3 ms·

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

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]

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]