Wait til you hear what happened when the Black Panthers tried to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
Something bad. Is it something bad? I bet it was something bad.
Funnily enough it resulted in more gun control, so it was something good.
It was of course always the plan to radicalize these people and then utilize them
I feel like it makes more sense if the guns were always there to protect stolen land.
Guns are naught but tools. They have no moral nor political ambition. All they can do is provide an amplifier of force, no matter your ideology.
Only you don’t accidentally beat someone to death with a hammer.
Speak for yourself.
It’s a lot faster to do it with a car
Sure but I don’t see how people can think certain bans should exist and not others. Sawn off shotguns have been banned for as long as I’ve ever known, yet people don’t question it. The reasoning is they could be dangerous to others on accident. Yet if you take any round .223 with a fmj (cheapest format to buy) it’s going straight through your wall, and through the entire apartment across the hall. So when you fire 3 shots towards the door they are trying to go through, most people with adrenaline or freaking out enough to think a gun is necessary at that point in time, 2 of those rounds are going into the next residence. Even the 1 that hits the person very well might go straight through.
Guy stacked sheet rock up in a row and they went through
.223 - 17 sheets, .308 - 20 sheets, 30-06 - 23 sheets
Granted with gaps between them the wobble will make it more like 3-4… so anyone in the living room/dining room or if the bedroom is towards the wall facing the hall… Is possibly getting a hunk of lead in them.
Hollow points almost make more sense there, as hopefully they’d split on the first sheet rock and the smaller shards may get stuck in the second, if not hopefully not have enough momentum to penetrate a person after if their lucky.
Should they ban those rifles, in my opinion no, but I think if you use one for home defense and fire a round that penetrates into another person’s residence, you should get an attempted murder charge for being irresponsible. It isn’t a moose coming in the front door. For people who believe they need home defense a 9mm hollow point will save money, be easier to navigate in close quarters and dump all the energy into stopping the person instead of going out their back. (Unfortunately for them, much more organ damage, and high chances of death). (Personally I think most should use revolvers anyways if they aren’t using it often, because 20 years from now even if it hasn’t been cleaned, it’s more than likely going to do exactly what you want it to do… while a semi automatic spring loaded contraption, may jam)
People don’t understand the game.
That’s still the purpose of the second amendment, for people to own guns to defend themselves and others against tyranny
You can’t expect everyone to agree with you ideologically, and obviously they won’t rise up against a government they agree with. Conservatives don’t see the current administration as tyrannical, so there is no conflict for them between the ideals of the second amendment and their actions.
However, you can absolutely choose to exercise your second amendment rights.
As a gun owning liberal, I’m tired of my peers acting like the second amendment is some conservative agenda. The right to firearm ownership is an eminently liberal ideal. More liberals and leftists should own guns— the second amendment is more important now than ever before.
If you think there is a pressing need for an armed liberal/leftist citizenry, go buy guns and arm yourselves.
If you need to exercise your right to bear arms, you have already lost. The battle is won in education, critical skills, and mobilising together (unions, etc).
Good luck with whatever the fuck you’re smoking.
History shows time and time again that collapsing cities/societies/empires cannot be stopped nor redirected with violence. The endemic causes are there, violence may provide a respite but it just accelerates the overall disintegration of the society.
May what is happening to the USA be a wake up call for the rest of the western world.
If we ever need to raise arms against the government, it will be a dark day indeed. No reasonable person wants that. We have many methods of recourse before that even enters the conversation IMO.
However, there can eventually come a time where resistance is appropriate. Hitler never would have taken complete control of the country, exterminated so many Jews, and started Europe on the path to a world war if the Germans were armed and actively resisting his rule.
It seems self evident that the German people would been better off resisting Nazi rule than allowing the death camps and WW2 to come to fruition.
This is honestly, the dumbest, most American take in the world.
It literally ignores the plainly obvious fact that not a single other developed country allows gun ownership, and yet, still have rights and democracy and freedom.
Guns did not get your rights, and they do not protect you from a government that has AI powered drones with anti tank mines on them. Hell a fucking APC with a sound cannon will make your AR look like a child’s toy.
Guess what happened when a pair of guys had enough guns and body armour to challenge the local LA government in the 90s? Oh would you look at that, every single local government’s police force across the country just militarized and bought tanks and SWAT teams in response. The idea that the government will let any random potentially mentally ill or terrorist citizen, buy enough firepower that they could legitimately challenge the government, is dumb on its face. No government anywhere allows that or would for obvious (see: terroristic) reasons.
Wide spread gun ownership just makes everyone less safe. Full stop.
You have proven the second amendment is just so you can shoot your neighbour. None of you rose up against his first term, none of you will now. All the child sacrifices you have been doing were just so you can feel cool with your gun and dream of shooting someone one day.
Its time to admit it.
What a hot take, as if firearm owners are all the same, as if there are not left leaning gun owners.
Counterpoint, civilian gun ownership is the only reason why most marginalized identities in the US aren’t already rounded up into extermination camps en masse. You don’t have the first clue about the history and nature of this country if you think we wouldn’t quickly accelerate organized genocide without that last line of deterrence. Arm every single minority.
How?
It’s interesting that voting rights were sold on the basis of instituting democratic government. They seem to have caused and supported fascist government.
Edit: /s
Not a bad viewpoint. But I give less credit to voting rights than I do to social media in our downfall.
Gerrymandering. Registration purges. Compromised voting machines. Voter suppression and intimidation. Banning mail-in voting. Closing, relocating, and reducing polling sites.
Insert meme: “Is this voting rights?”
I was just failing to point out the non sequitur in the OP. You’re 100% right
That’s kind of been the whole thing about the anti-2a people: they’ve kept saying "the people"in “the militia” are the cops and states (as opposed to the federal government), and the law-and-order conservatives aren’t saying no to militarizing law enforcement, and the pro-gun right for decades (60s-90s) played along with all the “2a is for hunting” nonsense. The point of 2A is for the government to be afraid to do this crap, but 2A is too watered down at this point to have that effect. The kind of population that could live armed as well as any military (not ours) would just have a different behavior in general.
Almost every tyrannical regime in the 20th century systematically disarmed their citizenry, leading to some of the greatest atrocities the world has ever seen. It’s not a coincidence.
One aspect of the U.S. Second Amendment that I struggle to understand is how owning firearms can be seen as a check against government power in the modern era. No matter how much money an individual spends on collecting weapons, they can never match the resources of a government with access to advanced technology like orbital GPS networks, fighter jets, drones, bioweapons, logistics, and nuclear weapons.
When the Amendment was written, weaponry was still in its early stages of development, and the assumption was that a well-armed populace could, with sufficient numbers, overthrow a tyrannical regime. However, in today’s world, this seems unrealistic. Even if someone owned a thousand .50 caliber Desert Eagles, it wouldn’t make a significant difference against such overwhelming governmental power.
You see, if the government bombs it’s cities flat, it no longer has anything to govern, and falls anyways.
What we need are armed protests. Something you can’t just easily police thug your way out of. We can all go protest and wave signs all we want, but until those in power are once again afraid of it’s people, nothing will change.
One aspect of the U.S. Second Amendment that I struggle to understand is how owning firearms can be seen as a check against government power in the modern era. No matter how much money an individual spends on collecting weapons, they can never match the resources of a government with access to advanced technology like orbital GPS networks, fighter jets, drones, bioweapons, logistics, and nuclear weapons.
No shit they’ll just burn your place to the ground Tulsa style. USA is quickly becoming North Korea.
The things that radical fascist media talking heads are hyperbolically lying about nonstop are justification for invoking 2A rights.
Unfortunately liberals are pussy-assed bitches so nothing will happen and they’ll all be chunked into an oven.
At some point people confused peaceful with harmless. Harmless people who got accustomed to the idea of outsourcing the capacity for violence… but then the vendor had a change in ownership…
That’s what you get if you believe that laws written a quarter millenium ago are still some kind of holy infallable scripture.
Weapons have changed enormously since then and so has every part of society.
Back when the 2nd ammendment was written, the average weapon of the military and of private citizens would be about the same: front-loaded, single-shot gun. Soldiers had very low standards of training and militias still formed the backbone of the military.
It’s totally possible for a large amount of private citizens to stand a decent chance against the military.
Nowadays a private citizen would have some kind of gun, while the military has tanks, planes, missiles and aircraft carriers. Even if half the country would take up arms, they’d stand no chance against the US military, which makes the whole point of “resisting unlawful government” moot.
Yours are the words of an armchair porkbelly who has absolutely no idea whatsoever how militaries or revolutions or even guns themselves work.
Get in the cattle car.
… says the armchair porkbelly revolutionary.
How many revolutions did you fight in, mighty keyboard warlord?
this is going great for you
Bro look at Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan,
Better toys for your soldiers doesn’t mean you automatically win the war.
On the home turf, yes it does. Also, the US only committed a fraction of their military power in these wars. Do you think the same would happen when the war zone was the US itself?
Well yeah.
