pull down to refresh
110 sats \ 6 replies \ @anon 13 Feb \ on: ABORTION and GUNS poll culture
Pro freedom on all sides.
Totally respect everyone's opinion, in America you get freedom of speech, vote, and thought. I think one point that all sides lose is that the Founders specifically wanted citizens to have guns as a bulwark against a tyrannical government - not for fun, sporting, hunting, etc.
So you are free to be of the opinion that people should only have "small" guns for "fun activities" but that is definitely not the spirit or letter of the 2nd amendment. It specifically calls out having a civilian militia, not people hunting or target shooting.
Text copied here, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I think its always helpful to go back to first principles, in this case what does the constitution actually say. What we think the law should be is completely different from what it actually is today.
Appreciate the respectful discussion on such divisive topics.
In modern speak: "Because government armed forces are necessary, the people will have the right to arm themselves any way they see fit, to deter any tyrannical fantasies by a future government."
It didn't say: "Since muskets are modern weapons of war, the people will be allowed to use recurve bows and spears, so they don't hurt each other too much."
reply
Being not American I'm not hugely familiar with the second amendment, so I'm grateful you out it down there in black and white.
My thoughts on that was that it was written in a very very different era. And in my view was written with the intent to protect the right to defend yourself with weapons against a tyrannical state or even foreign invader as you mentioned.
But I do feel it was written with the weapons of the time in mind. Muskets, single bolt action rifles. Not AR15s.
If you require, as a civilian, a weapon of that calibre, you sir are in way over your head. Although I believe you should be able to defend yourself against aggressors like tyrannical state. You're going up against a well funded and well trained military. No local militia is taking on the US army. You don't stand a chance. The best you could hope for is those highly trained persons side with you against the state. But don't delude yourself into a false sense of security that if the state wanted you gone, an AR15 or other military grade weapon isn't going to help you.
I don't mean to sound disrespectful with that last statement. But truly if you're fighting your own tyrannical govt. You're in over your head, find a way out, engaging isn't going to be a good or survivable option.
reply
Hopefully, some states, like Texas, would form a coalition with nuclear armed states like North Dakota. That I'm afraid will be the only deterrent from a tyrannical "United States"
reply
I truly don't believe they would. Their military isn't beholden to the state it's beholden to the govt. North Dakota isn't a nuclear armed state. The US is a nuclear state. Those aren't north Dakota's nukes they're the US Govts ain't no way they're letting some coalition of militia get anywhere close to having control over those nukes.
reply
Ukraine had nukes after USSR collapse. Then Obama took them, then what happened?
reply
Victoria Nuland
reply