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.

Tools, rather than hunks of metal.

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 pro 2nd Amendment, but anti-gun.

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.

>"small arms" are now basically ineffective arms

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.

The M4 is not available to civilians. And don't try to tell me an AR-15 is the same thing as an M4.

What does the other half of the platoon carry?

The argument here seems to be that civilians do not have an effective counter for an F-35. Or a B-52. Or an M1 Abrams.

> 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.

And yet, the US Army does not issue AR-15s in warzones and civilians cannot buy M4s.

Kind of like how I can't buy an M9, because when it's sold to civilians it's called a Beretta 92F. Must be a totally different weapon.

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.

>What does the other half of the platoon carry?

M249 light machine guns and M240 medium machine guns, neither of which are available to US civilians.

The military's capability to destroy and glass entire places far outpaces the civilian capability to do the same.

But to wage war against its citizens into submission without destroying the productive value that makes them useful to the powers that be? No way.

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.

How can handguns or other small arms both be a scourge that are used in the majority of gun homicides, and also "ineffective" at the same time?