4 ms·

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 tyr

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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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.
kcplate 1y ago
This notion of an all powerful military and the futility of defense against tyranny assumes that every military person (if so ordered) would gladly take up arms against their own citizenry as well as every military weapon system would be utilized against the people. What makes the 2nd a deterrent against tyranny is the notion that if things degraded to that level, the military would be compromised by the factions as well likely to the same level as the population is. That, in addition to a significant % of your population is also armed, would create the environment that a government could be changed. Because the government is aware of this fact, it will keep itself in check.
- jmye 1y ago
  > every military person (if so ordered) would gladly take up arms against their own citizenry as well as every military weapon system would be utilized against the people. Perhaps you should look up the literal thousands of occasions of that happening, before snarkily dismissing it as absurd. Doesn’t require “every”, which is an equally ludicrous addition you’ve made solely so you pedantically dismiss any objections. But I’m sure the students at Kent State, for instance, would’ve been happy to know how much the government feared them. Great comment.
  - Jensson 1y ago
    Did you even read his post, he addressed that. Adding the armed citizens to the good side of the military is a significant power factor, if 10 million armed American civilians joins one side of a military internal dispute that will likely tip the scales.
    - jmye 1y ago
      I did. There is no “good side”. My grandma had blue numbers tattooed on her arm to prove it. The idea that armed citizens would universally rebel on the same side is also utterly delusional. Y’all need history books.
  - kcplate 1y ago
    Well you missed the point entirely or have deliberately misrepresented what I said. I described how the 2nd amendment is essentially a “force multiplier” for a fractioned military more than a counter to the military. You mention Kent State, but that actually illustrates to my point. Yes that happened, but do you have specific evidence that the government specifically ordered the guardsmen to shoot the protesters? Newsflash…there was no such order. What you can argue in this case is that the government created an environment where general emotional chaos could create a bad situation, and did. Even if you had evidence that this was an ordered massacre by the government—-only 29 out of 77 guardsmen fired their weapons. That means nearly 2/3 disregarded orders (which was my exact point if such an order was to be given). Despite your suggestion of “thousands of occasions” where ordered military has been asked to take up arms against our citizens, I dare you to list another. You might go back to the civil war, but that technically is a special situation where one country for a time became two, and the combatants of those two did not regard the other are fellow citizens. My guess is that you are will be hard pressed to find many other instance where that has happened in the United States.

sointeresting 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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.

kcplate 1y ago

This notion of an all powerful military and the futility of defense against tyranny assumes that every military person (if so ordered) would gladly take up arms against their own citizenry as well as every military weapon system would be utilized against the people. What makes the 2nd a deterrent against tyranny is the notion that if things degraded to that level, the military would be compromised by the factions as well likely to the same level as the population is. That, in addition to a significant % of your population is also armed, would create the environment that a government could be changed. Because the government is aware of this fact, it will keep itself in check.

jmye 1y ago
> every military person (if so ordered) would gladly take up arms against their own citizenry as well as every military weapon system would be utilized against the people. Perhaps you should look up the literal thousands of occasions of that happening, before snarkily dismissing it as absurd. Doesn’t require “every”, which is an equally ludicrous addition you’ve made solely so you pedantically dismiss any objections. But I’m sure the students at Kent State, for instance, would’ve been happy to know how much the government feared them. Great comment.
- Jensson 1y ago
  Did you even read his post, he addressed that. Adding the armed citizens to the good side of the military is a significant power factor, if 10 million armed American civilians joins one side of a military internal dispute that will likely tip the scales.
  - jmye 1y ago
    I did. There is no “good side”. My grandma had blue numbers tattooed on her arm to prove it. The idea that armed citizens would universally rebel on the same side is also utterly delusional. Y’all need history books.
- kcplate 1y ago
  Well you missed the point entirely or have deliberately misrepresented what I said. I described how the 2nd amendment is essentially a “force multiplier” for a fractioned military more than a counter to the military. You mention Kent State, but that actually illustrates to my point. Yes that happened, but do you have specific evidence that the government specifically ordered the guardsmen to shoot the protesters? Newsflash…there was no such order. What you can argue in this case is that the government created an environment where general emotional chaos could create a bad situation, and did. Even if you had evidence that this was an ordered massacre by the government—-only 29 out of 77 guardsmen fired their weapons. That means nearly 2/3 disregarded orders (which was my exact point if such an order was to be given). Despite your suggestion of “thousands of occasions” where ordered military has been asked to take up arms against our citizens, I dare you to list another. You might go back to the civil war, but that technically is a special situation where one country for a time became two, and the combatants of those two did not regard the other are fellow citizens. My guess is that you are will be hard pressed to find many other instance where that has happened in the United States.