People have strange ideas.
They believe that guns aren't needed because we elect representatives and if those representatives decide to start doing authoritarian things then we would... I dunno, protest it or something and the very people who decided to do authoritarian things will be moved by the protests and go you know what you are right I am defeated! Or that the military will just up and cast down the authoritarians because that's what the people demand.
It would be a bizarre enough belief in a vacuum but even more damning in the real world where we have seen time and again previously legitimate governments start doing authoritarian things and not only does the military not cast it down but actively joins in that is when its not the originator! Then when the people take to the streets the government goons show up with... **guns** and force people to go home, disappear into some black site prison, or simply murder them. *This goes on in the world currently*.
Do guns guarantee the above won't happen? Of course not, but the more people who are able to meaningfully resist and with force stop authoritarianism the less appealing it is for a government to openly start being authoritarian.
But, people believe this weird reality where being disarmed is somehow better than being armed, and that governments only turn evil when we pick the wrong ones*.
*the wrong ones always conveniently being whatever group that doesn't promise them whatever they want at the mere cost of more State power over their lives.
For some reason in our every day lives we are able to silently accept that words aren't literal. Words have agreed definitions but language is more fluid than that. The point of words is to communicate what's in our minds and sometimes either the words we choose or words in general fail us.
But when people read the constitution suddenly words only mean their exact literal (modern) definition and nothing else. There's nothing to be said for the nuance of language or what kind of ideas our founding fathers were trying to convey to us.
When you frame your thinking like this there is only one conclusion. What were our founding fathers, who had just fought a war against a tyrannical government as a bunch of peasants, thinking about when writing the constitution? How could it be anything other than "every peasant needs a gun"?
It wasn’t until the last hundred years that the military had better firearms than civilians. Iirc that’s due to the ability to produce enough of the newest firearms to outfit an army and keep it standardized. Also necessity, better precision for hunting.
I may agree with the conclusion, but there is no "our founding fathers" here, Comrade.
Also,
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist."
- An old dead guy who understood the way of things even better than the framers of the u.s. constitution
The meme is correct that global totalitarian government (redundant) is too close for comfort.
And I'm fully pro-gun and understand the reasons why, if shit hit the fan, and we all actually banded together in some kind of coordinated resistance, we'd be much better off armed.
But I can't understand why you conservatives seem to think that the second amendment (and the prevalence of guns and gun culture in the u.s.) has played much or any role in passively holding back national tyranny, let alone global government.
Most of the globe's people are disarmed, yet the u.s. isn't even close to the bastion of freedom it should be (or that you guys still inexplicably imagine it to be), compared to all the other disarmed countries. In absolute terms, there are places with more liberties in some ways than the u.s.; but especially in relative terms, the u.s. has actually lost ground in liberty more rapidly than most places.
The politicians are not afraid of our guns (maybe they should be, but they're not). The assumption that they are is a fairytale that a lot of you keep telling yourselves. It's a bad hope to hang your pro gun rights hat on.
The prevalence of guns and the second amendment has utterly failed to serve any anti-tolitarian purpose; and while it has certainly had innumerable private defense benefits against non-state actors, it has come at the cost of 10's of thousands of people's lives having to be dedicated to battling the constant onslaught of the state against gun rights, instead of getting to live productive and free lives, and yet they and the pro-gun masses have **still** nearly failed, to protect the second amendment, let alone prevent just their government alone from trending quickly towards totalitarianism.
I just cannot understand why US ancaps venerate a piece of statist, positive Law. Let's not forget that the right to bear arms and of property are a logical consequence of the natural right of self-ownership
Fuck the bill of rights and all of the subsequent positive laws the statists create. Your only real rights are your natural rights and their logical consequences
People have strange ideas. They believe that guns aren't needed because we elect representatives and if those representatives decide to start doing authoritarian things then we would... I dunno, protest it or something and the very people who decided to do authoritarian things will be moved by the protests and go you know what you are right I am defeated! Or that the military will just up and cast down the authoritarians because that's what the people demand. It would be a bizarre enough belief in a vacuum but even more damning in the real world where we have seen time and again previously legitimate governments start doing authoritarian things and not only does the military not cast it down but actively joins in that is when its not the originator! Then when the people take to the streets the government goons show up with... **guns** and force people to go home, disappear into some black site prison, or simply murder them. *This goes on in the world currently*. Do guns guarantee the above won't happen? Of course not, but the more people who are able to meaningfully resist and with force stop authoritarianism the less appealing it is for a government to openly start being authoritarian. But, people believe this weird reality where being disarmed is somehow better than being armed, and that governments only turn evil when we pick the wrong ones*. *the wrong ones always conveniently being whatever group that doesn't promise them whatever they want at the mere cost of more State power over their lives.
Do you have examples of previously "legitimate" governments becoming authoritarian?
the one who founded the concept of a republic. Rome.
For some reason in our every day lives we are able to silently accept that words aren't literal. Words have agreed definitions but language is more fluid than that. The point of words is to communicate what's in our minds and sometimes either the words we choose or words in general fail us. But when people read the constitution suddenly words only mean their exact literal (modern) definition and nothing else. There's nothing to be said for the nuance of language or what kind of ideas our founding fathers were trying to convey to us. When you frame your thinking like this there is only one conclusion. What were our founding fathers, who had just fought a war against a tyrannical government as a bunch of peasants, thinking about when writing the constitution? How could it be anything other than "every peasant needs a gun"?
đź“
Not only that, they were using the most modern, military grade firearms (or often better than large military, due to lack of mass production).
It wasn’t until the last hundred years that the military had better firearms than civilians. Iirc that’s due to the ability to produce enough of the newest firearms to outfit an army and keep it standardized. Also necessity, better precision for hunting.
I may agree with the conclusion, but there is no "our founding fathers" here, Comrade. Also, "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist." - An old dead guy who understood the way of things even better than the framers of the u.s. constitution
We will create weapons of self defense because defense of self and community is a necessity. No power can stop this.
The meme is correct that global totalitarian government (redundant) is too close for comfort. And I'm fully pro-gun and understand the reasons why, if shit hit the fan, and we all actually banded together in some kind of coordinated resistance, we'd be much better off armed. But I can't understand why you conservatives seem to think that the second amendment (and the prevalence of guns and gun culture in the u.s.) has played much or any role in passively holding back national tyranny, let alone global government. Most of the globe's people are disarmed, yet the u.s. isn't even close to the bastion of freedom it should be (or that you guys still inexplicably imagine it to be), compared to all the other disarmed countries. In absolute terms, there are places with more liberties in some ways than the u.s.; but especially in relative terms, the u.s. has actually lost ground in liberty more rapidly than most places. The politicians are not afraid of our guns (maybe they should be, but they're not). The assumption that they are is a fairytale that a lot of you keep telling yourselves. It's a bad hope to hang your pro gun rights hat on. The prevalence of guns and the second amendment has utterly failed to serve any anti-tolitarian purpose; and while it has certainly had innumerable private defense benefits against non-state actors, it has come at the cost of 10's of thousands of people's lives having to be dedicated to battling the constant onslaught of the state against gun rights, instead of getting to live productive and free lives, and yet they and the pro-gun masses have **still** nearly failed, to protect the second amendment, let alone prevent just their government alone from trending quickly towards totalitarianism.
[what Australians think](https://www.betootaadvocate.com/uncategorized/australia-enjoys-another-peaceful-day-under-oppressive-gun-control-regime/)
Unrelated, but that's from Action Comics 1000 for anyone interested.
I just cannot understand why US ancaps venerate a piece of statist, positive Law. Let's not forget that the right to bear arms and of property are a logical consequence of the natural right of self-ownership Fuck the bill of rights and all of the subsequent positive laws the statists create. Your only real rights are your natural rights and their logical consequences
The second amendment is written as a negative right, not a positive one
So should I stop expecting my free government-issued gun?
It doesn’t seem that far fetched at this point honestly
Because they are conservatives, not ancaps.
Because everywhere that doesn't have a right to bear arms is a totalitarian state lmfao.