Yeah - Machine Guns Now Legal

So basically you want a state similar to third world African countries, or Haiti, where bands of armed thugs keep taking over the government then kidnap children rape the women, and pilfer all of the resources for themselves, until another band of armed thugs overthrows them.

 

lol yes. Thats exactly what I want /s

Sometimes I just can’t with you guys. Honestly just trying to start an honest debate.

 

Folks who are as comfortable as most in the US are (in terms of needs being met - food, clean water, housing, etc) generally do not put their lives at risk by trying to actually take over the government by force.

 

Somewhat ironically, focusing our understanding of the Second on the prefatory clause may be useful for things like trying to uphold public carry bans and the like, but it actually undermines the argument for the legality of things like the machine gun ban.

If we go with the understanding that the intent of the Second was to ensure that, if you had to muster the militia, the populace would be reasonably well-equipped to fight by bringing the weapons they already owned, the arms most at the core of the Second Amendment (and thus entitled to the most protection) would be those useful for military/combat service. Which, at least today, definitely includes automatic weapons.

 

I don’t agree that it’s inapplicable, was just noting that “why don’t we ever focus on the first half of the Second Amendment” probably isn’t the panacea gun control advocates are looking for here.

Because it leads to results like “not being able to buy an off-roster compact 9mm handgun in California doesn’t present a constitutional issue, but the government must ensure that I’m able to purchase an M249 SAW light machine gun.”

 

Jan 6th?

 

I’m speaking more to current state where the government is largely (if imperfectly) holding up its end of the bargain, but recognize that there is a possible future state in which those things aren’t true. In which case, should a significant enough portion of the population become legitimately disenfranchised, then yes, a revolution would not only be possible, but even justifiable. History has shown us that such scenarios can and have occurred fairly rapidly throughout recorded history.

The alternative is a government that abandons or disenfranchises large portions of its people but still seeks to hold power over them.

as far as beating the US military, sometimes a decisive victory on the battlefield is not necessary to ultimately win wars. Our military has struggled with goat and rice farmers despite significant technology advantages, and that is without having to fight their own people, or needing to worry about having something leftover to rule. A people with nothing to lose is not to be taken lightly.

 

That isn’t what trying to forcibly take over a government looks like

 

Then what was it?

 

Saw one of those Pawn Stars shows where they were looking at buying a restored WW 2 US Halftrack, complete with 20 mm anti aircraft gun in the back. It was one price with the gun and another without the gun. Baldy opted for it without the AA gun.

 

What occurred Jan 6 was far more angry mob than anything actually credible and intentional.

An actual coup would look like a group of people conducting an organized operation where they attempt to forcibly remove government officials with actual credible weapons and are prepared to die and/or kill to achieve their ends. Not 'angry people storm capitol to stop certification and are easily turned away after one of them is shot an the others see that the Gov't means business.'

 

The point is these people upended their normal lives in order to do what they were doing, whatever you wish to call it.

 

And were all (most?) unarmed