• intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Do you really think the right to bear arms is just for the satisfaction of shooting guns, at the cost of lives?

    Like, the people who wrote that amendment just decided that lives weren’t important?

    No man. The whole point of a human right to defend oneself is that human life is precious.

    You’re trying to compare a world where guns are allowed by government, in which people die, to an alternate world where they aren’t allowed and so people don’t die. But that’s not what happens when you disarm people. They don’t stop dying. There are endless, endless, endless, endless examples in history (oh, and in the news like right now) of governments and armies just mowing down unarmed populations.

    The whole point of a right to be armed is to protect people from being in a totally asymmetric relationship with the people who are armed.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s endless examples in countries that have a fraction of the wealth and stability of America and exactly zero from comparable countries – except of course from within America itself.

      The US government has the most comprehensive domestic surveillance networks in the world and the second amendment did nothing to stop it.

      The US government has repeatedly massacred striking workers and the second amendment did nothing to stop it.

      The US government sends American citizens off to fight and die in foreign wars that are neither a threat to the nation nor a humanitarian effort and the second amendment does nothing to stop it.

      The US government routinely executes unarmed minorities and the second amendment does nothing to stop it.

      A US government that enslaved and oppressed millions of black people and the second amendment did nothing to stop it.

      A US government that wiped out the native inhabitants of their land in deliberate acts of genocide.

      The US government has repeatedly conducted experiments on the population, often fatally, and the second amendment does nothing to stop it.

      The US government imprisons people far in excess of the rest of the world and the second amendment does nothing to stop it.

      Conservative politicians functionally and literally disenfranchise voters and the second amendment does nothing to stop it.

      Conservative politicians openly call for a Republican dictatorship and the second amendment does nothing to stop it.

      Yet you still try and convince people you’re not just sharing your hero fantasy that’s literally never come true for anyone.

      How stupid do you think people are?

      A “well regulated militia” that has no proof they know how to operate their firearms at all, let alone to a military standard.

      A “well regulated militia” with potentially zero combat training or even basic combat communication.

      A “well regulated militia” full of morbidly obese, middle aged men, beholden to no physical fitness requirements whatsoever.

      A “well regulated militia” that is riddled with racists and psychopaths that want to kill innocent people.

      A “well regulated militia” that enthusiastically votes for idiots and tyrants every opportunity they get.

      A “well regulated militia” that insists they’ll sacrifice their lives to protect their countrymen but wouldn’t even wear paper masks during a pandemic.

      The founding fathers would have nothing but contempt for you.

            • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Nope, so I’d campaigning heavily for the “no genocide” party.

              Your reply wasn’t really the “gotcha” you’d hoped it was.

                • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nope, you’re just not not following, either because you’re deliberately choosing not to or because thinking upsets you so you go without.

                  In democratic countries, rights are granted and revoked at the will of society, through the process of electing representatives. This system has no inmate morality and relies on the majority of public being good people capable of making informed decisions.

                  It’s why as hard as they tried, conservative bigots couldn’t hold on to things like slavery, segregation, disenfranchising women, casual sexual assault in the workplace, criminalising homosexuality and all the other horrifically immoral shit the right-wing has been on the wrong side of for centuries.

                  Which is also why conservatives routinely undermine democracy with things like gerrymandering, obstruction and astro-turfing to ensure its their will that is represented, not the public’s.

                  So if you think you can take away my right of freedom of speech, go right ahead but we both know you’ll struggle to find more than a handful of fascists to support it.

                  If by some miracle you did, sure, I’ll abide by it. It’s what society decided and I’m not going to become a domestic terrorist over it.

                  How many people in the pro-gun crowd say the same?

      • Throwaway@lemm.eeOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        A “well regulated militia” is reasoning. It’s a dependent clause. The independent clause, the right itself, is as follows “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s bizarre that you’d openly admit that while trying to pretend that you’re not twisting their words and intentions to suit you.

          They gave their reasoning for the right to bear arms. A single, clear justification.

          You didn’t even bother to claim that gun owners meet the given justification for that right. Instead, you’ve argued “oh they just added that bit for no reason”.

          Should we selectively edit the other amendments too, stripping them of their conditions? Third amendment, soldiers are no longer allowed to live in houses. Fourth amendment, no warrants shall be issued. Fifth amendment, no person shall be held to answer for a crime.

          The constitution is littered with conditions and caveats but the only one they didn’t mean just happens to be the one that would require you to be fit for military service.