8 ms·

> I’m not sure how we push back against authoritarianism? This is one of the reasons why the 2nd Amendment is a good thing. However in the UK they lost track o

> I’m not sure how we push back against authoritarianism? This is one of the reasons why the 2nd Amendment is a good thing. However in the UK they lost track of why a population needs to be able to defend itself when a tyrannical regime tries to take over…

PhasmaFelis 3y ago
In the US, the party in favor of unrestricted gun access is also the party that performatively hates porn, so I'm not sure if that would help in this case.
- wait_a_minute 3y ago
  I do not think there is enough data to base this statement on. I am not aware of any high quality surveys or polling or better that would assess what overlap there is between people who highly favor freedom, with those who highly favor the 2nd Amendment, with those who highly oppose porn, with those who highly favor face scans.
Joker_vD 3y ago
The 2nd Amendment is worded as a conditional ("since well-trained militia is required for the state security, the citizens must be allowed to bear firearms") and its premise is actually false, so shouldn't it, technically speaking, have lost its legal power?
- wait_a_minute 3y ago
  No, and your understanding of it is not reflected by the SCOTUS. You do not need to be in a militia to benefit from the 2nd Amendment or access it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - beaeglebeach 3y ago
    Basically every able bodied citizen male is in the 'unorganized militia' anyway per US code.
  - _w1tm 3y ago
    I thought he meant it the other way around. Since militias are not required for the security of the state, citizens don’t need to bear arms.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    If you’re a male American citizen of a certain age, you are in the militia. Thats what “militia” means—it refers to the part of the citizenry capable of military service.
    - wait_a_minute 3y ago
      Fair enough as it's a very loose definition and doesn't require formalities or any kind of actual restrictions on the right.
      - philwelch 3y ago
        Historically it did. The Second Congress passed two Militia Acts in 1792, the second of which mandated that each member of the militia buy a musket or rifle along with ammunition and other kit, and to be organized into specific units as directed by their state legislatures.
- lsllc 3y ago
  The Bill of Rights (i.e. the first 10 Amendments) are individual rights. There's plenty of commentary about this, but quoting from the ACLU in particular: "The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs." https://www.aclu.org/documents/bill-rights-brief-history https://www.aclu.org/documents/bill-rights-brief-history
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    The Bill of Righte contained 12 proposed amendments, 11 of which have been ratified. We've just gotten used to calling it the first 10, because the other one took a long time to ratify.
mindslight 3y ago
I'm a gun owner and a believer in the natural right to keep and use tools. But small arms in the context of modern government technological authoritarianism amounts to little more than a security blanket - telling yourself both that you can protect yourself from it, and also that things aren't bad enough "yet". But at best you can go out in a blaze of "glory" while further contributing to the system's advance.
- cymian 3y ago
  The primary reason a government in control of a strong military (e.g. U.S.) wants to restrict private gun ownership is so that they can scare the populace indirectly by means of rampant crime, riots, etc. which they tacitly permit (or secretly encourage) The population is thereby forced to go along with ever more draconian laws and regulations because their safety is (or is perceived to be) threatened.
- wait_a_minute 3y ago
  History is full of examples showing that you're wrong. That is not the best case scenario at all. Is it a possible scenario? Sure, but not the best case or only case by any means. The country itself is founded on examples of you being incorrect.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    I don't really know what you're referring to from history, given that this level of technological development and fine-grained agile government/corporate perception/control is a pretty recent phenomenon. Our society is no longer kept in line by force projection from groups of humans with small arms, but rather surveillance tech, dispatchable forces, and the economic advantages of specialization/cooperation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gsz7Gu6agA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gsz7Gu6agA
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - beaeglebeach 3y ago

PhasmaFelis 3y ago

In the US, the party in favor of unrestricted gun access is also the party that performatively hates porn, so I'm not sure if that would help in this case.

wait_a_minute 3y ago
I do not think there is enough data to base this statement on. I am not aware of any high quality surveys or polling or better that would assess what overlap there is between people who highly favor freedom, with those who highly favor the 2nd Amendment, with those who highly oppose porn, with those who highly favor face scans.

Joker_vD 3y ago

The 2nd Amendment is worded as a conditional ("since well-trained militia is required for the state security, the citizens must be allowed to bear firearms") and its premise is actually false, so shouldn't it, technically speaking, have lost its legal power?

wait_a_minute 3y ago
No, and your understanding of it is not reflected by the SCOTUS. You do not need to be in a militia to benefit from the 2nd Amendment or access it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- beaeglebeach 3y ago
  Basically every able bodied citizen male is in the 'unorganized militia' anyway per US code.
- _w1tm 3y ago
  I thought he meant it the other way around. Since militias are not required for the security of the state, citizens don’t need to bear arms.
- philwelch 3y ago
  If you’re a male American citizen of a certain age, you are in the militia. Thats what “militia” means—it refers to the part of the citizenry capable of military service.
  - wait_a_minute 3y ago
    Fair enough as it's a very loose definition and doesn't require formalities or any kind of actual restrictions on the right.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      Historically it did. The Second Congress passed two Militia Acts in 1792, the second of which mandated that each member of the militia buy a musket or rifle along with ammunition and other kit, and to be organized into specific units as directed by their state legislatures.
lsllc 3y ago
The Bill of Rights (i.e. the first 10 Amendments) are individual rights. There's plenty of commentary about this, but quoting from the ACLU in particular: "The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs." https://www.aclu.org/documents/bill-rights-brief-history https://www.aclu.org/documents/bill-rights-brief-history
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  The Bill of Righte contained 12 proposed amendments, 11 of which have been ratified. We've just gotten used to calling it the first 10, because the other one took a long time to ratify.

mindslight 3y ago

I'm a gun owner and a believer in the natural right to keep and use tools. But small arms in the context of modern government technological authoritarianism amounts to little more than a security blanket - telling yourself both that you can protect yourself from it, and also that things aren't bad enough "yet". But at best you can go out in a blaze of "glory" while further contributing to the system's advance.

cymian 3y ago
The primary reason a government in control of a strong military (e.g. U.S.) wants to restrict private gun ownership is so that they can scare the populace indirectly by means of rampant crime, riots, etc. which they tacitly permit (or secretly encourage) The population is thereby forced to go along with ever more draconian laws and regulations because their safety is (or is perceived to be) threatened.
wait_a_minute 3y ago
History is full of examples showing that you're wrong. That is not the best case scenario at all. Is it a possible scenario? Sure, but not the best case or only case by any means. The country itself is founded on examples of you being incorrect.
- mindslight 3y ago
  I don't really know what you're referring to from history, given that this level of technological development and fine-grained agile government/corporate perception/control is a pretty recent phenomenon. Our society is no longer kept in line by force projection from groups of humans with small arms, but rather surveillance tech, dispatchable forces, and the economic advantages of specialization/cooperation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gsz7Gu6agA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gsz7Gu6agA
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - beaeglebeach 3y ago