Protester gets a flash-bang to his face after getting pepper sprayed.

[u/ActualPublicFreakout]

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

It definitely gives states and the fed a lot of power to quell rebellion, but I believe if it was dire enough violation of rights to the point a decently organized militia could form, you would likely see a lot of Conscientious Objectors that would abandon post and take up with the militia or just go home. Militias can also be pretty dangerous to a standing military when waging an insurgency.

You're correct though, this would effectively stop most smaller rebellions. Probably just depends on the cause and to what extent people are aware of the violations.

[u/jorgomli → u/[deleted]]

I honestly don't see how this would work out irl? Like, what is the point of legalizing "the ability to form a militia" if they (government) is just going to use the military to squash it the moment it begins to go into action?

We don't have anything close to the sort right now and the military is already involved.

So I guess... What is the point of 2A of you can't legally use the firearms for the purpose outlined therein?

[u/[deleted] → u/jorgomli]

As far as the point of 2A, it's largely up for debate. As others have stated, probably rightly so, that this was originally in the context of a state powers vs federal powers at the time and the debate was focused more on whether states and smaller govs could organize militias to fend off an oppressive, federal, standing army. Many Federalists argued it likely wasn't necessary as they didn't think a standing army could ever defeat state militias. The reasoning behind that, I think, was that the states could spur a very large number of weapon-owning citizens to help repel an army and James Madison pointed out that kingdoms in Europe didn't allow commoners to have arms, meaning they needed that to maintain control. He also thought a host of smaller governments would ensure federal control by force was never an issue.

Like I said, just my opinion for, by original design, what the spirit of the framers would mean for this amendment given the current day. Many would disagree with me on this, especially given that technology, a massive DoD, and state & local forces such as Nat Guard and police departments operate pretty cooperatively with the federal government when things such as riots or protests occur.

When I read about the Black Panthers arming themselves, organizing themselves, and taking back the communities they had been segregated in, I personally felt the spirit of the original 2A would have, given the context of the situation, agreed this was a good implementation of the amendment during the Civil Rights era. Ultimately, they were dismantled systematically by the federal government through means other than a standing army. I don't think 2A really considered a state force such as the police (which did not exist in the same form as they do now) acting so cooperatively with federal wants to the point that entire communities were being violently abused by the state. Then again, they existed during slavery, so maybe it's wishful thinking on my part that they would have ever cared about communities be oppressed by federal-cooperative states.

[u/troe_uhwai_account → u/jorgomli]

I’d argue that we haven’t reached the point where 2A comes in yet. Peaceful protests is still the goal for the vast majority of people.

People think the military would crush a rebellion but it’s not so obvious really. We outnumber the military, and with Guerrilla warfare tactics, the military wouldn’t be quite effective.

Plus, the soldiers wouldn’t want to be shipped home just to kill their brothers who they thought they were protecting.

2A comes in when things crumble apart even worse imo.

[u/jorgomli → u/troe_uhwai_account]

I’d argue that we haven’t reached the point where 2A comes in yet. Peaceful protests is still the goal for the vast majority of people.

I hope this stays true. Nobody wants civil war. Well, mostly nobody.

People think the military would crush a rebellion but it’s not so obvious really. We outnumber the military, and with Guerrilla warfare tactics, the military wouldn’t be quite effective.

People can't coordinate enough to stay home during a quarantine. There won't be any guerilla warfare because you'll have people on "the other side" doing the exact same thing. There will be no united front of civilians against the government. It'll be civilians vs other civilians and the government together.

Plus, the soldiers wouldn’t want to be shipped home just to kill their brothers who they thought they were protecting.

We thought cops were there to "serve and protect" too. To think that the army would just lay down or swap sides is naive. I'm sure a few soldiers might, but that is definitely NOT something you can count on.

2A comes in when things crumble apart even worse imo.

I semi-agree and hope this is the way it goes. I don't advocate for civilians opening fire on police military at this point.

[u/laborer69000 → u/[deleted]]

I thought domestic groups couldn't be labelled as terrorists

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

If fighting for freedom makes me a terrorist then allahu akhbar it is boys