• spicystraw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    15 days ago

    One aspect of the U.S. Second Amendment that I struggle to understand is how owning firearms can be seen as a check against government power in the modern era. No matter how much money an individual spends on collecting weapons, they can never match the resources of a government with access to advanced technology like orbital GPS networks, fighter jets, drones, bioweapons, logistics, and nuclear weapons.

    When the Amendment was written, weaponry was still in its early stages of development, and the assumption was that a well-armed populace could, with sufficient numbers, overthrow a tyrannical regime. However, in today’s world, this seems unrealistic. Even if someone owned a thousand .50 caliber Desert Eagles, it wouldn’t make a significant difference against such overwhelming governmental power.

    • Manifish_Destiny@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      You see, if the government bombs it’s cities flat, it no longer has anything to govern, and falls anyways.

      What we need are armed protests. Something you can’t just easily police thug your way out of. We can all go protest and wave signs all we want, but until those in power are once again afraid of it’s people, nothing will change.

    • thermal_shock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      One aspect of the U.S. Second Amendment that I struggle to understand is how owning firearms can be seen as a check against government power in the modern era. No matter how much money an individual spends on collecting weapons, they can never match the resources of a government with access to advanced technology like orbital GPS networks, fighter jets, drones, bioweapons, logistics, and nuclear weapons.

      No shit they’ll just burn your place to the ground Tulsa style. USA is quickly becoming North Korea.