3 ms·

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 amo

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
    2A arguably protects anything from steak knives to nukes, despite what tyrants in power say. People owned warships, cannons, etc privately at that time it was written. If people shouldn't have arms such as nukes or f-15 and 'scaled up weapons' the 2A should be amended to exclude some arms.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      Sure, I've made this argument myself. I don't see its relevance to what I've said here.
      - beaeglebeach 3y ago
        The relevance is neither the historical basis nor text restricts 2A to small arms, so why are we restricting the conversation to precisely their effectiveness? >>...2A... > But small arms in the context of modern government technological authoritarianism amounts to little more than a security blanket ...
        mindslight 3y ago
        I didn't mean to direct focus onto just small arms. The same dynamic applies with explosives, cannons, fighter jets, etc. For example, does having a ready-to-go tank in your back yard eliminate the problems with not getting a building permit? The point is that focusing on weapons is futile when society is no longer ordered by overt force but rather economic/pragmatic attractors. In the western world the battle based on physical force has essentially been fought and won permanently - the result is democracy which is a similar dynamic without most of the violence. If a critical mass of people come together and want to change things, then that happens. The system has responded by dividing people into tribes and diverting them such that a critical mass opposed to the system itself doesn't actually happen.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
protocolture 3y ago
I dunno. Small arms + blankets + petrol beating out an occupying force is pretty common. Hamas is building rockets out of drain pipes. What really matters is the morale to actually pull together and fight which is completely non existent in the western world. We need to become a lot less comfortable before anyone will do anything. Especially "British" "People".
- mindslight 3y ago
  Resisting occupation or engaging in terrorism against a foreign power are completely different scenarios than pushing back against democratically blessed bureaucratic overreach. The KillDozer is an appropriate example. I cheered for that guy, along with many others. Some of the corrupt town officials got their comeuppance. But what did it really accomplish systematically?
  - protocolture 3y ago
    When people criticize small arms in terms of resisting government, its usually because the government has better toys, and assume they would simply roll over the problem with tanks and planes. Thus you work your way back around to an occupation scenario. The issue is that those toys have workarounds, especially for locals. The soviets ran into these problems several times. Sending tanks piloted by locals to put down locals often ended in a stalemate or worse (The locals cant tell whose piloting the tank, the tankers can identify their neighbors however) If you want to narrow things down to guns keeping local politics straight, there was that recent business with the hardware store shotgun vs Shinzo Abe. The shotgun gentleman seems to have gotten every single demand met.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      > When people criticize small arms in terms of resisting government, its usually because the government has better toys But that is not the point I'm making. Like sure, I agree that a militia wielding small arms can resist an invading army, say in the case that the US military was defeated or didn't respond to an area because it wasn't considered strategic enough. The point I am making is that it's fallacious to think that weapons can do anything to push back against homegrown democratically approved bureaucratic tyranny. As I said in another comment - how can a gun, explosives, or even a tank alleviate the problems you will face from not getting a building permit?

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
  2A arguably protects anything from steak knives to nukes, despite what tyrants in power say. People owned warships, cannons, etc privately at that time it was written. If people shouldn't have arms such as nukes or f-15 and 'scaled up weapons' the 2A should be amended to exclude some arms.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    Sure, I've made this argument myself. I don't see its relevance to what I've said here.
    - beaeglebeach 3y ago
      The relevance is neither the historical basis nor text restricts 2A to small arms, so why are we restricting the conversation to precisely their effectiveness? >>...2A... > But small arms in the context of modern government technological authoritarianism amounts to little more than a security blanket ...
      - mindslight 3y ago
        I didn't mean to direct focus onto just small arms. The same dynamic applies with explosives, cannons, fighter jets, etc. For example, does having a ready-to-go tank in your back yard eliminate the problems with not getting a building permit? The point is that focusing on weapons is futile when society is no longer ordered by overt force but rather economic/pragmatic attractors. In the western world the battle based on physical force has essentially been fought and won permanently - the result is democracy which is a similar dynamic without most of the violence. If a critical mass of people come together and want to change things, then that happens. The system has responded by dividing people into tribes and diverting them such that a critical mass opposed to the system itself doesn't actually happen.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

protocolture 3y ago

I dunno. Small arms + blankets + petrol beating out an occupying force is pretty common. Hamas is building rockets out of drain pipes. What really matters is the morale to actually pull together and fight which is completely non existent in the western world. We need to become a lot less comfortable before anyone will do anything. Especially "British" "People".

mindslight 3y ago
Resisting occupation or engaging in terrorism against a foreign power are completely different scenarios than pushing back against democratically blessed bureaucratic overreach. The KillDozer is an appropriate example. I cheered for that guy, along with many others. Some of the corrupt town officials got their comeuppance. But what did it really accomplish systematically?
- protocolture 3y ago
  When people criticize small arms in terms of resisting government, its usually because the government has better toys, and assume they would simply roll over the problem with tanks and planes. Thus you work your way back around to an occupation scenario. The issue is that those toys have workarounds, especially for locals. The soviets ran into these problems several times. Sending tanks piloted by locals to put down locals often ended in a stalemate or worse (The locals cant tell whose piloting the tank, the tankers can identify their neighbors however) If you want to narrow things down to guns keeping local politics straight, there was that recent business with the hardware store shotgun vs Shinzo Abe. The shotgun gentleman seems to have gotten every single demand met.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    > When people criticize small arms in terms of resisting government, its usually because the government has better toys But that is not the point I'm making. Like sure, I agree that a militia wielding small arms can resist an invading army, say in the case that the US military was defeated or didn't respond to an area because it wasn't considered strategic enough. The point I am making is that it's fallacious to think that weapons can do anything to push back against homegrown democratically approved bureaucratic tyranny. As I said in another comment - how can a gun, explosives, or even a tank alleviate the problems you will face from not getting a building permit?