It's interesting that gun rights were sold on the basis of "resisting unlawful government." They seen to have caused and supported unlawful government.
It's interesting that gun rights were sold on the basis of "resisting unlawful government." They seen to have caused and supported unlawful government.
You're viewing a single thread.
One aspect of the U.S. Second Amendment that I struggle to understand is how owning firearms can be seen as a check against government power in the modern era. No matter how much money an individual spends on collecting weapons, they can never match the resources of a government with access to advanced technology like orbital GPS networks, fighter jets, drones, bioweapons, logistics, and nuclear weapons.
When the Amendment was written, weaponry was still in its early stages of development, and the assumption was that a well-armed populace could, with sufficient numbers, overthrow a tyrannical regime. However, in today's world, this seems unrealistic. Even if someone owned a thousand .50 caliber Desert Eagles, it wouldn’t make a significant difference against such overwhelming governmental power.
You see, if the government bombs it's cities flat, it no longer has anything to govern, and falls anyways.
What we need are armed protests. Something you can't just easily police thug your way out of. We can all go protest and wave signs all we want, but until those in power are once again afraid of it's people, nothing will change.
Look at somewhere like Syria. Governments still get taken down by armed revolutionaries. Yes, there is the issue that governments are better armed. But there are a few fatal flaws in the idea that this makes them invincible:
-
A lot of expensive weapons systems like airplanes and tanks can be taken out by much cheaper and accessible systems like MANPADS and drones.
-
There will be people on the side of the rebels with previous military experience that will know how to use the heavier weapons.
-
Groups of revolutionaries armed with civilian-accessible weapons can find lightly defended military bases, storm them, and seize heavier weapons.
-
Rebel groups always receive outside assistance from foreign powers.
If a group of revolutionaries deposes the California state government, declares the New California Republic, and tries to secede from the US, they won't be fighting with AR-15s for long. They'll be using the strongest available civilian weapons to raid National Guard armories and other locations that may not be so heavily defended. They may even do so with the tacit support of those working at those facilities. Then their goal will be to hold out long enough against the US government that they can petition foreign powers like China to support their rebellion against the US federal government.
Revolts don't happen in a vacuum. Rebels don't need to hold out against the central government indefinitely armed only with light weaponry. At the end of the day, there's going to be some other well armed country out there that's going to be more than happy to see their geopolitical rival be embroiled in a war of secession. If California decided to rebel on Monday, by Friday the PRC would be loading every drone, antitank missile, and MANPAD they can find into crates, ready to smuggle them in container ships past the US Navy. Even if China didn't support the aims of the California rebels, it wouldn't matter. Hell, they wouldn't even care about the final outcome of the war. They would happily fund heavy weapons to the rebels just to make sure the US federal government was too embroiled in a crisis at home to devote many resources to places like Taiwan.
Thank you for detailed explanation, I do see your point that government is not as omnipotent and superior as I might have made it out to be.
Could you just clarify, are you arguing in favor of Second Amendment or against it? I can see it being used in both cases
People completely ignore logistics. That fighter jet needs hundreds of human hours by dozens of people for every hour it operates. And when the fighter jet drops bombs in the neighborhoods of those maintenance people, not only does the Jets stop being maintained, but people in the military ranks begin to switch sides. That's to say nothing about fuel delivery drivers, businesses, etc that are all necessary to keep the machine working.
-
One aspect of the U.S. Second Amendment that I struggle to understand is how owning firearms can be seen as a check against government power in the modern era. No matter how much money an individual spends on collecting weapons, they can never match the resources of a government with access to advanced technology like orbital GPS networks, fighter jets, drones, bioweapons, logistics, and nuclear weapons.
No shit they'll just burn your place to the ground Tulsa style. USA is quickly becoming North Korea.
even much simpler than that.. being more than just one guy.
So what your saying is we need to give people more weapons to even up the fight.
The government still needs people to enforce their laws, you can't use fighter jets, bioweapons, and nuclear weapons against your own citizenry without losing legitimacy and leading to a civil war where foreign governments would arm all sides. Take a look at Syria, they successfully overthrew the Assad regime with the support of other nations.
We currently have armed unidentified state thugs snatching random minorities off the streets, that's the sort of government abuse that could be stopped if liberals were armed. The state can only go so far in using force against their own citizens before it fractures and we look like the Syrian civil war.
I agree with you that the government is losing legitimacy. However, I'm deeply confused and frustrated by the second part of your argument. The United States was literally built by immigrants from its very beginning. People moved there seeking a future in a brave new world, and this diversity made the country a cultural and intellectual leader in music, literature, science, and finance. Yet now, immigration is somehow viewed as negative, largely because a few loud voices claim immigrants are criminals or spread absurd rumors like them eating dogs.
What's even more troubling is how politically divided the country has become. The simple act of helping a fellow human— a fellow American—avoid unjust ICE arrests is labeled a "liberal" issue. In my view, watching Americans being essentially kidnapped by government-paid agents is exactly the kind of tyranny the Second Amendment was meant to prevent. This division and inaction feel entirely pointless and contrary to the values the nation was founded on if i am to be convinced by conservative side.
Oh I'm by no means a conservative, I'm just trying to be descriptive. Conservatives are largely fully on board with ICE rounding up random brown people. They don't value the 2nd amendment as a means of resisting government tyrany because they aren't doing it, they're on the side of the tyrants.
This is precisely the type of tyrany the 2nd amendment should prevent, but because guns have largely become a conservative issue, we're stuck in the worst possible position of having both a lot of guns and tyranny.