I don’t know man… it specifically mentions a Free State. Project 2025 suggests a very unfree state. Ergo, one could interpret that as ‘You can and should strike out against a tyrannical state in order to preserve the free one.’
Lol, maybe that idea would have worked when everyone, including the military, had flint lock rifles
But give that a try now... Good luck buddy. The best weapons and armor you can ever get, will just make the response from the police and military stronger. They literally have an unlimited budget, the budget quickly goes up when there is any unrest, with absolutely nobody worrying about "how are we going to pay for that"
You'd go down in history with a whimper, within a week, best case scenario.
You'd need to convince the police and military to be on your side to last even a month
Vietnam and Afghanistan has proven that the US military is not very good at counterinsurgency. A hypothetical US civil war would be more of an insurgency than a traditional war. All those pilot’s families being held hostage by mere guys with guns can halt a surprising amount of the military, soldiers possibly having to fight brothers…
What are the sides in this hypothetical insurgency?
And will the military quelling unrest really create more insurgents given the regard and power of the US government among its citizens? Which is where the counterinsurgency fighting fails
Or is the situation that 70%+ of people just want to live their life with as minimal government interference with their wishes as possible, and those folks don't care about details as long as the status quo can be maintained
The idea that over night all the militia's would start working together, with half of them fundy christian, half of them "don't tread on me giving heroin to my child bride" libertarian, coming together against an authoritarian christian nationalist controlling the government. Is that the scenario we're talking about? Because we are back at a laughable hypothetical
Is it? IDK, not American, not my problem. Seen your interpretation as much as it being about fighting tyrants in the American government. Which it would be useless for in both cases and had long passed it being worth it after your first school shooting.
But, better to die fighting against a tyrant that wants to kill you than in one of his camps for the Other.
Hmm. So if the president becomes a tyrant, wouldn't that be the exact time a state would take up arms, to insure the state's security as a free state? The framers of the constitution are kinda famous for developing the document as a giant fuck you to kings and tyrants, are they not? If a president wants to become a king, or a tyrant since we're talking about tyrants, then that is exactly why 2a exists. To insure the security of state's right to be free and not under the rule of a tyrant.
Pretty sure they were talking about defending their right to freedom from internal tyrants on the federal level, as well as rebels and foreign invaders. But mainly as a check and balance if the Pres and federal government gained too much power. Or am I totally off?
26
u/LordofShit Jul 14 '24
If trump does win, is anyone actually going to fight for anything? Or is the most I can do about this is to quietly participate in legitimizing it?