I don't really see how a civil war is in any way a good development. You think the Syrian civil war, the Iraq civil war, the Libyan civil war, the Yemen civil war, or indeed the more vintage Vietnam civil war are inspiring examples?

The US civil war was a good thing. The American Revolution was a good thing. Bangladesh’s independence war, the revolution that created the Portuguese Republic, the Finnish civil war, the Turkish war of independence, etc. Lots of democracies exist today because of people with guns.

The US civil war was a good thing? It was better than the extension of slavery through the whole country, it was better than secession, and emancipation was certainly a good thing. But it was massively destructive--look up Lincoln's letters giving the cost of war as against the cost of compensating slaveowners in return for emancipation.

Turkish war of independence from whom? Are you referring to the Balkan wars of independence from the Ottoman Empire?

Yes, the civil war was a good thing. The destruction was a necessary component of avoiding those things which you acknowledge would be worse. That’s how the world works. Sometimes you need to avoid the bad thing through a lot of destruction.

Guns are an escalation to which the oppressive government will answer.

If the people have guns, then the authority will say they have to resort to tanks.

If the people have tanks, the authority will say they have to resort to nukes.

If the American revolution was being fought today, could the British have just won by nuking America?

Depends on how many nukes France has...

^^ agreed, and a chuckle to spare .. so far I have never heard anyone seriously argue that the right to bear arms extends to atomic weapons as well as assault weapons ..

How else to depose despots

> It’s easy for the police to keep ranks. It’s easy for people in other countries to ignore it. But if the people can start a shooting war, even they can’t win it, that changes the situation completely.

What a confused, surreal train of though made you say that? Regular citizens with guns vs. one of the biggest armies in the world, which can reach them by ground and setup an endless supply chain while simultaneously blockading Hong Kong. That's just forfeiting whatever international political capital you have earned and trading it for misery.

Nothing would please more China than having those civilian protesters plausibly described as a military group.

I didn’t say Hong Kong was at that point (I don’t think it is—I was just commenting about the crowd control weapons). But say Syria? There is a point where it’s justified.

Do you really think the US citizens can win a war against the DOD? With handguns?

Assault rifles, which are protected by the Second Amendment. But that’s besides the point. Real revolutions aren’t like in sci-fi dystopias, with an unflinching authoritarian government and a military that obeys every order to mow down rows of civilians. There are competing political factions, and the military is just ordinary people who will do some things for the government, but who will break ranks if pushed too far.

For example, the French Republicans didn’t march into a field and square off head-to-head with the royal army. They stormed the Bastille to get the weapons there then caused a bunch of ruckus: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Bastille. What followed was a complex mix of political events and violence that led to the downfall of the monarchy.

A more recent example: Bangladesh won its independence when fighting caused Bangladeshi members of the Pakistan military to defect. The hostilities then drew in military support from neighboring India. But you can’t start the war if all you have is kitchen knives.

> Assault rifles, which are protected by the Second Amendment.

Perhaps that's your interpretation, but the second amendment doesn't specifically allow or disallow any particular type of armament (an armament being defined in the dictionary as "military weapons and equipment").

Reasonable people agree that not all military weapons should be able to be owned by civilians - I don't think anyone serious is coming out in defense of civilians owning intercontinental nuclear missiles, for example. Where the line is drawn is a matter of opinion (and disagreement).

Around 1800, private citizens owned cannons, which were pretty much the top-of-the-line military technology at the time. (At a minimum, there were privately-owned merchant vessels with cannons.) So at least at that time, there were no limits.

This does not mean that I am in favor of private citizens today having nukes, or even howitzers. I'm just saying, at the time of the Second Amendment, it was more or less unlimited.

What the Second Amendment protects isn’t a matter of opinion and abstract line drawing. The Second Amendment by its terms protects the right to “bear arms.” It precludes banning “arms” as a category. Now you can draw lines about what is or is not an “arm” that someone may “bear.” (You probably can’t bear, i.e. carry, a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, the Constitution expressly contemplates private ownership of warships.) But you’re stuck drawing lines with respect to that term. And its hard to draw a line where handguns are “arms” but assault rifles are not.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. I assume you mean "assault weapons" because actual "assault rifles" (capable of automatic or burst fire) are not generally legal to own in the U.S. But your argument would apply equally well to these banned assault rifles (they are clearly "arms"), so doesn't that mean your argument is wrong?

If fully automatic rifles are “clearly ‘arms’” (as you put it) then a blanket ban on them is unconstitutional.

Presumably, so would a ban on shoulder-launched nuclear weapons?

People need guns so the police gets trained to use deadly force anytime they feel "threatened".