The revelations that took place during this week’s congressional hearing The Rise Of The Drones have huge implications, not just for the way our nation fights its wars, but also for the way that citizens defend their liberty.
For quite some time, gun enthusiasts have justified their interest in weaponry by citing the second amendment to the Constitution, and claiming that liberty is established through the intimidation of the government by citizens carrying guns. This idea has been a consistent theme at Tea Party protests around the nation, including the one pictured below in Washington D.C., at which protesters from Montana and Utah declared their readiness to come to the nation’s capital, carrying guns, as part of an armed revolution to overthrow the democratically elected government.
These particular would-be revolutionaries seem quite physically unsuited to the task of an armed uprising, and their specific grievances, such as that health care reform will expand the nation’s budget deficit, would sound like an inadequate justification for violent revolution to most people. Let’s forget the flaws of their individual protest, however, and focus on the underlying idea: That when liberty is threatened by unscrupulous leaders in the government, citizens with guns can spontaneously rise up and make sure that freedom survives.
How is a citizen militia with guns supposed to deal with a government army consisting of thousands of robotic soldiers of the sort pictured below?
These three military robots are quite real. They’ve been bought by the US military, just a few examples of the many kinds of robotic weapons under development and now being used both in the air and on the ground. They’re often operated by remote control by someone who sits at a safe distance, attacking human beings through an interface eerily reminiscent of first person shooter video games. Even the tank you see at the left, which is capable of high speeds while it fires its guns, is a robot, remotely controlled.
Thousands of military robots are already in use, and this robot army will soon number in the tens of thousands, according to testimony at this week’s hearing held by the House National Security and Foreign Affairs Subcommittee. Some robots of this sort are also being deployed by the military and the Department of Homeland Security within the borders of the United States, and lobbyists for arms merchants are pushing for increased domestic use of these robots by all sorts of government agencies.
How could a group of citizens, even a million strong, defeat these robots? They’d have to have killer robots of their own. Guns wouldn’t do the job, even if they’re held by more fit bodies than those of middle-aged Tea Party protesters. No gun could stop the Ripsaw MS1 robot tank, or bring down a predator drone armed with missiles in the sky.
So, if the second amendment is to serve as the basis for keeping violent revolution by American citizens viable, we’re going to have to learn to accept our neighbors not just being armed with guns, but with robots capable of extreme violence. If Tea Party protesters aren’t arguing in favor of a right to own killer robots, then their talk about guns amounts to nothing more than vain posturing.
Your argument is nonsensical. Saying that we civi’s aren’t trying to acquire military grade weapons so the second amendment no longer applies is complete bullshit. The government has limited the second amendment to civilian class weapons and keeps trying to limit those weapons further. The second amendment is there for the protection of the people, so they may defend themselves. The government cannot guarantee the defense of its citizens. As hurricane Katrina demonstrated. There will always be times of emergency when weapons will be needed, if nothing else than for hunting or protection against looters. Right now there has been recent incursions in the South West US by Mexican drug gangs. So far the government has not been able to ensure adequate protection against these criminals. The government is always going to be behind the eight ball in any kind of emergency. It takes them quite a long time to mobilize. While the government is mobilizing, it is up to locals to fill the gap in the meantime. Having guns and having short wave radio’s serve similar purposes.
Loki, you’re not paying attention to the argument that I’ve actually made. You’re arguing against something you think I’m saying. I never said “the second amendment no longer applies”. I’m talking about the Tea Party’s argument, as represented in those protest signs pictured in the article, that gun ownership is necessary because it enables a citizen uprising against the government.
If you’re not going to actually read what the article says, I don’t understand how you can hope to refute it.
So I need to quote the article so you can be reminded what you wrote. Fine.
“For quite some time, gun enthusiasts have justified their interest in weaponry by citing the second amendment to the Constitution, and claiming that liberty is established through the intimidation of the government by citizens carrying guns.”
It’s not until after this sentence that you mention the Tea Party. Notice in this sentence how you say “gun enthusiasts”, this describes anyone who advocates gun ownership. Even though you mention the tea party a lot in the rest of the article, the article is generally anti-gun. You also forget that wars are fought with brains. Weapons, whether they be sword and shield or nuclear tipped missiles, are simply tools. Many wars throughout history have been won against opponents with superior technology.
Loki, where did I say “the second amendment no longer applies”?
You’ve written about criminal deterrence, but that’s not what the article is about. Try again, Loki.
You’re acting like a child. The whole article is your attempt to discredit the second amendment. You imply, throughout the article, that because we aren’t allowed military grade weapons, that we don’t need any weapons. You throw out statements such as these:
“How is a citizen militia with guns supposed to deal with a government army consisting of thousands of robotic soldiers of the sort pictured below?”
“How could a group of citizens, even a million strong, defeat these robots? They’d have to have killer robots of their own.”
“If Tea Party protesters aren’t arguing in favor of a right to own killer robots, then their talk about guns amounts to nothing more than vain posturing.”
The last statement sums up your article. If we don’t have military hardware, we don’t need guns at all. Granted you used “Tea Party protesters” in your last statement but you have been conflating “Tea Party” people with gun advocates throughout the article.
Low Key, I’ve been reading this exchange, and it looks like you’re trying to stuff this square peg article into a round hole you’ve pre-conceived.
The questions of the article are PRACTICAL questions: given that people have guns and the government has thousands of attack robots, HOW would a confrontation go down? The statement at the end is the author’s answer: um, the robots are so gonna win.
Nowhere does the author say that people “don’t need guns at all.”
Nowhere does the author say “I oppose the second amendment.”
Recognize that you’re bringing those notions along with you. Try re-reading the article and thinking about what it could mean without those notions inserted alongside.
Or not. I mean, you could just keep insisting that what isn’t there is there. But that’ll probably be pretty frustrating.
Loki, you’re really not engaging with the logical structure of the article. It seems that you’re reading certain statements, looking for reasons to have emotional reactions against them, and then finding what you’re looking for.
Do you not agree that a person holding a gun fighting against a military robot such as the Ripsaw MS1 would be doing so in vain? The talk of rebelling against the government with guns, when the government has superior firepower far beyond rifles, is mere posturing, because it could never actually work.
Get it?
The whole line of reasoning of the article is completely flawed.
Using small arms against an armored target is not an appropriate choice. To attack an armored target you would either use a large bore weapon such as a Barret Model 82A1, which requires no special license to own or a shaped charge IED, which anyone can learn to build. This an example of why wars are fought with brains and not technology.
Pitting an argument of small arms versus armored military equipment is the nonsensical argument. Discussing peoples right to own guns in the same article as armored military equipment is an attempt to discredit gun advocates. Just because some wackos want to over through the government doesn’t mean that they would be using only small arms to do it. Right now there is a massive black market supply chain that brings drugs into the US. If there were to be a sudden demand for anti-armor and anti-aircraft weapons, how long before they would switch or expand into weapon trafficking?
Why would someone wanting to have an armed rebellion stick to legal weapons? That’s just completely stupid. The whole line of reasoning in the article is idiotic.
For instance, an armed rebellion in the US occurs. Where’s the front line and where’s the rear area? When a drone pilot is running a mission right now, they sit secure in the US or Europe. If they are running the drones against targets in the US, suddenly they are no longer safe and secure. They now have to worry about infiltrators and turn coats because the US military is rife with Christian nut jobs.
What you should be discussing is the odds of partisans facing trained veteran troops.
Okay, Loki – can you see the gap in your argument? On the one hand, you claim to be writing in defense of legal gun ownership, but in defense of the logic of legal gun ownership, you have to resort to giving your gun owners illegal non-gun weapons such as anti-aircraft missiles. Do you realize that you’re actually reinforcing the argument I’m trying to make?
No I’m not. I’m pointing out your ridiculous arguments. Gun ownership doesn’t have anything to do with military robots (equipment). Intimidation of the government is not the reason for gun ownership. Your insistence on tying these things together is just stupid.
In my last post I was simply trying to high-lite the ridiculousness of your argument by pointing out that rebels would not limit themselves to civilian equipment.
Are the Afghan resisters using killer robots to win?
I don’t know the answer to your question. But I know that the Pakistani government is seeking flying robot drones, and also that Iraq resistance has hacked into American systems.