I don't care about legal or cultural precedent in germany or the EU. This isn't germany. The US plays a far more important role in global affairs, and as such must take more dramatic measures to prevent it from falling into the hands of some regime, those measures include the right to bear arms as well as freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
It's no laughing matter. It has more to do than you might think.
>Unless you’re saying that random armed people are going to defend against a coup from our own army - doubtful
Think again.
>Hypothetical “defense” at what cost? Mass shootings every week is worth it?
Yes. Those who trade their fundamental freedoms for a little greater safety will eventually have neither.
PS: you also entirely fail to provide counterpoints to any of the points the person you are replying to made, only vague and nonsensical implications.
If they're willing to rule over a country of bones, the asymmetric warfare resources the United States has available are sufficient to put down any rebellion. How much fight do you think 81 million armed civilians would keep in them if cities just started vaporizing?
A hypothetical American government with open rebellion wouldn't need to take and hold territory... It could decide specific chunks of the country are worth saving and nuke vast quantities of the rest.
I'd say that scenario is impossible, but this is America we're talking about... If there's one thing the history of American warfare teaches, It's that you can't apply the rest of the history of war to the way America fights wars. This is the country that gave us, in modern times, ending a rebellion by putting civilian cities to the flame until the civilians became too tired and hungry to support the war.
Sorry pal, it'll be a bright flash and then no more. Your guns aren't going to do shit.
Isn’t the freedom to walk down the street or go to school without fear of a deranged shooter or accidental firearm discharge an important freedom too?
No. You have no right to not be in fear.
And even using your argument, I feel less in fear walking down the street with "protection" than not, which by your argument strengthens my right to carry.
Strange conception of rights / freedom
Somehow, I don't think so. Instead it's just allowing you and yours to kill each other. As a Kiwi living in the UK: gun control works, it really does.
Also, falling into a regime? Your current political atmosphere is that a regime of extremely conservative people who are pretty much the major group to own guns in America are trying to devolve human rights in your country. So really, in a way, you already have a regime trying to take over and _they_ have all the guns already.
But almost a hundred years later, the calculus changed when several States banded together and tried to dissolve the country by violence. As a consequence of the 14th Amendment, rights previously recognized only at the federal level became enforced at the state level as well. This creates a bit of a philosophical contradiction in the original intent of the Second Amendment to provide citizens States the capacity to defend themselves from overreaching federal power, and evolution of that contradiction is how we eventually got to the notion that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms independent of any particular military application of those arms, despite the word "militia" being in the amendment itself.
Lol. Just look at american media. And religion ? You mean baptist religion ?
Yet funnily when that was in the process of happening (Trump's failed coup attempt) not only were there no "good guys with guns" against the regime, all the guys with the guns were for the regime trying to make a coup.
And there are plenty of US "liberals" who are "pro-gun", whatever that means.
oh no
the pen used for voting has more power than a gun to prevent the US from falling into the hands of "some regime".
Beneath the rule of men entirely great
The pen is mightier than the sword.
That is, the power of the pen is premised on power in arms being equal.
The line comes from Edward Bulwer-Lytton, of "It was a dark and stormy night" fame. It appears in the play Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy, about Cardinal Richelieu a/k/a a/k/a Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal-Duc de Richelieu et de Fronsac, who may have a line or two on the power of words to his fame (or at least ascribed) as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_s...
“The situation reached a climax in 1970, when the Bangladesh Awami League, the largest East Pakistani political party, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, won a landslide victory in the national elections. The party won 167 of the 169 seats allotted to East Pakistan, and thus a majority of the 313 seats in the National Assembly. This gave the Awami League the constitutional right to form a government. However, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (a former Foreign Minister), the leader of the Pakistan People's Party, refused to allow Rahman to become the Prime Minister of Pakistan.”
>The Bangladeshi Declaration of Independence was broadcast from Chittagong by members of the Mukti Bahini—the national liberation army formed by Bengali military, paramilitary and civilians. The East Bengal Regiment and the East Pakistan Rifles played a crucial role in the resistance. Led by General M. A. G. Osmani and eleven sector commanders, the Bangladesh Forces waged a mass guerrilla war against the Pakistani military.
The Bangladeshi military organized the resistance. It was not a simple civilians-with-guns-rising-against-tyranny scenario.