Abrego Garcia Was Beaten and Tortured in El Salvador Prison, Lawyers Say

At an individual level you are correct, but that's not what the 2nd amendment was about. An armed populace can stand up to a government. All you have to look at are the wars that the US has lost - Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind.

With that said, it's moot since a large portion of the population wants an authoritarian dictator/king. I'm not sure if the founders addressed the issue of the people possibly wanting a king again.

I don't believe either of those examples are appropriate. The U.S military is never going to withdraw from the U.S due to the public growing weary of the war. The opposite would happen. The insurgency would surrender.

Also in the case of Vietnam, it's worth noting that the Viet Cong for all intents and purposes lost the insurgency. The war was won by the conventional forces of North Vietnam after the U.S ceased military aid to the south.

I also missed the most important point. Neither country had a 2nd amendment and both insurgencies imported arms illegally. And actual military hardware at that, not revolvers and sporting shotguns.

> With that said, it's moot since a large portion of the population wants an authoritarian dictator/king. I'm not sure if the founders addressed the issue of the people possibly wanting a king again.

You're wrong, twice. Most population doesn't want a dictator king. And founders actually put protections against such scenario, in the form of supreme court.

The actual scenario you're facing is the majority of supreme court (and congress) wanting (or willing to bend a knee to) a dictator king.

I don't think you can draw conclusions from wars us lost if you cite such different examples as Afghanistan and Vietnam. By that measure US lost also in Korea and Iraq

> An armed populace can stand up to a government. All you have to look at are the wars that the US has lost - Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind.

The US did not 'lose' Vietnam to a bunch of citizens/people: it was fighting a proxy war against China and the Soviet Union.

Further, South Vietnam existed for many years and when the Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973, and for a further two years. When the South fell in 1975 it was not because the US was beaten, but because it had moved on in its priorities.

The Vietnam theatre achieved its larger goal of driving a wedge between the Soviets and Chinese in the Cold War. See this lecture from Sarah Paine of the US Naval War College, "Who Lost the Vietnam War?":

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjXlvIBQmU0

> US did not 'lose' Vietnam to a bunch of citizens/people: it was fighting a proxy war against China and the Soviet Union

You really can’t imagine an American insurgency finding sympathy among foreign powers?

> U.S military is never going to withdraw from the U.S due to the public growing weary of the war

But the military may turn on its commanders if forced into a guerilla war against Americans.

The point is to draw out and make more difficult the oppression. There is a massive difference between pacifying a city with a couple of Marines and National Guardsmen and calling in air strikes on the homeland.

>But the military may turn on its commanders if forced into a guerilla war against Americans.

You mean a counter-terrorism operation against "Unpatriotic terrorists"?

>The point is to draw out and make more difficult the oppression

You can achieve that more effectively with a general strike, without alienating those who aren't willing to fire on their own countries military. Legally purchasable firearms would be more of a nuisance than a threat for a modern army.

> Most population doesn't want a dictator king.

He didn't say "most" he said "a large portion", which is definitely correct since he got almost half of the votes. And he's been very clear about wanting to be a dictator, so it should come as no surprise to his voters.

I said a large portion and not most. Trump was very clear what his intentions were and people voted for him anyway.

SCOTUS has zero ability to execute on their decisions - that's up to POTUS. Congress is also voted on by the populace, and most GOP not towing the MAGA line have been primaried because once again, a large portion of the population wants exactly this.

Or sympathy among the US military itself.

> the majority of supreme court

Pointing out that if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had retired under Obama the SC wouldn't now be as extreme.

Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Is that not the case? The North Korean government is still in power and Iraq, while not under Saddam, turned into a power vacuum that eventually gave rise to ISIS and various other regional instability.

> a counter-terrorism operation against "Unpatriotic terrorists"?

Yes. The traditional framing is riot or rebellion suppression.

> can achieve that more effectively with a general strike

This is civil action. If protests and strikes work, the point is moot. Where weapons and training have historically made a difference is when the army is sent in to quell a strike.

I’m sure the Republicans would have found some way to ratfuck that appointment.

The balance of power hasn’t made that a logical argument for a long time now.

Compare and contrast say the provisional IRA fighting the Brits to a stalemate in Northern Ireland for 30 years from the 70s-90s and then look at a modern equivalent in Palestine. The idea of a “well trained militia” doesn’t work when they can bomb you from the skies.

Not under the 111th supermajority Congress (2009-2011).

That was a different America. This America would rather alienate Canada and push for them to be the 51st state than keep their friendship. This America is fine with the things in the linked article, torturing people legally in this country, solely because it makes removing illegals from the country a little easier. American's are buying merch for alligator Auschwitz.

> That was a different America

To be clear, I believe we need stronger gun-control laws in America. And I think the current crop of J6 militias are the most potent terrorist threat this country has faced since Al Qaeda. But the logic of the 2A in making a military coup more difficult is sound. Even if the rest of the argument is not.