You're viewing a single thread.
For anybody who doesn't understand the argument, it's specifically a rebuttal to the idea that "The second amendment only applies to muzzle loaded muskets because nothing more advanced existed at the time"
"Free speech only applies to newspapers and soapboxes because nothing more advanced existed at the time"
It's not a bad counterargument to that claim, we've just moved so far past that into the cost-benefit-analysis stage. The cost to keep the 2nd ammendment as it is is pretty fucking high.
These conversations always stunlock me. We are months away from living in a dictatorship in the U.S. and ya'll are talking about what exactly? Revising the 2nd amendment? Can you please explain that to me?
Because you simply must be out of your fucking mind if you think disarming yourself in the face of Ya'll Queda is the course of action.
I hear you but also: school shooters
Plus the dictator thing isn't a guarantee, and even if he does win there's still the possibility of impeachment when he's prosecuted for inciting an insurrection
I hear you but also: school shooters
Would not be impacted whatsoever with any proposed legislation. The only possible thing that could stop school shooters is going door to door collecting all firearms. If you're proposing that, see the comment you're replying to.
True. I've held this position long before Trump was openly fascist, though, and I'm not saying right now in particular is the right time. Just preferably before me and my friend's kids would be growing up and going to school.
But if all goes well in the future, I'll absolutely be voting to round up the guns. And if it comes to it let the military and cops take the...backlash, to put it softly.
"If all goes well in the future"
This mentality is toxic.
How? Trump absolutely could win the presidency again, and I don't think coming to terms with that is a bad thing. It's just reality.
Weird when someone cherrypicks their own comment. Here we go.
If all goes well in the future ... to put it softly.
So what you're essentially saying is that; in order for the problem with guns to be solved we need to be at an indeterminate point in the future where 1) the cops and the military no longer have fascist influences, 2) we use them to corral people who don't want to give up their guns and kill them.
Then you cherrypick your own comment to appear as if you're just forward thinking by hedging your bets.
Allow me to put it this way. You, or anyone else, that has lived through the months following Jan 6th 2021 and seriously discusses the topic of taking guns away (especially in the very fascist manner that you're invoking) is one of three things.
You are either an idiot, a liar, or a bot.
I hope for you're sake that you're just an idiot. You can fix that.
Trump losing was what I meant by "all going well," and that's the part you decided to quote and respond to. Things are "going well" when Republicans lose influence, and those are the conditions it'd take for me to vote for guns to be outlawed. You're getting upset over your own lack of understanding lol.
- we use them to corral people who don't want to give up their guns and kill them.
Now you're just making shit up, I can't even charitably call that a misinterpretation.
What I'm saying is that if guns were outlawed there would almost certainly be citizen militias fighting against it, and it wasn't me who signed up for the responsibility of dealing with illegal use of guns. That's the police and military.
If Trump losing is all you think it takes for us to be in a position to take people's guns away peacefully you're actually insane.
And if it comes to it let the military and cops take the...backlash, to put it softly.
Now you're just making shit up, I can't even charitably call that a misinterpretation.
What I'm saying is that if guns were outlawed there would almost certainly be citizen militias fighting against it, and it wasn't me who signed up for the responsibility of dealing with illegal use of guns. That's the police and military.
Now you're arguing in bad faith. You know exactly what you meant, you coward.
Edit: the literal definition of backlash - a strong and adverse reaction by a large number of people, especially to a social or political development.
This guy acting as if the backlash won't be violent, signs are pointing to bot my guys.
Yeah, what needs to happen is changing those laws. The constitution has been changed many times before, and there's no reason it can't be changed again.
Yup. Also, they aren’t saying “if we lose guns everyone should lose the right to free speech as well”
They are saying that, since the right to free speech is clearly and self evidently important in modern mediums, the second amendment clearly extends to modern technology as well.
well you could argue that digital is an extension of signaling using a form of light and sound - which has existed since prehistory.
However, pedal bicycles and cars are on a similar spectrum (+ horses, tractors, mopeds, powered scooters...) and are subject to different laws.
And guns are just a way to transfer stored energy into a projectile that moves much faster than a human can do without the help of tools - which has existed since prehistory
Fully automatic assault atlatl when?