3 ms·

I find it interesting that everyone immediately assumed I was talking only about guns. The advantage includes the right to peaceably assemble and speak freely,

I find it interesting that everyone immediately assumed I was talking only about guns. The advantage includes the right to peaceably assemble and speak freely, and petition the government for a redress of grievances. But to think that will always work out without a too-significant crackdown by the government hampering the process, is totally utterly ridiculous. It continues to fascinate me that people have already forgotten, or never heard, the stories of the foundations of the country. We asked the existing government multiple times to allow us to handle ourselves, and give us more autonomy. They outright said no. And what was one of their first actions in response? Go take the plebs' guns. Now, if controlling the arms, ordnance, and munitions isn't important, why is that? And no, our government being a republic rather than a monarchy does not make this time any different than the last. It should be evident by now that all it does is slow down the inevitable, and prevent us from pointing the finger at any one specific person. Which is to say, it'll be even harder this time. And that is not an excuse to give us less advantages. It is a reason we need more, or our future generations are more doomed than we already have allowed ourselves to be.

kristopolous 3y ago
> It continues to fascinate me that people have already forgotten, or never heard, the stories of the foundations of the country. You can't transpose the context of colonial america to contemporary life. Even nearly 200 year old inventions like the gatling gun, professional policing, penny press, telegraph and car dilute the predictive power of conflict analysis of the 1700s to apply it to the 21st century. Yet alone say, apache helicopters and SAMs. > And what was one of their first actions in response? Go take the plebs' guns. The volumes that chronicle these histories are deeply ahistorical. Every one I've seen is actually about arming favored groups and disarming unfavored ones. It's not about taking away guns, it's about making them plentiful for a group driven by fear and anger and making them scarce for the designated scapegoat. Unless you think AR-15s and ammunition for homeless, pedophiles, illegal immigrants, and woke mobs is part of your strategy, you are in effect, doing exactly what you are accusing these other societies of doing because you are inherently carving out a group that should and a group that should not have access to guns - which is precisely what all those historical groups did.
- seanw444 3y ago
  > Unless you think AR-15s and ammunition for homeless, pedophiles, illegal immigrants, and woke mobs is part of your strategy, you are in effect, doing exactly what you are accusing these other societies of doing because you are inherently carving out a group that should and a group that should not have access to guns - which is precisely what all those historical groups did. If you're a US citizen, you have a right to keep and bear arms. That is my only "carve out". Homeless, poor, gay, vegan, etc. all count. Yes, illegal immigrants are a carve out. They are not US citizens, and they therefore don't enjoy full protection of the law here. Well, shouldn't. Get your citizenship and I don't care anymore. This used to be a given before the globalist agenda.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    > They are not US citizens, and they therefore don't enjoy full protection of the law here. Well, shouldn't. Get your citizenship and I don't care anymore. This used to be a given before the globalist agenda. Right. For the Nazis, the often go-to for the gun grabbing argument, this was the reich citizenship law of 1935. By clamping down on citizenship definitions and who's allowed to have papers, they did the carve out That's the exact strategy they took - right to bear arms was reserved for reich citizens.

kristopolous 3y ago

> It continues to fascinate me that people have already forgotten, or never heard, the stories of the foundations of the country. You can't transpose the context of colonial america to contemporary life. Even nearly 200 year old inventions like the gatling gun, professional policing, penny press, telegraph and car dilute the predictive power of conflict analysis of the 1700s to apply it to the 21st century. Yet alone say, apache helicopters and SAMs. > And what was one of their first actions in response? Go take the plebs' guns. The volumes that chronicle these histories are deeply ahistorical. Every one I've seen is actually about arming favored groups and disarming unfavored ones. It's not about taking away guns, it's about making them plentiful for a group driven by fear and anger and making them scarce for the designated scapegoat. Unless you think AR-15s and ammunition for homeless, pedophiles, illegal immigrants, and woke mobs is part of your strategy, you are in effect, doing exactly what you are accusing these other societies of doing because you are inherently carving out a group that should and a group that should not have access to guns - which is precisely what all those historical groups did.

seanw444 3y ago
> Unless you think AR-15s and ammunition for homeless, pedophiles, illegal immigrants, and woke mobs is part of your strategy, you are in effect, doing exactly what you are accusing these other societies of doing because you are inherently carving out a group that should and a group that should not have access to guns - which is precisely what all those historical groups did. If you're a US citizen, you have a right to keep and bear arms. That is my only "carve out". Homeless, poor, gay, vegan, etc. all count. Yes, illegal immigrants are a carve out. They are not US citizens, and they therefore don't enjoy full protection of the law here. Well, shouldn't. Get your citizenship and I don't care anymore. This used to be a given before the globalist agenda.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  > They are not US citizens, and they therefore don't enjoy full protection of the law here. Well, shouldn't. Get your citizenship and I don't care anymore. This used to be a given before the globalist agenda. Right. For the Nazis, the often go-to for the gun grabbing argument, this was the reich citizenship law of 1935. By clamping down on citizenship definitions and who's allowed to have papers, they did the carve out That's the exact strategy they took - right to bear arms was reserved for reich citizens.