monotonous_iterancy
Member
- Joined
- May 27, 2012
- Messages
- 915
A major purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide for the effective defense of a free state. From what I understand, the backbone of this defense was to be based off a system similar to what the Swiss have today.
While we don't have hostile nations who could even reach us, in the span of a few generations time, the world could look very different.
Yet, our most recent real life examples don't inspire confidence in me that our right to bear arms would do much of anything to protect us. Granted, most of these cases are against us, but they provide a case study. We lost Vietnam politically, and the Soviets lost Afganistan. Today, we've pretty much won in Iraq, and Afganistan, while not entirely free, is going better than when the Soviets tried.
These examples don't seem to inspire confidence in the 2nd amendment being a safeguard against much except criminals.
So realistically, does our right to keep and bear arms still hold relevance as far as defending ourselves from an outside force, or is that more of a "Red Dawn" fantasy some cling to?
While we don't have hostile nations who could even reach us, in the span of a few generations time, the world could look very different.
Yet, our most recent real life examples don't inspire confidence in me that our right to bear arms would do much of anything to protect us. Granted, most of these cases are against us, but they provide a case study. We lost Vietnam politically, and the Soviets lost Afganistan. Today, we've pretty much won in Iraq, and Afganistan, while not entirely free, is going better than when the Soviets tried.
These examples don't seem to inspire confidence in the 2nd amendment being a safeguard against much except criminals.
So realistically, does our right to keep and bear arms still hold relevance as far as defending ourselves from an outside force, or is that more of a "Red Dawn" fantasy some cling to?
Last edited: