5 ms·
The right to bear arms isn't some trivial notion to be tossed aside when it is no longer convenient to maintain. It is a fundamental right that was given to th
by notdrunkatall 14y ago
The right to bear arms isn't some trivial notion to be tossed aside when it is no longer convenient to maintain. It is a fundamental right that was given to the people by those who founded our government that we would be able to fight back against that same government were it to ever become oppressive. Every day, we increasingly see the infringement of our civil liberties, and it seems obvious that the desire of the government to continue broadening its scope of power at our expense is not likely to abate any time soon.
I ask you: if this trend continues, where do you think it leads?
Our guns are our final check against the formation of a potentially oppressive regime; they are our assurance that we will never become helpless, that we will always have the capability to fight if fighting ever becomes necessary. Though it is certainly a great tragedy that these children have died today, how much greater were the tragedies throughout human history that resulted from the excessive centralization of power and a populace that was unable to fight against it? You think that human nature has changed in the last half century; you think that something like that cannot happen again, that it won't happen here? People have not changed; sociopaths still seek power, and when they find it, if the masses have no way of fighting back, they will find themselves dealing with problems many orders of magnitude more horrific than the occasional school shooting. I am familiar with all of the arguments for disarming the people of the United States, and they are all fundamentally flawed, because nothing is worse than being at the mercy of tyrants.
- econnors 14y agoThe problem with this argument is that guns would do little to counteract an oppressive government. What about the airplanes, the navy, the artillery that our military possess? Guns are hardly a "final check against the formation of a potentially oppressive regime."
- notdrunkatall 14y agoAfghanistan.
- nerfhammer 14y agoIt's a foreign occupying power there. Very different record.
- jlgreco 14y agoIt is different in many other ways too. For example, the people American soldiers are shooting at (for the most part) speak another language, have a different religion, have a different culture, and look different.
- recoiledsnake 14y agoThe laws made more sense during the 1700s than now. No one really has any chance now. You discount the entire industrial and technological progress that happened in the past 200 years.
- notdrunkatall 14y agoI assume you're making the argument that a ragtag bunch of rebels wouldn't have a chance standing against an empire armed to the teeth with the latest war machines. If that is indeed the case, have you been paying attention to the news for the last decade?
- opinali 14y agoThere is a huge difference between some fourth-world dictatorships, and the US with its nukes, drones, intelligence, $700B/year budget.
- jlgreco 14y agoI think you have missed the point. The US DoD, with all of its nukes, drones, intelligence, and cash is having trouble with a "fourth-world dictatorship".
- yozmsn 14y agoThis! nukes are not a serious weapon of war, their only use is deterrence because they completely rape any place where they're used so that that area is altogether off limits for the remaining life of humanity.
- lostlogin 14y agoI get your point (weapon is too destructive). But it's not quite that bad. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem alright now.
- 14y ago
- natex 14y agoJust one point. "Fundamental Rights" are not granted by government. We are born with them. Further, it is government's role -- some say only role -- to protect those rights.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- notdrunkatall 14y agoGranted, good catch.
- codex 14y agoHear hear! I only wish the founding fathers had the foresight to anticipate advances in technology. It is my right to carry a nuclear weapon and I don't understand why that isn't more widely recognized.