Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

othermegan t1_j1u9ho9 wrote

I was talking to someone recently who explained why they’re on the fence about gun laws. He’s a cop so he is well aware of how easy it is to go out and illegally get a gun. He also loved hunting so you’d think he’d be super pro-gun. But he’s not.

His main point was that the whole point of Americans being allowed guns was so that the government/military didn’t have egregious power over them. If Britain came back or someone named themselves King and tried to use the military against the people, the people could defend themselves. But that was written back when it took forever to reload a musket. The founding fathers would never have dreamed of automatic weapons.

So let’s hypothetically ban automatic weapons. Every law abiding gun owner turns over their guns and we’re left with a handful of slower weapons. What happens if a narcissist becomes president and tried to incite an insurrection (that would never happen, right? /s). This person now has control of the military. What type of weapons will the military still have? Automatic weapons. How’s your lesser gun supposed to keep up with that?

It definitely gave me food for thought and firmly planted me on the fence more than I was already

1

ZacPetkanas t1_j1up1is wrote

> So let’s hypothetically ban automatic weapons.

We effectively have. Or do you mean semi-automatics?

> How’s your lesser gun supposed to keep up with that?

Occupation would require patrols, curfews, etc. The idea would be to use a cheap weapon to kill the soldier and take a better weapon of off of them (I believe this was the concept behind the Liberator pistol in WWII).

Would it work well enough to provide effective resistance to the occupiers? I'd say probably not; the French resistance wasn't able to liberate France from the NAZIs using similar tactics.

edit: fixed typo

2