3 ms·

It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted

It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted political viewpoint here in the US.

mieseratte 7y ago
> It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted political viewpoint here in the US. It's weird to me that advocating for the cessation of an absolute right to self-defense is a mainstream political position. It's not as if history is one peachy peace-and-love orgy.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Let me clarify: the reason that viewpoint is weird to me is that it's essentially political terrorism. A small minority of citizens are essentially saying "we want the law to be this way, and if it isn't, we will murder you". But for some reason we've collectively decided that no, it's actually normal for people to dictate the law under threat of violence. The other side here is basically just people supporting and voting for the laws they think will improve society, a.k.a. democracy working normally.
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    "A small minority of citizens are essentially saying "we want the law to be this way, and if it isn't, we will murder you". But for some reason we've collectively decided that no, it's actually normal for people to dictate the law under threat of violence." On the other hand, the moral majority can make the law and then murder people who don't follow it. This is called "democracy working normally".
    - jakelazaroff 7y ago
      I oppose capital punishment, but yes — that's how democracy works.
      - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        Yes, if you use a strict denotative definition of "works" as being a method of operation. But that says nothing as to the ethical justification relative to the other case that you complained about. Your position just comes off as saying "in its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges".
        jakelazaroff 7y ago
        I'm saying that democracy is the least worst way of a society determining the rules by which it abides. Is your position that dictating those rules under threat of violence is better?
        CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        Oh sorry, your dictating the rules with violence is much better than their dictating the rules with violence.
seiferteric 7y ago
It's really not about that. The US was founded by a revolution that required guns. The founders wanted to make sure the same thing could happen again if needed. The second amendment isn't about personal protection, it is about the right to overthrow a government (ours or an invading one) if necessary. You can argue that times have changed or whatever but that was clearly the intention and it hasn't changed much.
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  I understand that. My point is that "if needed" is a pretty squishy phrase, and if you asked different groups of US citizens what that entails you'd get wildly divergent results. For example, I would say if we keep going along our path of putting people in camps, that is worthy of rising up — but there are other people who think that's a good thing and we should keep going. There are also certain demographics that are much likelier to own guns, so "is armed revolution necessary" is really more a question of "is this particular group of people unhappy".
  - seiferteric 7y ago
    Isn't that what happened during the revolution? A critical mass of people decided it was necessary and eventually succeeded? Then during the civil war some other people tried and failed (luckily). And of course there have been smaller failed uprisings and rebellions in the past as well. Not really sure what your point is, we will never reach a time when everyone agrees, life is messy.
TheArcane 7y ago
> threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression So much this. Growing up, it was so strange to see people pulling out a gun on someone for walking on their lawn in Hollywood movies.

It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted political viewpoint here in the US.

mieseratte 7y ago

> It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted political viewpoint here in the US. It's weird to me that advocating for the cessation of an absolute right to self-defense is a mainstream political position. It's not as if history is one peachy peace-and-love orgy.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
Let me clarify: the reason that viewpoint is weird to me is that it's essentially political terrorism. A small minority of citizens are essentially saying "we want the law to be this way, and if it isn't, we will murder you". But for some reason we've collectively decided that no, it's actually normal for people to dictate the law under threat of violence. The other side here is basically just people supporting and voting for the laws they think will improve society, a.k.a. democracy working normally.
- CompanionCuuube 7y ago
  "A small minority of citizens are essentially saying "we want the law to be this way, and if it isn't, we will murder you". But for some reason we've collectively decided that no, it's actually normal for people to dictate the law under threat of violence." On the other hand, the moral majority can make the law and then murder people who don't follow it. This is called "democracy working normally".
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    I oppose capital punishment, but yes — that's how democracy works.
    - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
      Yes, if you use a strict denotative definition of "works" as being a method of operation. But that says nothing as to the ethical justification relative to the other case that you complained about. Your position just comes off as saying "in its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges".
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        I'm saying that democracy is the least worst way of a society determining the rules by which it abides. Is your position that dictating those rules under threat of violence is better?
        CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        Oh sorry, your dictating the rules with violence is much better than their dictating the rules with violence.

seiferteric 7y ago

It's really not about that. The US was founded by a revolution that required guns. The founders wanted to make sure the same thing could happen again if needed. The second amendment isn't about personal protection, it is about the right to overthrow a government (ours or an invading one) if necessary. You can argue that times have changed or whatever but that was clearly the intention and it hasn't changed much.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
I understand that. My point is that "if needed" is a pretty squishy phrase, and if you asked different groups of US citizens what that entails you'd get wildly divergent results. For example, I would say if we keep going along our path of putting people in camps, that is worthy of rising up — but there are other people who think that's a good thing and we should keep going. There are also certain demographics that are much likelier to own guns, so "is armed revolution necessary" is really more a question of "is this particular group of people unhappy".
- seiferteric 7y ago
  Isn't that what happened during the revolution? A critical mass of people decided it was necessary and eventually succeeded? Then during the civil war some other people tried and failed (luckily). And of course there have been smaller failed uprisings and rebellions in the past as well. Not really sure what your point is, we will never reach a time when everyone agrees, life is messy.

TheArcane 7y ago

> threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression So much this. Growing up, it was so strange to see people pulling out a gun on someone for walking on their lawn in Hollywood movies.