What a hot take, as if firearm owners are all the same, as if there are not left leaning gun owners.

Well the founding fathers and the powers at be are directly opposed. If I ran a tyranny, the first thing I would do is push propaganda to heavily stigmatize anything that could jeopardize it. The result I'd be aiming for would be a dynamic where firearms are only in the hands of people who support the tyranny, while making sure anyone who would oppose it is piss scared to even be in the same room as a gun. I'd make sure to instill a complex stigma, such that the opposition not only feels a primal fear of guns, but also a fear of social consequences, since there are plenty of people for whom social outcast is worse than death.

The things that radical fascist media talking heads are hyperbolically lying about nonstop are justification for invoking 2A rights.

Unfortunately liberals are pussy-assed bitches so nothing will happen and they'll all be chunked into an oven.

Wait til you hear what happened when the Black Panthers tried to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

This is more a consequence of manipulative propaganda and poor education being weaponized against people, rather than a direct reflection of constitutional gun laws.

I await with interest your explanation as to how and why private gun ownership "caused and supported" the current unlawful government, considering that the government is perfectly capable of obtaining its own guns and supplying them to its goons without our input or intervention. And has been doing so for a little over two centuries. Furthermore, gun laws are deliberately structured such that the police and various government forces throughout the country enjoy considerably less restriction (or even none) on the type, number, and nature of guns that they're allowed to own and use. Even if the individuals in question are retired or no longer on active duty.

that was always a transparent excuse... only a total rube would believe that was a legitimate reason to sell guns like popcorn in a theatre

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

You can’t expect everyone to agree with you ideologically, and obviously they won’t rise up against a government they agree with. Conservatives don’t see the current administration as tyrannical, so there is no conflict for them between the ideals of the second amendment and their actions.

However, you can absolutely choose to exercise your second amendment rights.

As a gun owning liberal, I’m tired of my peers acting like the second amendment is some conservative agenda. The right to firearm ownership is an eminently liberal ideal. More liberals and leftists should own guns— the second amendment is more important now than ever before.

If you think there is a pressing need for an armed liberal/leftist citizenry, go buy guns and arm yourselves.

That's kind of been the whole thing about the anti-2a people: they've kept saying "the people"in "the militia" are the cops and states (as opposed to the federal government), and the law-and-order conservatives aren't saying no to militarizing law enforcement, and the pro-gun right for decades (60s-90s) played along with all the "2a is for hunting" nonsense. The point of 2A is for the government to be afraid to do this crap, but 2A is too watered down at this point to have that effect. The kind of population that could live armed as well as any military (not ours) would just have a different behavior in general.

The ones that created the government had to actually fight for their freedom. People became complacent afterwards, and seem to think that freedom is a given.

It reminds me of some quote “freedom isn’t owned, it’s rented, and rent is due everyday.”

It was of course always the plan to radicalize these people and then utilize them

One aspect of the U.S. Second Amendment that I struggle to understand is how owning firearms can be seen as a check against government power in the modern era. No matter how much money an individual spends on collecting weapons, they can never match the resources of a government with access to advanced technology like orbital GPS networks, fighter jets, drones, bioweapons, logistics, and nuclear weapons.

When the Amendment was written, weaponry was still in its early stages of development, and the assumption was that a well-armed populace could, with sufficient numbers, overthrow a tyrannical regime. However, in today's world, this seems unrealistic. Even if someone owned a thousand .50 caliber Desert Eagles, it wouldn’t make a significant difference against such overwhelming governmental power.

I feel like it makes more sense if the guns were always there to protect stolen land.

Given sufficient time and inaction, the unlawful government will become the lawful government.

It's interesting that voting rights were sold on the basis of instituting democratic government. They seem to have caused and supported fascist government.

Edit: /s

Guns are naught but tools. They have no moral nor political ambition. All they can do is provide an amplifier of force, no matter your ideology.

I mean, the rest of the western world already knows this for decades. You silly Americans are just starting to try and catch up.