Your argument is akin to cutting off your own dick to fight against rape. I'll also refer you to the second amendment, and the tens of thousands of arguments over it since inception.
Saying “don’t build mass surveillance systems” isn’t self-harm, it’s saying you don’t fix one problem by creating a much bigger one. History is very clear on this. Tools built to go after “bad people” never stay limited to "bad people".
AI tracking, databases, bounties, and private contractors don’t stop where you hope they will. They expand, they get misused, and eventually innocent people get caught in it. That’s not hypothetical, that’s how every surveillance state works.
You can want immigration enforcement without cheering for a police-state surveillance machine. If you’re fine with the machine, just be honest about that tradeoff. 🤷♀️
I honestly don’t know what point you’re trying to make with the Second Amendment here.
Arguing against surveillance isn’t like arguing against the Second Amendment, and arguing against surveillance isn’t like disarming yourself.
If your point is just “people argue about everything,” then sure, but that doesn’t actually defend mass surveillance. It just dodges the issue.
If your point is that both the 2nd Amendment and mass surveillance are tools to be used against those you oppose or those that oppose you, then they're opposite goals. The 2nd Amendment is about limiting state power over citizens and mass surveillance is about expanding state power over citizens. Those are actually opposite goals, see?
If there’s a clearer argument you’re making, please spell it out, because right now the comparison doesn’t make sense. 🤷♀️
The 2a is about citizens having the same weapons as the government. Surveillance and ai are weapons and there's no sticking them back in the bottle no matter how you may wish for it. There's no point in forgoing their use in a legitimate pursuit as purging our country of illegals and keeping it that way. You're fighting the last war, of us vs government. It's rapidly being cleaned and rehabilitated before our eyes. Not too long from now we're going to truly take the reins of government while devolving much of it's power back to local government or citizen control. Maintaining control at all levels will not be any easier in a vain attempt to simultaneously neuter it.
The 2a is about citizens having the same weapons as the government.
😂😂😂😂😂
Are you serious? No, really. Are you really serious here?
The 2nd Amendment has never meant citizens have the same weapons as the government.
Civilians can’t own weaponized tanks, weaponized drones, missiles, weaponized submarines, nuclear arms, satellites, etc...and even at the small arms level the government has explosives, air support, armored vehicles, and electronic warfare while citizens have ...personal firearms.
Surveillance is even worse. Citizens have phones that track them. NOT tracking government entities no subpoena power, no warrants, no classified datasets, and no enforcement arm, while the state has mass biometric databases, real time geolocation, financial and travel records, AI trained on proprietary and classified data, legal compulsion, and armed agents (much better armed than citizens) to act on the output. Pretending “we can use it on them” is pure fantasy.
Saying “you’re fighting the last war” doesn’t fix that; it just hand-waves away the fact that every time people cheer federal overreach, mass surveillance, or constitutional shortcuts because it helps this one cause, they’re doing the exact thing they swear they oppose — betting that power will stay benevolent after the precedent is set, which is how power has NEVER WORKED. Not once, in any system, ever.
But let's test how much you actually believe what you're trying to sell here.
Let's pretend that everything in the video above was exactly the same....except ....substitute "Illegals" for "Christians" and "FBI" for "ICE", and set it a year ago, when Biden was in the White House.
Would you have so readily been all for it? Defended it so thoroughly?
Be honest. Actually answer this one question, if you do ANYTHING.
Yes or No? Would you still have the same opinion of it as you've detailed above?
That's what would be the "huge problem" you have with this?
Really?
Your argument is akin to cutting off your own dick to fight against rape. I'll also refer you to the second amendment, and the tens of thousands of arguments over it since inception.
That analogy is nonsense.
Saying “don’t build mass surveillance systems” isn’t self-harm, it’s saying you don’t fix one problem by creating a much bigger one. History is very clear on this. Tools built to go after “bad people” never stay limited to "bad people".
AI tracking, databases, bounties, and private contractors don’t stop where you hope they will. They expand, they get misused, and eventually innocent people get caught in it. That’s not hypothetical, that’s how every surveillance state works.
You can want immigration enforcement without cheering for a police-state surveillance machine. If you’re fine with the machine, just be honest about that tradeoff. 🤷♀️
I honestly don’t know what point you’re trying to make with the Second Amendment here.
Arguing against surveillance isn’t like arguing against the Second Amendment, and arguing against surveillance isn’t like disarming yourself.
If your point is just “people argue about everything,” then sure, but that doesn’t actually defend mass surveillance. It just dodges the issue.
If your point is that both the 2nd Amendment and mass surveillance are tools to be used against those you oppose or those that oppose you, then they're opposite goals. The 2nd Amendment is about limiting state power over citizens and mass surveillance is about expanding state power over citizens. Those are actually opposite goals, see?
If there’s a clearer argument you’re making, please spell it out, because right now the comparison doesn’t make sense. 🤷♀️
The 2a is about citizens having the same weapons as the government. Surveillance and ai are weapons and there's no sticking them back in the bottle no matter how you may wish for it. There's no point in forgoing their use in a legitimate pursuit as purging our country of illegals and keeping it that way. You're fighting the last war, of us vs government. It's rapidly being cleaned and rehabilitated before our eyes. Not too long from now we're going to truly take the reins of government while devolving much of it's power back to local government or citizen control. Maintaining control at all levels will not be any easier in a vain attempt to simultaneously neuter it.
😂😂😂😂😂
Are you serious? No, really. Are you really serious here?
The 2nd Amendment has never meant citizens have the same weapons as the government.
Civilians can’t own weaponized tanks, weaponized drones, missiles, weaponized submarines, nuclear arms, satellites, etc...and even at the small arms level the government has explosives, air support, armored vehicles, and electronic warfare while citizens have ...personal firearms.
Surveillance is even worse. Citizens have phones that track them. NOT tracking government entities no subpoena power, no warrants, no classified datasets, and no enforcement arm, while the state has mass biometric databases, real time geolocation, financial and travel records, AI trained on proprietary and classified data, legal compulsion, and armed agents (much better armed than citizens) to act on the output. Pretending “we can use it on them” is pure fantasy.
Saying “you’re fighting the last war” doesn’t fix that; it just hand-waves away the fact that every time people cheer federal overreach, mass surveillance, or constitutional shortcuts because it helps this one cause, they’re doing the exact thing they swear they oppose — betting that power will stay benevolent after the precedent is set, which is how power has NEVER WORKED. Not once, in any system, ever.
But let's test how much you actually believe what you're trying to sell here.
Let's pretend that everything in the video above was exactly the same....except ....substitute "Illegals" for "Christians" and "FBI" for "ICE", and set it a year ago, when Biden was in the White House.
Would you have so readily been all for it? Defended it so thoroughly?
Be honest. Actually answer this one question, if you do ANYTHING.
Yes or No? Would you still have the same opinion of it as you've detailed above?