The ability of a citizen movement to oppose them, however, are. Bundy Ranch ended with no bloodshed because the BLM didn't gear up for war; had the FBI wanted to Waco that shit Cliven's face would be on gun show t-shirts from coast to coast for the next 30 years. Everybody wants their guns, nobody wants a well-regulated militia.If history has shown us anything, the fears of extreme government overreach and oppression of peoples is not a relic of the past.
"BLM" in this instance is Bureau of Land Management... the people upon whose land the Bundy's decided to graze their cattle for free. The BLM is tasked with protecting the commonly-held lands in America (national parks, open spaces, unclaimed spaces, etc). So they ask for cattle ranchers to pay a fee to graze their cattle on public lands. The Bundys didn't pay, so the BLM went in to collect. Could have gone all Waco, and didn't, because everyone was standing around thinking, "Shit. This could go all Waco, and shit." And nobody pulled the first trigger. Black Lives Matter has no role in this, other than choosing a three-letter descriptor that had already been in use for decades. (See also the WWF and the WWF.)
Naw, dawg I'm stone-cold serious. The BLM was staring down an armed uprising and decided that they didn't wanna toe-to-toe it. It was an example of a well-armed citizenry withstanding and repelling government "repression" or "overreach". Under an uglier era, they would have gone in regardless.
A citizens movement, while drastic and in a real situation, fatal to those who would at first rise up, is a possibility any entity who rises to power must at least consider in the United States. If we change that, we must also consider what other changes might follow. The first amendment can be dangerous too; if our philosophy toward the constitution, allows for dramatic reform of the 2nd it will allow for dramatic reform of the 1st.Everybody wants their guns; nobody wants a well-regulated militia.
This is undoubtedly true, and why most conversation turns to hunting, self-defense, and sports shooting.
The First Amendment is highly curtailed compared to the second. You can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater. You can't print slander. Yet you can't require a license to buy a gun. You can require a license to shoot a deer, but you can't require a license to buy the thing to shoot the deer with. You can proscribe the places you can fire the gun, but you can't limit the access to them in any way to citizens in good standing. I had to pass a test to ride a motorcycle. If I wanted an AR-15, I'll bet I could pass that license, too.
You can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater. You can't print slander.
Well, you can, there are just consequences for those actions. Consequences which also regulate the use of firearms, you can't fire a gun in theater, and you can't shoot at someone you hate. but you can't limit the access to them in any way to citizens in good standing.
Further regulation and licensing wouldn't prohibit those in good standing from obtaining even if they had mal-intent. This is why the argument for repeal of 2nd A is stronger than further regulation. However, the philosophical implications of a repeal are huge and would fundamentally alter all aspects of law and life in America.