> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator
This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".
replies(26):
This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".
The argument is not that a rebellious citizenry will necessarily win a war, it's that it will draw out a bloody civil war so long and so expensive as to be a form of mutually assured destruction, the risk of which acts as a check in and of itself.
The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles. If there was ever a true US dictator, the 2nd amendment would mostly be used by the oppressed to rob, attack, and oppress one another.
Let me make sure I understand your basic premise: the ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical dictatorship made sense until the government developed better technology, now it's pointless so just give up your guns?
Aside from being completely contrary to the American spirit of defending yourself from tyranny, it's based on the bogus premise that the advanced military technology can be used effectively against its own people. Where is the military going to fire those "computer guided missiles?" Into every rural home and every urban apartment window of everyone they suspect has guns, with thousands of civilian collateral casualties? Are tanks and fighter jets going to roll in and level entire economic hubs like cities? Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure? Are you envisioning "the rebellion" would set up a nice neat base in some remote location for the military to aim its tech at? Do you think the real men and women of the military would follow orders to destroy its own hometowns and families? How long before regional coups? How big do you think the US military is, relative to the armed civilian population? You are also aware that soldiers and police wear recognizable uniforms, while "the rebellion" doesn't?
I don't think you've thought this through.
There is absolutely no such thing as the "American spirit of defending yourself from tyranny", whoever told you that sold you a lie. The Revolutionary War was not a precedent, it was a single violent act by a unified people. What you're talking about is literally the opposite of unification.
The second amendment has nothing to do with individuals overthrowing anyone, it was never meant to be interpreted that way, and the current belief that it is is much more dangerous than any threat of an oppressive American regime. What you're actually suggesting is that state National Guards fight the US Army. Good fucking luck.
Your complete lack of understanding about history makes this whole conversation pointless. There is no best version of your argument (so it's hard to follow HN rules), there is just racist, nationalistic anger that you will be forced to get over with eventually.
Edit: It's an actual attack on me, personally, to claim I specifically am thinking about hurting anyone, when I'm responding to a comment suggesting an American insurgency; keep in mind that it was easier for 'daenz to go there than it was to actually refute anything I wrote. This is despicable behavior, a real low point for HN.
I normally wouldn't respond to a post like this, but if you are thinking about hurting people that you disagree with, please seek out some help. This sentence honestly reads like a warning flag to me for someone who has reached their limit for debating peacefully with others.