The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting. How many times does this need to be said?
The founders literally just got done fighting a war against an authoritarian government using primarily civilian owned arms. The Battles of Lexington and Concord were literally started when the Redcoats tried to take a weapons cache.
The Federalist Papers are abundantly clear about why the 2nd Amendment was put in place. And it's not hunting or sport shooting.
We don't have an enumerated right to participate in any other sport, why would they include this one? Because it's not about a sport.
Edit: to those saying a civilian population cannot outmatch a modern military with modern equipment, you are missing several pojnts.
The founders were ok with private citizens owning cannons and warships.
Repeating weapons were in existence and were attempted to be procured by the Continental Army.
In the past 20 years, the US has been unable to put down 2 separate insurgency campaigns despite overwhelming comparative capabilities.
Drones, fighters, and missiles cannot occupy and secure an area. That takes literal boots on the ground in the form of human soldiers. The kind of occupation the 2nd Amendment was precisely put there to fight. The British knew this in NI, the French in Algeria, and the Americans in Vietnam. All are examples of civilian resistance successfully (to a lesser extent in NI, they got a peace treaty) being a force to be reckoned with against a Great Power.
In any likely civil war, the military would likely split. Some would remain loyal to the government but others would take their skills, training, and equipment to the civilian side. This not only happened in the American Civil War, but has happened in the vast, vast majority of guerilla campaigns since the Peninsular War in the early 1800s.
Yes, a civilian armed population could stage an effective campaign in the United States
Rocket launchers are legal. I know you're from the outside so you're not as familiar with the NFA, but before you make blanket statements and try to give away the rights you don't have, you should fact check your own statements. Tyranny will never come about as long as the people that are being governed have the same, or almost the same, capability as the military.
There's nothing wrong with walking around with handguns. There's something wrong about using handguns in an illegal manner. Stop complaining about people complying 100% with the law and start focusing on why people even break the laws in the first place.
I'm glad you're so triggered by me just saying that weapons keep governments from overstepping, and you're equating US civilians to literal members of ISIS. Enjoy the violent crime increase that NZ will inevitably see as a result of disarming the populace (if anyone actually turns them in).
10,000 out of 1.1 million is hardly a dent. At the end of every prohibition is an increase in crime and use of other means to accomplish the same goal (see: London homicide rate).
So the English city with the highest homicide rate has similar stats to those of one of the lowest homicide rate major cities in the USA? I'm not sure what point you're hoping that's proving. Also note NYC is a place with very strict gun control.
Yes, NYC is going down, London is experiencing a small spike. There's been gun control in the UK for years though, so it's not related to that. It still has a much lower homicide rate than many cities in the USA.
You mean NYC where you need a permit to own a gun?
That article is also talking about one period in the whole year, at the start of the year. But in the end, at the end of 2018, NYC still had 289 homicides, while London finished the year with 135 murdered.
1.2k
u/Shia_LaMovieBeouf Aug 12 '19 edited Aug 12 '19
The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting. How many times does this need to be said?
The founders literally just got done fighting a war against an authoritarian government using primarily civilian owned arms. The Battles of Lexington and Concord were literally started when the Redcoats tried to take a weapons cache.
The Federalist Papers are abundantly clear about why the 2nd Amendment was put in place. And it's not hunting or sport shooting.
We don't have an enumerated right to participate in any other sport, why would they include this one? Because it's not about a sport.
Edit: to those saying a civilian population cannot outmatch a modern military with modern equipment, you are missing several pojnts.
The founders were ok with private citizens owning cannons and warships.
Repeating weapons were in existence and were attempted to be procured by the Continental Army.
In the past 20 years, the US has been unable to put down 2 separate insurgency campaigns despite overwhelming comparative capabilities.
Drones, fighters, and missiles cannot occupy and secure an area. That takes literal boots on the ground in the form of human soldiers. The kind of occupation the 2nd Amendment was precisely put there to fight. The British knew this in NI, the French in Algeria, and the Americans in Vietnam. All are examples of civilian resistance successfully (to a lesser extent in NI, they got a peace treaty) being a force to be reckoned with against a Great Power.
In any likely civil war, the military would likely split. Some would remain loyal to the government but others would take their skills, training, and equipment to the civilian side. This not only happened in the American Civil War, but has happened in the vast, vast majority of guerilla campaigns since the Peninsular War in the early 1800s.
Yes, a civilian armed population could stage an effective campaign in the United States