4 ms·

We have limits on all rights: the rights against unreasonable search and seizure (exigent circumstances), the right of freedom of expression (imminent lawless a

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
  Yeah but in this case your UPS causes tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths a year and lots of knock on effects like cops always having to worry about a suspect being armed to the teeth, metal detectors in schools, etc. > 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. There's no evidence this is happening, certainly not to the degree we should suffer the current level of gun violence to combat.
  - seanw444 3y ago
    All of those things will happen whether we ban legal ownership of firearms or not. Metal detectors in school can still come in handy for things like knives, unless you intend to ban those too. Way more people die from car accidents and drug overdoses, and those numbers don't have millions of legal self defense encounters to balance them out. Cops will always be concerned about their safety. You can kill someone if you simply gain physical control over them. An unarmed person charging you is just as dangerous as an armed one, in terms of use-of-force continuum.
    - camgunz 3y ago
      These all have simple counterfactuals in other countries, like EU countries. The idea that violence won't decrease if we ban guns is completely disproven, empirically.
ryathal 3y ago
You've drastically altered the reality of US history. Violence and guns were a huge part of it. Labor unions had actual shoot outs with union busting officers, Malcolm X was absolutely using guns (King also had them), some draft protests were intentionally violent. If you really look, almost every "peaceful" movement had violent parts or another similar movement that was violent. Perhaps the greatest example is the race riots, specifically LA where the police completely abandoned areas and local shop keepers used their own weapons to protect their livelihood. Furthermore, the right to bear arms is heavily limited, automatic weapons have been banned for around 50 years at this point, getting any gun is subject to background checks in basically every case, age limits are also in place, "dangerous" things like suppressors require additional fees and paperwork in order to own.
- camgunz 3y ago
  None of this stuff looks like the Taliban's resistance or the Bolshevik Revolution. Besides a magnitude difference, the victory won was a moral one. No policymaker was afraid that they'd meet the guillotine unless they went along with the Wagner act. They were convinced, not coerced.
- shrimp_emoji 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    That's an oversimplified way to understand nonviolent resistance movements that's insufficient to explain their success. In every case where they have been successful, a radical movement with the will to violence at their flank is what brings the other party to the negotiation table. The plausible threat of a mutually destructive protest movement with unconditional demands makes the measured compromise of the peaceful group seem acceptable by comparison. Look at the environmental movement for what happens without this. Decades of nonviolent protest and resistance, but without a plausibly violent fringe there is no reason for anyone to capitulate to its demands, and so no one has.

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
Yeah but in this case your UPS causes tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths a year and lots of knock on effects like cops always having to worry about a suspect being armed to the teeth, metal detectors in schools, etc. > 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. There's no evidence this is happening, certainly not to the degree we should suffer the current level of gun violence to combat.
- seanw444 3y ago
  All of those things will happen whether we ban legal ownership of firearms or not. Metal detectors in school can still come in handy for things like knives, unless you intend to ban those too. Way more people die from car accidents and drug overdoses, and those numbers don't have millions of legal self defense encounters to balance them out. Cops will always be concerned about their safety. You can kill someone if you simply gain physical control over them. An unarmed person charging you is just as dangerous as an armed one, in terms of use-of-force continuum.
  - camgunz 3y ago
    These all have simple counterfactuals in other countries, like EU countries. The idea that violence won't decrease if we ban guns is completely disproven, empirically.

ryathal 3y ago

You've drastically altered the reality of US history. Violence and guns were a huge part of it. Labor unions had actual shoot outs with union busting officers, Malcolm X was absolutely using guns (King also had them), some draft protests were intentionally violent. If you really look, almost every "peaceful" movement had violent parts or another similar movement that was violent. Perhaps the greatest example is the race riots, specifically LA where the police completely abandoned areas and local shop keepers used their own weapons to protect their livelihood. Furthermore, the right to bear arms is heavily limited, automatic weapons have been banned for around 50 years at this point, getting any gun is subject to background checks in basically every case, age limits are also in place, "dangerous" things like suppressors require additional fees and paperwork in order to own.

camgunz 3y ago
None of this stuff looks like the Taliban's resistance or the Bolshevik Revolution. Besides a magnitude difference, the victory won was a moral one. No policymaker was afraid that they'd meet the guillotine unless they went along with the Wagner act. They were convinced, not coerced.
shrimp_emoji 3y ago
[flagged]
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  That's an oversimplified way to understand nonviolent resistance movements that's insufficient to explain their success. In every case where they have been successful, a radical movement with the will to violence at their flank is what brings the other party to the negotiation table. The plausible threat of a mutually destructive protest movement with unconditional demands makes the measured compromise of the peaceful group seem acceptable by comparison. Look at the environmental movement for what happens without this. Decades of nonviolent protest and resistance, but without a plausibly violent fringe there is no reason for anyone to capitulate to its demands, and so no one has.