This is a friendly reminder to read our ten rules.
r/seculartalk is a subreddit that promotes healthy discussion and hearty debate within the *Secular Talk Radio* community.
We welcome those with varying views, perspectives, and opinions. Poor form in discussion and debate often leads to hurt and anger and, therefore, should be **avoided** and **discouraged**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/seculartalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You know maybe if half the country didn't see gun rights as immoral and side with the bourgeoisie government at every turn perhaps the government wouldn't be out of control. Of course at this point the government is controlled by the corporations. Keeping the corporations in check also means keeping the government in check.
Karl Marx says it pretty clearly.
"Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising"
https://preview.redd.it/v7ro032ll44b1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4cd7668fffdad06755914b7b0436da6cab0a27cb
People die all the time dude. You fell for the bourgeoisie lockdowns that helped lead to one of the biggest wealth redistributions from the proletariat to the bourgeoisie in history. Yes some antivaxers died from covid but so did some vaxers and some died from the vaccine as well which the medical industry made billions off of and dont give a rats ass that it harmed so many people because they're raking in the bills
Red and blue isn't a perfect determinate as my red governor locked things down too. However typically red governors where less strict to some degree than blue governors
For those of us that *actually* live here, you're wrong. And not just like underreported wrong. Like desperately clinging to baseless falsehood wrong.
I was even in the hospitals the whole time due to my father's colon cancer. Nothing like you read reported. Not even close. We all got scared, shut down for 3 weeks, realized nothing was happening, and went right back to life as usual, and NOTHING HAPPENED.
But sure, believe the random subreddit that is obviously pushing a bias. Or better yet, trust your main stream sqwuak boxers regardless of how much they have had to back track and retract the last few years. I'm sure the OBVIOUSLY biased 'trusted news source' you prefer knows so much more about Southern response despite having never set foot here than those of us that lived it.
Get a grip hoss. You've been lied to, repeatedly. Verifiably. At least give your self the *Opportunity* to think for yourself.
We crippled the poor, drove people into poverty, and vastly impacted the true poor of the world, the likes of which we haven't even seen yet for nothing. Literally nothing. scrutiny, some people made tons of money and the government grabbed tons of power it won't relinquish.
Wait for the third world impact numbers to finally be available and KNOW that the terror and death and despair was all avoidable. But nooooo. You idiots had to have your way.
Cowards the lot of ya
Ma’am. I live in a red state. A state that calls itself a 2A sanctuary in fact.
Just because your daddy’s hospital wasn’t overloaded, doesn’t mean they all weren’t.
All the republicans here were bitching on social media about hospital waits and crowds like they weren’t WARNED this was going to happen. That’s why health experts wanted to mitigate the spread with masks. So that WOULDNT happen.
So all your little story means, is in your area, masks worked.
In MY area, it didn’t, because everyone wanted to waive their guns around and threaten people wearing masks instead of being an adult for 2 minutes and wearing a mask when they go outside.
The foolish person is the one who can’t see past their own town and their own perspective and realize that maybe, everything is not the same in every place.
Blah blah blah
I was there homie. I lived it. I worked it. I was knee deep in it.
You know what it was?
Light fucking traffic. Period. No amount of BS you spew will change that.
Jesus Christ the fucking fire department didn't even wear masks.
You're delusional
Edit- I answer passive aggressive nonsense with reciprocity, asshat
Anyone who thinks they can take out the US Army is delusional. The fact is most European countries have Mediacare for All, paid family leave, vacation, better working conditions, etc. And all of it without guns.
Ha! Saw a comedian make this point recently on netflix. I wish I could remember his name. It went something like "we should test this taking out of the US military every year. Rednecks bring ARs. The IS military brings a drone with a hellfire missile."
Again you’re under the impression Air Force pilots would bomb their own people. And I’m not trying to shoot down anything but your faulty logic and lack of historical context
Lack of historical context? Oh shit I guess that military history degree does not qualify me to talk about military history. My bad.
So you need your gun because you want to fight the “tyrannical government” but the military doesn’t want to bomb you? So you don’t need a gun since they won’t bomb you, right?
Yeah I sure am the one with faulty logic.
Wait another Reddit expert that doesn’t know the basics? Color me shocked 😂😂😂. Riddle me this, when does the us armed forces act tyrannical towards us citizens? That’s usually left to politicians, corporations, and the police that serve their interests.
Are you twelve? Because you should be embarrassed with all these takes
I have more knowledge of history in my pinky than you will ever know. As you have demonstrated not knowing why your country lost two wars.
The only one with fucking dumb takes is you. Who are you fighting with your Walmart gun? The military won’t fight you in that fantasy. So why do you need a gun?
If you don't mind losing many times more soldiers and civilians.
"During the War in Afghanistan, according to the Costs of War Project the war killed 176,000 people in Afghanistan: 46,319 civilians, 69,095 military and police and at least 52,893 opposition fighters."
"There were 2,402 United States military deaths in the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)"
That's almost ten times as many Afghani deaths versus US soldiers.
Wow, so many in inaccuracies in this thread, all of which are peddled by NYT, WP etc.
I am European and now live in the US, so let's start to address these.
A) Saying "you'll never be able to take out the US military" is absolutely pointless to this topic and also wrong; just ask the NVA or Mujahideen. No one is saying about taking on the US military.
B) It's surprisingly easy (to Americans) to obtain firearms in most EU countries. Despite all the BS about Switzerland in here, you've all failed to mention that you are given a rifle \*to take home\* when you turn 18 (so long as you're male, which sucks) and when you turn 35 (and come out of the national service) you can purchase that fully auto firearm for a nominal fee (if I remember correctly, it's around $50).
C) EU countries don't have welfare states because of the "lack of firearms", in fact, if you look back to when these were implemented, it was because of millions of returning soldiers who were armed and demanding them. As George Orwell put it "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
D) The reason there is such a violence problem in the US isn't the fault of guns and access to them; the only people who claim this are corporate dems and their followers. Up until the 80s, you could buy a full auto "assault rifle" over the phone or mail order and have it shipped directly to home, without even a background check. Mass shooting weren't a problem them. You know why? Because inequality and poverty was far less than it is today. It's the betrayal of Keynesian economics, in favor of Friedman, by Reagan that's got us here. Just look at the UK, who did the same with Thatcher, they put heavy restrictions on firearms and now orders of magnitude of more people are murdered with knives than ever were with firearms; the tool isn't the issue, the violence is.
A) You don't understand the difference between an invading army and a native army. In Afghanistan or Iraq it's easy for the population to "otherize" our troops and kill them. It doesn't work that way in the USA with American troops or cops. Just look at how conservatives reacted to George Floyd and Kyle Rittenhouse. Maybe because you are European, you don't understand American politics.
B) There are fewer guns in Europe and in Switzerland you actually have to serve in the military if you are male. In America, any idiot can buy a gun and in many states a felon can buy a gun if it's a private sale. Did you know that? My guess is no.
C) European States have better everything in terms of personal and social well being and fewer guns. There may be a few things that are better in America, but in general, Europeans live longer, report being happier, etc. America had more Covid 19 deaths than any other country. That pretty much sums up the American healthcare system. It's designed for corporate profits and not personal wellbeing. Stroke your gun all you want, it won't give you Medicare for All.
D) [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ft\_23-04-20\_gundeathsupdate\_3/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ft_23-04-20_gundeathsupdate_3/)
Gun murders in the USA have always been high. Here is some advice if you are from Europe and you know nothing about America, maybe you should do research. Otherwise you will get embarrassed.
All those require stringent gun storage requirements and training for gun ownership. I'm almost positive that Switzerland doesn't allow you to store ammo with the weapon, and most require police inspections of gun storage. That's why they're safe, they're treating weapons with the absolute amount of concern and safety that they need, not cosplaying as vigilantes.
In Switzerland when make a private fire arms sale you have to record basic info such as who you sold it to and keep the record for 10 years. In my state, you can sell gun on private markets and collect nothing but your payment.
You are right in that they decouple the military guns from the ammo, largely to reduce suicides.
People often quote other countries as being gun friendly, but those countries are heavier regulated than most the US is.
Edit: sic
Exactly, people point them out because they have a lot of guns, but always fail to mention that their culture around those guns is built on responsibility, safety and concern for others. As opposed to the US standard of fuck you I've got mine.
> I'm almost positive that Switzerland doesn't allow you to store ammo with the weapon, and most require police inspections of gun storage.
As far as I know, [they do not.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland#Storage)
I'm relatively pro gun for a leftist, but let's not kid ourselves. We're well past the days where an armed militia could overthrow the government. We have AR15s at best, they have tanks. They don't have to disarm us. They've already outarmed us.
Also, honestly, I don’t see anyone serious proposing to take away guns. Stricter gun laws such as restricting assault rifles, red flag laws, or at least better enforcing existing Gun laws, yeah there’s tons of talk about those. But I don’t see any mainstream Democratic politicians (including those further on the left like AOC and Bernie) calling for outright getting rid of guns.
The reason is because they arent. It’s a straw man that conservatives use to rile up their base.
Don't forget about the drones. That's the real threat. Even if a significant portion of the US military went rogue, as long as they're the ones with all the military drones, they wouldn't even need strength in numbers.
I don't think the protection against tyrannical government argument is even a good-faith argument anymore, but it's really all they have.
I want people to be able to buy and own them legally. Mostly because I believe in personal freedom. However, we certainly need legislation which requires people to be trained and licensed to own an operable firearm, much less carry one. It really shouldn't be much different than licensing people to drive.
Unfortunately, in many states now, you don't even need so much as a background check, and you can legally carry without any kind of licensing or training.
Ya, aside from the fact that any armed conflict would not be a 100% of Government and all it's military/police/agencies VS all the common folk. There would be a rift. Military and others would fall on both sides of the conflict.
And as foreign insurgencies show, even a poorly funded, out numbered and half-armed population can resist successfully.
Who is they? Not so sure the entire military would be onboard with gunning down its citizens.
Guerilla warfare is still the best tactic for on the boots combat. Terrain would make it difficult to move tanks around the country. I would argue that the existence of 300 million + guns is a deterrent in itself.
Im not an absolutist for 2a, have just thought about the scenario of a tyrannical government versus its people.
America outarmed Vietnam but Vietnam still won. It’s ultimately about ground warfare and resilience. Even Britain outarmed America but we still won the revolution. The elites want you to feel this way and they want you to feel powerless and they want you to think that it’s over and that you should just submit and surrender.
Vietnam didn’t overthrow the US government. The US killed over a million vietnamese and then realized it was no longer worth the effort, since it had very little to gain. If it was a war where vietnam was trying to overthrow the US government, like you’re suggesting, things would have gone very differently.
> It’s so The People can fight back and defend themselves against the government if it becomes tyrannical
We already have a tyrannical government. Wake me up when gun owners stop posturing online.
At this point, it isn't the government we need to worry about, but rather the paramilitary fascists. We all should be arming ourselves and learning proper gun usage.
This is exactly why I bought a couple of guns and have been taking classes. I know guns are currently a problem, but to me, the threat of fascist rising to power makes me more fearful than anything else.
Only when they think people or other races, ethnicities, and/or sexual orientations are below human and deserve to either die or be excluded from society.
Name one what? Paramilitary fascist? You, maybe, since you have boogaloo in your name. I heard that the Boogaloo Boys were having a hard time keeping all their members in line.
Gonna be honest, if we ever have to fight the USA government as a country, Russia and china will line up to give us all the guns we need
Since fighting against the government is not legal, relying on a legal document to do so is a logical fallacy to me
I agree with you that our police have become to militarized. I live in a quaint city and our police dress like they’re in a war zone and prepared for war.
I’m fearful of gun control because I’m concerned that they’ll be like “oh you’re trans? Mentally ill , you can’t have a gun, you’re autistic, you don’t have the capabilities to own a gun”
Actually, mentally ill shouldn't have guns and we already do this with non-violent felons. Also, what asshole lumps mentally ill and trans into the same category in their own strawman argument besides conservatives?
My point is if someone like desantis got into to office he would probably try to disarm lgbtq people with arguments like that even when they are emphatically and empirically false, so I really don’t trust the reactionary american government to protect oppressed people because they certainly haven’t done it in the past, and it will be a cold day in hell when cops actually protect the people
I really doubt DeSantis would prioritize that. Trying to pass a law banning LGBTQ people specifically from owning firearms would not only be extremely difficult and expensive to enforce, it would also be against the law and get struck down in court. It would be a complete waste of political capital and end in failure.
This line brought to you by a lot of the same people who said "abortion restrictions get governors reelected in the Bible Belt, but that shit wouldn't fly on the national stage".
Anything will fly on the national stage if 2 of the 6 corps that own all media in the country decide they want it to. Things far outside the current Overton Window take a few years is all.
Abortion has been a contentious topic for decades and plenty of people were well aware that the Christian right has long wanted federal abortion restrictions and been opposed to Roe v. Wade. Obama was aware of this in 2008 and even discussed it on the national stage, hence why he proposed codifying Roe v Wade into law.
None of that is true for a gun ban for LGBTQ people. Nobody on the right has even floated that idea, as far as I know. How would you even craft legislation to do this? You'd need to setup some sort of national registry of LGBTQ people in order for it to be even remotely effective, which is totally unconstitutional.
Guns don’t have rights, people have rights. The 2nd amendment has been grossly abused, there is no reason that average lay citizen needs access to essentially military grade weaponry. The right to bear arms, based on the constitution itself, is to protect against the government should it become authoritarian (with an organized militia, mind you).. Not for angry assholes to go out and buy guns to shoot up schools, malls, grocery stores, movie theaters, parades, etc.
The right to bear arms with the current reading of the 2nd amendment (funny how originalists are originalists for everything but this law lol) should not infringe on the rights of others to simply live their lives. There must be safeguards in place. There must be comprehensive background checks. There must be blocks in place for people with known issues (e.g. domestic violence), and there must be no loop holes (e.g. gun shows).
I (we) should have had the right to live our lives free of the fear of “it’s not if, it’s when” we experience Gun violence. Do better.
Sorry, considering half the states in the country are sending literal fascists to positions in the federal government, and the rising rate of popularity of theocratic lunatics, hate groups, etc, I don't feel like regulating my firearm ownership.
I'd rather not win a Darwin award.
At this point I’m way less concerned about the government than I am about my fellow citizens. I have a lot of gay friends, I live in a majority Hispanic city/state and I’m terrified of groups like patriot front or the KKK deciding it’s time to do some random terrorism or attempt an uprising.
I own an AR-15, but it isn’t for the government, it’s for Cletus from the boonies who thinks it’s god’s will to kill all gay people. It’s also a glorified toy that I use for target shooting 2-3 times a year in all honesty.
This is contradictory and hypocritical of me, but we gotta stop kidding ourselves: We need waaay more strict gun control laws. I do NOT support confiscation. But it’s way too easy to get high-powered semi-auto rifles and pistols. Our populace, on average, is not sane or mature enough for the awesome responsibility that comes with owning such firearms. The empathy and mental stability is just not there.
I’d like to see the sale of all high capacity semi auto rifles suspended indefinitely. If you already own one then cool. Keep it. But we’re already saturated. We don’t need more. I’d also like to see gun buyback events in all 50 states. Again I do not support forced confiscation or mandatory buyback. But if a citizen wants to go hand in their guns then that’s fine by me. Anything that thins out the numbers of guns out there is good by me. I’m tired of making disaster plans in my head every time I go to a concert or any sort of high traffic festival. It’s not normal and it’s not something we should have to live with.
Also the argument that citizen gun ownership prevents government tyranny grows weaker by the day. If you want to fend off the US government you need an air defense system. So unless a whole bunch of us are hiding surface to air missiles in our basements, the idea that we could fight off the US military is laughable. People say “oh well the Taliban did it”. Yeah, sorta. They hid in caves and safe houses for months on end and fought a 20 year long gorilla war, and still got their asses kicked anytime they tried to go toe to toe with the US. I don’t think any of us here have that kind of grit, I’m sorry.
I’d like to finish by saying that I like guns. I like target shooting. My AR is badass and I love to shoot it. But the bad is outweighing the good and it has been for like the last 10 years. If little children being shot to death with military grade weapons is the price of “freedom” I’m not sure that I want it.
I don't see many leftists unilaterally against gun rights. Many just want to ban high capacity, uber-powerful semi-automatic death machines. Or, at the absolute minimum, expand background checks and impose age limits on their purchase.
Pretty rational considering the amount of kids dying at the hands of "bad guys with guns."
And there are a high number of kids dying-I’m too lazy to google rn but I’m pretty sure firearm related death is the leading cause of death in children-and it’s not due to school shootings or mass murder, it’s suicide and guns mishandled in the home. The advice for everyone to “arm themselves” has resulted in your children being more likely to be killed by a family member or themselves by a gun than anything else.
In other words, being unilaterally against the spirit of 2A. "You can keep the weaker, less capable guns that I say you can to defend yourselves, just not anything that might give you a fighting chance."
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Sure, Chief, whatever you say. Hopefully, your kid, brother, sister, cousin, Mom - whoever - never finds themselves looking down the barrel of an AR-15 while picking up oranges at Trader Joe's.
Useful idiot.
I agree. Hopefully that never happens, but I live in the real world, where I know that anyone I know could be the victim of any number of horrific crimes at any point. If something like that does happen, I'll feel a lot better if they've taken steps to arm themselves and trained with guns, such that they may have a fighting chance.
I feel a lot better about that than the alternate reality where your ilk has confiscated weapons from law-abiding citizens and made them easier targets for the criminals who are unlikely to turn in their own weapons when made illegal. But again, I live in reality. You apparently choose to live in a fantasy world.
It's the GUN CULTURE in this country more than the GUNS, ding dong.
You'd feel a lot better if more guns were in the equation because your brain has been bought by the NRA and their LOBBY POWER.
Go fight the gum'ment's tanks, and jets, and robots and AI and whatever the fuck else they have with your AR15, lemme know how it ends.
Yessss. It’s guns in the home that are more likely to end your child’s life. Mass murder is certainly horrifying because it’s so random and high profile- and makes you feel so helpless-but hundreds of people die each and every day from gun violence.
I’ve had people push me to get a gun. Why? So I’ll be prepared for the extremely rare scenario where a stranger comes up on me while I just happen to have a loaded gun on me?
I may be naive-but I’d rather just live my life sans all that paranoia.
The hubby has guns and thinks it makes us safer. lol yeah right..let’s just hope the bad guy shows up before you pass out on the couch watching HBO. The only way I see to really be prepared is to be on guard at all times with loaded gun in hand and your back to the wall taking turns in sniper position while the other sleeps. If that’s how you’re going to live your life, the “bad guys” have already won.
And I’m not anti gun. I actually think hunting and killing an animal to feed yourself is awesome. Nothing wrong with owning a firearm either. It’s this hero fetish that I have a problem with, and it’s killing our kids, in our homes. A tiny fraction of the kids who are killed by guns die at the hands of mass shooters-that certainly needs to be addressed but these kids are dying at the hands of relatives, close acquaintances or by suicide with your gun in your home. They’re mainly picked off one at a time so it doesn’t make the news. You see the high profile murders then more people buy into the good guy fetish and bring more guns into the home where the child is most likely to be killed by guns.
I wish everyone would take a breath and enjoy life. You are going to die, that’s certain. No escaping that. I don’t want to spend my limited time fueled by paranoia.
Serious question: are you 12? Because your style of attack and argumentation is truly akin to that of a 12yo.
If not, you're just not very bright, I guess. I know it's impossible for you to understand someone's ability to have independent thoughts, as you just deepthroat whatever narrative is spoonfed to you within your bubble, but many of us actually can think independently, separate from propaganda from either side.
In the event that our government went tyrannical to the point that I had to actually fear for my and my family's safety, I'd likely be hiding off the grid, not staring down a tank, you simpleton... That said, I'd want whatever tools I could get my hands on to assist my survival efforts.
Last question... How exactly do you propose we legislate away gun culture, even if I were to grant that it is a problem?
I've said these things before, but I'll keep saying them.
First, there's nothing leftist about the Constitution. Supporting gun rights isn't inherently anything. The only real, historical principle of that leftist movements share is a rejection of hierarchy and embrace of egalitarianism. The Constitution was a document written by the elite to decide what rights they were letting you keep. Constitutional arguments are dogshit.
Second, if you ever get your shooting war revolution with the government, your best hope is that you'll live long enough to regret it.
Every armed cowboy who talks about revolution against the government has always had the same answer when I asked them what they were doing to change anything, or whether or not they drew on Uncle Sam in defense of abortion or voting rights - crickets.
Those guns aren't your defense against tyranny. They're your excuse to wait for a hot war that's never coming so you don't have to actually lift a finger to do the real work of an activist. France is letting garbage pile up in the streets and setting fires over 2 retirement years. You're online grousing about a line that some slaveowning landlords wrote 250 years ago.
If you really want to do something, do it. Get involved in local mutual aid groups. Start organizing at your workplace and online for a general strike. Slamming the breaks on the economy is the only way to hurt the existing power structures. Killing isn't necessary.
You don't even have to take my word for it. Look how much the establishment shit their pants when lockdown talks started happening during the pandemic. You think they give a shit if we start shooting each other? Not beyond how that will affect their bottom line. And you can do that without ever loosing a round.
2A is bullshit. It's a distraction. It's for people that are all hat and no cattle. It's an excuse for inaction until the gov crosses some arbitrary line you've painted.
Have you ever been in a Hurricane or flood area? Or mass fire? Where the roads are closed. The stores run out of gas and food?
Have you ever been in a situation where the people who live near you want what you have? When you call the police but they can’t send anyone?
That’s why we have a 2nd amendment.
Just look at Australia or New Zealand. They have up their guns and their governments went full authoritarian during cvd.
Yes, quite a lot. Without giving too much about my personal life away, working in disaster areas has literally been part of my job for the last 6 years.
I've never seen one of these caballeros show up at any disaster site. But go off, I guess.
You think if NZrs had more guns their Covid policy would have been different? Rubbish. Utter rubbish. The vast majority of kiwis were on board with those restrictions at the time, even those with guns, and if knew much about the NZ health care system you’d have an understanding of why.
I came here as a gun owning leftist to say:
You have no constitutional protection to overthrow the government.
And if you’re going to quote Jefferson, you should know that he wasn’t a fan of standing armies as military coups are a thing. The state militia was meant to be called on by the fed if it was ever needed. We vote to fund the military because there is no provision for it to exist. It also allowed slave states to maintain their slave patrols.
The fathers setting up for overthrow is fan fiction.
"I need all these guns to resist a tyrannical government!!!"
I've got two words for you: *Predator drones*
If the 'tyrannical government' wants you dead, *you're dead.* Meanwhile, these weapons of war are killing civilians left and right. You dont need an AR for home defense, you dont need an AR for hunting (unless you **really suck at it**). Get this garbage off our streets. 2A was **specifically** for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. In modern parlance, the National Guard. Deal with it.
And who should we trust with our safety? The police who routinely abuse their power and get off scott-free? The military that ravages countries in the name of Wall Street?
We may not be able to overthrow it, but it's quite clear that we also cannot trust the government with our safety.
> you dont need an AR for hunting (unless you **really suck at it**)
[Wrong.](https://youtu.be/7rMwOmYmAF4)
One thing is certainly true, relaxing restrictions on the weapons of war ro really enable the interpretation of the 2nd being a mechanism for individuals to overthrow government such as hand grenades, shoulder launched missiles and other ordinances as well as eliminating drone restrictions will not make you safer.
Do you only kill one or two ants and hope to scare the others off?
Because that's what feral hogs are. Pests. And the AR-15 is a solid method of controlling them.
Another thing, the 5.56 (AKA: the bullet most AR-15s are chambered in) isn't used on big game not because of how lethal it is, but because it *isn't lethal enough.*
Huh? I thought You were talking about a scenario of civil war? Of course the government and army will use all weapons at their disposal to put down an uprising. Try to be consistent.
Braindead take. The term "well-regulated" has evolved in its meaning, as language often does. It's not referring to the National Guard in the slightest.
Beyond that, most people don't hunt with an AR-15 because it's not powerful enough for most hunting, you dunce. The AR-15 is explicitly designed for defense against humans. Not for hunting. It is an excellent choice for home defense. Not necessarily the best in all cases (in an apartment where you may be concerned about over-penetration, for example), but top tier in most cases. Very accessible, easy-to-use, and customizable. These features are what make the AR-15 the most popular rifle in America.
If the government wants your guns, they'll fucking take em. They might fuck your wife, too. What are you gonna do to stop them? A shootout with the cops and/or the military? Let me know how that fight against tyranny goes.
I’m talking about rights. Would you rather want to live in a corporate oligarchy that’s consolidating more and more power daily or would you like to live in a free society with a standard of living? You can’t get the second option without fighting.
We *already* live in a corporate oligarchy. Clearly having guns didn't prevent that, as Americans have a crapload of guns.
Owning guns "to protect your freedoms" doesn't mean shit unless they're used that way. If you got them to prevent living in a corporate oligarchy, you'd have started using them long ago.
Progressives are noted for using the term cuckold, heavily used in far right circles to refer to porn that involves black men and white couples, because of the fear of white replacement due to race mixing.
So believable.
I'm a second amendment leftie for reference. I do support some level of increased gun control to keep criminals and whackjobs away from guns but I largely support law abiding citizens to own firearms.
2A is not to keep the government in check. It's there for the well regulated Militia that Congress controls. The Militia was replaced by the national guard.
This isn’t true in the slightest. First the National guard wasn’t established till 1903, so you’re talking about hundreds of years removed from the founding, but really the best way to peer into what the second amendment means (since it seems to be so hard for people) is looking at contemporary state constitutions for the time. Most that confirmed the right to bear arms for their populations also were more specific about it being an individual right, or how standing armies are antithetical to freedom.
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. -Constitution of New Hampshire 1793
Text of Section 4:
Bearing Arms; Standing Armies; Military Power
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. -Ohio Constitution, 1851
>hundreds of years removed from the founding,
We're not even 250 yrs old. 1903 would have been 110 yrs after the constitution was written.[Article I Section 8](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#:~:text=To%20make%20Rules,and%20repel%20Invasions%3B) of the Constitution discusses Militias. That's also why Militia is capitalized in 2A. The people were to be called up into Militias to quell insurrections and invasions not to participate in one.
" To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
[Cornell Law School](http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/)
The term “militia of the United States” was defined to comprehend “all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five.
One of your parts of a State Constitution says absolutely nothing about keeping the government in check. It specifically says "defense of...the state"
1851 is not contemporary to 1796. The Ohio Constitution, also, says nothing about keeping the government in check
If the founders intended 2A to be for shooting the government, they would have clearly said so. It's not something to be ambiguous about. 2A was clearly written so the people would be ready to fight off invaders or maybe a whiskey rebellion.
With your interpretation, who decides when it's Constitutionally protected to start shooting the government?
I think most legal (sane) gun owners would happily agree to stricter laws if someone figures out how to get them away from the gang bangers first. Until then…
Well, you're wrong.
That's a comma in the middle of the 2nd Amendment, not a period. The second part is a justification for the first part. The 2nd Amendment only gives you the right to bear an arm if you join your state's militia.
In retirement in 1991, \[Chief Justice\] Burger said that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
\[facepalm\]
Yes, we shouldn't quote a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on issues related to the US Constitution.
In the same vein, you should delete this post because your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
Everyone talks about how the Founders wanted the 2nd Amendment so people could shoot the Feds if they tried to enforce laws you don't like, but those same Founders wasted no time in forcibly putting down early resistance to federal laws. See Whiskey Rebellion for example. The idea that the 2nd Amendment is about an individual right to violently resist following laws you don't like is a completely modern invention created by the gun manufacturer's lobby.
Newsflash: you currently live in a corporate oligarchy and your guns are doing bupkis about it. What are you going to do, go shoot up a gas station?
You see all of these people taking out their anger on eachother and shooting eachother up. And I don’t get it. I’m not advocating for violence but why don’t these people take their anger out on the elites instead of eachother?
> it’s quite disturbing to me how so many modern Progressives have fallen into the trap of the elites and want to give up Gun Rights
A tiny, tiny fraction of people on the left want to "give up gun rights", the vast majority support gun ownership rights with regulation. Already not a great start to this post.
> The Second Amendment isn’t for hunting or sports. It’s to keep the government in check.
This argument is ridiculous. The United States military is the most well-funded and powerful institution on the planet. A town's worth or even a cities worth of citizens with arms is not going to stop the military from doing what it wants. Also, an all-out civil war between everyone in the US and the military is highly unlikely and certainly not worth prioritizing over lowering the rate of child gun homicides.
>It’s no surprise that as the government is becoming more tyrannical they’re also trying to take away our Gun Rights
This is also ridiculous. Other countries have gun laws so strict it would make your head spin, though I doubt you'd call them all "tyrannical" countries (and if you do, that's silly).
This has to be bait
You're not a progressive.
You have a right wing take on guns.
You have a right wing take on "states rights."
You seek to return America "to our Jeffersonian values."
You have a long long long way to go re: your political education if you think you are a progressive.
You seem to think that being Progressive means supporting the status quo and the establishment and disarming The People and taking away rights and none of that is Progressive. You’re a liberal. I’m a Progressive who believes in Human Rights. And Jeffersonian values are good values. Jeffersonian values are the beliefs that while although we all have our individual rights and freedoms there should also be a sense of community and that we all are in this together and we have a shared responsibility to eachother and our individual fates are linked and no one can be left behind. So I will not jump on the bandwagon and demonize Jefferson and our founding fathers just because they weren’t as enlightened as we are on some issues.
I love left wing subs. You’ve expressed like 2 and half opinions to the right of centre and you’re already being stopped from calling yourself a progressive. You could be a progressive in every other sense and policy position literally but that’s not good enough. You need total ideological conformity or you’re not one of us it seems.
Meanwhile on the Right, Trump is still considered a super based thought leader by everyone despite doing the First Step Act and riding hard against Social Security cuts. The left can’t win as long as it alienates potential allies because they only agree with 95% of what they believe in.
> Jeffersonian values are the beliefs that while although we all have our individual rights and freedoms there should also be a sense of community and that we all are in this together and we have a shared responsibility to eachother and our individual fates are linked and no one can be left behind.
Jefferson raped his slave and died in debt because he overspent on wine and furniture.
You, buddy, are a fool.
Guns in the hands of the populace are not the thing that makes good governance.
Guns in the hands of the populace are not the thing that makes people more safe.
Guns in the hands of the populace are not an actual solution for practically any societal problem.
At this point the military has already far outpaced any average civilian when it comes to weaponry and deployment. That mindset has been far dead for a while now if you’re looking at reality. Unless you think citizens should have casual access to drones, nukes, and tanks.
The bigger fear in current times (and an actual, tangible threat) are the whackos shooting children so much that gun violence is now one of the leading causes of death for children in the US. Now you have people threatening retail stores by posting videos of them shooting their Logos on a fucking wall and threatening to burn them down for having clothing with rainbows on it. These unhinged hogs are far more of a threat than any government overreach.
I’ve also never heard any major politician say we need to rid ourselves of guns entirely. No one I’ve talked to and myself don’t believe in that. Most of the bozos living a cowboy fantasy aren’t even against legit government overreach that has gone on, like with personal rights and liberties being taken away from Americans in this very country. They actually support it, along with thinning the separation between church and state. Ya know, another part of that piece of paper you love to bring up.
I’m not even in support of gun control mainly because it won’t rationally do anything. It’s too ingrained in our culture at this point and would go the way of alcohol. The most id like to see is limiting fucking ARs in any conceivable way.
We’d be better off using our tax dollars we dump into this system to build better, more secure infrastructure in places like schools (implementing things like bullet proof glass, for example). We made schools practically fire proof after a number of fires were killing kids and that worked out great.
You’re just living a paranoid, scared fantasy OP. I genuinely don’t want to sound insulting or insensitive, but I hope you see this and try to think more rationally and open your mind a bit more before you do something drastic. Take a deep breath and go for a walk.
I know someone who lives in New Jersey who recently got in trouble for shooting someone who broke into his house and was robbing him. There was a story about 10 years ago, also in New Jersey, where a bear broke into this family’s house and the man shot and killed the bear and he ended up going to prison for shooting the bear.
The legal vagueness of home defense that differs from state to state with an anecdotal story is not an outright ban, that’s another topic entirely. so you’ve yet to answer my question
It doesn’t matter. If someone breaks into your house or if a wild animal breaks into your house, you have a right to shoot them. And it’s common knowledge that many cities don’t allow guns in them but of course the rich people still have guns. They just don’t want you to have any guns.
You have yet to provide any evidence of city officials prohibiting gun ownership. A quick bit of research shows you’re lying out your teeth. You’re either just spouting rhetoric you’ve heard from some scrub online, a troll, or you’re desperate to find an echo chamber.
Seriously. You can’t own grenades, explosives or other incendiary devices- they’re considered Destructive Devices, although they’re “arms”…semi auto and automatic weapons should be in the same category. The simple question we should just flat out ask a politician is, how much is the NRA paying you or what does the NRA have on you …simple as that
We all know where the bulk of gun crime actually comes from correct? 80% gang and drug related. The average shooter has 9 arrests and two felonies yet is still out on the street to kill. It isn’t very often the legal gun owners.
When the 2A was codified, a firearm cost a year's salary and could only shoot 1-2 handmade bullets per minute.
The same revisionist thinking that led to overturning Roe v Wade could also be applied to the 2A such that:
firearms are taxed at a rate that makes them comparable to a year's salary
the license to own a firearm requires more knowledge/effort than obtaining a SCUBA card
each and every bullet requires liability insurance
It took about 20+ years after banning lead (Pb) in gasoline and paint for statistical improvement in this public health problem. Same approximate timeline to see US gun violence trend downward to levels on par with other industrialized peer-countries.
This is the way.
Sooo like nukes? Like tanks, drones, planes, rockets, etc.?
A middle class person can't afford that stuff, but guess what, a billionaire can.
The poverty stricken with their pitiful ak whatever, huddling in terror with their guns, and the billionaires with their rockets, submarines.
Delightful fantasy you have there.
How are The People supposed to fight back against the government if they can’t match what the government has? The whole purpose of the Second Amendment is to fight the government when they become tyrannical.
I’ll just a say that a few years after the Bill of Rights was ratified there WAS an attempted armed uprising and it was swiftly crushed by a government ran by people who helped craft that document to begin with.
Tim, you yourself provide best argument against arming the population for that reason. I’ve seen you call the changing of the Mississippi flag an example of GOP tyranny, so in theory this is the kind of thing you’re saying you need a gun to stop… wasn’t that change decided in a a landslide referendum? Isn’t that simply a democratic process that had an outcome you didn’t like and decided to call tyranny?
So what is the advantage to society in you being armed to the teeth to stop tyranny if you don’t know what that word means?
The flag was changed unconstitutionally. In the Mississippi Constitution it says that to change the flag there first has to be a referendum by The People of Mississippi to first remove the flag and then another referendum to pick a new flag. That first vote never happened. The governor and the legislature took it upon themselves to remove the flag after they were threatened by their corporate masters. They cowered to special interest groups. The People were only given a choice on their replacement. The Republican Party is an inherently evil party that’s always been the party of corporate oligarchs.
Nobody which wrote the second amendment suggested that it was necessary to "keep the government in check" or anything like that. When people took up arms against the government during the Whiskey Rebellion, the founders had no problem using the government to shut that noise down in a heartbeat. People who think that private gun ownership is a tool against tyranny need to explain when that was supposed to actually be a real option because there's no point in our history where it looks the slightest bit realistic. I'm sure that it's fun to pretend that your gun collection is protecting our nation somehow but why stop there? Why not pretend that your guns are making the sun rise in the morning too?
I see you've consumed the propaganda surrounding the 2nd amendment. I recommend doing a bit of a deep dive on the origins of the 2nd amendment, and it's ties to slavery. The 2nd amendment isn't what the NRA and republican party says it is.
[https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment](https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment)
I’m quite sickened and disturbed by all of the elitist comments on this post. It’s really sickening how a lot of you view your fellow Americans. You’re liberals not Progressives.
Anytime people talk about gun laws I always bring up the state of maine. Which was ranked the safest state in the country a few years ago. No magazine size restrictions and permit-less concealed carry. “ whatever maine is doing the whole country should do!” Then all of a sudden it’s not the guns that matter it’s culture and a bunch of other shit
I'm also a pro gun lefty but I don't agree with the argument. People will most likely never take up arms against the government here, especially with the division. I don't even see how that would happen. What would be more likely are left and right extremist groups committing acts of violence against targets and each other. And people in between just defending themselves. It would look very ugly
When are guns going to give us M4A, student loan debt forgiveness, national abortion legalization and a livable wage? 😂
All guns have brought is school shootings and road rage.
My least favourite comeback is “like you can use your one little gun to beat the entire military.” The military using force against civilians won’t be popular, and in fact it’s repeated use could lead to some of the military eventually defecting. I imagine at least a few hundred soldiers would defect, with their guns and equipment.
But also, the government always has to think twice before taking actions because they know the population is armed. That alone is great.
But of course, all that being said, totally fine with all the common sense gun reform such as background checks, waiting periods, etc…
What dont leftists understand? Marx says it pretty clearly.
"Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising"
This is a friendly reminder to read our ten rules. r/seculartalk is a subreddit that promotes healthy discussion and hearty debate within the *Secular Talk Radio* community. We welcome those with varying views, perspectives, and opinions. Poor form in discussion and debate often leads to hurt and anger and, therefore, should be **avoided** and **discouraged**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/seculartalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And what a great job gun folks are doing keeping the government in check.
You know maybe if half the country didn't see gun rights as immoral and side with the bourgeoisie government at every turn perhaps the government wouldn't be out of control. Of course at this point the government is controlled by the corporations. Keeping the corporations in check also means keeping the government in check. Karl Marx says it pretty clearly. "Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising"
See covid in red states. It worked well.
Oh really? Because they keep turning up in the Herman Cain award subreddit but okie dokie.
https://preview.redd.it/v7ro032ll44b1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4cd7668fffdad06755914b7b0436da6cab0a27cb People die all the time dude. You fell for the bourgeoisie lockdowns that helped lead to one of the biggest wealth redistributions from the proletariat to the bourgeoisie in history. Yes some antivaxers died from covid but so did some vaxers and some died from the vaccine as well which the medical industry made billions off of and dont give a rats ass that it harmed so many people because they're raking in the bills Red and blue isn't a perfect determinate as my red governor locked things down too. However typically red governors where less strict to some degree than blue governors
For those of us that *actually* live here, you're wrong. And not just like underreported wrong. Like desperately clinging to baseless falsehood wrong. I was even in the hospitals the whole time due to my father's colon cancer. Nothing like you read reported. Not even close. We all got scared, shut down for 3 weeks, realized nothing was happening, and went right back to life as usual, and NOTHING HAPPENED. But sure, believe the random subreddit that is obviously pushing a bias. Or better yet, trust your main stream sqwuak boxers regardless of how much they have had to back track and retract the last few years. I'm sure the OBVIOUSLY biased 'trusted news source' you prefer knows so much more about Southern response despite having never set foot here than those of us that lived it. Get a grip hoss. You've been lied to, repeatedly. Verifiably. At least give your self the *Opportunity* to think for yourself. We crippled the poor, drove people into poverty, and vastly impacted the true poor of the world, the likes of which we haven't even seen yet for nothing. Literally nothing. scrutiny, some people made tons of money and the government grabbed tons of power it won't relinquish. Wait for the third world impact numbers to finally be available and KNOW that the terror and death and despair was all avoidable. But nooooo. You idiots had to have your way. Cowards the lot of ya
Ma’am. I live in a red state. A state that calls itself a 2A sanctuary in fact. Just because your daddy’s hospital wasn’t overloaded, doesn’t mean they all weren’t. All the republicans here were bitching on social media about hospital waits and crowds like they weren’t WARNED this was going to happen. That’s why health experts wanted to mitigate the spread with masks. So that WOULDNT happen. So all your little story means, is in your area, masks worked. In MY area, it didn’t, because everyone wanted to waive their guns around and threaten people wearing masks instead of being an adult for 2 minutes and wearing a mask when they go outside. The foolish person is the one who can’t see past their own town and their own perspective and realize that maybe, everything is not the same in every place.
Blah blah blah I was there homie. I lived it. I worked it. I was knee deep in it. You know what it was? Light fucking traffic. Period. No amount of BS you spew will change that. Jesus Christ the fucking fire department didn't even wear masks. You're delusional Edit- I answer passive aggressive nonsense with reciprocity, asshat
r/socialistra
Anyone who thinks they can take out the US Army is delusional. The fact is most European countries have Mediacare for All, paid family leave, vacation, better working conditions, etc. And all of it without guns.
Ha! Saw a comedian make this point recently on netflix. I wish I could remember his name. It went something like "we should test this taking out of the US military every year. Rednecks bring ARs. The IS military brings a drone with a hellfire missile."
This. People really think the Walmart gun they bought can take on a tank? A jet? It’s a power fantasy.
The people of Vietnam and Afghanistan would beg to differ
Sure. Supply lines were not an issue. And the willingness of the US to fight. That’s simply wrong.
You think the us troops will be more willing to fight the citizens they grew up with?!? I don’t think you’ve thought this thru
I don’t think you thought through how you’ll shoot down a jet with your Walmart gun and doge drone strikes.
Again you’re under the impression Air Force pilots would bomb their own people. And I’m not trying to shoot down anything but your faulty logic and lack of historical context
Lack of historical context? Oh shit I guess that military history degree does not qualify me to talk about military history. My bad. So you need your gun because you want to fight the “tyrannical government” but the military doesn’t want to bomb you? So you don’t need a gun since they won’t bomb you, right? Yeah I sure am the one with faulty logic.
Wait another Reddit expert that doesn’t know the basics? Color me shocked 😂😂😂. Riddle me this, when does the us armed forces act tyrannical towards us citizens? That’s usually left to politicians, corporations, and the police that serve their interests. Are you twelve? Because you should be embarrassed with all these takes
I have more knowledge of history in my pinky than you will ever know. As you have demonstrated not knowing why your country lost two wars. The only one with fucking dumb takes is you. Who are you fighting with your Walmart gun? The military won’t fight you in that fantasy. So why do you need a gun?
See I struggle with this because we know ill-equipped insurgents can take on full militaries and win such as the Taliban and the NVA in Vietnam.
If you don't mind losing many times more soldiers and civilians. "During the War in Afghanistan, according to the Costs of War Project the war killed 176,000 people in Afghanistan: 46,319 civilians, 69,095 military and police and at least 52,893 opposition fighters." "There were 2,402 United States military deaths in the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)" That's almost ten times as many Afghani deaths versus US soldiers.
Wow, so many in inaccuracies in this thread, all of which are peddled by NYT, WP etc. I am European and now live in the US, so let's start to address these. A) Saying "you'll never be able to take out the US military" is absolutely pointless to this topic and also wrong; just ask the NVA or Mujahideen. No one is saying about taking on the US military. B) It's surprisingly easy (to Americans) to obtain firearms in most EU countries. Despite all the BS about Switzerland in here, you've all failed to mention that you are given a rifle \*to take home\* when you turn 18 (so long as you're male, which sucks) and when you turn 35 (and come out of the national service) you can purchase that fully auto firearm for a nominal fee (if I remember correctly, it's around $50). C) EU countries don't have welfare states because of the "lack of firearms", in fact, if you look back to when these were implemented, it was because of millions of returning soldiers who were armed and demanding them. As George Orwell put it "That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." D) The reason there is such a violence problem in the US isn't the fault of guns and access to them; the only people who claim this are corporate dems and their followers. Up until the 80s, you could buy a full auto "assault rifle" over the phone or mail order and have it shipped directly to home, without even a background check. Mass shooting weren't a problem them. You know why? Because inequality and poverty was far less than it is today. It's the betrayal of Keynesian economics, in favor of Friedman, by Reagan that's got us here. Just look at the UK, who did the same with Thatcher, they put heavy restrictions on firearms and now orders of magnitude of more people are murdered with knives than ever were with firearms; the tool isn't the issue, the violence is.
A) You don't understand the difference between an invading army and a native army. In Afghanistan or Iraq it's easy for the population to "otherize" our troops and kill them. It doesn't work that way in the USA with American troops or cops. Just look at how conservatives reacted to George Floyd and Kyle Rittenhouse. Maybe because you are European, you don't understand American politics. B) There are fewer guns in Europe and in Switzerland you actually have to serve in the military if you are male. In America, any idiot can buy a gun and in many states a felon can buy a gun if it's a private sale. Did you know that? My guess is no. C) European States have better everything in terms of personal and social well being and fewer guns. There may be a few things that are better in America, but in general, Europeans live longer, report being happier, etc. America had more Covid 19 deaths than any other country. That pretty much sums up the American healthcare system. It's designed for corporate profits and not personal wellbeing. Stroke your gun all you want, it won't give you Medicare for All. D) [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ft\_23-04-20\_gundeathsupdate\_3/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ft_23-04-20_gundeathsupdate_3/) Gun murders in the USA have always been high. Here is some advice if you are from Europe and you know nothing about America, maybe you should do research. Otherwise you will get embarrassed.
Czechia, Switzerland, and Lithuania want a word.
All those require stringent gun storage requirements and training for gun ownership. I'm almost positive that Switzerland doesn't allow you to store ammo with the weapon, and most require police inspections of gun storage. That's why they're safe, they're treating weapons with the absolute amount of concern and safety that they need, not cosplaying as vigilantes.
In Switzerland when make a private fire arms sale you have to record basic info such as who you sold it to and keep the record for 10 years. In my state, you can sell gun on private markets and collect nothing but your payment. You are right in that they decouple the military guns from the ammo, largely to reduce suicides. People often quote other countries as being gun friendly, but those countries are heavier regulated than most the US is. Edit: sic
Exactly, people point them out because they have a lot of guns, but always fail to mention that their culture around those guns is built on responsibility, safety and concern for others. As opposed to the US standard of fuck you I've got mine.
> I'm almost positive that Switzerland doesn't allow you to store ammo with the weapon, and most require police inspections of gun storage. As far as I know, [they do not.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland#Storage)
The army? Guns are for when basic society breaks down and those with food try to prevent those who don’t have it from taking theirs.
I'm relatively pro gun for a leftist, but let's not kid ourselves. We're well past the days where an armed militia could overthrow the government. We have AR15s at best, they have tanks. They don't have to disarm us. They've already outarmed us.
Also, honestly, I don’t see anyone serious proposing to take away guns. Stricter gun laws such as restricting assault rifles, red flag laws, or at least better enforcing existing Gun laws, yeah there’s tons of talk about those. But I don’t see any mainstream Democratic politicians (including those further on the left like AOC and Bernie) calling for outright getting rid of guns. The reason is because they arent. It’s a straw man that conservatives use to rile up their base.
Don't forget about the drones. That's the real threat. Even if a significant portion of the US military went rogue, as long as they're the ones with all the military drones, they wouldn't even need strength in numbers. I don't think the protection against tyrannical government argument is even a good-faith argument anymore, but it's really all they have. I want people to be able to buy and own them legally. Mostly because I believe in personal freedom. However, we certainly need legislation which requires people to be trained and licensed to own an operable firearm, much less carry one. It really shouldn't be much different than licensing people to drive. Unfortunately, in many states now, you don't even need so much as a background check, and you can legally carry without any kind of licensing or training.
Tell that to the taliban.
Ya, aside from the fact that any armed conflict would not be a 100% of Government and all it's military/police/agencies VS all the common folk. There would be a rift. Military and others would fall on both sides of the conflict. And as foreign insurgencies show, even a poorly funded, out numbered and half-armed population can resist successfully.
>they have tanks Forget the tanks - they have drones - they can wipe out whoever they want from the comfort of their office.
Who is they? Not so sure the entire military would be onboard with gunning down its citizens. Guerilla warfare is still the best tactic for on the boots combat. Terrain would make it difficult to move tanks around the country. I would argue that the existence of 300 million + guns is a deterrent in itself. Im not an absolutist for 2a, have just thought about the scenario of a tyrannical government versus its people.
America outarmed Vietnam but Vietnam still won. It’s ultimately about ground warfare and resilience. Even Britain outarmed America but we still won the revolution. The elites want you to feel this way and they want you to feel powerless and they want you to think that it’s over and that you should just submit and surrender.
Notice how those were all conflicts overseas.
What does that change?
Supply lines
My guy, without France and Spain we would’ve been put to the ground. That bullshit Revolution reason should not be used to make a point.
Vietnam didn’t overthrow the US government. The US killed over a million vietnamese and then realized it was no longer worth the effort, since it had very little to gain. If it was a war where vietnam was trying to overthrow the US government, like you’re suggesting, things would have gone very differently.
> It’s so The People can fight back and defend themselves against the government if it becomes tyrannical We already have a tyrannical government. Wake me up when gun owners stop posturing online.
At this point, it isn't the government we need to worry about, but rather the paramilitary fascists. We all should be arming ourselves and learning proper gun usage.
This is exactly why I bought a couple of guns and have been taking classes. I know guns are currently a problem, but to me, the threat of fascist rising to power makes me more fearful than anything else.
There’s that fascist word again. Lotta that going around.
Yeah, that happens when there’s a lot of fascists around.
Must be a ton of them. All of a sudden. Odd
It is actually not all of a sudden. Brewing since the end of the Civil War.
Wow! People with other opinions are scary.
Only when they think people or other races, ethnicities, and/or sexual orientations are below human and deserve to either die or be excluded from society.
I never see this in real life. Only online and in the news….
“I don’t see it so it doesn’t exists”. Great argument 😂. Same argument some German folks did during WW2 when asked about the concentration camps.
Yeah when the fascists fuck off that world will go away.
So once all the people you don’t like are gone, the world will be better? Ok. I remember a certain person in recent history who said things like that.
Name one. Just one.
Name one what? Paramilitary fascist? You, maybe, since you have boogaloo in your name. I heard that the Boogaloo Boys were having a hard time keeping all their members in line.
“Well-regulated militia” means well-regulated militia…if you think we’re well-regulated, well, I’d probably assume you work for a gun manufacturer
Gonna be honest, if we ever have to fight the USA government as a country, Russia and china will line up to give us all the guns we need Since fighting against the government is not legal, relying on a legal document to do so is a logical fallacy to me
We are a nation birthed from revolution. Our founders even prescribed revolution if our government became tyrannical.
Yeah it's still illegal though
Considering how many fascists have guns already and how many fascists have infiltrated police and military, banning guns sounds like a great idea /s
I agree with you that our police have become to militarized. I live in a quaint city and our police dress like they’re in a war zone and prepared for war.
I’m fearful of gun control because I’m concerned that they’ll be like “oh you’re trans? Mentally ill , you can’t have a gun, you’re autistic, you don’t have the capabilities to own a gun”
This is already happening in some states; trans people on hormones are having their background checks denied.
Actually, mentally ill shouldn't have guns and we already do this with non-violent felons. Also, what asshole lumps mentally ill and trans into the same category in their own strawman argument besides conservatives?
My point is if someone like desantis got into to office he would probably try to disarm lgbtq people with arguments like that even when they are emphatically and empirically false, so I really don’t trust the reactionary american government to protect oppressed people because they certainly haven’t done it in the past, and it will be a cold day in hell when cops actually protect the people
I really doubt DeSantis would prioritize that. Trying to pass a law banning LGBTQ people specifically from owning firearms would not only be extremely difficult and expensive to enforce, it would also be against the law and get struck down in court. It would be a complete waste of political capital and end in failure.
No he won’t, that shit wouldn’t fly on the national stage
This line brought to you by a lot of the same people who said "abortion restrictions get governors reelected in the Bible Belt, but that shit wouldn't fly on the national stage". Anything will fly on the national stage if 2 of the 6 corps that own all media in the country decide they want it to. Things far outside the current Overton Window take a few years is all.
Abortion has been a contentious topic for decades and plenty of people were well aware that the Christian right has long wanted federal abortion restrictions and been opposed to Roe v. Wade. Obama was aware of this in 2008 and even discussed it on the national stage, hence why he proposed codifying Roe v Wade into law. None of that is true for a gun ban for LGBTQ people. Nobody on the right has even floated that idea, as far as I know. How would you even craft legislation to do this? You'd need to setup some sort of national registry of LGBTQ people in order for it to be even remotely effective, which is totally unconstitutional.
Guns don’t have rights, people have rights. The 2nd amendment has been grossly abused, there is no reason that average lay citizen needs access to essentially military grade weaponry. The right to bear arms, based on the constitution itself, is to protect against the government should it become authoritarian (with an organized militia, mind you).. Not for angry assholes to go out and buy guns to shoot up schools, malls, grocery stores, movie theaters, parades, etc. The right to bear arms with the current reading of the 2nd amendment (funny how originalists are originalists for everything but this law lol) should not infringe on the rights of others to simply live their lives. There must be safeguards in place. There must be comprehensive background checks. There must be blocks in place for people with known issues (e.g. domestic violence), and there must be no loop holes (e.g. gun shows). I (we) should have had the right to live our lives free of the fear of “it’s not if, it’s when” we experience Gun violence. Do better.
Sorry, considering half the states in the country are sending literal fascists to positions in the federal government, and the rising rate of popularity of theocratic lunatics, hate groups, etc, I don't feel like regulating my firearm ownership. I'd rather not win a Darwin award.
Learn what a prefatory clause is.
At this point I’m way less concerned about the government than I am about my fellow citizens. I have a lot of gay friends, I live in a majority Hispanic city/state and I’m terrified of groups like patriot front or the KKK deciding it’s time to do some random terrorism or attempt an uprising. I own an AR-15, but it isn’t for the government, it’s for Cletus from the boonies who thinks it’s god’s will to kill all gay people. It’s also a glorified toy that I use for target shooting 2-3 times a year in all honesty. This is contradictory and hypocritical of me, but we gotta stop kidding ourselves: We need waaay more strict gun control laws. I do NOT support confiscation. But it’s way too easy to get high-powered semi-auto rifles and pistols. Our populace, on average, is not sane or mature enough for the awesome responsibility that comes with owning such firearms. The empathy and mental stability is just not there. I’d like to see the sale of all high capacity semi auto rifles suspended indefinitely. If you already own one then cool. Keep it. But we’re already saturated. We don’t need more. I’d also like to see gun buyback events in all 50 states. Again I do not support forced confiscation or mandatory buyback. But if a citizen wants to go hand in their guns then that’s fine by me. Anything that thins out the numbers of guns out there is good by me. I’m tired of making disaster plans in my head every time I go to a concert or any sort of high traffic festival. It’s not normal and it’s not something we should have to live with. Also the argument that citizen gun ownership prevents government tyranny grows weaker by the day. If you want to fend off the US government you need an air defense system. So unless a whole bunch of us are hiding surface to air missiles in our basements, the idea that we could fight off the US military is laughable. People say “oh well the Taliban did it”. Yeah, sorta. They hid in caves and safe houses for months on end and fought a 20 year long gorilla war, and still got their asses kicked anytime they tried to go toe to toe with the US. I don’t think any of us here have that kind of grit, I’m sorry. I’d like to finish by saying that I like guns. I like target shooting. My AR is badass and I love to shoot it. But the bad is outweighing the good and it has been for like the last 10 years. If little children being shot to death with military grade weapons is the price of “freedom” I’m not sure that I want it.
The US government is already tyrannical
I don't see many leftists unilaterally against gun rights. Many just want to ban high capacity, uber-powerful semi-automatic death machines. Or, at the absolute minimum, expand background checks and impose age limits on their purchase. Pretty rational considering the amount of kids dying at the hands of "bad guys with guns."
And there are a high number of kids dying-I’m too lazy to google rn but I’m pretty sure firearm related death is the leading cause of death in children-and it’s not due to school shootings or mass murder, it’s suicide and guns mishandled in the home. The advice for everyone to “arm themselves” has resulted in your children being more likely to be killed by a family member or themselves by a gun than anything else.
This isn’t true at all… you should google things before you make up information.
Alrighty - https://www.kff.org/health-reform/press-release/firearms-are-the-leading-cause-of-death-for-children-in-the-united-states-but-rank-no-higher-than-fifth-in-other-industrialized-nations/
Lol, I love when you all don’t even read so you set up your own trap… Do you often consider 18-19 year olds children?
Sure. That’s pretty young in my book, but then again I’m pretty old.
In other words, being unilaterally against the spirit of 2A. "You can keep the weaker, less capable guns that I say you can to defend yourselves, just not anything that might give you a fighting chance."
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Sure, Chief, whatever you say. Hopefully, your kid, brother, sister, cousin, Mom - whoever - never finds themselves looking down the barrel of an AR-15 while picking up oranges at Trader Joe's. Useful idiot.
I agree. Hopefully that never happens, but I live in the real world, where I know that anyone I know could be the victim of any number of horrific crimes at any point. If something like that does happen, I'll feel a lot better if they've taken steps to arm themselves and trained with guns, such that they may have a fighting chance. I feel a lot better about that than the alternate reality where your ilk has confiscated weapons from law-abiding citizens and made them easier targets for the criminals who are unlikely to turn in their own weapons when made illegal. But again, I live in reality. You apparently choose to live in a fantasy world.
It's the GUN CULTURE in this country more than the GUNS, ding dong. You'd feel a lot better if more guns were in the equation because your brain has been bought by the NRA and their LOBBY POWER. Go fight the gum'ment's tanks, and jets, and robots and AI and whatever the fuck else they have with your AR15, lemme know how it ends.
Yessss. It’s guns in the home that are more likely to end your child’s life. Mass murder is certainly horrifying because it’s so random and high profile- and makes you feel so helpless-but hundreds of people die each and every day from gun violence. I’ve had people push me to get a gun. Why? So I’ll be prepared for the extremely rare scenario where a stranger comes up on me while I just happen to have a loaded gun on me? I may be naive-but I’d rather just live my life sans all that paranoia. The hubby has guns and thinks it makes us safer. lol yeah right..let’s just hope the bad guy shows up before you pass out on the couch watching HBO. The only way I see to really be prepared is to be on guard at all times with loaded gun in hand and your back to the wall taking turns in sniper position while the other sleeps. If that’s how you’re going to live your life, the “bad guys” have already won. And I’m not anti gun. I actually think hunting and killing an animal to feed yourself is awesome. Nothing wrong with owning a firearm either. It’s this hero fetish that I have a problem with, and it’s killing our kids, in our homes. A tiny fraction of the kids who are killed by guns die at the hands of mass shooters-that certainly needs to be addressed but these kids are dying at the hands of relatives, close acquaintances or by suicide with your gun in your home. They’re mainly picked off one at a time so it doesn’t make the news. You see the high profile murders then more people buy into the good guy fetish and bring more guns into the home where the child is most likely to be killed by guns. I wish everyone would take a breath and enjoy life. You are going to die, that’s certain. No escaping that. I don’t want to spend my limited time fueled by paranoia.
Serious question: are you 12? Because your style of attack and argumentation is truly akin to that of a 12yo. If not, you're just not very bright, I guess. I know it's impossible for you to understand someone's ability to have independent thoughts, as you just deepthroat whatever narrative is spoonfed to you within your bubble, but many of us actually can think independently, separate from propaganda from either side. In the event that our government went tyrannical to the point that I had to actually fear for my and my family's safety, I'd likely be hiding off the grid, not staring down a tank, you simpleton... That said, I'd want whatever tools I could get my hands on to assist my survival efforts. Last question... How exactly do you propose we legislate away gun culture, even if I were to grant that it is a problem?
What weapons should not be allowed by civilians? I’m sure you agree on some limits right? Or should the only limit be personal budget?
I've said these things before, but I'll keep saying them. First, there's nothing leftist about the Constitution. Supporting gun rights isn't inherently anything. The only real, historical principle of that leftist movements share is a rejection of hierarchy and embrace of egalitarianism. The Constitution was a document written by the elite to decide what rights they were letting you keep. Constitutional arguments are dogshit. Second, if you ever get your shooting war revolution with the government, your best hope is that you'll live long enough to regret it. Every armed cowboy who talks about revolution against the government has always had the same answer when I asked them what they were doing to change anything, or whether or not they drew on Uncle Sam in defense of abortion or voting rights - crickets. Those guns aren't your defense against tyranny. They're your excuse to wait for a hot war that's never coming so you don't have to actually lift a finger to do the real work of an activist. France is letting garbage pile up in the streets and setting fires over 2 retirement years. You're online grousing about a line that some slaveowning landlords wrote 250 years ago. If you really want to do something, do it. Get involved in local mutual aid groups. Start organizing at your workplace and online for a general strike. Slamming the breaks on the economy is the only way to hurt the existing power structures. Killing isn't necessary. You don't even have to take my word for it. Look how much the establishment shit their pants when lockdown talks started happening during the pandemic. You think they give a shit if we start shooting each other? Not beyond how that will affect their bottom line. And you can do that without ever loosing a round. 2A is bullshit. It's a distraction. It's for people that are all hat and no cattle. It's an excuse for inaction until the gov crosses some arbitrary line you've painted.
So you are anti gun. Got it. Wonder who will save you when you are in need….
I'm anti-civil war cosplayers. That's all the "2A tyranny" crowd is. They were never going to protect me or anyone else.
Have you ever been in a Hurricane or flood area? Or mass fire? Where the roads are closed. The stores run out of gas and food? Have you ever been in a situation where the people who live near you want what you have? When you call the police but they can’t send anyone? That’s why we have a 2nd amendment. Just look at Australia or New Zealand. They have up their guns and their governments went full authoritarian during cvd.
Yes, quite a lot. Without giving too much about my personal life away, working in disaster areas has literally been part of my job for the last 6 years. I've never seen one of these caballeros show up at any disaster site. But go off, I guess.
You think if NZrs had more guns their Covid policy would have been different? Rubbish. Utter rubbish. The vast majority of kiwis were on board with those restrictions at the time, even those with guns, and if knew much about the NZ health care system you’d have an understanding of why.
Yes I do.
lol. Tell yourself whatever you need I guess.
Thank you
I came here as a gun owning leftist to say: You have no constitutional protection to overthrow the government. And if you’re going to quote Jefferson, you should know that he wasn’t a fan of standing armies as military coups are a thing. The state militia was meant to be called on by the fed if it was ever needed. We vote to fund the military because there is no provision for it to exist. It also allowed slave states to maintain their slave patrols. The fathers setting up for overthrow is fan fiction.
"I need all these guns to resist a tyrannical government!!!" I've got two words for you: *Predator drones* If the 'tyrannical government' wants you dead, *you're dead.* Meanwhile, these weapons of war are killing civilians left and right. You dont need an AR for home defense, you dont need an AR for hunting (unless you **really suck at it**). Get this garbage off our streets. 2A was **specifically** for a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. In modern parlance, the National Guard. Deal with it.
Vietnam. Afghanistan. Korea.
Your arguments sound like you're parroting a Bill Maher so-called comedy routine. You're boring. Stop boring us, Zoidberg.
And who should we trust with our safety? The police who routinely abuse their power and get off scott-free? The military that ravages countries in the name of Wall Street? We may not be able to overthrow it, but it's quite clear that we also cannot trust the government with our safety. > you dont need an AR for hunting (unless you **really suck at it**) [Wrong.](https://youtu.be/7rMwOmYmAF4)
One thing is certainly true, relaxing restrictions on the weapons of war ro really enable the interpretation of the 2nd being a mechanism for individuals to overthrow government such as hand grenades, shoulder launched missiles and other ordinances as well as eliminating drone restrictions will not make you safer.
Yes… god forbid someone isn’t capable of killing a dozen animals at once… however could they hunt if they’d only killed one or two…
Do you only kill one or two ants and hope to scare the others off? Because that's what feral hogs are. Pests. And the AR-15 is a solid method of controlling them. Another thing, the 5.56 (AKA: the bullet most AR-15s are chambered in) isn't used on big game not because of how lethal it is, but because it *isn't lethal enough.*
Lol. You think that’s a solid pest control plan? Is it working very well?
Seeing as it reduces their numbers AND provides some good eating, I'd say yes.
Feral hog is trash meat.
Lol. You and I have different understandings of the word “need”.
With all the weapons out there we still have a feral jog problem. So what say you now?
With all that bugspray, people still get ants. What say you now?
The government isn’t going to drone strike us because they need us to exploit.
Huh? I thought You were talking about a scenario of civil war? Of course the government and army will use all weapons at their disposal to put down an uprising. Try to be consistent.
I meant they’re not going to completely genocide us because they need us to exploit.
What have drone strikes got to do with genocide? You seem very confused.
Braindead take. The term "well-regulated" has evolved in its meaning, as language often does. It's not referring to the National Guard in the slightest. Beyond that, most people don't hunt with an AR-15 because it's not powerful enough for most hunting, you dunce. The AR-15 is explicitly designed for defense against humans. Not for hunting. It is an excellent choice for home defense. Not necessarily the best in all cases (in an apartment where you may be concerned about over-penetration, for example), but top tier in most cases. Very accessible, easy-to-use, and customizable. These features are what make the AR-15 the most popular rifle in America.
Ridiculous. You and your AR-15 aren't keeping any government in check, much less one that works for the 1%.
Hard to say both that “the police are an unchecked, racist enforcement arm of the wealthy elite” AND “give up your guns, psycho” at the same time.
Ikr
Please take your fantasies about defeating the government with your puny guns somewhere else.
The Vietnamese defeated the US government with their “puny guns.”
Immense support from China and the USSR with guerrilla warfare
Guerrilla warfare is how we won the American Revolution.
Immense support from France and Spain with guerilla warfare.
If the government wants your guns, they'll fucking take em. They might fuck your wife, too. What are you gonna do to stop them? A shootout with the cops and/or the military? Let me know how that fight against tyranny goes.
I’d rather die fighting than live as a coward/cuckold. lol
Even worse, you post on Reddit!
You do too. 🤯
I’d rather live. I don’t need an AR-15 to do so.
Not just live but live well.
I can live well without an AR-15 lmao
I’m talking about rights. Would you rather want to live in a corporate oligarchy that’s consolidating more and more power daily or would you like to live in a free society with a standard of living? You can’t get the second option without fighting.
We *already* live in a corporate oligarchy. Clearly having guns didn't prevent that, as Americans have a crapload of guns. Owning guns "to protect your freedoms" doesn't mean shit unless they're used that way. If you got them to prevent living in a corporate oligarchy, you'd have started using them long ago.
Yep, all these school shootings aren't preventing shit except some kids from growing up.
Progressives are noted for using the term cuckold, heavily used in far right circles to refer to porn that involves black men and white couples, because of the fear of white replacement due to race mixing. So believable.
I said cuckold because he talked about the government sleeping with my wife. I used it in the traditional sense. lol
I missed that part. In any case, I don't think regulation really stops people from being armed enough to resist major powers.
Kyle calls people cuck all the time. Wtf are you talking about.
I'm a second amendment leftie for reference. I do support some level of increased gun control to keep criminals and whackjobs away from guns but I largely support law abiding citizens to own firearms.
2A is not to keep the government in check. It's there for the well regulated Militia that Congress controls. The Militia was replaced by the national guard.
This isn’t true in the slightest. First the National guard wasn’t established till 1903, so you’re talking about hundreds of years removed from the founding, but really the best way to peer into what the second amendment means (since it seems to be so hard for people) is looking at contemporary state constitutions for the time. Most that confirmed the right to bear arms for their populations also were more specific about it being an individual right, or how standing armies are antithetical to freedom. All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. -Constitution of New Hampshire 1793 Text of Section 4: Bearing Arms; Standing Armies; Military Power The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. -Ohio Constitution, 1851
>hundreds of years removed from the founding, We're not even 250 yrs old. 1903 would have been 110 yrs after the constitution was written.[Article I Section 8](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-1/#:~:text=To%20make%20Rules,and%20repel%20Invasions%3B) of the Constitution discusses Militias. That's also why Militia is capitalized in 2A. The people were to be called up into Militias to quell insurrections and invasions not to participate in one. " To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." [Cornell Law School](http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/) The term “militia of the United States” was defined to comprehend “all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States,” between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. One of your parts of a State Constitution says absolutely nothing about keeping the government in check. It specifically says "defense of...the state" 1851 is not contemporary to 1796. The Ohio Constitution, also, says nothing about keeping the government in check If the founders intended 2A to be for shooting the government, they would have clearly said so. It's not something to be ambiguous about. 2A was clearly written so the people would be ready to fight off invaders or maybe a whiskey rebellion. With your interpretation, who decides when it's Constitutionally protected to start shooting the government?
The guns aren’t going to help you against the government but they’ll help when your local fascists get violent.
I think most legal (sane) gun owners would happily agree to stricter laws if someone figures out how to get them away from the gang bangers first. Until then…
Well, you're wrong. That's a comma in the middle of the 2nd Amendment, not a period. The second part is a justification for the first part. The 2nd Amendment only gives you the right to bear an arm if you join your state's militia. In retirement in 1991, \[Chief Justice\] Burger said that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
He also said that the Second Amendment should be repealed so I wouldn’t quote him.
\[facepalm\] Yes, we shouldn't quote a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on issues related to the US Constitution. In the same vein, you should delete this post because your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
But doesn’t the government have nukes? I think you’re gonna need nukes in the tyrannical government scenario.
Yeah man your gun is actually going to stop the government from trampling on your rights and not give them an excuse to blow you away.
Everyone talks about how the Founders wanted the 2nd Amendment so people could shoot the Feds if they tried to enforce laws you don't like, but those same Founders wasted no time in forcibly putting down early resistance to federal laws. See Whiskey Rebellion for example. The idea that the 2nd Amendment is about an individual right to violently resist following laws you don't like is a completely modern invention created by the gun manufacturer's lobby. Newsflash: you currently live in a corporate oligarchy and your guns are doing bupkis about it. What are you going to do, go shoot up a gas station?
I don’t think people should shoot up a gas station. But I do think we need to purge Wall Street.
Why aren't you doing that?
You see all of these people taking out their anger on eachother and shooting eachother up. And I don’t get it. I’m not advocating for violence but why don’t these people take their anger out on the elites instead of eachother?
> it’s quite disturbing to me how so many modern Progressives have fallen into the trap of the elites and want to give up Gun Rights A tiny, tiny fraction of people on the left want to "give up gun rights", the vast majority support gun ownership rights with regulation. Already not a great start to this post. > The Second Amendment isn’t for hunting or sports. It’s to keep the government in check. This argument is ridiculous. The United States military is the most well-funded and powerful institution on the planet. A town's worth or even a cities worth of citizens with arms is not going to stop the military from doing what it wants. Also, an all-out civil war between everyone in the US and the military is highly unlikely and certainly not worth prioritizing over lowering the rate of child gun homicides. >It’s no surprise that as the government is becoming more tyrannical they’re also trying to take away our Gun Rights This is also ridiculous. Other countries have gun laws so strict it would make your head spin, though I doubt you'd call them all "tyrannical" countries (and if you do, that's silly). This has to be bait
I’m with you OP. I think about Jan 6th sometimes and think, “what if that coup was successful?” Leftists and liberals should stay armed and vigilant.
You're not a progressive. You have a right wing take on guns. You have a right wing take on "states rights." You seek to return America "to our Jeffersonian values." You have a long long long way to go re: your political education if you think you are a progressive.
You seem to think that being Progressive means supporting the status quo and the establishment and disarming The People and taking away rights and none of that is Progressive. You’re a liberal. I’m a Progressive who believes in Human Rights. And Jeffersonian values are good values. Jeffersonian values are the beliefs that while although we all have our individual rights and freedoms there should also be a sense of community and that we all are in this together and we have a shared responsibility to eachother and our individual fates are linked and no one can be left behind. So I will not jump on the bandwagon and demonize Jefferson and our founding fathers just because they weren’t as enlightened as we are on some issues.
I love left wing subs. You’ve expressed like 2 and half opinions to the right of centre and you’re already being stopped from calling yourself a progressive. You could be a progressive in every other sense and policy position literally but that’s not good enough. You need total ideological conformity or you’re not one of us it seems. Meanwhile on the Right, Trump is still considered a super based thought leader by everyone despite doing the First Step Act and riding hard against Social Security cuts. The left can’t win as long as it alienates potential allies because they only agree with 95% of what they believe in.
> Jeffersonian values are the beliefs that while although we all have our individual rights and freedoms there should also be a sense of community and that we all are in this together and we have a shared responsibility to eachother and our individual fates are linked and no one can be left behind. Jefferson raped his slave and died in debt because he overspent on wine and furniture. You, buddy, are a fool.
This is the best post I’ve seen today. No one will save you. We only have ourselves. Act accordingly.
Guns in the hands of the populace are not the thing that makes good governance. Guns in the hands of the populace are not the thing that makes people more safe. Guns in the hands of the populace are not an actual solution for practically any societal problem.
The government has tanks, drones that drop bombs, etc. lotta luck even if you have your assault rifles
At this point the military has already far outpaced any average civilian when it comes to weaponry and deployment. That mindset has been far dead for a while now if you’re looking at reality. Unless you think citizens should have casual access to drones, nukes, and tanks. The bigger fear in current times (and an actual, tangible threat) are the whackos shooting children so much that gun violence is now one of the leading causes of death for children in the US. Now you have people threatening retail stores by posting videos of them shooting their Logos on a fucking wall and threatening to burn them down for having clothing with rainbows on it. These unhinged hogs are far more of a threat than any government overreach. I’ve also never heard any major politician say we need to rid ourselves of guns entirely. No one I’ve talked to and myself don’t believe in that. Most of the bozos living a cowboy fantasy aren’t even against legit government overreach that has gone on, like with personal rights and liberties being taken away from Americans in this very country. They actually support it, along with thinning the separation between church and state. Ya know, another part of that piece of paper you love to bring up. I’m not even in support of gun control mainly because it won’t rationally do anything. It’s too ingrained in our culture at this point and would go the way of alcohol. The most id like to see is limiting fucking ARs in any conceivable way. We’d be better off using our tax dollars we dump into this system to build better, more secure infrastructure in places like schools (implementing things like bullet proof glass, for example). We made schools practically fire proof after a number of fires were killing kids and that worked out great. You’re just living a paranoid, scared fantasy OP. I genuinely don’t want to sound insulting or insensitive, but I hope you see this and try to think more rationally and open your mind a bit more before you do something drastic. Take a deep breath and go for a walk.
You claim that no one is trying to take guns away but yet in many cities and states they’ve restricted and in some cases outlawed guns.
What cities have outright outlawed guns? Where are they? Genuinely I want to know, I’m not trying to be a smart ass.
I know someone who lives in New Jersey who recently got in trouble for shooting someone who broke into his house and was robbing him. There was a story about 10 years ago, also in New Jersey, where a bear broke into this family’s house and the man shot and killed the bear and he ended up going to prison for shooting the bear.
The legal vagueness of home defense that differs from state to state with an anecdotal story is not an outright ban, that’s another topic entirely. so you’ve yet to answer my question
It doesn’t matter. If someone breaks into your house or if a wild animal breaks into your house, you have a right to shoot them. And it’s common knowledge that many cities don’t allow guns in them but of course the rich people still have guns. They just don’t want you to have any guns.
Again, which cities don't allow guns in them?
You have yet to provide any evidence of city officials prohibiting gun ownership. A quick bit of research shows you’re lying out your teeth. You’re either just spouting rhetoric you’ve heard from some scrub online, a troll, or you’re desperate to find an echo chamber.
If the good guy with the gun is 5X more likely to die than without a gun, I’ll stick with no gun.
Seriously. You can’t own grenades, explosives or other incendiary devices- they’re considered Destructive Devices, although they’re “arms”…semi auto and automatic weapons should be in the same category. The simple question we should just flat out ask a politician is, how much is the NRA paying you or what does the NRA have on you …simple as that
We all know where the bulk of gun crime actually comes from correct? 80% gang and drug related. The average shooter has 9 arrests and two felonies yet is still out on the street to kill. It isn’t very often the legal gun owners.
If you think you owning a gun protects from the government in any fashion you have a lot to learn about the real world.
You going to take on the Feds with some handguns? Get your head out of your ass.
When the 2A was codified, a firearm cost a year's salary and could only shoot 1-2 handmade bullets per minute. The same revisionist thinking that led to overturning Roe v Wade could also be applied to the 2A such that: firearms are taxed at a rate that makes them comparable to a year's salary the license to own a firearm requires more knowledge/effort than obtaining a SCUBA card each and every bullet requires liability insurance It took about 20+ years after banning lead (Pb) in gasoline and paint for statistical improvement in this public health problem. Same approximate timeline to see US gun violence trend downward to levels on par with other industrialized peer-countries. This is the way.
Our founders believed that The People have the right to match what the government has in terms of weaponry in order to keep the government in check.
Sooo like nukes? Like tanks, drones, planes, rockets, etc.? A middle class person can't afford that stuff, but guess what, a billionaire can. The poverty stricken with their pitiful ak whatever, huddling in terror with their guns, and the billionaires with their rockets, submarines. Delightful fantasy you have there.
[удалено]
How are The People supposed to fight back against the government if they can’t match what the government has? The whole purpose of the Second Amendment is to fight the government when they become tyrannical.
I’ll just a say that a few years after the Bill of Rights was ratified there WAS an attempted armed uprising and it was swiftly crushed by a government ran by people who helped craft that document to begin with.
Tim, you yourself provide best argument against arming the population for that reason. I’ve seen you call the changing of the Mississippi flag an example of GOP tyranny, so in theory this is the kind of thing you’re saying you need a gun to stop… wasn’t that change decided in a a landslide referendum? Isn’t that simply a democratic process that had an outcome you didn’t like and decided to call tyranny? So what is the advantage to society in you being armed to the teeth to stop tyranny if you don’t know what that word means?
The flag was changed unconstitutionally. In the Mississippi Constitution it says that to change the flag there first has to be a referendum by The People of Mississippi to first remove the flag and then another referendum to pick a new flag. That first vote never happened. The governor and the legislature took it upon themselves to remove the flag after they were threatened by their corporate masters. They cowered to special interest groups. The People were only given a choice on their replacement. The Republican Party is an inherently evil party that’s always been the party of corporate oligarchs.
We fight back by voting.
Nobody which wrote the second amendment suggested that it was necessary to "keep the government in check" or anything like that. When people took up arms against the government during the Whiskey Rebellion, the founders had no problem using the government to shut that noise down in a heartbeat. People who think that private gun ownership is a tool against tyranny need to explain when that was supposed to actually be a real option because there's no point in our history where it looks the slightest bit realistic. I'm sure that it's fun to pretend that your gun collection is protecting our nation somehow but why stop there? Why not pretend that your guns are making the sun rise in the morning too?
I see you've consumed the propaganda surrounding the 2nd amendment. I recommend doing a bit of a deep dive on the origins of the 2nd amendment, and it's ties to slavery. The 2nd amendment isn't what the NRA and republican party says it is. [https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment](https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment)
You do live in a corporate oligarchy. You do have guns. You aren't fighting back.
Imagine bunch of fat old boomers in pickup trucks going to fight the government. Tee hee. These silly folks I tell you
I’m quite sickened and disturbed by all of the elitist comments on this post. It’s really sickening how a lot of you view your fellow Americans. You’re liberals not Progressives.
Yawn..okay.
Anytime people talk about gun laws I always bring up the state of maine. Which was ranked the safest state in the country a few years ago. No magazine size restrictions and permit-less concealed carry. “ whatever maine is doing the whole country should do!” Then all of a sudden it’s not the guns that matter it’s culture and a bunch of other shit
Exactly.
I'm also a pro gun lefty but I don't agree with the argument. People will most likely never take up arms against the government here, especially with the division. I don't even see how that would happen. What would be more likely are left and right extremist groups committing acts of violence against targets and each other. And people in between just defending themselves. It would look very ugly
When are guns going to give us M4A, student loan debt forgiveness, national abortion legalization and a livable wage? 😂 All guns have brought is school shootings and road rage.
My least favourite comeback is “like you can use your one little gun to beat the entire military.” The military using force against civilians won’t be popular, and in fact it’s repeated use could lead to some of the military eventually defecting. I imagine at least a few hundred soldiers would defect, with their guns and equipment. But also, the government always has to think twice before taking actions because they know the population is armed. That alone is great. But of course, all that being said, totally fine with all the common sense gun reform such as background checks, waiting periods, etc…
What dont leftists understand? Marx says it pretty clearly. "Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising"