• LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    I think you’re missing the point that it wouldn’t be a war, it would be a police action. The local national guards would shut that shit down quickly.

    If you think your small arms could stand against the US military on its own turf, you’re hilariously mistaken. I get that you want to believe that’s what gives you your freedoms, but come on. Nobody who actually understands how that would play out takes those dreams seriously.

    You have guns because they fulfill your fantasies, not because that’s in any way realistic.

    • Bomber@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Objectively then, clearly 2A is deficient. The people need more arms to keep oppressive governments in check.

      • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        No, the 2A wasn’t meant for individual people to keep arms for that reason. It was written before the US had any sort of army (and several of the founders were actually against a national standing army), with the point being each state would keep enough arms and accoutrements and train the people to be ready to be called up to defend their state.

        It was meant to create something like what became the National Guard.

        The Supreme Court changed that definition in 2002 with the Heller decision, so now it’s even further removed from its original meaning. I suppose that makes it deficient if you’re reading in an original meaning it never had in the first place.