4 ms·

That wasn't quite what the 2nd Amendment was originally about; nobody back then could foresee modern policing; if the police or the United States government hav

That wasn't quite what the 2nd Amendment was originally about; nobody back then could foresee modern policing; if the police or the United States government have it out for you, good luck fighting them off with an M16 or AK-47 or even like an RPG. The most likely case is that they just kill you; the best case is, what, that you become a white Ahmed Shah Massoud, maintaining an insurgency in the Appalachias or something?

kristopolous 3y ago
There was a lot of concern about slave uprisings and indigenous insurgencies and there were precedents in the laws of individual colonies, such as Virginia's, where white men were required to own guns for these purposes. Since armed Choctaw rebellions and plantation slave uprisings are of course still a very legitimate concern buying assault rifles at the gun store should be a sacrosanct holy right. We certainly don't want another Haitian revolution on our hands.
seanw444 3y ago
Insurgencies have a recent track record of being quite effective. So, yes. Also, I never said you'd survive such a scenario. Not everyone survived the first revolution. Did that make it a bad idea? Also x2, why do people I speak to about this always get the impression that everyone in the military will unanimously agree that drone striking and nuking its land, resources, and people is a beneficial strategy? Not to mention the immorality of it. There will be splintering. It will be civil war. There's a great chance there will be two US armies, two presidents, etc. when the time comes.
- catlover76 3y ago
  > Also x2, why do people I speak to about this always get the impression that everyone in the military will unanimously agree that drone striking and nuking its land, resources, and people is a beneficial strategy? Not to mention the immorality of it. There will be splintering. It will be civil war. There's a great chance there will be two US armies, two presidents, etc. when the time comes. Because we are thinking about randoms with guns and other weaponry, not organized rebellion/treason a la the Confederacy. edit: wouldn't, in the case of such a massive organized rebellion, engaging in even more brutal and aggressive tactics actually make more sense? The stakes are much higher in that scenario, and wouldn't the United States want to decimate the enemy's supply, etc., as it partly did during the original Civil War?
  - seanw444 3y ago
    What comes after one side wins? Half the land, resources, population, and production? Collateral damage is in both sides' interest to avoid. We can use those tactics in other countries because we don't really care. That all changes on home soil.

kristopolous 3y ago

There was a lot of concern about slave uprisings and indigenous insurgencies and there were precedents in the laws of individual colonies, such as Virginia's, where white men were required to own guns for these purposes. Since armed Choctaw rebellions and plantation slave uprisings are of course still a very legitimate concern buying assault rifles at the gun store should be a sacrosanct holy right. We certainly don't want another Haitian revolution on our hands.

seanw444 3y ago

Insurgencies have a recent track record of being quite effective. So, yes. Also, I never said you'd survive such a scenario. Not everyone survived the first revolution. Did that make it a bad idea? Also x2, why do people I speak to about this always get the impression that everyone in the military will unanimously agree that drone striking and nuking its land, resources, and people is a beneficial strategy? Not to mention the immorality of it. There will be splintering. It will be civil war. There's a great chance there will be two US armies, two presidents, etc. when the time comes.

catlover76 3y ago
> Also x2, why do people I speak to about this always get the impression that everyone in the military will unanimously agree that drone striking and nuking its land, resources, and people is a beneficial strategy? Not to mention the immorality of it. There will be splintering. It will be civil war. There's a great chance there will be two US armies, two presidents, etc. when the time comes. Because we are thinking about randoms with guns and other weaponry, not organized rebellion/treason a la the Confederacy. edit: wouldn't, in the case of such a massive organized rebellion, engaging in even more brutal and aggressive tactics actually make more sense? The stakes are much higher in that scenario, and wouldn't the United States want to decimate the enemy's supply, etc., as it partly did during the original Civil War?
- seanw444 3y ago
  What comes after one side wins? Half the land, resources, population, and production? Collateral damage is in both sides' interest to avoid. We can use those tactics in other countries because we don't really care. That all changes on home soil.