4 ms·

> A state giving its own citizens the right to bear arms in case its own government becomes tyrannical is philosophically one of the most pure "common person" f

> A state giving its own citizens the right to bear arms in case its own government becomes tyrannical is philosophically one of the most pure "common person" freedoms there is because it takes power away from the state in a place it really might matter. Philosophically, I guess, but in actuality it's completely pointless. If the state is taken over by a tyrannical dictator and the military themselves are complicit (don't attempt a coup/rebel against it) then someone owning a handgun is going to be scant resistance.

friend_and_foe 3y ago
This argument doesn't get any more compelling when you use expensive words to say it. Go make this argument to the warlords of Afghanistan or Vietcong. To use the parlance of my opponents, this theory has been debunked.
colejohnson66 3y ago
> If the state is taken over by a tyrannical dictator and the military themselves are complicit (don't attempt a coup/rebel against it) then someone owning a handgun is going to be scant resistance. It's work keeping in mind that the amendment was written when the military and civilians had the same "hardware": muskets and cannons. In those times, protecting against a tyrannical government was entirely feasible with a large enough group. In fact, that's exactly what the USA did ~350 years ago. Granted, they had help from places like France, but they still did it.
- jwestbury 3y ago
  This is largely, but not strictly, true. It's worth remembering that field artillery was in use in many battles prior to this period, and, in fact, had been a major component of the ability of the British government to put down the Jacobites earlier in the 18th century, in the form of movable mortars. (Rebels did have access to some fields guns, but they weren't as useful in the terrain of Scotland, where the high angle of fire of a mortar was particularly valuable.)
ljm 3y ago
Moreover, what if the tyrant has the support of the people and that support is drawn rather plainly down political lines? What if, then, the 2nd amendment is actually used to defend the tyrant? At best the 2nd amendment will just lead to another brutal civil war as the weapons are turned away from the government and to the people on the ‘wrong side’. Like the average Joe would ever stand a chance against a militarised police force anyway. Philosophically pure, maybe, but philosophy needs to be messy if it aims to cover edge cases. Otherwise, too much is open to interpretation.
- true_religion 3y ago
  There are various levels of tyranny. The county I am in (Ghana), had a spree of military dictators for over 30 years but the military didn’t go on a killing spree. Guns are available and the military had the weakest amount of influence in the countryside where many farmers had weapons. Having the half the population armed with handguns would have been a huge restraint on the army since they wouldn’t have been able to operate safely in cities either. While it’s true that it wouldn’t stop indiscriminate genocide committed by the government, most counties are factional and the military is made of people who have relatives in the general pop.
  - vasco 3y ago
    Thanks for illustrating the point I was trying to make. Sure any government could "nuke itself" or kill you in easy ways, but if you look at Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq I think you realize what an armed resistance that believes is fighting for their home can do, and how long they can last. Without guns this changes the balance quite a bit.
colpabar 3y ago
You should really ask anyone who has ever served in the US military what they think would happen if they had to fight the US public. There's a lot more to worry about than "someone owning a handgun". A lot of people think that the tyrant would just nuke parts of the country, but that's not how it would go. You need boots on the ground to occupy an area, and those boots would encounter a lot of resistance. Also, do you remember what just happened in afghanistan?

friend_and_foe 3y ago

This argument doesn't get any more compelling when you use expensive words to say it. Go make this argument to the warlords of Afghanistan or Vietcong. To use the parlance of my opponents, this theory has been debunked.

colejohnson66 3y ago

> If the state is taken over by a tyrannical dictator and the military themselves are complicit (don't attempt a coup/rebel against it) then someone owning a handgun is going to be scant resistance. It's work keeping in mind that the amendment was written when the military and civilians had the same "hardware": muskets and cannons. In those times, protecting against a tyrannical government was entirely feasible with a large enough group. In fact, that's exactly what the USA did ~350 years ago. Granted, they had help from places like France, but they still did it.

jwestbury 3y ago
This is largely, but not strictly, true. It's worth remembering that field artillery was in use in many battles prior to this period, and, in fact, had been a major component of the ability of the British government to put down the Jacobites earlier in the 18th century, in the form of movable mortars. (Rebels did have access to some fields guns, but they weren't as useful in the terrain of Scotland, where the high angle of fire of a mortar was particularly valuable.)

ljm 3y ago

Moreover, what if the tyrant has the support of the people and that support is drawn rather plainly down political lines? What if, then, the 2nd amendment is actually used to defend the tyrant? At best the 2nd amendment will just lead to another brutal civil war as the weapons are turned away from the government and to the people on the ‘wrong side’. Like the average Joe would ever stand a chance against a militarised police force anyway. Philosophically pure, maybe, but philosophy needs to be messy if it aims to cover edge cases. Otherwise, too much is open to interpretation.

true_religion 3y ago
There are various levels of tyranny. The county I am in (Ghana), had a spree of military dictators for over 30 years but the military didn’t go on a killing spree. Guns are available and the military had the weakest amount of influence in the countryside where many farmers had weapons. Having the half the population armed with handguns would have been a huge restraint on the army since they wouldn’t have been able to operate safely in cities either. While it’s true that it wouldn’t stop indiscriminate genocide committed by the government, most counties are factional and the military is made of people who have relatives in the general pop.
- vasco 3y ago
  Thanks for illustrating the point I was trying to make. Sure any government could "nuke itself" or kill you in easy ways, but if you look at Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq I think you realize what an armed resistance that believes is fighting for their home can do, and how long they can last. Without guns this changes the balance quite a bit.

colpabar 3y ago

You should really ask anyone who has ever served in the US military what they think would happen if they had to fight the US public. There's a lot more to worry about than "someone owning a handgun". A lot of people think that the tyrant would just nuke parts of the country, but that's not how it would go. You need boots on the ground to occupy an area, and those boots would encounter a lot of resistance. Also, do you remember what just happened in afghanistan?