Of course you do.
Yeah, I debated whether to go for poetic hyperbole or wishy washy exactness and went with the former. The point I was trying to make though is that while the fantasy of most freedom fighter wannabes is that the government on its own is going to turn tyrannical against the will of the people all of whom are going to join the resistance. That isn’t how it really happens. The tyranny gets started because a large amount of the citizenry supports authoritarianism. It is at least as likely that the armed citizenry actually be used as a force of oppression (e.g. the brown shirts, Hutu genociders, Khmer Rouge etc.) as it is to be the resistance.
My impression is there are at least three different kinds of 2A types.
[ol]
[li]White males who feel ‘their’ country is changing and leaving them behind. They’d fight against multiculturalism or a government that endorses multiculturalism. [/li]
[li]Minority groups who are afraid of the first group. Blacks, gays, liberals. etc. in the age of Trump, a lot of them have been buying guns out of fear of the first group being neo-fascist. [/li]
[li]People who are under threat from crime, abusive exs, etc. They’re not fighting hte government though[/li][/ol]
But you’re not going to find many of the first group on this message board. And even if you do, they’ll generally deny that they are motivated by a fear of multiculturalism. They’ll use endless code words (marxism, one world government, tyranny, globalization, etc) but at root its about them losing status, identity and privilege due to multiculturalism.
And remember the Left has a long history of violent protest here in the USA- breaking windows, burning cars, throwing rocks, hitting people with signs, etc.
Sure, taking up guns for what you think is right is a step beyond that , but they are both a form of violent protest.
The two times when it might have been justifiable to threaten 2A remedies were pre-Civil Rights Act segregation and the refusal to re-count the Bush/Gore Florida ballots. Especially the latter. However, it looks at though a re-count would have still put Bush in office, so it’s good that it never got to that.
Yes, based on observation and evidence. Of course, legalizing drugs would probably help you a lot more than restricting guns. I’m hoping my country’s experiment with marijuana legalization proves beneficial.
Looking at this from outside, I can’t help wondering in what way such people think your constitution is so faulty as to allow any realistic prospect of such things happening, and why they aren’t proposing ways to fix such faults, other than resort to civil war.
It’s not, it’s really an impossible hypothetical.
Though the OP is supposed to be about essentially what things would cause a revolution.
Which is always a combination of factors, the most prevalent usually being severe economic distress.
Seconded by non representation in your government.
Yeah, if you showed me some actual tyranny, instead of overly-excitable middle-aged pampered menials looking for something to get their hearts racing over, and to make them appear unusually insightful in comparison to the rest of the herd. All the bovine scatology I’ve been reading about being called tyranny to justify owning weapons the same people can’t really control (eye-hand coordination-wise) to give them an excuse to claim they certainly would shoot something and what a hero am I is just as I said bovine scatology.
Now. Go ahead and tell me how surprised I’m going to be when THEY finally *GET *me! eek!
And so does the Right.
How about, rather than making your partisan attack, we agree that angry people have a long history of violent protest, well, everywhere?
Of course they do…but the ones you agree with are different, n’est-ce pas?
Well, they don’t seem to be as lethal, if that’s what you mean.
It wasn’t.
I don’t know that you’re going to get an obvious answer that would cause a mass rising up, but you can look at smaller groups.
The answer, lately, seems to be grazing rights and the use of public land.
I’d like to point out this as already happened in the United States --the US government removed thousands of Native Americans from their lands and forced the majority of them on to reservations. Someone can correct me if I am wrong but I believe this was supported by majority of the US population.
It seems tautological to say we need to have guns in order to defend our guns.
It seems like a fairly significant criterion, no?
For favored narratives within carefully chosen timeframes.
Like the last twenty years or so? Heck, I’d be willing to start counting the day after the Oklahoma City bombing, so Timothy McVeigh gets excluded.