One aspect of the U.S. Second Amendment that I struggle to understand is how owning firearms can be seen as a check against government power in the modern era. No matter how much money an individual spends on collecting weapons, they can never match the resources of a government with access to advanced technology like orbital GPS networks, fighter jets, drones, bioweapons, logistics, and nuclear weapons.
When the Amendment was written, weaponry was still in its early stages of development, and the assumption was that a well-armed populace could, with sufficient numbers, overthrow a tyrannical regime. However, in today’s world, this seems unrealistic. Even if someone owned a thousand .50 caliber Desert Eagles, it wouldn’t make a significant difference against such overwhelming governmental power.
The Vietnamese and Afghans could probably tell us a thing or two.
One aspect I don’t think many appreciate is the deterrent effect of private gun ownership. The fascists would have already overrun us were we not armed. Notice the major ICE raids have been in NYC and California? Those are the two places in America with the strictest, and often dumbest, gun laws. Anecdotally, being visibly armed likely saved me two ass beatings in the past year. LOL, one guy was so fucking mad he was shaking, choking himself to be polite.
Most of our military might can’t be brought to bear on civilians. The examples you gave are purpose built to fight another military on their turf. The Air Force isn’t going to deploy fighter jets to put down a riot. And NONE of those things will continue working about a week after civilians pull support.
Guerilla warfare works. It’s great against large systems with small vulnerabilities. In those cases a small imbedded group is far better than outside force.
I hear.
Would have already overrun us?
They have.
Look who is in charge. The fascists won by courting the far right and telling them they needed guns. Now they have the guns and the government.
They have the guns and the government because liberals disarmed themselves.
You see, if the government bombs it’s cities flat, it no longer has anything to govern, and falls anyways.
What we need are armed protests. Something you can’t just easily police thug your way out of. We can all go protest and wave signs all we want, but until those in power are once again afraid of it’s people, nothing will change.
One aspect of the U.S. Second Amendment that I struggle to understand is how owning firearms can be seen as a check against government power in the modern era. No matter how much money an individual spends on collecting weapons, they can never match the resources of a government with access to advanced technology like orbital GPS networks, fighter jets, drones, bioweapons, logistics, and nuclear weapons.
No shit they’ll just burn your place to the ground Tulsa style. USA is quickly becoming North Korea.
Because the military would fracture during a civil war.
So what your saying is we need to give people more weapons to even up the fight.
even much simpler than that… being more than just one guy.
The government still needs people to enforce their laws, you can’t use fighter jets, bioweapons, and nuclear weapons against your own citizenry without losing legitimacy and leading to a civil war where foreign governments would arm all sides. Take a look at Syria, they successfully overthrew the Assad regime with the support of other nations.
We currently have armed unidentified state thugs snatching random minorities off the streets, that’s the sort of government abuse that could be stopped if liberals were armed. The state can only go so far in using force against their own citizens before it fractures and we look like the Syrian civil war.
I agree with you that the government is losing legitimacy. However, I’m deeply confused and frustrated by the second part of your argument. The United States was literally built by immigrants from its very beginning. People moved there seeking a future in a brave new world, and this diversity made the country a cultural and intellectual leader in music, literature, science, and finance. Yet now, immigration is somehow viewed as negative, largely because a few loud voices claim immigrants are criminals or spread absurd rumors like them eating dogs.
What’s even more troubling is how politically divided the country has become. The simple act of helping a fellow human— a fellow American—avoid unjust ICE arrests is labeled a “liberal” issue. In my view, watching Americans being essentially kidnapped by government-paid agents is exactly the kind of tyranny the Second Amendment was meant to prevent. This division and inaction feel entirely pointless and contrary to the values the nation was founded on if i am to be convinced by conservative side.
Oh I’m by no means a conservative, I’m just trying to be descriptive. Conservatives are largely fully on board with ICE rounding up random brown people. They don’t value the 2nd amendment as a means of resisting government tyrany because they aren’t doing it, they’re on the side of the tyrants.
This is precisely the type of tyrany the 2nd amendment should prevent, but because guns have largely become a conservative issue, we’re stuck in the worst possible position of having both a lot of guns and tyranny.
Look at somewhere like Syria. Governments still get taken down by armed revolutionaries. Yes, there is the issue that governments are better armed. But there are a few fatal flaws in the idea that this makes them invincible:
-
A lot of expensive weapons systems like airplanes and tanks can be taken out by much cheaper and accessible systems like MANPADS and drones.
-
There will be people on the side of the rebels with previous military experience that will know how to use the heavier weapons.
-
Groups of revolutionaries armed with civilian-accessible weapons can find lightly defended military bases, storm them, and seize heavier weapons.
-
Rebel groups always receive outside assistance from foreign powers.
If a group of revolutionaries deposes the California state government, declares the New California Republic, and tries to secede from the US, they won’t be fighting with AR-15s for long. They’ll be using the strongest available civilian weapons to raid National Guard armories and other locations that may not be so heavily defended. They may even do so with the tacit support of those working at those facilities. Then their goal will be to hold out long enough against the US government that they can petition foreign powers like China to support their rebellion against the US federal government.
Revolts don’t happen in a vacuum. Rebels don’t need to hold out against the central government indefinitely armed only with light weaponry. At the end of the day, there’s going to be some other well armed country out there that’s going to be more than happy to see their geopolitical rival be embroiled in a war of secession. If California decided to rebel on Monday, by Friday the PRC would be loading every drone, antitank missile, and MANPAD they can find into crates, ready to smuggle them in container ships past the US Navy. Even if China didn’t support the aims of the California rebels, it wouldn’t matter. Hell, they wouldn’t even care about the final outcome of the war. They would happily fund heavy weapons to the rebels just to make sure the US federal government was too embroiled in a crisis at home to devote many resources to places like Taiwan.
-
Almost every tyrannical regime in the 20th century systematically disarmed their citizenry, leading to some of the greatest atrocities the world has ever seen. It’s not a coincidence.
That’s not true, they disarmed their undesirables.
However private gun ownership would have done next to nothing in those scenarios anyway.
I guess “undesirables” don’t count as part of the citizenry? You’re only reinforcing my point, that the government stripped firearms from the people they wanted to kill/oppress. If it wasn’t worth doing, nobody would have done it. Instead, Pol Pot, Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin, Kim I’ll Sung, Mao, Mussolini, etc., have ALL taken away firearms in some way from their peoples.
Moving the goalposts a lot is your favourite pastime I guess.
Well one party told gun owners that they’re awful people. Of course a chunk of them are gonna be okay with what’s going on. The people who hated on them are being “owned”. Can you blame them for not rising up to fight the party that pretends to give them lip service?
can you blame them
Yes.
“A Republic, if you can keep it”
They can’t do the work because their feelings were hurt? I will absolutely blame them
I mean, the rest of the western world already knows this for decades. You silly Americans are just starting to try and catch up.
We love us some guns
😢
What a hot take, as if firearm owners are all the same, as if there are not left leaning gun owners.
The result of several decades from NRA successfully screaming Dems gonna get you guns!
And dems demonizing gun ownership. Seems it worked out great for the right (er) wing.
No, it really didn’t benefit them in any meaningful way.
Widespread gun ownership has gotten an enormous number of innocent people killed though.
There aren’t enough leftist gun owners, sadly.
As clearly can be seen by the distinct lack of ICE shootouts.
Personal firearms have basically never been used to resist government tyranny in the US or entire rest of the developed world in modern times.
What does consistently work is mass mobilization and turning out in numbers.
Yeah, did you read the examples you gave?
Your literal only modern example is a case in Fiji, an island with a population the size of Nashville, Tennessee, and army of 6,500 people.
And the coup was only successful because the special forces unit of the army that was run by a former SAS commander joined the coup and armed them.
IRA does not count? Really? The dropping of small arms for resistance fighters? Come on, you are getting as selective as you are wrong.
You’re referring to the Provisional IRA? The group that primarily used military weapons smuggled in from Libya?
Tell us again how successful they were in their goals of ending British rule in Northern Ireland.
Personal firearms have basically never been used to resist government tyranny in the US or entire rest of the developed world in modern times.
Please show us where success was required in the request?
Oh so you’re advocating for resisting in unproductive ways that don’t accomplish your goals? Glad to get that out in the open.
Also, the Provisional IRA primarily used military weapons leftover from WW2, modern ones to the era smuggled in from Libya, and homemade IEDs, so not a particularly relevant example.
It’s interesting that voting rights were sold on the basis of instituting democratic government. They seem to have caused and supported fascist government.
Gerrymandering. Registration purges. Compromised voting machines. Voter suppression and intimidation. Banning mail-in voting. Closing, relocating, and reducing polling sites.
Insert meme: “Is this voting rights?”
I was just failing to point out the non sequitur in the OP. You’re 100% right
Not a bad viewpoint. But I give less credit to voting rights than I do to social media in our downfall.
No! It’s a nonsensical viewpoint, like the OP. I really didn’t think I needed an /s for this.
Yes, Americans voted in a fascist government, but that doesn’t mean that having democratically elected leaders is a primary cause of the problem. Likewise, while it is a real, quantifiable problem that their constitution allows everyone and their emotionally unstable teenaged kids to carry around deadly weapons, the that right being exercised in support of said fascist government does not make it a primary cause thereof.
As you say, the prevalence and influence of social media is more relevant to the US’ current situation, but honestly there are a ton of critical factors and everything is so complicated and oh god I’m getting way too worked up over a stupid showertjoughts post and I just need a drink and a hug. Sorry for ranting.
You guys should take these thoughts somewhere else. This specific sub is for just small silly thoughts not politics like 2a rights and the rise of fascism.
What’s unlawful? You voted them in. Bearing arms against the government is unlawful. Anyone who thinks they can make a stand and shoot a few people to stand up to the government will find themselves arrested quickly and with all their neighbours supporting their arrest.
There is no amount of force that could reasonably be brought that would topple the government.
I did not vote them in. AND they were elected and swore to uphold the Constitution, and they have broken that vow.
BTW, bearing arms against the government is not only legal, it’s constitutional.
The idea of the right to revolt was famously articulated in the Declaration of Independence, which declared that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”
The Declaration went on to argue that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
That’s what most failed governments said. Nothing was ever taken without force.
Ask the native Americans. The Seminoles were badass in Florida, governer kept sending in soldiers to move them, Indians kept killing them all. So many the governor finally said to leave them the fuck alone. One of the only tribes left in Florida. My ancestors were pushed from their land on the trail of tears.
That’s just inherently not true, and something that medieval serfs also probably heard a lot.
That’s kind of been the whole thing about the anti-2a people: they’ve kept saying "the people"in “the militia” are the cops and states (as opposed to the federal government), and the law-and-order conservatives aren’t saying no to militarizing law enforcement, and the pro-gun right for decades (60s-90s) played along with all the “2a is for hunting” nonsense. The point of 2A is for the government to be afraid to do this crap, but 2A is too watered down at this point to have that effect. The kind of population that could live armed as well as any military (not ours) would just have a different behavior in general.
The ones that created the government had to actually fight for their freedom. People became complacent afterwards, and seem to think that freedom is a given.
It reminds me of some quote “freedom isn’t owned, it’s rented, and rent is due everyday.”
How?
Guns are naught but tools. They have no moral nor political ambition. All they can do is provide an amplifier of force, no matter your ideology.
They are tools designed with the singular purpose of killing.
Ignoring that fact is incredibly disingenous.
Sure but I don’t see how people can think certain bans should exist and not others. Sawn off shotguns have been banned for as long as I’ve ever known, yet people don’t question it. The reasoning is they could be dangerous to others on accident. Yet if you take any round .223 with a fmj (cheapest format to buy) it’s going straight through your wall, and through the entire apartment across the hall. So when you fire 3 shots towards the door they are trying to go through, most people with adrenaline or freaking out enough to think a gun is necessary at that point in time, 2 of those rounds are going into the next residence. Even the 1 that hits the person very well might go straight through.
Guy stacked sheet rock up in a row and they went through
.223 - 17 sheets, .308 - 20 sheets, 30-06 - 23 sheets
Granted with gaps between them the wobble will make it more like 3-4… so anyone in the living room/dining room or if the bedroom is towards the wall facing the hall… Is possibly getting a hunk of lead in them.
Hollow points almost make more sense there, as hopefully they’d split on the first sheet rock and the smaller shards may get stuck in the second, if not hopefully not have enough momentum to penetrate a person after if their lucky.
Should they ban those rifles, in my opinion no, but I think if you use one for home defense and fire a round that penetrates into another person’s residence, you should get an attempted murder charge for being irresponsible. It isn’t a moose coming in the front door. For people who believe they need home defense a 9mm hollow point will save money, be easier to navigate in close quarters and dump all the energy into stopping the person instead of going out their back. (Unfortunately for them, much more organ damage, and high chances of death). (Personally I think most should use revolvers anyways if they aren’t using it often, because 20 years from now even if it hasn’t been cleaned, it’s more than likely going to do exactly what you want it to do… while a semi automatic spring loaded contraption, may jam)
I encourage people to educate themselves on guns and what type and size gun is appropriate for what they want to do.
Lots of FUDD here.
Over pen is going to happen on pretty much any round period. Slower rounds with larger mass will go through more usually in real life situations. The drywall videos are ok, but the issue with them is that they don’t show the other shit in the walls. Wires/firestops/insulation/studs. Exterior walls might have brick or stucco with tile. Doesn’t matter the round, you’re going to have over pen. Shoot a deer slug at a 2x4 stud and drywall, vs a 223/556 round…deer slug is winning every time.
Second, a AR pattern rifle is much, much easier to get on target and shoot for pretty much anyone compared to a shotgun or handgun.
Secondly people do call out the absolute bullshit rules of from the ATF and NFA. A shorter barrel doesn’t magically make a firearm more deadly, just like a suppressor doesn’t magically make a firearm silent. FUDD shit.
Lastly, a revolver is trash for defense, there is a reason pretty much every branch of LE or military has swapped to semi-auto mag fed handguns. They are easier to shoot, more accurate, hold more rounds, easier to reload, etc. On top of all this, you shouldn’t be loading something and tossing it in a drawer until you need it. You should be practicing with it at minimum monthly.
Only you don’t accidentally beat someone to death with a hammer.
Speak for yourself.
It’s a lot faster to do it with a car
You don’t accidentally shoot anyone either, it’s negligence.
Let’s not get tied up in semantics but the idea that you can’t “accidentally” shoot someone is nonsense. Whether you call it negligence or not, if it’s not on purpose, then it’s an accident.
They subscribe to the NRA falsehood about “guns don’t kill people etc.”. Such people are usually lost causes.
Accident isn’t a harsh enough word.
In the US a gun is more likely to kill the owner or their family than anyone else.
I’m fairly sure the vast majority of those are accidental.
Well you’d be wrong, overwhelmingly the majority of those are suicides, followed by intentional homicides, and lastly negligence (you can try and remove the negligent party’s guilt by calling them accidents all you want, but the “accident” occurs through blatant negligence every time.)
You: Well you are wrong, because if you don’t count these gun deaths, then there are almost no gun deaths.
Did you not read what I replied to?
I’m fairly sure the vast majority of those are accidental.
Do you define intentional suicides and intentional homicides as accidents or are you being a snarky jackass without a license?
In the US a gun is more likely to kill the owner or their family than anyone else.
People living with handgun owners face twice the risk of homicide, study says
People don’t understand the game.
The things that radical fascist media talking heads are hyperbolically lying about nonstop are justification for invoking 2A rights.
Unfortunately liberals are pussy-assed bitches so nothing will happen and they’ll all be chunked into an oven.
At some point people confused peaceful with harmless. Harmless people who got accustomed to the idea of outsourcing the capacity for violence… but then the vendor had a change in ownership…
That’s what you get if you believe that laws written a quarter century ago are still some kind of holy infallable scripture.
Weapons have changed enormously since then and so has every part of society.
Back when the 2nd ammendment was written, the average weapon of the military and of private citizens would be about the same: front-loaded, single-shot gun. Soldiers had very low standards of training and militias still formed the backbone of the military.
It’s totally possible for a large amount of private citizens to stand a decent chance against the military.
Nowadays a private citizen would have some kind of gun, while the military has tanks, planes, missiles and aircraft carriers. Even if half the country would take up arms, they’d stand no chance against the US military, which makes the whole point of “resisting unlawful government” moot.
Bro look at Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan,
Better toys for your soldiers doesn’t mean you automatically win the war.
On the home turf, yes it does. Also, the US only committed a fraction of their military power in these wars. Do you think the same would happen when the war zone was the US itself?
Well yeah.
quarter millennium
Thanks for spotting the typo
I think you’re wrong.
What are you going to do? Use your semi-automatic peashooter against modern tanks?
No, but you and your buddies could use your peashooters to raid an army base, kill the guards, and steal the keys to the tanks in a surprise raid. This is a very common occurrence in rebellions. When you see Syrian rebels or rebels in other countries, where exactly do you think they got their heavy weapons from? Do you think they made them in a garage somewhere?
“Can’t” never could
That’s when you use the smaller weapons to storm lightly defended military bases and seize the really big guns.
Sure. Because military bases with big guns certainly don’t have the ability to use said big guns.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/world/africa/29libya.html
https://www.france24.com/en/20170808-venezuela-hunts-rebels-behind-military-base-attack-army-maduro
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1925688/putin-russia-ukraine-drone-attack-millerovo-airbase
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/syrian-rebel-seize-military-base-idlib-govt-forces-back-foot
https://sudantribune.com/article56201/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/6/3/ukraine-separatists-lay-siege-to-luhansk-base
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/1/8/syrian-rebels-seize-isil-base-in-aleppo
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/28/syrian-rebel-missiles-assad-aircraft
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/04/11/2003250030
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7794057.stm
https://www.france24.com/en/20160918-india-kashmir-rebel-attack-insurgency-indian-soldiers-killed
https://www.india.com/news/world/air-strike-kills-11-at-rebel-held-yemen-base-official-1172934/
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1988/04/23/11-die-in-attack-at-Sri-Lanka-air-base/5417577771200/
Yours are the words of an armchair porkbelly who has absolutely no idea whatsoever how militaries or revolutions or even guns themselves work.
Get in the cattle car.
… says the armchair porkbelly revolutionary.
How many revolutions did you fight in, mighty keyboard warlord?
this is going great for you
