5 ms·

I absolutely believe I should be able to own a bazooka, and that the second and first amendments are equally critical for a free state. People use exactly the

I absolutely believe I should be able to own a bazooka, and that the second and first amendments are equally critical for a free state. People use exactly the same arguments you’re making to justify speech restrictions. It’s my belief that there’s an underlying social pathology wherein some people are happy to hand power to the state in order to feel safe, regardless of the ultimate consequences, whether we’re discussing arms or speech or any other fundamental right.

komali2 3y ago
The alternate social pathology is maintaining some kind of illusion of ability to resist a fascist government with weapons a previous more liberal government allowed you to have. If the government recedes to a level of totalitarianism wherein you must use your guns to protect your way of life, there's been absolute failures on uncountable levels, and guns won't fix anything. If you threaten to use your gun to destabilize the authoritarian government, they have five hundred ways to kill you easily from a distance. "But guerrilla warfare!" If you're stockpiling guns so as to be one day be a guerrilla, why not instead just take action now to prevent your government becoming that way, by voting for more progressive leaders, participating in protests, and engaging in civil disobedience and disruption? I don't disagree with the general idea of restricting the ability of government to control personal freedoms to a certain degree, but it doesn't make any sense to me why we like to use the government to regulate what companies are allowed to put in the food they sell us, but not regulate what kind of guns our neighbors can own.
jabradoodle 3y ago
You can't blow my house up with free speech. Also free states exist outside of the USA, so clearly those amendments are not a prerequisite of freedom. I also wouldn't call it a pathology in the average case, not unless you believe there is no use for law, courts, police etc, and are a proponent of anarchy.

komali2 3y ago

The alternate social pathology is maintaining some kind of illusion of ability to resist a fascist government with weapons a previous more liberal government allowed you to have. If the government recedes to a level of totalitarianism wherein you must use your guns to protect your way of life, there's been absolute failures on uncountable levels, and guns won't fix anything. If you threaten to use your gun to destabilize the authoritarian government, they have five hundred ways to kill you easily from a distance. "But guerrilla warfare!" If you're stockpiling guns so as to be one day be a guerrilla, why not instead just take action now to prevent your government becoming that way, by voting for more progressive leaders, participating in protests, and engaging in civil disobedience and disruption? I don't disagree with the general idea of restricting the ability of government to control personal freedoms to a certain degree, but it doesn't make any sense to me why we like to use the government to regulate what companies are allowed to put in the food they sell us, but not regulate what kind of guns our neighbors can own.

jabradoodle 3y ago

You can't blow my house up with free speech. Also free states exist outside of the USA, so clearly those amendments are not a prerequisite of freedom. I also wouldn't call it a pathology in the average case, not unless you believe there is no use for law, courts, police etc, and are a proponent of anarchy.