2nd amendment and protection

[gnome]

This quote in another thread got me thinking.

Exactly none of that antidiscrimination protections, no employment protections and so forth. Really nothing to protect the man in the street from the depredations of the rich and powerful, as god intended.

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.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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?

 

[Upchurch]

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?

I mean, they managed to storm the Capitol with chairs and pointy sticks.

 

[arayder]

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.

Some imagine that a well armed citizenry would use their weapons to overthrow or resist a totalitarian communistic government gone mad.

But let us suppose that the January 6th insurrection had been successful . . .

 

[Segnosaur]

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 think its been said before on this forum....

Even if the "right to bear arms" actually could protect people's freedoms (it probably wouldn't, as other people said, since the military is so much better equipped than what a civilian would have).... In a practical sense it wouldn't matter. Why? Because the people who are most eager to "exercise their second amendment" are also the type of people who would be standing there cheering if and when there was some sort of fascist takeover of the government. They wouldn't be fighting back... they'd be egging on those staging the coup.

Remember the McCloskeys? Remember Rittenhouse? The BLM protests were about ending police abuses of minorities. But did the McCloskeys or Rittenhouse pick up weapons in order to help end that police abuse? Nope... they pointed them at the protesters themselves.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

And of course for those who believed in the second amendment in that way, why don't they ever argue that the civil rights movement needed to be more violent in its opposition to Jim Crow? I mean this position should respect and support political violence even if they do not agree with the position being advocated because the violence is the means to solve this kind of issue.

But that would require them to apply their ideas to actual real world situations.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If Rosa Parks had a gun would that have helped desegregate the busses?

 

[Olmstead]

When a rich man uses his power to enrich himself at my expense, I can use my power and rob him at gunpoint.

It doesn't work, because I'm not supposed to do the second part.

 

[Mojo]

https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2022/08/28

 

[Ziggurat]

Even if the "right to bear arms" actually could protect people's freedoms (it probably wouldn't, as other people said, since the military is so much better equipped than what a civilian would have).... In a practical sense it wouldn't matter.
...
Remember Rittenhouse?

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.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

If Rittenhouse wasn't there with his damn AR15 style rifle in the first place, he wouldn't have needed to protect himself. He killed a man who grabbed his rifle barrel and then was chased down by others who had seen him kill a man. THEN he had to protect himself

This is what happens when people walk around with damn guns and rifles channeling their inner "I'm a bad ass" fantasies.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Just like all those brave medal of honor winners at wounded knee. Big time heroics there, makes america proud!

 

[autumn1971]

When a rich man uses his power to enrich himself at my expense, I can use my power and rob him at gunpoint.

It doesn't work, because I'm not supposed to do the second part.

Well I sure didn’t expect Ziggurat to be the first to agree with your proposal

 

[Venom]

"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.

 

[Ziggurat]

If Rittenhouse wasn't there with his damn AR15 style rifle in the first place, he wouldn't have needed to protect himself.

She shouldn't have been wearing that dress.

 

[Ziggurat]

When a rich man uses his power to enrich himself at my expense, I can use my power and rob him at gunpoint.

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

 

[mumblethrax]

Voting with your gun has the same problem that voting with your dollar does--somebody has a lot more votes than you do. It also has the additional problem of being kind of murder-y.

At some point we should really try voting with our votes.

 

[Stacyhs]

She shouldn't have been wearing that dress.

That has got to be the most pathetic attempt at a comparison I've ever read.

See if you can understand the difference:

A man doesn't rape a woman because of what she's wearing. She can be wearing a burkah or a dress up to her ass. It doesn't matter to a rapist.

Rittenhouse shot and killed two people and wounded another because he had a damn AR15 style rifle with him which started the entire sequence of events.

Ya know, Zig...sometimes it's better not to say anything.

 

[tyr_13]

I think its been said before on this forum....

Even if the "right to bear arms" actually could protect people's freedoms (it probably wouldn't, as other people said, since the military is so much better equipped than what a civilian would have).... In a practical sense it wouldn't matter. Why? Because the people who are most eager to "exercise their second amendment" are also the type of people who would be standing there cheering if and when there was some sort of fascist takeover of the government. They wouldn't be fighting back... they'd be egging on those staging the coup.

Remember the McCloskeys? Remember Rittenhouse? The BLM protests were about ending police abuses of minorities. But did the McCloskeys or Rittenhouse pick up weapons in order to help end that police abuse? Nope... they pointed them at the protesters themselves.

Exactly. They don't need the weapons to fight the government; they are just waiting for the government to look the other way while they use them on their fellow citizens. They're brown shirts in waiting.

 

[Ziggurat]

That has got to be the most pathetic attempt at a comparison I've ever read.

See if you can understand the difference:

A man doesn't rape a woman because of what she's wearing. She can be wearing a burkah or a dress up to her ass. It doesn't matter to a rapist.

Rittenhouse shot and killed two people and wounded another because he had a damn AR15 style rifle with him which started the entire sequence of events.

Ya know, Zig...sometimes it's better not to say anything.

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.