3 ms·

> X cannot do it, because there is actually a law against Y Famous last words. I'm more than shocked that people STILL haven't learned how quickly laws came b

> X cannot do it, because there is actually a law against Y Famous last words. I'm more than shocked that people STILL haven't learned how quickly laws came become meaningless. Which is why history keeps repeating itself. If fascist government goons break into your house to kill you, do you think waving a piece of paper with the law in their face will stop them? Isn't that the whole point the found fathers made the Second Amendment? Even they knew this 300 years ago. Have people already forgotten?

ryandrake 10mo ago
I was going to say! I actually laughed out loud at the computer screen when reading OP's comment. There is no way "There's a law against it" is going to stop the current administration (with all three branches of government aligned) from doing whatever the heck it wants.
worldsavior 10mo ago
I'm actually not shocked judging by that comment that you don't know how pyramid of authority works in most countries, and in this context, the US. Most countries (including the US, obviously) follow their laws. Can you please give an example for a first world country that *consistently* ignores it's own laws? History repeats itself because people ignore history, not because people ignore the law.
- joe_mamba 10mo ago
  Sorry, I expressed my thoughts wrong. What I meant to say was that laws can change overnight based on mob political feels or black swan events (WW2, 9/11, etc.) So just because something is illegal for the government TODAY, doesn't mean it will stay like that for the next 500 years. Laws aren't real, they're just made up constructs on worthless pieces of paper, but the only thing that is always consistently real is the enforcement of the will of state through means of violence and they'll put that in writing to give it legitimacy but ultimately the people in charge of the guns can make whatever they want legal or illegal.
  - worldsavior 10mo ago
    You're right, but what do you care what happens in 500 years? The world changes. Maybe in 50 years child pornography will be legal, who knows? It doesn't change based on what those rulers want, because in a true Democratic country, the people rule.
- ceejayoz 10mo ago
  > Can you please give an example for a first world country that consistently ignores it's own laws? In the US, it's standard to do ten miles an hour over the speed limit past a cop, and there's probably 20 Federally illegal marijuana dispensaries within a few miles of me. Our current President got convicted of 34 felonies, but any possible consequences were automatically voided when he got elected again.
  - worldsavior 10mo ago
    There isn't enough men power obviously for every marijuana dispensary, and also for speed violations.
    - ceejayoz 10mo ago
      This was very intentional policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_Memorandum
rootusrootus 10mo ago
> Isn't that the whole point the found fathers made the Second Amendment? At the risk of going off on an entirely different direction ... no, I don't think that was the point of the second amendment, not really. It was more about making sure they had something that would function like a standing army (in the absence of the real deal) should a foreign government invade. Defense against tyranny from our own government doesn't really feel like it was something they worried deeply about (at least with regards to the right to bear arms), and the self-defense justification for the second amendment wasn't even a commonly held viewpoint until about the 20th century.

ryandrake 10mo ago

I was going to say! I actually laughed out loud at the computer screen when reading OP's comment. There is no way "There's a law against it" is going to stop the current administration (with all three branches of government aligned) from doing whatever the heck it wants.

worldsavior 10mo ago

I'm actually not shocked judging by that comment that you don't know how pyramid of authority works in most countries, and in this context, the US. Most countries (including the US, obviously) follow their laws. Can you please give an example for a first world country that *consistently* ignores it's own laws? History repeats itself because people ignore history, not because people ignore the law.

joe_mamba 10mo ago
Sorry, I expressed my thoughts wrong. What I meant to say was that laws can change overnight based on mob political feels or black swan events (WW2, 9/11, etc.) So just because something is illegal for the government TODAY, doesn't mean it will stay like that for the next 500 years. Laws aren't real, they're just made up constructs on worthless pieces of paper, but the only thing that is always consistently real is the enforcement of the will of state through means of violence and they'll put that in writing to give it legitimacy but ultimately the people in charge of the guns can make whatever they want legal or illegal.
- worldsavior 10mo ago
  You're right, but what do you care what happens in 500 years? The world changes. Maybe in 50 years child pornography will be legal, who knows? It doesn't change based on what those rulers want, because in a true Democratic country, the people rule.
ceejayoz 10mo ago
> Can you please give an example for a first world country that consistently ignores it's own laws? In the US, it's standard to do ten miles an hour over the speed limit past a cop, and there's probably 20 Federally illegal marijuana dispensaries within a few miles of me. Our current President got convicted of 34 felonies, but any possible consequences were automatically voided when he got elected again.
- worldsavior 10mo ago
  There isn't enough men power obviously for every marijuana dispensary, and also for speed violations.
  - ceejayoz 10mo ago
    This was very intentional policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_Memorandum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cole_Memorandum

rootusrootus 10mo ago

> Isn't that the whole point the found fathers made the Second Amendment? At the risk of going off on an entirely different direction ... no, I don't think that was the point of the second amendment, not really. It was more about making sure they had something that would function like a standing army (in the absence of the real deal) should a foreign government invade. Defense against tyranny from our own government doesn't really feel like it was something they worried deeply about (at least with regards to the right to bear arms), and the self-defense justification for the second amendment wasn't even a commonly held viewpoint until about the 20th century.