Is there some reason he can't have guns to wage civil war? I believe that the entire point of the second amendment is to enable us to form militias should the need develop.
Organizing in advance of 'the war' isn't something he 'must' do either, as militias are historically formed in reaction to the events that predicate their formation, and are often composed of hodge-podge firearms possessed by their owners.
The point being, it seems you're accusing him of wanting to own guns to protect his right to form a militia, but that is exactly the point of the right. Had we not been able to form up some 200 years ago, we would not be the nation we are, for better or worse.
If I'm misreading your post, please accept my apology in advance, but I don't see any reason why there can't be a middle ground between full-on war and just being an advocate of one's civil rights.
> I don't see any reason why there can't be a middle ground between full-on war and just being an advocate of one's civil rights.
The reason the parent post ignores the possibility of such a middle ground is that some people find arguments in favor of gun control more persuasive if anyone who defends it is painted as a traitor.
To me, if you accuse pro-gun people of being "revolutionaries," call anti-homosexuality people "hate criminals," or refer to the pro-choice as "baby killers," it suggests that your actual argument is weak. You're appealing to people's emotions, rather than logic.
This is why I firmly believe that logical argument should be a mandatory part of middle and high school curricula.
Organizing in advance of 'the war' isn't something he 'must' do either, as militias are historically formed in reaction to the events that predicate their formation, and are often composed of hodge-podge firearms possessed by their owners.
The point being, it seems you're accusing him of wanting to own guns to protect his right to form a militia, but that is exactly the point of the right. Had we not been able to form up some 200 years ago, we would not be the nation we are, for better or worse.
If I'm misreading your post, please accept my apology in advance, but I don't see any reason why there can't be a middle ground between full-on war and just being an advocate of one's civil rights.