2nd amendment and protection

[Upchurch]

Wait... are you under the impression that if a man DID rape a woman because of what she wore, this would be any kind of excuse or that she would be at fault? Because if not, then the comparison is still valid, even if you think it's only hypothetical.

I know this counter to the right wing echo chamber narrative, but Rittenhouse isn’t the victim in the analogy, Zig.

 

[Stacyhs]

Wait... are you under the impression that if a man DID rape a woman because of what she wore, this would be any kind of excuse or that she would be at fault? Because if not, then the comparison is still valid, even if you think it's only hypothetical.

Sigh.



Anyone else want to take a stab at explaining this to Zig?

 

[Mojo]

"government overreach" to me is of secondary concern when it comes to this.

I fear what people can do in mobs, and when the mob is out to get you firearm is the equalizer.

What if the mob is exercising its 2nd Amendment rights?

 

[Venom]

What if the mob is exercising its 2nd Amendment rights?

I think the important part is they are aware that you are.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I think the important part is they are aware that you are.

And by "important" you mean "irrelevant". Armed mob comes at you and you have a gun (or two)? You will last only until somebody in that mob manages to shoot you. Which is to say, with so many of them, no time at all.

 

[Venom]

And by "important" you mean "irrelevant". Armed mob comes at you and you have a gun (or two)? You will last only until somebody in that mob manages to shoot you. Which is to say, with so many of them, no time at all.

Most mobs of ordinary folks are not prepared or willing to get into bloody battles. They want an easy target to victimize.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Most mobs of ordinary folks are not prepared or willing to get into bloody battles. They want an easy target to victimize.

And that is exactly what a single opponent is to a mob.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This quote in another thread got me thinking.



I sense that there is a large faction in conservative politics that says, "You don't need all those regulations, you have the right to bear arms to protect yourself." But I think the greatest threats ordinary people face from the powerful happen at the stroke of a pen. The ability to present armed resistance, or even, optimistically, a rebellion, misses the development of bulwarks against ever needing to resort to that.

I would rather fight back in courtrooms and town halls and never need to pick up a firearm.

I hope they manage too take us back too 1776, their was no Second Amendment in 1776, so if the conservative Right take us back too 1776 we can take the guns from the Idiots.

 

[Olmstead]

What exactly does this mean? What does and does not qualify?

Environmental damage is a simple one. It's hard to quantify how many people the Koch brothers managed to kill using their money and influence, but shooting them in self-defense would have been a prudent decision.

There are subtler ways though. The more money you have, the easier it is to manipulate the market so that you
make a profit without providing anything of value, making it harder for people that DO provide value to live.

 

[Venom]

And that is exactly what a single opponent is to a mob.

Not when that single person is capable of inflicting losses on a ragtag group not totally committed to a firefight.

 

[gnome]

Honestly I don't mean to spur a debate about how effective being armed is for defense against a physical attack. Depending on the situation it may or may not be and I'm not inclined to contradict others' decisions about how to defend their home.

I'm more thinking about what it takes to keep government and powerful interests at bay so that you don't HAVE to get into a firefight over it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Environmental damage is a simple one. It's hard to quantify how many people the Koch brothers managed to kill using their money and influence, but shooting them in self-defense would have been a prudent decision.

If you can't quantify the damage, then you can't quantify the blame. Nor are they the only beneficiaries. You likely are too.

There are subtler ways though. The more money you have, the easier it is to manipulate the market so that you
make a profit without providing anything of value, making it harder for people that DO provide value to live.

What do you mean, "manipulate the market"? Most trading for profit comes at the expense of other traders. And here's a dirtly little secret: trading for profit is a self-limiting process: the more you do it, the smaller the margins become. And it only works at scale if you're successfully allocating investment resources into productive uses. That doesn't make it harder for people who "provide value" to live, it makes it easier, because that means productive jobs are funded.

Now for the second dirty secret: there are profitable misallocations of resources. They come largely from government interventions.

 

[Ziggurat]

What if the mob is exercising its 2nd Amendment rights?

You have a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. That doesn't confer the right to shoot anyone you want. That isn't part of the 2nd amendment. If an armed mob is shooting people that don't deserve to be shot, the problem isn't that they have guns, but that they are shooting people that don't deserve to be shot. And a mob doesn't need guns to attack and kill people, so keeping guns out of the hands of a mob doesn't actually keep you safe.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not when that single person is capable of inflicting losses on a ragtag group not totally committed to a firefight.

Mobs often are not. Yes, even an unarmed mob can definitely still kill an armed individual. But who among the mob is going to go first? Who among the mob will take the bullet so that the rest of the mob can overwhelm this individual? If no one among the mob is willing to die for the mob, then an armed individual may survive against it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Wait... are you under the impression that if a man DID rape a woman because of what she wore, this would be any kind of excuse or that she would be at fault? Because if not, then the comparison is still valid, even if you think it's only hypothetical.

8:39 AM, 9/8/2022. Ziggurat compares a mass murderer to rape victims.

 

[lomiller]

I do. He protected his rights against people who attacked him and tried to kill him. The right to bear arms worked.

Police aren't the only people you need to protect your rights from. And given that police cannot be held legally responsible for not protecting you, the ability to protect yourself seems rather important to me.

No he didn't, he killed people because someone threw a gym bag near him. His defense was that he thought "they might hurt him" Is someone in the crowd had decided to shoot Ritternhouse in the head, they would have been entitled to the exact same defense he used and would have been found not guilty if judged to the same standards.

Not that you conservatives would ever accept judging conservatives and non-conservatives by the same standards.

 

[lomiller]

If you can't quantify the damage, then you can't quantify the blame. Nor are they the only beneficiaries. You likely are too.

Which is one more reason why libertarian economics conservatives embrace always fail. Just more right wing incompetence putting peoples lives and livelihood in danger.

 

[ahhell]

The United States government has ~1,350,000 active duty troops and another ~800,000 in reserve status. It has tanks, rockets, missile, nuclear weapons, stealth bombers, cruise missile, submarines, fighter jets, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Cletus is going to do exactly what with his pump action 12 gauge?

Same thing as the Taliban I imagine.

 

[Venom]

Honestly I don't mean to spur a debate about how effective being armed is for defense against a physical attack. Depending on the situation it may or may not be and I'm not inclined to contradict others' decisions about how to defend their home.

I'm more thinking about what it takes to keep government and powerful interests at bay so that you don't HAVE to get into a firefight over it.

I think ultimately what's needed is a more educated populace so everyone can actually fight with the pen.

 

[rdwight]

Protection is going mean different things depending on location of the person. Rural areas have more wildlife threats to consider, as well as extremely long response times from police. High crime urban areas generally have extreme limits on carry licenses but people living there that are exposed to crime regularly will have a different outlook on needing some personal protection on their person or in their home than those outside looking in. You can quote all the statistics you want about this being counterproductive and more likely to cause injury than help, personal experiences is what will drive people.