If 8.1 billion people marched on a government, even with a full array of advanced and nuclear weapons in their arsenal, would they still definitely lose? What about one billion? A hundred million? Ten million? Where do you think the line is?

Caveat: The government does want to be able to live on earth again within their lifetimes, but can spend up to a year in bunkers, and the military doesn’t revolt- given that nuclear weapons can be deployed by one person, the worst option doesn’t even really require the military’s cooperation.

  • Apepollo11@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I’ll admit, I didn’t know the Supreme Court had said that.

    It’s an insane interpretation - and I see that many justices said so at the time.

    I guess whether or not the writers of the amendment actually meant every able-bodied man when they wrote “well-regulated militia”, or whether they meant a militia, is impossible to know for sure.

    But to say that the word meant something different at the time is patently untrue. Around the English speaking world at that time, local militias - with that specific word used - were used to keep order. It was a common word for an actual thing people would have been familiar with.