The long-standing bumper sticker trope “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands” does seem to say that guns’ whole purpose is to defend themselves from being taken.
To take the OP question perhaps more seriously than they expected:
That we don’t have a “well-regulated” militia is the story of a long, long road away from original ideals to where we are today. Living in a country that has almost always been peaceful and safe made the citizen-soldier largely unnecessary- although for a long time local law enforcement would deputize posses in an emergency. Most are happy to let professional law enforcers deal with criminals- the two factions most likely to arm themselves- with the broad middle happy to be left out of it. About the only exceptions are people with a strong distrust of the government’s willingness or ability to protect them. Libertarians (on all points of the conservative-liberal spectrum) do decry that most peaceful, reasonable people don’t bother with guns beyond personal defense and/or hunting. And even the radicals seem to mostly agree with Claire Booth’s famous assessment: “It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards”. Which is a good thing really- we haven’t reached the level of the Bosnian civil war and don’t want to.
As to the actual history of the decline of organizing the militia, I posted a few brief words on the subject here.
or instead of “the end”, maybe it’s just that the time for the ANTI-leader paramilitaries to up their game.
Mind you, we’re about to have an election and I’m not suggesting that anyone go on the offensive at this time. But depending on the results of that election, maybe they should…be prepared.
It’s also highly debatable whether the pro-leader paramilitaries HAVE in fact mingled with the official police and military. Just how much do those groups have to overlap before they’re truly “mingled”?
The NFAC means business in Kentucky, yessir.
"…the militia leader told the group that he issued an ultimatum to (Attorney General Daniel) Cameron, telling him he had four weeks to finish the investigation. He also promised that the NFAC would return to Louisville.
“Four weeks from today, we gonna come back here, and we should have an answer,” he said.
He then got the group to look at their watches and repeat an oath that if, in four weeks, they didn’t “get the truth…the whole truth…and the mother-[EXPLETIVE] truth…we are going to burn this mother-[EXPLETIVE] down.”
If they can keep from setting themselves on fire.
The NFAC must have some nifty calendar watches, though.
I’m not really advocating violent conflict, just that I don’t think it’s such a bad thing for groups like this to flex back periodically. The 3%ers need to know they’re not the only tough guys with guns.
No one should ever take up arms against their country because they disagree with the results of a free and fair election.
Of course, if there is not a free and fair election…
Let’s just say that democracy is a great benefit to those who would govern. In a democracy, if people don’t like an office holder, they can get rid of them without any violence.
Look for the signature on the cheques.
Indeed.
For the sake of pedantry; the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is the protection of security of a free State.
The practical outcome is the protection of the right to have guns.
Quoting Lamoral:
“I’m not really advocating violent conflict, just that I don’t think it’s such a bad thing for groups like this to flex back periodically. The 3%ers need to know they’re not the only tough guys with guns.”
Let it be a surprise. 3 percenter, boogaloo boi, proud boi, whatever. A bunch of soy bois I think. They won’t be so brave if they actually start THEIR civil war and are In The Shit and we start shooting back.