Don’t come at them with facts.
The French, Russian, Chinese, and even the Vietnamese revolutions quite literally all started as dudes with rifles. American largely as well, though it did technically start with artillery, that was terrible and got fuckin rekt until the French started doing it all for us. Except, of course, for the OG Insurgent Asshole, the Swamp Fox himself, the man who saved the Revolution, who, you guessed it, fought mostly with muskets and guerilla tactics.
(Also he was a slaver, a murderer, and a rapist, just to be clear. But he was best at murderin’)
You start with rifles, then get the big boy toys when you either get a national sugar daddy or murder some bootlickers in their barracks and raid the armory. Preferably both.
OK, I don’t think I have heard people arguing about vietnam, but Afghanistan was retaken in days by an armed rebellion, and they only ever shot down 38 aircraft, and did not down a single fast mover during the entire war. And even so, a countries government can’t survive by bombing its infrastructure against a sustained rebellion. If the majority of America decided to rebel against the us government, they would be completely screwed.
If the majority of the population decided to rebel against the government they wouldn’t need guns
Uh, yes they would? Have you heard of: the soviet union, the ccp or ww2 Germany? All had different rebellions, but all failed because they did not have any firepower. One of the very first things the fascist government of Germany did was remove weapons from anyone that was an enemy of the state. Now in present day ukraine, because none of the citizens were permitted to own arms, Ukrainians have no way to fight an insurgent war on Russian occupiers. Without any means to violently resist a fascist takeover, the people are at the mercy of the government. I love how so many people post about how “if enough trans or nby people arms themselves then the government will enact gun control” and completely miss the irony of that point completely proving correct the points people make against gun control.
There has virtually never be a revolution in history that had the majority of the population behind it while it was actually happening.
Second amendment means we should have anti-aircraft missiles too. This is not a joke. I am serious.
Honestly, even if it were legal, who would be able to afford it? It’d just mean the ultra wealthy would have even more powerful private armies. A single missile costs at least a few hundred thousand dollars, with some systems costing millions per missile. Which is unfathomably expensive when you think of what you can buy with a few million dollars.
The answer is UBI: Universal Ballistic Income
The only logical conclusion is that civilians should be able to, nay mandated to, own anti-aircraft missiles. And while we’re at it anti-tank missiles too.
Imagine if every single person in Ukraine had had anti-aircraft and anti-tank missles.
