> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator
This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".
replies(26):
This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".
What are a couple of rednecks with assault rifles (which arguably they shouldn't be able to purchase anyway) going to do against semi-autonomy kill droids being flown from a bunker in the desert?
The point is to increase the cost of violence against the population. The Swiss bunker / guerrilla strategy.
Also, there is no reason to suspect asymmetric vectors like autonomous drone armies would accrue solely to state actors.
As an American living in Switzerland, this is not a fair comparison. The Swiss strategy involves mandatory service (with the backing of the government), short and long term preparations against an outside invading force (with the backing of the government), highly regulated gun ownership (with the backing of the government). It's always wielded with the backing of the government against an outside force.
In stark contrast, the U.S. mindset around gun ownership has always been about wielding the weapons against the government itself. Instead, what this effectively means is that this will be an easily hijacked ideal if, in our politically charged era, portions of the government are viewed as "illegitimate" and one part of the government backs a coup with gun-toting civilians against "the government" (the part not liked).
As a Swiss American, I agree. Today’s Second Amendment debate is perverted.
My argument was to the point of the Second Amendment, its intent. America is currently on an extreme end of the gun-debate spectrum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
I think it's weird how American gun advocates didn't get upset when SCOTUS took some white-out to the amendment they claim to hold so sacred.
Your statement is forced just to make the point. I don't think the gun control topic was ever related to law enforcement or military personnel carrying guns. It's more about having guns easily accessible to violent and repeat offenders, mentally unstable people, etc.
Even in locations where firearms are heavily restricted from the civilian populace, the police remain armed. The funny thing is that individuals wanting bodyguards hire armed bodyguards. The fact is that LEOs and private bodyguards carry guns because they are an effective method of stopping an attacker.
> Your statement is forced just to make the point. I don't think the gun control topic was ever related to law enforcement or military personnel carrying guns.
The lack of relation is purely due to the limits of your rational thinking and ability to apply logical principles.
> It's more about having guns easily accessible to violent and repeat offenders, mentally unstable people, etc.
The most recent talk by presidential candidates(even if their actual election is gratefully a longshot) has shown that to be a lie.
The police and bodyguards are there specifically to deal with dangerous situations and attractive targets. You are not authority, not trained, and not a target that attracts attacks. You don't need the gun, you want it "just in case", makes you feel "bigger". What else must you be allowed to use just because someone else is? There are bigger hurdles to clear for many other things that are less critical than obtaining and using guns. Why not have some formal training, medical checks, background checks, exams, etc. for getting/using something close to an assault rifle?
> carry guns because they are an effective method of stopping an attacker
No, the effective method is to prevent the attack altogether. Something the rest of the western world is far closer to, even without guns. Education is a wonderful thing. It's the inability to educate and prevent this kind of behavior that makes you live in a society where you "have to" walk around armed "just in case". Instead of preventing a fire, you're letting it start and then soaking the house in water. That's just what you do when you failed at every other step and there's literally nothing else to do.
> The lack of relation
Now you're just hiding your failed argumentation under a layer of insults. Is it working yet? Nobody asks police/military to not carry guns, surgeons to not use scalpels, pilots to not fly planes, or physicists to not fire lasers. Just make sure guns (and all other examples) don't get in the hands of people who can't make or understand a rational argument, let alone take life or death decisions.
> The most recent talk
The most recent mass shootings have shown that unstable people (especially children) with easy access to guns leads to tragedy. But by all means, if "the talk" said something else don't let reality spoil it.
Again, guns are not the problem with the proper brains behind them. Just look at Switzerland or Germany if you need proof.
Your argument regarding surgeons and scalpels looks superficially reasonable at first, but no one has proposed restricting scalpels to ordinary people. We shouldn't prohibit external defibrillators or occupant firehoses because these are items "for professionals".
The comment about "the talk" is also a huge strike on your position. That statement was about the policy positions of candidates for the highest elected office. If you're this out of touch, then hopefully you do not participate in the presidential election(if you are a legal US voter). The country is better off without you.