> Except arms doesn't mean rifles anymore. It means ICMBs, sattelites, fighter jets, shaped charges, IEDs, EMPs, aircraft carriers. Climbing on the roof of your house with a rifle will do jack shit to being able to oppose or protect against "government abuse".

You are actually quite wrong. All those weapons you mention are useless for dealing with small groups of people. Those weapons are for taking out huge installations and entire countries.

Even the most oppressive government you can imagine does not kill its citizens in mass, they do it in small numbers. And rifles work perfectly fine to protect against that.

They might not help if the government decided to take out an entire city - but the government can't do that very often before having no one to govern.

Look at Syria and ISIS. What weapons are they using against the established government of the area? (Not making moral judgments here by saying "established", just using them as an example.) They are using small arms, not fighter jets.

If you are an American, and if your country becomes comparable to Syria and ISIS, then you are not fighting for your freedom; you have failed in defending your freedom (and your country as you know it).

All but the most oppressive government doesn't lightly kill its citizens. It instead sets up a propaganda campaign, paints an image of dangerous dissidents, and tell the common people to fear them and join the good (that is, the government's) side. And you know what: rifles works "perfectly" in that framework. If I were a covert agent in a dictatorship and if I had no conscience, I'd propose letting a few individuals get away with their rifles, and the government can go a merry chase to protect "public safety" while associating everyone who wants a better government with those "terrorists".

> Look at Syria and ISIS. What weapons are they using against the established government of the area? (Not making moral judgments here by saying "established", just using them as an example.) They are using small arms, not fighter jets.

In that case I want to demand legislation to have rocket launchers, AA-manpads, propane tank cannons, Shilkas (ZSU-23-4, they work very well for the ground, especially in urban areas, never know where that armored police trunk will roll by) and so on. Semiautomatics and pistols would be a joke there.

Is there any recent example of any of these millitia groups successfully opposing the US government and winning?

- Waco Seige?

- MOVE standoff, where Uncle Sam bombed a whole city block.

I wouldn't call those successes exactly.

>Is there any recent example of any of these millitia groups >successfully opposing the US government and winning?

Afghanistan. Not just the American government, the USSR had to withdraw from there as well just about 20 years before.

General posession of fire arms is illegal in Afghanistan. Do you know otherwise? I know Mexico and Guatemala I think have a right to bear arms in their Constitution.

Also, can't think it would have been legal during the Soviet occupation. Presumalby we should then ban the guns here as well if we are to follow the model then?

Or, if we don't then I want an ammendment to let me have Stinger missles. Pretty sure just semmiautmatics and pistols wasn't quite enough to shoot down military helicopters and blow up whole convoys between mountain passes.

I am sorry, I have no clue about Afghani law. I just gave an example of militia, armed basically with rifles and improvised weapons, successfully defending against not one but two modern military forces.

Also, from the history of recent internal conflicts (e.g Ukraine) a militia fighting its own government can obtain and use tanks and artillery quite easily as there are plenty of people on the both sides who are trained to use such equipment.

Except it isnt just ICBMs--assault rifles, tanks, armed armored vehicles, and armor piercing rounds (and in most states teflon-coated rounds) are all illegal too. Might as well have sticks and arrows against an government with assault rifles and armored personnel/vehicles, which would be effective against small bands of individuals.

assault rifles have always have been illegal, assault-style weapons are different from assault weapons, and are the only thing that has ever been under popular political debate

Assault rifles are rare and expensive, but legal in most states. They are tightly controlled at the federal level, and no new ones have been allowed since 1986.

Armor piercing rounds are legal to sell, purchase, own and shoot. Steel-core rounds are illegal to manufacture or import.

Teflon-coated rounds are a fantasy. They exist, but do absolutely nothing to make them more effective - instead, they are intended to extend the life of a gun's barrel by limiting wear.

Tanks are not illegal. Armed tanks are also not illegal, provided the main weapon is registered as a destructive device, along with any active explosive or incendiary rounds for it. Training rounds are (e.g. chalk) are unregulated.

I oppose all firearms regulation, period - but let's get our facts straight. :)

Many articles of the Bill of Rights have proven to be extremely prescient a few hundred years later. While we talk a lot more about the 4th and the 5th on HN, I'm equally confident in the importance of the 2nd.

It turns out the framers knew a lot about human nature, and the nature of government. Humans have done bad things with guns since long before 1789. This is something the framers considered extremely carefully and concluded the risks of an unarmed populace far exceed and outweigh the benefits of an unarmed populace. In my opinion, nothing has changed in this regard. If anything, the risks of disarming have seemed to increase dramatically.

IMO, fear of guns is highly irrational versus the fear of a government not beholden to its population.

The government of the United States is not going to be held in check by people with rifles and canned goods.

We are past the point where the weaponry available to the average civilian is sufficient to form a militia capable of holding back the armed forces, should the armed forces choose to cooperate in suppression of the civilian population. Syria doesn't have the capabilities the US forces do, and it shows.

So if the point of the 2nd Amendment is to defend the people from the government through the threat of the people taking up arms against the government, it can be deemed a failure.

As others have said, it's largely an academic debate, but I choose to think that things are not so clear cut; that liberty would not go quietly into the night, that people do have powerful tools and have shown a remarkable ability to organize, and ultimately defend themselves if necessary against great odds.

The government is not a single perfectly cohesive faction. In extraordinary situations, people will do extraordinary things. Surely if you believe such a future is at all possible, then it would be pure insanity to relinquish the 2nd.

But even if you concede such a future is impossible and government is perfectly benevolent, it is the 2nd Amendment, it should be respected or repealed by proper vote, or else in defacing it you deface the whole document.

The reality is that these terrorist attacks (purposely inflicted mass civilian casualties) are horrible and appalling, but thankfully at least incredible rare, shocking, abhorrent events. This is not an excuse for indoctrinating fear into schoolchildren. The response to terrorism must be measured, considered, and appropriate. Or else the 'Terrorists Won', right? I see TFA, to some extent, as the terrorists have one.

> that liberty would not go quietly into the night

Liberty never will but terrorism will. Anyone opposing will be classified as a terrorism, and trust, most people will believe that.

People can be very easily controlled. And rifles and will to nothing here. Think how many wanted to go to war and agreed to fight in Iraq. How many believed and still believe that Saddam was alqaeda. Or think about people consistently voting against their own interest.