Totally agree with you, a handgun is no match for a tank. If the military wants to make war on citizens, they will lose.
However, there is more going on that meets the eye. Many members of the military would not want to shoot their own citizens. And armed citizens can still do more damage than unarmed citizens. In other words, the 2A forces an authoritarian administration to use violence in order to repress the citizens. It ups the stakes. And citizens can strike in ways that the military can’t. Guerilla warfare tactics. They don’t need to “win”, they just need to disrupt, to spread fear.
But, yeah, with the current surveillance state, along with the culpability of the media, it seems a dubious proposition that armed citizens can save themselves from the fascists. Regardless, I have suddenly become a HUGE proponent of guns. Especially when I see the Black Panthers providing security for demonstrators. Respect.
Many members of the military would not want to shoot their own citizens.
Which has nothing to do with the second amendment. That’d be equally true whether the citizens are armed or not. Actually, more likely to be true if they’re not armed.
They have their advantages. They aren’t particularly good at protecting a person since a person that owns or wields a firearm is much, much, much more likely to be stabbed or shot. The other person in the altercation needs to kill or disable them to preserve their own life.
Firearms do, however, make a great store of wealth. If a gun owner ever needs money, they can easily make a profit…especially on the black market. This is arguably one of the most important benefits from the perspective of gun owners. The value of a gun increases with inflation.
Totally agree with you, a handgun is no match for a tank. If the military wants to make war on citizens, they will lose.
However, there is more going on that meets the eye. Many members of the military would not want to shoot their own citizens. And armed citizens can still do more damage than unarmed citizens. In other words, the 2A forces an authoritarian administration to use violence in order to repress the citizens. It ups the stakes. And citizens can strike in ways that the military can’t. Guerilla warfare tactics. They don’t need to “win”, they just need to disrupt, to spread fear.
But, yeah, with the current surveillance state, along with the culpability of the media, it seems a dubious proposition that armed citizens can save themselves from the fascists. Regardless, I have suddenly become a HUGE proponent of guns. Especially when I see the Black Panthers providing security for demonstrators. Respect.
Which has nothing to do with the second amendment. That’d be equally true whether the citizens are armed or not. Actually, more likely to be true if they’re not armed.
Yeah, sorry, sometimes my ADHD just randomly throws in a clown. I mean, an entire non-sequitur sentence.
They have their advantages. They aren’t particularly good at protecting a person since a person that owns or wields a firearm is much, much, much more likely to be stabbed or shot. The other person in the altercation needs to kill or disable them to preserve their own life.
Firearms do, however, make a great store of wealth. If a gun owner ever needs money, they can easily make a profit…especially on the black market. This is arguably one of the most important benefits from the perspective of gun owners. The value of a gun increases with inflation.