Something bad. Is it something bad? I bet it was something bad.

Look at the results of that 90s LA bank robbery. It was the first time that two guys had enough body armour and firepower to challenge the local police. What was the end result? Every police officer across the country getting assigned body armour and high powered rifles, and every police agency militarizing and buying APCS, tactical units, etc.

The idea that the government would allow you to own weaponry that would legitimately challenge them is asinine.

If you need to exercise your right to bear arms, you have already lost. The battle is won in education, critical skills, and mobilising together (unions, etc).

This is honestly, the dumbest, most American take in the world.

It literally ignores the plainly obvious fact that not a single other developed country allows gun ownership, and yet, still have rights and democracy and freedom.

Guns did not get your rights, and they do not protect you from a government that has AI powered drones with anti tank mines on them. Hell a fucking APC with a sound cannon will make your AR look like a child's toy.

Guess what happened when a pair of guys had enough guns and body armour to challenge the local LA government in the 90s? Oh would you look at that, every single local government's police force across the country just militarized and bought tanks and SWAT teams in response. The idea that the government will let any random potentially mentally ill or terrorist citizen, buy enough firepower that they could legitimately challenge the government, is dumb on its face. No government anywhere allows that or would for obvious (see: terroristic) reasons.

Wide spread gun ownership just makes everyone less safe. Full stop.

You have proven the second amendment is just so you can shoot your neighbour. None of you rose up against his first term, none of you will now. All the child sacrifices you have been doing were just so you can feel cool with your gun and dream of shooting someone one day.

Its time to admit it.

You're right. It's a liberal idea to allow the (largely) unregulated possession of firearms. However, it takes a certain mindset to pickup that forearm and try to decide how the country is run with it through armed insurrection. One that's more akin to authoritarian, or at least paternalism.

Personally I feel if the 2nd amendment is there for this reason, the ln the no kings marches should have had arms. That's a powderkeg scenario and we'd probably be looking at hundreds dead at this point. However if there was ever a reason for the 2nd amendment, this is it and that's the cost. Otherwise there's no point in the right to bear arms and you should scrap it.

That’s still the purpose of the second amendment, for people to own guns to defend themselves and others against tyranny

It isn't, and has never been. The language of the constitution is plain as day:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The mythos of the 2nd amendment being this poison pill for a tyrannical state government is only so pervasive because institutions like the NRA perpetuated it for decades in service of arms manufacturers and their bottom line. No sane government anywhere in the world would bake such a clause into their constitution, it's antithetical to government itself.

The 2nd amendment is absolutely an artifact of a bygone era of American history where, as a fledgling nation, we did not have a powerful standing army to rely on for defense against foreign adversaries. A people's militia was the final defense against such a threat.

However, all that being said, I agree with your sentiment that leftists should be arming themselves. Just because the 2nd amendment has almost completely lost it's original intent or meaning, doesn't mean we can't take advantage of the fact that it exists with tons of legal precedent to strap up in preparation for what might come next. Things are unlikely to get better from here, and if things get worse you will be glad you have a firearm for protection.

Only you don't accidentally beat someone to death with a hammer.

The result of several decades from NRA successfully screaming Dems gonna get you guns!

The Vietnamese and Afghans could probably tell us a thing or two.

One aspect I don't think many appreciate is the deterrent effect of private gun ownership. The fascists would have already overrun us were we not armed. Notice the major ICE raids have been in NYC and California? Those are the two places in America with the strictest, and often dumbest, gun laws. Anecdotally, being visibly armed likely saved me two ass beatings in the past year. LOL, one guy was so fucking mad he was shaking, choking himself to be polite.

Most of our military might can't be brought to bear on civilians. The examples you gave are purpose built to fight another military on their turf. The Air Force isn't going to deploy fighter jets to put down a riot. And NONE of those things will continue working about a week after civilians pull support.

You see, if the government bombs it's cities flat, it no longer has anything to govern, and falls anyways.

What we need are armed protests. Something you can't just easily police thug your way out of. We can all go protest and wave signs all we want, but until those in power are once again afraid of it's people, nothing will change.

Your post history is a mess.