You see no point in discussing that when there’s steps that can be taken to control the flow of guns to criminals? And you see no reason to discuss every other mass shooting?
In case you didn’t know, that was one of the original intents of the second amendment. The ability to fight against a government that has become tyrannical.
Ah right, so explain how a group of even 50 well trained individuals, (no military careers among them, because that’s the point) is going to stop the US Military in the mountains of Appalachia? Between satellite feeds, drones, missile, artillery batteries, and armored vehicles like the MRAP, what exactly is an armed insurrection going to do? I would remind you that, over 100 years ago the us military was already good enough to win a war where nearly half the US went to war with itself, as a second military, and lost. They were, more or less, equally armed as their opponents in terms of weapons (each individual engagement was decided by skill and numbers, not by what weapons they used) and the south were blockaded into surrender. With the reunification, and 100+ years since it has only gotten stronger, to say nothing of the entrance of the Atomic and Digital Ages.
If the us government wants to stomp on the US people by force, it’s had the capability for over 70 years now. Since that time a re-examination should have happened to either reaffirm the laws and ammendments set forth, or altered them. You can’t reasonably say “then the military should not have X” because that puts the country at a disadvantage on a world stage.
These ammendments were written when it took 30 seconds or more to reload a black powder cartridge. These ammendments were written when you couldn’t send an object into orbit and hang there to watch other humans. It was written when slavery was codified and the norm. Since this document was written we have passed a dozen ammendments to it. Theres not “no way to change the second ammendment” there’s only people willing to allow it to be changed. Nowadays we don’t have issues with feeding colonies, or how to reach a gold rush in them-there moun’ns. We live in a time where more people live in new york city than the founding fathers wrote the document to rule over as a country.
The second ammendment, among the others, is outdated for a different time. It was written to prevent something that, quite frankly, isn’t an issue these days. At the time yeah it was all the rage to have yourself an Independance War because the governing country was oppressive. As was made apparent during the Civil War, and is true now - the average citizens uprising to overthrow the government for any reason won’t happen without military support anyway. And that means military hardware. You only get military hardware from defectors or thieves, neither of which are going to fight a us army base like it’s GTA to get ahold of it.
Any ‘militia’ group like this is just going to get blown to bits by unmanned drones if it comes down to it.
Hypothetically speaking, the real path to resistance would be individuals figuring out ways to assassinate oligarchs and high ranking officials, and having enough success to instill fear in the rest of them.
That alone doesn’t work because even well-meaning people will use the power of the position for their own benefit eventually. We have tried slaying the leaders for centuries, we need to go to the root and eliminate the reigns by which they hold power, but it can at times be a pragmatic act of self defense still.
You bring up an interesting point about the Civil War and I want to ask before making a conclusion. Have there been times when the people “fighting against tyranny” were people that weren’t backwards? (i.e. Wanted to keep slavery, Jan. 6 insurrectionists, etc.)
I suppose the answer would largely be No. Not because they’re “backwards” but because the scenario 2a is alleging is that the government is unpopular and brutal, and deposing it is actually the popular public sentiment, but the government stays in power because of the “army” (as a whole combined navy/army because that’s what they had at the time)
A 2a argument would be like saying the current state of china exists because the average citizen doesn’t have a firearm.
You seem to be forgetting that the military is made up of Americans. Americans who swore to protect the Constitution. Americans who overwhelmingly like the second amendment and guns. Also what the fuck is an F32? If you’re talking about planes like F35s or F22s then that would be a very bad choice. The military operating inside the US would definitely be unpopular and make for more insurgents.
What does “the right of the people” mean? Because the militia (every able bodied man in the nation) should be kept well armed, we ensured the right of the people (everyone) to keep and bear arms.
You see no point in discussing that when there’s steps that can be taken to control the flow of guns to criminals? And you see no reason to discuss every other mass shooting?
If the steps involve removing fundamental rights from me and other US citizens than there is no conversation to be had. The answer is no.
if they remove your fundamental rights, you know, just shoot 'em up
In case you didn’t know, that was one of the original intents of the second amendment. The ability to fight against a government that has become tyrannical.
Ah right, so explain how a group of even 50 well trained individuals, (no military careers among them, because that’s the point) is going to stop the US Military in the mountains of Appalachia? Between satellite feeds, drones, missile, artillery batteries, and armored vehicles like the MRAP, what exactly is an armed insurrection going to do? I would remind you that, over 100 years ago the us military was already good enough to win a war where nearly half the US went to war with itself, as a second military, and lost. They were, more or less, equally armed as their opponents in terms of weapons (each individual engagement was decided by skill and numbers, not by what weapons they used) and the south were blockaded into surrender. With the reunification, and 100+ years since it has only gotten stronger, to say nothing of the entrance of the Atomic and Digital Ages.
If the us government wants to stomp on the US people by force, it’s had the capability for over 70 years now. Since that time a re-examination should have happened to either reaffirm the laws and ammendments set forth, or altered them. You can’t reasonably say “then the military should not have X” because that puts the country at a disadvantage on a world stage.
These ammendments were written when it took 30 seconds or more to reload a black powder cartridge. These ammendments were written when you couldn’t send an object into orbit and hang there to watch other humans. It was written when slavery was codified and the norm. Since this document was written we have passed a dozen ammendments to it. Theres not “no way to change the second ammendment” there’s only people willing to allow it to be changed. Nowadays we don’t have issues with feeding colonies, or how to reach a gold rush in them-there moun’ns. We live in a time where more people live in new york city than the founding fathers wrote the document to rule over as a country.
The second ammendment, among the others, is outdated for a different time. It was written to prevent something that, quite frankly, isn’t an issue these days. At the time yeah it was all the rage to have yourself an Independance War because the governing country was oppressive. As was made apparent during the Civil War, and is true now - the average citizens uprising to overthrow the government for any reason won’t happen without military support anyway. And that means military hardware. You only get military hardware from defectors or thieves, neither of which are going to fight a us army base like it’s GTA to get ahold of it.
Any ‘militia’ group like this is just going to get blown to bits by unmanned drones if it comes down to it.
Hypothetically speaking, the real path to resistance would be individuals figuring out ways to assassinate oligarchs and high ranking officials, and having enough success to instill fear in the rest of them.
That alone doesn’t work because even well-meaning people will use the power of the position for their own benefit eventually. We have tried slaying the leaders for centuries, we need to go to the root and eliminate the reigns by which they hold power, but it can at times be a pragmatic act of self defense still.
You bring up an interesting point about the Civil War and I want to ask before making a conclusion. Have there been times when the people “fighting against tyranny” were people that weren’t backwards? (i.e. Wanted to keep slavery, Jan. 6 insurrectionists, etc.)
I mean the American Revolution was a bunch of rich guys that didn’t want to pay their share of taxes?
It has happened https://capitolweekly.net/black-panthers-armed-capitol/
I suppose the answer would largely be No. Not because they’re “backwards” but because the scenario 2a is alleging is that the government is unpopular and brutal, and deposing it is actually the popular public sentiment, but the government stays in power because of the “army” (as a whole combined navy/army because that’s what they had at the time)
A 2a argument would be like saying the current state of china exists because the average citizen doesn’t have a firearm.
Tl:Dr
This is the part that kills me. All these 2a goons going on about fighting tyrants are out of their minds.
lolololol you guys vs F32s
lol tell that to vietnam. And Afghanistan.
I mean, Afghans/Vietnamese vs F32s, versus you guys vs. F32s lololololollololol
You seem to be forgetting that the military is made up of Americans. Americans who swore to protect the Constitution. Americans who overwhelmingly like the second amendment and guns. Also what the fuck is an F32? If you’re talking about planes like F35s or F22s then that would be a very bad choice. The military operating inside the US would definitely be unpopular and make for more insurgents.
Rights are made up. If we say you don’t have “the right” to own particular weapons in particular cases, then you don’t.
What does well regulated militia mean?
What does “the right of the people” mean? Because the militia (every able bodied man in the nation) should be kept well armed, we ensured the right of the people (everyone) to keep and bear arms.