Real? Yes. But miniscule. To the point it’s almost not real.
And, of course, it’s important to denote what constitutes tyranny. I mean the truly scary version of it, not the libertarian version of it that has been defined down as “big government that won’t let you do stuff you want to do”
We always have the right to resist tyranny (the right of revolution).
(Good to see you, man.)
I’m not vilifying them - they’re not responsible for these deaths. But what I have an issue with is the reflexive hard no they have in the name of any kind of new measure that might help prevent this kind of violence in the future, and they do it in the name of the 2A, which they claim acts as a hard restriction on regulation, but they don’t actually believe that themselves, once you drill down into it.
But that’s a different issue. If you do believe we have a right to resist, I assume you mean that when governments become intolerably brutal/oppressive, there is a right to resist with force. Or, did you mean some sort of symbolic resistance? Laying down in front of tanks and what not?
If you say that yes, people are justified…No, people have a right to combat the above type of situation with force, surely you believe they must then have at least some right to keep and bear arms above a “varmint gun,” no?
See, I do believe the 2A was shortsighted (the technological issue, lack of mental health awareness, etc.), but I feel like I have to recognize 2A for what it is, however troublesome that may be. Despite the existence of the patriot act, or the marvel of a modern military power as hopelessly irresistible, or the advance in engineering, I feel the need to recognize it for what it says. However, I want it amended, lest anybody forget I have said that.
Have you ever been to China or Russia? These countries are tyrannies. And yet in both of them the vast majority of the population lives without experiencing the physical oppression from the government.
It’s the face of modern tyranny - not guns but massive surveillance and “social credit scores” such as the one in China.
So the 2A purist are clinging to an antiquated feel-good belief and think that their hobby actually matters in the grand scheme of things.
“I like guns and want to keep them” is an acceptable argument but in the modern world the belief that AR-15s from tactical bros stand in the way of government oppression is delusional at best.
Loppar, do you believe people have an inherent right to resist brutal/oppressive regimes with force? I am not asking about the odds of pulling it off.
Yes, but the “oppressive regime” of the (near) future is coming through other non-violent ways, such as the concept of a cashless society, no-fly lists and mass surveillance.
So where are all those gun lovers?
My main stance is the following - gun is, among other things, a legitimate tool for self-defense and should be treated and regulated as such.
However, claiming that a provision from 1791, passed alongside an amendment barring quartering of soldiers in private homes completely defines a country’s stance towards a specific issue is disingenuous at best, as the military reasoning behind it has been superseded by technological advancement.
This all 2A purist stuff is pretty much cynical bullshit pushed to sell more guns to existing gun owners (who keep the gun industry going), making the gun owners feel good (I’m buying the extra scope and the concealed carry handbag for my wife to preserve liberty) while simultaneously scaring them with the big evil government that is one inch from taking away their guns which are supposedly synonymous with freedom. A combination of push-and-pull factors as they would say in marketing.
Then surely those tools might look like AR-15s. And we don’t get to pretend the 2nd isn’t what it is because you don’t like our odds against a regular military. I don’t like the idea that we just ignore it, the 2nd, or cleverly read it because it’s become unfashionable and inconvenient…
Basically, I believe this kind of talk is self-defeating and causes entrenchment on the ‘purist’ side. I think a lot could be done through amending if both sides recognized (not belittled) the intent of the 2nd while trying to address certain realities. The recognition and reaffirming language might go a long way in taking the edge off of certain fears. Again, amending language that reaffirms and restates the right (even the necessity) and the reasoning (whatever the odds) while also introducing language that addresses mental health, documented threatening statements, etc. The stance that we have the right–but are stupid for defending it in debate–to defend ourselves against some intolerable level (gray area, don’t ask me) of oppression seems like a complete non-starter.
Furthermore, speaking of technology, what happens when 3d printing is as common as the cell phone? When any criminal will just print off the extended magazines from a downloaded template, or what not? You can pretty much do this with entire guns as it is. That’s just the beginning. Seems to me the effort will quickly turn into the war on drugs. The criminal is just going to obtain them anyways. Certainly a mass shooter isn’t going to refrain from printing such a thing off, or buying it from someone who has, because it is prohibited
Where I live texting and driving is illegal so it’s not like no one cares.
Every political lobby or organization is and has been a target for mockery, satire, even disdain. Why should the NRA be some sacred cow? So the people fighting for the 2A have a problem with the First A?
Define enemy soldiers. We’re the Founders thinking of the British or American soldiers.?
There are stereotypical videos of everyone. Does World star ring a bell?
I would say no. What is an inherent right anyway? It’s a mutable idea that varies from society to society, culture to culture.
Oppression is also a matter of perspective.
Yet, people still do it frequently. (And so is homicide, illegal) And traffic related accidents still kill more children. Yet, nobody is marching against ‘driving enthusiasts.’ Or people who won’t walk or bike to the convenience store. Or against vehicles that can nearly double the highway speed limit. Or against the alcohol that is sold in amounts able to inebriate a person multiple times over (thinking DUI, alcohol related/fueled violent crimes). Seems disproportionate.
There you go. I will remember you said that in future discussions about certain others topics. It will make for interesting exchanges, I believe. Thanks for answering.
No, but it is also an exercise of the first to point out that it seems odd to target the NRA enthusiast when they seem to be but a blip on the gun homicide offender rate. Seems to be a rather different crowd using simple handguns, from my understanding.
MADD. The government has safety standards for cars. We can see how a car is safety rated before buying it. Laws regulating cell phone use while driving. If you are saying people don’t care about these issues, you are wrong. If not, then I don’t know what your point is.
Well, at least you don’t deny it.
I mean, I see that there were 37,461 road related deaths in 2016. Where are the marches for new restrictions and laws?
And there already are gun laws. See my last comment.