9 ms·

I personally believe the 2A as intended by the founders was to protect against an orwellian government which is why it’s more important now than ever. Most rece

I personally believe the 2A as intended by the founders was to protect against an orwellian government which is why it’s more important now than ever. Most recent example: Ministry of Truth. Who’s truth? Well whoever happens to be in power. This is called the rule of man not the rule of law.

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
One person's "Orwellian" is another's "Law and order". Civil asset forfeiture is pretty Orwellian, IMO, not to mention a direct violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, yet I haven't heard of anybody using their Second Amendment right to protect themselves from it.
- delecti 4y ago
  Generally speaking, the word for people who try using their Second Amendment rights to protect their Fourth Amendment right against civil asset forfeiture is "corpse".
  - mmmpop 4y ago
    You mean after they generate a corpse of the person attempting to seize their assets? Generally that's "prison" unless they keep shooting.
    - delecti 4y ago
      I thought my implication was fairly clear, but to be explicit: If you brandish guns against police who are attempting to seize your property through civil asset forfeiture, they will shoot you, and most likely kill you.
maxerickson 4y ago
If "Disinformation Governance Board" bothers you more than "Department of Homeland Security" did, you may be responding to what "they" want you to more than you think you are. I love how government is obviously incompetent, but only until something they do sounds conspiratorial.
- mmmpop 4y ago
  They both offend me very much.
tablespoon 4y ago
> I personally believe the 2A as intended by the founders was to protect against an orwellian government... Orwellian is an anachronism here. It was probably meant to protect to right of the people to engage in a violent revolution when required, and enacted by people who had literally done so to create the United States.
- LocalH 4y ago
  Unfortunately, the people in power have all but removed that possibility from the table.
- kodah 4y ago
  > It was probably meant to protect to right of the people to engage in a violent revolution when required, and enacted by people who had literally done so to create the United States. This is how I learned 2A. More or less, no government can last forever and at some point governments will need to be overthrown and set anew. Sound familiar? > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. They even provided some basic criteria for when might be a good time: > Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. I was taught that 2A was the tool that ensures that this section of the Declaration of Independence would still be relevant to their new government.
  - 4y ago
javagram 4y ago
The founders idealized the Roman Republic and sought to create a system where the central government would never have the power to seize control as Julius Caesar did. But I don’t think turning out to the streets with AR-15s is an appropriate response to the government forming an ineffective propaganda office (ministry of truth). We’ve seen the awful cost of civil war both here at home in 1861-65 and recently in countries such as Syria and Libya. Violent revolution should be the absolute last resort especially in a world where total war is practiced and not the relatively civilized and small-scale warfare of the American revolution or the 1688 English Revolution. In practice, the US government has committed atrocities throughout history against citizens and the 2A did little to help (genocide of native Americans, discrimination against Germans in ww1, Japanese internment in ww2, Jim Crow and slavery, the civil war itself where armed citizens just joined whatever side they lived on, etc.)
- mmmpop 4y ago
  > But I don’t think turning out to the streets with AR-15s is an appropriate response to the government forming an ineffective propaganda office (ministry of truth). I don't think the founders envisioned that at all. Your rifle is for sitting behind your door and waiting for the tyrannical government to break down your door and realize that the first person to breech is probably going to die. It's a deterrent to ensure that law enforcement is willing to do the bidding of said corrupt government. Guns are not meant to be for menacing the public. They're for defending life and property. And yeah, property.

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago

One person's "Orwellian" is another's "Law and order". Civil asset forfeiture is pretty Orwellian, IMO, not to mention a direct violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, yet I haven't heard of anybody using their Second Amendment right to protect themselves from it.

delecti 4y ago
Generally speaking, the word for people who try using their Second Amendment rights to protect their Fourth Amendment right against civil asset forfeiture is "corpse".
- mmmpop 4y ago
  You mean after they generate a corpse of the person attempting to seize their assets? Generally that's "prison" unless they keep shooting.
  - delecti 4y ago
    I thought my implication was fairly clear, but to be explicit: If you brandish guns against police who are attempting to seize your property through civil asset forfeiture, they will shoot you, and most likely kill you.

maxerickson 4y ago

If "Disinformation Governance Board" bothers you more than "Department of Homeland Security" did, you may be responding to what "they" want you to more than you think you are. I love how government is obviously incompetent, but only until something they do sounds conspiratorial.

mmmpop 4y ago
They both offend me very much.

tablespoon 4y ago

> I personally believe the 2A as intended by the founders was to protect against an orwellian government... Orwellian is an anachronism here. It was probably meant to protect to right of the people to engage in a violent revolution when required, and enacted by people who had literally done so to create the United States.

LocalH 4y ago
Unfortunately, the people in power have all but removed that possibility from the table.
kodah 4y ago
> It was probably meant to protect to right of the people to engage in a violent revolution when required, and enacted by people who had literally done so to create the United States. This is how I learned 2A. More or less, no government can last forever and at some point governments will need to be overthrown and set anew. Sound familiar? > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. They even provided some basic criteria for when might be a good time: > Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. I was taught that 2A was the tool that ensures that this section of the Declaration of Independence would still be relevant to their new government.
- 4y ago

javagram 4y ago

The founders idealized the Roman Republic and sought to create a system where the central government would never have the power to seize control as Julius Caesar did. But I don’t think turning out to the streets with AR-15s is an appropriate response to the government forming an ineffective propaganda office (ministry of truth). We’ve seen the awful cost of civil war both here at home in 1861-65 and recently in countries such as Syria and Libya. Violent revolution should be the absolute last resort especially in a world where total war is practiced and not the relatively civilized and small-scale warfare of the American revolution or the 1688 English Revolution. In practice, the US government has committed atrocities throughout history against citizens and the 2A did little to help (genocide of native Americans, discrimination against Germans in ww1, Japanese internment in ww2, Jim Crow and slavery, the civil war itself where armed citizens just joined whatever side they lived on, etc.)

mmmpop 4y ago
> But I don’t think turning out to the streets with AR-15s is an appropriate response to the government forming an ineffective propaganda office (ministry of truth). I don't think the founders envisioned that at all. Your rifle is for sitting behind your door and waiting for the tyrannical government to break down your door and realize that the first person to breech is probably going to die. It's a deterrent to ensure that law enforcement is willing to do the bidding of said corrupt government. Guns are not meant to be for menacing the public. They're for defending life and property. And yeah, property.