It's interesting that gun rights were sold on the basis of "resisting unlawful government." They seen to have caused and supported unlawful government.
It's interesting that gun rights were sold on the basis of "resisting unlawful government." They seen to have caused and supported unlawful government.
You're viewing a single thread.
That’s still the purpose of the second amendment, for people to own guns to defend themselves and others against tyranny
You can’t expect everyone to agree with you ideologically, and obviously they won’t rise up against a government they agree with. Conservatives don’t see the current administration as tyrannical, so there is no conflict for them between the ideals of the second amendment and their actions.
However, you can absolutely choose to exercise your second amendment rights.
As a gun owning liberal, I’m tired of my peers acting like the second amendment is some conservative agenda. The right to firearm ownership is an eminently liberal ideal. More liberals and leftists should own guns— the second amendment is more important now than ever before.
If you think there is a pressing need for an armed liberal/leftist citizenry, go buy guns and arm yourselves.
That’s still the purpose of the second amendment, for people to own guns to defend themselves and others against tyranny
No it isn't and it never was. Go read it. It's about defending the state from invaders. Wars at the time we're mostly fought with militias, especially for more poor or smaller nations, like the new United States at the time. We didn't have a standing professional military for a while, so our military was solely militias, and as such they should be legal and trained, hence the 2nd amendment.
I largely support (safe and with training) gun rights. They're protected by the 9th amendment, whether the 2nd does or not. It's just this blatantly incorrect repetition that the 2nd amendment is about something that isn't written in it is crazy. It's really short and pretty clear. I feel like no one supporting this idea has actually ever read it, or at least hasn't considered what it actually says.
This is honestly, the dumbest, most American take in the world.
It literally ignores the plainly obvious fact that not a single other developed country allows gun ownership, and yet, still have rights and democracy and freedom.
Guns did not get your rights, and they do not protect you from a government that has AI powered drones with anti tank mines on them. Hell a fucking APC with a sound cannon will make your AR look like a child's toy.
Guess what happened when a pair of guys had enough guns and body armour to challenge the local LA government in the 90s? Oh would you look at that, every single local government's police force across the country just militarized and bought tanks and SWAT teams in response. The idea that the government will let any random potentially mentally ill or terrorist citizen, buy enough firepower that they could legitimately challenge the government, is dumb on its face. No government anywhere allows that or would for obvious (see: terroristic) reasons.
Wide spread gun ownership just makes everyone less safe. Full stop.
This is honestly, the dumbest, most American take in the world.
Hell yeah brother 🦅🦅🦅
It literally ignores the plainly obvious fact that not a single other developed country allows gun ownership, and yet, still have rights and democracy and freedom.
Many other developed countries allow gun ownership. Educate yourself, my man.
But more importantly, I literally do not care if they do or not. The point was never that democracy cannot exist without firearms, but rather that in the worst case scenario an armed citizenry can act as a force against tyranny. It’s a rare thing that it might be needed, and a last resort. No sane person wants a civil war
Guns did not get your rights
Except they literally did. How do you think the revolutionary war was won, softly spoken words?
they do not protect you from a government that has AI powered drones with anti tank mines on them. Hell a fucking APC with a sound cannon will make your AR look like a child's toy.
Guerrillas with small arms in developing countries have repelled the US military repeatedly over the past half century. More importantly, if you don’t think a combination of small arms and low cost homemade munitions are effective against a modern military you haven’t been paying attention to the war in Ukraine at all.
Do you know how many innocent people's blood that has cost?
Encouraging people to arms themselves will get people killed. You're racing to the bottom in a doom loop and yelling hell yeah nonsensically rather than actually trying to break out of that doom loop.
America is fucked because it's convinced it's population that it has to keep participating in its toxic behaviours to survive. That's false. It's literally just fear mongering.
Each good human being only needs to kill one fascist, and the fascists will quickly be gone.
Unilaterally labelling people 'fascists' and thus worthy of death, makes you a fascist.
You would "both sides" your way right to the gas chambers.
You would "Franz Ferdinand" your way to a needless war.
Do you have any idea how much blood fascism will shed?
Yes, arming the public will get people killed, do you think death camps are a preferable alternative?
it's not fear mongering when we're literally months away from being the next fascist state.
And another thing to consider, cars kill about as many people in the US as guns, so we should be talking about banning cars as well?
Cars kill more people in both raw numbers and by proportion
Oh do tell us the value of goods and services transported every day by gun.
Because I can give you a number for the approximate economic value provided by cars and vehicular transportation generally, can you tell us the economic value provided by guns and every random person being able to point and click murder whenever they want?
Gun crimes are largely committed by people who do not have the legal right to those guns. The vast majority of legal gun owners are responsible people. When you ban guns, they'll just go to other means of killing. You won't stop it, if they want to kill people they will.
You are just pulling out all the false NRA tropes today, aren't you?
Nope.
Just objectively and provably false, this is NRA talking point nonsense.
Guns increase the rates of suicide, they increase the rates of domestic violence murder, and they make everyone less safe around police by giving police an excuse to use deadly force.
Guns also are not manufactured clandestinely en masse, anywhere, because it takes a lot of precise industrial machining to do at scale. They are not like sex or weed that are impossible to ban, when you stop manufacturing them for nonsense reasons, they stop circulating and criminals stop being able to get their hands on them.
I do not understand why Americans think they are such unfathomably unique snowflakes that none of the evidence or lessons learned from every other developed country could apply to them.
Guns increase the rates of suicide, they increase the rates of domestic violence murder, and they make everyone less safe around police by giving police an excuse to use deadly force.
Yes, and cars kill more people both proportionately and in raw numbers. I'm also anti-cop. Freedoms come with downsides, just pointing out that fact isn't an argument against the freedom. You have to argue those downsides overpower the freedom.
Guns also are not manufactured clandestinely en masse, anywhere, because it takes a lot of precise industrial machining to do at scale. They are not like sex or weed that are impossible to ban, when you stop manufacturing them for nonsense reasons, they stop circulating and criminals stop being able to get their hands on them.
I can fully 3d print a gun. I can get a cheap CNC machine and manufacture metal parts. I can reload ammo in my garage, if I'm going to shoot shot, basically all I need is a metal ball and a pipe. I don't even need advanced technology to do this, poachers in areas with gun restrictions have a massive culture of hand made firearms. Shinzo Abe was assassinated with a home-made gun. You can drastically reduce their prevalence, but they're impossible to fully get rid of.
I do not understand why Americans think they are such unfathomably unique snowflakes that none of the evidence or lessons learned from every other developed country could apply to them.
We aren't. Guns drastically increase the death rates of violence and attempted suicide. Banning guns will reduce these. It does this at the cost of the state obtaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I believe we can drastically reduce the rate of fun violence through testing requirements before someone can buy a gun, like what we do with cars.
Every right has consequences, we have to find a balance, not completely remove the right. I will not support disarming minorities and the working class when the state has demonstrated intent to do them harm.
We aren't. Guns drastically increase the death rates of violence and attempted suicide. Banning guns will reduce these. It does this at the cost of the state obtaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. I believe we can drastically reduce the rate of fun violence through testing requirements before someone can buy a gun, like what we do with cars.
The state always maintains that monopoly. If citizens buy guns, the police militarize.
Citizens do not enact change with the state through guns, they do so through numbers, by turning out and striking en masse.
Guns also are not manufactured clandestinely en masse, anywhere, because it takes a lot of precise industrial machining to do at scale. They are not like sex or weed that are impossible to ban, when you stop manufacturing them for nonsense reasons, they stop circulating and criminals stop being able to get their hands on them.
This is false. There are multiple Latin American countries where street gangs have been manufacturing reasonably sophisticated all-metal submachine guns at scale in clandestine factories for over a decade. Even prior to the 3d printing boom, open bolt submachine gun were fairly simple for an individual to manufacture with common hand tools, and quantities scale rapidly with improvised tooling and readily available machines like benchtop lathes.
With 3d printing, it has become even more accessible. Printers can be used to manufacture tooling in addition to parts, and the DEFcad community has been remarkably resourceful in developing new methods utilizing 3d printers. Everything from electrochemically etched, rifled, barrels to recoilless rifles with shaped charge warheads can be made at home if a person has no compunctions about breaking the law.
You can see the impact of 3d printing overseas, where there are a number of rebel groups using 3d printed firearms as their primary armament. Banning guns might reduce the quality of what is available, but it definitely won’t end production in a country full of gun enthusiasts with the interest and skills to make firearms.
I do not understand why Americans think they are such unfathomably unique snowflakes that none of the evidence or lessons learned from every other developed country could apply to them.
As I said, our gun culture ensures people continue to make firearms regardless of what the law says. We have countless machinists, gunsmiths, and hobbyists that would manufacture guns as a form of protest if they were banned. Furthermore, we already have more guns than people and the vast majority of them would remain in civilian hands if the government tried to seize them.
But most importantly, many Americans believe that the equalizing force of firearms—something that allows the citizenry to defend themselves against tyranny and for the weak/frail to defend themselves against the physically strong— is philosophically worth a small reduction in public safety.
But most importantly, many Americans believe that the equalizing force of firearms—something that allows the citizenry to defend themselves against tyranny and for the weak/frail to defend themselves against the physically strong— is philosophically worth a small reduction in public safety.
How many times guns have helped resist tyranny in the US?
I'll start citing innocent people killed by the tyranny of widespread gun availability.
Revolutionary war, 1812, bleeding Kansas, the civil war, the battle of Blair mountain, the black panthers
Many countries permit gun ownership, not like the USA does.
If you need to exercise your right to bear arms, you have already lost. The battle is won in education, critical skills, and mobilising together (unions, etc).
You aren't wrong... but leaving guns off the table feels short sighted.
If we ever need to raise arms against the government, it will be a dark day indeed. No reasonable person wants that. We have many methods of recourse before that even enters the conversation IMO.
However, there can eventually come a time where resistance is appropriate. Hitler never would have taken complete control of the country, exterminated so many Jews, and started Europe on the path to a world war if the Germans were armed and actively resisting his rule.
It seems self evident that the German people would been better off resisting Nazi rule than allowing the death camps and WW2 to come to fruition.
However, there can eventually come a time where resistance is appropriate. Hitler never would have taken complete control of the country, exterminated so many Jews, and started Europe on the path to a world war if the Germans were armed and actively resisting his rule.
Bruh, come the fuck on. Jews were 1% of the population, meanwhile like 30% of the population actively supported the Nazis, and far more would have continued to turn a blind eye as long as violence wasn't being perpetrated against people like them.
This is nonsense alt history that ignores the fact that Nazis steamrolled and enacted death camps in far more countries than just Germany, and personal ownership of firearms didn't make a dent in stopping them.
What makes you think they didn't have guns?
Never suggested they didn’t. I’m suggesting that the country would have been better off if they both had weapons and chose to resist.
We aren’t Germany. The founding fathers made sure we could arm ourselves. The choices we make are our own.
Good luck with whatever the fuck you’re smoking.
History shows time and time again that collapsing cities/societies/empires cannot be stopped nor redirected with violence. The endemic causes are there, violence may provide a respite but it just accelerates the overall disintegration of the society.
May what is happening to the USA be a wake up call for the rest of the western world.
You have proven the second amendment is just so you can shoot your neighbour. None of you rose up against his first term, none of you will now. All the child sacrifices you have been doing were just so you can feel cool with your gun and dream of shooting someone one day.
Its time to admit it.
You're right. It's a liberal idea to allow the (largely) unregulated possession of firearms. However, it takes a certain mindset to pickup that forearm and try to decide how the country is run with it through armed insurrection. One that's more akin to authoritarian, or at least paternalism.
Personally I feel if the 2nd amendment is there for this reason, the ln the no kings marches should have had arms. That's a powderkeg scenario and we'd probably be looking at hundreds dead at this point. However if there was ever a reason for the 2nd amendment, this is it and that's the cost. Otherwise there's no point in the right to bear arms and you should scrap it.
That’s a fair statement.
I don’t think we are there yet. It will be far better for our country if our problems can be solved by diplomatic and political means, and we are far from running out of levers to pull.
I'm not sure what you're waiting for in terms of warning signs. They've taken the military into LA under the pretence of "liberating the city from socialism".
That’s still the purpose of the second amendment, for people to own guns to defend themselves and others against tyranny
It isn't, and has never been. The language of the constitution is plain as day:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
The mythos of the 2nd amendment being this poison pill for a tyrannical state government is only so pervasive because institutions like the NRA perpetuated it for decades in service of arms manufacturers and their bottom line. No sane government anywhere in the world would bake such a clause into their constitution, it's antithetical to government itself.
The 2nd amendment is absolutely an artifact of a bygone era of American history where, as a fledgling nation, we did not have a powerful standing army to rely on for defense against foreign adversaries. A people's militia was the final defense against such a threat.
However, all that being said, I agree with your sentiment that leftists should be arming themselves. Just because the 2nd amendment has almost completely lost it's original intent or meaning, doesn't mean we can't take advantage of the fact that it exists with tons of legal precedent to strap up in preparation for what might come next. Things are unlikely to get better from here, and if things get worse you will be glad you have a firearm for protection.
The founding fathers have written at length on their reasoning for including the right to bear arms in the constitution. It is very clear that they believed in the people’s ability to resist and overthrow the government if needed.
After all, this was a group who escaped the grip of the monarchy through force of arms. It’s odd to think that they didn’t see value in the ability of the people to do the same, especially when they repeatedly wrote about it in period.
However, all that being said, I agree with your sentiment that leftists should be arming themselves. Just because the 2nd amendment has almost completely lost it's original intent or meaning, doesn't mean we can't take advantage of the fact that it exists with tons of legal precedent to strap up in preparation for what might come next. Things are unlikely to get better from here, and if things get worse you will be glad you have a firearm for protection.
Also this here is kind of the point. The original intent is not important; many people believe in the modern era that an armed citizenry is important as a last ditch balancing force to government overreach. We are all better off if left leaning people arm themselves instead of using pro-gun arguments as some sort of self-righteous gotcha against the right.
The founding fathers have written at length on their reasoning for including the right to bear arms in the constitution. It is very clear that they believed in the people’s ability to resist and overthrow the government if needed.
They said that's the reason for 2A? That's news to me. Yes they said people should be able to resist and overthrow the government. They even thought we'd have to by now. I don't think I've ever read that they said this is the reason for 2A though. Care to provide a reference?
Is it worth the amount of problems that guns brings to a country in exchange for a chance of a shooting competition against an M1 Abrams?
Yeah, this is my thought. The 2nd amendment is not against fighting tyranny (go read it). If that fight comes it'll be won with gorilla warfare and explosives, not guns—at least not most of it. It'll be utilizing fast attacks where they're vulnerable and taking their equipment to use against them. It will not be a fair fight where you go head-to-head. You wouldn't stand a chance.
I believe it’s fundamentally important that we keep that right to an equalizing force.
Acting like we are going to directly fight a tank with an AR-15 is either a straw man or just frankly ignorant. The US military has repeatedly been repelled by guerrilla forces with small arms, and if you have been paying any attention at all in Ukraine you will see what can be done with very little technology in terms of drones etc.
You don't understand what happened in Vietnam or Afghanistan. At all.
If you think those guys truly defeated the US and that you with your rifle are going to do the same.... I don't even know if there's is a point explaining it.
I would agree the US wasn't "defeated" in the normal sense. They were ungovernable. They wear down traditional forces over a long time, and you never give them a target they can easily track.