I don't have time to put together every thought I hav eon the subject. Suffice it to say I believe an armed populace discourages tyrannical government more than an unarmed populace. The same way I don't want to register my IP address and cell phone to be able to post online, I don't want to hand over all forms of self-defense against mass civil unrest or war.
Finally: Whether you believe it or not, the purpose of the US 2nd amendment is self-defense, including from government. If you don't feel that is necessary, be inellectually honest and advocate for its repeal.
>Whether you believe it or not, the purpose of the US 2nd amendment is self-defense, including from government. If you don't feel that is necessary, be inellectually honest and advocate for its repeal
If you feel that I'm being "inellectually" dishonest, have the courage to stand up to me and tell me directly, instead of implying that I am (assuming, as you have, that my point is actually another point entirely, of course, which itself seems a bit intellectually dishonest).
>The same way I don't want to register my IP address and cell phone to be able to post online
I see what you're going for here, but to pretend that this isn't functionally what is required in order to "post online" is unrealistic. I assume that you're posting from behind seven proxies and a few Tor jumps? Otherwise, I don't really see how you haven't created a link between the things you post and the devices you post from, which the government can then exploit.
If you feel that commercially available guns would equip the US civillian populace to repel the US military, that's your opinion. But I strongly disagree that this presents any realistic impediment.
Commercially available guns are the same or better as the guns used by US soldiers for the most part.
If you are talking about the US military doing aerial bombardment etc, of course these guns will not be a defense.
But if troops are going street to street, commercially available guns would enable resistance.
And the point here is not that the population would be able to win an all out war against the fully equipped army. That is a nonsensical scenario. It is that an armed population would be able to resist the Army, making all out war the only option. US army won't launch an all out war against the population, so this level of resistance is sufficient.
Finally: Whether you believe it or not, the purpose of the US 2nd amendment is self-defense, including from government. If you don't feel that is necessary, be inellectually honest and advocate for its repeal.