4 ms·

I like the argument that people are going to "keep the government in check" by owning guns. That one cracks me up the most, have you seen the size of the govern

I like the argument that people are going to "keep the government in check" by owning guns. That one cracks me up the most, have you seen the size of the government's guns?

madengr 9y ago
You can march off to the concentration camp. I’ll keep my guns.
- yodon 9y ago
  I'll keep my freedom of speach, and use it to preserve your right to hold those beliefs and assemble freely. Without the rights to publicly speak your mind and assemble freely, no matter how many guns you have, you're still just one guy barricaded in his house, easily handled by the government forces those guns are supposed to protect you against. It is the first amendment that allows concerned citizens to actually and effectively protest and protect against government overreach, regardless of what the NRA would have you believe, because effective protest is a mass activity.
  - madengr 9y ago
    Sure, but the 2nd ensures the 1st. Government needs to be afraid of its citizens. Only armed citizens ensure that.
    - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
      There are other perspectives of that argument. 1) Many countries have codified freedom of speech, religion, expression. The deterrents to undermining those protections have nothing to do with armed citizens. 2) Populist uprisings in many countries contain caches of weapons at the time it is deemed fruitful. 3) Inclusion in a constitution isn't necessary to make it legal for citizens to own guns. 4) Inclusion in a constitution isn't necessary to make it illegal for nearly all citizens to own guns. 5) Can you elaborate on exactly what the role of armed citizens is in making sure the government doesn't undermine first amendment protections? The only thing I can think of is killing judges, hanging senators, shooting pencil pushers that enforce the administrative aspects of onerous regulations. Is that an accurate understanding of the argument?
    - yongjik 9y ago
      When US police officers are afraid of its citizens, more citizens die, because police officers are people and would rather be alive and sorry than be shot and dead. A government "afraid" of its citizens cannot function properly. If armed citizens ensure that, I'd consider that an argument in favor of disarming citizens.
    - yodon 9y ago
      And the 1st ensures the second. Government is only ever afraid of large numbers of its citizens, the "lone armed guy" is simply too easy for the government to pick off individually. The NRA is feeding you large helpings of boondoggle in thinking the 2nd is important on its own. The founding fathers put the first two amendments together for a reason. They work together, not apart.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
Have you seen how the size of the government's guns were so useful in occupying Afghanistan and Iraq.
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  the key differences I see are that: a) this didn't require a constitutional right to accomplish, free flowing guns everywhere by any regional or international supporter interested b) it was also ineffective at expelling a foreign invader (NATO, US, Al Qaeda, ISIS) c) it was also ineffective at expelling the sovereign institution
cannonedhamster 9y ago
Historically the military in our country comes to protect the civilians when the local government fails. The cases of our own military attacking our own citizens are thankfully rare, but almost always end in bloodshed. You're far more likely to need a firearm to protect yourself against the police than the military and far more likely to need to protect yourself against your fellow citizens than the police. I'm fairly liberal but there's an important reason the founders added the 2nd Amendment. I just wish there was more outrage when the other Amendments were trampled upon.

I like the argument that people are going to "keep the government in check" by owning guns. That one cracks me up the most, have you seen the size of the government's guns?

madengr 9y ago

You can march off to the concentration camp. I’ll keep my guns.

yodon 9y ago
I'll keep my freedom of speach, and use it to preserve your right to hold those beliefs and assemble freely. Without the rights to publicly speak your mind and assemble freely, no matter how many guns you have, you're still just one guy barricaded in his house, easily handled by the government forces those guns are supposed to protect you against. It is the first amendment that allows concerned citizens to actually and effectively protest and protect against government overreach, regardless of what the NRA would have you believe, because effective protest is a mass activity.
- madengr 9y ago
  Sure, but the 2nd ensures the 1st. Government needs to be afraid of its citizens. Only armed citizens ensure that.
  - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
    There are other perspectives of that argument. 1) Many countries have codified freedom of speech, religion, expression. The deterrents to undermining those protections have nothing to do with armed citizens. 2) Populist uprisings in many countries contain caches of weapons at the time it is deemed fruitful. 3) Inclusion in a constitution isn't necessary to make it legal for citizens to own guns. 4) Inclusion in a constitution isn't necessary to make it illegal for nearly all citizens to own guns. 5) Can you elaborate on exactly what the role of armed citizens is in making sure the government doesn't undermine first amendment protections? The only thing I can think of is killing judges, hanging senators, shooting pencil pushers that enforce the administrative aspects of onerous regulations. Is that an accurate understanding of the argument?
  - yongjik 9y ago
    When US police officers are afraid of its citizens, more citizens die, because police officers are people and would rather be alive and sorry than be shot and dead. A government "afraid" of its citizens cannot function properly. If armed citizens ensure that, I'd consider that an argument in favor of disarming citizens.
  - yodon 9y ago
    And the 1st ensures the second. Government is only ever afraid of large numbers of its citizens, the "lone armed guy" is simply too easy for the government to pick off individually. The NRA is feeding you large helpings of boondoggle in thinking the 2nd is important on its own. The founding fathers put the first two amendments together for a reason. They work together, not apart.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

Have you seen how the size of the government's guns were so useful in occupying Afghanistan and Iraq.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago
the key differences I see are that: a) this didn't require a constitutional right to accomplish, free flowing guns everywhere by any regional or international supporter interested b) it was also ineffective at expelling a foreign invader (NATO, US, Al Qaeda, ISIS) c) it was also ineffective at expelling the sovereign institution

cannonedhamster 9y ago

Historically the military in our country comes to protect the civilians when the local government fails. The cases of our own military attacking our own citizens are thankfully rare, but almost always end in bloodshed. You're far more likely to need a firearm to protect yourself against the police than the military and far more likely to need to protect yourself against your fellow citizens than the police. I'm fairly liberal but there's an important reason the founders added the 2nd Amendment. I just wish there was more outrage when the other Amendments were trampled upon.