Pozessed
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2014
- Messages
- 934
- Reaction score
- 217
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Everytime I read this I wonder just how short-sighted some peoples' thinking is.
There are tons of books out there...fiction and some even non-fiction...that describe ways to undermine the US govt in an active violent revolution, mostly through asymmetrical warfare means. Firearms are not close to the primary weapons. I wont go into details, the books are out there.
Do we wage war, today, with firearms? Expect to win wars using them? No. We use bombs and tanks, and espionage and inflitration and sabotage and hacking communications, etc etc etc.
But...who DOES carry firearms and why? Our soldiers do...for self-defense. To protect themselves and others in carrying out the war efforts.
It's the same reason American citizens should have every right to keep and carry firearms. Not for the act of overcoming tyranny (as written, there are many, better ways to do that)....but to protect themselves and their families if they are considered 'enemy combatants' in such a conflict. Or as they carry out other acts of war/rebellion against the govt. *Just like our soldiers.*
Our firearms are not, in this era, a tool for waging war. Now they are to protect any soldiers in such a war...just like our military today. But that's why discussions about 'if they have tanks, should citizens have tanks?' are just dumb. Same with using nukes there instead of tanks.
Of course I'm not saying any such rebellion is on the horizon, I'm just writing that there are plenty of ways to engage in that conflict and firearms will not be the primary weapons.
The FFs believed that guns in the hands of citizens discourage govt tyranny, by giving the people the means to defend themselves.
I think what bothers me most is that most people consider our rights to bear arms worthy of infringing, yet there is no amendment to conform to the will of the majority. Most people agree not everyone should own tanks, nukes, or high explosives. Which is certainly an infringement on the right to bear arms. So why not amend the 2A to conform with the will of the majority and end the debate that all weaponry is supposed to be legal?