Besides the argument for self defense and hobby purposes, why do people say that the second amendment stands for the right to oppose a tyrannical government? Maybe it made sense like 200 years ago with muskets and cannonballs, but nowadays the government is equipped with drones, helicopters, jets, bombs etc etc.
Not even memeing here, why do people use this as an argument?
without the 2nd how do you defend the 1st?
See pic
You have to give the slave the illusion of freedom and then they're less likely to rebel.
SPBP
I believe guns should be more restricted, probably only educated people can get one.
how have you dumb fucks not grasped yet
sage for the shill
i never understood that law. civil people can shoot at goverment if its becomes tyrannical but who is to decide if it becomes tyrannical? and need to remember its civilians vs goverment with full military force
There should be private ownership of all of those tools.
However, private ownership of firearms still does raise the costs and barriers associated with enslaving a populace. Imagine herding the population of Britain into camps, vs the USA.
In Britain, you could realistically send in one or two soldiers per house, armed with nothing but pistols to round everyone up. No body armor, no armored APCs, very little ammo, and minimal training.
In the US, it would be much more difficult, and therefore much more expensive and time consuming.
Because 40 years after the strategy "walk through the jungle, wait to get blown up," our strategy became
"Drive through the desert. Wait to get blown up."
Guerilla tactics will always be effective. Hence the surveillance state.
2nd amendment now go fuck yourself.
Bundy ranch now fuck off.
>no hint of dirt or dust on dual-sport motorcycle
wat even is this
>government is equipped with drones, helicopters, jets, bombs etc etc
They had all that shit in Vietnam too. How well did that shit work out for them? Not to mention how many of our own military would turn on the government if asked to attack their own countrymen.
>>no hint of dirt or dust
Mud! Where's the fucking mud? What kind of magic is this!
>the government is equipped with drones, helicopters, jets, bombs etc etc.
Which party do you suppose the people operating these things votes for?
for the thousandth time. You do not control populations with tanks, drones, bombs, helicopters or jets. If you want to control a populous you have to send in ground troops.
Yes you can, stupid goy, You don't need your weapons, they weigh you down and make you weak!
>Not even memeing here
Stop making threads, faggot. You're so fucking retarded that it hurts. The moment your government starts shooting its citizens with tanks, drones, jets and helicopters, is the moment those very same equipment run out of fuel, manpower, ammunition and food. And army can't function without a massive support network of non-military personnel.
>but nowadays the government is equipped with drones, helicopters, jets, bombs etc etc.
And yet, a bunch of farmers kept the government from illegally claiming their land with an armed standoff. Hurr Durr why didn't the govt just turn them into a crater with a missile? The world may never know
A government army can't win against such a well armed population unless they start genociding - and goodluck enforcing that policy.
Not actually that unrealistic.
That's exactly why 2A rights advocates want us to repeal the NFA so we'd get access to machine guns, explosives, etc.
Also if a tyrannical govt did happen i would assume that a number of soldiers would join the rebellion and bring with them some tanks/helicopters, etc.
Tanks, jets, missiles don't mean much on home territory.
We can't drone strike a mudhut in the desert without 30 civilian deaths, why do people on the left seem to think we could drone strike a Manhattan apartment building and only kill one guy?
And how are we supposed to know the guy is even a fighter? or where he even is ?
>Maybe it made sense like 200 years ago with muskets and cannonballs, but nowadays the government is equipped with drones, helicopters, jets, bombs etc etc.
[LAUGHS IN VIETNAMESE AND AFGHANI]
All that equipment is meaningless in guerilla warfare. The Vietnamese were a bunch of farmers with outdated rifles, the Afghans weren't much different. Tanks and drones and bombs are good against other armies, but really bad at defeating decentralized civilian militias
Just use his phone GPS and airstrike him that way, duh
It's not like a guerrilla would leave his phone at home...
You niggers post this thread every day, it's not even a shill wave it's mental deficient not understanding the concept of insurgency.
Every revolution must begin with arms. Power conceeds nothing without a demand backed by force. If the state has more advanced weapons, then you can steal some of them with guns. Guns allow you to force the person on the other end to either comply, or get out of the way, forever. That is why, as Mao said, "Political power emanates from the barrel of a gun."
>why do people say that the second ammendment stands for the right to oppose a tyrannical government
Because that is what the founding fathers wrote it for. They also understood "a well organized militia" to mean ordinary citizens defending their life, liberty, and property, not a militia as we understand it. They made it unconstitutional for the US to have a standing army with this in mind. A citizenry that defends itself has no need for a centralized army that can be abused by government.
all weapon systems have a weak spot
the fleshy bit called a human controlling them
a drone might be hard to shoot down. But they guy controlling it is an overweight desk jockey that only saw a pistol during basic
a tank crew might be nearly impossible to kill in their tank without heavy weaponry
but can't live in there. And once you pop the hatch you are just as soft and squishy.
This for the billionth time. Lefties try actually reading for once.
The government is never going to nuke and JDAM it's own civilians that pay it's bills, it needs workers. It would need a police state to act like the Stassi commies of the past, which doesn't work if enough people are armed.
The Government can and in fact has been tyrannical at times. I don't know how people don't know about the labor wars where oppressed workers had to use arms to defend themselves against the local/federal government as well greedy bussinessmen.
Look up the Battle of Blair Mountain as a good primer.
"Private planes were hired to drop homemade bombs on the miners. A combination of gas and explosive bombs left over from World War I were dropped in several locations near the towns of Jeffery, Sharples and Blair. On orders from General Billy Mitchell, Army bombers from Maryland were also used for aerial surveillance. On August 30, Morgan appointed Colonel William Eubanks of the West Virginia National Guard to command the government and volunteer forces confronting the miners.Collectors and researchers are still finding weapons and ammunition embedded in old trees and in rock crevices. Thousands of spent and live cartridges have made it into private collections.
After the battle, 985 miners were indicted for murder, conspiracy to commit murder, accessory to murder and treason against the State of West Virginia. Though some were acquitted by sympathetic juries, others were imprisoned for years. The last was paroled in 1925. At Blizzard's trial, the unexploded bomb was used as evidence of the government and companies' brutality, and he was acquitted."
Look into all the various labor wars up through 1945. Extreme violence, use of private armies hired by employers, use of state/federal troops, firing on civillians. Its a similar issue to the labor uprisings in other cpuntries like China at the time, yet Americans managed to bitterly fight there way to fairness while others failed and now work in sweatshops making knick knacks.
Read Marx's address to the Communist Party. He explicitly makes that point, and says that the worker's state can only be defended by an armed population. Disarming them in favor of some secret police leads to stalinism and tyranny.