Correct me if my European brain can’t comprehend this, but isn’t the whole point of the 2nd amendment to prevent the rise of tyranny?
Yes, but the wrong group is clinging to guns.
Democrats act all high-mined in their rejection of political violence and distaste for guns, but in opposing gun ownership they’ve allowed their opposition that’s just fine with political violence to own all the guns.
Well obviously a pitched battle against the maga folk isn’t going to go well, but I’m sure there’s a way to get to their god-emperor. Does the 2nd amendment also cover IEDs?
Destructive devices yes, most are legal you just gotta be permitted and register everything.
Partially, but that was before the US government controlled the most powerful military in the world. The idea that whatever weapons civilians could get their hands on would be able to overpower the military is laughable.
- The military depends on a supply chain. A general strike will cripple it within weeks.
- The US Army is very strong against other conventional armies, but has proven to be awful at unconventional warfare.
- The greatest strength of the US Army is its arsenal of bombs and the powerful deterrent of the atom bomb. If the US army bombs US territory, then it is bombing itself. A general strike is unnecessary if the factory is gone. At that point the Civil War will become a war of attrition, and autonomous insurgent cells have an inherent advantage in those.
- I expect at least a decent number of soldiers to mutiny or desert.
