[kcplate]

Well you missed the point entirely or have deliberately misrepresented what I said. I described how the 2nd amendment is essentially a “force multiplier” for a fractioned military more than a counter to the military.

You mention Kent State, but that actually illustrates to my point. Yes that happened, but do you have specific evidence that the government specifically ordered the guardsmen to shoot the protesters? Newsflash…there was no such order. What you can argue in this case is that the government created an environment where general emotional chaos could create a bad situation, and did.

Even if you had evidence that this was an ordered massacre by the government—-only 29 out of 77 guardsmen fired their weapons. That means nearly 2/3 disregarded orders (which was my exact point if such an order was to be given).

Despite your suggestion of “thousands of occasions” where ordered military has been asked to take up arms against our citizens, I dare you to list another. You might go back to the civil war, but that technically is a special situation where one country for a time became two, and the combatants of those two did not regard the other are fellow citizens. My guess is that you are will be hard pressed to find many other instance where that has happened in the United States.

[jmye]

> to take up arms against our citizens

Why are you changing your words?

> against their own citizenry

Germany, 1930s. Cambodia, 1970s.

> You mention Kent State, but that actually illustrates to my point.

It flatly doesn't. US armed forces fired on citizens. No US military stopped them. The second amendment didn't stop them, or cause them to hesitate. The idea that the second amendment will change anything about the US military's response or choice to follow any orders they're given no matter how reprehensible or obviously evil (My Lai, Abu Ghraib) is laughable fantasy, based on a bunch of people who want to dream about being heroes and pretend that their 9mm handgun means something.

[kcplate]

> Why are you changing your words?

I didn’t, do you find these two phrases functionally different? “military person (if so ordered) would gladly take up arms against their own citizenry” and “ordered military has been asked to take up arms against our citizens”

They look pretty much the same to me.

> Germany, 1930s. Cambodia, 1970s.

So are you attempting to equate genocidal regimes that operated over years where millions were slaughtered to Kent State where 4 people were killed and nine wounded in less than a quarter of a minute?

> US armed forces fired on citizens. No US military stopped them. The second amendment didn't stop them, or cause them to hesitate.

Nowhere did I make the claim that the 2nd amendment would cause every individual military people to stop or hesitate. Actually it was quite the opposite. I said the military would faction in that situation. Also, I was speaking about the government. Individuals are not the government. The Kent State massacre was over in exactly 13 seconds. It both started organically and ended organically and timing also speaks to this being an emotional chaotic event done by individuals and not one that was specifically ordered.

[jmye]

“Their own citizenry” vs “our citizens”

Come on. This is just rank dishonesty. Nothing else you said is worth a response.