11 ms·
> the frankly asinine idea that it's insurance against government overreach Why is it asinine? It is precisely intended to be the insurance of last resort agai
by gottorf 3y ago
> the frankly asinine idea that it's insurance against government overreach
Why is it asinine? It is precisely intended to be the insurance of last resort against a government that turns tyrannical. If your claim is that the might of the US military is so overwhelming that a bunch of rednecks toting AR-15s could be of no match, well, Vietnam and Afghanistan both proved that a determined and armed population is actually quite hard to conquer even for the foremost military power.
The presence of "that guy" doesn't invalidate any Constitutional right. Neo-Nazis wanting to march through Skokie is "those guys" taking the 1st Amendment to the absurd. You could say that the Miranda warning arose as a result of "those guys" defense attorneys taking the 5th amendment to the absurd. They are all still rights held by the people.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoIt's almost not worth trying to explain it. Some people are wired in a way that makes taking care of their own fate terrifying and they're extremely happy to outsource that to a government they know full well to be inefficient and ineffective. *Tanks and drones don't stand on street corners.* F18s can't enforce a curfew. No amount of equipment is going to control a population. We've seen it over. Now all of that is putting aside that anyone seriously thinks our military wouldn't crumble in a second if directed internally? They're reeling from kicking kids out that didn't want covid shots and failing to recruit, watch what happens when even Career Srgt Bootlicker is asked to open fire on a street that looks just like his back home. I'm not interested in entertaining the idea I need firearms to stop the US military. I'm cautious I would need to protect mine against the people that would support something like that.