311–320 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided Taliban? Vietcong?
VC was supported by China. Taliban is supported by Pakistan and Russia. They don't have "small arms", they have the backing of major powers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> their theoretical ability to fight their government with small arms adorable and misguided Taliban? Vietcong?
VC was supported by China. Taliban is supported by Pakistan and Russia. They don't have "small arms", they have the backing of major powers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strange take. In 40+ years, I've never needed a gun to defend myself. Nor do I even _know anyone_ that needed to use a gun to lawfully defend themselves. So why should we all have something that A) the lawful uses of such are exceedingly rare, and B) ends up involved in a lot of unlawful or unintentional killings.
To begin with you're creating a premise that the only reason gun legality can be justified is self defense, particularly against other people. I do not accept this premise. There are many other premises for gun legality. That said, when I was very young my grandfather had to shoot a number of stray dogs out his car window while driving through a rough pasture because they'd killed a couple calves and were attacking h…
A friend of our family recently bought a gun and that made me ask them why. Their response was of course personal safety at which point I asked them some more questions and turns out they keep the gun in a gun safe and bullets in another location so as to not cause any accidents as they have kids. But this practice seemed utterly useless if their home was being actively being robbed/attacked since they wont have the…
i live in the american south, where everybody owns guns. i own a gun for hunting. but for self defense, i have pepper spray and bear spray instead of guns because i don't want to kill somebody regardless of their intentions. i'd be curious to see the stats of self-defense/firearms, because it seems like self-defense gun owners are LARPing over imagined intruder situations. they're definitely not about to take up arms…
This is where each person's specific ethics are really important. I would really hate to ever kill anyone. Full stop. But I would definitely prefer to kill a criminal that was attempting to murder me or someone else.
If you would rather be murdered by a criminal rather than kill them, that is a respectable position to hold. Although I do tend to doubt the conviction of most people who claim this position.
i live in the american south, where everybody owns guns. i own a gun for hunting. but for self defense, i have pepper spray and bear spray instead of guns because i don't want to kill somebody regardless of their intentions. i'd be curious to see the stats of self-defense/firearms, because it seems like self-defense gun owners are LARPing over imagined intruder situations. they're definitely not about to take up arms…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For instance: someday, the enemy may be the US military itself. That's exactly what I mean when I say "if you let it happen then you have already failed to defend your freedom." The US military is not a band of invaders, it's made of your fellow Americans. What were you doing while it turned into your enemy?
> "What were you doing while it turned into your enemy?" netflix and facebook apparently. my whole lifetime has been a slow-motion monopolization of power and money, and we've yet to resist/deter/reroute any of it meaningfully. power has been slowly turning against the populace, and we're not paying any attention to it. rather, we're debating distracting culture topics like abortion, racism, and even covid mandates.
This is not a good thing. Are you really suggesting you might use a gun to force your fellow citizens to care about the same aspects of government that you do, instead of the ones they're currently focused on? When convincing your fellow voters and elected officials fail, you believe you have a right to resort to violence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strange take. In 40+ years, I've never needed a gun to defend myself. Nor do I even _know anyone_ that needed to use a gun to lawfully defend themselves. So why should we all have something that A) the lawful uses of such are exceedingly rare, and B) ends up involved in a lot of unlawful or unintentional killings.
So I guess you don't have fire extinguishers in your house, car or place of work, only buy car liability insurance because it's the law, or home insurance because it's required by your mortgage holder? No insurance for your personal property? I've owned guns for self protection in the same 40+ years and have never needed them for self-protection, but I also haven't needed any of the other above forms of insurance exc…
My wife (and many women) has felt that the only way to effect change in our gun laws would be for white men to feel like targets. I used to do iss that idea somewhat but as I've paid more attention to things over th last few years, I no longer dismiss the notion. I don't wish many people dead but if women and minorities start buying up a lot of guns, maybe they'll start shooting back. Then we'll see how many times th…
Minorities aren't safe. But it's themselves that they're not safe from, not white men. People almost exclusively shoot members of their own race. White people are safe because other white people aren't very violent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuine legal interpretation question: Why does everyone quote "Shall not be infringed" but ignore "Well-regulated"? If the goal is a "well regulated militia", and therefore gun rights "shall not be infringed", why do we interpret that as "everybody should have largely unfettered access to weapons" rather than "If part of a well-regulated armed force, access to weapons should be allowed during militia activities"? or…
The US Supreme Court held "The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."[1] [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html