6 ms·

I never thought I’d be advocating for the 2A, but...

by btmiller 6y ago

kebman 6y ago
It's what it's for.
- KozmoNau7 6y ago
  Unfortunately a lot of 2A enthusiasts seem to be perfectly fine with the militarization of police and harassment of minorities and protestors, because to them it's the "right people" getting the short end of the stick.
  - 1123581321 6y ago
    This is just a frequently repeated meme. There is no evidence for it.
    - orf 6y ago
      I’m looking for a statement by the NRA condemning what’s happening, reminding people that this kind of government oppression is what the 2A is all about and that regardless of your political views we should stand united in our willingness to bear arms against this incursion into our freedoms. I haven’t found it yet. Lots of stuff about demonic Democrats stripping freedoms though. Strange.
      - 1123581321 6y ago
        I understood the OP to be talking about individual enthusiasts of the constitutional amendment, not the republican lobbying organization—my apologies if I had that wrong.
        krapp 6y ago
        The vast majority of 2nd Amendment supporters (vocal enough to be advocates) are also staunch supporters of the NRA and its rhetoric. This is the reason the Second Amendment and gun rights are almost exclusively associated with The NRA and Republicans in the US, and why gun sales in the US always peak during Democratic administrations. Also, there is a long and established relationship between militia movements in the US and right-wing/white supremacist ideology, which serves to create sympathy among gun rights advocates with authoritarianism which just happens to target leftists, immigrants and minorities.
        1123581321 6y ago
        I think you’re attributing too much weight to a narrow overlap between constitutionalists and white supremacists. But I appreciate that you have reasoned through that meme and I am sorry I accused you of posting it thoughtlessly.
        formerly_proven 6y ago
        I thought 2A supporters aren't fans of the NRA, because the NRA is "complicit in legislating the right to [some] guns away"?
        krapp 6y ago
        I can only speak from what I've observed, living in the American south I have yet to encounter a vocal advocate of the Second Amendment who isn't also a vocal advocate of the NRA. There are 2A supporters opposed to the NRA, but they seem (anecdotally) to be a minority with no real influence on the gun rights/gun control dialogue or politics.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Not in the way most gun-rights advocates portray it; the 2A grew out of a vision that a particular danger to freedom was a standing army, largely because it became a separate subculture and would inevitably be used for internal oppression as well as external defense (modern police forces—standing paramilitary forces devoted exclusively to internal use would be a more extreme example than they had considered) and protecting the RKBA was designed to preserve a model where such forces were unnecessary as the states, individually and collectively, would rely on mobilizing the general militia for security (internal and external), rather than standing professional forces, not as a tool for individuals to resist such forces.
  - defnotashton2 6y ago
    This is false and is a modern political narrative. It came from the British Bill of rights which explicitly states otherwise... In most if not all of history the police force was the same as the military.
    - dllthomas 6y ago
      Could you elaborate, because I am having trouble finding support for your position. If, by "British Bill of rights" you mean https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp then it seems to be clearly concerned that a standing army in peace time is a concern, and places a limit on it (specifically, that it require consent of Parliament). It doesn't strike me as remotely contradictory to think that those drafting the 2nd Amendment might have thought that did not go quite far enough, and have chosen a slightly different tack in addressing the same concern. This certainly leaves room for other evidence to decide the question in either direction, but (assuming I correctly interpreted your reference) the thing that you presented as evidence for your position doesn't seem to be.

I never thought I’d be advocating for the 2A, but...

kebman 6y ago

It's what it's for.

KozmoNau7 6y ago
Unfortunately a lot of 2A enthusiasts seem to be perfectly fine with the militarization of police and harassment of minorities and protestors, because to them it's the "right people" getting the short end of the stick.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  This is just a frequently repeated meme. There is no evidence for it.
  - orf 6y ago
    I’m looking for a statement by the NRA condemning what’s happening, reminding people that this kind of government oppression is what the 2A is all about and that regardless of your political views we should stand united in our willingness to bear arms against this incursion into our freedoms. I haven’t found it yet. Lots of stuff about demonic Democrats stripping freedoms though. Strange.
    - 1123581321 6y ago
      I understood the OP to be talking about individual enthusiasts of the constitutional amendment, not the republican lobbying organization—my apologies if I had that wrong.
      - krapp 6y ago
        The vast majority of 2nd Amendment supporters (vocal enough to be advocates) are also staunch supporters of the NRA and its rhetoric. This is the reason the Second Amendment and gun rights are almost exclusively associated with The NRA and Republicans in the US, and why gun sales in the US always peak during Democratic administrations. Also, there is a long and established relationship between militia movements in the US and right-wing/white supremacist ideology, which serves to create sympathy among gun rights advocates with authoritarianism which just happens to target leftists, immigrants and minorities.
        1123581321 6y ago
        I think you’re attributing too much weight to a narrow overlap between constitutionalists and white supremacists. But I appreciate that you have reasoned through that meme and I am sorry I accused you of posting it thoughtlessly.
        formerly_proven 6y ago
        I thought 2A supporters aren't fans of the NRA, because the NRA is "complicit in legislating the right to [some] guns away"?
        krapp 6y ago
        I can only speak from what I've observed, living in the American south I have yet to encounter a vocal advocate of the Second Amendment who isn't also a vocal advocate of the NRA. There are 2A supporters opposed to the NRA, but they seem (anecdotally) to be a minority with no real influence on the gun rights/gun control dialogue or politics.
dragonwriter 6y ago
Not in the way most gun-rights advocates portray it; the 2A grew out of a vision that a particular danger to freedom was a standing army, largely because it became a separate subculture and would inevitably be used for internal oppression as well as external defense (modern police forces—standing paramilitary forces devoted exclusively to internal use would be a more extreme example than they had considered) and protecting the RKBA was designed to preserve a model where such forces were unnecessary as the states, individually and collectively, would rely on mobilizing the general militia for security (internal and external), rather than standing professional forces, not as a tool for individuals to resist such forces.
- defnotashton2 6y ago
  This is false and is a modern political narrative. It came from the British Bill of rights which explicitly states otherwise... In most if not all of history the police force was the same as the military.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    Could you elaborate, because I am having trouble finding support for your position. If, by "British Bill of rights" you mean https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp then it seems to be clearly concerned that a standing army in peace time is a concern, and places a limit on it (specifically, that it require consent of Parliament). It doesn't strike me as remotely contradictory to think that those drafting the 2nd Amendment might have thought that did not go quite far enough, and have chosen a slightly different tack in addressing the same concern. This certainly leaves room for other evidence to decide the question in either direction, but (assuming I correctly interpreted your reference) the thing that you presented as evidence for your position doesn't seem to be.