zlacker

> It's your only protection against the government throwing its political opponents in prison.

Well, the second amendment may offer some protection as well.

>>mister+(OP)
No it does not. The second amendment offers no realistic protection for a civilian in any sort of way.

I have been part of a special forces raid to capture or kill and I can tell you the opponent has no realistic way to win that day. Sure you can win in the long run if you are fighting at home with the enemy fighting far away from theirs but not they you will suffer heavy losses and live in a condition far from what most of us can imagine or are prepared to do.

>>mister+(OP)
Arm me with the same arms as my government - nukes, drones, and tanks - and then that's a realistic option.

>>kmonse+n2
Suppose a small town in rural US decides to refuse carrying out whatever order or restriction coming down from the federal government. Population ~5,000, they have guns and ammo.

What exactly would you, special forces or the government be able to do, to force them to comply with whatever order it is you are trying to impose?

>>geofft+Z2
What would you do with nukes and tanks, or even drones?

You defend your rights with guns, not aircraft carriers.

>>pnako+l6
Seems to me that ensuring small rural towns can disobey federal laws is the wrong thing for which to optimize our society.

>>jakela+77
I do believe in the self-determination of communities. It's fine to have some sort of government at the federal or supra-national level but it should be restricted and unanimous (i.e. a libertarian, "nightwatchman state").

It doesn't feel right that higher levels can interfere in lower levels in matters that does not affect them. We're seeing this right now in the EU, with various states trying to have their ideas promoted at the level of the EU as a whole, i.e. other nations, which clearly doesn't work because people have different cultures, traditions, etc. That's one of the reasons why Britain left.

>>pnako+t6
You defend your rights by being part of a tribe willing to defend you. One person with a gun is useless against more than one person with a gun. And even one on one, the odds aren’t good.

>>lotsof+Qc
Exactly.

>>pnako+l6
They will quickly learn that their fantasy of rugged individual resistance can be quickly quashed if the government is willing to have civilian casualties. And spoiler, it clearly is, we just saw a guy casually suffocate a guy in broad daylight and there were no consequences until public outcry was so bad they caved and have fired them and started with token charges that will likely not stick based on historical evidence of prior examples.

>>ikiris+wy
So... Don't have guns, because the government will kill you anyway? That's encouraging.

>>jakela+77
Seems to me that's not the question that was asked.

>>lotsof+Qc
One person with a gun is not useless against more than one person with a gun.

>>pnako+l6
The blast radius of a modern nuclear warhead is big enough to encompass many cities of population ~5000. Or if obeying international law is a concern, carpet-bombing would be pretty effective.

The idea that people with handheld guns are going to take on a government with nuclear capabilities is an absurd fantasy.

I'm a supporter of the second amendment. There is plenty of justification for supporting the second amendment without entertaining absurd fantasy scenarios.

>>pnako+TB1
Being "encouraging" by ignoring reality isn't particularly useful.

There are plenty of reasons to own firearms which have nothing to do with defending yourself against the government. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.