MelatoninIt's interesting that gun rights were sold on the basis of "resisting unlawful government." They seen to have caused unlawful government.
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 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).
If we ever have to exercise the right to bear arms, it will be a dark day indeed. No reasonable person wants that. We have many methods if 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.
myrmidexI agree resistance to tyranny can be necessary, but this example doesn’t support the gun control argument. Hitler actually loosened gun restrictions for ordinary Germans - only Jews were specifically disarmed. The real issue wasn’t that Germans lacked weapons, but that most of the population supported or tolerated Nazi rule until it was too late.
What makes you think they didn’t have guns?
Never suggested they didn’t. I’m suggesting that the country would have been better off if they both had weapons and chose to resist.
We aren’t Germany. The founding fathers made sure we could arm ourselves. The choices we make are our own.
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.
Bruh, come the fuck on. Jews were 1% of the population, meanwhile like 30% of the population actively supported the Nazis, and far more would have continued to turn a blind eye as long as violence wasn’t being perpetrated against people like them.
This is nonsense alt history that ignores the fact that Nazis steamrolled and enacted death camps in far more countries than just Germany, and personal ownership of firearms didn’t make a dent in stopping them.