Can’t tell if this is a sarcastic question or not but opposing the government with guns is a delusion held by conservatives who think their AR-15s have a chance against a government with drones, tanks, etc. That belief was true when the Bill of Rights was written and the military just had muskets and a couple cannons but anyone who believes that now is insane
Plus, our police shoot unarmed people and get away with it, what do you think is gonna happen if they see you open carrying?
what do you think is gonna happen if they see you open carrying?
Well, at the school shooting in Uvalde, they were quick on the scene but waited 77 minutes to do anything since there was someone with a gun inside. So, cowering away might be an option.
No it doesn’t. The founders literally talk about it in their federalist letters. They just finished fighting a war with mainly private arms. They absolutely wanted everyone to be armed and have the right to choose so.
It’s odd that the anti-2a crowd seems to understand the wording of all other amendments, but the 2nd they just seem to think the founders fucked the wording up.
No where does it say, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms and magically ignores the people part
I mean… It literally does. It’s the first 4 words, that the rest of the sentence is in reference to. That’s how English works.
There was no professional United States military at the time, the militia was the functional military, so yes it was referencing private arms, only because those formed the well regulated militia. Not every bumble fuck with a pulse.
Also, the Federalist Papers were 85 letters written by just 3 men. Alexander Hamilton wrote 51 essays, James Madison wrote 29, and John Jay wrote 5, and they were written to promote the proposed Constitution. They are by no means a full encapsulation of the founders thoughts, or in any way unbiased, they are essentially the definition of political propaganda, written anonymously to hide their source.
It means that having a state-level military is important to the security of states, so the federal government will not ban the ownership of private firearms. States could and did ban private ownership of firearms early on. Some states did not.
Even when the government just had a couple cannons, Shay’s Rebellion didn’t exactly go great.
That being said, guns aren’t just used for open rebellion. The Panthers sure made it tough for a cop to feel like a big man just because he had a gun. If we want to examine when things get really bad, simply look at partisan resistance to the Nazis all throughout WWII.
Yes, an AR-15 won’t beat an F-16. But F-16s aren’t the ones goosestepping brown people into camps right now.
I never understood this dumb argument from anti-2a people. We, the strongest military to have ever existed in the history of the world…lost Vietnam, lost iraq, lost Afghanistan, and tied in Korea.
Planes can’t patrol street corners. You need boots and they need to be willing to kill their countrymen and be doing it for a paycheck.
We “lost” those wars because of morale. Like especially in Vietnam we were destroying them in terms of kill death ratios and the Vietcong had been mostly eliminated by 1969. Also Vietnam wasn’t just a bunch of farmers with hunting rifles the NVA was being funded and trained by the USSR and China. By the end of the war Vietnam lost around 20x the people and their population had been poisoned with agent orange.
We also didn’t use our nukes, if the military through enough brainwashing and propaganda could be convinced that these protesters are an insider threat we could easily be looking at the deaths of 10-100s of thousands
Arguably the morale was because we were fighting enemies we didn’t know how to fight, nor did we have a way to respond to tactics they used.
We went into all those wars with overwhelming firepower, which caused the opposition to resort to pure guerrilla tactics. In Vietnam, they faced Chinese and USSR pilots in the air - which did not go as planned. We stomped the shit out of the Iraq army, but Saddam was holding the 3 opposing factions in check. When they splintered and became guerrillas they fought with suicide bombers. Same in Afghanistan. They waged a psychological war where the enemy was everywhere and nowhere.
I have specific story about the Korean war too. At the time in Korea, the US war machine couldn’t break through the Chinese supplied artillery and forces. They actually had forward air bases (extremely well guarded) have several occurrences where they got Intel they were targets of a North Korean force, and the air force servicemen, most of who were various technicians, mechanics, and logistics get fully prepared to meet infantry head on. (My grandpa explained that they weren’t even that close to North Korean territory, and when they scrambled all available jets at their base, he recalls him and even his superiors being shook.). They got helmets, a choice of an M1911A1 or an M1, and a few clips of ammo. Most of them took the handgun since it was the only one they remembered how to operate. He doesn’t remember how long they were in that defensive position, but apparently the North Koreans changed targets a few miles out and went elsewhere. He said back then, at 6’4" him and all the other tall guys were always at the forward bases, probably to make the south Koreans feel safer and scare the North Koreans abit.
Toward Vietnam, at the end of his contract, they approached him and a group of 8 others for air commando training. He said fuck no, 5 said sure. 1 came back, and the last time my granpa talked with him they still hadn’t recovered their bodies (who knows when that was).
The American police strike me as the type who cannot take what they’re dishing out. Like if you pull a gun on them and prove you are more dangerous than they are they’d probably start crying.
As a European I wonder this too. Like they are ultimately human (ICE) so they’d think (I mean they have at least survival brain functions) twice if they can “arrest”/harass someone with a gun vs someone without one.
Right?
Also yeah we hear so fucking much about your sEcOnD aMeNdMeNt we probably believe some of it.
they’d think (I mean they have at least survival brain functions) twice
No. Survival brain means that they think only once, and that thought is “eliminate the threat”. This is their training. You turn to face them, you are suddenly a threat. You scratch your nose and drop your hand back down to your side the holster is on, you are suddenly a threat “I thought they had a gun” / “I feared for my life” is probably the most invoked excuse for police killings in America.
If you treat them as fundamentally different, you’re not gonna spot it when the same attitudes start appearing within your in-group. Monsters are still human, we all gotta work to keep that in check.
I see a difference between othering based on actions and decisions, displaying solid viewpoints on human empathy or lack thereof, rather than othering based on race, country of origin, religion, sexuality, or other circumstances of identity beyond an individual’s control.
Can’t tell if this is a sarcastic question or not but opposing the government with guns is a delusion held by conservatives who think their AR-15s have a chance against a government with drones, tanks, etc. That belief was true when the Bill of Rights was written and the military just had muskets and a couple cannons but anyone who believes that now is insane
Plus, our police shoot unarmed people and get away with it, what do you think is gonna happen if they see you open carrying?
Well, at the school shooting in Uvalde, they were quick on the scene but waited 77 minutes to do anything since there was someone with a gun inside. So, cowering away might be an option.
Not just waited, prevented others from taking action.
The 2nd Amendment actually references, in its singular sentence, very specifically, that it is regarding a regulated militia, not just everyone.
Those first four words are always left out when the gun nuts talk about it. Without those 4 words, it fundamentally changes the meaning.
No it doesn’t. The founders literally talk about it in their federalist letters. They just finished fighting a war with mainly private arms. They absolutely wanted everyone to be armed and have the right to choose so.
It’s odd that the anti-2a crowd seems to understand the wording of all other amendments, but the 2nd they just seem to think the founders fucked the wording up.
No where does it say, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms and magically ignores the people part
I mean… It literally does. It’s the first 4 words, that the rest of the sentence is in reference to. That’s how English works.
There was no professional United States military at the time, the militia was the functional military, so yes it was referencing private arms, only because those formed the well regulated militia. Not every bumble fuck with a pulse.
Also, the Federalist Papers were 85 letters written by just 3 men. Alexander Hamilton wrote 51 essays, James Madison wrote 29, and John Jay wrote 5, and they were written to promote the proposed Constitution. They are by no means a full encapsulation of the founders thoughts, or in any way unbiased, they are essentially the definition of political propaganda, written anonymously to hide their source.
It’s kind of neat how wrong you got it.
It means that having a state-level military is important to the security of states, so the federal government will not ban the ownership of private firearms. States could and did ban private ownership of firearms early on. Some states did not.
Even when the government just had a couple cannons, Shay’s Rebellion didn’t exactly go great.
That being said, guns aren’t just used for open rebellion. The Panthers sure made it tough for a cop to feel like a big man just because he had a gun. If we want to examine when things get really bad, simply look at partisan resistance to the Nazis all throughout WWII.
Yes, an AR-15 won’t beat an F-16. But F-16s aren’t the ones goosestepping brown people into camps right now.
I never understood this dumb argument from anti-2a people. We, the strongest military to have ever existed in the history of the world…lost Vietnam, lost iraq, lost Afghanistan, and tied in Korea.
Planes can’t patrol street corners. You need boots and they need to be willing to kill their countrymen and be doing it for a paycheck.
We “lost” those wars because of morale. Like especially in Vietnam we were destroying them in terms of kill death ratios and the Vietcong had been mostly eliminated by 1969. Also Vietnam wasn’t just a bunch of farmers with hunting rifles the NVA was being funded and trained by the USSR and China. By the end of the war Vietnam lost around 20x the people and their population had been poisoned with agent orange.
We also didn’t use our nukes, if the military through enough brainwashing and propaganda could be convinced that these protesters are an insider threat we could easily be looking at the deaths of 10-100s of thousands
Arguably the morale was because we were fighting enemies we didn’t know how to fight, nor did we have a way to respond to tactics they used.
We went into all those wars with overwhelming firepower, which caused the opposition to resort to pure guerrilla tactics. In Vietnam, they faced Chinese and USSR pilots in the air - which did not go as planned. We stomped the shit out of the Iraq army, but Saddam was holding the 3 opposing factions in check. When they splintered and became guerrillas they fought with suicide bombers. Same in Afghanistan. They waged a psychological war where the enemy was everywhere and nowhere.
I have specific story about the Korean war too. At the time in Korea, the US war machine couldn’t break through the Chinese supplied artillery and forces. They actually had forward air bases (extremely well guarded) have several occurrences where they got Intel they were targets of a North Korean force, and the air force servicemen, most of who were various technicians, mechanics, and logistics get fully prepared to meet infantry head on. (My grandpa explained that they weren’t even that close to North Korean territory, and when they scrambled all available jets at their base, he recalls him and even his superiors being shook.). They got helmets, a choice of an M1911A1 or an M1, and a few clips of ammo. Most of them took the handgun since it was the only one they remembered how to operate. He doesn’t remember how long they were in that defensive position, but apparently the North Koreans changed targets a few miles out and went elsewhere. He said back then, at 6’4" him and all the other tall guys were always at the forward bases, probably to make the south Koreans feel safer and scare the North Koreans abit.
Toward Vietnam, at the end of his contract, they approached him and a group of 8 others for air commando training. He said fuck no, 5 said sure. 1 came back, and the last time my granpa talked with him they still hadn’t recovered their bodies (who knows when that was).
The American police strike me as the type who cannot take what they’re dishing out. Like if you pull a gun on them and prove you are more dangerous than they are they’d probably start crying.
Right. That’s why they overreact to everything, and bring old military equipment on swat raids.
They’re much more likely to panic and drive an APC through the crowd or return fire on a mostly unarmed crowd using automatic weapons.
Just ask yourself, “what has Israel done recently?” and remember that US police train with them.
As a European I wonder this too. Like they are ultimately human (ICE) so they’d think (I mean they have at least survival brain functions) twice if they can “arrest”/harass someone with a gun vs someone without one.
Right?
Also yeah we hear so fucking much about your sEcOnD aMeNdMeNt we probably believe some of it.
Cheers and good luck!
No. Survival brain means that they think only once, and that thought is “eliminate the threat”. This is their training. You turn to face them, you are suddenly a threat. You scratch your nose and drop your hand back down to your side the holster is on, you are suddenly a threat “I thought they had a gun” / “I feared for my life” is probably the most invoked excuse for police killings in America.
This is how you get killed for carrying a candy bar (esp if you’re a brown person)
Or a hairbrush
they are ultimately human (ICE)Debatable
Dont dehumanize the enemy
Exploit human weaknesses instead
They’re nazis, not humans.
Othering seems like a kinda Nazi thing to do…
If you treat them as fundamentally different, you’re not gonna spot it when the same attitudes start appearing within your in-group. Monsters are still human, we all gotta work to keep that in check.
I see a difference between othering based on actions and decisions, displaying solid viewpoints on human empathy or lack thereof, rather than othering based on race, country of origin, religion, sexuality, or other circumstances of identity beyond an individual’s control.
It’s what they deserve. Tolerance is a social contract, not a “paradox.” You reject it, you’re not protected by it anymore.
No-one is asking you to tolerate Nazism. You can resist it without pretending that Nazis are inhuman.
It’s dangerous in two ways:
No one is saying we should tolerate the behavior of these humans. Their behavior is vile. It needs to stop.
I agree that it’s a contact. But Nazism is a ideology that any human can hold, and that any human can stop holding.
(if they refuse to stop holding it, then go nuts).
I can guarantee you that none of these Nazis would want to give up their beliefs.
How the fuck are you gonna guarantee that?