Americas second amendment
Debate Rounds (2)
First of all, let's get some basic necessities out of the way. The fact that in your hypothetical you are in armed conflict with the government means that you can't use any argument about hiding from them (not that a gun would help you hide anyway). The scenario only occurs if you are in direct conflict with the government and that conflict has escalated to shots fired.
Let's explore the possibilities of how this might play out. Perhaps you'll get lucky and it will "only" be a SWAT team coming for you. You are now in an armed conflict with a team of heavily armed and armored officers specifically trained for this type of situation:
I could post dozens (perhaps hundreds) more articles here, but the point is simple: AR-15 or no AR-15, you're going to lose.
That's assuming you only have to deal with the police. Perhaps the government taps the military and they send in an Army Ranger unit:
Now you're up against elite infantry specifically trained in defeating enemy combatants in small groups. Game over.
Perhaps the government decides that even though they know they can defeat you with small arms you're not worth risking the soldiers over, regardless of how long the odds are, so they simply send in a Predator drone:
The drone can hit your home with a laser-guided missile and you're dead before you even know what's happening.
Or, perhaps the government decides to play it safe even above that level and instead sends a Tomahawk cruise missile:
Now you're dead and the enemy is still over 1,000 miles away. You better have one heck of a modification to that assault rifle if you're going to defend against that.
As I said previously, I am a staunch supporter of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. We use guns for hunting, for sporting, and most importantly for defending ourselves against criminal threats (your AR-15 against a burglar or rapist in the night is going to make the odds look very different than the same gun against a SWAT team).
The bottom line is that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to be a supporter of the right to bear arms. "Because it'll protect me against a cruise missile" isn't one of them.
As to the foreign invader threat you cited, if the hypothetical foreign invader is strong enough that our country has been defeated militarily, that enemy is therefore stronger militarily than the government capabilities outlined above.
"In my own native state of Massachusetts, the battle for American freedom was begun by the THOUSANDS of farmers and tradesmen who made up the Minute Men " citizens who were ready to defend their liberty at a moment"s notice. Today we need a NATION of minute men; citizens who are not only prepared to take up arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as a basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. The cause of liberty, the cause of America, cannot succeed with any lesser effort.
By calling attention to "a well regulated militia," the "security" of the nation, and the right of each citizen "to keep and bear arms," our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country in the case of a tyrannical government or a foreign threat. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
Also, some argue that we should only ban assault weapons and we can keep our hunting rifles and such but in the case of a tyrannical government we would lose. The United States military is the most technologically advanced military in the world( as you pretty much explained above) and if it becomes tyrannical and we try to launch a coup or rebellion we would fail going up against the most advanced military in the world with hunting rifles and such. Also in the case of foreign invaders we would also stand no chance. And that is why the second amendment still applies today. That, is why we need our assault rifles and our (incorrectly called) "machine guns". We need them to defend against a tyrannical government and foreign invaders. And that is the only way we would even REMOTELY stand a chance.
Your entire argument is also predicated on organizing as you put it "hundreds of thousands, if not millions" of civilians with assault rifles. Problem: there's no way you can keep that kind of operation under cover. No matter how you coordinate it, the NSA, CIA, FBI etc. will have you under surveillance long before you make any traction.
I could go on for a long time citing stories of the government spying on us. Bottom line, long before you got a significant number of "soldiers" together the military capabilities I mentioned in Round 1 would brought to bear against you.
Your conclusion states that "if it becomes tyrannical and we try to launch a coup or rebellion we would fail going up against the most advanced military in the world with hunting rifles and such." This is the basic point of your argument, and in order to make it you need to show convincing evidence that the difference between a "hunting rifle" and an "assault rifle" would make a significant difference in going up against "the most technologically advanced military in the world" (using all your terms). You have cited no evidence, statistics, studies, articles, anything to support this thesis. We could substitute "foreign invader" for "tyrannical government" and the arguments would remain the same.
Probably not germane to the debate, but the reason I despise this argument is it's a red herring. If you REALLY want to do something about the tyrannical central government, spend less time worrying about your AR-15 and more time supporting politicians who will defend the Constitution against the excesses of the current trajectory of the executive branch.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.