Question about 2A
🗣️ DISCUSSION 💬
Comments (33)
sorted by:
No. guns in the hands of citizens keep the government in check-
If you call the current state of our government “in check”, I’d hate to see what it looks like when “not in check!”
The reason it hasn't gone hot, is them in check. The reason it has taken them so long to deteriorate our society is them in check. People's ignorance is what you are getting at as the problem, but they are entranced in a media lull. Try and break the bewitching as you will, I'm sure everyone here has hit many Brickwalls behind the keyboard plenty. Exhausting usually to no avail. But the guns have given these toads the luxury of being so damn ignorant.
Very good points. I’m of the opinion that the luxury of certain kinds of ignorance is afforded by our current system. I gain no benefit, for example, by believing the sky is green; but I have much to gain by saying a man can be a woman. I’ll have to think some more about where guns fit into that equation. Thanks!
💯 exactly
Guns in the possession of free people are the insurance to try to avoid the outcome of a tyrannical Government oppressing it's own citizens.
The keyboard will assist in revealing and spreading the information to awaken the masses as to the "Evil" that lurks beyond their consciousness.
Always remember, without the gun to protect it,the free keyboard won't exist!
Great answer! Nailed it!
https://jpfo.org/
https://www.gunowners.org/ (Ron Paul Endorsed over NRA!- before the JPFO was founded)
Thanks for those links,fren. Very much appreciated!
You're welcome!
So, in effect, “different tools for different jobs?” That makes sense. Thanks.
If someone breaks into your house will you reach for your gun or your computer?
It’s a good point, and I addressed it in my opening sentence. My question is more specifically geared at the primary intent of the 2A, not its side benefits.
Innocent people could be hurt or killed if I don't maintain proficiency with my handgun, so that is crucial to maintain. I spend too much time behind the keyboard with you guys as it is. ;)
Thank you for your vigilance, friend, in both the physical and digital spheres ;)
And what good is a keyboard against an armed-to-the-teeth malicious government?
The only reason information is any threat whatsoever is because it has the potential to change the minds of those who already have arms. Once you give up your arms, you're dead. Period.
Let me see if I understand your point. Are you saying that the reason our current struggle is information-based is because the presence of firearms in the hands of citizens deters governments from going kinetic? Personally, I think it’s because propaganda is more effective at producing compliant serfs than threats of violence.
The threats of violence are the most effective. “Let us remove your earnings or armed government goons will point guns at you, shackle you, throw you in a cage, and give you a ‘criminal’ record” is definitely the main motivation for people becoming serfs.
The propaganda plays an important role in giving some of the serfs an opportunity to rationalize their serfdom as if it was their own idea: “I want to pay my ‘fair share’ of the ‘social contract’” and other brow-beaten excuses.
I don’t think guns have been used to fight taxes since the Whiskey Rebellion. If paying taxes is your definition of servitude, I won’t disagree with you, but that means Americans have been serfs since 1794.
To your main point, though — your argument seems to be that “government’s implied threat of violence is effective on citizens, therefore citizen’s implied threat of violence is effective on government.” Do I have that right?
I’ve mentioned before how the Whiskey tax and the suppression of its protesters were almost immediate examples of the failure of the Constitution to protect people from aristocratic taxation. The whiskey tax was repealed, so we can’t claim that it has had an enduring influence on people’s freedom. The legacy of that era is the demonstration of how the government can impose unfair taxation, such as the income tax legislation of 1913.
Your second paragraph isn’t really my main point, but I wouldn’t disagree with it. It’s a primitive world out there, and the threat of violence looms behind many interactions. The second amendment’s term “militia” refers to citizen force rather than government force, and “well regulated” means well provisioned with violent weapons.
“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.”
In other words, a citizenry that can threaten violence is necessary for freedom.
2A is in case 1-10 are threatened. Period.
Fair point. I’d consider #1, 4, and 10, at minimum, to be under threat today. How, in your opinion, has #2 defended them?
Merely the THREAT of conflict maintains peace. When certain states begin subverting the BoR, some people will rise up. The questions surrounding legality of armed revolt are then nullified by Marbury vs. Madison.
Without the 2A there is not guarantee you would be able to use your keyboard. The Gun is the only thing that insures you have the other rights
That makes logical sense, but I’m not sure it checks out in reality. During the Net Neutrality kerfuffle, for instance, how many politicians do you think had their constituents’ firearms on their mind?
if guns go away they will come in and take you and your keyboard and do whatever the hell they want to you.
re: 2A... even more importantly, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You only look to the many millions dead in communist controlled countries to understand the gun is a necessity to keep the rogue governments from going to all out murder to get compliance.
Our forefathers knew this more than 200 years ago, and that is why they made the citizens right to bear firerams second only to their right fo speak freely. They knew without the 2A there would be no 1A.
Certainly, but the pogroms came before the advent of the Information Age. In the political conflict between patriots and globalists, guns are not the threat — information is.
During the height of COVID, for example, China welded people’s doors, but America glued its citizens’ eyes to CNN.
I’m not trying to rag on you or anyone else in this thread. I love pro-gun rhetoric as much as the next guy; I just want to be sure my rhetoric matches the current reality.
Without the guns the pograms would come regardless of the information age. They don't give a shit if every last person knows when they don't have any means to put a stop to them.
I suppose the only conclusion I can draw is that Australia, Britain, etc. aren’t disarmed, despite what the memes say. That’s good news, if so.
I guess from the tone of all your replies, you are advocating that America should just give up and join Britain and Australia.
Its not going to happen, but don't stop trying.
You’ve misunderstood me, friend. I own quite a few firearms, and I hope the English and Aussies can too.
My question was about whether old pro-gun rhetoric (framed in the context of 2A) still holds true in the age where battles for the soul of the nation take place on TV and the Internet.
No animosity here, friend. :) Hope your day is blessed.
Stop trying to hide.
No one that believes in the 2A throws out such bullshit.
I guess I can’t convince you of my good intentions. As a gesture of goodwill, though, I upvoted all your posts/comments from the last 7 days.
Thank you for your earlier helpful responses from before you started suspecting me. Hope your day is blessed.