That amendment was written back when a gun was more powerful than words or information, and when gun ownership was more prevalent and necessary.
In our modern day information, speech, and and privacy are the guns that ensure rights are not stomped on. It’s no longer the wild wild west.
To think that rules written hundreds of years ago never need to be changed is spitting in the face of our founders who realized that the process of amendments are necessary because things change. The irony is that people are defending the second amendment by claiming it cannot be amended.
By the time the KGB come knocking at your door it’s already over.
What we need is an amendment guaranteeing our right to encryption and privacy, so that the KGB won’t even know which door to knock on.
Back then your arms were pretty well matched against the government. Today, not so much. Civilians and their small arms are no match for the KGB or modern US military. If we really wanted a way to check the physical power of the US military we’d need a bit more than some semi automatic rifles. They are literally in their current form just play things for the wealthy who don’t want to give up their gun hobby, and liabilities for the rest of civilian society due to the criminally insane.
January 6th is somewhere in the neighbourhood of the kind of scenario your referencing.
Ubiquitous guns change the equation for all kinds of theoretical events. They may be a boon in the "armed populous saves country from corrupt gov't" case, and a curse in another case.
Were a more extreme version of Jan 6th to occur in the future, adding civilian firearms into the mix may not be a good thing.
The only person shot was an unarmed terrorist that, after repeated warnings not to proceed, while attempting to break through a barrier that was keeping a mob away from elected representatives, broke through that barrier.
I think it shows remarkable restraint by the security and protection officers that more people weren't shot on January 6th.
And it is untrue that "civilians" "chose" not to bring guns. There were numerous people that had preparations to be armed and were actively working to that end.
Untrue, there was no warning. Crowd was let in (there is security footage of this), funneled to a location, and a killzone was setup without their knowledge. The antifa person filming the death was the only person hurling threats in that specific interaction. Both hands of the civilian shot were visible when climbing through the window. Officer could have arrested when she made it through. I guess we're for shooting on sight now.
> I think it shows remarkable restraint by the security and protection officers that more people weren't shot on January 6th.
Yes let's praise cops for not killing more unarmed civilians than they did, very high bar!
> there were numerous people that had preparations to be armed and were actively working to that end.
What a long way to say they didn't bring guns to the event. Any CCW holder has preparations to be armed.
> sedition
Point to a case, noone is being tried for sedition, only trespassing.
The parent post pointed out that an armed population could prevent a dictator from taking power.
I'm saying it's also possible that a portion of an armed population could be manipulated by a dictator to seize power.
And there are lots of other ways this ubiquity of guns change things. Some positive, some negative. If we're talking about a theoretical rebellion then we should also talk about different types of rebellions.
The point I'm trying to get across is that there are many different theoretical scenarios for revolutions and rebellions, beyond the one scenario the parent comment theorized, or events similar in spirit to the American Revolution.
For example, the degraded ability for society to agree on what is true may be an avenue for a hostile state to cause civil unrest. That scenario may play out better for the targeted society if the population is not widely armed.
Nothing that said dictator would need support from the military (which has demonstrated it is not necessarily keen to go that route), how well will your "well armed" people fare against well trained soldiers with, um, "tanks" (using tanks here as a catchall for all their weapons.)?
Ah yes, the "the gov. is too powerful so what's the point of fighting tyranny" talking point.
The tank premise is almost as stupid as Biden's nukes / jets threat against the American people.
A country is not going to carpet bomb, send tanks in, or nuke its own people / land.
It takes a lot of brainwashing to get your soldiers to do that to their own people and direct force like that will lead to instant revolts.
What is much more likely is a KGB like secret police that goes around black bagging people, etc. You're much less likely to be able to do that when you know the civilian population has more guns than your secret police.
