As a very pro-2A gun owner, I'm upvoting you and hope at least people stop downvoting you. Downvoting this comment, which in no way attacks other people or their points of view, goes against the spirit of HN. Save that crap for reddit.
Back to your comment, though, I grew up in the San Francisco suburbs. I have pretty much lived in either metropolitan suburbs or urban center of medium sized cities. I never even shot a gun until my 30's. I guess my feeling on guns was that I was neutral until I moved to the Southern US and some coworkers took me shooting. After actually using them, and being taught safety protocols, I saw guns as what they were - hunks of metal. I didn't feel attaching emotion to inanimate objects was particularly constructive.
Also around that time, I had a few friends that were victims of violent crimes. Two of them were in supposed "safe" areas in the NYC suburbs. Pretty much changed my views on police and personal safety completely.
Isn't calling a gun "a hunk of metal" the same as, say, calling a book "a stack of paper"? Why would a hunk of metal be such a popular prop in so many movies? Obviously, philosophy of owning and using a gun goes far, far beyond seeing it merely as a piece of metal, and calling it that on purpose, as I am sure you do, is plain disingenuous.
It is absolutely not disingenuous because I'm not talking about the philosophy of owning or using a gun. OP uses the word "terrifying" in describing these comments. That's the same word many people use to describe how they feel about a gun. It's not unreasonable to see those trains of thoughts connected, and again, I personally don't think it's productive to attach emotion to an inanimate object.
If you look at how hacking is portrayed in various media, there is a massive amount of dramatization compared to the "real" thing; it's the same with guns.
I'm pro 2nd Amendment, but anti-gun. With the equipment a modern military has at it's disposal, I fail to see how the right to own small arms is going to help keep our government in check.
Both the Soviet Union and the United States, sporting the most powerful armies the world has ever seen, failed to conquer a bunch of farmers and goat herders using 60-100 year old rifles in Afghanistan.
I'm a little confused, aren't those positions a bit contradictory? I would be interested in reading a bit more of your views here.
> With the equipment a modern military has at it's disposal, I fail to see how the right to own small arms is going to help keep our government in check.
After seeing various militaries (is that the right word?) fight for the last 19 years in Afghanistan (and spending some time there myself), it seems to me that availability of superior weapons and equipment isn't the only factor.
My idea is that "the right to bear arms" should be reconsidered. One way or the other is fine, but I think that with military technology advancements we are in a poor middle ground right now. If we as Americans affirm the 2nd amendment, then the right to bear arms should be relaxed considerably (meaning, more military equipment should be allowed to civilians. If we reject the 2nd amendment then guns should be restricted to a greater degree (maybe like Canada)
The 2nd amendment is not a right to own a gun. Here is it's text:
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
so what I'm arguing is that "small arms" are now basically ineffective arms.
If for some reason the USA Military became Americas enemy there's no way a credible opposition could rise without another military backing it. The point of the 2nd amendment is impossible today, so I think we should either fix it, or abolish it.
Are you sure? Half of the grunts in an US infantry platoon carry only weapons (specifically the M-4) available to civilians.
Civilians' having small arms greatly increases the number of soldiers needed to repress them, and the more soldiers needed, the more likely soldiers will revolt against the repression.
> And don't try to tell me an AR-15 is the same thing as an M4.
For all intents and purposes, they are the same. An M4 has a barrel that is 1.5" shorter than most civilian AR15s and it has a 3-round burst setting that is almost never used because it's worthless.
I've spent a considerable amount of time behind both of them and I assure you they are functionally identical in basically every real-world use case.
Tens of millions of armed citizens is absolutely an effective counter to any threat. Imagine keeping supply lines moving across a country this large if you knew millions of armed people would try to shut you down.
How exactly do you plan on keeping occupation of a country when the entire place is full of armed citizens that don't like you? That's the point. A military coup in the USA is unlikely to succeed.
Back to your comment, though, I grew up in the San Francisco suburbs. I have pretty much lived in either metropolitan suburbs or urban center of medium sized cities. I never even shot a gun until my 30's. I guess my feeling on guns was that I was neutral until I moved to the Southern US and some coworkers took me shooting. After actually using them, and being taught safety protocols, I saw guns as what they were - hunks of metal. I didn't feel attaching emotion to inanimate objects was particularly constructive.
Also around that time, I had a few friends that were victims of violent crimes. Two of them were in supposed "safe" areas in the NYC suburbs. Pretty much changed my views on police and personal safety completely.