4 ms·

Many people believe the second amendment is wrong and it does not require protection, but they still care about the 4th. The only thing I always think about whe

Many people believe the second amendment is wrong and it does not require protection, but they still care about the 4th. The only thing I always think about when I see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

tialaramex 7y ago
The Second Amendment was probably a bad idea when it was written. Its proponents made a bunch of assumptions that look laughable in hindsight. Today in the hands of a Supreme Court increasingly disconnected from reality it's interpreted as an excuse to let people who clearly shouldn't have guns at all have as many guns as they can buy. "First they came..." is about people not about ice cream flavors, or video games or constitutional amendments. Changing laws is a normal function of society. It is an anomaly (and a grave defect) that the US has become unable to even think of changing these particular laws, to the point where many of its people enshrine them as holy principles rather than recognising they are just laws of men. It has been forever since America had judges brave enough to argue that something can't be lawful because it is evil, and so the EFF is obliged to frame things as "unconstitutional" instead. In a way that's America's legacy, the observation that slavery was evil pre-dates its founding as a country built on slavery, so it has always been necessary to its function to pretend that it's somehow important to allow evil if it's legal. In such an environment any potential judge with strong moral character could only be discouraged.
- david_w 7y ago
  How do you propose the People should resist a despotic government. Supposing, as we must, the government literally becomes tyrannical, how do propose people resist it at that point? That is the whole reason we have a 2nd Amendment. That's what it's about. We went in with everything to Iraq and Afghanistan and did we subdue them? No. Why not? Because they had guns, and with guns, they acquired further weaponery to fight us; No other reason. So you remove all the guns from "people who shouldn't have them" and how do you propose people should resist a tyrannical government? Serious question, I am not mocking you.
  - mrguyorama 7y ago
    If the people were ever willing to use those guns to resist a despotic government, then why do we essentially have one now?
    - AdrianB1 7y ago
      Because the easy way to rule over people is to convince them it's a good thing, not to force them. If you find enough people to agree with you and to vote, they will vote ever worse (the worst: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power)
      - david_w 7y ago
        Please, move to America... and bring all your friends.
    - david_w 7y ago
      We have an over-reaching central government, but that is not a despotic tyrannical one. The closest thing to a despotic government is to be found in prototype form in the despot-petri dishes of universities with their "free speech zones" and their "hate speech laws" and their sexual harrasment star chamber courts and their chorus of "believe all women" (except Joe Biden's accuser). That's where the fascism is being auditioned and wants to break out of. Nothing radicalized more people than seeing these same professors surface during the Kavanaugh fiasco and hearing their own ideas come out of their own mouths in their own words. The left-wing echo chamber people have no idea the damage their pet obssessions and totalitarian visions are doing to their brand: literally, New York Times' Bari Weiss was on Joe Rogan and revealed she had no idea what the whole "wax my balls " controversy was about- she hadn't heard about it. That my friend is living in a bubble. OrangeManBad squeaked by in 2016. In 2020 it will be a landslide. That my friend is a consequence of living in a bubble.
  - KarlKemp 7y ago
    The GDR was toppled without guns. The Maidan revolution didn’t have guns. None of the Arab spring revolutions involved violent overthrow using guns. Apartheid ended without guns. All of the color revolutions were nonviolent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution Meanwhile, armed revolutions: Syria, Venezuela Plus, you know, democracy: every election is a chance of nonviolent revolution. And democratic countries do tend to stay democratic, no weapons needed.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  Changing laws is a normal function of society. Removing rights is not. That is why I am worried about any discussion about changing any law that grants citizen rights, even if I am not at all affected - I live in Europe, Romania, a country with virtually no guns, we never had a second amendment and we were always either conquered by others (Turkish empire, Austrian empire) or got Communists with the help of the Russian tanks. "First they came" is not about people, it is about the idea of giving up, one step at a time, until there is nothing left.
  - david_w 7y ago
    It's amazing that people in the freest nation on earth have to be battled by their own citizens to not give up the rights and tools that keep them that way.
- david_w 7y ago
  "just laws of men"... Well, since you brought it up, actually, the rule of men and not laws is exactly what we're afraid of. To you it's a feature, to us it's a bug. The number of people killed by their own governments in the 20th century proved us right once and for all. We don't think our Rights come from Men. They didn't come from Men and can't be removed by Men. They are inalienable Rights we were born with. We don't care what the government d'jour thinks it can do. We had these Rights before there was an America, and every person everywhere has these Rights as well. That's what "endowed by their Creator with Inalienable Rights" means. Whether or not people choose to stand up for them is another topic. Just so you have a clear idea where we're coming from and what the words, "from my cold, dead hands" mean.

tialaramex 7y ago

The Second Amendment was probably a bad idea when it was written. Its proponents made a bunch of assumptions that look laughable in hindsight. Today in the hands of a Supreme Court increasingly disconnected from reality it's interpreted as an excuse to let people who clearly shouldn't have guns at all have as many guns as they can buy. "First they came..." is about people not about ice cream flavors, or video games or constitutional amendments. Changing laws is a normal function of society. It is an anomaly (and a grave defect) that the US has become unable to even think of changing these particular laws, to the point where many of its people enshrine them as holy principles rather than recognising they are just laws of men. It has been forever since America had judges brave enough to argue that something can't be lawful because it is evil, and so the EFF is obliged to frame things as "unconstitutional" instead. In a way that's America's legacy, the observation that slavery was evil pre-dates its founding as a country built on slavery, so it has always been necessary to its function to pretend that it's somehow important to allow evil if it's legal. In such an environment any potential judge with strong moral character could only be discouraged.

david_w 7y ago
How do you propose the People should resist a despotic government. Supposing, as we must, the government literally becomes tyrannical, how do propose people resist it at that point? That is the whole reason we have a 2nd Amendment. That's what it's about. We went in with everything to Iraq and Afghanistan and did we subdue them? No. Why not? Because they had guns, and with guns, they acquired further weaponery to fight us; No other reason. So you remove all the guns from "people who shouldn't have them" and how do you propose people should resist a tyrannical government? Serious question, I am not mocking you.
- mrguyorama 7y ago
  If the people were ever willing to use those guns to resist a despotic government, then why do we essentially have one now?
  - AdrianB1 7y ago
    Because the easy way to rule over people is to convince them it's a good thing, not to force them. If you find enough people to agree with you and to vote, they will vote ever worse (the worst: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power)
    - david_w 7y ago
      Please, move to America... and bring all your friends.
  - david_w 7y ago
    We have an over-reaching central government, but that is not a despotic tyrannical one. The closest thing to a despotic government is to be found in prototype form in the despot-petri dishes of universities with their "free speech zones" and their "hate speech laws" and their sexual harrasment star chamber courts and their chorus of "believe all women" (except Joe Biden's accuser). That's where the fascism is being auditioned and wants to break out of. Nothing radicalized more people than seeing these same professors surface during the Kavanaugh fiasco and hearing their own ideas come out of their own mouths in their own words. The left-wing echo chamber people have no idea the damage their pet obssessions and totalitarian visions are doing to their brand: literally, New York Times' Bari Weiss was on Joe Rogan and revealed she had no idea what the whole "wax my balls " controversy was about- she hadn't heard about it. That my friend is living in a bubble. OrangeManBad squeaked by in 2016. In 2020 it will be a landslide. That my friend is a consequence of living in a bubble.
- KarlKemp 7y ago
  The GDR was toppled without guns. The Maidan revolution didn’t have guns. None of the Arab spring revolutions involved violent overthrow using guns. Apartheid ended without guns. All of the color revolutions were nonviolent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution Meanwhile, armed revolutions: Syria, Venezuela Plus, you know, democracy: every election is a chance of nonviolent revolution. And democratic countries do tend to stay democratic, no weapons needed.
AdrianB1 7y ago
Changing laws is a normal function of society. Removing rights is not. That is why I am worried about any discussion about changing any law that grants citizen rights, even if I am not at all affected - I live in Europe, Romania, a country with virtually no guns, we never had a second amendment and we were always either conquered by others (Turkish empire, Austrian empire) or got Communists with the help of the Russian tanks. "First they came" is not about people, it is about the idea of giving up, one step at a time, until there is nothing left.
- david_w 7y ago
  It's amazing that people in the freest nation on earth have to be battled by their own citizens to not give up the rights and tools that keep them that way.
david_w 7y ago
"just laws of men"... Well, since you brought it up, actually, the rule of men and not laws is exactly what we're afraid of. To you it's a feature, to us it's a bug. The number of people killed by their own governments in the 20th century proved us right once and for all. We don't think our Rights come from Men. They didn't come from Men and can't be removed by Men. They are inalienable Rights we were born with. We don't care what the government d'jour thinks it can do. We had these Rights before there was an America, and every person everywhere has these Rights as well. That's what "endowed by their Creator with Inalienable Rights" means. Whether or not people choose to stand up for them is another topic. Just so you have a clear idea where we're coming from and what the words, "from my cold, dead hands" mean.