3 ms·
That's not accurate, but even if it was, you now have to argue why this time would be different.
by staunch 11y ago
That's not accurate, but even if it was, you now have to argue why this time would be different.
- icebraining 11y agoThe point is that personal gun ownership is irrelevant, if the government has the backing of the military, either you get some heavy weaponry from foreign powers or you're screwed.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoPersonal gun ownership has been enough to get you to the point where you're still alive to get some heavy weaponry from foreign powers.
- brandonmenc 11y agoOr you get heavy weaponry from sympathizers in the military - in the United States there would be many, were they ordered to fire on their own people. I don't understand why opponents of the 2nd Amendment never consider this a possibility, when in fact the military not splintering under those conditions is the fantasy.
- icebraining 11y agoWhy do you need the 2nd Amendment to get weapons smuggled by soldiers, though?
- brandonmenc 11y agoCorrect, you don't. I was just pointing out that opponents of the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment being a counterweight to an oppressive government almost always say, "you can't fight the army with rifles!" That argument is coming up a lot in this thread.