3 ms·

I actually agree that the 2nd amendment exists for this purpose (protect against a tyrannical government) and think that is a good thing. An armed private citiz

I actually agree that the 2nd amendment exists for this purpose (protect against a tyrannical government) and think that is a good thing. An armed private citizen stands zero chance of effecting any defense against our military. None. Zero. It'd be a joke. Futile. Even the most practiced and prepared "militias" would fairly quickly be put down if the full might and focus of the US military where to be trained on them. The most a militia could hope for in such a scenario would be a guerilla warfare style protracted conflict combined with broadcasting a message that would win over the hearts and minds of the general public, that would then cause the US military to stop due to political, not military reasons. But such an outcome is unlikely in the scenario you're presenting, because the military would be controlled by a tyrant, not the public. One thing to note is that under current law you cannot stockpile weapons. And you cannot create bio weapons or cyber weapons. You have no access to massive bombs. The 2nd amendment, in my opinion, has become an excuse for individual to own weapons that are dangerous to private citizens and the safety of the public but of no consequence in a fight against a tyrannical government. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note the "a well regulated Militia" and "a free State" Militia is capitalized. As is State. In politics (and generally internationally "State" has a very different meaning than is commonly used in the USA (in modern times, the founding fathers used it more in line with the way international law understands it to mean). To keep it short, the National Guard, again in my opinion, very effectively fulfills the purposed intended of this amendment. It is a well regulated militia that the State can direct to mount an effective defense against a tyrannical Federal government.

OminousWeapons 6y ago
> An armed private citizen stands zero chance of effecting any defense against our military. None. Zero. It'd be a joke Tell that to the Afghans.
- patagonia 6y ago
  If you call that an "effective" defense, yeah idk what to say. We went in there with impunity, didn't even use the full capabilities of our forces, changed their government, killed over a hundred thousand of people, destroyed their economy, incapacitated their military... So can one individual cause a little damage to the US military? Sure. I wouldn't call it effective by any measure.
jdanp 6y ago
There’s no law banning the “stockpiling” of weapons in any locale of the United States or at the federal level. You can own hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and handguns even in places like NYC as long as you purchase/possess/register the guns in accordance with all local laws.
- patagonia 6y ago
  I should have said "effectively". There is no law saying that explicitly, however, try stockpiling 1000 weapons of the same sort in a manner not meant to be difficult to be noticed and see how long it takes for you to be on someones radar.
loceng 6y ago
It wouldn't be 100% of the military that would likely fall to tyranny or be controlled by a tyrant - there would be splintering and sides taken, who then can support and organize civilian militias. There's really too much nuance and variables to argue this easily such as state of society, how rich or impoverished they are, how healthy or unhealthy they are - including their education - how open their heart and mind is, and so on. A strong stable or stabilizing system - democracy in this case - that is capable of returning to the homeostasis with a forward-evolving movement will take an impressive attack to knock it down. Of course there are bad actors who are trying to do such a thing, and due to all factors Biden won the election - and the Democrats won the Senate as well - so they can implement policy without being blocked by Republicans (nor extorted by giving $ trillions to corporations leveraging the need for stimulus-survival cheques) - and hopefully they implement new policies that will strengthen America and its democracy. I believe Andrew Yang's core policies are the answer to breaking apart the duopoly and taking away the amalgamated power of the small handful of mainstream media channels (TV and newspapers) that amplify and support the duopoly: Democracy Dollars, Journalism Dollars, Ranked Choice Voting, Freedom Dividend/UBI, and Government Healthcare Option ("Medicare For All") to compete against the status quo - so people can become healthy and do their best to prevent dis-ease. I agree with you that the State is an additional layer to reduce, limit, de-risk the potential of tyranny - perhaps then private gun ownership then becomes a layer against each State potentially becoming tyrannical, and if the State starts clamping down on people with bad behaviour - control-oppression-violence - to too severe of a degree, then arguably people will start moving to another State that is in line with their own values. It's all about organization, alignment, and readying for defending against the different layers of potential conflict - whether citizen to citizen, citizen to State, citizen to Federal, State to Federal, Federal to Federal - the fight for democracy-freedom vs. tyranny, globally. Edit to add: It's important when reasoning to understand how these situations unfold - they don't happen overnight and there is time to organize. There will be peak moments that act as signals - whether things are evolving or devolving: Biden was elected is one signal from one side, the continued attempted coup the other day, where sadly a handful of people died, is another signal from the side; like the genocide of Uighurs in China by the CCP is a signal from one side, on global scale. Generally the side that acts first in a physical violence means will be the less rational one, more aggressive and using anger which will blind them to some degree - "blind rage." This is why economic pressure via multi-lateral trade agreements between Democracies is the best starting solution - and with other policy can quickly reenforce the internal strength of those currently leaking economic value, ROI et al, to a bad actor who won't fall in line with freedom, health, non-violence, and so on; none of this is to say the US isn't guilty in some areas of unnecessary violence.

OminousWeapons 6y ago

> An armed private citizen stands zero chance of effecting any defense against our military. None. Zero. It'd be a joke Tell that to the Afghans.

patagonia 6y ago
If you call that an "effective" defense, yeah idk what to say. We went in there with impunity, didn't even use the full capabilities of our forces, changed their government, killed over a hundred thousand of people, destroyed their economy, incapacitated their military... So can one individual cause a little damage to the US military? Sure. I wouldn't call it effective by any measure.

jdanp 6y ago

There’s no law banning the “stockpiling” of weapons in any locale of the United States or at the federal level. You can own hundreds of rifles, shotguns, and handguns even in places like NYC as long as you purchase/possess/register the guns in accordance with all local laws.

patagonia 6y ago
I should have said "effectively". There is no law saying that explicitly, however, try stockpiling 1000 weapons of the same sort in a manner not meant to be difficult to be noticed and see how long it takes for you to be on someones radar.

loceng 6y ago

It wouldn't be 100% of the military that would likely fall to tyranny or be controlled by a tyrant - there would be splintering and sides taken, who then can support and organize civilian militias. There's really too much nuance and variables to argue this easily such as state of society, how rich or impoverished they are, how healthy or unhealthy they are - including their education - how open their heart and mind is, and so on. A strong stable or stabilizing system - democracy in this case - that is capable of returning to the homeostasis with a forward-evolving movement will take an impressive attack to knock it down. Of course there are bad actors who are trying to do such a thing, and due to all factors Biden won the election - and the Democrats won the Senate as well - so they can implement policy without being blocked by Republicans (nor extorted by giving $ trillions to corporations leveraging the need for stimulus-survival cheques) - and hopefully they implement new policies that will strengthen America and its democracy. I believe Andrew Yang's core policies are the answer to breaking apart the duopoly and taking away the amalgamated power of the small handful of mainstream media channels (TV and newspapers) that amplify and support the duopoly: Democracy Dollars, Journalism Dollars, Ranked Choice Voting, Freedom Dividend/UBI, and Government Healthcare Option ("Medicare For All") to compete against the status quo - so people can become healthy and do their best to prevent dis-ease. I agree with you that the State is an additional layer to reduce, limit, de-risk the potential of tyranny - perhaps then private gun ownership then becomes a layer against each State potentially becoming tyrannical, and if the State starts clamping down on people with bad behaviour - control-oppression-violence - to too severe of a degree, then arguably people will start moving to another State that is in line with their own values. It's all about organization, alignment, and readying for defending against the different layers of potential conflict - whether citizen to citizen, citizen to State, citizen to Federal, State to Federal, Federal to Federal - the fight for democracy-freedom vs. tyranny, globally. Edit to add: It's important when reasoning to understand how these situations unfold - they don't happen overnight and there is time to organize. There will be peak moments that act as signals - whether things are evolving or devolving: Biden was elected is one signal from one side, the continued attempted coup the other day, where sadly a handful of people died, is another signal from the side; like the genocide of Uighurs in China by the CCP is a signal from one side, on global scale. Generally the side that acts first in a physical violence means will be the less rational one, more aggressive and using anger which will blind them to some degree - "blind rage." This is why economic pressure via multi-lateral trade agreements between Democracies is the best starting solution - and with other policy can quickly reenforce the internal strength of those currently leaking economic value, ROI et al, to a bad actor who won't fall in line with freedom, health, non-violence, and so on; none of this is to say the US isn't guilty in some areas of unnecessary violence.