The Future of Arms?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The Second Amendment protects not just firearms; but arms generally. As we continue into the 21st century, there are major advances in arms technology in the future. This fictional film was created to promote a campaign against artifical intelligence in military drones; but it illustrates a potential future that isn‘t far-fetched: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA

Things like telescoped cartridges, man-portable lasers, printing and milling machines that will let you manufacture modern firearms in your own home, the ability to edit people’s genes without their knowledge or consent...

What kinds of arms are necessary to make the Second Amendment relevant in the 21st century? When a government can crank out a limitless drone army that loyally follows orders, does it need to consider what its populace wants?

[rickyrick]

I would like to believe that Arms would mean any device that a person believes is needed to assure ones safety or defense of Liberty.

[Bluecthomas]

For many years now, the military and police have been allowed to get fairly ordinary firearms that a decent American can't buy.
Drone army or not, you and me are already outgunned. And that's not even mentioning tanks, jets or wmd.

But as for lasers, couple Grand gets you a laser capable of cutting rocks in half, smaller than your fridge. Obviously not man portable, but very much a weapon of incredible power. And not to my knowledge regulated sells.
Home manafacture, rifling and semi auto takes tools, but a smoothbore break action, I could probably build one in an hour. Or, a few rolls of duct tape and I got a homemade cannon (see mythbusters).

[JoeSixpack]

Like Blue said, we lost parity long long ago.

I would imagine things like pulse rifles, lasers, etc will probably be regulated out of civilian hands once they get to a point they're practical weapons.

[Rachen]

Drone army or not, you and me are already outgunned. And that's not even mentioning tanks, jets or wmd.

Pardon me but I have a little bit to say in contrary of that. Someone in the op-ed section of the NY Post this week also made a comment that "even if the Jews in 1940 Poland had guns, the Nazis had tanks, poison gas and aerial bombs" in response to another Web article regarding the effectiveness of an armed civilian population against a tyrannical government.

The very idea of an armed citizen is not to win a war outright. It would be impossible. Think of one man with an AR-15 against a raiding party equipped with M203s and armored assault vehicles. It would be suicide. But if that man knows how to fight from a concealed position and is a decent marksman, he can take out a sizeable number of the oppressing force. Sure, he would probably not make it out alive in the end, but he has made it highly costly, demoralizing and terrifying for that oppressing force, as opposed to someone who will meekly surrender and follow his captors. And if that oppressing army is conducting nationwide raids against similar citizens for similar political or ideological offenses, and just 10 percent of the victims had replied by fighting back and inflicting casualties against the enforcers, it will create a wave of fear within the ranks of these tyrants. Even if one target resisting capture manages to kill only 1 or 2 of his attackers before being killed or subdued, it will inflict a lot of damage on the infrastructure and minds of the powers directing such attacks. Equipment is replaceable. Human lives and personnel are not. Tyrannical governments throughout the ages have long laughed down mass demonstrations and protests as forms of "resistance". These tactics do not inflict much harm against such governments and their resources and could be crushed very easily, often with brute force. It is a wholly different game when the people begins actively resisting and killing their oppressors. It is a wholly different game when tyrannical military and police leaders read the after-action reports of a particular raid and realize that several of their own members have also died in action. It does not take a few more such disastrous operations, each one with several soldiers being killed, that commanders and politicians of oppressive regimes begin to feel the heat of reality bearing down on them. And how many of the remaining soldiers, even if they at first were diehard followers of the tyrannical regime, would be willing to go on another expedition knowing that he may very likely be the next one to die? It would be utter chaos and terror. It is one thing to round up entire towns and cities of defeated, unresisting sheep and going back home for a beer after the end of each day. It is another thing to come back from an operation, if you are one of the lucky ones to come back, and see the body bags containing the remains of your own comrades who had been alive just a few hours prior. And it is a whole another thing now, to know that the folks who killed your comrades are also a group of people who do not fear being killed themselves, and that their freedom and the freedom of their loved ones are everything worth sacrificing their lives for.

I am sure many people on this board are familiar with a certain American flag that consists of 13 stars in a circle with 3 vertical bars running down the center of that circle. It is the "III" or "Three Percenter" flag and it appeared in mainstream use around 2008 or so. It refers to the fact that during the Revolution, only 3 percent of the colonial population actively resisted the British. And these 3 percent, a measly portion of the population, had inflicted a lot of damage against the occupying force. These three percent are not only ones who took up arms and fought, but willingly sacrificed their own lives if need be. And that was what terrified the hell out of the British. Someone who is so focused on a goal or mindset that they did not mind dying for these beliefs.

The idea of the armed citizen is NOT the one man army. The tattered, emotionally and physically scarred but still formidable lone rebel seated on a growling Harley-Davidson, standing in the face of a vast horde of unholy minions and raking them down with his AR-15 and his fiery scythe of justice. That is not how the armed citizen works. The idea of the armed citizen is that, when the storm is finally here, to not go down whimpering, but fighting to the end, and making sure that your oppressors pay very, very dearly for their prize. You may or may not be able to see the end of the dark times, but you, and many people like you, will ensure that hopefully, their future generations may live in a world where the sun shines again.

I would imagine things like pulse rifles, lasers, etc will probably be regulated out of civilian hands once they get to a point they're practical weapons.

Weaponized lasers, or lasers that can be weaponized, already exist and have existed for some time. And the main mechanism through which a laser can be used as a truly terrifying and demoralizing weapon is it's capacity to blind someone. Many hobby sites sell blue and violet laser diodes that can sear straight through a sheet a cardboard up to 100 yards away. Imagine a bank of 6 or 8 diodes mounted on a plastic rifle-like frame with an optical scope and finger-activated trigger. Such a device is highly portable and can be powered by a standard li-ion notebook battery. A pulse of light from that bank, striking an enemy combatant in the face at any range up to 1000 yards away will result in immediate and permanent blindness. As a matter of fact, one of the recent programs on the Chinese CCTV-13 military channel is the concern about the increasing use of lasers to blind and cripple warfighters on the battlefield. There is something about losing one's sight that terrifies many people more than death or conventional battlefield injuries via gunfire or shrapnel.

And not just the crushing psychological impacts to an individual's mind, but imagine the logistical and financial nightmare that would be inflicted upon a nation in the aftermath of such a form of laser warfare. A conventional military engagement resulting in, lets say, 3000 fatalities and 20,000 injuries, will put a burden of having to deal with 3000 permanent losses in personnel. 3000 funerals and having to explain to grieving family members and public on why these 3000 deaths were necessary to national defense. 20,000 other personnel would now have to be cared for and require constant medical attention. That would be another burden placed on the social and financial structure of that hypothetical society. And such figures are just the results of a CONVENTIONAL modern war. Now imagine if 23,000 personnel are coming home from battle, permanently blinded. Do you know how much effort and money would be required for the lifetime care of these 23,000 blinded soldiers? Not to mention dealing with many individuals who would also retain massive psychological damage due to their blindness. Now if you are talking about a modern war such as the one in Syria, the casualty figures would be in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. It would be utterly unimaginable the level of trauma that would be inflicted on the social, financial and logistical mechanism of even the most advanced nation on Earth.

But as for lasers, couple Grand gets you a laser capable of cutting rocks in half, smaller than your fridge. Obviously not man portable, but very much a weapon of incredible power.

Exactly. Lasers, unlike firearms and their components, are incredibly easy to manufacture and store. "Hot" weapons like guns and cannons require extensive knowledge in machining and metallurgy to create, given that these devices must be able to handle the incredible heat and pressure from the burning of explosive propellants. On the other hand, "cold" weapons like archery bows and lasers, the latter which runs on electricity and projects direct energy as it's main product, do not have to deal with the intricacies that would go into building a conventional firearm.

What kinds of arms are necessary to make the Second Amendment relevant in the 21st century? When a government can crank out a limitless drone army that loyally follows orders, does it need to consider what its populace wants?

Like Blue said, we lost parity long long ago.

Not really. Any weapon is a potentially potent tool of reversing such odds. Even a man armed with a puny .22 CB cap revolver, if he knows how to use it properly, can get himself a pulse rifle or plasma blaster...Or an AK or AR. He may have to wipe the blood and brain matter off of the weapon before he can use it, but I doubt it will affect it's function much. You can show up to a machine gun fight with just a muzzleloading musket. If you are showing up charging, running and firing on the run against the guys with the machine guns instead of hiding yourself in a dark corner and taking a carefully aimed shot at unwary stragglers, you are doing it wrong. And if by the end of the fight, you are still using that musket as your main weapon, you are doing it wrong.

[JoeSixpack]

Ya and you can blind APC's with paint and disable tanks with pits.. what's your point?

Mine was simply we lost parity long ago.. that's not disputable.

[Rachen]

Ya and you can blind APC's with paint and disable tanks with pits.. what's your point?

Mine was simply we lost parity long ago.. that's not disputable.

My point is that even though we have lost parity long ago, the Second Amendment still gives us an edge if in case the worst ever happens. Imagine that an army from a hostile country is ready to invade. Who do you think would fare better against a force fully ready for a mobile and fast moving deployment and occupation? The population of present day South Korea, where only a few citizens can own firearms due to draconian laws, and those who actually own guns must keep them at a police station for safekeeping, thus greatly limiting access in case of dire need? Or the present day population of the United States? Especially suburban and rural USA, where you can still find "a rifle on every mantel"? And most of these rifles are actually mag-fed semiautos, and their users are highly proficient in their use from years of hunting and range-practice.

Even in a distant future age of energy weapons and plasma rifles in the 40-watt range, I would rather have an AR or a lever-action Winchester than a broomstick and a dustpan. Sure the broom can be used as a weapon also but the AR would greatly increase my chances of survival against someone bent on vaporizing anyone who does not agree with his political agenda. That is what the Second Amendment is for: To ensure that we have capable weapons in our hands in case the worst scenario happens.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by JoeSixpack

Like Blue said, we lost parity long long ago.

I would imagine things like pulse rifles, lasers, etc will probably be regulated out of civilian hands once they get to a point they're practical weapons.

I agree because the argument against those types of weapons will be that they have no "sporting nature" just like what has happened with machine guns, certain shotguns, small caliber pistols, etc.

The argument that we have to hammer home isn't the 2nd amendment was made only for hunting and sport shooting at a range, it was meant for self defense and resistance to gov't tyranny and oppression.

[JoeSixpack]

We're doing all we can just to hold on to semi automatic rifles, The soccer moms will never let us have a weapon that can melt rocks.

I mean I agree 2a would cover them but we'll never win the public argument, at least not unless someting radical changes politically.