Hmm… this makes me wonder what gun rights people think about bulletproof materials, in general. Surely, they have to be in favor of them, because otherwise, they can’t defend themselves from people who wield the guns that they support.
But in that case, wouldn’t that imply that they’d be fine if everybody was always outfitted head-to-toe in bulletproof armor?
But if they allowed everybody to be completely bulletproof (I’m imagining a better bulletproof armor than exists in reality here), then there would be no purpose to being in favor of guns, since guns couldn’t be used to hurt anybody.
I’m talking about the second amendment types who think their right to bear arms is because they can be used against people. Obviously, people who just like hunting or target shooting or collecting guns could have different views.
But the point is, a 2A guns rights person must really, like OP said, only support limited use of bulletproof materials. It’s sort of an inherent hypocrisy to these people. Well, either that, or they’re against bulletproof materials and are just okay with dying for their beliefs.
I am one of those people who tries to base their opinions on evidence. When I look at the world today, the places with strict gun control also seem to be doing better at warding off fascism. I don’t see any evidence that the immense number of guns in America have slowed the spread of fascism, at all, or see any hints that they’ll be a major factor in defeating fascism in the future.
The US opened up the pandora’s box back in 1789, too late now. Gun debate is over, 2nd Amendment already passed. Unless you can somehow get 3/4 of states to reverse it.
(Yes I know, technically the bill of rights passed after 1789, but the debate already happened, constitution only passed because the bill of rights were promised)
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.
Does that sound like what we do today? Nope.
Why does the government infringe on my ability to own a machine gun or even a molotov cocktail?
It seems like the gun debate isn’t over. We’ve constantly reinterpreted the 2nd Amendment over and over, and it will be reinterpreted further in the future.
Today, we heavily regulate machine guns but not rifles. Tomorrow, maybe we can choose to heavily regulate hand guns but not knives.
Gun Rights person here. Bullet Proof materials are great. Body armor is a valid personal choice. Police/soldiers have access to armor piercing ammo so your third sentence doesn’t track. (Bans on civilian ownership of armor-piercing ammo is unethical)
Honest question, is part of your motivation for upholding 2A rights the ability to overthrow the government? Because I find that one hard to fathom; could the US Gov really be overthrown? Is it based on the premise that lots of people in the military / drone operators would be part of the militia?
Not the user you replied to, but I’m pro 2A because I don’t trust cops. I rather have my neighbors form a militia to protect ourselves. I don’t exactly know my neighbors very well, but it’d be more preferrable than the cops.
A citizen’s militia should just fill the role of law enforcement really.
Its not really just about fascism, I don’t trust cops even if trump wasn’t elected.
I had a terrible experience with cops and I do not want that to happen again, ever. No one should have to experience what I had endured.
ACAB.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” -Karl Marx
In our case does it need to be overthrowing or making the price of Fucking Around too high? The police in the US are alot more respectful to large groups of armed people gathering than they are to people they feel they can night-stick without consequences. Trump & Co wants martial law so bad he can taste it but if he doesn’t do it according to the sensitives of his heavily-armed base, things will turn into a shitshow. Plus, It’s a universal principle to me and there are many peoples & governments that aren’t the US. Would universal gun ownership have changed things for the Uyghurs, for the massacred in Myanmar, or Sudan, for the residents of Bucha, Ukraine? I think it would. Which leads to another point often lost in the argument: the main purpose of the US 2nd Amendment is for defense against foreign dangers. To allow a large force of irregulars to exist that could slow down an attack until the state or national governments could respond.
Hmm… this makes me wonder what gun rights people think about bulletproof materials, in general. Surely, they have to be in favor of them, because otherwise, they can’t defend themselves from people who wield the guns that they support.
But in that case, wouldn’t that imply that they’d be fine if everybody was always outfitted head-to-toe in bulletproof armor?
But if they allowed everybody to be completely bulletproof (I’m imagining a better bulletproof armor than exists in reality here), then there would be no purpose to being in favor of guns, since guns couldn’t be used to hurt anybody.
I’m talking about the second amendment types who think their right to bear arms is because they can be used against people. Obviously, people who just like hunting or target shooting or collecting guns could have different views.
But the point is, a 2A guns rights person must really, like OP said, only support limited use of bulletproof materials. It’s sort of an inherent hypocrisy to these people. Well, either that, or they’re against bulletproof materials and are just okay with dying for their beliefs.
Disarming ourselves, while the fascists are fascing.
It’s a bold move, Cotton.
I am one of those people who tries to base their opinions on evidence. When I look at the world today, the places with strict gun control also seem to be doing better at warding off fascism. I don’t see any evidence that the immense number of guns in America have slowed the spread of fascism, at all, or see any hints that they’ll be a major factor in defeating fascism in the future.
STOP! You are not allowed to use sound logic in the gun debate.
The US opened up the pandora’s box back in 1789, too late now. Gun debate is over, 2nd Amendment already passed. Unless you can somehow get 3/4 of states to reverse it.
(Yes I know, technically the bill of rights passed after 1789, but the debate already happened, constitution only passed because the bill of rights were promised)
Does that sound like what we do today? Nope.
Why does the government infringe on my ability to own a machine gun or even a molotov cocktail?
It seems like the gun debate isn’t over. We’ve constantly reinterpreted the 2nd Amendment over and over, and it will be reinterpreted further in the future.
Today, we heavily regulate machine guns but not rifles. Tomorrow, maybe we can choose to heavily regulate hand guns but not knives.
Maybe not today. Fix the democracy first.
i’d say it’s more to do with the populations that put in those laws than the laws themselves.
Gun Rights person here. Bullet Proof materials are great. Body armor is a valid personal choice. Police/soldiers have access to armor piercing ammo so your third sentence doesn’t track. (Bans on civilian ownership of armor-piercing ammo is unethical)
Honest question, is part of your motivation for upholding 2A rights the ability to overthrow the government? Because I find that one hard to fathom; could the US Gov really be overthrown? Is it based on the premise that lots of people in the military / drone operators would be part of the militia?
Not the user you replied to, but I’m pro 2A because I don’t trust cops. I rather have my neighbors form a militia to protect ourselves. I don’t exactly know my neighbors very well, but it’d be more preferrable than the cops.
A citizen’s militia should just fill the role of law enforcement really.
Its not really just about fascism, I don’t trust cops even if trump wasn’t elected.
I had a terrible experience with cops and I do not want that to happen again, ever. No one should have to experience what I had endured.
ACAB.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” -Karl Marx
I’m sorry you had a bad experience and appreciate your reply. It makes sense to me. Hope you never have to resort to it.
In our case does it need to be overthrowing or making the price of Fucking Around too high? The police in the US are alot more respectful to large groups of armed people gathering than they are to people they feel they can night-stick without consequences. Trump & Co wants martial law so bad he can taste it but if he doesn’t do it according to the sensitives of his heavily-armed base, things will turn into a shitshow. Plus, It’s a universal principle to me and there are many peoples & governments that aren’t the US. Would universal gun ownership have changed things for the Uyghurs, for the massacred in Myanmar, or Sudan, for the residents of Bucha, Ukraine? I think it would. Which leads to another point often lost in the argument: the main purpose of the US 2nd Amendment is for defense against foreign dangers. To allow a large force of irregulars to exist that could slow down an attack until the state or national governments could respond.
That’s why they hate Luigi
They aren’t called gun nuts for nothing.