3 ms·
I'm not accusing you in particular, but a lot of people will say that a "second amendment advocate" couldn't hope to fight against the government out one side o
by xscott 3y ago
I'm not accusing you in particular, but a lot of people will say that a "second amendment advocate" couldn't hope to fight against the government out one side of their mouth, and then say that the January 6th nonsense was a legitimate threat to the government out of the other side...
They can't both be true.
- jakogut 3y agoSort of like "an AR-15 is a weapon of war, made for killing people quickly, that has no place in civilian hands" and "an AR-15 is completely unsuitable for self-defense", and "Even the most heavily armed populace stands no chance at out-gunning its governing state". All three of these things cannot be true at the same time.
- eyelidlessness 3y agoSince you’re directly quoting me in one of the three, I’ll just point out that I haven’t said either of the other two, here or anywhere else. You can’t establish internal inconsistency by merely superimposing multiple viewpoints onto one of them.
- jakogut 3y agoI see your point. I didn't mean to imply that those were also things you have said, I meant to demonstrate that I _have_ heard all three of those things from others before.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoJanuary 6th was a "legitimate" threat, not in the sense that the mob could have overcome the US military, but in the sense that, if they could have forced/intimidated Congress into declaring Trump the winner, that appearance of legitimacy could have blinded enough people (or enabled them to rationalize) to kick off a real civil war.
- xscott 3y agoI don't think your distinction is compelling. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.