Which is an argument against me being disarmed. Assuring me that the US could try, and would have the means, to oppress/kill me doesn’t convince me that the 2A is wrong-headed. But the opposite. Some people would at least have a chance at a fight, then to be led like cows to their slaughter, lined up against a wall.
Basically what I am eluding to.
Yes, but my point was, if tyrannical regimes taught us anything, it wouldn’t be Americans vs. the tyrannical Federal government but a large part of Americans and the Federal government vs. a designated “enemy” group of other Americans,
The US military being willing and able to kill/oppress isn’t an argument for gun control…
You have little to no chance. So disarm, so you’ll have no chance at all…
I am also confused by this approach.
And they would have their arms. Some would rather attempt a fight, than be led like cattle to the shooting wall.
The case for the 2A is unwittingly being made by surrendering the argument about just how dangerous a standing military is.
I think the real takeaway here is that, until the sovereign federal government either collapses or is defeated by another entity, it will decide for itself what is and isn’t a state issue. I agree with tb that this one will remain a state issue. The Federal Government has already claimed the right to control private business(and under circumstances more widely accepted), so it has nothing to gain by getting involved in this one.
1 Like
Don’t fight off the big burly intruder about to rape ones wife downstairs. He may kill you.
Edit: Sometimes, you just have to fight.
Actually, the case for greatly expanding our current view of the 2A’s use of “arms” is made.
And disarming them before-hand saves them from their government and fellow country-men how, again?
Again,
There are roughly 1.5-2M troops many of which have never even qualified on a single weapons system. I don’t know what percentage of that is combat and combat support, but I bet it’s only half if not less. And, only a portion of these folks would ever, imo, take up arms against other Americans.
Against potentially 10s of millions of armed Americans defending their homes. I don’t think that’s as one-sided as people think.
I mean, if the argument is that the US military is/would be an unquestioning super power military…Who are we waiting to save us in Dearborn, MI? The EU? Either all is hopeless, or it isn’t.
Well, are those AR-15s a crucial bulwark against tyranny that has to be preserved at all costs or is simply “better something than nothing” in the case that the hypothetical tyrannical government attacks?
Yes, but to reiterate again - it wouldn’t be troops vs. the general population but American vs. American.
No one is talking about disarming. What I’ve been saying all the time is that many arguments against gun control (control, not taking away your guns) fetishizing the purity of 2A have become obsolete with the passage of time:
a) A bunch of civilians with AR-15s is not a substitute for a standing army of even an effective guerilla force. And that’s the difference - 250 years ago civilians with muskets in North America were a proxy for a professional standing army.
b) All those stockpiled AR-15s haven’t been an effective bulwark against tyranny - otherwise FISA courts, the Patriot Act, NSA spying and all those liberty-infringing encroachments from the government would not have happened, legislators would have feared reprisals from all those 2A freedom-loving gun owners.
So when you’re buying a new scope for your AR-15 you’re engaging in your favorite hobby and not standing as a bulwark against the tyrannical government. And people don’t like hearing that, because it’s always cool when you can claim that your hobby is serving a higher purpose…
1 Like
I mean, I think I’m fairly positive about the general ‘goodness’ of our rank and file. But, I would feel foolish saying this will always be the case. And it seems that others would feel just as foolish trying to make the argument that a standing army could never be a danger to us. Indeed, the argument is that not only is it a danger, but one that is hopeless to resist. So, disarm. Or, at least let them know the address of your firearm.
I think the right to “keep and bear arms” is a crucial bulwark against tyranny, yes.
1 Like
Sure you are. Your military and civilian cronies now have the addresses to disarm those Dearbon residents who still own the target shooters they were allowed to have.
Well, no. You and others are making the case why the 2A isn’t obsolete. You’re agreeing that the federal government’s standing army is an immense threat.
No, you just accept the new leadership.
That’s easy to say if the leadership isn’t lining your people up against the walls. Not everyone wants to accept that.