:::::::So, yeah, as you can probably guess, the SOP system fits right in with the definition of gun control, which the game definitely treats as a very bad thing. That's another reason why I needed to know, so I'd have absolute assurance that the second amendment will not under any circumstance allow for the kind of world that Liquid Ocelot advocated, and not actually aid that kind of dystopic world Ocelot envisioned. I hope I've explained myself well. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 22:40, 27 November 2016 (EST)
Okay, I skimmed through the transcript and skipped through the video. I may have missed something important, but I'll answer based on my understanding of this, and specifically the sections you set as bold.<br />
It seems one ides in here is the overthrow of the government and its secret alliance by individuals banded together to fight it. While I think part of our foundering fathers' reasoning behind the second amendment was that the people could rise up against an oppressive government, this just can't happen anymore. The government usually holds to very strict rules regarding the engagement of dissenting citizens, but face it, semi-automatic firearms are no march for the machine guns, explosives, aircraft/drones, lasers, railguns (granted, still in development), and all of the other weapons (including chemical) which they have at their disposal. Add to that drone, electronic, and satellite surveillance, and there is nowhere for such upstarts to hide. In the day, muskets were the most high-tech and efficient weapon available. The people are no longer allowed to own the newest, best weapons (which may or may not be good--I do question the wisdom of selling RPGs at WalMart). In any case, the military equipment needed to overthrow even the U.S. government from within, regardless of the other countries in this functional alliance, is just not available.<br />
Regrading the ID control, user protected weapons, and other nanotechnology preventing solders from performing unauthorized actions, I'd like to say first that technology hasn't gotten that far. I've though that guns could be locked to a specific fingerprint or embedded RFID chip, but to my knowledge, no such thing yet exists. Regardless, nanotechnology does not have the kind of ability spoken of--at least not yet. For that kind of control, interfaces with the brain, brainstem, and spine would be needed. Since they don't even know how the brain works for certain, this is probably a long way off. In any case, individuality is built into our culture. I can't see anyone consenting to this kind of control--even the democrats of today would resist it (although democrats of the past sounded remarkable like conservatives, so they still could change, and start approving of this). To some extent, this should be kept in mind so as to avoid it. As Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." We should be vigilant, but I don't think it even could be a problem for quite some time yet.<br />
Getting back on topic, even if they could do this, it has no relation to the second amendment. The people have a right to have and bear arms, and to form a militia. Neither the individual nor the militia will have the resources to use such technology, so it would be the federal military using this, not those people. In face, the second amendment could prove vital in the prevention of such technological oppression, because the people still retain some small military strength, and therefore cannot pushed around so easily.<br />
Anyway, I'm rambling again, but I hope this at least partially answers your second question. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 14:07, 28 November 2016 (EST)
:I was more concerned with the whole "America descending into chaos and become the wild west again with no law or order" bit as a result of the Patriots being destroyed, but I guess I'll settle with that for now (that being said, I still need an answer that specifically addressed that whole wild west lawlessness thing in the future, as that's the one I'm most concerned with, since the way Ocelot was talking made it seem as though the second amendment, or at least getting rid of gun control, actually encourages people to behave like psychopaths and slaughter each other for fun.).
:And I might as well ask this, since I don't think I got an answer for that bit, can you explain how the [[Cordeliers Club]] can get away with the kinds of stuff regarding using shotguns to execute people with crowds being entertained by that and still claim they were inspired by our founding documents, including our Constitution and by extension our second amendment (something that even Conservapedia claimed was the case), and also at the same time outrank the Jacobins in terms of being radical? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 07:09, 24 December 2016 (EST)
::Hi. Think you can address the part about the Cordelier's Club in particular (since even Conservapedia specifically stated that they were directly inspired via their horrid and extremely radical acts by our own United States Constitution, which would naturally include the Second Amendment.) and the bit about Ocelot's statements about second amendment principles, or at the very least getting rid of gun control, will inevitably drive people to act like psychopaths who kill each other for fun like the popular conception of the Wild West? Like I said, I still need that resolved, and it was never really answered before then. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 21:41, 6 October 2017 (EDT)