5 ms·

“Give me liberty or give me death.” The ultimate point of gun ownership isn’t sporting or even self defense, though they are useful for both. The real reason

“Give me liberty or give me death.” The ultimate point of gun ownership isn’t sporting or even self defense, though they are useful for both. The real reason America is armed is so that if our government ever gets too tyrannical, we can do something about it. Some people may not like that today but if you go back and read what people wrote circa 1775 and forward, this is the clear rationale.

gishglish 1y ago
> The real reason America is armed is so that if our government ever gets too tyrannical It’s been doing that for at least two decades, yet I’m still waiting for you people to get on with it.
- ARandomerDude 1y ago
  I don’t know who the “you people” in that comment refers to. I actually hope we never have another civil war. Historically, you’re much more likely to end up with the French Revolution, the current situation in Syria, etc. than a fresh, bright future. Many would die and everyone would suffer. Those who long for war (foreign or domestic) are evil, foolish, or both. But my opinion doesn’t change the rationale for the 2nd Amendment.
  - chiefalchemist 1y ago
    Another civil war? That’s not desirable, for obvious reasons. But another revolutionary war? That might be inevitable. Thomas Jefferson has an appropriate quote on such things.
- zdragnar 1y ago
  An elected official doing things you don't like isn't a reason to kill them. That way lies fascism and anarchotyrrany.
  - 6510 1y ago
    If that were true there would never be a reason to kill anyone.
  - graemep 1y ago
    What if the elected official is a fascist? It happened in Germany.
  - coldtea 1y ago
    "Elected" doesn't mean much if the system is rigged - starting from the choices you get, and how accountable they are to you. After a point it's just a charade.
ourmandave 1y ago
Yeah, they even threw in a thing about well regulated militias, but left in a comma that got interpreted as "any toon can own as many guns as they want."
WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
> The real reason America is armed is so that if our government ever gets too tyrannical, we can do something about it. The something is killing police and soldiers. That's the quiet part. Unless the tyrannical government has presented itself at the compound in a force of plumbers and actuaries.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 1y ago
  you say it as if it's inherently bad historically, when a government became too tyranical, either the government went on and on, or people did the quiet part
paulryanrogers 1y ago
If the Second Amendment (2A) meant to preserve the ability to overthrow the government then why can we not have bombs and tanks? And why does it mention the right within the context of a "well regulated militia"? Could it be they feared having a permanent national army, so did the 2A instead? Only later to realize having a standing army were necessary after all? No that couldn't be it. Because then there would be no rational reason for keeping 2A and flooding the country with deadly weapons.
- spauldo 1y ago
  Did they fear a national army? Legitimately curious here. They certainly couldn't afford one, but military-lead coups weren't the problem then that they are today (or were during the Roman empire). Sure, they chose to put a civilian in charge of the military, but I was always under the impression this was to keep the military from interfering with the normal process of government.
- vaadu 1y ago
  "And why does it mention the right within the context of a "well regulated militia"?" It doesn't, anymore than the freedom of speech is only in the context of one of the other rights mentioned in the 1st amendment. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
_carbyau_ 1y ago
Where is the line on tyranny? Who decides? Someone who doesn't like how the last election turned out? Some person who decides the police are being too tyrannical by asking them to turn down their stereo for neighbourhood peace? Honestly, when does this go from "we're prepared" to "time to act"? This has mess written all over it. Also, it should be noted that the army and police are made up of humans too. As has been pointed out in various war tribunals doing something under orders doesn't entirely absolve you from moral duty.
- johnisgood 1y ago
  Since you mentioned "moral duty", yeah, of course not, and it should not, IMO.
- coldtea 1y ago
  One could make the exact same arguments in favor of monarchy. In fact the loyalists did. >This has mess written all over it History doesn't come with nice tidy procedures and unanimous agreements on action.
- fn-mote 1y ago
  The questions here are very good. I disagree with some of the implied answers, especially paragraph three, but: > Where is the line on tyranny? > Who decides? > when does this go from "we're prepared" to "time to act"? Like I said, these are excellent questions. An individual with a strong moral compass should have answers that differ from “not me” and “somebody else”.
- lan321 1y ago
  It's essentially a critical mass type of thing, no? The military and police are human, but they're also the main path towards control. If you treat them good, they'll treat you good, likely until they slip too far and are unable to back down without facing consequences. It's mostly a good way to avoid situations like Cambodia's killing fields since that was also done by humans. It'll result in a mess, but a mess is better than torture-to-death camps and famine.
  - 1y ago

gishglish 1y ago

> The real reason America is armed is so that if our government ever gets too tyrannical It’s been doing that for at least two decades, yet I’m still waiting for you people to get on with it.

ARandomerDude 1y ago
I don’t know who the “you people” in that comment refers to. I actually hope we never have another civil war. Historically, you’re much more likely to end up with the French Revolution, the current situation in Syria, etc. than a fresh, bright future. Many would die and everyone would suffer. Those who long for war (foreign or domestic) are evil, foolish, or both. But my opinion doesn’t change the rationale for the 2nd Amendment.
- chiefalchemist 1y ago
  Another civil war? That’s not desirable, for obvious reasons. But another revolutionary war? That might be inevitable. Thomas Jefferson has an appropriate quote on such things.
zdragnar 1y ago
An elected official doing things you don't like isn't a reason to kill them. That way lies fascism and anarchotyrrany.
- 6510 1y ago
  If that were true there would never be a reason to kill anyone.
- graemep 1y ago
  What if the elected official is a fascist? It happened in Germany.
- coldtea 1y ago
  "Elected" doesn't mean much if the system is rigged - starting from the choices you get, and how accountable they are to you. After a point it's just a charade.

ourmandave 1y ago

Yeah, they even threw in a thing about well regulated militias, but left in a comma that got interpreted as "any toon can own as many guns as they want."

WarOnPrivacy 1y ago

> The real reason America is armed is so that if our government ever gets too tyrannical, we can do something about it. The something is killing police and soldiers. That's the quiet part. Unless the tyrannical government has presented itself at the compound in a force of plumbers and actuaries.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 1y ago
you say it as if it's inherently bad historically, when a government became too tyranical, either the government went on and on, or people did the quiet part

paulryanrogers 1y ago

If the Second Amendment (2A) meant to preserve the ability to overthrow the government then why can we not have bombs and tanks? And why does it mention the right within the context of a "well regulated militia"? Could it be they feared having a permanent national army, so did the 2A instead? Only later to realize having a standing army were necessary after all? No that couldn't be it. Because then there would be no rational reason for keeping 2A and flooding the country with deadly weapons.

spauldo 1y ago
Did they fear a national army? Legitimately curious here. They certainly couldn't afford one, but military-lead coups weren't the problem then that they are today (or were during the Roman empire). Sure, they chose to put a civilian in charge of the military, but I was always under the impression this was to keep the military from interfering with the normal process of government.
vaadu 1y ago
"And why does it mention the right within the context of a "well regulated militia"?" It doesn't, anymore than the freedom of speech is only in the context of one of the other rights mentioned in the 1st amendment. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

_carbyau_ 1y ago

Where is the line on tyranny? Who decides? Someone who doesn't like how the last election turned out? Some person who decides the police are being too tyrannical by asking them to turn down their stereo for neighbourhood peace? Honestly, when does this go from "we're prepared" to "time to act"? This has mess written all over it. Also, it should be noted that the army and police are made up of humans too. As has been pointed out in various war tribunals doing something under orders doesn't entirely absolve you from moral duty.

johnisgood 1y ago
Since you mentioned "moral duty", yeah, of course not, and it should not, IMO.
coldtea 1y ago
One could make the exact same arguments in favor of monarchy. In fact the loyalists did. >This has mess written all over it History doesn't come with nice tidy procedures and unanimous agreements on action.
fn-mote 1y ago
The questions here are very good. I disagree with some of the implied answers, especially paragraph three, but: > Where is the line on tyranny? > Who decides? > when does this go from "we're prepared" to "time to act"? Like I said, these are excellent questions. An individual with a strong moral compass should have answers that differ from “not me” and “somebody else”.
lan321 1y ago
It's essentially a critical mass type of thing, no? The military and police are human, but they're also the main path towards control. If you treat them good, they'll treat you good, likely until they slip too far and are unable to back down without facing consequences. It's mostly a good way to avoid situations like Cambodia's killing fields since that was also done by humans. It'll result in a mess, but a mess is better than torture-to-death camps and famine.
- 1y ago