3 ms·

I just think it's odd that you think that the solution to being picked on is to remove your right to defend yourself from being picked on. The 2A wasn't suppose

I just think it's odd that you think that the solution to being picked on is to remove your right to defend yourself from being picked on. The 2A wasn't supposed to be just for "bigots". Use your rights. Relying on the government to protect you from bigots only works when the government itself isn't comprised of bigots. Then you'll really regret not having rights to effective individual defense.

tempodox 3y ago
“rights to effective individual defense” isn't going to cut it against a government armed with nuclear weapons, tanks, and what not. The notion that a few guns will protect you against government overreach is outdated by at least a hundred years.
- seanw444 3y ago
  1. The largest military industrial complex / empire the world has seen to date, struggles with underequipped, undereducated insurgents fighting for their beliefs already. 2. You assume the whole military would be unified in drone striking their fellow countrymen. I wager a large chunk, likely more than half, would splinter. 3. There's not much point in nuking the place you wish to rule. There won't be much left to rule.
  - tempodox 3y ago
    Still, I'd bet that a bunch of lawyers and huge funds for campaign contributions would give you better chances than the contents of your armory. Or does everything look like a nail because all you have is a hammer?
    - seanw444 3y ago
      It's unfathomable to me how you people are completely incapable of seeing how both are useful, and one doesn't need to exist on its own without the other.
- Quillbert182 3y ago
  Yet we lost to the Taliban, who had none of those things.
  - camgunz 3y ago
    But we won against the Iraqi insurgence and ISIS. We probably would've beaten the Taliban too but JB personally hated being there, so here we are.
  - cmh89 3y ago
    We didn't lose to the Taliban for any other reason beside not having a clear picture of what victory would look like.
giraffe_lady 3y ago
I'm a materialist, and as such I see that the "right" to own and use weapons in this way is conditional on things outside the control of individuals. What do you think happens to a black man who shoots a cop in self defense? We depend on us to protect us from bigots. And it's more effective and less morally compromising to do this when the bigots don't have guns. As it is an honest self defense class for my people starts with "have someone who knows how prison commissary works" and ends with "get right with the lord" because that covers the full spectrum of likely outcomes when a nonwhite person defends themselves with a weapon in the US.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  But the fact remains that by defending yourself, at least you'll minimize the chances of meeting your god(s). As the saying goes, better to be judged by 12 than burried by 6.
8note 3y ago
It's a right to have a gun, not to use it. Even then, it's not a very strong right, since for the past 30 years at least, the common reason for cops to shoot people is "I thought he had a gun" with suggestions that people carry bright orange wallets to avoid being mistaken for having a gun
- seanw444 3y ago
  And what is the point of "arms"? Why would the second most important right enumerated, be only placed there merely for keeping weapon-shaped trinkets in the household?
  - bobbylarrybobby 3y ago
    Given the state of things at the time the country was formed, “we need you at the ready to handle Injuns” may well be the answer.
camgunz 3y ago
We have limits on all rights: the rights against unreasonable search and seizure (exigent circumstances), the right of freedom of expression (imminent lawless action), the right to freedom of association (imprisonment, parole), etc. For some reason we accept these but not on 2A, as we think it's this fundamental right to secure freedom. But I think this overlooks how we've won our freedoms over the last century. Suffragettes didn't take mayors ransom. Labor unions didn't march on DC with firearms. Civil rights activists didn't surround police departments with shotguns. Protests against the draft were literally flower power. The idea that rights flow from violence in today's world just doesn't track. It's way more likely you secure your rights with strikes, marches, and protests than with armed resistance. The truth is the idea of a noble rebellion violently struggling for freedom is a Confederate fantasy, which is the aesthetic preference of a certain demographic. It's maybe less romantic to them to run boycotts and strikes (and actually win the popular vote), but that's how things work these days.
- seanw444 3y ago
  Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? It's a backup. It's like saying "yeah my server runs super stable and I haven't had any power outages in the last few months, so I don't need a UPS, so I'll throw mine away." Which is great, until your data is irrevocably corrupted and you regret your decision. You're right, marching with guns doesn't resolve civil issues most of the time. That's not the point. It's for when all other options are exhausted. And we won't truly appreciate it for what it is, until that time comes, by which point I hope we haven't complacently thrown it away because we couldn't learn from history (again). "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." ~ JFK It's really based on "hasn't happened to me, so it probably won't happen to me" logic. Which is stupid when you're setting rules for generations to come. All good things come to an end, and the US will too. It will be a slow boil until we realize we're in a seriously corrupt and unrepresentative state that can only be fixed through force. It has happened time and time again, and to think we won't meet the same fate is incredibly naive. At least we have an enshrined fighting chance to reset the way we want.
  - camgunz 3y ago

tempodox 3y ago

“rights to effective individual defense” isn't going to cut it against a government armed with nuclear weapons, tanks, and what not. The notion that a few guns will protect you against government overreach is outdated by at least a hundred years.

seanw444 3y ago
1. The largest military industrial complex / empire the world has seen to date, struggles with underequipped, undereducated insurgents fighting for their beliefs already. 2. You assume the whole military would be unified in drone striking their fellow countrymen. I wager a large chunk, likely more than half, would splinter. 3. There's not much point in nuking the place you wish to rule. There won't be much left to rule.
- tempodox 3y ago
  Still, I'd bet that a bunch of lawyers and huge funds for campaign contributions would give you better chances than the contents of your armory. Or does everything look like a nail because all you have is a hammer?
  - seanw444 3y ago
    It's unfathomable to me how you people are completely incapable of seeing how both are useful, and one doesn't need to exist on its own without the other.
Quillbert182 3y ago
Yet we lost to the Taliban, who had none of those things.
- camgunz 3y ago
  But we won against the Iraqi insurgence and ISIS. We probably would've beaten the Taliban too but JB personally hated being there, so here we are.
- cmh89 3y ago
  We didn't lose to the Taliban for any other reason beside not having a clear picture of what victory would look like.

giraffe_lady 3y ago

I'm a materialist, and as such I see that the "right" to own and use weapons in this way is conditional on things outside the control of individuals. What do you think happens to a black man who shoots a cop in self defense? We depend on us to protect us from bigots. And it's more effective and less morally compromising to do this when the bigots don't have guns. As it is an honest self defense class for my people starts with "have someone who knows how prison commissary works" and ends with "get right with the lord" because that covers the full spectrum of likely outcomes when a nonwhite person defends themselves with a weapon in the US.

hellojesus 3y ago
But the fact remains that by defending yourself, at least you'll minimize the chances of meeting your god(s). As the saying goes, better to be judged by 12 than burried by 6.

8note 3y ago

It's a right to have a gun, not to use it. Even then, it's not a very strong right, since for the past 30 years at least, the common reason for cops to shoot people is "I thought he had a gun" with suggestions that people carry bright orange wallets to avoid being mistaken for having a gun

seanw444 3y ago
And what is the point of "arms"? Why would the second most important right enumerated, be only placed there merely for keeping weapon-shaped trinkets in the household?
- bobbylarrybobby 3y ago
  Given the state of things at the time the country was formed, “we need you at the ready to handle Injuns” may well be the answer.

camgunz 3y ago

We have limits on all rights: the rights against unreasonable search and seizure (exigent circumstances), the right of freedom of expression (imminent lawless action), the right to freedom of association (imprisonment, parole), etc. For some reason we accept these but not on 2A, as we think it's this fundamental right to secure freedom. But I think this overlooks how we've won our freedoms over the last century. Suffragettes didn't take mayors ransom. Labor unions didn't march on DC with firearms. Civil rights activists didn't surround police departments with shotguns. Protests against the draft were literally flower power. The idea that rights flow from violence in today's world just doesn't track. It's way more likely you secure your rights with strikes, marches, and protests than with armed resistance. The truth is the idea of a noble rebellion violently struggling for freedom is a Confederate fantasy, which is the aesthetic preference of a certain demographic. It's maybe less romantic to them to run boycotts and strikes (and actually win the popular vote), but that's how things work these days.

seanw444 3y ago
Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? It's a backup. It's like saying "yeah my server runs super stable and I haven't had any power outages in the last few months, so I don't need a UPS, so I'll throw mine away." Which is great, until your data is irrevocably corrupted and you regret your decision. You're right, marching with guns doesn't resolve civil issues most of the time. That's not the point. It's for when all other options are exhausted. And we won't truly appreciate it for what it is, until that time comes, by which point I hope we haven't complacently thrown it away because we couldn't learn from history (again). "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." ~ JFK It's really based on "hasn't happened to me, so it probably won't happen to me" logic. Which is stupid when you're setting rules for generations to come. All good things come to an end, and the US will too. It will be a slow boil until we realize we're in a seriously corrupt and unrepresentative state that can only be fixed through force. It has happened time and time again, and to think we won't meet the same fate is incredibly naive. At least we have an enshrined fighting chance to reset the way we want.
- camgunz 3y ago