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.
That’s still the purpose of the second amendment, for people to own guns to defend themselves and others against tyranny
You can’t expect everyone to agree with you ideologically, and obviously they won’t rise up against a government they agree with. Conservatives don’t see the current administration as tyrannical, so there is no conflict for them between the ideals of the second amendment and their actions.
However, you can absolutely choose to exercise your second amendment rights.
As a gun owning liberal, I’m tired of my peers acting like the second amendment is some conservative agenda. The right to firearm ownership is an eminently liberal ideal. More liberals and leftists should own guns— the second amendment is more important now than ever before.
If you think there is a pressing need for an armed liberal/leftist citizenry, go buy guns and arm yourselves.
I feel like it makes more sense if the guns were always there to protect stolen land.
The ones that created the government had to actually fight for their freedom. People became complacent afterwards, and seem to think that freedom is a given.
It reminds me of some quote “freedom isn’t owned, it’s rented, and rent is due everyday.”
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.
Well the founding fathers and the powers at be are directly opposed. If I ran a tyranny, the first thing I would do is push propaganda to heavily stigmatize anything that could jeopardize it. The result I'd be aiming for would be a dynamic where firearms are only in the hands of people who support the tyranny, while making sure anyone who would oppose it is piss scared to even be in the same room as a gun. I'd make sure to instill a complex stigma, such that the opposition not only feels a primal fear of guns, but also a fear of social consequences, since there are plenty of people for whom social outcast is worse than death.
I await with interest your explanation as to how and why private gun ownership "caused and supported" the current unlawful government, considering that the government is perfectly capable of obtaining its own guns and supplying them to its goons without our input or intervention. And has been doing so for a little over two centuries. Furthermore, gun laws are deliberately structured such that the police and various government forces throughout the country enjoy considerably less restriction (or even none) on the type, number, and nature of guns that they're allowed to own and use. Even if the individuals in question are retired or no longer on active duty.
This is more a consequence of manipulative propaganda and poor education being weaponized against people, rather than a direct reflection of constitutional gun laws.
Gun rights weren't sold on that. That is not the original meaning of the amendment, which talked about a standing militia being armed against foreign invasion. But yeah, they have been sold on that in modern times, and it is no surprise to see that that premise is not being questioned in the slightest even in this thread. Just people regurgitating right wing gun rhetoric.
that was always a transparent excuse... only a total rube would believe that was a legitimate reason to sell guns like popcorn in a theatre
How?
People don't understand the game.
Given sufficient time and inaction, the unlawful government will become the lawful government.
That's kind of been the whole thing about the anti-2a people: they've kept saying "the people"in "the militia" are the cops and states (as opposed to the federal government), and the law-and-order conservatives aren't saying no to militarizing law enforcement, and the pro-gun right for decades (60s-90s) played along with all the "2a is for hunting" nonsense. The point of 2A is for the government to be afraid to do this crap, but 2A is too watered down at this point to have that effect. The kind of population that could live armed as well as any military (not ours) would just have a different behavior in general.
"Resisting Unlawful Government" is when you need to fight a Ranger who is trying to keep your stray cows from grazing in a public park.
"Stop Breaking the Law, Asshole!" is when you need to throw on a mask, wave a gun, and snatch someone into a van after they showed up to court for a green card hearing.
What's unlawful? You voted them in. Bearing arms against the government is unlawful. Anyone who thinks they can make a stand and shoot a few people to stand up to the government will find themselves arrested quickly and with all their neighbours supporting their arrest.
There is no amount of force that could reasonably be brought that would topple the government.
That's what you get if you believe that laws written a quarter millenium ago are still some kind of holy infallable scripture.
Weapons have changed enormously since then and so has every part of society.
Back when the 2nd ammendment was written, the average weapon of the military and of private citizens would be about the same: front-loaded, single-shot gun. Soldiers had very low standards of training and militias still formed the backbone of the military.
It's totally possible for a large amount of private citizens to stand a decent chance against the military.
Nowadays a private citizen would have some kind of gun, while the military has tanks, planes, missiles and aircraft carriers. Even if half the country would take up arms, they'd stand no chance against the US military, which makes the whole point of "resisting unlawful government" moot.
Counterpoint, civilian gun ownership is the only reason why most marginalized identities in the US aren't already rounded up into extermination camps en masse. You don't have the first clue about the history and nature of this country if you think we wouldn't quickly accelerate organized genocide without that last line of deterrence. Arm every single minority.