Aren't you the lot who say that AR 15 are dangerous weapons that are capable of mass killing?
The opposite actually happens. The army wouldn't want to engage in firing on armed people, especially when they can fire back and are outnumbered.
They will fire back because that is what someone with a gun will do.
Which is why allowing people to have a piece of reality like a gun to protect themselves is a safeguard against it. The right exists right, which means that people have the force to protect themselves.
If the government led by AOC or some radical moron tried to radically disarm people, there would be a real fight on the government's hands. Which means that they would try and break down that right in small pieces. Which is EXACTLY what the Democrats do.
Exactly the same thing is happening in South Africa with regards to property. The government will change the constitution, but won't do much with it. Then slowly they will push the overton's window, like what happened in Venezuela.
Mmm technically the US National Guard already has fired on "armed" protesters. I present to you the debacle that was the Kent State Shooting in May 1970.
The students were protesting the totalitarian acts of the US Government, the involvement of the USA in the Vietnam war and the illegal bombing of Cambodia.
The National Guard were called in to disperse the protesters.
Anyway during the protest, four students were shot dead by the National Guard and several were wounded.
The National Guard fired on protesters, after they believed they were shot at by a sniper in the amongst the protesters. It has never been fully determined if they were actually shot at by a protester and this is highly debated and disputed.
Did 2A protect these protesters? No, they got shot, because the Guard believed that at least one of them were armed. Had they all been armed, there would have been even more dire consequences. Is the National Guard just going to retreat? They would call in more resources.
It took a school professor to beg the students to disperse, after the shooting, because he was told if they don't, they will shoot the rest (watch Ken Burns Vietnam War documentary for a chilling account of this shooting). Guns would not have saved them at this protest, it would have made it several times worse.
None of the National Guardsmen were held to account for the deaths of 4 students. The protesters were the ones who were charged, although never convicted due to lack of evidence.
Assuming someone did actually shoot at the Guardsmen, do you think he could have used the 2nd Amendment as defence, as to why he shot at them?
It is something I have always wondered about. 2A had a reasonably good intention back when Revolutionary Wars were the flavour of the month, however in modern context, is it as practical as it set out to be?
Who determines the government is totalitarian? Who is going to enforce that right, if the government is in actual fact totalitarian?