The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder and Visionary
Posts: 1867
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Dr. Shades »

Marcus wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:17 pm
:lol: did you think the oath meant everyone would magically acquire sniper skills in the event of an invasion?
I never said they'd be particularly skilled. All I'm implying is that, as a student of World War II, I'm more than positive that one or more resistance movements would spring into existence (at least in the red states) if the United States was invaded by a foreign power. You know, like what happened in France, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union during World War II. I'm also convinced that such a resistance movement will be even more effective than in the aforementioned countries because U.S. citizens per capita are already much better armed and supplied (with ammunition) than the citizens of those countries were.

But it looks like everyone disagrees with me. Unlike what we saw in France, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union, every U.S. citizen will peacefully accept the new normal without using their guns or ammunition, and all other nations know this too, so none would be deterred from invading the United States if they ever gained the motive and means to do so.

I guess we can agree to disagree.
"It’s ironic that the Church that people claim to be true, puts so much effort into hiding truths."
--I Have Questions, 01-25-2024
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Chap »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:59 am
Unlike what we saw in France, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union, every U.S. citizen will peacefully accept the new normal without using their guns or ammunition, and all other nations know this too, so none would be deterred from invading the United States if they ever gained the motive and means to do so.
If the US armed forces, the largest and most powerful in the world, do not deter or prevent them from invading, I think it is very unlikely that they are going to say "Well, we can crush the US military. But all those amateur guys in sunglasses and body armour with AR-15s in cupboards in their basements? Naaaah, too much of a risk."
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8952
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:59 am
Marcus wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:17 pm
:lol: did you think the oath meant everyone would magically acquire sniper skills in the event of an invasion?
I never said they'd be particularly skilled. All I'm implying is that, as a student of World War II, I'm more than positive that one or more resistance movements would spring into existence (at least in the red states) if the United States was invaded by a foreign power. You know, like what happened in France, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union during World War II. I'm also convinced that such a resistance movement will be even more effective than in the aforementioned countries because U.S. citizens per capita are already much better armed and supplied (with ammunition) than the citizens of those countries were.

But it looks like everyone disagrees with me. Unlike what we saw in France, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union, every U.S. citizen will peacefully accept the new normal without using their guns or ammunition, and all other nations know this too, so none would be deterred from invading the United States if they ever gained the motive and means to do so.

I guess we can agree to disagree.
So. Wolverines then. :roll:

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3752
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by honorentheos »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:59 am
Marcus wrote:
Tue Jun 28, 2022 3:17 pm
:lol: did you think the oath meant everyone would magically acquire sniper skills in the event of an invasion?
I never said they'd be particularly skilled. All I'm implying is that, as a student of World War II, I'm more than positive that one or more resistance movements would spring into existence (at least in the red states) if the United States was invaded by a foreign power.
In the red states? Jesus.

The entire tangential discussion came about based on your claim the armchair army acts as a deterent to foreign invasion, justifying the domestic gun deaths and violence we actually observe.

It is all a Red Dawn fantasy that firearm manufacturers tap into to sell chairborn rangers their 100% real cosplay kits. It's just the AR-15 can kill a lot more people more quickly than the mall store katana with a "battle sharp" blade.
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1532
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Physics Guy »

Dealing with sharpshooting resistance after defeating a country's organised armed forces is a military problem that has been solved, by the British Army in South Africa at the beginning of the 20th century. The British Army called their new tactic "concentration camps". They swept through the rural countryside systematically destroying livestock and crops, and interning the whole civilian population in these guarded camps. The scale of the camps was small compared to later imitations; only somewhere around 150,000 civilians were interned, since the rural areas affected were sparsely populated. It was a ruthless military operation with little concern for civilian lives, and the death rate of undernourished women and especially children in the unhygienic camps was something like 25%—according to postwar British statistics.

There was considerable outrage in Britain at how barbaric the concentration camp strategy was. Nevertheless even a liberal democracy was able to execute that barbaric strategy. So any hypothetical enemy power which could defeat the US armed forces and invade the country would hardly then just try to take over and hold the conquered nation with a light hand, and be thwarted by gun owners. Faced with constant harassment by patriotic American gun owners, the invaders could simply resort to barbaric tactics on a large scale. They will certainly be able to do that: they defeated the whole US military. Literally scorching the earth is within their power.

A bunch of armed patriots may offer more deterrent than an unarmed populace would, but that extra deterrence would be completely negligible on the scale that is being considered in this scenario. Bike helmets can save lives, but for Americans to think of their Second Amendment as helping to defend their country is like the crew of an Abrams tank thinking that plastic bike helmets will help to protect them in case an anti-tank round somehow gets through the hull.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
Binger
God
Posts: 6132
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Binger »

Physics Guy wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:56 pm
Dealing with sharpshooting resistance after defeating a country's organised armed forces is a military problem that has been solved, by the British Army in South Africa at the beginning of the 20th century. The British Army called their new tactic "concentration camps". They swept through the rural countryside systematically destroying livestock and crops, and interning the whole civilian population in these guarded camps. The scale of the camps was small compared to later imitations; only somewhere around 150,000 civilians were interned, since the rural areas affected were sparsely populated. It was a ruthless military operation with little concern for civilian lives, and the death rate of undernourished women and especially children in the unhygienic camps was something like 25%—according to postwar British statistics.

There was considerable outrage in Britain at how barbaric the concentration camp strategy was. Nevertheless even a liberal democracy was able to execute that barbaric strategy. So any hypothetical enemy power which could defeat the US armed forces and invade the country would hardly then just try to take over and hold the conquered nation with a light hand, and be thwarted by gun owners. Faced with constant harassment by patriotic American gun owners, the invaders could simply resort to barbaric tactics on a large scale. They will certainly be able to do that: they defeated the whole US military. Literally scorching the earth is within their power.

A bunch of armed patriots may offer more deterrent than an unarmed populace would, but that extra deterrence would be completely negligible on the scale that is being considered in this scenario. Bike helmets can save lives, but for Americans to think of their Second Amendment as helping to defend their country is like the crew of an Abrams tank thinking that plastic bike helmets will help to protect them in case an anti-tank round somehow gets through the hull.
Echoes of Peter Garrett.
Buildings, clothing the sky, in paradise
Sydney, nights are warm
Daytime telly, blue rinse dawn
Dad's so bad he lives in the pub
It's a underarms and football clubs
Flat chat, pine gap, in every home a Big Mac
And no one goes outback, that's that
You take what you get and get what you please
It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees
It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees
Oh the power and the passion
Oh the temper of the time
Oh the power and the passion
Sometimes you've got to take the hardest line
Some folks prefer to die trying before they go to the concentration camp not trying. Clearly that is not true for all folks.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3752
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by honorentheos »

Binger wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:07 pm
Some folks prefer to die trying before they go to the concentration camp not trying. Clearly that is not true for all folks.
download.jpeg
download.jpeg (8.28 KiB) Viewed 359 times
User avatar
Dr. Shades
Founder and Visionary
Posts: 1867
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Dr. Shades »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:05 pm
So. Wolverines then. :roll:
Not you, and not me (since I don't own a gun), but yeah, Wolverines then. Everywhere.
honorentheos wrote:The entire tangential discussion came about based on your claim the armchair army acts as a deterent to foreign invasion, justifying the domestic gun deaths and violence we actually observe.
I never said it justifies the domestic gun deaths and violence we actually observe. I stated it serves as a check to any potentially foreign aggressor. I also think it serves as a check against any homegrown would-be Hitler.
It is all a Red Dawn fantasy that firearm manufacturers tap into to sell chairborn rangers their 100% real cosplay kits. It's just the AR-15 can kill a lot more people more quickly than the mall store katana with a "battle sharp" blade.
That's right. AR-15s can kill a lot of people, but they cannot possibly kill invading soldiers.
Physics Guy wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:56 pm
Faced with constant harassment by patriotic American gun owners, the invaders could simply resort to barbaric tactics on a large scale. They will certainly be able to do that: they defeated the whole US military. Literally scorching the earth is within their power.
Against an armed populace? I disagree.
"It’s ironic that the Church that people claim to be true, puts so much effort into hiding truths."
--I Have Questions, 01-25-2024
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3752
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by honorentheos »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:46 pm
honorentheos wrote:The entire tangential discussion came about based on your claim the armchair army acts as a deterent to foreign invasion, justifying the domestic gun deaths and violence we actually observe.
I never said it justifies the domestic gun deaths and violence we actually observe. I stated it serves as a check to any potentially foreign aggressor. I also think it serves as a check against any homegrown would-be Hitler.
Your comment was first made in defense of the disparity between gun violence in the US and UK after Chap asked why he should view the UK as needing what we have.

It was absolutely said to justify gun violence in the US.
It is all a Red Dawn fantasy that firearm manufacturers tap into to sell chairborn rangers their 100% real cosplay kits. It's just the AR-15 can kill a lot more people more quickly than the mall store katana with a "battle sharp" blade.
That's right. AR-15s can kill a lot of people, but they cannot possibly kill invading soldiers.
Charming. There, me try bad sarcasm, too.

Anyway, you are making a dumb argument and now taking a stand on a hill with the intellectual equivalent of mall sword katanas. Have fun with that.
User avatar
Manetho
Valiant B
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2021 2:28 am

Re: The 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century

Post by Manetho »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:46 pm
I stated it serves as a check to any potentially foreign aggressor.
Our geography and our military would render any invasion attempt utterly suicidal even if the civilian population had nothing but Nerf guns.

Dr. Shades wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:46 pm
I also think it serves as a check against any homegrown would-be Hitler.
Not if the segment of the population that supports the would-be dictator is the one most likely to be heavily armed. Would-be dictators often rely on paramilitary forces.
Dr. Shades wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:46 pm
Physics Guy wrote:
Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:56 pm
Faced with constant harassment by patriotic American gun owners, the invaders could simply resort to barbaric tactics on a large scale. They will certainly be able to do that: they defeated the whole US military. Literally scorching the earth is within their power.
Against an armed populace? I disagree.
You don't seem to have any concept of the kind of force it would require to defeat the most powerful military on the planet.
Post Reply