4 ms·

I think my point was that it was entirely a bad faith argument. They never cared about preserving freedoms, American democracy or the values that this country s

I think my point was that it was entirely a bad faith argument. They never cared about preserving freedoms, American democracy or the values that this country stands for. It was just a political tool in a cultural war chess game. It was to drive gun sales and get people out to vote. They talk about having these guns to stand up to government overreach, preserving liberty and freedoms etc. Then when we have literal secret police in American cities taking away the very ideas of this country, they are nowhere to be found. They never believed it in the first place, or their interpretation is so skewed it's meaningless. If your defense of freedoms or enforcement of American values is selective or entirely based on political ideology, what you actually believe is nothing at all.

itsoktocry 6y ago
>They never cared about preserving freedoms, American democracy or the values that this country stands for. I disagree, they do care about personal liberty and safety. If you are infringing on their rights, you aren't an ally. >They never believed it in the first place, or their interpretation is so skewed it's meaningless. This argument is so backwards it's hard for me to grasp. You have people saying "Ban guns! Ban guns!". Then the moment there's government overreach they cry, "where are the people with guns to defend us???" I can tell you one thing: if the secret police were snatching 2A advocates off the streets, there would be a shooting war. This is why they want their guns, and right now, I'm sure they're happy they have them.
- jorblumesea 6y ago
  > If you are infringing on their rights, you aren't an ally. Then they never cared about the values they hold dear. If you believe in "Freedoms" but those freedoms are entirely selective based on political ideology or convenience you believe in nothing. The constitution has no "rights whenever you feel like it" clause. > "where are the people with guns to defend us???" I'm actually not saying that at all. I'm not asking for anyone to defend anyone else. I'm noting the irony of how strong the arguments for the second amendment were mostly based around "standing up to government" and how much silence there is about very obvious and illegal government overreach. The exact same behavior that the 2nd amendment proponents literally said that's why they own guns. It's just political hypocrisy and I'm pointing it out. They were certainly happy to show up in armed groups when their local bar was closed, but snatching people in unmarked vehicles to be taken to secret detention centers is ok? I actually do not want 2nd amendment people to get involved at all, I feel they aren't well trained, they are mostly unequipped to handle the situation and based on most 2nd amendment people I know, I would not actually want them near any volatile situation. Rights for me and not for thee I guess.
  - itsoktocry 6y ago
    >The exact same behavior that the 2nd amendment proponents literally said that's why they own guns. This is about personal liberty. When the secret police come for them, they will defend themselves with their guns. That's why they (claim to) own guns. Nobody buys guns to defend their right to own guns; they buy them to defend their own person and property. The fact that someone else fights to take away their guns and then doesn't have guns themselves to defend against government overreach, well...how is that their problem?
    - jorblumesea 6y ago
      > This is about personal liberty. That is only one aspect or part of the 2nd amendment proponents debate. There were many, many people who literally made the argument that the 2nd amendment exists to keep government in check. This is a very common trope or line of reasoning. The libertarian crowd emphasized the personal liberty part more but the "government tyranny" argument was a huge part of the debate and discussion. So yeah, I call bullshit on this.
      - pandaman 6y ago
        I think you misinterpreted the debate because I've never seen anybody sane advocating that armed citizenry should have been some kind of "super-police" that polices the government. "The check against tyranny" argument means that the armed people can put up resistance so a government that does not rule by consent of the governed may not last long.
seiferteric 6y ago
Your placing awfully big demands on people you seem to hate. Perhaps they just don't think shooting people is the best strategy right now? Are they allowed to have other ideas than yours when it comes to how to respond to various situations? Many people are outraged over this and there will be various legal actions as a result I am sure. Maybe people want to see if the system works before starting an insurrection and getting themselves killed?

itsoktocry 6y ago

>They never cared about preserving freedoms, American democracy or the values that this country stands for. I disagree, they do care about personal liberty and safety. If you are infringing on their rights, you aren't an ally. >They never believed it in the first place, or their interpretation is so skewed it's meaningless. This argument is so backwards it's hard for me to grasp. You have people saying "Ban guns! Ban guns!". Then the moment there's government overreach they cry, "where are the people with guns to defend us???" I can tell you one thing: if the secret police were snatching 2A advocates off the streets, there would be a shooting war. This is why they want their guns, and right now, I'm sure they're happy they have them.

jorblumesea 6y ago
> If you are infringing on their rights, you aren't an ally. Then they never cared about the values they hold dear. If you believe in "Freedoms" but those freedoms are entirely selective based on political ideology or convenience you believe in nothing. The constitution has no "rights whenever you feel like it" clause. > "where are the people with guns to defend us???" I'm actually not saying that at all. I'm not asking for anyone to defend anyone else. I'm noting the irony of how strong the arguments for the second amendment were mostly based around "standing up to government" and how much silence there is about very obvious and illegal government overreach. The exact same behavior that the 2nd amendment proponents literally said that's why they own guns. It's just political hypocrisy and I'm pointing it out. They were certainly happy to show up in armed groups when their local bar was closed, but snatching people in unmarked vehicles to be taken to secret detention centers is ok? I actually do not want 2nd amendment people to get involved at all, I feel they aren't well trained, they are mostly unequipped to handle the situation and based on most 2nd amendment people I know, I would not actually want them near any volatile situation. Rights for me and not for thee I guess.
- itsoktocry 6y ago
  >The exact same behavior that the 2nd amendment proponents literally said that's why they own guns. This is about personal liberty. When the secret police come for them, they will defend themselves with their guns. That's why they (claim to) own guns. Nobody buys guns to defend their right to own guns; they buy them to defend their own person and property. The fact that someone else fights to take away their guns and then doesn't have guns themselves to defend against government overreach, well...how is that their problem?
  - jorblumesea 6y ago
    > This is about personal liberty. That is only one aspect or part of the 2nd amendment proponents debate. There were many, many people who literally made the argument that the 2nd amendment exists to keep government in check. This is a very common trope or line of reasoning. The libertarian crowd emphasized the personal liberty part more but the "government tyranny" argument was a huge part of the debate and discussion. So yeah, I call bullshit on this.
    - pandaman 6y ago
      I think you misinterpreted the debate because I've never seen anybody sane advocating that armed citizenry should have been some kind of "super-police" that polices the government. "The check against tyranny" argument means that the armed people can put up resistance so a government that does not rule by consent of the governed may not last long.

seiferteric 6y ago

Your placing awfully big demands on people you seem to hate. Perhaps they just don't think shooting people is the best strategy right now? Are they allowed to have other ideas than yours when it comes to how to respond to various situations? Many people are outraged over this and there will be various legal actions as a result I am sure. Maybe people want to see if the system works before starting an insurrection and getting themselves killed?