That is a slippery slope to every state having restrictive NY-like gun laws.
I don't care about legal or cultural precedent in germany or the EU. This isn't germany. The US plays a far more important role in global affairs, and as such must take more dramatic measures to prevent it from falling into the hands of some regime, those measures include the right to bear arms as well as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Lol the fact that random people have guns has nothing to do with US dominance, and it’s not random people with guns that will protect the US in an exceedingly unlikely armed conflict on US soil, it’s the army - which has no shortage of funding. Unless you’re saying that random armed people are going to defend against a coup from our own army - doubtful. Hypothetical “defense” at what cost? Mass shootings every week is worth it?
I agree that random people with guns has nothing to do with US dominance globally, but you're wrong that the US army would win versus the armed civilians in the country. There are only 1 million US army soldiers and over 81 million armed civilians in the US capable of fighting a sustained guerilla war. You only need to look at history to know that's a bad scenario for any armed forces trying to take and hold control of a region. I agree the cost of mass shootings and also just regular daily non-mass shootings are not worth it in modern society.
It really depends on how vicious whatever commanding force controls the army would want to be.
If they're willing to rule over a country of bones, the asymmetric warfare resources the United States has available are sufficient to put down any rebellion. How much fight do you think 81 million armed civilians would keep in them if cities just started vaporizing?
A hypothetical American government with open rebellion wouldn't need to take and hold territory... It could decide specific chunks of the country are worth saving and nuke vast quantities of the rest.
I'd say that scenario is impossible, but this is America we're talking about... If there's one thing the history of American warfare teaches, It's that you can't apply the rest of the history of war to the way America fights wars. This is the country that gave us, in modern times, ending a rebellion by putting civilian cities to the flame until the civilians became too tired and hungry to support the war.
I constantly argue with people like you, feel free to read some of my other comments to see why you would do precisely nothing to a major armed force and would actually rationalize their targeting of civilians in your make believe Red Dawn world. (No, Vietnam and Afghanistan are not appropriate parallels).
PS: you also entirely fail to provide counterpoints to any of the points the person you are replying to made, only vague and nonsensical implications.
The sad part is that it’s much more likely Americans would turn their guns on each other in some sort of civil war type situation; eg the Democrats/Republicans think the Republicans/Democrats stole the election, and an armed uprising is the only way to give power back to the right party.
>Isn’t the freedom to walk down the street or go to school without fear of a deranged shooter or accidental firearm discharge an important freedom too?
No. You have no right to not be in fear.
And even using your argument, I feel less in fear walking down the street with "protection" than not, which by your argument strengthens my right to carry.
Lmao "the right to bear arms" domestically is going to what, stop a land invasion by Russia or something to the tune of that?
Somehow, I don't think so. Instead it's just allowing you and yours to kill each other. As a Kiwi living in the UK: gun control works, it really does.
Also, falling into a regime? Your current political atmosphere is that a regime of extremely conservative people who are pretty much the major group to own guns in America are trying to devolve human rights in your country. So really, in a way, you already have a regime trying to take over and _they_ have all the guns already.
This is basically a good take. The intent of the second amendment was multifaceted, but the most important aspect of it was probably that it allowed for a state level check on power of the federal government. Remember, all 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights were originally checks on federal power only. The second amendment was a distribution of the capacity for violence from a federal government that would need it (the Founders believed) occasionally for country-level protection to the individual states that were still extremely responsible for their own affairs and may not have ratified a Constitution that stripped them of the ability to defend themselves from threats.
But almost a hundred years later, the calculus changed when several States banded together and tried to dissolve the country by violence. As a consequence of the 14th Amendment, rights previously recognized only at the federal level became enforced at the state level as well. This creates a bit of a philosophical contradiction in the original intent of the Second Amendment to provide citizens States the capacity to defend themselves from overreaching federal power, and evolution of that contradiction is how we eventually got to the notion that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms independent of any particular military application of those arms, despite the word "militia" being in the amendment itself.
The question was simply “can something be done?” Not if it could be done in the USA. Of course, we have to put up with more dead classmates because someday we might use those guns to defend ourselves from a tyrannical regime (or much more likely, a civil war amongst us, like almost happened on 1/6/21).
> and as such must take more dramatic measures to prevent it from falling into the hands of some regime
Yet funnily when that was in the process of happening (Trump's failed coup attempt) not only were there no "good guys with guns" against the regime, all the guys with the guns were for the regime trying to make a coup.
Pardon me, but lol. I'm nowhere near the US, and indeed I'm further to the left than both of your right parties, even if I'm center/right of center for my country.
And there are plenty of US "liberals" who are "pro-gun", whatever that means.
“The situation reached a climax in 1970, when the Bangladesh Awami League, the largest East Pakistani political party, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won a landslide victory in the national elections. The party won 167 of the 169 seats allotted to East Pakistan, and thus a majority of the 313 seats in the National Assembly. This gave the Awami League the constitutional right to form a government. However, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (a former Foreign Minister), the leader of the Pakistan People's Party, refused to allow Rahman to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan.”
>The Bangladeshi Declaration of Independence was broadcast from Chittagong by members of the Mukti Bahini—the national liberation army formed by Bengali military, paramilitary and civilians. The East Bengal Regiment and the East Pakistan Rifles played a crucial role in the resistance. Led by General M. A. G. Osmani and eleven sector commanders, the Bangladesh Forces waged a mass guerrilla war against the Pakistani military.
The Bangladeshi military organized the resistance. It was not a simple civilians-with-guns-rising-against-tyranny scenario.
"The 'Mukti Bahini' was divided into two groups; the 'Niomito Bahini' – or 'regular forces' – who came from the paramilitary, military and police forces of East Pakistan, and the Gonnobahini – or 'people's forces' – who were civilians. These names were given and defined by the Government of Bangladesh. ... Civilians took control of arms depots in various cities and began resisting Pakistani forces with the acquired weapons supply."
Remember there was no "Bangladeshi military" at the time. It was the Pakistani military. The East Pakistan Rifles, for example, had maintained loyalty to Pakistan until Pakistan went too far in suppressing the revolt.
That is, the power of the pen is premised on power in arms being equal.
The line comes from Edward Bulwer-Lytton, of "It was a dark and stormy night" fame. It appears in the play Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy, about Cardinal Richelieu a/k/a a/k/a Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu et de Fronsac, who may have a line or two on the power of words to his fame (or at least ascribed) as well.
One could argue the US has already fallen, and guns are the only way we are going to get it back. Of course, that’s not a popular opinion, but try to take guns away from the citizens and it will be.
I don't care about legal or cultural precedent in germany or the EU. This isn't germany. The US plays a far more important role in global affairs, and as such must take more dramatic measures to prevent it from falling into the hands of some regime, those measures include the right to bear arms as well as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.