4 ms·

The point of the comment you're replying to isn't that we don't just distrust the government now, it's that distrusting the government was expected of all citiz

The point of the comment you're replying to isn't that we don't just distrust the government now, it's that distrusting the government was expected of all citizens by the people who founded the country. We have an amendment that basically says "if the government becomes tyrannical, use guns to make them stop." Some people think that we are supposed to distrust them, always.

kelnos 5y ago
No, I get that, and I explicitly reject it as "part of the country's DNA". Talk and assumptions like that merely perpetuate the status quo.
- refurb 5y ago
  It's not a bug, it's a feature. The idea is that power corrupts everyone. Thus the system should be set up that no one person has too much power and the citizens should be constantly suspicious of those that hold power.
- kyleee 5y ago
  It's a governance technique meant to curb excesses of the ruling elite, informed by the historical frequency of ill behaved governing bodies and their miscellaneous maltreatment of the governed
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    That also causes significant loss of life, both domestically and abroad. The punishment feels, to me, disproportionate to the crime. Things like having permission to shoot someone for breaking into your house.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - kyleee 5y ago
      Though a bit of a tangent, it's quite reasonable to be able to use force against an intruder in your own house. At least in the US the police have no duty to protect or even respond, and depending on location may be many minutes or even tens of minutes away. It's quite difficult to glean the (true) intent of an intruder, and the possibilities include burglarly, rape, and murder so it's quite reasonable to protect yourself.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      What leads you to conclude that defending yourself with up to/including deadly force against an intruder with unknown (but quite reasonably presumed to be criminal) intent is unreasonable? Breaking into an occupied residence is a quite serious crime and I don't think it's reasonable to require the inhabitants to sit down over tea and find out what the invader's intentions are before mounting a defense. Don't want to get shot after breaking into someone's house? It seems like there's a pretty straightforward way to avoid exposing yourself to that risk.
      - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
        There was a gun in the house when I was a kid. Explicitly to protect the family against intruders. Number of times intrusions occurred: 0 Number of times the gun went off by accident: 2 Number of times a drunken adult gave the gun, loaded, to a kid: 1
        kyleee 5y ago
        Irresponsibility and negligence are certainly sad but not very good reasons why people should be stripped of the ability to defend themself and their loved ones
        hypertele-Xii 5y ago
        They are precisely the best of reasons why people should be stripped of such dangerous things. We don't let average people fly airplanes, neither should we let average people shoot firearms. Right after evil, incompetence is the next worst thing for handling dangerous tools.

kelnos 5y ago

No, I get that, and I explicitly reject it as "part of the country's DNA". Talk and assumptions like that merely perpetuate the status quo.

refurb 5y ago
It's not a bug, it's a feature. The idea is that power corrupts everyone. Thus the system should be set up that no one person has too much power and the citizens should be constantly suspicious of those that hold power.
kyleee 5y ago
It's a governance technique meant to curb excesses of the ruling elite, informed by the historical frequency of ill behaved governing bodies and their miscellaneous maltreatment of the governed
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  That also causes significant loss of life, both domestically and abroad. The punishment feels, to me, disproportionate to the crime. Things like having permission to shoot someone for breaking into your house.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kyleee 5y ago
    Though a bit of a tangent, it's quite reasonable to be able to use force against an intruder in your own house. At least in the US the police have no duty to protect or even respond, and depending on location may be many minutes or even tens of minutes away. It's quite difficult to glean the (true) intent of an intruder, and the possibilities include burglarly, rape, and murder so it's quite reasonable to protect yourself.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    What leads you to conclude that defending yourself with up to/including deadly force against an intruder with unknown (but quite reasonably presumed to be criminal) intent is unreasonable? Breaking into an occupied residence is a quite serious crime and I don't think it's reasonable to require the inhabitants to sit down over tea and find out what the invader's intentions are before mounting a defense. Don't want to get shot after breaking into someone's house? It seems like there's a pretty straightforward way to avoid exposing yourself to that risk.
    - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
      There was a gun in the house when I was a kid. Explicitly to protect the family against intruders. Number of times intrusions occurred: 0 Number of times the gun went off by accident: 2 Number of times a drunken adult gave the gun, loaded, to a kid: 1
      - kyleee 5y ago
        Irresponsibility and negligence are certainly sad but not very good reasons why people should be stripped of the ability to defend themself and their loved ones
        hypertele-Xii 5y ago
        They are precisely the best of reasons why people should be stripped of such dangerous things. We don't let average people fly airplanes, neither should we let average people shoot firearms. Right after evil, incompetence is the next worst thing for handling dangerous tools.