3 ms·
> 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 ha
by 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 agoThis 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.)