Which is fine, because there’s not actually (imo) a threat of Americans ever rising up, so the only choice is to stop it from ever being necessary.
Personally I just laugh at the notion that the same group of Americans who can’t leave the couch long enough to fight obesity is going to take to the literal streets in the event confiscation were to arrive.
When the murdering starts? Name one dictator/tyrant that started straight up murdering people in the streets - “I hereby declare myself the King of America, roll out the tanks and start randomly shooting at people”.
Most of the genocides/exterminations occurred after a lengthy preparation where the minority (it’s always a minority) has been systematically dehumanized and with the enthusiastic support from the base.
Even modern dumb as rock dictators such as Maduro are very careful about keeping the body count relatively low.
It didn’t take Hitler all that long to start murdering the Jews. Sure, it wasn’t “in the streets” like that matters.
Why are 2nd amendment gun owning folks being attacked? Whatever their threshold is for starting an armed rebellion against the elected officials of a representative democracy, shouldn’t we want it to be extremely high?
And if someone, or a group, is single-issue, I’m not sure how that is relevant. The question of the second doesn’t rely on if John Does gun owner is also sensitive to search and seizure issues.
Oh yes it does. It’s extremely important because the Nazis took great care to provide an illusion of hope right down to the gas chambers. And don’t forget the “minority vs. an enthusiastic base” part.
So it was situation akin to the proverbial frog in boiling water. The evil trick was to keep the lines of escalation blurred enough without a clear cut “ok, this is enough” line. And Weimar Germany before Hitler wasn’t a peaceful place, with running street battles between Nazis and leftwingers.
So if I somehow became the King of America with the intention to enslave and exterminate the American population the first thing I’d do is legalize all conceivable gun paraphernalia and fill my staff with NRA officials. “He can’t be that bad, he is letting us keep our guns!” would be my motto.
Why?
Because it seems guns equal freedom so if people have their guns they’ll believe they’re free and I’d get to keep my extermination camps away from public gaze.
“But he’s keeping (insert social/ethnic/income/whatever group here) in camps”
“But Ollie North is his Chief of Staff. He can’t be that bad, he’s a freedom loving American”
I am trying to understand why people get so angry at law-abiding people, who aren’t harming anyone, because they think that at least having the option to resist violent threats to their way of life is a right? Right-leaning 2nd amendments types are involved in an epidemic of violence, or something?
I meant, it doesn’t matter to the person being murdered where it is they’re being murdered.
Yes, the Nazi’s were cunning about how they exterminated the Jews, which gives me even less reason to consider forced confiscation as a solution to school shootings.
Well, a lot of us aren’t going to just stand by while an enthusiastic base is murdering minorities, but we can’t do a whole lot if our guns are taken first.
Right, but we have a line. The 2A/confiscation.
Mmkay, but all the dictators that actually succeeded in carrying out genocide took the guns…
That’s not fair, and wouldn’t matter if it were as far as the stated purpose of the 2nd… Some do worry about police powers (the jack-booted thug stereotype), economic freedoms, freedom of association (including the not associate…), etc. Because some or many are single issue, doesn’t mean the right to keep and bear is wrong.
Guns help to equalize power and allow for freedom to exist. They don’t guarantee it nor do they equal it.
No it doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
It’s simply Tyranny 101 - you’ve got a lobby/group that gets worked up over a specific issue. Give ground on this issue and you’ve got their enthusiastic backing.
You really sure about that?
My understanding is, professional historians consider the notion that disarming the Jewish population allowed the Holocaust is ahistorical at best, tendentious at worst.
Did you not see how many Americans took to the streets when the Japanese citizens were carted away?
Pretty confident.
During WW2? Something, ftr, I’ve argued was an abuse of power on here.
I’m not even really opposed to your point, Loppar. For instance, the militarization/search and seizure issues brought up earlier. A good example. Some folks on the right need to stop idolizing the soldier and police officer. The military and law enforcement in general. Absolutely. But, then, there are others who are anti-both to a paranoid degree. So it’s not universal. And, in the end, even if the entirety of 2nd amend supporters suddenly poo-pooed other transgressions by the state, that in itself does not mean the 2nd should cease to be protected. Only that other rights deserve renewed interest, and a commitment to them. I don’t actually disagree with your portrayal though. It all too often is accurate (if not totally, to be fair).
Yep. Was a magnificent testament to the nobility of the human spirit. And lest we forget, it paled in comparison to how the populace rose up to defend Native Americans against ethnic cleansing, or post-emancipation African-Americans against terrorism.
