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. 🤷‍♀️

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. Guns don’t counter databases, facial recognition, or AI tracking, those things operate through law, infrastructure, and quiet expansion, not force.

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. 🤷‍♀️

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 for surveillance isn’t like arguing against the Second Amendment, and arguing against surveillance isn’t like disarming yourself. Guns don’t counter databases, facial recognition, or AI tracking, those things operate through law, infrastructure, and quiet expansion, not force.

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 there’s a clearer argument you’re making, please spell it out, because right now the comparison doesn’t make sense. 🤷‍♀️