> 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.
"The means of defense against a foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." —James Madison[1]
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." —Thomas Jefferson[1]
"What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson[2]
[1]https://theshalafi.blogspot.com/2010/07/few-quotes-by-foundi...
[2]https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
You dropped this when you quoted me. I wonder why...
To think that we should resort to violence instead of using the systems in place for peaceful negotiations is insane.
Also, interesting how you only quoted slave-owning inspirations of Southern Democrats, who buried their heads in the sand, preferring to talk high mindedly in their ivory towers about the Constitution than actually fix the immense problems facing the people they purportedly wanted to help.
There was nothing particularly egregious about that particular statement. I didn't feel a response was necessary.
>>>To think that we should resort to violence instead of using the systems in place for peaceful negotiations is insane.
Soap box --> ballot box --> ammo box.
There is a spectrum of methods for effecting change. If people are reaching for the ammo box, it SHOULD only be because all attempts to utilize other methods have already conclusively failed.
>>>Also, interesting how you only quoted slave-owning inspirations of Southern Democrats
They were the first ones I came across in a 30-second Internet search for "Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment" or "Founding Fathers on tyranny". A further search for non-slaving owning Founding Fathers reveals [Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, John Adams].
"In a state of tranquility, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny." ~ Samuel Adams[1]
Thomas Paine doesn't have many juicy tyranny/2A quotes. John Adams seems to take the position that the militia should be an extension of the state security apparatus (my reading of his quote).[2]
But anyways, this is all getting away from why I replied at all: you stated there was "no such thing as an American spirit of defending yourself against tyranny" and implied anyone stating such is a liar. That is a blatant falsehood. Positions from the nations founders on tyranny are so easily accessible and, IMO, fairly clear on the subject. So what sort of information have you been exposed to that would ever lead you to hold such a strong, and objectively erroneous, position?
[1]https://www.azquotes.com/author/99-Samuel_Adams
[2]https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Adams#A_Defence_of_the_Co...