Another Win For Gun Rights...

[Ronson]

[MaxVel]

When the US military has tanks and stealth bombers, a high-powered rifle with a 20 mag clip has as much chance of defending against them as it does defeating them.

That's incredibly naive. Advanced military equipment has a massive support requirement. An insurgent armed with a gun can easily attack that, by shooting a truck driver, or a mechanic, or - in a domestic war - their family members. Just the threat of that happening imposes a huge resource drain by requiring fortified supply systems etc.

Stealth bombers are useless if there is no fuel, no maintenance, and no-one to fly them. A few determined people with guns can make that happen.

[seanD]

Tell that to the Viet Cong. The best weapon during guerrilla warfare is a gun, and the best gun is an automatic.

If it ever came to that, it would be door-to door-guerrilla warfare where citizens defending their rights would have the advantage.

[Ronson]

If it ever came to that, it would be door-to door-guerrilla warfare where citizens defending their rights would have the advantage.

Exactly. Who cares if the Air Force has a "stealth" bomber because guerrilla insurgents don't have radar anyway. What guerrilla fighters do have are cheap, dependable weapons that require cheap, plentiful ammunition. And then combined with dogged determination (another invaluable weapon) they can scatter, reform, and scatter again. They can relentlessly harass and assault a more-technological force and keep them on their heels indefinitely. We saw it in Vietnam. We've been seeing it in Afghanistan for the past 20 years.

Americans don't need all these crazy weapons Reepicheep has been complaining about because those aren't going to win a door-to door-guerrilla war if one ever broke out in the U.S.

[seanD]

Exactly. Who cares if the Air Force has a "stealth" bomber because guerrilla insurgents don't have radar anyway. What guerrilla fighters do have are cheap, dependable weapons that require cheap, plentiful ammunition. And then combined with dogged determination (another invaluable weapon) they can scatter, reform, and scatter again. They can relentlessly harass and assault a more-technological force and keep them on their heels indefinitely. We saw it in Vietnam. We've been seeing it in Afghanistan for the past 20 years.

Americans don't need all these crazy weapons Reepicheep has been complaining about because those aren't going to win a door-to door-guerrilla war if one ever broke out in the U.S.

Yup. It's not like US military is going to rain down missiles and bombs onto US cities and communities because that would be a PR nightmare. They have the issue of collateral damage overseas, so think of how much MORE of a factor against them that would be here on their own shores against their own citizens.

[Gondwanaland]

When the US military has tanks and stealth bombers, a high-powered rifle with a 20 mag clip has as much chance of defending against them as it does defeating them.

Tell that the Vietnamese, or the Afghanis. Or the Iraqis. How ignorant you are of what can be and has been accomplished via guerilla warfare.

[rogue06]

Ronson, and many more millions of Americans like him, believe that the 2nd amendment gives US citizens the right to own weapons which are powerful enough to defeat the US military, if the US President (Donald Trump, for example) unleashes the full might of the US military against US citizens.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the day after the November election Donald Trump orders the US Air Force to use B-2 stealth bombers to destroy all urban areas in Texas because Texas flipped and voted for Biden. There are a wide variety of bombs that can be carried by B-2 stealth bombers, one example being the AGM-158 JASSM stealth cruise missile, which can be released 575 miles away from target. Americans who believe that an assault rifle with a 20 shot magazine can be used to shoot down a B-2 bomber over 500 miles away flying at a height of 50,000 feet

Insurgents in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan were able to hold their own in spite of being vastly outclassed in arms and armament.

[rogue06]

Yup. It's not like US military is going to rain down missiles and bombs onto US cities and communities because that would be a PR nightmare. They have the issue of collateral damage overseas, so think of how much MORE of a factor against them that would be here on their own shores against their own citizens.

Forget the PR nightmare, you'd have entire divisions refusing to obey with some of them actively joining the resistance.

[Reepicheep]

Yup. It's not like US military is going to rain down missiles and bombs onto US cities and communities because that would be a PR nightmare.

If Trump loses the election in November, and in a fit of righteous anger orders each of the 21 B-2 Spirit stealth bombers in the US arsenal to be loaded with sixteen B83 nuclear bombs, each with a yield of 1.2 megatons, and sends them on a mission to turn Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Michigan, and all other states that flipped to the Democrats into nuclear wastelands, then don't say you weren't warned that an assault rifle with a 20 shot magazine will be unsuccessful in shooting Trump's planes out of the air.

[seer]

Ronson, and many more millions of Americans like him, believe that the 2nd amendment gives US citizens the right to own weapons which are powerful enough to defeat the US military, if the US President (Donald Trump, for example) unleashes the full might of the US military against US citizens.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the day after the November election Donald Trump orders the US Air Force to use B-2 stealth bombers to destroy all urban areas in Texas because Texas flipped and voted for Biden. There are a wide variety of bombs that can be carried by B-2 stealth bombers, one example being the AGM-158 JASSM stealth cruise missile, which can be released 575 miles away from target. Americans who believe that an assault rifle with a 20 shot magazine can be used to shoot down a B-2 bomber over 500 miles away flying at a height of 50,000 feet

In a revolt generally you would have to have some military support, parts of the military that would come over to the side of the insurrection. Then you could have such weapons.

[Ronson]

If Trump loses the election in November, and in a fit of righteous anger orders each of the 21 B-2 Spirit stealth bombers in the US arsenal to be loaded with sixteen B83 nuclear bombs, each with a yield of 1.2 megatons, and sends them on a mission to turn Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Michigan, and all other states that flipped to the Democrats into nuclear wastelands, then don't say you weren't warned that an assault rifle with a 20 shot magazine will be unsuccessful in shooting Trump's planes out of the air.

Don't worry. Trump will just order the 2,000th invasion of Canada instead, and Canadians will send the American forces running for their lives again.

[Sparko]

Since Article 2 doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear the most advanced firearm of the day, shall not be infringed", I don't understand the point you're making.

If the original intent of the document is what you value, you will not argue that Article two includes the ownership of fully-automatic weapons. Or even weapons that can be fired more than a few times per minute.

The point is that the 2nd amendment doesn't allow ANY regulation of firearms since it ONLY says that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That means they CAN'T regulate the type of arms we have a right to bear. It says they can't infringe (interfere) with the right we already have to bear arms.

[MaxVel]

If Trump loses the election in November, and in a fit of righteous anger orders each of the 21 B-2 Spirit stealth bombers in the US arsenal to be loaded with sixteen B83 nuclear bombs, each with a yield of 1.2 megatons, and sends them on a mission to turn Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Michigan, and all other states that flipped to the Democrats into nuclear wastelands, then don't say you weren't warned that an assault rifle with a 20 shot magazine will be unsuccessful in shooting Trump's planes out of the air.

If Biden can't carry the vote, and in a fit of pique Hilary and her minions cease their human sacrifices to the Sun God, Ra; the Sun goes nova; and the world ends in a fiery, molten hell, then don't say that you weren't warned that your recycling and reduction of your carbon footprint can't possibly stop that much global warming.

[Reepicheep]

The point is that the 2nd amendment doesn't allow ANY regulation of firearms since it ONLY says that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That means they CAN'T regulate the type of arms we have a right to bear. It says they can't infringe (interfere) with the right we already have to bear arms.

Do you believe that Donald Trump is infringing on your rights because he refuses to sell you nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction? What is your definition of "arms"? Does "arms" include Abrams tanks and B-2 stealth bombers? If there is a limit to the weapons you think you should be able to own, what is that limit?

[Sparko]

Do you believe that Donald Trump is infringing on your rights because he refuses to sell you nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction? What is your definition of "arms"? Does "arms" include Abrams tanks and B-2 stealth bombers? If there is a limit to the weapons you think you should be able to own, what is that limit?

The second amendment deals with personal arms (guns and knives), not nuclear bombs, or chemical and biological weapons. Personal weapons used by militia and ordinary people to defend themselves. As Civil Discourse previously mentioned to you in the supreme court case he cited.


Even if it did cover weapons of mass destruction, there is no mandate that those weapons have to be made available to anyone. Good luck building a nuclear bomb in your basement if you can't get plutonium.