10 ms·

It's no body else's business, especially the power hungry federal government, to know if I own a firearm. If you want to see what happens when you disarm citize

It's no body else's business, especially the power hungry federal government, to know if I own a firearm. If you want to see what happens when you disarm citizens there are plenty of examples through history. You can look at Australia during covid and the camps they setup. The citizens could do nothing. The government should always be kept in check and having armed legal citizens is a wonderful thing for freedom.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
What are you doing to keep the government in check currently or is this pretty much how you like it rn?
- spiderice 4y ago
  There is a large gap between "I like what the government is doing right now" and "time to keep the government in check with guns". In other words, just because guns aren't being used to keep the government in check right now doesn't mean there aren't valid situations where they could be. I'm not entirely sure if your comment is insinuating that. If it's not, sorry for misinterpreting it.
  - hackyhacky 4y ago
    So if an election were believed to be fraudulent, for example, that would be a legally/ethically justified opportunity to raid the Capitol building in an armed mob? Inquiring minds want to know. In other words, can we have some concrete example when, in your opinion, it is appropriate to shoot a cop?
    - abduhl 4y ago
      Any time it would be appropriate to shoot not-a-cop. Cop with his knee on someone’s neck where that person is obviously suffocating? It’s appropriate to shoot that cop.
      - hackyhacky 4y ago
        Why is suffocation a prerequisite? Why shouldn't I be able to shoot a cop any time they abuse their authority? For example, if violence is appropriate in defending individual liberty, then by your argument I should be able to shoot a cop if they arrest for me a crime I'm innocent of. Or for a crime that I'm not innocent of, but feel that I would not get a fair trial for. Or if a cop inconveniences me by pulling me over when I'm in a hurry. Basically, it sounds like you're supporting a principle of violence left at the discretion of the individual.
        abduhl 4y ago
        I’m supporting a principle of violence against police any time it would be justified against an ordinary person. False arrest where you fear for your life? Yes. Arrest for a crime you’re not innocent of? No. Pulling you over in a hurry? No. The government wants to maintain a monopoly in the use of force and violence. I don’t think they should have that option. Call me a libertarian.
        hackyhacky 4y ago
        > I’m supporting a principle of violence against police any time it would be justified against an ordinary person. This does not clarify the issue. When is violence justified against an ordinary person in your opinion? If you're proposing a legal principle, there should be a clear line. Moreover, who gets to decide when violence is justified? Are we leaving that up to each person's own sense of justice? Or does everyone have to use your standard? How do we resolve post-facto disagreements about the justification of use of violence? What punishment would you support for someone who uses unjustified violence that they feel is justified? What if they disagree with that punishment?
        abduhl 4y ago
        Self defense and defense of others is a clear line with case law and statutory interpretations going back centuries. I refuse to be pulled into your argument and its attempts to recast my position: police should have no privileges above an ordinary citizen when using force. Use of violence is justified in a court of law subject to a jury of your peers.
missedthecue 4y ago
If your government had wanted to set up covid camps, who exactly would you be shooting to fix that?
- technion 4y ago
  I don't need to look up what happened in Australia because I live there. The "covid camps" were illegal border crossing camps. So all an American has to do to fully understand this event is look into at US border detention and the way that guns have, or have not, prevented these from ever being created.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > The "covid camps" were illegal border crossing camps. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." Australia was violating human rights every time they made it illegal for one of their citizens to enter the country. Don't lump these "illegal border crossing"s in with foreigners trying to illegally immigrate.
    - aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 4y ago
      In case anyone is wondering: the UDHR is not a treaty and does not carry the force of law. Which is a shame, really. I quite like it.
- parineum 4y ago
  Gun ownership has to go into the calculus of making a decision like this. Government officials will have to ask themselves what they are willing to tolerate in terms of armed resistance. Even if it's just one loon with a gun killing whatever officials try to get him out of his house, the ends have to justify that occurrence. The idea that the person your forcing to do something (anything) may be armed makes the government less likely to force people to do things.
  - canberra12 4y ago
aporetics 4y ago
How does private gun ownership check the government? How would the government act differently if citizens owned fewer or different or no guns? Where does the fantasy that the everyone is out to get you and you had better be armed and ready come from? Cowboy movies? The whole idea of the cowboy is myth[0]. If you want to see real power hungry government in action, don’t think SWAT coming for you, look at the Missouri State Health director keeping a spreadsheet of women’s menstrual cycles, in order to make sure that if any became pregnant the state could intercede [1]. If you’re reading HN, you’re probably some kind of engineer. So tell me, how is a problem which is itself generated by the accumulation of brute power solved by a countervailing accumulation of brute power? Which then just becomes an arms race. Which is objectively insane. It is an infinite loop. How do you break it? [0] See "This Land" pg 61-66 by Christopher Ketcham (https://lccn.loc.gov/2019018042 https://lccn.loc.gov/2019018042), citing Lynn Jacobs "The Waste of The West" (https://lccn.loc.gov/92121736 https://lccn.loc.gov/92121736) [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-health-director-tracked-menstrual-periods-planned-parenthood-patients-n1073701 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-health-directo...
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > How does private gun ownership check the government? It raises the stakes for oppression. How would Hong Kong look right now if the population were lightly armed? Instead of a civilian police force repressing millions the Chinese military would have had to occupy its own territory. That has political and international consequences. I believe in gun regulation. But I recognise the civic core of the opposition’s argument.
  - aporetics 4y ago
    > How would Hong Kong look right now if the population were lightly armed? Let’s be honest, if they were armed and gun ownership weren’t already against the law, the Chinese government would sweep in and pass a law that day and start going door to door, seizing weapons, take the people from their families and send then to reeducation camps. It wouldn’t forward their cause at all. The word “civic” is odd here too (I recognize that your comment is about the intent of the parent comment’s argument), because the opposite pole to political violence is… civil discourse. There is an unavoidable incoherence to the idea that gun ownership is about civic responsibility.
canberra12 4y ago
> You can look at Australia during covid and the camps they setup. What camps? At some points, some international arrivals were quarantined in "camps" and, interstate or international travellers were variously required to isolate in hotels. The US had a range of at-home and government supervised quarantine too. TO say they "set up camps" is disingenuous. Having armed citizen is terrible for freedom. It means that the kind of person willing to use violent force against another person has power.
- yongjik 4y ago
  Yeah exactly. Can't fathom using it as an argument. The terrible consequences of Australians not having firearms: drastically lower COVID deaths per capita. Also, no mass shootings this century.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

What are you doing to keep the government in check currently or is this pretty much how you like it rn?

spiderice 4y ago
There is a large gap between "I like what the government is doing right now" and "time to keep the government in check with guns". In other words, just because guns aren't being used to keep the government in check right now doesn't mean there aren't valid situations where they could be. I'm not entirely sure if your comment is insinuating that. If it's not, sorry for misinterpreting it.
- hackyhacky 4y ago
  So if an election were believed to be fraudulent, for example, that would be a legally/ethically justified opportunity to raid the Capitol building in an armed mob? Inquiring minds want to know. In other words, can we have some concrete example when, in your opinion, it is appropriate to shoot a cop?
  - abduhl 4y ago
    Any time it would be appropriate to shoot not-a-cop. Cop with his knee on someone’s neck where that person is obviously suffocating? It’s appropriate to shoot that cop.
    - hackyhacky 4y ago
      Why is suffocation a prerequisite? Why shouldn't I be able to shoot a cop any time they abuse their authority? For example, if violence is appropriate in defending individual liberty, then by your argument I should be able to shoot a cop if they arrest for me a crime I'm innocent of. Or for a crime that I'm not innocent of, but feel that I would not get a fair trial for. Or if a cop inconveniences me by pulling me over when I'm in a hurry. Basically, it sounds like you're supporting a principle of violence left at the discretion of the individual.
      - abduhl 4y ago
        I’m supporting a principle of violence against police any time it would be justified against an ordinary person. False arrest where you fear for your life? Yes. Arrest for a crime you’re not innocent of? No. Pulling you over in a hurry? No. The government wants to maintain a monopoly in the use of force and violence. I don’t think they should have that option. Call me a libertarian.
        hackyhacky 4y ago
        > I’m supporting a principle of violence against police any time it would be justified against an ordinary person. This does not clarify the issue. When is violence justified against an ordinary person in your opinion? If you're proposing a legal principle, there should be a clear line. Moreover, who gets to decide when violence is justified? Are we leaving that up to each person's own sense of justice? Or does everyone have to use your standard? How do we resolve post-facto disagreements about the justification of use of violence? What punishment would you support for someone who uses unjustified violence that they feel is justified? What if they disagree with that punishment?
        abduhl 4y ago
        Self defense and defense of others is a clear line with case law and statutory interpretations going back centuries. I refuse to be pulled into your argument and its attempts to recast my position: police should have no privileges above an ordinary citizen when using force. Use of violence is justified in a court of law subject to a jury of your peers.

missedthecue 4y ago

If your government had wanted to set up covid camps, who exactly would you be shooting to fix that?

technion 4y ago
I don't need to look up what happened in Australia because I live there. The "covid camps" were illegal border crossing camps. So all an American has to do to fully understand this event is look into at US border detention and the way that guns have, or have not, prevented these from ever being created.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > The "covid camps" were illegal border crossing camps. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." Australia was violating human rights every time they made it illegal for one of their citizens to enter the country. Don't lump these "illegal border crossing"s in with foreigners trying to illegally immigrate.
  - aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 4y ago
    In case anyone is wondering: the UDHR is not a treaty and does not carry the force of law. Which is a shame, really. I quite like it.
parineum 4y ago
Gun ownership has to go into the calculus of making a decision like this. Government officials will have to ask themselves what they are willing to tolerate in terms of armed resistance. Even if it's just one loon with a gun killing whatever officials try to get him out of his house, the ends have to justify that occurrence. The idea that the person your forcing to do something (anything) may be armed makes the government less likely to force people to do things.
- canberra12 4y ago

aporetics 4y ago

How does private gun ownership check the government? How would the government act differently if citizens owned fewer or different or no guns? Where does the fantasy that the everyone is out to get you and you had better be armed and ready come from? Cowboy movies? The whole idea of the cowboy is myth[0]. If you want to see real power hungry government in action, don’t think SWAT coming for you, look at the Missouri State Health director keeping a spreadsheet of women’s menstrual cycles, in order to make sure that if any became pregnant the state could intercede [1]. If you’re reading HN, you’re probably some kind of engineer. So tell me, how is a problem which is itself generated by the accumulation of brute power solved by a countervailing accumulation of brute power? Which then just becomes an arms race. Which is objectively insane. It is an infinite loop. How do you break it? [0] See "This Land" pg 61-66 by Christopher Ketcham (https://lccn.loc.gov/2019018042 https://lccn.loc.gov/2019018042), citing Lynn Jacobs "The Waste of The West" (https://lccn.loc.gov/92121736 https://lccn.loc.gov/92121736) [0] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-health-director-tracked-menstrual-periods-planned-parenthood-patients-n1073701 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-health-directo...

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> How does private gun ownership check the government? It raises the stakes for oppression. How would Hong Kong look right now if the population were lightly armed? Instead of a civilian police force repressing millions the Chinese military would have had to occupy its own territory. That has political and international consequences. I believe in gun regulation. But I recognise the civic core of the opposition’s argument.
- aporetics 4y ago
  > How would Hong Kong look right now if the population were lightly armed? Let’s be honest, if they were armed and gun ownership weren’t already against the law, the Chinese government would sweep in and pass a law that day and start going door to door, seizing weapons, take the people from their families and send then to reeducation camps. It wouldn’t forward their cause at all. The word “civic” is odd here too (I recognize that your comment is about the intent of the parent comment’s argument), because the opposite pole to political violence is… civil discourse. There is an unavoidable incoherence to the idea that gun ownership is about civic responsibility.

canberra12 4y ago

> You can look at Australia during covid and the camps they setup. What camps? At some points, some international arrivals were quarantined in "camps" and, interstate or international travellers were variously required to isolate in hotels. The US had a range of at-home and government supervised quarantine too. TO say they "set up camps" is disingenuous. Having armed citizen is terrible for freedom. It means that the kind of person willing to use violent force against another person has power.

yongjik 4y ago
Yeah exactly. Can't fathom using it as an argument. The terrible consequences of Australians not having firearms: drastically lower COVID deaths per capita. Also, no mass shootings this century.