> Any armed militia (let alone a single citizen) would have no power to fight anything. A government army would crush them.
If this were true, then America wouldn’t have failed so badly in Afghanistan, guerilla tactics work. The objective isnt to defeat the military in a war, if that were possible it would lead to instability and random groups of americans from taking over the government anytime.
The objective is to give enough capabilities to everyday citizens to atleast be able to setup a resistance severe enough that no government would consider such an action.
For those abilities I think the liberties provided are helpful enough.
But I agree with you, there are far more dangerous instruments being used against common citizens now, that it makes people protecting themselves with guns a bad joke.
That calls for more policies to allow citizens to defend themselves, whether that’s a more robust education system to help citizens catch lying politicians, or a more robust system to bring in control the massive polarization spreading across all democracies, and defences against gutting out of the middle class that’s taking place.
But all of them call for more protections to be added, not existing ones to be removed
> If this were true, then America wouldn’t have failed so badly in Afghanistan, guerilla tactics work.
There is quite a gulf between making a democracy give up on occupying you (especially when the reasons for that occupation become kinda nebulous), and an internal rebellion or civil war.
Guerilla tactics are often successful in the former case. The latter situation is much more prevalent, and in most cases just devolves into long term suffering.
There will be no internal rebellion or civil war, if government actually works for its own people and serves them diligently.
More effort should be placed in helping people improve their lives, get access to healthcare, education, food, clean water, protect them from isolation and mental health issues, improve the civil discourse so people are kinder and gentler, more civil to each other.
The answer might not be present in taking people’s guns away or remove methods for people to protect themselves.
America has had a century of prosperity, while having the liberties to carry arms. You’re right a lot of democracies are right now at risk of an internal rebellion and civil war, including america. But the question is what caused it and how can we reverse the trend ? The answer surely cannot lie in removing something (gun rights) that was present even in years of prosperity.
The risk of foreign governments initiating civil war is real, and america itself has done this to other countries that once used to be democracies, civilians not having guns certainly didn’t prevent those civil wars, it’s not that difficult for nations to pump in guns to rebels and terrorists to cause instability in a nation. None of those countries had gun rights like america did, yet they all fell to civil wars.
The answer lies in government serving the people, and being afraid of the public.
Not in making gov fearless, and thus less concerned about working for the masses.
Think about it for a moment, you and I are worried about a civil war breaking out. Why ? Because the recent government on both party sides haven’t been too honest and diligent in working for the public.
Whether that’s in deteriorating public education, prospects of high tech jobs, destruction of good blue collar jobs for people to improve their lives without obscene college debt, bad healthcare policies.
These situations can only happen from an apathetic government structure that cares 0 about the masses.
How do you think, it’ll make those same governments more caring towards the public, by removing the first and second amendments ?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think gun rights are necessary or some messiah that’ll save mankind, I just don’t understand the obsession with trying to remove them.
I wasn't talking about what governments should and shouldn't do, or how they should behave. Or even anything US specific - I'm not American. I was just addressing the statement that guerilla tactics work and Afghanistan was the example cited. And I don't think Afghanistan is a good example in this case.
Guerillas fighting an occupier (especially a democratic one) have had a reasonable track record of success. Guerillas fighting their own government much less so - the world has been and still is littered with those conflicts. There's a big difference in what is at stake from someone who can just go home, and someone who is fighting for their own home/survival.
The point of armed citizens is not them winning a civil war, but making the restrictions politicians have to subject themselves to, to remain safe, sufficiently inconvenient.
No more cinema, golf, theater, water park, mountain hiking or yachting.
Not being able to take a walk within half a mile of your property's border, always waiting for security to check the cars you are about to use, often having them tell you that you cannot go to xyz, because they lack manpower (or whatever reason) to secure the routes.
Citizens having access to weapons is a deal with the politicians that their daily lifes will only be as great as those of their subjects.
As a non American, the expectation that your democracy only survives because your elected dictators-in-waiting are too scared to take the mask off is such a weird concept.
There are no (or very few) other democracies with that culture. From the outside, it seems that culture and those attitudes are more likely to erode your democracy than protect it. A tiny minority viewpoint could create that fear, get that protection enabled, and then you've lost that leverage over the politicians you're touting.
As democracies go, US politicians are already the most removed from contact with their citizens - it already seems like you're in a vicious circle here. Politicians fearing their citizens doesn't seem like a good basis to form a healthy democracy on.
Not all politicians are in DC. The US actually has a lot of local elections and votes. More than in many democracies. Yeah it doesn't get a lot of air time on CNN but local elections matter a lot in the US.
And yes, constitutions should be designed to keep representatives in check and afraid of messing with the people. A constitution should restrict the power of a government and empower the citizens.
If this were true, then America wouldn’t have failed so badly in Afghanistan, guerilla tactics work. The objective isnt to defeat the military in a war, if that were possible it would lead to instability and random groups of americans from taking over the government anytime. The objective is to give enough capabilities to everyday citizens to atleast be able to setup a resistance severe enough that no government would consider such an action. For those abilities I think the liberties provided are helpful enough. But I agree with you, there are far more dangerous instruments being used against common citizens now, that it makes people protecting themselves with guns a bad joke. That calls for more policies to allow citizens to defend themselves, whether that’s a more robust education system to help citizens catch lying politicians, or a more robust system to bring in control the massive polarization spreading across all democracies, and defences against gutting out of the middle class that’s taking place. But all of them call for more protections to be added, not existing ones to be removed