Similarly to how strong password policies are no match for good hackers, but make compromising many accounts expensive or prohibitive, an armed populace cannot defeat a trained army, but can make "martial law" and other military actions against civilians risky and expensive -- and that is enough. It is the same principle as the older threat of a mob or peasant revolt.

The United States is a strange country because it encourages armed rebellion in any second- and third-world country but tries not to follow its own law that gives its civilians and states the same option. This is partly a result of the American civil war but the civil war does not excuse any weakening of civilians, especially considering the special provision for them that is in the US Constitution.

Note that nowhere do I or the parent post of yours say a civil war is necessary or even a good idea. I would like you to agree that it is possible to advocate for the option to do something without actually wanting that thing to happen.

Is there some reason he can't have guns to wage civil war? I believe that the entire point of the second amendment is to enable us to form militias should the need develop.

Organizing in advance of 'the war' isn't something he 'must' do either, as militias are historically formed in reaction to the events that predicate their formation, and are often composed of hodge-podge firearms possessed by their owners.

The point being, it seems you're accusing him of wanting to own guns to protect his right to form a militia, but that is exactly the point of the right. Had we not been able to form up some 200 years ago, we would not be the nation we are, for better or worse.

If I'm misreading your post, please accept my apology in advance, but I don't see any reason why there can't be a middle ground between full-on war and just being an advocate of one's civil rights.

> I don't see any reason why there can't be a middle ground between full-on war and just being an advocate of one's civil rights.

The reason the parent post ignores the possibility of such a middle ground is that some people find arguments in favor of gun control more persuasive if anyone who defends it is painted as a traitor.

To me, if you accuse pro-gun people of being "revolutionaries," call anti-homosexuality people "hate criminals," or refer to the pro-choice as "baby killers," it suggests that your actual argument is weak. You're appealing to people's emotions, rather than logic.

This is why I firmly believe that logical argument should be a mandatory part of middle and high school curricula.

I feel that it is completely reasonable to assert that, at some point in the future, a bad actor could bring about domestic policies which serve to undermine further the principles of civilization we hold important. I additionally assert that such an occurrence would seem easier with a populace not in possession of modern small arms.

I did not, do not, and will not assert that there is any reason to believe we must organize against the current administration. I additionally did not state and do not believe that civil war is either desirable or neccesary.

Edit-- look what you did now all the crazies are going to come out and shit up the thread :-(

__Edit-- look what you did now all the crazies are going to come out and shit up the thread :-(__

Sorry, I was writing my crazy before you submitted.

>This being the case, merely having small arms suitable for sport or ordinary self-defense isn't going to cut it

This isn't necessarily true. War simulations have been repeatedly won by poorly-equipped guerilla "red teams" who out-think slow-moving American commanders/generals. Not that I'm advocating civil war.

This is the entire purpose of the second amendment, like it or not. The people who wrote it knew that the first 5 amendments were protections against what they thought was tyranny. The ability to have the ability to wage civil war is an inherent right of any United States citizen, regardless of the non-existent right to actually wage it.