotypes are so fun. I mean, honestly, you couldn't be more wrong about the people who'd be pro-government.

[CmdrKing]

So you posit that if, say, it became clear that Trump was going to lose in 2020 and he canceled the election, and people mass protested, right wingers would join them instead of sitting at home shooting anyone who got too close?

I sincerely doubt you believe that.

[Yukaphile]

No, right-wingers would not. Not the moderates. They are not foolish enough to draw fire to their families. The hardcore right would love it. Not even the center left would join in. I know I ain't dying for a humanity I think needs time to grow and that all this political bullshit is meaningless because in 100, 200, 1,000 years, only the players will have changed, not the ideas. And there's no shame in that. SF Debris himself refused to demonize Quark that way in the Dominion War arc. We're just ordinary people. And it's very hard to convince an ordinary citizen to fight and die for something as intangible as "freedom" when most people just want comfort, safety, and the illusion that nothing can hurt them.

[CmdrKing]

*looks at Korea*
*looks at Hong Kong*

Sorry, what was that about people not mass-protesting for “freedom”?

I dare say that the mass proliferation of guns is one reason the mass protest is so rare in the US. When conservatives day they should shoot and run over protestors that dare disrupt them from getting to work in time, I tend to think a small but devastating percentage mean it.

[Yukaphile]

You're close to the mark, but still off, I feel. Most people will not want to suffer and die in gruesome ways for something as stupid and abstract as "the government." They can love the country, but hate the government. The two are not mutually exclusive. That, or they say they would, but in practice, will not. It's how most people are.