3 ms·

Kirk didn't advocate for merely an armed police force; he advocated for an armed citizenry. And he made clear his belief that the purpose of arming that citizen

Kirk didn't advocate for merely an armed police force; he advocated for an armed citizenry. And he made clear his belief that the purpose of arming that citizenry is to fight the police if they try to impose tyranny. "The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government." We don't yet know the motives of his killer, but it may be worth observing that it is an unfortunate consequence of Kirk's philosophy of liberty that, since nobody controls who the citizens define as part of the "tyranny," a so-armed individual can, of their own free will, conclude that the man who (by his own claims) was instrumental in electing a tyrant, supports that tyrant, is clearly in the inner circle of that tyrant (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33r4kjez6no https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c33r4kjez6no)... Is someone who needs to die. Personally, I think that's repugnant and I hope the person who took the law into their own hands is constrained from further harming this society indefinitely. But I don't agree with Kirk's philosophy on the purpose, origins, or nature of the Second Amendment.

zahlman 1y ago
> And he made clear his belief that the purpose of arming that citizenry is to fight the police if they try to impose tyranny. "The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government." (emphasis mine) Well, yes. Those are not "words that support killing people". You might as well say that countries that own nuclear weapons thereby demonstrate intent to eradicate life on Earth. The intended deterrence game theory is much the same. > nobody controls who the citizens define as part of the "tyranny," This line of argumentation proves far too much. All definitions are subjective in this manner. > But I don't agree with Kirk's philosophy on the purpose, origins, or nature of the Second Amendment. To my understanding (I quickly searched up https://govfacts.org/history/the-history-behind-the-second-amendment/ https://govfacts.org/history/the-history-behind-the-second-a... and by a quick read it seems to align with what I understood of the history) this is not simply "Kirk's philosophy", but something the Founders (and other political thinkers of the time) were explicit about.

zahlman 1y ago

> And he made clear his belief that the purpose of arming that citizenry is to fight the police if they try to impose tyranny. "The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government." (emphasis mine) Well, yes. Those are not "words that support killing people". You might as well say that countries that own nuclear weapons thereby demonstrate intent to eradicate life on Earth. The intended deterrence game theory is much the same. > nobody controls who the citizens define as part of the "tyranny," This line of argumentation proves far too much. All definitions are subjective in this manner. > But I don't agree with Kirk's philosophy on the purpose, origins, or nature of the Second Amendment. To my understanding (I quickly searched up https://govfacts.org/history/the-history-behind-the-second-amendment/ https://govfacts.org/history/the-history-behind-the-second-a... and by a quick read it seems to align with what I understood of the history) this is not simply "Kirk's philosophy", but something the Founders (and other political thinkers of the time) were explicit about.