Gun control

Lord, this topic really does bring the loonies out of the bin, doesn't it?

people also tend to overestimate the will of soldiers to kill their fellow citizens in many cases.

Myanmar fascist government is discovering it these days, with soldiers simply refusing to shoot and deserting.

when soldiers risk their lives every day they need a strong narrative to keep fighting and it's not that easy to frame one against your fellow citizens.

if citizens aren't armed soldiers aren't risking almost anything so they can bully people around far far far more easily when ordered to do so.

if every encounter with anyone you try to bully because of fascist orders at any stage night and day on every street and in every house, woman child or elder included, can be a deadly one, the game changes.

there's a reason it was americans coming to save our european asses from nazi-fascismo and not the opposite, and it's very probably the second amendment

Viva la revolution!

when it's against tyranny, yes.

otherwise, having guns privately can help you when people try a revolution without cause as well

This is a pretty irrational thought. If the govt is upholding horrible laws that you deem terrible, then we are still functioning as a democracy, to a degree and the people have spoken. If the govt decides to go tyrannical on whatever conservative, A2, fear mongering thing that's happening in this thread, then we aren't thinking logically as the ones that this tyrannical govt would be going after would first need to clock in and start their shift.

This whole "the government is coming after civilians but with only just enough force to make it fair if they have only pistols" hasn't really been satisfactorily explained. Why would they choose to make it a fair fight?

It's ironic that we came very close on 6 Jan to some armed groups using their 2A right to bear arms on behalf of tyranny rather than against it. I doubt the founding founders ever imagined a scenario where citizens would take up arms against the government simply because they didn't like the results of an election. I'm pretty sure they were thinking more along the lines of the people fighting someone attempting to take power despite losing an election.

it's like rain on your wedding day

walk me through how something like a 10-day waiting period, or universal background checks will limit said revolt.

i can post a picture of my big dick (DE .50) if it helps your struggle against 'leftist think'

Gotta admit, "we did a revolution once so we can do it again, something something constitution" is caricaturely hilarious.

i have zero issues with either of the measures you suggest. i have massive issues with the outlawing of personal gun ownership.

that is indeed a big gun. are you overcompensating?

You trying to get me cancelled, "bro"? How woke.

of course, no serious attempt has ever been made to outlaw personal gun ownership, but sure, let's freak out about it...something something...revolt.

i'm over compensating for being under suppressed.

by d2_e4 P

These go back to Roman times too? "Fighting chance" lulz. Got better chances against a flopped royal.

I mean they did have elephants

I mean Heller was a case about a statute in Washington DC that mandated you to register all weapons, while not allowing to register handguns, so they actually banned handguns for decades there.

Clearly not a serious attempt to outlaw gun ownership sure sure.

Because they still need citizens to be alive to have something to govern above, and because fascism comes in various degrees.

Again, I gave an example of fascist, unconstitutional things that happened elsewhere which were made way harder to happen in the USA because of widespread gun ownership: actual lockdowns.

In an actual lockdown the government "only" wants to prevent you to go out of your home. They can do so easily with militaries in the streets if almost no one has weapons.

And they can't do this with militaries in the street if people have weapons? Can you describe how you see this playing out? Civilians shooting it out with the military lol?

You guys watch too many movies, man. Rambo is... well, he's a bit like Santa Claus.

Also, gotta love textualism: "A document written at a time when the most advanced available weapon was a musket that takes 3 days to reload says I can own those, ergo I have an inalienable right to own nuclear missiles. Muh rights! Muh freedumbs!"

They can but it's far harder for them. Far far harder. Incidents would occur with actual shootouts yes, and "the militaries" can be a lone jeep with two young guys on it, guys who were never trained to deal with civilians. Remember they have to patrol vast swathes of land you might be thinking a battalion controlling a city, I am thinking one/two jeeps per suburb.

With frequent incidents including lethal ones it's not hard to see why the political calculus would change toward making that actually fascist policy harder to implement including having political support for it.

And anything that makes fascist policies harder to implement is a moral good

Originalism not textualism.

A document was written to give the same access to weapons to private individuals that the government has, to the point of allowing them to form private militias even.

That stays until it gets changed by a constitutional amendment

It's really a wonder how all these other 1st world countries manage to keep the government at bay without all these inalienable rights to own AK 47s and fighter jets.

Cite for bolded please?

The historical context was that of a deep mistrust of standing armies basically. The idea of career soldiers existing even in peacetime was scary.

You have several states passing state constitution provisions exactly about that.

Massachusetts for ex:

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it

So it follows very clearly and transparently that the right to bear arms discussed is exactly the same weapons a standing professional army would have access to, as the militia would need them to substitute standing armies and eventually fight against them if push comes to shove.

They didn't much, governments encroach on liberties exceptionally more than in the 19th century in the west.

You have something between 100x and 1000x more rules (depending on the country) applying to every aspect of society in the books lol.

The rules about what you can do with your land alone, what you can build on it and exactly how and so on are probably longer than the totality of the rules for everything were in 1880 in Italy, France, Canada, the USA and so on.

You need to be a career expert just to know in full what you are allowed to do in detail for most things