In discussions this with numerous gun rights fundamentalists in another venues, most of them apparently detest the following questions because they shake the foundation of their position; via isolating the anachronistic qualities of the Second Amendment.
These questions are: in order to successfully repel or rebel against a hypothetically tyrannical United States (and/or state governments), what level of arms (the word used in the Second Amendment) capacity is necessary for civilians to have at their disposal ?
Wouldn't civilians need an air force, and drones, and smart bombs and missiles, and WMD? Wouldn't they certainly need grenade and rocket launchers (not to mention, at the very, least armor piercing bullets); since the government has all of this; and more?
At what point will those who anticipate possibly/probably having to repel or rebel against a tyrannical government know when it is officially time to commence the rebellion?
Who is it that would make the call as to when hostilities 'should' commence; or will it be an individual decision; or will the various militia (another word used in the Second Amendment) groups (now or then) in existence make the call and give the orders; or might it be a military coup?
For obvious reasons, seldom do second amendment fundamentalists wish to follow their arguments to their 'logical' conclusions; that much is clear. Therefore fundamentalists generally won't engage or touch these fundamental questions (even with the proverbial ten-foot pole). Invariably they bail out at this particular juncture; because they cannot (or dare not) answer these questions.
In chess, this is known as checkmate.
Comments