People can talk about 2nd Amendment Solutions, tyranny, “watering the tree of liberty”, or right-wing NRA death squads supporting a fascist dictator, or whatever, until their tongues fall off, but the bottom line is that abstract ideological reasons relating to the machinery of the political process are never going to be enough to motivate any kind of armed insurgency. The only thing that is going to do it is if the average person on the street is literally hungry, or thirsty, or deprived of electrical power and refrigeration, for a prolonged period of time.
We could have a black gay Muslim president and a card-carrying Communist as Senate Majority Leader and systematic disenfrachisement of white voters in the deep South, but if people have food on the table and Walking Dead on the TV and cold beer in the fridge, and they’re making their mortgage payments and car payments and buying their lottery tickets, all it’s going to be is talk.
If large swaths of the population are tested by real hardship, it could become more than talk.
I disagree - I think the only think that could get a sufficient number of armed folks to rise up with sufficient organization to be effective (read: simultaneity) would be if they had a leader, an organizer. Which would be somebody outside the government who can appeal to the gun owners in some way.
An obvious source of this would be religion, but you could see a political uprising as well, with a sufficiently motivating group of leaders.
Meh, I’m not sure an inspiring leader is really a requirement to pull it off. A great many Syrians have taken up arms against their government in recent years without a unified command structure or really much in the way of shared organization, or even motive, at all. They’ve been varying degrees of effective.
I agree with your first sentence. As for the second one, I suppose they have been effective at preventing Assad from murdering the citizens of Syria with impunity and without consequence.
I don’t want to emulate the mess in Syria here, but I’m not sure the status quo ante, with Assad’s regime murdering people without repercussion, was better.
Tyranny could take on many forms. Hopefully we will never have to see it in our lifetimes in the United States.
Depending on the context and other background information, I think I could say generally that if the government were herding Muslims into concentration camps, I would resist that and with violent force, if necessary.
But the point of this thread is that they themselves should be able to be armed to resist that if such a terrible event would come to pass.
Being armed doesn’t mean that any resistance or revolution will be just or will be successful even if just. It just gives the people the same opportunity that the people had in 1775.
I took your post to imply that a “Second Amendment Solution” would not be applicable because the most likely scenario is tyranny against minority groups, and those most likely to inflict that tyranny were white conservatives who already own most of the guns in private hands, and that those white conservatives with guns would be leading the charge to oppress the minorities. If my assessment of your post was incorrect, then I apologize.
Maybe I’m just an “America is best! Yeah!” kinda guy, but I’m pretty sure that, in America, if your typical “has-a-house-and-a-job-and-can-be-traced-super-easily” American gun owners decided to hold a rebellion and did it randomly and piecemeal, the government would hunt them down and take them apart. The vast percentage of American gun owners aren’t of the ‘can load all my guns into a pickup and run off and hide with them’ type, and so if the second amendmenters fail to overwhelm the government with a single, swift, and extremely comprehensive attack, the government will very rapidly respond with approaches that dismantle the rebellious cells and individuals at their source.
Or to put it more succinctly, I don’t think that the subset of American gun owners that are positioned to carry off a prolonged guerilla war against America is large enough to pull off that war.
So guns are OK as long as we’re using them for something generally agreed upon? Like war? Only war, not just killing individuals or small groups for some peripheral or unrelated reason? Is this a 2A debate framed in a constitutional crises or a hypothetical test of gun law utility? Something else?
Depending on what? If it was justified? If there was another 9/11 style attack, and Trump et al are all up in arms about having to find a solution to this problem, how strong would your conviction be?
The point of this thread is that being armed is not enough to prevent the government from coming and taking you away. The only ones saying that a resistance would be successful are the ones thinking that the military is going to defect and join the side of the civilians. That may be possible, given a “government takeover”, but is rather unlikely if we are just picking off one minority at a time.
A bit less, I would think. In 1775, The US citizenry and army had access to the same weapons as the British. The British were also fighting an extended overseas war, while we were fighting right at home.
In the end, though, the armed citizenry did very little in the revolutionary war. It was the professional armies raised by congress that won the war.
Your assessment is in fact incorrect. I did not say that those who would inflict the tyranny would be white conservatives who already own most of the guns in private hands. I said that, rather than coming to the aid of minority groups who are persecuted by the government, they would come to the aid of the government in persecuting these minority groups.
That is the way it has always played out historically, I see no reason why it would play out differently this time.
I’m not dodging the question. I am just trying not to say in absolute terms that given X, then I would certainly shoot at a police officer, national guard member, or Army soldier. If because of a new 9/11 type attack, the government begins herding Muslims into concentration camps, that would be tyranny that I would resist, first through lawful means, and through violence if necessary, necessary meaning that the system has completely broken down and the courts are ignored and that street fighting means that a person has to pick sides or stay neutral. I would not stay neutral.
I disagree. I do not think that police officers and soldiers would take their oaths so flippantly. Many would, but many would not.
So you support a repeal of the NFA and allow citizens to own full auto weapons? Excellent.
Right, but where were the professional armies raised from? They took regular citizens who brought their own weapons and trained them in military tactics. We could do the same again.
So I misunderstood you to say that instead of “leading” these white conservatives would simply “join” the move to kill minorities. I fail to see much of a difference in the two insofar as it states that white conservatives would be sympathetic to such an extermination. I would put that number at maybe 10% of white conservatives. I mean, we aren’t monsters. We can disagree politically without it meaning that we want to exterminate the other side.
You are taking a wildly unsupported leap. Just because a person, say, opposes same sex marriage does not mean that he supports rounding up gays and herding them into concentration camps.
Just because a guy might be racist and thinks blacks are inferior, thinks that they shouldn’t marry white women, for example, doesn’t mean that he supports lining them up and shooting them.
Nor would these people secretly give the thumbs up to these atrocities. Many of these people, the vast majority, would support these individuals.
You’re going to muster a large number of people, publicly, in America, with an explicit call for those who wish to form an army with the intent to fight militarily against the American government, and gather this huge number of people up and start training them for this on American soil?
I presume that the inciting act that has triggered all these aspiring rebels is that the government is too peaceful, because if they’re at all interested in maintaining power you’ve just brought all their aspiring enemies to one place and posted a sign “attack here”.
Good luck with that, it’s my turn to win. But, it shouldn’t be too unlikely that multiple people would want to avoid seeing tyranny in their government.
We are not talking about street fighting, we are talking about oppression of someone who isn’t you. Someone who has been demonized and vilified.
Us white guys could probably keep going about our business just fine, and unmolested, so long as we don’t pay too much interest in what’s going on.
We have ICE agents separating families. We have Intelligence operatives conducting torture. We have police officers framing suspects. We have police departments explicitly telling their officers to frame black people.
Those oaths are worth exactly how much the oath taker decides it’s worth, no more, no less.
My thoughts on gun control are an entirely different matter, but as a matter of fact, I do support a overhaul of the NFA, allowing well qualified individuals to purchase new weapons. It’s still not going to be enough, unless we are also opening up the Bazooka and TOW registry. Probably need to open up the Jet fighter and Tank registries, as well.
No, that’s not how that happened. They were equipped with weapons from the armory, they were not using their own. Then they were trained, something that is lacking amongst the wannabe freedom fighters of today. Finally, we didn’t win it on our own, we hired mercenaries from other countries to take part in the fighting.
[/quote]
So I misunderstood you to say that instead of “leading” these white conservatives would simply “join” the move to kill minorities. I fail to see much of a difference in the two insofar as it states that white conservatives would be sympathetic to such an extermination. I would put that number at maybe 10% of white conservatives. I mean, we aren’t monsters. We can disagree politically without it meaning that we want to exterminate the other side.
[/quote]
You are maybe a bit optimistic. I was putting the number at about 15%, but 10% is enough as well.
No, but it does mean that he is much less likely to care when other people do it, and he is also ripe for being radicalized into helping out himself.
But, that is exactly what the racists in the south were doing for generations. They only stopped because we made it very illegal, and they still try to get away with it. There would be quite a few, probably more than 10 or even 15 percent, who would be happy to see and use violence in order to blacks put back into their place.
They don’t support them now, just try saying “black lives matter” to them. Why would the support them because they have become more vilified?
All it is going to take is the repeal of Social Security or the like and some oldster is going to decide they have nothing left to lose and pot-shots the Republican leadership. That will inspire any number of copy-cats, and then it will be on. They’ll regret being in the pocket of the NRA when every grandma draws down on them with a Mini-Uzi.
This post is a shining example of taking something someone else wrote, ignoring all context and what was actually written, and then drawing a conclusion that unsurprisingly has nothing to do with what was written and as such also employs a declarative tone in a futile attempt to pass itself off as the last word on the subject.
