7 ms·

> For example, guns. Very few people die because of mass shootings. Adjusted for how armed Americans are, gun violence in this country is tiny. And seeing what

> For example, guns. Very few people die because of mass shootings. Adjusted for how armed Americans are, gun violence in this country is tiny. And seeing what an armed citizenry can do against the full American force (Afghanistan), an armed population is a necessity against tyranny in America.

mkr-hn 5y ago
The ongoing and ramped up tyrannies don't affect the people with guns, so it's not doing much good so far. When the oppressed arm themselves, people who claim opposition to gun control suddenly become very pro-gun control.
- pope_meat 5y ago
  It was all guns rights until the black panthers started arming up, and all the sudden it was "perhaps some sensible limits might be wise" Pretty hard to miss the intent. Arm the homeless is what I say when I'm feeling spicy.
  - lostapathy 5y ago
    This shouldn't be downvoted - the roots of control in the US are absolutely rooted in this kind of racism, whether it be "modern" gun control as mentioned by parent, or the Sullivan Act over a hundred years ago.
    - splitstud 5y ago
      Why shouldn't it? It's a complete and total fabrication used to smear a segment of the population.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Clubber 5y ago
    Yup, California was an open carry state until the GOP assemblyman Mulford and GOP Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law banning the legal carry of loaded firearms. History is indeed stranger than fiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching.[1][2] They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.
  - AniseAbyss 5y ago
    Yeah armed black militias marching through white suburban America will get the FBI interested.
  - collegeburner 5y ago
    Very pro-2A people agree that gun control is racist though. Mainstream republican party (what people think of as pro-2a) isnt very. Trump implemented bump stock restrictions, hell, reagan signed 86 new machine gun ban. If you talk to very pro-2a people you will hear them agree that armed minorities are harder to oppress; gun control is indeed very racist going back to army/navy laws and other restrictions on former slaves owning arms.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
The highest death rate in 2019 is Alaska (TIL) with 24.4 deaths per 100,000 people. The lowest is Massachusetts with 3.4 deaths per 100,000 people. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/... There is approx. 393,000,000 firearms owned by civilians in the US. About 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership Handguns accounted for 91% of firearm homicides. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
ineptech 5y ago
The assumption that the armed population and the forces trying to impose tyranny will be on opposite sides is looking pretty tenuous.
- pklausler 5y ago
  As well as the assumption that the kind of weaponry available to the population is effective against that available to the "tyrants".
  - da_chicken 5y ago
    We just spent 20 years in Afghanistan proving how effective and potent a modern military is against guerilla tactics. I think it's become pretty clear that if you're not willing to ignore the generally accepted rules of engagement, they will just outlast you.
    - godelski 5y ago
      Not to mention the Vietnam war or any of the other wars we've been involved with in the Middle East. Not to mention drug cartels in Mexico and Latin/South America. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that a population with weapons can't hold off a tyrannical government. It is the same reason Marx said that under no means should we disarm the populous. I think people often forget that a government can't just kill all its population. Not only can you not rule over the dead but you also are going to have a hard time interacting in global trade (thanks globalism, but this even held true in the 1700's). It is kinda odd that this sentiment also often comes out of a country where some farmers fought off the country with the biggest navy and had an empire so great that the sun never set on it. Civil wars are extremely costly to countries. Also I'm not sure why everyone thinks that people from the military (including generals and entire battalions) wouldn't defect. That's also pretty common when looking at history.
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > It is kinda odd that this sentiment also often comes out of a country where some farmers fought off the country with the biggest navy With help from the country with the biggest army and the biggest ongoing beef with the country with the biggest navy. But, I guess, its still a little surprising, since that part gets minimized in the farmers national mythology.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Pea shooters will allow you to stop the US Army on home soil? They have total information awareness, tanks, space/air power, snipers, GPS bombs, etc. Afghanistan was lost because of our tolerance of corruption and intolerance for spending money on a speck of dirt. Oppression of the US will be far more worth the money to a tyranny. If the second amendment actually said what gun people say it does (literalist/"strict constructionalist"), then I can use these arms as well: - grenades? - bazookas? - artillery? - explosives? - chemical weapons? - biological weapons? - nuclear/dirtynuke weapons? Where are you, as an apparently ardent 2nd amendment person likely living in at least a suburban population density comfortable with allowing your fellow Americans to arm themselves with? At somewhere along that chain, almost all non-crazy 2nd amendment people "nope out" of allowing those arms. Maybe your typical gun rights person would allow grenades, MAYBE bazookas. Major explosives or anything else? Nope. But you'd need to get to the chem/bio/nuke arms to have any real deterrent to the US Army. Your pea shooter militia is a fantasy. The US army has more than cannons, horses, and muskets now.
- Y_Y 5y ago
  > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. That's the whole thing. I think the most literal interpretation is that people have a right to bear arms, and you cant infringe that, by telling them they can't bear any arms. Obviously reasonable people will differ here, but I don't think it's fair to say that it unambiguously grants the right to bear any kind of arms at all.
  - AtlasBarfed 5y ago
    At the time of writing, "Arms" was muskets. So you've already stated that it isn't reasonable to allow the other "arms". So why is anything more than a single shot barrel-loaded rifle allowed? Of course the reason is that there is a massive industry in making guns and a rabid source of people that can be scared into buying their wares. The reason the laws are the way they are is because of the economics of the lobby and not any principle.
sellyme 5y ago
> an armed population is a necessity against tyranny in America. Why are we comparing to Afghanistan? You can look much closer to home - at America - and see that this specific armed population just spent half a decade doing absolutely jack shit about tyranny.

mkr-hn 5y ago

The ongoing and ramped up tyrannies don't affect the people with guns, so it's not doing much good so far. When the oppressed arm themselves, people who claim opposition to gun control suddenly become very pro-gun control.

pope_meat 5y ago
It was all guns rights until the black panthers started arming up, and all the sudden it was "perhaps some sensible limits might be wise" Pretty hard to miss the intent. Arm the homeless is what I say when I'm feeling spicy.
- lostapathy 5y ago
  This shouldn't be downvoted - the roots of control in the US are absolutely rooted in this kind of racism, whether it be "modern" gun control as mentioned by parent, or the Sullivan Act over a hundred years ago.
  - splitstud 5y ago
    Why shouldn't it? It's a complete and total fabrication used to smear a segment of the population.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Clubber 5y ago
  Yup, California was an open carry state until the GOP assemblyman Mulford and GOP Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law banning the legal carry of loaded firearms. History is indeed stranger than fiction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods, in what would later be termed copwatching.[1][2] They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill.
- AniseAbyss 5y ago
  Yeah armed black militias marching through white suburban America will get the FBI interested.
- collegeburner 5y ago
  Very pro-2A people agree that gun control is racist though. Mainstream republican party (what people think of as pro-2a) isnt very. Trump implemented bump stock restrictions, hell, reagan signed 86 new machine gun ban. If you talk to very pro-2a people you will hear them agree that armed minorities are harder to oppress; gun control is indeed very racist going back to army/navy laws and other restrictions on former slaves owning arms.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

The highest death rate in 2019 is Alaska (TIL) with 24.4 deaths per 100,000 people. The lowest is Massachusetts with 3.4 deaths per 100,000 people. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/... There is approx. 393,000,000 firearms owned by civilians in the US. About 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership Handguns accounted for 91% of firearm homicides. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

ineptech 5y ago

The assumption that the armed population and the forces trying to impose tyranny will be on opposite sides is looking pretty tenuous.

pklausler 5y ago
As well as the assumption that the kind of weaponry available to the population is effective against that available to the "tyrants".
- da_chicken 5y ago
  We just spent 20 years in Afghanistan proving how effective and potent a modern military is against guerilla tactics. I think it's become pretty clear that if you're not willing to ignore the generally accepted rules of engagement, they will just outlast you.
  - godelski 5y ago
    Not to mention the Vietnam war or any of the other wars we've been involved with in the Middle East. Not to mention drug cartels in Mexico and Latin/South America. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that a population with weapons can't hold off a tyrannical government. It is the same reason Marx said that under no means should we disarm the populous. I think people often forget that a government can't just kill all its population. Not only can you not rule over the dead but you also are going to have a hard time interacting in global trade (thanks globalism, but this even held true in the 1700's). It is kinda odd that this sentiment also often comes out of a country where some farmers fought off the country with the biggest navy and had an empire so great that the sun never set on it. Civil wars are extremely costly to countries. Also I'm not sure why everyone thinks that people from the military (including generals and entire battalions) wouldn't defect. That's also pretty common when looking at history.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > It is kinda odd that this sentiment also often comes out of a country where some farmers fought off the country with the biggest navy With help from the country with the biggest army and the biggest ongoing beef with the country with the biggest navy. But, I guess, its still a little surprising, since that part gets minimized in the farmers national mythology.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

Pea shooters will allow you to stop the US Army on home soil? They have total information awareness, tanks, space/air power, snipers, GPS bombs, etc. Afghanistan was lost because of our tolerance of corruption and intolerance for spending money on a speck of dirt. Oppression of the US will be far more worth the money to a tyranny. If the second amendment actually said what gun people say it does (literalist/"strict constructionalist"), then I can use these arms as well: - grenades? - bazookas? - artillery? - explosives? - chemical weapons? - biological weapons? - nuclear/dirtynuke weapons? Where are you, as an apparently ardent 2nd amendment person likely living in at least a suburban population density comfortable with allowing your fellow Americans to arm themselves with? At somewhere along that chain, almost all non-crazy 2nd amendment people "nope out" of allowing those arms. Maybe your typical gun rights person would allow grenades, MAYBE bazookas. Major explosives or anything else? Nope. But you'd need to get to the chem/bio/nuke arms to have any real deterrent to the US Army. Your pea shooter militia is a fantasy. The US army has more than cannons, horses, and muskets now.

Y_Y 5y ago
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. That's the whole thing. I think the most literal interpretation is that people have a right to bear arms, and you cant infringe that, by telling them they can't bear any arms. Obviously reasonable people will differ here, but I don't think it's fair to say that it unambiguously grants the right to bear any kind of arms at all.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  At the time of writing, "Arms" was muskets. So you've already stated that it isn't reasonable to allow the other "arms". So why is anything more than a single shot barrel-loaded rifle allowed? Of course the reason is that there is a massive industry in making guns and a rabid source of people that can be scared into buying their wares. The reason the laws are the way they are is because of the economics of the lobby and not any principle.

sellyme 5y ago

> an armed population is a necessity against tyranny in America. Why are we comparing to Afghanistan? You can look much closer to home - at America - and see that this specific armed population just spent half a decade doing absolutely jack shit about tyranny.