3 ms·
I think they forgot one counter argument; there are a lot of guns in the US and they’re more likely to be owned by people who would viciously oppose this move.
by adamcstephens 5y ago
I think they forgot one counter argument; there are a lot of guns in the US and they’re more likely to be owned by people who would viciously oppose this move. Oh and everybody is told the other side is literally Hitler, so this will just reinforce one sides perception of that belief.
Without weighing in on the merits of the proposal, it is a bold plan in a time which we need bold plans that change systems. The status quo sets our future on a very risky path in my opinion.
- krapp 5y agoThe day we temper our political discussions or policies based on how the militias might react is the day we cease to be a republic and become a terrorist state.
- adamcstephens 5y agoPerhaps don’t temper the political discussion, but what are other solutions that could engage the people in those militias? Some of them are unassailable I’m sure, but not all. For example, less power in DC and more locally could go a long way to appeasing most people. This proposal gives more people in some areas more than they have now, at the expense of what others _have now_. I fully support equal representation as just, but you can’t ignore that people will react negatively. They are millions of people who are our neighbors. I found the article a good thought experiment. But that’s all I think it is. This proposal seemingly has low probability of happening anyway, as it would remove its own set of power now from the people who would have to pass it. :)