# some weapon's question **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 21, 2011, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354 "2011-10-21T13:31:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/41 "2011-10-24T00:34:25Z")
> [@SeaCanary](#): > > The armed militia shoots at, or threatens to shoot at, the forces of tyranny. > > And now you ask… And now I ask, how does that **work,** exactly? This ain’t Libya. Popular armed revolt or resistance here is only gonna work if majority enthusiasm is so near-unanimous that even a rigged political system will make it unnecessary. ---
**Author:** ![thelabdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@thelabdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelabdude)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/42 "2011-10-24T00:49:32Z")
The real reason protection of gun ownership was written into our constitution was to make sure armed revolution was possible. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/43 "2011-10-24T00:58:27Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Anyone who has done even a little bit of research will come to the truth about the 2nd Amendment: It is absolutely an individual right, but it has absolutely nothing to do with self defense. > > The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is two old: First, it gave the militia (that’s us, not the National Guard) the right to own arms so the governor or the President could call on us in a time of emergency. Second, it gave the militia (that’s us, not the National guard) the means to repel tyranny if need be. Anyone who has done a little bit of research would be awfully confused, because [our Supreme Court thinks it has a lot to do with self-defense](http://supreme.justia.com/us/554/07-290/). ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/44 "2011-10-24T01:12:44Z")
Part of it is the basic idea of Citizen vs. Subject. Most old world governments consider their people to be subjects, which means that the State has absolute authority over them. The USA was founded on the idea that we are citizens with rights and freedoms that preclude the absolute authority of the State. “Allowed” to have guns? Nope, when we set up shop, we told the Government that we were keeping our guns. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/45 "2011-10-24T01:41:09Z")
> [@thelabdude](#): > > The real reason protection of gun ownership was written into our constitution was to make sure armed revolution was possible. So the Second Amendment was a **bad** idea, then? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/46 "2011-10-24T02:33:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > So the Second Amendment was a **bad** idea, then? I’d say that if there are enough people in the armed revolution for it to succeed then it’s a sign that the government has lost the support of the people and deserves to be overthrown. But realistically it’s a moot point. Military technology has moved on. Personally owned weapons can no longer form the basis of a viable military force. ---
**Author:** ![SeaCanary](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@SeaCanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeaCanary)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/47 "2011-10-24T03:11:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > And now I ask, how does that **work,** exactly? This ain’t Libya. Popular armed revolt or resistance here is only gonna work if majority enthusiasm is so near-unanimous that even a rigged political system will make it unnecessary. Oh. You mean work as in **succeed**. Now I get you. Armed revolt gets people locked up and/or hurt and/or dead. Cooler heads prevail. Or not. People take to the streets in protest. If force of arms is used to quell the protests, then force of arms will be used to emphasize the protesters position. Or not. More people get locked up and/or get hurt and/or die. Cooler heads prevail. Or not. Things escalate. Or not. Etc. Which is just the long way around the barn to say “It doesn’t work” as in “It doesn’t provide an immediate, painless solution.” What does work is the choice each individual makes about how they want to live and die when opposing whatever they define “tyranny” to be. The extremes are, on one end, doing nothing; on the other end, violent opposition. (And lots of grey area in between.) Neither are “right.” Neither are “wrong.” They are choices with consequences. In this country, we have an armed population that allows for the greater possibility of violent opposition. Maybe this also allows for a greater possibility of cooler heads prevailing sooner in the process. Maybe. (Though when I think about the national guard being sent in to enforce integration or criminal investigations being taken out of the hands of local law enforcement during the civil rights movement, I don’t have a lot of hope.) Is that a better answer to your question? ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/48 "2011-10-24T03:20:18Z")
Another argument against the whole “armed populace as a defense against tyranny” thing is that an armed populace means a much more heavily armed, effectively [paramilitary](http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4203345), police force. If the US government did turn into a tyranny overnight they would have at their disposal an extremely well armed instrument of repression in the regular police force (even in small towns), without ever having to bring the army onto the streets. In other countries where there is less proliferation of private arms, that would not be the case. ---
**Author:** ![thelabdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dc4da7/32.png) [@thelabdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thelabdude)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/49 "2011-10-24T03:28:48Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Part of it is the basic idea of Citizen vs. Subject. Most old world governments consider their people to be subjects, which means that the State has absolute authority over them. The USA was founded on the idea that we are citizens with rights and freedoms that preclude the absolute authority of the State. > > “Allowed” to have guns? Nope, when we set up shop, we told the Government that we were keeping our guns. Well put. ---
**Author:** ![SeaCanary](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@SeaCanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeaCanary)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/50 "2011-10-24T03:32:26Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’d say that if there are enough people in the armed revolution for it to succeed then it’s a sign that the government has lost the support of the people and deserves to be overthrown. > > But realistically it’s a moot point. Military technology has moved on. Personally owned weapons can no longer form the basis of a viable military force. This assumes that elements of the military aren’t part of the armed revolution (as they were in [Turkey](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces#Role_of_the_military_in_Turkish_politics)). Or that the armed revolutionaries are not getting support from outside the country. Or that the armed revolutionaries foolishly choose to go toe-to-toe against the government forces instead of waging guerrilla warfare (as the IRA did). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/51 "2011-10-24T12:28:56Z")
> [@SeaCanary](#): > > Oh. You mean work as in **succeed**. Now I get you. > > Armed revolt gets people locked up and/or hurt and/or dead. Cooler heads prevail. Or not. People take to the streets in protest. If force of arms is used to quell the protests, then force of arms will be used to emphasize the protesters position. Or not. > > More people get locked up and/or get hurt and/or die. Cooler heads prevail. Or not. Things escalate. Or not. Etc. > > Which is just the long way around the barn to say “It doesn’t work” as in “It doesn’t provide an immediate, painless solution.” What does work is the choice each individual makes about how they want to live and die when opposing whatever they define “tyranny” to be. The extremes are, on one end, doing nothing; on the other end, violent opposition. (And lots of grey area in between.) Neither are “right.” Neither are “wrong.” They are choices with consequences. > > In this country, we have an armed population that allows for the greater possibility of violent opposition. Maybe this also allows for a greater possibility of cooler heads prevailing sooner in the process. Maybe. (Though when I think about the national guard being sent in to enforce integration or criminal investigations being taken out of the hands of local law enforcement during the civil rights movement, I don’t have a lot of hope.) > > Is that a better answer to your question? The question is whether preserving that state of affairs is, in and of itself, an appropriate matter for constitutional protection. Based on the above, if that’s what the Second Amendment is all about, certainly it should be **repealed.** ---
**Author:** ![SeaCanary](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@SeaCanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeaCanary)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/52 "2011-10-24T13:55:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The question is whether preserving that state of affairs is, in and of itself, an appropriate matter for constitutional protection. Based on the above, if that’s what the Second Amendment is all about, certainly it should be **repealed.** How come? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/53 "2011-10-24T15:51:28Z")
> [@SeaCanary](#): > > How come? “I want the freedom to have a gun so I can protect myself and my family because the police can’t always.” “I want the freedom to have a gun so I can shoot the police if necessary.” One sees the difference? The second consideration is, perhaps, a defensible one in some rare circumstances, but why does it belong in a **constitution** of all things?! ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/54 "2011-10-24T16:28:13Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > “I want the freedom to have a gun so I can protect myself and my family because the police can’t always.” > > “I want the freedom to have a gun so I can shoot the police if necessary.” > > One sees the difference? The second consideration is, perhaps, a defensible one in some rare circumstances, but why does it belong in a **constitution** of all things?! “I want the freedom to have a gun so I can shoot the police if necessary to protect my family.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/55 "2011-10-24T16:30:14Z")
> [@Mighty\_Mouse](#): > > “I want the freedom to have a gun so I can shoot the police if necessary to protect my family.” Rare circumstance, ain’t it? Not even Randy Weaver could claim that honestly. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/56 "2011-10-24T16:59:23Z")
> [@SeaCanary](#): > > This assumes that elements of the military aren’t part of the armed revolution (as they were in [Turkey](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces#Role_of_the_military_in_Turkish_politics)). Or that the armed revolutionaries are not getting support from outside the country. Or that the armed revolutionaries foolishly choose to go toe-to-toe against the government forces instead of waging guerrilla warfare (as the IRA did). Yes but this doesn’t change what I said. The issue of personal firearm ownership isn’t a factor in determining how the military splits its allegiance. ---
**Author:** ![SeaCanary](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@SeaCanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeaCanary)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/57 "2011-10-24T18:08:58Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > [@SeaCanary](#): > > > > > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > > > > \ > > > > > > But realistically it’s a moot point. Military technology has moved on. Personally owned weapons can no longer form the basis of a viable military force. > > > > This assumes that elements of the military aren’t part of the armed revolution (as they were in [Turkey](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces#Role_of_the_military_in_Turkish_politics)). Or that the armed revolutionaries are not getting support from outside the country. Or that the armed revolutionaries foolishly choose to go toe-to-toe against the government forces instead of waging guerrilla warfare (as the IRA did). > > Yes but this doesn’t change what I said. The issue of personal firearm ownership isn’t a factor in determining how the military splits its allegiance. OK. I misunderstood. I admit that it’s tough for me to see how personal firearms ownership might correlate to how the military splits its allegiance. But do you think – in light of the last two examples I gave – that personally owned weapons can no longer form the basis of a viable military force? ---
**Author:** ![SeaCanary](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@SeaCanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeaCanary)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/58 "2011-10-24T18:16:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > “I want the freedom to have a gun so I can protect myself and my family because the police can’t always.” > > “I want the freedom to have a gun so I can shoot the police if necessary.” > > One sees the difference? The second consideration is, perhaps, a defensible one in some rare circumstances, but why does it belong in a **constitution** of all things?! I do see the difference and the circumstances are relatively rare in the U.S.. I think it belongs in a constitution because that makes it harder to deny at both the local and national level. (In fact it is still denied but making it part of the constitution makes it harder.) I don’t trust the local or national authorities to the degree I once did. ---
**Author:** ![thatguyjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6de8d8/32.png) [@thatguyjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thatguyjeff)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/59 "2011-10-24T19:24:48Z")
> [@y7xzh1](#): > > i imagine a weapon instead of nuclear weapon,at least a part of them.i search in internet and find nothing . > the nuclear is used for destroy a city or a big zone,and non lethal weapons is used for stop crime. > is there a weapon mix these two together?used as make people all fainted in target area for many hours , > but they are all alive. I think this question is about whether there is a weapon available (possibly for civilian use) that would incapacitate a large number of people in a given area. Or something to that effect… Civilians may legally create an posses any weapon of any type so long as the materials used to create that weapon are legal to posses alone, were obtained legally, and not used in a prohibited manner. That being said, I’m not aware of any such weapon - to be used for mass incapacitation - that exists. Government authorities have access to a variety of crowd control measures - tear gas comes to mind - but I don’t think civilians are allowed to posses/use tear gas. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354/60 "2011-10-24T19:50:18Z")
> [@thatguyjeff](#): > > Government authorities have access to a variety of crowd control measures - tear gas comes to mind - but I don’t think civilians are allowed to posses/use tear gas. I had Mace as a Security Officer, but you have to be really smart about when you use it. Two examples; Me and another officer confronted by four punks OUTSIDE a restaurant. The leader of the punks trying to get into the other officer’s face and provoke him to attack first (not a good idea, the other guy was ex-special forces). Gets very heavily sprayed directed in the face and then when he turns, all over the top and back of his head. Me trying to get 18 drunken 20-somethings out of a restaurant when 4 of them are violent, throwing water glasses and dumping over the table. Cops come and say “we wouldn’t have cared if you’d have maced the lot of them”. Sure, if I had done that INSIDE, then they’d have had to close the (packed) restaurant, losing a lot of business until the place was cleaned enough to re-open. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-weapons-question/600354.md?page=4)