However, there are 50+ Senators, disproportionally representing low population, rural states, that are beholden to the NRA and its illegal funding and mis/dis-information campaigns.
There are Senators today suggesting that schools be turned into prison-like places (Cruz with his "one door in and out" nonsense), that others are suggesting arming teachers, while ignoring the fact that the school protection officer and local law enforcement engaged the murderer in this school shooting but failed to apprehend or stop him and the SWAT team took 40 minutes to engage the murderer and eliminate the threat.
People have been marching and protesting and demonstrating continuously and yet there is a specific party, the Republicans, and specific lobby groups, that have stopped any change.
Well, there's the political interpretation (NRA lobbying) and the factual interpretation as well: "low population rural states" i.e. where guns are used for hunting & self-defence (low population but also huge, so low density, so the nearest police/neighbours are so far away you can't always rely on their help)
THANK YOU! Say what you will about those supporters but the fact they went that far to support something they believed in (albeit dumb honestly) is admirable.
Meanwhile the people with actual good values are just sharing senators' edgy tweets thinking that makes a difference.
Most people exist in the expansive middle ground between regurgitating Tweets and insurrection.
People do care, and they do protest and march, and like most protests anywhere it does not change anything. Sorry but you seem to have a very naive view of the effectiveness of protests.
By the way, the pro-Trump protests didn’t achieve anything either (other than furthering the US’s slide into bitter ultra-partisan division and total erosion of trust in institutions). Notably, they did not successfully enable Trump to remain president. So what is your point?
In our modern day information, speech, and and privacy are the guns that ensure rights are not stomped on. It’s no longer the wild wild west.
To think that rules written hundreds of years ago never need to be changed is spitting in the face of our founders who realized that the process of amendments are necessary because things change. The irony is that people are defending the second amendment by claiming it cannot be amended.
What we need is an amendment guaranteeing our right to encryption and privacy, so that the KGB won’t even know which door to knock on.
Back then your arms were pretty well matched against the government. Today, not so much. Civilians and their small arms are no match for the KGB or modern US military. If we really wanted a way to check the physical power of the US military we’d need a bit more than some semi automatic rifles. They are literally in their current form just play things for the wealthy who don’t want to give up their gun hobby, and liabilities for the rest of civilian society due to the criminally insane.
Ubiquitous guns change the equation for all kinds of theoretical events. They may be a boon in the "armed populous saves country from corrupt gov't" case, and a curse in another case.
Were a more extreme version of Jan 6th to occur in the future, adding civilian firearms into the mix may not be a good thing.
The only person shot was an unarmed civilian.
Even so, guns have been involved in protests before without a problem.
I think it shows remarkable restraint by the security and protection officers that more people weren't shot on January 6th.
And it is untrue that "civilians" "chose" not to bring guns. There were numerous people that had preparations to be armed and were actively working to that end.
They are currently being tried for sedition.
Untrue, there was no warning. Crowd was let in (there is security footage of this), funneled to a location, and a killzone was setup without their knowledge. The antifa person filming the death was the only person hurling threats in that specific interaction. Both hands of the civilian shot were visible when climbing through the window. Officer could have arrested when she made it through. I guess we're for shooting on sight now.
> I think it shows remarkable restraint by the security and protection officers that more people weren't shot on January 6th.
Yes let's praise cops for not killing more unarmed civilians than they did, very high bar!
> there were numerous people that had preparations to be armed and were actively working to that end.
What a long way to say they didn't bring guns to the event. Any CCW holder has preparations to be armed.
> sedition
Point to a case, noone is being tried for sedition, only trespassing.
I'm saying it's also possible that a portion of an armed population could be manipulated by a dictator to seize power.
And there are lots of other ways this ubiquity of guns change things. Some positive, some negative. If we're talking about a theoretical rebellion then we should also talk about different types of rebellions.
There is a reference for the rebellion the 2A is intended for that we could use.
It's called the American Revolution and the events that led up to it.
The point I'm trying to get across is that there are many different theoretical scenarios for revolutions and rebellions, beyond the one scenario the parent comment theorized, or events similar in spirit to the American Revolution.
For example, the degraded ability for society to agree on what is true may be an avenue for a hostile state to cause civil unrest. That scenario may play out better for the targeted society if the population is not widely armed.
One good example, one bad. Both possible!
Nothing that said dictator would need support from the military (which has demonstrated it is not necessarily keen to go that route), how well will your "well armed" people fare against well trained soldiers with, um, "tanks" (using tanks here as a catchall for all their weapons.)?
A highly motivated and armed insurgency is almost impossible to control, even if you have superior fire-power.
The tank premise is almost as stupid as Biden's nukes / jets threat against the American people.
A country is not going to carpet bomb, send tanks in, or nuke its own people / land.
It takes a lot of brainwashing to get your soldiers to do that to their own people and direct force like that will lead to instant revolts.
What is much more likely is a KGB like secret police that goes around black bagging people, etc. You're much less likely to be able to do that when you know the civilian population has more guns than your secret police.
If people haven’t gotten motivated enough after literally decades of this shit, I find it really hard to blame the law.