What the fuck is the point of the 2nd amendment now the US has a centralised standing military?

> well-regulated militia
> wears masks

The United States will never be invaded. Armies can be defeated. An armed population cannot.

Killing fascists like yourself.

The Militia Act of 1903, which is still on the books, states that every able-bodied male aged 17-45 is in the militia.

Find me just a single other place in the Constitution where the term "The People" refers to anything other than every individual.

I thought anti-fascists preferred punching.

>waahhhh well presented lines of reasoning is only produced by paid opposition wahhhh

>by having the people be armed they can rebel and overthrow their government if they begin to find the government's tyranny intolerable.
Name (1) instance this has happened. This meme about "overthrowing government at will when they've overstepped their boundaries" has NEVER been exercised ever since that meme was first put on paper.

Battle of Athens.

>Small town in the south, Tennesee iirc
>WW2 happens
>All the young men go off to war
>meanwhile, local government/police get corrupt
>lie, cheat, steal constantly
>WW2 ends, vets get back
>town election comes up
>corrupt fags stuff the ballot boxes
>WW2 vets gather up guns and storm town hall
>seize ballot boxes
>re-do election

>to form a warrior society

He didn't say they'd be effective warriors.

the government wasn't overthrown.

and seriously, out of all of history you have only one small town to show for your rhetoric? the veterans arguably didn't even need guns there when they had the prestige of their service to fall back on. what was the follow up? was corruption permanently curbed?

>dude just give up lmao
>well presented lines of reasoning

>mandatory national guard registration

no problem, as long as I can purchase anything and bring it, and we can vote our own officers who get a stipend for heavy equipment and ammunition/expenses.

The local government was overthrown. And they did need the guns. There was some shooting and a few injuries. I don't know how long it corruption was curbed for, but I don't think that's really relevant. The point is guns allow resistance, it's got nothing to do with what happens after the resistance wins.

There are more examples btw. Nobody sprayed the Black Panthers with firehoses, for instance.

address the argument. people think differently than you do. it doesn't mean they're paid. that's what we're talking about.

Ok. If drones are so great, why have the Taliban not been defeated after 17 years of drone strikes? The Taliban is armed mostly with small arms an improvised explosives.

If high tech weapons are so great, why did the US lose against some illiterate malnourished rice farmers in Vietnam?

Are you asking for armed overthrow of government or are you asking for armed overthrow of the government from private citizens legally owning weapons who legally storm the capitol, legally shooting the police and legally committing treason?

history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable2and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace2but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

>The local government was overthrown.
>The new GI government of Athens quickly encountered challenges including the re-emergence of old party loyalties.[35] On January 4, 1947, four of the five leaders of the GI Non-Partisan League declared in an open letter: "We abolished one machine only to replace it with another and more powerful one in the making."[36] The GI government of Athens, Tennessee collapsed. Tennessee's GI political movement quickly faded and politics in the state returned to normal.[15][37]
really makes me think... it's almost as though gun violence cannot effect a structural adjustment of politics rooted in society, economics and politics!

>Ok. If drones are so great, why have the Taliban not been defeated after 17 years of drone strikes?
what is this non sequitur? all I'm telling you is that opposition to "muh arguments"=/= paid shills

>Are you asking for armed overthrow of government or are you asking for armed overthrow of the government from private citizens legally owning weapons who legally storm the capitol, legally shooting the police and legally committing treason?
either one. either way the rhetoric of people heroically rising up to overthrow their government is a delusional fantasy.

>either way the rhetoric of people heroically rising up to overthrow their government is a delusional fantasy.
>What were the American revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Civil War, and the Spanish Civil War

pedantry, ladies and gentlemen. we're talking in reference to guns.

>What were the American revolution
successful because of a standing army equipped and paid for by the continental congress.
>the French Revolution
originally, a constitutional coup carried out by the third estate. no guns involved. inb4 bastille, that had nothing to do with high politics and was illusory because the king had ordered his armies to stand down and not attack paris.
>the Russian Revolution
brought about when troops REFUSED to shoot hungry and rioting crowds in petrograd
>the Chinese Civil War
a war fought by two regular armies
>the Spanish Civil War
a coup of the government by military generals allied to a coalition of economic and social interests. some armed spontaenous "revolution"

>brought about when troops REFUSED to shoot hungry and rioting crowds in petrograd
Because I'm sure the hyper-patriotic American military will gladly gun down American citizens

what's your point? no guns were involved in a spontaneous overthrow of the government. overthrow came from the very troops the government had armed to prosecute a war against germany, not because they themselves had owned the guns. ironically enough, these gun wielding patriots couldn't stop the bolsheviks from highjacking the revolution.

>what's your point?
That "armed resistance won't work because of muh modern military" is a line of crap

and let me elaborate, this is very similar to the situation in , where people have been armed but when they use their power to try to control politics, they fail to effect any change

>"armed resistance won't work because of muh modern military"
please tell me where there was "armed resistance" in this case? as it is, you're undermining your own argument- the overthrow of governments is related to the politics INTERNAL to the modern military, and nothing to with spontaneous armed force exercised upon it. Almost EVERY instance you mentioned involved this. Bastille because the French king had ordered his army to stand down. Spanish Civil War because the Generals who had monopoly on military force turned on the government. Russian revolution ordinary soldiers. Your failing to comprehend that it is military politics, whether of a hierarchical or democratic kind, is what determines revolutions, not politics from below. Perhaps the 1870 Paris Commune proved this best of all.

>Almost EVERY instance you mentioned involved this
>you
#Don'tAssume

Open revolution in this day an age can not fail, user
And if it does, well

B-but the constitution w-was never changed.

ok.

that's the problem. it's an appeal to faith, not to reason or the dizzying array of historical precedents that show that armed overthrow as conceived by idealists is impossible and at best directionless, impotent or illusory if successful.

The Bill of Rights has never been changed
>not to reason
Yes it is. There are 2 possibilities. 1. The revolution is successful, 2. it is defeated. If 2, nothing is lost that is worth having without liberty. Therefore, it is irrelevant if it is victorious, I find death preferable to tyranny.
>the dizzying array of historical precedents that show that armed overthrow as conceived by idealists is impossible
How about an example of it being attempted? Keep in mind it must be modern.

Let us consider for a moment what would constitute such a revolution in these United States. Seeing as there are many dissidents eager for 1776 to commence again (as it were), awaiting the war for the restoration of the Constitution and expecting it to soon come, all it would take is a minor and regional insurrection for it to be received as a signal and start the uprising. All these dissidents shall immediately come out of the woodwork to ensure the success of the one and only chance to preserve the liberty of the country. From sea to sea there shall be a fall of the established government by a force bigger and swifter than the entire US Army. In light of this, how can it fail?

can't occupy town if you blow it up...

it's difficult to separate "just" armed uprisings from unjust ones. it all depends on one's ideological perspective and whether you believe the organizing elites/cadres/activists had a just cause.

more spontaenous one's i can think of are the paris communards, petrograd and various soviets that arose spontaneously after february revolution, kronstadt rebels, green armies (russian revolution), Dithmarschen peasants, german peasant wars, tupac amaru revellion, swiss communes fighting off hre and burgundians (led by landed and mercantile elites, though), hussites, dutch revolters (elite led), people overthrow of the medici 1493 (orchestrated in part by political rivals of medici), ciompi revolt, bruges matins, haitian revolution (arming slaves radicalized them). a lot of these didn't necessarily involve that much armed violence nor were any really successful.

In addition, you said how the Russian revolution was successful not because of popular revolt but because of the refusal of troops to fire on them. This I admit, but what you have failed to consider is that the rioting of starving people desperate to live constituted a revolutionary event that brought many people in large groups to a common goal which inspired the soldiers to themselves rebel. What parallel situation could be created in America, if not an armed uprising, and uprising to which many of the soldiery shall be highly sympathetic?

None of these are modern and some are successful

I missed that. but some mentioned are, russian revolution ones are. from another perspective the white russian armies had spontaneous armed support too, but that was limited and could not sustain a civil war over many years.

There are also plenty of modern day military coups being successful by radicalized military officers either left or right wing. Plenty of armed independence movements and secession wars. But then we get into the question of whether these are 1) spontaneous 2) in the interests of the people or the majority of people 3) the ideology aligns with our personal beliefs 4) whether there is a leadership committed to an actual ideology and not just self interested 5) how long it lasts, as spontaneity of an initial armed uprising loses momentum and more longer term military structure/counter government needs to be set up

perhaps the kurds in rojava fit these criteria kek, though i'm not really read up on their case.

>awaiting the war for the restoration of the Constitution and expecting it to soon come,
very vague and subjective. the constitution is a contested document and any group claiming to have a monopoly over its interpretation is a fool.
>all it would take is a minor and regional insurrection
or the armed forces and national guard are called in to suppress it. waco 2.0

>only chance to preserve the liberty of the country.
liberty according to whom? what if the majority doesn't think their liberty is at stake? what if they find it insulting that a small group should insinuate that they lack liberty?

>the refusal of troops to fire on them...
it's a good point, but that is also a military matter. had the government kept its soldiers fed, and had they not stationed newly recruited untested potentially disloyal troops in the Petrograd, you might have this instead of what happened.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1905)

>white russian armies
Considering they were a proper fighting force and not a popular uprising, I don't think they really qualify
>independence movements and secession wars
Does not apply, nobody's breaking off here
>1) spontaneous 2) in the interests of the people or the majority of people 3) the ideology aligns with our personal beliefs 4) whether there is a leadership committed to an actual ideology and not just self interested 5) how long it lasts, as spontaneity of an initial armed uprising loses momentum and more longer term military structure/counter government needs to be set up
2-4 are irrelevant
>waco 2.0
More like Lexington and Concord 2.0
>the constitution is a contested document
Does not practically matter. It only matters what people believe the Constitution means.
>liberty according to whom?
The founding fathers.
>what if the majority doesn't think their liberty is at stake?
An uprising of 5% of the population would mean an overwhelming victory. A small minority of the American population is alot of people.
>what if they find it insulting that a small group should insinuate that they lack liberty?
What are these liberal soyboys gonna do about it?
>had the government kept its soldiers fed, and had they not stationed newly recruited untested potentially disloyal troops in the Petrograd, you might have this instead of what happened.
You don't know much about American soldiers if you think you'll get them to gun down crowds of American citizens. That's more a problem with the Russian nation than resistance.

>2-4 are irrelevant
how? if a group wants to rule in the name of the people if better be in their interest, if they don't have an ideology or set of policies that we might consider "just" then they're not worth supporting. If the leadership pays lipservice to a set of principles but doesn't abide by them they're as good as nothing. It'd be just another self serving coup for the interests of a group of people at the expense of others.
>More like Lexington and Concord 2.0
so long as the military remains intact and is ordered to target the enemy it will succeed or at least contain the threat and bleed it mercilessly.
>The founding fathers.
and what the founding fathers believed is contested
>It only matters what people believe the Constitution means.
what "people"? If you mean a minority of self-righteous partisans with a particular interpretation that they want to impose on everyone else, that is a particular group that can't be said to represent everyone.
>An uprising of 5% of the population would mean an overwhelming victory
yes but it's ultimately a minority imposing a political settlement on the majority, with an unclear outcome.
>What are these liberal soyboys gonna do about it?
If you brand all your opponents "soyboys" your not helping your cause.
>You don't know much about American soldiers if you think you'll get them to gun down crowds of American citizens.
They wouldn't do it for no reason. They'd do it against rebels if ordered, which they'd likely not be for considerations of public relations.

>how?
They don't matter on a battlefield. We're talking about if a revolution could succeed, not if it would be good afterwards.
>and what the founding fathers believed is contested
Not really
>yes but it's ultimately a minority imposing a political settlement on the majority
If the virtuous are in a minority, I want them to impose virtue on the majority.
>with an unclear outcome.
No. The coming revolution will certainly restore this country to the way it was about a hundred years ago with some caveats.
>If you brand all your opponents "soyboys" your not helping your cause.
But they are, the worshippers of this establishment are a bunch of weak effeminates that pose no real threat to anything or anyone.
>They'd do it against rebels if ordered
Not in this situation. Not that'd matter considering it'll be so swift you'd miss it by blinking.

>it's almost as though gun violence cannot effect a structural adjustment of politics rooted in society, economics and politics!
The method of gaining power has no effect on the failure of what comes. Whether a new government is formed by open revolution or civil war or democratic referendum it makes no difference.

It's acted as a deterrent to this day, it hasn't needed to be used.

that can't be proven

Well, the people still have guns, and people haven't rebelled, so apparently the government hasn't done anything so tyrannical as to prompt a revolution yet. Sure, maybe they still wouldn't have done something if we didn't have guns, but its still a useful deterrent and there's no downside to having guns so might as well keep it around.

This post doesn’t make sense.

>the 2nd amendment was crafted basically so the US would not have a standing centralised military
Wrong

Basically he's saying that the 2nd Amendment gives the government the power to draft people into the military, instead of restricting the government from infringing on people's right to bear arms.

If that sounds retarded, it's because it is, and to arrive at that conclusion you have to be obtuse as hell.

Why are you explaining to me why it’s retarded when I already said it doesn’t make sense.

I’ll have what he’s smoking.

I know, I was just making sure you knew that I thought it was retarded as well.

Oh okay, friend

Have you ever thought that maybe us having guns is the reason they haven't done anything drastic enough for us to have to?

>there's no downside to having guns
>30k gun deaths a year in the US plus politically divisive mass shootings
hmmmmmmmm... all for a hypothetical 1/1000000000 scenario that totally ignores the nature of revolutions and statecraft?

>but its still a useful deterrent
>it's still a useful deterrent even though we have no evidence it is.
and why do you keep posting pictures of uniformed gunmen? it's as though you care more for the image of a guns and gunowners, the "coolness factor", as an argument than argument itself.

>The method of gaining power has no effect on the failure of what comes.
it 100% does. It says a lot for an armed overthrow that you cannot follow up with real change in government. its also fetishizing one contingent factor of a revolution (guns), when a revolution can evolve in an infinite variety of ways, many that don't even involve gun. Also, if armed overthrow is just a means to an end, that means it is a means that can used by ANYONE of any ideological persuasion, and is just as capable of being used by one's enemies than one's own special snowflake ideology.

>We're talking about if a revolution could succeed, not if it would be good afterwards.
they're intimately related.
>Not really
Sticking your fingers in your ears is not an argument. The motives of the founding fathers have been contested since the beginning of american history, and furthermore their opinions changes markedly in their lifetimes.
>If the virtuous are in a minority, I want them to impose virtue on the majority.
Said every tyrant and communist ever
>the way it was about a hundred years ago
Why such a vague date?
>But they are, the worshippers of this establishment
>everyone who disagrees with me is effeminate and belongs to some evil establishment!
if you underestimate your opponents this hard you're going to fail. The Confederates indulged in this rhetoric as well against the Yankees and they still lost
>Not in this situation
wishful thinking

>30k gun deaths a year in the US plus politically divisive mass shootings
There'd still be just as many homicides if all the guns were taken away

>and why do you keep posting pictures of uniformed gunmen?
Because uniforms are a thing that exists? What kind of point are you trying to make?

>There'd still be just as many homicides if all the guns were taken away
"no". nothing like that exists outside the US

>Because uniforms are a thing that exists?
What kind of point are YOU trying to make?

>What kind of point are you trying to make?
I told you. You're resorting to using pictures as an argument, like a sleazy advertiser does when he wants to sell you something.

>nothing like that exists outside the US
The United States is 94th in homicide rate user, so there are 93 other countries where that exists.

>You're resorting to using pictures as an argument
At no point have I used the pictures as an argument, you're the one who brought them up, so I ask you again, what kind of point are you trying to make?

I'm not seeing anymore arguments, did you give up?

*parks in front of your office building (yes, the CIA does run drone ops out of office buildings)*

No one wants to argue with a
>quote every line
autist like it's some 2003 BBS forum

The modern interpretation is a mixture of people conflating the Bill of Rights with the Declaration of Independence even though they're two completely unrelated documents that were written a decade apart and a reaction to leftist faggots wanting to neuter American culture.

Also large standing armies were a mistake and are a massive financial burden.

1861

Look, Ivan, pretending not to get it doesn't make him look dumber or you smarter.

The 2nd Amendment exists so that 2nd Amendment people can defend the 2nd Amendment.

If the 2nd Amendment didn't exist, then it would be illegal for them to defend the 2nd Amendment, and before long the 2nd Amendment would no longer exist. Where would we be then?

A little while after the battle of athens and they booted out the corrupt local goverment, they became corrupt themselves and had the same problem they started with.

Same shit you see in Mexico where towns take up arms to boot out the cartels and before long they become cartels themselves

That's not how the National Guard works. Although aside from that I don't think that's totally unreasonable. Problem is, not everybody will get to use their preferred weapon if you're gonna pretend to be a military unit. You can solve that democratically if you're serious about it. This is basically how a militia works, as I understand it.

Also, you're going to pony up for expenses and stipends yourself. Taxpayers aren't going to pay you play military because you don't want to take orders from anybody.

This picture basically sums up the republican party really.

>if they begin to find the government's tyranny intolerable.
Tons of people already find the "tyranny" to be "intolerable". What does that tell you about the judgment of American citizens?

I remember you! The terrorist guy. I guess if you're willing to impale your fellow Americans on shit-covered sticks, strap bombs to your children, and raise a new generation of resistance fighters by capturing rape slaves from the neighboring county, you could have a rough but serviceable go of it.

I posted it and even I don't think that's fair. That Fox found it shocking enough to broadcast is proof enough that this is fringe activity. But the GOP isn't innocent of emboldening people like this.

Neoconfederate traitor

>the right of the government to have a military shall not be infringed
That doesn't make any sense as an amendment

>The United States is 94th in homicide rate user,
We're talking about 1st world obviously lmao

>At no point have I used the pictures as an argument
You don't need to. It's called "product placement" in advertisements because people are going to make unconscious associations with images. Images are powerful, which is why the question of images has caused religious controversy since the Hebrews. It's also why chan culture denigrates namefags and avatarfags. To use images, even next to an argument, is a rhetorical tool, whether you believe you're doing it or not.

>We're talking about 1st world obviously
The United States is barely even 1st world, there's massive drug problems, a large black and latino population, corruption and political gridlock, an absolutely awful prison system, and terrible economic and healthcare policies.

>It's called "product placement" in advertisements because people are going to make unconscious associations with images.
So, posting images of people with guns while we talk about guns is conveying what to you?

This.

>quote every line autist like it's some 2003 BBS forum
so addressing your arguments is now "autism"?

Yes, it does. Just because you take for granted that any government maintains a military doesn't mean that it didn't need to be delineated specifically. We take federal taxes for granted now too. That had to be delineated at one point.

>nobody wants to defend what they actually said

>The United States is barely even 1st world
thats disingenuous. by many measures it is. it also is dependent on the region. some regions are 1st world "some" approach third world conditions. what distinguishes the US from the rest of the first world is its peculiarly underdeveloped and sclerotic welfare system, general acceptance of social inequality as the price for freedom and innovation (which is belied by statistics) and unusual religiosity

>there's massive drug problems
this isn't just a US problem, it's just that the US handles it the worst. drugs and drug culture are popular across the first world post modern societies.
> a large black and latino population
this doesn't determine first world status, though certainly these minorities are more often than not the poorest.
>corruption and political gridlock
hard to measure, though i think the statistics show we're middling in corruption. i agree that political gridlock is a problem but i think political gridlock doesn't always lead to crisis.
>an absolutely awful prison system and terrible economic and healthcare policies.
yes

>posting images of people with guns while we talk about guns is conveying what to you?
same reason why stormfags post smartly dressed stormtroopers and wermacht soldier's- to show that one's cause is led and supported by apparently competent, put-together people.

>posting images of people with guns while we talk about guns is conveying what
I think what is striking to user is that you are posting masked paramilitary thugs from an authoritarian country while trying to sell him on the virtues of American patriots bearing arms against tyranny.

I think he's a little ridiculous, getting into product placement and all that. But he's right in that it's obvious that you like this stuff because it looks cool, and your arguments stem from a fetish rather than a principle. Everyone here thinks guns and uniforms and shit are cool. Most of us like shooting guns, I wager. But we don't all feel the need to justify that with an argument contrived to make us feel bigger or more important.

этo имeeт для вac cмыcл?

>To protect against government tyranny. While there may be a standing army nowadays, by having the people be armed they can rebel and overthrow their government if they begin to find the government's tyranny intolerable.

Do you think they intended a real war to end Tyranny? A nation destroying bloodbath? No, I think they wanted the Tyrannical government to not be powerful enough to stop the individual town militias assembled by the governors to march on the capital to quickly end tyranny.

The probably didn't imagine the rebellion VS the Evil empire like in fucking Star Wars. Unless England was involved or something.

>it's just that the US handles it the worst
Point still stands

>this doesn't determine first world status, though certainly these minorities are more often than not the poorest
Yes, and the most violent

>same reason why stormfags post smartly dressed stormtroopers and wermacht soldier's
And so me posting waffegeists is portraying...what exactly?

>But we don't all feel the need to justify that with an argument contrived to make us feel bigger or more important.
My argument isn't "guns and uniforms are cool" though.

Military politics may be the prime mover of political change in an uprising but you are neglecting the role that an armed populace may play in that situation. Where do you think these leaders draw their support when their supply of regular soldiers runs out or is limited?

A massive part of the early American Revolution was fought by farmers and tradesmen with hand-me-down weapons. It was all Congress could to do just to pay these mens WAGES, let alone arm them with modern and uniform weaponry. The British began confiscating weapons years before the revolution's primary leaders assumed their roles. Why did they do this if those weapons, being in the hands of ordinary citizens, didn't present a threat?

It's because they DID present a threat... The weapons as well as the men being available to the rebels as a source to draw from.

That was not the final draft for a reason.

Appealing to a rejected version only makes you look stupid.

The 2nd amendment actually still has a valid purpose:

Legally, high end encryption and malware is classified as weaponry and munitions. If that's protected by the second amendment, then that actually preserves a lot of the utility of it in a digital age.

Woops. Sorry for making a point.

> It's absolutely clear the original intention
And this is the genius of the Founding Fathers, in that your absolute and mine can peacefully coexist, as we engage in civil discourse.

No, your argument is that "there's no downside to having guns around." The rest of what you've said has been to just keep an argument going while making as little input as possible, like a bored therapist running down the clock. этo хopoшaя тeхникa, кoгдa вы мнoгoзaдaчны.

They weren't democratically represented. They didn't have a political solution to their problems. People today do. For the past like 8 years conservatives have controlled Congress. Now they also control the other two branches. They wanted to throw out the bums who weren't representing them right, and with the exception of one man, they re-elected all the same bums. All this time they nonetheless have been bitching about tyranny. Are these really the heirs to the American Revolution to establish a representative democracy that gives the voter the power to direct the nation's priorities? Or are they just fucking brats?

>No, your argument is that "there's no downside to having guns around."
Which, statistically, there isn't. Neither Europe nor America saw a decreased homicide rate as a result of implementing gun control.

>The rest of what you've said has been to just keep an argument going while making as little input as possible
I'm not the one trying to make an argument from random pictures, user.

I'm sure American soldiers will quite happily drone strike the people they swore to defend.

I like the plastic airsoft AK he's rocking

They won’t be fighting citizens but “terrorists”

It’s not hard to have brothers turn on one another.

>Neither Europe nor America saw a decreased homicide rate as a result of implementing gun control.

If you look for data that confirms this, you will find it. I can play that game too.

independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/las-vegas-shooting-australia-gun-laws-control-stephen-paddock-2nd-amendment-nevada-firearm-a7980671.html

bigthink.com/ideafeed/examining-uk-gun-crime-15-years-after-firearms-act

lawcenter.giffords.org/effectiveness-brady-actbackground-checks/

For balance, here's counterevidence regarding Brady, which states there was no discernable effect based on identical trends between states which implemented of the Brady requirements and those which did not. However, over this period gun homicides did decrease. What is unclear according to this study is that it was causal.

content.law.virginia.edu/news/2003_spr/cook.htm

The author of the study, though, qualifies this: "...The real problem is the law's 'gaping barn door' for unregulated sales, mainly at gun shows, but no one knows how many guns are bought with false IDs or exchanged privately, to say nothing of those being stolen." And indeed, no law regarding how people can buy and sell guns has a chance of having its intended effect if it doesn't actually control how people buy and sell guns.

And since I posted a Giffords Law Center article it's only fair to post a gun group's article as well.

crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/