1) A military attack is an act of war. You can call that political, but it's still war.
''War'', as Von Clauswitz said, is ''the continuation of politics by other means'', or even more delightful, Lenin's paraphrase; ''Politics is the continuation of war by other means''. Had the Federal Army refused Lincoln's command to resist the Southern takeover of Federal property in the South and indeed, to not oppose the secession of the states, there would have been little that President Lincoln could have done.
Last time I looked, there weren't many cannon inside Congress... The underlying issue is the recent coup. Earlier, when the head of the Pentagon appeared at an inappropriate suppression of dissent, he apologised to the entire country. They have a tradition of staying out of politics as much as is possible.
That's how you're framing your story of course, that ''it'' was a ''Coup'', but then you weren't of the same thinking when it came to your fake ''Leftists'' in ''Antifa'' and ''BLM'' I'm sure when they were engaged in insurrection and sedition last summer....Anyway, it's a dodge against having to say whether or not you can affirm a right (or even duty) for a people to ever rebel, because if you said ''yes'' or ''no'' for that matter, you know what would happen next, don't you?
2) George Washington wrote: In his letter, Washington wrote, “I am wearied to death all day with a variety of perplexing circumstances, disturbed at the conduct of the militia, whose behavior and want of discipline has done great injury to the other troops, who never had officers, except in a few instances, worth the bread they eat.” Washington added, “In confidence I tell you that I never was in such an unhappy, divided state since I was born.”
Yes, Washington frequently complained about the Militia, but again, they weren't his Continental Army troops either...Those mentioned by him as ''other troops''.
Washington fought an uphill battle for military order until Friedrich, Freiherr von Steuben arrived at General Washington’s encampment at Valley Forge on February 23, 1778."
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-his ... r-problems
Steuben turned a military force into a proper army. You are playing dumb word games there, or you don't know what you're talking about.
I know exactly what I'm talking about (having come from a long history of military service in my family), which is the fact that Von Steuben (who in keeping with the 'pop history' of today you're a huge fan of, right? ) wasn't the miracle worker with the men at Valley Forge you're making him out to be, Washington himself was. And again, the Continentals weren't Militia, most of them were at home during that time, many enlistments having expired, etc...
You brought up Afghanistan. If Afghanistan was next to Maryland, and we brought the full might of the military to bear, they would be annihilated, and it would not take long...
Bullshit. Proximity, all other things being equal, would not change the military dynamic. Ask the British about that, them having the Afghans as neighbors to British India and all...
3) You are lying here, because I had already posted this: " early Americans agreed that they had a right to arms, but in discussing that right, gave different understandings of its purposes and value. Many saw it as enabling a fundamental natural right of self-defense,: some saw it as enabling a militia system,43 and some saw it as ensuring an armed citizenry that-whether enrolled in militia units or not-would serve as a counterbalance to government abuses.44 The relative balance of these views follows a timeline. Prior to the Revolution, natural rights and self-defense overwhelmingly dominated the conversation.45 From 1775 to the framing of the Constitution, when conflict and state-building were the issues of the day, natural rights, militia, and armed people were all in play.46 By the framing of the Bill of Rights and in the following decades, natural right and self-defense returned to dominance."
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1101&context=wmborj
You can quote that all you like (which really isn't germane to the discussion or to the specific point I'm making about the Militia and the Second Amendment) and make personal attacks, it doesn't change the facts. And the fact is that you still haven't stated honestly and with some decent courage whether or not you support or oppose the right of the people to engage in revolution, a straight yes or no... None of the things mentioned in your quote are exclusive of one another, for one thing.
4) We have had Rule of Law for well over two centuries.
Yes, and the Second Amendment/Militia is part of that ''rule of law'', or rather, the restoration of the rule of law should a foreign or domestic enemy ever try to enslave the people, in any land, anytime. Again, do you support the people's right of revolution, yes or no?
Could you be slightly less pathetic? All you're really doing here is repeating idiotic lies.
What is ''pathetic''? What are '' idiotic lies'', exactly? You're wrapped up a little tightly in personalizing your exchanges with other people here, it appears. Perhaps you should rather try to actually prove where I am wrong, instead of just dogmatically affirming it or anathemizing me...