4 ms·
When we have a government without corruption, we probably won't need to be armed. That isn't the case today. Checks and balances work in a young government, b
by publiush 5y ago
When we have a government without corruption, we probably won't need to be armed. That isn't the case today. Checks and balances work in a young government, but after hundreds of years, friendships, camaraderies, it's not difficult to have loosely coupled groups infiltrating all branches. Things eventually crumble as perfect systems are hard.
This is akin to the monarchies, where a king may have risen to power as a good leader, but a later king may not have been so kind.
These things aren't perfect, but having multiple systems to pick up where other systems fail provides us the ultimate leverage in the end.
Would you take airbags out of cars because they sometimes fail and always harm those who feel their impact and chemicals and everyone is "supposed to wear seat belts by law" anyway?
- afavour 5y ago> When we have a government without corruption, we probably won't need to be armed. That isn't the case today. Checks and balances work in a young government, I’d argue the opposite: it’s the threat of armed resistance that only works with a young government. The idea that an armed group could overthrow the government in the US today has always struck me as fanciful. The army would shut down such an attempt very, very easily.
- skinkestek 5y agoYou forget the ties between the army and the 2nd amendment people, don't you? I'm no American but I can't really see most soldiers starting to shoot their own?
- afavour 5y agoIn that case surely the second amendment isn’t necessary, then. You’ve already got the army!
- skinkestek 5y agoLook to Turkey for a failure of that model. Although I should say that I am always convinced by those who say that that particular coup was staged by Erdogan as a pretext.