4 ms·

This sort of response always make me laugh. I'm going to go ahead and guess that you're not a member of a well-regulated militia? You know, that thing the 2nd

This sort of response always make me laugh. I'm going to go ahead and guess that you're not a member of a well-regulated militia? You know, that thing the 2nd amendment specifically mentions? I'm totally okay with private gun ownership, but if you're going to justify it with "we're going to have to rise up against our evil government!", do you really think you're going to be able to mount a hollywood-style one-man stand against "the evil government"?

thegasman 12y ago
"we're going to have to rise up against our evil government!" This stance, and your criticism of it, miss the mark. In my view, legitimizing private gun ownership should not be based on whose are bigger, or "who would win in a fight" arguments. Instead, private gun ownership is a simple question of property rights. I see private gun ownership having much more to do with the right for you to defend your private property. In this context, I'm in favor of private gun rights, even if taken as a symbolic gesture to the importance of private property.
angersock 12y ago
So, the argument isn't "Hurr durr I'm gonna shoot me dem gubbament boys if'n dey come 'round the house ah tell you hwut"--as many others have pointed out they have tanks, and artillery, and drones, and what could charitably referred to as "enterprise solutions". The argument is that if everybody is known to be disarmed, the government (or other actors) may consider courses of action that previously would've been obviously a bad idea, and do so with impunity. It also means that it is more easy to paint and propagandize the people who have guns or who do defend themselves, because they are now an "other" and the .gov then gets to use all of the criminal language to describe them (with the same ill effects as seen with, say, potheads). I'm not advocating for armed rebellion--there are a long and lengthy list of issues with such a thing, and honestly I'm quite certain that the quality of life we enjoy today would disappear indefinitely--and anyone who is is trying to sell you something. The fact that people cannot seem to connect the dots between "if we are disarmed the government will do terrible things to us if it seems like a good use of their resources" and "the government actively does shitty things to us even knowing we're armed" and "the government has the largest and most capable surveillance network and information control scheme in the history of mankind" is baffling. It's almost like they want to lose all of our nice things.

thegasman 12y ago

"we're going to have to rise up against our evil government!" This stance, and your criticism of it, miss the mark. In my view, legitimizing private gun ownership should not be based on whose are bigger, or "who would win in a fight" arguments. Instead, private gun ownership is a simple question of property rights. I see private gun ownership having much more to do with the right for you to defend your private property. In this context, I'm in favor of private gun rights, even if taken as a symbolic gesture to the importance of private property.

angersock 12y ago

So, the argument isn't "Hurr durr I'm gonna shoot me dem gubbament boys if'n dey come 'round the house ah tell you hwut"--as many others have pointed out they have tanks, and artillery, and drones, and what could charitably referred to as "enterprise solutions". The argument is that if everybody is known to be disarmed, the government (or other actors) may consider courses of action that previously would've been obviously a bad idea, and do so with impunity. It also means that it is more easy to paint and propagandize the people who have guns or who do defend themselves, because they are now an "other" and the .gov then gets to use all of the criminal language to describe them (with the same ill effects as seen with, say, potheads). I'm not advocating for armed rebellion--there are a long and lengthy list of issues with such a thing, and honestly I'm quite certain that the quality of life we enjoy today would disappear indefinitely--and anyone who is is trying to sell you something. The fact that people cannot seem to connect the dots between "if we are disarmed the government will do terrible things to us if it seems like a good use of their resources" and "the government actively does shitty things to us even knowing we're armed" and "the government has the largest and most capable surveillance network and information control scheme in the history of mankind" is baffling. It's almost like they want to lose all of our nice things.