Maybe the U.S. Second Amendment isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
People should have the ability to resist or overthrow a tyrannical government.
This is what happens when the population has no guns.
People should have the ability to resist or overthrow a tyrannical government.
This is what happens when the population has no guns.
The second amendment is just an individual's ability to shoot someone ... why or when they choose to do so (if at all) is no sure thing.
Moreover there's a fundamental issue in the US that quite a large proportion of the population supports what is going on. This varies by location of course but that just exacerbates the issue - there are places in the US where the vast vast majority of people have no objection to what is happening.
Plenty of countries have people with lots of guns and plenty of rights violations, genocide, so on.
The example fails for the same reason. There's no way to rule out the possibility that there would be more rights violations in said countries if people possessed fewer arms on average. There's also no reason to expect violations to go to zero, only for them to be deterred to some extent on average.
It's similar to the MAD doctrine. That doesn't predict no war, just less war and smaller wars in general. It doesn't even predict no use of nuclear weapons, merely that any use is rarer, more judicious, and more deliberate.
Winning a war is so much more than expensive, shiny weapons.
Is that accurate or just Ukrainian propaganda like the Ghost of Kiev?
Estimates for counterinsurgency are that an occupier needs ~20 soldiers for 1000 occupied civilians. The US army has 1.3M troops - the entire might of the US military would be needed to pacify just CA alone, and that would leave the rest of the country virtually defenseless. It's easy to bomb a building from a jet; it's much harder to kick in doors and arrest dissidents _even if_ there is no armed resistance.
The hard truth that allows democracy to survive is that it is not possible to govern without the consent of the governed. It is certainly not possible to occupy a rich, productive region and have it remain rich and productive unless the occupier has overwhelming force.
Granted, I'm not in the U.S. so I don't know what it's like on the ground, but I'm surprised to not hear about any armed resistance despite how gun-happy many Americans are.
I’m just glad President Trump didn’t start Iraq War 2.0 with this unrest as his WMD excuse.
Do I become a terrorist if I defend myself against government agents who are attempting to murder me? Certainly said government agents would label me as such but hopefully a neutral third party wouldn't.