- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That is not born out by history, not universally anyway, history is full of examples of military officials not putting down rebellion. The October revolt in Russia, is the most prominent. The governor of Tennessee chose not to activate the national guard during the McMinn county war is another
I don't see what that has to do with the fact that
1) Using the militia to put down revolts, insurrections, etc is a part of the constitution
2) Soldiers would (and many times, have) put down insurrections when ordered to do so
3) The RKBA is not a check on a govt that has a powerful and professional standing army at its' service
The fact that some govt have chosen to not put down insurrections doesn't change the above. If the govt chooses to not put down an insurrection, then it makes no difference if the people have guns. They won't need to use them to fight a govt that is not resisting their insurrection.
PS - The McMinn county war wasn't an insurrection against the federal govt so the fact that the fed govt didn't put it down doesn't really make the point that RKBA is a check on the federal govt