[jdr23bc]

January 6th is somewhere in the neighbourhood of the kind of scenario your referencing.

Ubiquitous guns change the equation for all kinds of theoretical events. They may be a boon in the "armed populous saves country from corrupt gov't" case, and a curse in another case.

Were a more extreme version of Jan 6th to occur in the future, adding civilian firearms into the mix may not be a good thing.

[hunterb123]

Civilians chose not to bring guns to that protest.

The only person shot was an unarmed civilian.

Even so, guns have been involved in protests before without a problem.

[rswail]

The only person shot was an unarmed terrorist that, after repeated warnings not to proceed, while attempting to break through a barrier that was keeping a mob away from elected representatives, broke through that barrier.

I think it shows remarkable restraint by the security and protection officers that more people weren't shot on January 6th.

And it is untrue that "civilians" "chose" not to bring guns. There were numerous people that had preparations to be armed and were actively working to that end.

They are currently being tried for sedition.

[hunterb123]

> after repeated warnings not to proceed

Untrue, there was no warning. Crowd was let in (there is security footage of this), funneled to a location, and a killzone was setup without their knowledge. The antifa person filming the death was the only person hurling threats in that specific interaction. Both hands of the civilian shot were visible when climbing through the window. Officer could have arrested when she made it through. I guess we're for shooting on sight now.

> I think it shows remarkable restraint by the security and protection officers that more people weren't shot on January 6th.

Yes let's praise cops for not killing more unarmed civilians than they did, very high bar!

> there were numerous people that had preparations to be armed and were actively working to that end.

What a long way to say they didn't bring guns to the event. Any CCW holder has preparations to be armed.

> sedition

Point to a case, noone is being tried for sedition, only trespassing.

[jdr23bc]

The parent post pointed out that an armed population could prevent a dictator from taking power.

I'm saying it's also possible that a portion of an armed population could be manipulated by a dictator to seize power.

And there are lots of other ways this ubiquity of guns change things. Some positive, some negative. If we're talking about a theoretical rebellion then we should also talk about different types of rebellions.

[hunterb123]

Your premise of what a "rebellion" was is false as I demonstrated above.

There is a reference for the rebellion the 2A is intended for that we could use.

It's called the American Revolution and the events that led up to it.

[jdr23bc]

I agree with all of these statements.

The point I'm trying to get across is that there are many different theoretical scenarios for revolutions and rebellions, beyond the one scenario the parent comment theorized, or events similar in spirit to the American Revolution.

For example, the degraded ability for society to agree on what is true may be an avenue for a hostile state to cause civil unrest. That scenario may play out better for the targeted society if the population is not widely armed.

One good example, one bad. Both possible!