4 ms·
GP was responding to a hypothetical situation where the military does not care about the law and supports the president unconditionally. In this situation does
by yadaeno 2y ago
GP was responding to a hypothetical situation where the military does not care about the law and supports the president unconditionally. In this situation does the 2nd amendment make sense?
- mrguyorama 2y agoNo, because by resisting at all you are already criminal, so why does it matter that you are legally allowed to own firearms when 2A supporters insist that banning firearms does not limit access to firearms? A tyrannical state will not care that you are "legally" allowed to own firearms, and rebels do not get rights. Also, I'll believe the claim that 2A is to prevent tyranny when I see it, because most of the time when you ask someone who supports the 2nd amendment about slave revolts, you tend to find out how little they care about "tyranny"
- all2 2y agoConsider the context into which the amendment was written; a very bloody war between Crown loyalists and separatists (all British subjects, mind you) had just been completed. The idea of a United States citizen was still a dream. That individuals owned and operated their own weapons was the sole reason the separatists won. I'll point to a more recent example: the Los Angeles riots in 1992. Koreatown was protected by gun toting citizens, literally fending off the mob. (Whether we categorize the mobs as tyrannical is more pedantic than anything else, the men with weapons maintained their agency because of the threat of lethal force. Guns against a government yield the same end, maintaining agency when others may try to take it from you.)
- kuhsaft 2y agoMaybe when weapons were more limited in destruction. But, now the government has weaponry supremacy, and I don’t think you would want anybody to have access to artillery, fighter jets, etc.