5 ms·

Wait, what? I thought the main leftward argument against the necessity of the second amendment was that we can now trust our government to not overstep its aut

by kcplate 11mo ago

Wait, what? I thought the main leftward argument against the necessity of the second amendment was that we can now trust our government to not overstep its authority and people protecting themselves against tyranny was no longer needed?

_lvbh 11mo ago
You could also look at it from the opposite perspective: the military is now too powerful for private ownership of guns to do much and the downsides of having gun ownership now outweigh the nonexistent benefits
- kcplate 11mo ago
  No, this is a weak argument point. We know from experience that urban fighting against small arms is hugely difficult without simply wiping a swath of a population completely out…which our military could do of course, but wouldn’t against a domestic population. We generally wouldn’t even do it against foreign adversaries.
  - happytoexplain 11mo ago
    You may certainly make the argument that a sizable guerilla urban force could perform outside their weight class against a federal army. However, it makes no logical sense to assert that most liberals buying guns do so under the theory that they will organize together against their government, nor that they do or should believe that this piece of military wisdom would work out for them. I.e. it's obviously reasonable to believe that private firearms cannot stand up to the federal government, regardless of whether it is the case under theoretical conditions.
- esseph 11mo ago
  That is not true at all, on both accounts, and I hate reading this take every time it comes up. It shows a lack of understanding about the nature and power of insurgencies and a vast overestimation of the military's ability to protect itself should every military base, forward refueling point, and backyard airstrip suddenly become under attack. Hint: They're not really designed for that.
- tharne 11mo ago
  > You could also look at it from the opposite perspective: the military is now too powerful for private ownership of guns to do much and the downsides of having gun ownership now outweigh the nonexistent benefits Tell that to the Taliban or the Vietnamese. They took on a massively more powerful military, were significantly outgunned, and came out of it in control of their respective countries. If there's anything we can learn from history it's that war is incredibly chaotic and unpredictable, and that anyone making bold and confident predictions is just about guaranteed to have reality prove them wrong.
krapp 11mo ago
All of the anarchists and socialists and marginalized and oppressed communities are on the left. Their arguments against gun ownership and the second amendment were never based on an implicit trust in government.
- kcplate 11mo ago
  Well it was definitely a talking point of the mainstream left.
  - happytoexplain 11mo ago
    Certainly not - their argument was always that it doesn't make sense to argue that we need guns to overthrow the government. Not that the government is broadly trustworthy.
  - krapp 11mo ago
    tbh "we can now trust our government to not overstep its authority and people protecting themselves against tyranny was no longer needed" sounds like an intentional misrepresentation of a leftist position than something many actual leftists would believe.
    - kcplate 11mo ago
      The political side that that often argues for more government in their political solutions seems to by default to trust the government “to not overstep its authority”?
  - esseph 11mo ago
    The "mainstream left" isn't real, it's a manufactured facet. Look at the number of historically communist or socialist countries with an AK-47/74/AKM on their flag.
    - kcplate 11mo ago
      How often did those countries allow their citizens keep their private firearms after the revolution?
happytoexplain 11mo ago
That's not my experience at all - every time (possibly literally every single time) I have heard a liberal say that we don't need guns to protect government tyranny, the argument is that you could not protect yourself from the government, not that you would not need to. That seems obvious to me, so I'm a little astonished at what you're saying.
- sointeresting 11mo ago
  The argument of their hypocracy stands though, doesn't it? If someone argues that people don't need guns because they would be ineffective against their government, it's strange that that person would buy a gun precisely to use against their government, right?
  - defrost 11mo ago
    > it's strange that that person would buy a gun precisely to use against their government, right? IF that was indeed what they said, what they believed, and what they actually did, sure. You do seem to have fashioned a weak strawman here though. This thread appears to be about liberals, PoC's, and LGBTQ's buying guns due to a perception of increased threat from Trump supporters, MAGA cos-players, newly empowere Groypers, etc. Not (that I can read in the article) to use against their government. So that's a double no to both your artifically posed questions. Right?
    - sointeresting 11mo ago
      It seems like you're unable to follow or understand the thread. Several posts up is this post: >It is more like if you have to worry about masked goons breaking into your house and trying to kidnap you or your family members then maybe you can't trust the government either. Referring to agencies such as ICE, I believe. Then the post I replied to said that it's not about trust, it's about effectiveness. Now you're telling me it's not about the government at all, but essentially for general purpose self defense, which still seems hypocritical coming from the gun control crowd. Also I'm not sure what an "artificially posed" question is.
- 11mo ago
seanmcdirmid 11mo ago
Who said the masked goons were military, or even ICE? Plenty of people running around in masks these days pretending to be ICE since ICE officers themselves won’t identify themselves or provide evidence that they are legit. They could just be thugs taking advantage of a very unprofessional arm of the federal government to justify a no-warrant home invasion. We all know that guns, if ever used that way, will be citizen on citizen, not citizen vs the military. Both sides will think they are right, one or both sides will start with violence, the other side will be forced to respond in kind. The 2nd amendment has always been about Americans killing each other ever since the Supreme Court nullified the first clause of the amendment (which was meant to establish a Swiss-like militia). All it will take for the military to shoot a few students in cities Trump sent them to under the pretext of “preserving law and order” and the whole country is going to blow up. Heck, this is probably Trump’s plan to avoid the midterms.

by kcplate 11mo ago

_lvbh 11mo ago

You could also look at it from the opposite perspective: the military is now too powerful for private ownership of guns to do much and the downsides of having gun ownership now outweigh the nonexistent benefits

kcplate 11mo ago
No, this is a weak argument point. We know from experience that urban fighting against small arms is hugely difficult without simply wiping a swath of a population completely out…which our military could do of course, but wouldn’t against a domestic population. We generally wouldn’t even do it against foreign adversaries.
- happytoexplain 11mo ago
  You may certainly make the argument that a sizable guerilla urban force could perform outside their weight class against a federal army. However, it makes no logical sense to assert that most liberals buying guns do so under the theory that they will organize together against their government, nor that they do or should believe that this piece of military wisdom would work out for them. I.e. it's obviously reasonable to believe that private firearms cannot stand up to the federal government, regardless of whether it is the case under theoretical conditions.
esseph 11mo ago
That is not true at all, on both accounts, and I hate reading this take every time it comes up. It shows a lack of understanding about the nature and power of insurgencies and a vast overestimation of the military's ability to protect itself should every military base, forward refueling point, and backyard airstrip suddenly become under attack. Hint: They're not really designed for that.
tharne 11mo ago
> You could also look at it from the opposite perspective: the military is now too powerful for private ownership of guns to do much and the downsides of having gun ownership now outweigh the nonexistent benefits Tell that to the Taliban or the Vietnamese. They took on a massively more powerful military, were significantly outgunned, and came out of it in control of their respective countries. If there's anything we can learn from history it's that war is incredibly chaotic and unpredictable, and that anyone making bold and confident predictions is just about guaranteed to have reality prove them wrong.

krapp 11mo ago

All of the anarchists and socialists and marginalized and oppressed communities are on the left. Their arguments against gun ownership and the second amendment were never based on an implicit trust in government.

kcplate 11mo ago
Well it was definitely a talking point of the mainstream left.
- happytoexplain 11mo ago
  Certainly not - their argument was always that it doesn't make sense to argue that we need guns to overthrow the government. Not that the government is broadly trustworthy.
- krapp 11mo ago
  tbh "we can now trust our government to not overstep its authority and people protecting themselves against tyranny was no longer needed" sounds like an intentional misrepresentation of a leftist position than something many actual leftists would believe.
  - kcplate 11mo ago
    The political side that that often argues for more government in their political solutions seems to by default to trust the government “to not overstep its authority”?
- esseph 11mo ago
  The "mainstream left" isn't real, it's a manufactured facet. Look at the number of historically communist or socialist countries with an AK-47/74/AKM on their flag.
  - kcplate 11mo ago
    How often did those countries allow their citizens keep their private firearms after the revolution?

happytoexplain 11mo ago

That's not my experience at all - every time (possibly literally every single time) I have heard a liberal say that we don't need guns to protect government tyranny, the argument is that you could not protect yourself from the government, not that you would not need to. That seems obvious to me, so I'm a little astonished at what you're saying.

sointeresting 11mo ago
The argument of their hypocracy stands though, doesn't it? If someone argues that people don't need guns because they would be ineffective against their government, it's strange that that person would buy a gun precisely to use against their government, right?
- defrost 11mo ago
  > it's strange that that person would buy a gun precisely to use against their government, right? IF that was indeed what they said, what they believed, and what they actually did, sure. You do seem to have fashioned a weak strawman here though. This thread appears to be about liberals, PoC's, and LGBTQ's buying guns due to a perception of increased threat from Trump supporters, MAGA cos-players, newly empowere Groypers, etc. Not (that I can read in the article) to use against their government. So that's a double no to both your artifically posed questions. Right?
  - sointeresting 11mo ago
    It seems like you're unable to follow or understand the thread. Several posts up is this post: >It is more like if you have to worry about masked goons breaking into your house and trying to kidnap you or your family members then maybe you can't trust the government either. Referring to agencies such as ICE, I believe. Then the post I replied to said that it's not about trust, it's about effectiveness. Now you're telling me it's not about the government at all, but essentially for general purpose self defense, which still seems hypocritical coming from the gun control crowd. Also I'm not sure what an "artificially posed" question is.
11mo ago

seanmcdirmid 11mo ago

Who said the masked goons were military, or even ICE? Plenty of people running around in masks these days pretending to be ICE since ICE officers themselves won’t identify themselves or provide evidence that they are legit. They could just be thugs taking advantage of a very unprofessional arm of the federal government to justify a no-warrant home invasion. We all know that guns, if ever used that way, will be citizen on citizen, not citizen vs the military. Both sides will think they are right, one or both sides will start with violence, the other side will be forced to respond in kind. The 2nd amendment has always been about Americans killing each other ever since the Supreme Court nullified the first clause of the amendment (which was meant to establish a Swiss-like militia). All it will take for the military to shoot a few students in cities Trump sent them to under the pretext of “preserving law and order” and the whole country is going to blow up. Heck, this is probably Trump’s plan to avoid the midterms.