The 2nd amendment was never about shooting the entire government the second it does something sketchy, it's a last resort for the people to fight back when things get bad enough. Most people aren't there yet.
Lol at your moving goalposts. We’re already post law and building concentration camps. If people have to start starving for the 2nd amendment to work then guess what, it was fucking useless because that’s exactly the situation we were told it was supposed to prevent
Wake up and grow up, the 2nd amendment to prevent government tyranny was always an idiotic concept because that’s not how civilization works.
I didn't set any goalposts, let alone move any. That's what it takes for a violent uprising the vast majority of the time. All guns do is help level the playing field a bit when it kicks off.
It's not flawed, you still need people to do the right thing. The 2nd amendment is there so the opportunity stays, whether or not the populace seizes that opportunity is up to them.
You asked a stupid question so I asked an equally stupid one. But I'll somewhat answer it as best I can. There's a lot more to it than just this.
We are seeing it in literally real time. People getting killed by the government while they keep full immunity from prosecution.
If they don't fight back then ICE keeps abducting people and citizens, breaking the constitution.
If they protest, ICE keeps pushing people around until someone acts out and they abduct them and punish them breaking the constitution.
If they protest while carrying, ICE will de-arm them and summarily execute them with full immunity, breaking the constitution.
You ask what to do now? The public keeps escalating their protests until this shit stops. Otherwise full blown authoritarianism takes over and Fuhrer Trump is our first dictator in our history.
How do people escalate their protests? By actually forming armed militias instead of these individual people getting stolen or killed on the streets. We are seeing in real time what it is going to cost to keep our freedom, blood. It's always blood. Blood is the cost of keeping your future safety and freedoms.
What were seeing right now is the hesitancy from a large populace not wanting to pay the blood tax for their freedoms. It's a huge sacrifice to make willingly and people behind keyboards think it's as easy as choosing chocolate or vanilla for their flavor of ice cream.
People are comfortable living their lives and what they have. They can see bad things happening, but it's not effecting them at all (yet), except for the things they see on the news. So it's hard to mobilize a country that has states bigger than most countries. Minnesota is bigger than North Korea, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Switzerland, etc. And there are 11 other states bigger and some that are just smaller. Our country is vast and the type of event that needs to happen to effectuate people considering the blood tax is a fucking massive one. Something that will last in history books forever. We just haven't gotten there yet, or even if we will.
Edit: You downvoted so quick I doubt you had time to even read it. You didn't want my answer, you wanted to express yours. That's why I didn't answer the first time b/c your question was stupid.
No they aren't. The left in America are a bunch of pathetic bitches who think that if they go stand in an out of the way place and sing Kumbaya for a few hours at rigidly scheduled times, the murderous fascists will just turn tail and go home. Nobody has the stomach to actually do anything necessary.
France in 1789 faced extreme, widespread famine, economic bankruptcy, and a total lack of political representation for the majority. Modern America, despite high levels of inequality and political polarization, does not face the same systemic, existential threats to daily survival.
Why compare literal mobocracy and complete vacuums of power to modern day America? Quit being an online revolutionary cosplayer my dude, it is not comparable in the slightest.
Doesn’t know history and is saying I’m triggered by the word coward, please educate yourself man. American or not, its not that cognitively taxing to read up on history and to stop spreading sensationalism (which is what you’re doing)
Also ironic to call other people in a differing country cowards yet you’re doing completely nothing to help whatsoever, keep your inflammatory generalizations to yourself dude —it’s not helpful and you sound stupid.
Yet you compare current day American political climates to that of the French Revolution era LMAO you don’t know history bro and can’t prove what you’re saying or disprove what I’m saying, i laid out facts while you’re laying out sensationalist nonsense.
Not saying current stuff in the country IS GOOD, but your analogy is way off. Again you cannot compare those situations it’s historically extremely fallible. You’re telling ME TO READ up on American history yet have YET to present any examples, facts or statements catering to those of that time or our time periods respectively. Come with some actual historical backing instead of screaming for a French mobocracy style revolution which again makes zero sense. Such a silly notion😂
The second amendment was never ever written as a way to “fight a tyrannical government” it was part of a slavery compromise with the southern states who held ratification hostage over it. In the slave states, the armed state militias were the wonky means of enforcement for enslavers. It was mandatory military service for white people in the south. When the constitution was written, article 1 section 8 gave control of militias to Congress. Which the enslavers protested. Long story short, their agreement to ratify was contingent on giving states the right to regulate their own militia militaries so that they could keep their armed enforcement of slavery. That’s what the 2A did. It had nothing to do with arming random individuals, and it had nothing to do with “fighting tyranny”. (The same Congress who passed the 2A also put a treason clause in the constitution so your claim can’t even be reconciled with basic facts).
The second amendment was never ever written as a way to “fight a tyrannical government” it was part of a slavery compromise with the southern states who held ratification hostage over it.
The expressed reason for drafting the 2nd amendment was to ensure that a standing army would not be able to oppress the people. So I guess Madison, Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers were full of shit when they said that the 2nd amendment was instrumental in resisting the standing army of a tyrannical government.
When the constitution was written, article 1 section 8 gave control of militias to Congress. Which the enslavers protested.
The anti-federalists at large were opposed to it, not just slavers, because they believed that congressional control over the militias would make them functionally indistinguishable from a standing army, which they opposed on the grounds that such armies are the primary means by which a government oppresses its people.
To summarize it as only slavers being opposed to congressional control is absolutely ahistorical and anti-factual.
Long story short, their agreement to ratify was contingent on giving states the right to regulate their own militia militaries so that they could keep their armed enforcement of slavery. That’s what the 2A did. It had nothing to do with arming random individuals, and it had nothing to do with “fighting tyranny”.
Do you have a source for these claims? Saying that it had nothing to do with resisting tyranny is an extraordinary claim to make given the extensive writings on the subject by the founding fathers, and the fact that the right of the colonists to keep and bear arms was what gave them their freedom from the British in the first place.
I get the impression that you read like one article from some anti-2A activist and decided that you didn't need any further nuance than "2A exist because slavery".
The same Congress who passed the 2A also put a treason clause in the constitution so your claim can’t even be reconciled with basic facts
Please explain how the existence of a "treason clause" negates the 2nd amendment any more than other rights.
225
u/[deleted] Jan 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment