3 ms·

Police are supposed to protect you from those problems, a society that takes care of its people wont have to worry about people causing a revolution or going ar

Police are supposed to protect you from those problems, a society that takes care of its people wont have to worry about people causing a revolution or going around shooting people. The point of rules like this is usually to make the government very afraid of it’s own people and to make sure they (the government) serve them (the people) well. There are a 110 ways to kill people, if someone wants to kill you on the streets, not having guns aren’t what’s holding them back. It’s far easier to buy fetanyl in your streets, and just inject someone with a high dosage and leave. > I'm not too concerned with a Cambodian genocide happening in the US. I wouldn’t cast the concern aside that freely if I were you, I don’t think its productive to look down on Cambodians as less civilised or believe in a sort of American exceptionalism, where things like the Cambodian genocide is not a possibility. As an example, I’d like to show the time when the government of California, was actively sterilising perfectly healthy american citizens for “eugenics” purposes [1][2] (a precursor to what could constitute genocide if those policies were nationalised) This is however just one example, you could argue they are linked to racism and a race superiority complex from those times, but reasons and causes can change across different times, the communities targeted may also change, the outcome (the potential risk of a government turning its back on its own people) is always present. The great governance (in comparison to nations across the world) that america benefitted from in the last century, was earned and paid for in blood, ideas and sweat by you’re previous generations of citizens, constitution designers, policymakers, independent organisations, and right groups (on both aisles). I would say the concerns of a gov fallout is always ever present and the duty of every citizen in any democracy across the world to keep an eye out for, and put in all sorts of protections against such fallout whenever possible. - [1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXn3IzQTDOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXn3IzQTDOg) - [2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zCpRVP1DgQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zCpRVP1DgQ)

bozhark 3y ago
Police are not required to protect anyone
- abfan1127 3y ago
  in fact, are not well equipped to protect anyone either. Police are minutes away once dispatched. Even upon arrival, they aren't required to put themselves in harm's way to save you, just hope to mitigate further damage to others around you.
ericfr11 3y ago
Any armed militia (let alone a single citizen) would have no power to fight anything. A government army would crush them. Today, guns are mostly killing other law-abiding citizens: hence, they are the wrong approach to a 21st century society. 300 years ago, US people had to protect themselves (against all enemies, including their "government" of the time: the British army)
- teitoklien 3y ago
  > Any armed militia (let alone a single citizen) would have no power to fight anything. A government army would crush them. If this were true, then America wouldn’t have failed so badly in Afghanistan, guerilla tactics work. The objective isnt to defeat the military in a war, if that were possible it would lead to instability and random groups of americans from taking over the government anytime. The objective is to give enough capabilities to everyday citizens to atleast be able to setup a resistance severe enough that no government would consider such an action. For those abilities I think the liberties provided are helpful enough. But I agree with you, there are far more dangerous instruments being used against common citizens now, that it makes people protecting themselves with guns a bad joke. That calls for more policies to allow citizens to defend themselves, whether that’s a more robust education system to help citizens catch lying politicians, or a more robust system to bring in control the massive polarization spreading across all democracies, and defences against gutting out of the middle class that’s taking place. But all of them call for more protections to be added, not existing ones to be removed
  - antod 3y ago
    > If this were true, then America wouldn’t have failed so badly in Afghanistan, guerilla tactics work. There is quite a gulf between making a democracy give up on occupying you (especially when the reasons for that occupation become kinda nebulous), and an internal rebellion or civil war. Guerilla tactics are often successful in the former case. The latter situation is much more prevalent, and in most cases just devolves into long term suffering.
    - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
majormajor 3y ago
> Police are supposed to protect you from those problems, a society that takes care of its people wont have to worry about people causing a revolution or going around shooting people. > The point of rules like this is usually to make the government very afraid of it’s own people and to make sure they (the government) serve them (the people) well. Does the existence of the problems not demonstate that that idea has failed in practice? It's supposed to do that, but it ain't. Iterate.
- teitoklien 3y ago
  No, it doesn’t mean it has failed, it just means it alone is not sufficient. Just like how a century of american prosperity wasn’t solely due to gun rights. Like many other laws and policies, 2nd amendment alone is not sufficient. The better question to find the answer to your query is. Is removing the 2nd amendment and gun rights going to magically save america and stop its marching decline? I don’t think so.
  - majormajor 3y ago
    > Is removing the 2nd amendment and gun rights going to magically save america and stop its marching decline? > I don’t think so. I don't think that's the right question at all. I don't want to make changes to "magically save America and stop its marching decline" (whichever decline you happen to be peddling). I want to make changes to get fewer people in America shot in the short-to-mid-term. Do you still believe that getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would hasten an American collapse? Because I haven't seen it effectively stop ANY so-called government overreach, and don't believe it will prevent any in the future either. In the long-term, it also introduces its own existential risk: why should I assume "the citizens people with the most guns who do the best in a revolution" would institute a government better for me than the current American one?
lukas099 3y ago
> I don’t think its productive to look down on Cambodians as less civilised or believe in a sort of American exceptionalism, where things like the Cambodian genocide is not a possibility. I think it's silly to pretend that different countries' institutions are all equivalent. Some have much more robust systems of checks and balances, justice systems, levels of corruption, etc. And no, it's not that Americans are 'more civilized' than Cambodians, it's just a byproduct of the circumstances of history that led to this point.
wolverine876 3y ago
> The point of rules like this is usually to make the government very afraid of it’s own people and to make sure they (the government) serve them (the people) well. What a violent fantasy. Can you show us any legitimate, serious source that says such a thing, or indicates that it has any basis? When in US history has the government or it's officials been "very afraid" of the citizenry? (Who would serve in such a government?) And given that the government is chosen by the people to carry out their bidding, it would be odd for them to then threaten it.
- teitoklien 3y ago
  > And given that the government is chosen by the people to carry out their bidding, it would be odd for them to then threaten it. I don’t think its good to pretend that some holy god falls out of the sky every few years during election time and asks every citizen who they want to choose as their leader. No one’s talking about slinging guns and start shooting up all the politicians. If one doesn’t like a policy, they should go to the courts, write a letter to their representatives or vote for someone else the next time who they agree more with. The issue is in pretending as if all of this is a god given right. It needs to be defended every moment. You dont want an elected representative to come to power, setup the military to be loyal to that leader and then pull the rug on everyone else, jail the opposition, enslave the public. I’m not saying this out of some fiction book, it’s happening as we speak in Myanmar, happens every few years in Pakistan, essentially the status quo in North Korea. A robust democracy should not depend on the good will of dear leader. But be based on the foundation of its public. More people are dying in america from drug addiction (from hopelessness and neglect of society), obesity, drunk driving, suicides every month, than you’ll see deaths from the 2nd amendment rights of everyday citizens to have guns and the right to carry them. You have to ask yourself, why politicians rile up the public so deeply about the 2nd amendment, but totally ignore the common public’s disheartening reality and abandonment. The 2nd amendment is a worst case scenario law, if you read history of most countries across the world and the tyranny of governments who have 0 fear of public, maybe it might change your mind. I’m not saying that the 2nd amendment makes american politicans shiver in their beds and make it hard to sleep at night, or prevent them from still disappointing the public. But there are far more worse realities which would make the current “hell” look like a sweet ideal utopia. Every country and its citizens should strive to improve the lives of the public, disarming the masses is an odd hill to die on while on that quest.

bozhark 3y ago

Police are not required to protect anyone

abfan1127 3y ago
in fact, are not well equipped to protect anyone either. Police are minutes away once dispatched. Even upon arrival, they aren't required to put themselves in harm's way to save you, just hope to mitigate further damage to others around you.

ericfr11 3y ago

Any armed militia (let alone a single citizen) would have no power to fight anything. A government army would crush them. Today, guns are mostly killing other law-abiding citizens: hence, they are the wrong approach to a 21st century society. 300 years ago, US people had to protect themselves (against all enemies, including their "government" of the time: the British army)

teitoklien 3y ago
> Any armed militia (let alone a single citizen) would have no power to fight anything. A government army would crush them. If this were true, then America wouldn’t have failed so badly in Afghanistan, guerilla tactics work. The objective isnt to defeat the military in a war, if that were possible it would lead to instability and random groups of americans from taking over the government anytime. The objective is to give enough capabilities to everyday citizens to atleast be able to setup a resistance severe enough that no government would consider such an action. For those abilities I think the liberties provided are helpful enough. But I agree with you, there are far more dangerous instruments being used against common citizens now, that it makes people protecting themselves with guns a bad joke. That calls for more policies to allow citizens to defend themselves, whether that’s a more robust education system to help citizens catch lying politicians, or a more robust system to bring in control the massive polarization spreading across all democracies, and defences against gutting out of the middle class that’s taking place. But all of them call for more protections to be added, not existing ones to be removed
- antod 3y ago
  > If this were true, then America wouldn’t have failed so badly in Afghanistan, guerilla tactics work. There is quite a gulf between making a democracy give up on occupying you (especially when the reasons for that occupation become kinda nebulous), and an internal rebellion or civil war. Guerilla tactics are often successful in the former case. The latter situation is much more prevalent, and in most cases just devolves into long term suffering.
  - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

majormajor 3y ago

> Police are supposed to protect you from those problems, a society that takes care of its people wont have to worry about people causing a revolution or going around shooting people. > The point of rules like this is usually to make the government very afraid of it’s own people and to make sure they (the government) serve them (the people) well. Does the existence of the problems not demonstate that that idea has failed in practice? It's supposed to do that, but it ain't. Iterate.

teitoklien 3y ago
No, it doesn’t mean it has failed, it just means it alone is not sufficient. Just like how a century of american prosperity wasn’t solely due to gun rights. Like many other laws and policies, 2nd amendment alone is not sufficient. The better question to find the answer to your query is. Is removing the 2nd amendment and gun rights going to magically save america and stop its marching decline? I don’t think so.
- majormajor 3y ago
  > Is removing the 2nd amendment and gun rights going to magically save america and stop its marching decline? > I don’t think so. I don't think that's the right question at all. I don't want to make changes to "magically save America and stop its marching decline" (whichever decline you happen to be peddling). I want to make changes to get fewer people in America shot in the short-to-mid-term. Do you still believe that getting rid of the 2nd Amendment would hasten an American collapse? Because I haven't seen it effectively stop ANY so-called government overreach, and don't believe it will prevent any in the future either. In the long-term, it also introduces its own existential risk: why should I assume "the citizens people with the most guns who do the best in a revolution" would institute a government better for me than the current American one?

lukas099 3y ago

> I don’t think its productive to look down on Cambodians as less civilised or believe in a sort of American exceptionalism, where things like the Cambodian genocide is not a possibility. I think it's silly to pretend that different countries' institutions are all equivalent. Some have much more robust systems of checks and balances, justice systems, levels of corruption, etc. And no, it's not that Americans are 'more civilized' than Cambodians, it's just a byproduct of the circumstances of history that led to this point.

wolverine876 3y ago

> The point of rules like this is usually to make the government very afraid of it’s own people and to make sure they (the government) serve them (the people) well. What a violent fantasy. Can you show us any legitimate, serious source that says such a thing, or indicates that it has any basis? When in US history has the government or it's officials been "very afraid" of the citizenry? (Who would serve in such a government?) And given that the government is chosen by the people to carry out their bidding, it would be odd for them to then threaten it.

teitoklien 3y ago
> And given that the government is chosen by the people to carry out their bidding, it would be odd for them to then threaten it. I don’t think its good to pretend that some holy god falls out of the sky every few years during election time and asks every citizen who they want to choose as their leader. No one’s talking about slinging guns and start shooting up all the politicians. If one doesn’t like a policy, they should go to the courts, write a letter to their representatives or vote for someone else the next time who they agree more with. The issue is in pretending as if all of this is a god given right. It needs to be defended every moment. You dont want an elected representative to come to power, setup the military to be loyal to that leader and then pull the rug on everyone else, jail the opposition, enslave the public. I’m not saying this out of some fiction book, it’s happening as we speak in Myanmar, happens every few years in Pakistan, essentially the status quo in North Korea. A robust democracy should not depend on the good will of dear leader. But be based on the foundation of its public. More people are dying in america from drug addiction (from hopelessness and neglect of society), obesity, drunk driving, suicides every month, than you’ll see deaths from the 2nd amendment rights of everyday citizens to have guns and the right to carry them. You have to ask yourself, why politicians rile up the public so deeply about the 2nd amendment, but totally ignore the common public’s disheartening reality and abandonment. The 2nd amendment is a worst case scenario law, if you read history of most countries across the world and the tyranny of governments who have 0 fear of public, maybe it might change your mind. I’m not saying that the 2nd amendment makes american politicans shiver in their beds and make it hard to sleep at night, or prevent them from still disappointing the public. But there are far more worse realities which would make the current “hell” look like a sweet ideal utopia. Every country and its citizens should strive to improve the lives of the public, disarming the masses is an odd hill to die on while on that quest.