One can certainly debate whether the purpose still applies, and hence whether the amendment is needed (or perhaps just to clarify its current purpose). Historically, it is more of a right to overthrow an oppressive regime (Britain, in that case), where everyone mostly fell on one side, or the other. The wording seems to imply intent for call up to help defend our country against attack as well. That would probably be the more pertinent reasoning today. Why not just give them weapons if that were the case? That's when the other instance would be brought up. Personally, I don't really see it happening here (civil war), although I might have said that prior to the Civil War too. Our system of democracy mostly prevents anything from ever getting to that point. But we have heard rumblings of states seceding (Texas, CA, others?). What would happen if that occurred? Would the United States send in the military to forcibly prevent it? If so, would the need for those states to defend themselves not arise? I would put the probability of this as pretty low, but not out of the realm of possibility.
This is seriously the best example you can come up with? A third-world ****hole without a functional government where fighters have to hide in caves so they don't get killed by drone strikes. Thank god the 2nd amendment keeps this option open for us LOL.
Happy too, when the argument is presented without the negative inferences. But of course that's not going to happen.... You know, if you don't like being called out for it, perhaps you might consider stopping the actions leading to it? Just a thought....glance through the threads here. Many conservatives are happy to engage in honest discourse on these topics...as long as that is actually the case. Flame wars are too common, from both sides, and lead to nothing getting really discussed. This is a topic worthy of actual discussion, with I think room for arguments on both sides. So, to move to your actual question: No, that is ONE of the arguments. The other being for the government to call up the militia in case of need for defense. Historically, both of those situations essentially happened at the same time. The common defense one is probably the stronger case for it today, although one couldn't rule out the tyrannical government. I don't think it would come to that. No politician will attempt that, as it would be political suicide. Trump can't do it, the Second Amendment prevents it. So, for your scenario to occur, there would have to be a repeal of the second amendment. That could only happen if the vast majority of Americans supported it. In which case, no, I would not support a civil war. The scenario would be arrived at democratically, and wouldn't represent a case of a tyrannical government acting against the will of the people. I wouldn't likely consider it a good thing, though, either, unless, at such point in time, there were actual evidence it would solve the problems it was attempting to solve. That is certainly not the case currently. As far as supporting the nation while it does things I consider unconstitutional...that occurs currently, so that's easy. Yes, I still support it. I wouldn't consider those situations irrational, though...mostly just examples greed and seeking of power (the total abuse of eminent domain comes to mind). Those are constants, regardless. Another example would be the taxes imposed on visitors to pay for stadiums, etc. Those go directly against the very thing this country was formed over...taxation without representation. Worth pointing out? Yes. Worth taking up arms against the government? No. FWIW, it is kind of funny how the Turkish military gets portrayed in scenarios such as this. It has, a couple of times, acted on its own and overthrown a tyrannical government, and then restored democratic power. I've never really understood why that receives the perception it did. It's recent attempt at such failed because it did not have sufficient support--indicating that even the military cannot overthrow a tyrannical leader without sufficient support. Something that would come to play in your scenario---for their to be a real uprising against the government, it would have to have sufficient support amongst the people. So, let me ask you a question. In a scenario like that, would you support it? Would you support the use of arms in that scenario? This applies to your scenario as well---were the gun ban to be something that was not just unconstitutional, but wildly unpopular and hence against the will of the majority of people...would those who took up arms against it be in the right? or in the wrong?
Don't worry, I'm not surprised that you don't follow. I pointed out an example of how a fairly small group of largely uneducated cave dwelling goat f***ers have managed to hold back US forces that greatly outnumber them for the last 16 years.....and you don't see how that could relate to how potentially millions of Americans could fare against what would then be comparatively small numbers of US forces. Again, not surprising, but pretty pathetic even for you.
Right. Because running and hiding in caves in the most backwards place on the face of the earth is a sign that civilians in this country would be able to fight back against the US military with success, good call. I won't even bother mentioning the difference in the logistics of fighting on the other side of the world as opposed to fighting here because what's the point? You really should just stick to analyzing quarterbacks, oh wait, you're terrible at that too....
Again just showing that you aren't capable of following along with what I was saying....and I'm in no way surprised by it. If you don't think that several million armed citizens could have a successful insurgency against the government then you are a fool. It would be VERY bloody, but it could absolutely happen. If you don't know enough to know that, further discussion won't help you.
Small arms fire ain't going to do ****. It's only a deterrent when a foreign nation invades in the hope of nation building thus they have to be very careful in order to win 'hearts and minds'. If a government reaches a point of attacking its own civilians, do you think that hypothetical government will show restraint?
I think if our military wanted to do widescale genocide of a country be it Afghanistan or even our own American citizens, it has more than enough weaponry and firepower to do just that. The only thing is our military shows restraint by at least attempting to minimize mass civilian casualties. If our military did not show restraint and wanted to genocide, we could easily. There's no debating that. This is a stupid topic to discuss though. That's what 2nd Amendment rights have stooped to. The fictional hypothetical of U.S. citizens caught in a civil war against the greatest military in history.
Remember call of duty when the ruskies invaded stateside? Yup, that happened like when politicians name dropped Jack Bauer to justify illegal torture.
He wanted to kill a lot of people. I think the quote from Dark Knight describes it best: some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn He probably wouldn't have killed as many people without a bump stock and semi automatic rifle.
