←back to thread

628 points nodea2345 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nvahalik ◴[] No.21125093[source]
> 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): >>21125127 #>>21125139 #>>21125892 #>>21126027 #>>21126073 #>>21126084 #>>21126204 #>>21126397 #>>21126398 #>>21126638 #>>21126890 #>>21126892 #>>21127286 #>>21127513 #>>21127874 #>>21127880 #>>21128227 #>>21128793 #>>21129412 #>>21129418 #>>21129526 #>>21129658 #>>21130063 #>>21130220 #>>21131181 #>>21131653 #
swarnie_[dead post] ◴[] No.21125127[source]
Non-American here, i never really understood your second amendment or how you cling to it in the modern age.

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?

JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.21125217[source]
> 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.

replies(2): >>21125824 #>>21125883 #
cjslep ◴[] No.21125883[source]
> The Swiss bunker / guerrilla strategy.

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).

replies(2): >>21126015 #>>21126103 #
jbattle ◴[] No.21126015[source]
So the Swiss have ... a well-regulated militia? Wish we had thought of that!
replies(1): >>21126244 #
Andrex ◴[] No.21126244{3}[source]
It's almost like that language was inserted into the Constitution for some explicit purpose, but then someone (the Supreme Court) forgot about that along the way...

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.

replies(1): >>21127320 #
1. jki275 ◴[] No.21127320{4}[source]
Except that's not at all what happened. The plain language of the 2nd amendment is quite clearly and accurately explained by Scalia in Heller. He took no "white out" to it, he explained what anyone without a political agenda has always known the 2nd amendment meant.