3 ms·
If the alternative is genocide then I'll take my chances. Asymmetric warfare is a real option and with enough turned generals and armed forces you'd have access
by nemo44x 9y ago
If the alternative is genocide then I'll take my chances. Asymmetric warfare is a real option and with enough turned generals and armed forces you'd have access to the same high powered weapons and the people could form a militia as well.
- ben_w 9y agoGenocide isn’t the alternative but rather the escalation in the hypothetical where the 2nd Amendment is relevant. The US does have nukes, after all.
- microcolonel 9y agoI don't imagine there would be popular support for the U.S. government nuking Americans in Seattle over a sovereignty dispute.
- ben_w 9y agoNeither do I, but the US doesn’t currently have any serious independence movements and last time it did things went very badly indeed.
- dragonwriter 9y agoIt would never be “over a sovereignty dispute”, it would be to stop what the rebels were imminently going to do in that sovereignty dispute. Nuking is extreme, but there will always be (at least, in the eyes of the government) a excuse to escalate to the level beyond what is available to the rebels to protect the innocent threatened by them.
- coryfklein 9y agoIt would only come to nukes if the other side escalated to weaponry just below nukes. In that case, it's not "nuking Americans in Seattle", it's "nuking well organized terrorist cells using advanced weaponry, in order to save further loss of life." The point is that no matter how much "power" the federal government has granted to civilians via the 2nd amendment, the federal government will ALWAYS have more.