Using guns is the last resort. Fortunately, there are many tactics and strategies that are usually more effective before people have to resort to violence. When votes aren't counted, there is, e.g., tax strike, general labor strike, protests, and of course simply not following or enforcing the unjust laws the tyrants make.
@freemo From an EU perspective it's: we don't have guns, it would be dangerous if people would have access to guns.
Then they get shot by criminals, unable to defend themselves.
Well not really, sort of. Eu does have less crime overall in many countries, but this isnlargely unrelated to guns. When we look at the numbers every time, historically, an EU country banned guns or made more restrictive laws than crime and homicides would almost always spike very high in the years that follow. The only difference is slowly over time they stab you more rather than shoot you, but dead is dead when you arent allowed to defend yourself.
@xyfdi @freemo and if they shoot criminals they get sentenced, like the old man who shot a youth from a gang robbing him in his own home while they were fleeing (only german: https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/bgh-rentner-wegen-totschlags-an-16-jaehrigem-einbrecher-verurteilt-1.2710693 ).
someone who wants to fuck with the sanctity of my home deserves to catch a bullet imo.
Me: Where is your well-regulated militia? Do you muster? Can you mount a coordinated action as a unit? Can your unit coordinate with other units to achieve a strategic objective? Can you point to any well regulated militia?
Them: Anyone and I mean anyone should be able to buy a 50cal machine gun as long as they have the money, no questions asked. Questioning that ability is akin to treason.
Me: Let’s circle back
The 2a uses well regulated militia as an example, it does not and never has claimed that the right to own guns is exclusive to a well regulated militia. This is very clear as not only is the wording indicative of this but so is the application. Since day one everyone, even those not associated with q militia in anyway, had a right to bear arms.
Interesting take and by that I mean hilarious.
2A is predicated on citizen participation in militia to resist tyranny.
Once tyranny pops its head up all those people with gun fetishes are going to do what?
@Timboslice Saying an argument is hilarious without offering any rebuttal to the points presented really just shows your own stance as exceedingly weak.
To quote the relevant part of the 2a " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The rest simply gives one reason why it shall not be infringed, though it says nothing to suggest that **only** those in a militia should have the right, in fact, it explicitly states that the right applies to "the people", inferring all of the people.
@Timboslice As for what the people with guns will do once tryanny pops up.. however they respond (presumably they would organize into militias) one thing is clear, they would be far more effective with guns than without.
@freemo I find debating leftists with gun fetishes hilarious.
The use of the term militia is not anecdotal, or merely incidental, IT IS THE FOUNDERS primary intent. Even saying it is just a throwaway example, where are the militia today? Seems like a few people would take their advice but there are none.
So Mahmood came from Afghanistan five years ago, got citizenship last week: how many 50cal fully automatic machine guns does he have the right to own?
@Timboslice You are right about one thing, your arguments are hilarious. You sound like a triggered little toddler having a tantrum, very amusing.
@Timboslice As for the idea that the founding fathers primary intent was to only arm people in militias, this is so easily debunked its laughable. Not only did they state time and time again the right to bear arms exxtended to all people, but they also debunked explicitly the notion that the militia was a specific organization or group.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
Well regulated means functioning, operational, performs as intended. Hoping folk just sort band together to defeat tyranny is silly.
What about Mahmood? A citizen as much as you. How many 50cal can he own? How is that sensical?
Lee was great. One voice tho. What were dissenting opinions?
Lol that is some impressive mental gymnastics. I quoted multiple people, not just lee, all the founding fathers made it quite clear that the freedom to bare arms was for every citizen, not just with the primary intent of well regulated militia (which was used only as an example of why its needed and these quotes makes that clear).
What about Mahmood? He spent 5 years becoming a citizen, as long as he has never done anything illegal to loose that right he can own as many guns as he wants.
Virtually no one holds the position that any gun can be owned by anyone.
You can say militias are just one example but seem to ignore the amendment itself is predicated on well regulated (functioning, works properly) militias as the mechanism for freedom.
Nice to call for unrestricted gun ownership in America - including fully automatic 50c - from the safety from Over There.
I said hilarious now I realize you are insane.
We arent discussing what people hold the position of with regards to what the law should be. We are discussing what the original intend of the 2a is, stop moving goal posts.
If people want to change the 2a the constitution has a procedure for that
Umm what are you on about, they had heavy artillary when the 2A was written including hand crank fully automatic rail guns. You really need to learn your history before you talk. And yes in more than happy for people to be allowed to own cannons and explosives again
Comparing models of repeating rifles from the Revolutionary War to weapons of today is weak.
The Constitution did not grant universal suffrage to vote, and you are slinging nonsense that it would permit any form of weapon in anyone’s hands is weak.
How many weapons do you have Over There? You fighting to bring those ideas to your host country? Tell your neighbors you think recent Muslim immigrants should have any weapon and explosives they want.
Lol you really are desperate to win yet keep digging yourself in deeper. At no point did i compare repeating rifles to modern day weapons, i compared it to "single shot muzzle loaded dry powder guns" and showed you have absolutely no sense of the history of weaponry or the 2A.
Again as for what my neighbors think of muslims and weapons is irrelevant to the point being argued which is what **you** claimed, in complete ignorance, that the founding fathers only intended guns to be owned by well regulated militia, which ive debunked several times over but you are just refusing to admit you are clueless (a common problem among the clueless).
I wonder how many more times your going to try to move that goal post every time your pwned.
I never said only well regulated militia members should own guns. Show me where I said that. I never did. You hallucinated my opinion.
Ideas have consequences and I really think you should reality test this weird construct you have imagined with real people (neighbors coworkers etc) to see how they are received.
Saying anyone including recent immigrants from known terrorist countries should be able to own any weapon or explosive is a bold stance. Own it.
Lol so now your adding some backpeddling to that goal post moving, way to go.
Not sure what this fetish with musslim people is either. But again you moved the goalpost, before it was musslims in general now its terrorists, lol. Do you even hear yourself?
You hallucinated my opinion period end of story.
You are quite clear that anyone should be able to own any explosives or weaponry because of your interpretation of the 2A, ignoring any discussion about what the whole militia thang is about.
You will not voice your opinions IRL.
You are speaking from some shit hole country far from the fight.
I really enjoyed being with you but I don’t know, maybe I have changed, but I think we need to start seeing other people.
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.
An inclusive free speech instance.
All cultures and opinions welcome.
Explicit hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.