But the 2A is insufficient at this point, as we all know. As it stands now, the private citizen “arsenal” is not a check on the standing army - there’s nowhere near parity between the two “sides”.
So, if there truly - truly - fear the tyrannizing government that is to come, then something has to be done about that lack of parity. So, what is it if not calling for some action on the standing army we have?
Well, as I said earlier, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.
That’s assuming the US military would remain as is in the event a tyrannical government took power. I’m not convinced it would.
It’s being brought under state public accommdoations law that says you can’t discriminate based on age in your place of public accommodation (so, basically businesses in Oregon). There’s no federal issue or law in play. The plaintiff is saying he is being discriminated against under this state provision (which protects people beginning at 18).
I read up on this recently, too - about a third of states have some form of this kind of law.
Hmmm, that’s interesting. I would have thought this would be a federal issue due to the policy applying to all of Dicks Sporting Goods, which operates nationally.
I generally try to stay out of these gun-control / 2A debates, but this is a point that fascinates me.
It seems that in many countries with a tyrannical government, the military does remain mostly loyal to the government (I mean, that’s kind of what lets them remain tyrannical, right?)
We (the United States) believe that this would be different here because…uh, we’ve been brought up and fostered with this philosophy of freedom, and hope that our military men and women would remember that? Are we really sure that’s what would actually happen in the event of a tyrannical government?
We have AR-15s. They have A-10 Warthogs, Apaches, fighter-bombers, drones, missiles, the list goes on and on.
I agree to a point, but that is independent of the 2A. If you’re right about what the 2A is about, it was designed to create parity, not a Hail Mary, “puncher’s chance” that maybe, just maybe, the citizens can win against the government if all the stars line up and we get extremely lucky.
So, we can agree to disagree, but the 2A fetishists crowd isn’t making sense. If the threat is that real, they’d be doing a Hell of a lot more than calling for keeping restrictions off semi-autos. In other words, the fears they say they have and their rhetoric aren’t matching up to their proposed call for actions - making me simply not believe them.
No, of course, we can’t be sure. However, based on my experience, I find it extremely unlikely that the rank and file would carry out unlawful orders against their families, their homes, their towns. I think they would splinter on the issue the same way American’s split on all kinds of issues.
I do; however, also think this:
Does actually play a role. Most nations with oppressive governments indoctrinate the exact opposite and that is, at least partially imo, why an uprising doesn’t happen in those countries.
Again, in my experience, Marines see their role as a protector of Americans and the American way of life. Not the government. Not politicians.
It’s difficult to square the concept of protecting Americans with firebombing Baltimore.
All operated by Americans who would have to drop bombs on their own towns and their own families in order to effectively neutralize an American gorilla force.
All needing resources with supply lines that could be attacked/sabotaged.
Have you read about the state of our F/A-18 fleet?
I think it should be taken into consideration when determining if the 2A is still enough to check US Military power. In other words, the current scale and scope of the military would not, imo, be what a revolutionary force would face.
Okay, well now I think citizens should be allowed to buy full armed tanks 
I think part of the issue is that a lot of American’s see patriotism and the military as synonymous, which I think is part of the disconnect. I agree that you would think someone that believes we’re on the brink of tyranny would push for a smaller military.
I think, when we talk about the government or politicians, we often have an us and them mentality. Like they’re a completely different breed of American.
You have to remember, people in the military are average Joe’s like the rest of us. They’re not career politicians groomed since boarding school to be POTUS. They’re the sons of plumbers and electricians and accountants and school teachers and daughters of pilots and engineers and so on and so forth. And they all come from every inch of the country from Birmingham to St. Paul.
These are quintessential Americans. I just don’t see the majority of troops falling in line to oppress other Americans.
Not understanding how arguing that the US military could and WOULD carry out the unlawful orders of a despotic regime, throwing off the last lines of constitutional restraint, is helpful for new gun restriction proposals. It leaves me thinking that sure, the odds might be stacked against them, but why in the world would citizens disarm (or put their names on a list for easy government roundup) and voluntarily make their chances at resistance zero? I mean, perhaps people would rather some chance at a fight instead of simply marching their way to the prison camps. Don’t know, but if you are going to argue that the US military COULD be a dangerous, unquestioning tool of a tyrant…Convinces me in the opposite direction.
So in the event the military (mostly) stays loyal, 2A people are fucked.
In the event military isn’t loyal, the leaders at the time wouldn’t have the manpower for said takeover (therefore a non issue?)
Under what circumstances are we thinking we’d have to fight a tyrannical govt? If they have too little, they can’t fight. If they have too much, we can’t fight. If 60% of the military stayed loyal? 40%?
Gosh, that convinces me to join the Anti 2A…
In a scenario where you’re going to lose either way, you don’t get bonus points for dying early in a blaze of glory over falling in line to protect your family
Voluntarily walking to the prison camps doesn’t seem enticing, either.
I’ll bet you’re wrong. Just going to be a few years.
Agreed. That’s why I like to think of it as a potential for the long game/resistance which beats out a useless death.
Having a higher chance of your family not being executed for sharing your last name is just bonus.
You must be separating “2A fetishists” from libertarians, here! I doubt you’d have to look too hard to find the latter calling for that!
Well, it certainly IS a state issue(if any level of government has to make decisions for private entities). However, state issues have previously become federal issues; so who knows?
Not calling for the disbanding of a standing army doesn’t make them wrong on the 2A.
Yes, but you’re assuming that the tyrannical government would simultaneously go to war with the entire civilian population of the US of A and all of the gun holders.
Any tyrant worth his salt knows you have to keep a strong civilian base on your side, unleashing a war against a majority (or even a minority) of your choosing.
If you look at the history of dictators that have managed to survive for a significant period of time, every single one of them had around 35-60% of the population on their side, with Assad being the outlier with around 25%. But that’s a lot more than zero.
I don’t know if there are any comic book fans here, but Brian Wood in his dystopian comic book series DMZ foresaw a civil war between the Federal government and the coastal elites on one side and the “Free States of America” aka the flyover states on the other.
Really? Are you that sure? Here’s one for you - if the troops were told that Muslims are going door-to-door in Dearborn MI waving ISIS flags, killing everyone in households where Bibles have been found, burning down churches and raping every single woman and underage girl - and that they have to go and “clear up Dearborn” and “kill all of those fuckers”
Do you believe that those rank-and-file quintessential Americans would say “no, these are our fellow Americans and US armed forces shouldn’t be used for suppressing domestic violence because it is contrary to the express desires of the Founding Fathers”? or would they go in and kill everyone even remotely suspicious?
Ya, I was in the Marine Corps…
*I don’t hypotheticals on here anymore now that I’m a die hard Clinton supporter.