[Clubber]

>This is a living creature and that's what many 2nd amendmenters don't seem to realize, that the government of the USA isn't The People of, it's an organism that will maintain its form by any means necessary. Legal ones are the safest, illegal and immoral ones if needs must.

Second amendment-ers are keenly aware of this.

[komali2]

Speaking from experience with them, they seem to think the 2nd amendment must necessarily be respected by the very government they think is allowing them the guns to threaten said government with in the first place. That's the cognitive hole I'm pointing to - if they stockpile weapons to eventually potentially overthrow the US government, they must do so knowing that it will be illegal to do so regardless - the 2nd amendment won't protect them in that case, and is thus practically useless for what they think it's useful for.

AKA, the life of a militiaman that intends to use weapons to overthrow the USA is, to the USA, the life of a terrorist/rebel/enemy of the state. It's not a constitutionally protected state of existence.

[Clubber]

>government they think is allowing them the guns

Technically, the government #2 doesn't "allow" us rights, they are given to us by the constitution of which government #2 is ultimately bound to. The same fight happened against our right to free speech with the Sedition Act, of which our right to criticize the government ultimately survived. Citizens are still fighting to keep our right of privacy, the rights of the press, and of course the right to bear arms, among others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

Having said that, the second amendment, as it stands with government #2, is ultimately another check and balance, as is freedom of press, and speech. As with nuclear armaments and M.A.D., arms don't have to be used to be a deterrent. There are many examples in history where armed civilians were effective against much stronger militaries.

[jki275]

Rights are documented in the Constitution, not given by it.

[rayiner]

The 2A doesn’t protect the use of arms against the government, and I don’t think I’ve ever heard a 2A advocate suggest that. The point is to prevent the government from disarming the populace before such action might be required.

[dragonwriter]

Actually, no, the point is to prevent the government from deciding it needs to rely on professional police and military forces for day-to-day defense against domestic and international security threats, instead relying on ad hoc levies from the general population for those purposes, making it unthinkable both in terms of capacity and inclination that the “government security services” could suppress the general civilian population, since the former as a separate group by profession, class, etc.—but for very small standing cadres providing institutional knowledge and continuity—would not exist. But that ship has rather sailed, and the 2A failed in its purpose, but it still hangs around, and even it's defenders have forgotten what it was there for.

[komali2]

> I don’t think I’ve ever heard a 2A advocate suggest that

Oh, well, I have, and that's the kind of 2A advocate I'm talking about.

I'm sure there are other sorts, but that's the kind I meant.

[jki275]

A better way to state that would be that the existence of an armed populace is to deter tyrannical actions from the government.

[nyolfen]

seriously, this is probably the least intuitive group to single out over this