Doesn't the currently military infrastructure make the 2nd amendment obsolete?

[Ethnic Vagina Finder]

It was written with the right intentions but if the U.S. military wanted to over throw the government, armed militias aren't going to stop it.

Tanks, drones, surface to air missiles, bombs, all make the right useless. Back when they wrote that amendment, civilians was rocking the same fire power as the military.

In this country there was a time civilians couldn't even conduct a peaceful protest without violence from the police.

If people want to keep gun laws using the 2nd amendment excuse looks silly. I would respect advocates if they would be honest and say it's a billion dollar industry and billions would be lost.

 

[DPresidential]

No, if anything, it makes it more necessary.

It's not about being reasonably successful in stopping tyranny.

It's about the citizens of the country being armed enough to make it too annoying of a task to actually go through with the tyrannical actions.

It won't stop the most evil attempt...but, it'll make less motivated tyrannies a lot more hesitant.

 

[TRFG]

that shyt was written when armies rode horses with shytty penny riffles.. If the USA wanted to become a tyranny, hicks with guns wont stop anything, look at yall Police Departments most of those dudes are fit for combat

 

[DPresidential]

that shyt was written when armies rode horses with shytty penny riffles.. If the USA wanted to become a tyranny, hicks with guns wont stop anything, look at yall Police Departments most of those dudes are fit for combat

Of course.

The point isn't that they'd have a chance at success...it's that it would be that much more of an annoyance.

With the second amendment, a truly disruptive and revolutionary military force that is hell-bent on a coup will do what the fukk they want.

But a less organized and less motivated benevolent military? One that would act only if the opportunity presented itself?

They would probably hesitate.

----


Think about the second amendment as pepper spray.

The citizen is the 18 year old girl.

A sadistic sex-crazed rapist is going to attack in her on the dark street regardless.

But a horny & dangerous creep looking to fall into vulnerable p*ssy? He may see that pepperspray keychain attachment on the purse and do risk/reward like, "is it worth getting pepper sprayed and scratched up? Nah, fukk it."

 

[smokeurobinson]

but if the U.S. military wanted to over throw the government

U my dude and all but this question is pure fantasy correct?

Like how in the heck can that possibly happen?

 

[Toe Jay Simpson]

Be scared to enforce a tyranny because Steve who works at Walgreens has an unloaded pea shooter locked in a box in his attic somewhere underneath some Queen records

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

Been saying this

Also ppl would barely be able to communicate without the NSA or whatever Alphabet agency spying on them through technology

The days of violent uprisings seem to be gone anyway...we’re too complacently

 

[DPresidential]

Be scared to enforce a tyranny because Steve who works at Walgreens has an unloaded pea shooter locked in a box in his attic somewhere underneath some Queen records

This is oversimplifying it.

Not to mention we are using a Hollywood concept of "military force."

Who do you think makes up the group of soldiers needed for this hypothetical coup?

Those are average citizens, many of which are very comfortable with the status quo and their laws.

How could this military become so homogeneous that they are all able to be convinced to go against it and be a soldier for some new tryannical leader?

 

[Solano707]

Yes, because I forgot under which title, but you can't use armed forces to police US citizens...

and the fact that "i was just following orders" doesn't excuse anyone anymore... you can reject orders if they are unlawful and in this case - it would be.

 

[Obreh Winfrey]

I'd argue that the blind support for the military that some people in government have cultivated makes it obsolete.

American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

A standing army was seen as oppressive because of the British prior to the a Revolutionary War. Now you can't express negative feelings about the military. Plus most vocal 2nd Amendment advocates like to ignore the original intent of the amendment. Eschewing the current state of race relations, the US military isn't trying to oppress citizens (of the US ) so generally we don't have to worry about what the founders were worried about. I

 

[DPresidential]

I'd argue that the blind support for the military that some people in government have cultivated makes it obsolete.

American Resistance to a Standing Army | Teachinghistory.org

A standing army was seen as oppressive because of the British prior to the a Revolutionary War. Now you can't express negative feelings about the military. Plus most vocal 2nd Amendment advocates like to ignore the original intent of the amendment. Eschewing the current state of race relations, the US military isn't trying to oppress citizens (of the US ) so generally we don't have to worry about what the founders were worried about. I

Doesn't that ignore the other reason for the second amendment?

Protection of an individual citizen's private property?

When you can't call 911 and have police at your door in 5 mins, the 2nd amendment is very necessary.

I mean, y'all make respectable points about the citizen bearing arms to realistically defend the state. But, to ignore the personal right of self defense is disingenuous.

Or nah?

 

[Lotsford]

Y'all haven't heard of the Bundy Ranch Standoff? 2nd Amendment worked there.

Charges Against Bundys in Ranch Standoff Case Are Dismissed

 

[Obreh Winfrey]

Doesn't that ignore the other reason for the second amendment?

Protection of an individual citizen's private property?

When you can't call 911 and have police at your door in 5 mins, the 2nd amendment is very necessary.

Or nah?

I believe they left things like policing to the states since they weren't as important comparatively; they were afraid of a tyrannical government because of the British monarchy so they came up with the Articles of Confederation which gave (too much) power to the states. That was replaced by The Constitution but (I think) it wasn't ratified until they added the first 10 amendments - The Bill of Rights. So bearing in mind the state of the world, a lot of the first 10 amendments are in regards to federal government power and preventing oppression there. If you look at 1-8 and the world back then it makes sense: Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute . In the modern world they would apply to state and local governments, I think the concept is called incorporation, but not necessarily to citizens. So the right to bear arms to protect yourself from another citizen PROBABLY wasn't a focus of theirs. But then you get things like stand your ground which seem to build on the 2nd Amendment so I really can't say

 

[Goombreh]

They would stand about as much of a chance as those Russian mercenaries who tried to storm that US base in Syria recently. I don't even understand why they entertain this ideal.

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

Also, under tyranny at this point there will never be a time when it’s deemed ok to fight against it

We’re so fukked up in this country if they brought back slavery right now at least %50 of this country would probably be for it

And nikkas would be like America just chill peaceful protest but don’t take a knee rawr!