Boilermaker Rick wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
There was little to no armed resistance in Haiti. And once again, rebels in most cases had arms that were illegally obtained, so why are we using potential resistance as a justification for what's legal or illegal in the here and now in the US?
The point is that we are more likely to get foreign help if we actually have a resistance going, and that has been proven more likely in many conflicts.
The empirical record on this is far more complicated than you suggest, with armed insurgencies in some cases being largely the creation of the intervening force. But beyond this, even in those cases where there's an active resisting force already in place, that force is armed with weapons the state would have judged as illegal, so I am once again forced to ask what relevance this has to the US policy in the here and now.
This is doubly so since so many Second Amendment fans lecture constantly about the inevitability of the black market as undermining any effort to outlaw any new weapon. Yet the existence of that same black market also makes it unlikely that in the event the citizenry did need to arm up against a tyrannical stated they'd be entirely out of options altogether.
Quote:
Once again, you are stuck on the fact that we would have to be able to win the war for it to matter. Our military could not be beaten by any military force on the planet. There is a reason why those are important to those countries though.
It's just amusing that someone who probably thinks Donald Trump is a fascist is arguing this so strongly. If you don't think Trump is then I apologize.
I'm sorry I think justifying the current set of legal guns as vital for protecting us against tyranny means that there should be an empirical reason to believe they can actually do so. The contentless notion of resistance you continue to deploy can be used to justify practically any set of gun laws, from only having potato cannons as legal to having everything up to what the US military enjoys. And comparing militaries to the US citizens bearing arms is once again meaningless since every developed military also has access to weapons that US citizens cannot currently obtain and because foreign clashes are by nature vastly different from domestic ones.
I think Trump has fascistic tendencies but I'm also not foolish enough to believe that any armed resistance on the part of private citizens is likely to do a damn thing about him.