7 ms·

>rights to freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure... The trouble with this is that, while it's fine in prin

>rights to freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure... The trouble with this is that, while it's fine in principal [I'm a firm believer in the old agage "People shouldn't fear their governments. Governments should fear their people" ] it doesn't really stand up to reality. The people who enshrined the "Right to bear arms" into your constitution envisioned it as a way to keep govenrment in check. If "The Man" has a musket he can oppress me. If I have a musket too, he can't. Unfortunately, in the 21st century, "The Man" is always going to have a shitload of bigger, more lethal "muskets" than you and could swat you like a fly if he felt like it. All the right to bear arms does is lead to a situation where your streets are full of guns, violent crime is rampant and your police force is armed to the teeth and more akin to a paramilitary army than your friendly neighbourhood bobby. So that every encounter --even for the likes of a trivial motoring offence, which would be a 5 minute telling off, a bit of grovelling and possibly a fine, anywhere else in Europe or UK-- has the potential to escalate into an armed stand-off or a shooting. It's just amazing that so many Americans can simply not see this and still have that almost evangelical belief that the microscopically small chance that they could overthrow some future government if it got out of hand [spoiler alert: you couldn't!] is worth the trade-off of living day to day in a society awash with guns, violent crime and mass shootings.

margorczynski 4y ago
> Unfortunately, in the 21st century, "The Man" is always going to have a shitload of bigger, more lethal "muskets" than you and could swat you like a fly if he felt like it. I think you should study how it went down in Afghanistan. This argument simply doesn't hold up to reality. And we're talking about a civil war where using mass destruction weapons like bombardment is much more likely to be out of the question. Additionally it is much harder to differentiate friend from foe.
- ClapperHeid 4y ago
  >I think you should study how it went down in Afghanistan. This argument simply doesn't hold up to reality... That's a different scenario. It's a lot easier [relatively speaking] to foment an uprising against an external enemy in the cause of "ridding your country of the invader". than it is against "the enemy within". You've only got to look at all the unpopular laws that get passed year after year [and not just in the US]. When the possibility of <unpopular law> is first broached, there are dark mutterings that "People won't stand for it!". Then <unpopular law> comes into force, a couple of isolated people resist and get fined or imprisoned and, before you know it, <unpopular law> is an accepted part of "the system" --even if many people don't agree with it. You've also got to bear in mind that, when <unpopular law> is implemented by your own government, they will sell it as being for the national good. No government is ever going to say 'We're doing this coz we're bastards and want to oppress you!'. It'll be for "national security" or "anti-terrorism" or "to protect the children". And it will fool enough of the people, so that the ones who do "make a stand" won't only be doing so against "The Man" but against most of the rest of the general populace too. They'll see you as being "unpatriotic", a "terrorist sympathiser" or a "defender of paedos" for taking a stand against said law. Also, oppression is incremental. It's very rare that a country's government moves from [perceived] democracy to [perceived] tyranny over night. And, there again, even amongst the people who would conceivably rise up, everyone will have their own individual "red line" beyond which they'll feel aggrieved enough to act. And who wants to be the first to stick their head above the parapet?
  - margorczynski 4y ago
    Well I agree that in many cases people "standing up" to the goverment is nothing more than a LARP and that they are smart enough to slowly boil the frog instead of pushing too hard all at once. But still, having guns puts a good guard against extreme situations where the boiling frog tactic doesn't work so much - e.g. forceful installation of a communist dictatorship. It won't guard us against slow deterioration but it can serve as a safe guard against hostile takeovers.
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      > But still, having guns puts a good guard against extreme situations where the boiling frog tactic doesn't work so much - e.g. forceful installation of a communist dictatorship Again, how exactly do you see that playing out in reality?
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  Do you have any idea as to what would happen if you decided to take down "The Man" as the grandparent post has it, with your Walmart AR15? Some kid in a bunker in Utah would take his hand off his dick long enough to pilot the drone right down your chimney, and blow you, your family, your gun, your dog, your truck, and about 100m radius worth of your neighbours into snotters, jam, and gravel. Just like it played out in Afghanistan.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kortilla 4y ago
> some future government if it got out of hand [spoiler alert: you couldn't!] You absolutely could if the country had any significant portion of the population against the government. The military will quickly go into a state of disarray if half of the members are being told to kill their own families. > to day in a society awash with guns, violent crime and mass shootings. But it’s not “awash”. I’ve been in the US for >50 years now and have never seen any gun-related crime and only know one person who was robbed in the 80s in New York by a guy who just said he had a gun. I’ve have however seen violent crime involving fists, bats, clubs, brass knuckles, and knives. This is why when it comes down to it, Americans don’t want to give up their guns. The mass shootings are tragic, but the probability of being impacted by one is so small that people don’t think it’s worth giving them up.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  > The mass shootings are tragic, but the probability of being impacted by one is so small that people don’t think it’s worth giving them up. In the US, there's a mass shooting on average every 22.5 hours. You have a mass shooting more often than most people have a massive shit. You have a problem, whether you see it or not.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 4y ago
    "Mass shooting" (in the advocacy-numbers sense you're using it) is generally taken to mean three or more people hit by stuff that came out of a gun (framgents, ricochets count too). It is not "three people shot", much less "three people dead". When using this statistic, the average number of people killed is about one per "mass shooting". What's more, most of these shootings are among people who are participating in organized crime in bad parts of cities. It's not random, innocent people getting shot. The random, innocent people getting shot ones are the ones that are profitable to put on news streams, though. They are exceedingly rare. Using reasonable definitions of "mass shooting", the number so far in 2023 is 1-3.
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      Okay, but that's still more than any other developed country.

margorczynski 4y ago

> Unfortunately, in the 21st century, "The Man" is always going to have a shitload of bigger, more lethal "muskets" than you and could swat you like a fly if he felt like it. I think you should study how it went down in Afghanistan. This argument simply doesn't hold up to reality. And we're talking about a civil war where using mass destruction weapons like bombardment is much more likely to be out of the question. Additionally it is much harder to differentiate friend from foe.

ClapperHeid 4y ago
>I think you should study how it went down in Afghanistan. This argument simply doesn't hold up to reality... That's a different scenario. It's a lot easier [relatively speaking] to foment an uprising against an external enemy in the cause of "ridding your country of the invader". than it is against "the enemy within". You've only got to look at all the unpopular laws that get passed year after year [and not just in the US]. When the possibility of <unpopular law> is first broached, there are dark mutterings that "People won't stand for it!". Then <unpopular law> comes into force, a couple of isolated people resist and get fined or imprisoned and, before you know it, <unpopular law> is an accepted part of "the system" --even if many people don't agree with it. You've also got to bear in mind that, when <unpopular law> is implemented by your own government, they will sell it as being for the national good. No government is ever going to say 'We're doing this coz we're bastards and want to oppress you!'. It'll be for "national security" or "anti-terrorism" or "to protect the children". And it will fool enough of the people, so that the ones who do "make a stand" won't only be doing so against "The Man" but against most of the rest of the general populace too. They'll see you as being "unpatriotic", a "terrorist sympathiser" or a "defender of paedos" for taking a stand against said law. Also, oppression is incremental. It's very rare that a country's government moves from [perceived] democracy to [perceived] tyranny over night. And, there again, even amongst the people who would conceivably rise up, everyone will have their own individual "red line" beyond which they'll feel aggrieved enough to act. And who wants to be the first to stick their head above the parapet?
- margorczynski 4y ago
  Well I agree that in many cases people "standing up" to the goverment is nothing more than a LARP and that they are smart enough to slowly boil the frog instead of pushing too hard all at once. But still, having guns puts a good guard against extreme situations where the boiling frog tactic doesn't work so much - e.g. forceful installation of a communist dictatorship. It won't guard us against slow deterioration but it can serve as a safe guard against hostile takeovers.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    > But still, having guns puts a good guard against extreme situations where the boiling frog tactic doesn't work so much - e.g. forceful installation of a communist dictatorship Again, how exactly do you see that playing out in reality?
Gordonjcp 4y ago
Do you have any idea as to what would happen if you decided to take down "The Man" as the grandparent post has it, with your Walmart AR15? Some kid in a bunker in Utah would take his hand off his dick long enough to pilot the drone right down your chimney, and blow you, your family, your gun, your dog, your truck, and about 100m radius worth of your neighbours into snotters, jam, and gravel. Just like it played out in Afghanistan.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kortilla 4y ago

> some future government if it got out of hand [spoiler alert: you couldn't!] You absolutely could if the country had any significant portion of the population against the government. The military will quickly go into a state of disarray if half of the members are being told to kill their own families. > to day in a society awash with guns, violent crime and mass shootings. But it’s not “awash”. I’ve been in the US for >50 years now and have never seen any gun-related crime and only know one person who was robbed in the 80s in New York by a guy who just said he had a gun. I’ve have however seen violent crime involving fists, bats, clubs, brass knuckles, and knives. This is why when it comes down to it, Americans don’t want to give up their guns. The mass shootings are tragic, but the probability of being impacted by one is so small that people don’t think it’s worth giving them up.

Gordonjcp 4y ago
> The mass shootings are tragic, but the probability of being impacted by one is so small that people don’t think it’s worth giving them up. In the US, there's a mass shooting on average every 22.5 hours. You have a mass shooting more often than most people have a massive shit. You have a problem, whether you see it or not.
- NoImmatureAdHom 4y ago
  "Mass shooting" (in the advocacy-numbers sense you're using it) is generally taken to mean three or more people hit by stuff that came out of a gun (framgents, ricochets count too). It is not "three people shot", much less "three people dead". When using this statistic, the average number of people killed is about one per "mass shooting". What's more, most of these shootings are among people who are participating in organized crime in bad parts of cities. It's not random, innocent people getting shot. The random, innocent people getting shot ones are the ones that are profitable to put on news streams, though. They are exceedingly rare. Using reasonable definitions of "mass shooting", the number so far in 2023 is 1-3.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    Okay, but that's still more than any other developed country.