[vowelless]

> For example, guns. Very few people die because of mass shootings.

Adjusted for how armed Americans are, gun violence in this country is tiny. And seeing what an armed citizenry can do against the full American force (Afghanistan), an armed population is a necessity against tyranny in America.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

The highest death rate in 2019 is Alaska (TIL) with 24.4 deaths per 100,000 people. The lowest is Massachusetts with 3.4 deaths per 100,000 people.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/...

There is approx. 393,000,000 firearms owned by civilians in the US. About 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership

Handguns accounted for 91% of firearm homicides.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

[mkr-hn]

The ongoing and ramped up tyrannies don't affect the people with guns, so it's not doing much good so far. When the oppressed arm themselves, people who claim opposition to gun control suddenly become very pro-gun control.

[pope_meat]

It was all guns rights until the black panthers started arming up, and all the sudden it was "perhaps some sensible limits might be wise"

Pretty hard to miss the intent.

Arm the homeless is what I say when I'm feeling spicy.

[sellyme]

> an armed population is a necessity against tyranny in America.

Why are we comparing to Afghanistan? You can look much closer to home - at America - and see that this specific armed population just spent half a decade doing absolutely jack shit about tyranny.

[ineptech]

The assumption that the armed population and the forces trying to impose tyranny will be on opposite sides is looking pretty tenuous.

[pklausler]

As well as the assumption that the kind of weaponry available to the population is effective against that available to the "tyrants".

[AtlasBarfed]

Pea shooters will allow you to stop the US Army on home soil? They have total information awareness, tanks, space/air power, snipers, GPS bombs, etc.

Afghanistan was lost because of our tolerance of corruption and intolerance for spending money on a speck of dirt. Oppression of the US will be far more worth the money to a tyranny.

If the second amendment actually said what gun people say it does (literalist/"strict constructionalist"), then I can use these arms as well:

- grenades?

- bazookas?

- artillery?

- explosives?

- chemical weapons?

- biological weapons?

- nuclear/dirtynuke weapons?

Where are you, as an apparently ardent 2nd amendment person likely living in at least a suburban population density comfortable with allowing your fellow Americans to arm themselves with?

At somewhere along that chain, almost all non-crazy 2nd amendment people "nope out" of allowing those arms. Maybe your typical gun rights person would allow grenades, MAYBE bazookas.

Major explosives or anything else? Nope.

But you'd need to get to the chem/bio/nuke arms to have any real deterrent to the US Army.

Your pea shooter militia is a fantasy. The US army has more than cannons, horses, and muskets now.

[Y_Y]

> 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.

That's the whole thing. I think the most literal interpretation is that people have a right to bear arms, and you cant infringe that, by telling them they can't bear any arms. Obviously reasonable people will differ here, but I don't think it's fair to say that it unambiguously grants the right to bear any kind of arms at all.

[Tostino]

Mustard gas for the masses!

Absolutely agreed though, it's a very internally inconsistent viewpoint from my perspective.