Oh, sorry. Let me clarify: you said you were having trouble sussing out an argument here “that doesn’t contain an element of hero-fantasy that it’s your .357 specifically that holds back the tide of oppression.” I guess I’m saying, in reply: instead of figuring it contains an element of “hero-fantasy”, could you suss out an argument built around just as easily thinking that someone else can easily fire shots?
Fair point, but what if your local government is tyrannical and your state and federal governments are indifferent to your plight?
You don’t suppose there’s any reason why we never see mass shootings at gun shows?
We’ve had wide-spread gun ownership in the United States for over 150 years now … what do we look like if guns had been outlawed from the beginning?
I agree with Chronos’ post #2 … the 2nd Amendment was intended to be a safeguard to protect liberties that has now proven to be unnecessary … we’re not the English and we don’t have a king prone to send our military off to protect the king’s own private lands in France …
My papa made the observation that all these anti-war and race riots back in the late '60’s and early '70’s were usually confined to commercial neighborhoods … they didn’t dare spill over into the residential neighborhoods …
It would depend on what you mean by “tyrannical” in this context.
Perhaps everything that was happening in Maricopa County for the past couple of decades?
That’s a good point.
How many here would have jumped on the bandwagon if liberals, Mexican-Americans and various other groups Sheriff Joe held in contempt(and/or in jail) over the years took up arms and violently overthrew his regime?
I am not trying to put words in your mouth. You are the one that is claiming that militias can resist regular armies.
We have two types of militia here. The type that is authorized by the second amendment, and the type that is in those countries that you mentioned.
The first, the type authorized by the second amendment, cannot resist a regular army, they can barely be an annoyance to a regular army.
The second, the type that can annoy, but not actually resist a regular army, is the type that has weapons that are not authorized by the second amendment.
You are conflating the two, by saying, flatly, that a militia can resist a regular army, without recognizing that a militia authorized by the second amendment would not be able to do so.
As the specific question asked in the OP is whether the second amendment of the united states constitution was intended to, and was effective at, combatting possible tyranny of our govt, any examples you use of militias that are not authorized by the second amendment are utterly irrelevant and not within the scope of this thread, but are only a distraction.
They already have boots on the ground.
Have you not noticed the militarization of the police in the last decade or so? When you start your insurrection against the lawful (if in your mind, tyrannical) govt, which side are they going to be on?
You know what changes? They don’t stop sending in soldiers. They change their ROE. They start shooting the civilian that looks a bit suspicious. They start dropping bombs on cities.
If you think that taking potshots at soldiers or police in your city is going to get popular support to come to your side of the revolution, it is probably best that you think again.
Yes, I’ve heard – and I’ve also heard that such a change in ROE hasn’t had a great track record in the winning-hearts-and-minds department. It doesn’t seem to spark increased popular support; it seems to get more locals, ah, up in arms.
That’s how it’s played out before, right?
Any and all.
Don’t forget township trustees and zoning boards. :mad:
I’m still not sure I’m getting your point, but it doesn’t really matter if the gun in question belongs to you or another citizen - privately-owned arms aren’t holding back fascism in America.
I would say you could call higher level tyrannical if they are supporting the tyranny of local governments.
You may be talking about it but the Constitution isn’t.
The purpose of the amendment is to have a country whereby the primary means of defense against a foreign power is a militia.
In the late 18th century, this was a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Killdozer FTW. 
Off the main topic i know, but I thinking having your Wiki Page say “Known For: Killdozer Rampage” is pretty bad ass.
Left and right, huh? Maybe also up and down, back and forth, and in and out? How many soldiers in a regular army do you think a guy with a handgun is going to kill? Guerrillas always take much more casualties then regular soldiers. So who’s going to run out of people first?
I was trying to be fair and give you the benefit of the doubt. For example, you implied you have served in combat. I don’t know for a fact that you made that up so I acted as if it was true. Even though you obviously don’t know the kinds of thing the average person with combat experience would know.
What’s that quote that always gets attributed to Ho Chi Minh, about losing ten men to every one but of course still getting the win?
Well, what you posted was incorrect. So if you “trying to be fair” and giving “the benefit of the doubt” leads you to post stuff that’s incorrect, maybe you should just stick to the modest goal of trying to be correct?
You will run out of soldiers before you run out of armed civilians…but ONLY if all those armed civilians have the same definition of “tyranny” as you do.
And they most certainly don’t.
I can only think of one definition of “tyranny” that I think a majority of armed civilians would agree on - “The government trying to take their guns”
US Army and USMC published doctrine disagrees with that assertion. See Chapter 4 Insurgency Prerequisites and Fundamentals in FM3-24/MCWP 3-33.5 Counterinsurgency. Paragraph 4-74 is the major point but there’s important related material prior to that in the chapter.
Within the gun community, are there voices, any voices at all, saying “Guys, we really need to cool it with the militia/tyranny stuff, okay? At best it only makes us look like fanatics who have to be contained, and at worst it just makes us look like idiots”? Is that a thing, or have any such voices been silenced or excommunicated?
If there’s gunfire between a handful of yahoos holed up in a bird refuge and the US Army, I know which way to bet; don’t you?