3 ms·

Citizens of US are in the exceptional position that they can actually force things - as gun is legally owned. Other countries are not so lucky if such things o

• krapp 7y ago
  >Citizens of US are in the exceptional position that they can actually force things - as gun is legally owned. >Other countries are not so lucky if such things occur - they just wait for the next election and hope for the best... Are you implying that armed revolutions don't occur in other countries, or that such a revolution would actually be legal in the US because the guns are legally owned? If so, you would be wrong on both counts. The only thing the Second Amendment buys Americans who want to "force change" is the convenience of not needing to procure arms through a black market, as other countries do. The "politics by other means" part, though, is illegal everywhere. In that sense, American citizens aren't in that exceptional a position as anywhere else.
• loeg 7y ago
  There is no legal way for US citizens to actually use their legal-to-own guns to create beneficial policy change.
  • jacobush 7y ago
    Yep. It worked briefly in California but the Mulford Act [0] put a quick end to that. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
• mannykannot 7y ago
  If the second amendment of the constitution is supposed to be the guarantor of civil rights in the USA, it does not seem to be working too well. I put somewhat more faith in the first amendment and cellphones with cameras.
• chaz6 7y ago
  A revolution against the largest military in the world does not have a lot of chance to succeed.
  • jacobush 7y ago
    If it actually went that far, the military would splinter and pick sides.