Open Carry

[UscGhost]

---

Members do not see this ad.

That’s just not accurate.

Let’s take three cases, your examples by the way. And again, if I’ve summarized the argument correctly the contention initially was guns have no role in defending against tyranny. That transitioned to a limited role; but, you believe other institutions are much more relevant such as a peaceful protests, free press, justice system, free and fair elections, etc.?

Soweto, massacre by an authoritarian government of unarmed students against apartheid. This action was the impetus for armed rebellion that was ultimately successful in ushering in democracy because they had access to guns and organized resistance.

Bloody Sunday triggered a revolution in Russia after again an authoritarian regime violently quelled a peaceful protest. Considering mainly of radicalized laborers and mutineers, that had access to guns an and were able to mobilize a violent response in turn.

Now, take China. Again your example not mine. The closest of the three to a tyrannical form of government. They already largely controlled state media, institutions, and the guns. In this case the regime puts down a peaceful protest and what happens? Nothing, no capability left for the people to affect change from within. China is able to tighten the noose further and functionally delete the event from history.

One of these things is not like the other….


FWIW. The Haymarket affair I just left out because you are completely contradicting yourself by saying when a protest gets violent it loses the narrative and the influence of public sentiment. But the exact opposite happened in this case.


Even Mandela advocated fighting state violence with armed violence.

Neither the Soweto massacre or Bloody sunday, or involved any significant deaths of police or military..let alone death by guns. The police and military, however, killed hundreds, including students

In the aftermath, widespread protests, sanctions, international outrage are all cited as the main causes of reform. Guns and "access" to guns have never been cited, probably because protesters didnt use them or wield them.

In the Haymarket affair, the protest was a peaceful labor movement (launched in response to police violence at a priornlabor rally), but was derailed by a bomber. Due to this violence on the part of the protestors...

A New York Times article, with the dateline May 4, and headlined "Rioting and Bloodshed in the Streets of Chicago ... Twelve Policemen Dead or Dying", reported that Fielden spoke for 20 minutes, alleging that his words grew "wilder and more violent as he proceeded".[26] Another New York Times article, headlined "Anarchy's Red Hand," dated May 6, opens with: "The villainous teachings of the Anarchists bore bloody fruit in Chicago tonight and before daylight at least a dozen stalwart men will have laid down their lives as a tribute to the doctrine of Herr Johann Most." (Most was a German-American anarchist theorist and leader, who was not in Chicago.) The article referred to the strikers as a "mob" and used quotation marks around the term "workingmen".[27]

However, public sentiment swayed back towards the protestors as the trial of the suspected bombers was considered rigged by the public

In terms of china, China launched overwhelming and widespread suppression of subsequent protests. Including hunting down protestors, complete control of the media and propaganda, economic and nationalist policing changes...the whole nine yards. This shows that a government with a small fraction of the capabilities of the US government could completely quell an uprising. So a few armed protesters would stand no chance at all

And if the tianamen square protestors did have guns, then the chinese government would have obliterated them. The government didnt hesitate to massacre unarmed students..you think that they would have hesitated if they had guns??

You fail to realize, that arming protestors is entirely counterproductive. The very few times that armed rebellions have overthrown a government, it was because the political and military organizations had already broken down. The military often joined in the mayhem and the society completely collapsed. Typically foreign powers also intervened to sow discord and arm the revel groups with military grade weapons.

Arming the citizens with civilian weaponry is counterproductive, and entirely inconsequential in stopping tyranny

 

[DocMcCoy]

Neither the Soweto massacre or Bloody sunday, or involved any significant deaths of police or military..let alone death by guns. The police and military, however, killed hundreds, including students

I’m sorry honestly it’s getting hard to follow your logic.

So let me get this straight. Your argument here is well this doesn’t count because the body count wasn't high enough?

Guns were definitely used by both sides.

The body count was too lopsided? How do you define significant?

The killing of those hundreds of protestors is literally what set armed resistance off.

In the aftermath, widespread protests, sanctions, international outrage are all cited as the main causes of reform. Guns and "access" to guns have never been cited, probably because protesters didnt use them or wield them.

You need to check your sources because armed violent uprising (with guns) was most definitely a cited cause for reform. In all of your examples.

In terms of china, China launched overwhelming and widespread suppression of subsequent protests. Including hunting down protestors, complete control of the media and propaganda, economic and nationalist policing changes...the whole nine yards. This shows that a government with a small fraction of the capabilities of the US government could completely quell an uprising. So a few armed protesters would stand no chance at all

I figure you might make an argument like this concerning Soweto and Black Sunday. I labeled them authoritarian vs tyrannical because some of those avenues were still open, free press to a certain degree, but most importantly access to guns. China was already largely shut down. When you have control of the elections, the government, the media, the money, what’s left? China went after that too. Thats why it was so easy to continue the march of total control. No way for the people to effectively fight back. It is definitely possible the outcome in China would have been different if they had 100 million gun owners and half a billion guns.

 

[UscGhost]

Guns werent used by the protestors.

If you mean the IRA and MK? Yea, those groups existed before those events, and they were military level groups.

I would hardly consider the use of anti aircraft guns, mines, RPGs, semtex, mortars and flamethrowers to be an "armed citizenry" consistent with the 2nd amendment. Its like saying we need the 2nd amendment because syria rebel groups were able to overthrow Assad.

Those groups simple escalated their attacks in response to the mass protests of unarmed civilians...the government caved in because of social unrest..not because of the IRA and MK..because those groups already existed

 

[DocMcCoy]

Guns werent used by the protestors.

If you mean the IRA and MK? Yea, those groups existed before those events, and they were military level groups.

I would hardly consider the use of anti aircraft guns, mines, RPGs, semtex, mortars and flamethrowers to be an "armed citizenry" consistent with the 2nd amendment. Its like saying we need the 2nd amendment because syria rebel groups were able to overthrow Assad.

Those groups simple escalated their attacks in response to the mass protests of unarmed civilians...the government caved in because of social unrest..not because of the ANC and MK..because those groups already existed

We can hone in on Soweto that’s fine. If you are saying guns weren’t used in the initial massacre by protestors that’s correct. They were most definitely used by the same generation that became radicalized against the regime, many of which joined the ANC and MK. Saying they are military level groups is like saying state militias within the US are like military groups. Considering they had to smuggle in cached weapons and they recognized they couldn’t compete with government weaponry, your claim is suspect. Tactics were literally motivated by the inability to match firepower. The government caved because of armed violent unrest. Not because of people peacefully assembling.

 

[DocMcCoy]

You added an all this to your post.

And if the tianamen square protestors did have guns, then the chinese government would have obliterated them. The government didnt hesitate to massacre unarmed students..you think that they would have hesitated if they had guns??

If they had guns prior to Tiananmen square there might not have been a Tiananmen square massacre. That’s the whole point of guns as a check against tyranny.

You fail to realize, that arming protestors is entirely counterproductive. The very few times that armed rebellions have overthrown a government, it was because the political and military organizations had already broken down. The military often joined in the mayhem and the society completely collapsed. Typically foreign powers also intervened to sow discord and arm the revel groups with military grade weapons.

Arming the citizens with civilian weaponry is counterproductive, and entirely inconsequential in stopping tyranny

This isn’t true in your own examples.

Or is the argument now guns are effective against tyranny depending on the type of guns?

 

[PpfSuxTube]

Even Mandela advocated fighting state violence with armed violence.

Yes absolutely 💯 correct. These 2 things are the same

"It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle."

 

[DocMcCoy]

Yes absolutely 💯 correct. These 2 things are the same

"It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle."

Good thing they still had the ability to strike back violently after all else failed.

 

[emergentmd]

I don't know why some has to get into every facet of incidents to try to prove your point. Can't we just use logic or do some just have difficulty seeing what is logical.

If guns are not a deterrent, then if you were robbing a jewelry store, which one would you pick to rob?

1. Store A with a guard in front with his gun showing?
2. Store B with no guard but in a state with open carry?
3. Store C with no guard and in a state with full gun restrictions?

100% would pick store C with everything else being equal so just admit that in some form guns are a deterrent.

I really dislike the argument that guns kill people. It is people who kills and if you want to ban guns b/c it can kill more quickly then I can at least see some logic.

But let us be honest that alcohol would save many times more lives from drunk driving/accidental trauma than guns. AI tells me 3x more. So where is the same left wing fervor for banning alcohol?

 

[UscGhost]

You added an all this to your post.




If they had guns prior to Tiananmen square there might not have been a Tiananmen square massacre. That’s the whole point of guns as a check against tyranny.





This isn’t true in your own examples.

Or is the argument now guns are effective against tyranny depending on the type of guns?

Lol

If they had guns before tiananmen square eh?

So you prefer that protestors come fully armed for each protest, just in case the government cracks down? Or is it that the first protest is gun free, and if you dont get what you ask for...then the next one you bring guns?

Or is it only when there is tyranny? But then how do you know when there is tyranny? Is there a minimum tyranny threshold? You seem to argue that you are supposed to bring guns to prevent tyranny, but then we shouldn't bring guns every time right? So then we just have to know ahead of time if the peaceful protest would work?

How much tyranny do you need before you bring mines, anti aircraft guns, mortars and bombs like the IRA?

Who decides on if its tyranny and if its ok to bring guns? Seems that the BLM protestors certainly felt that where subjects of tyranny, should they have strapped up? How would that have "helped".

 

[UscGhost]

Good thing they still had the ability to strike back violently after all else failed.

All without a 2nd amendment or fully armed citizenry

 

[DocMcCoy]

If they had guns before tiananmen square eh?

So you prefer that protestors come fully armed for each protest, just in case the government cracks down? Or is it that the first protest is gun free, and if you dont get what you ask for...then the next one you bring guns?

I know that you know what I mean when I said if they had guns before Tiananmen square. Not at Tiananmen square.

If the government starts slaughtering you at your protests, you better have something besides protests to fight back with.

All without a 2nd amendment or fully armed citizenry

It took guns and an armed citizenry to end apartheid. A 2nd amendment might have prevented apartheid.


Dems: You’d need weapons of war against the government.

Also Dems: we have to ban assault weapons. No one needs to have access to weapons of war.

 

[UscGhost]

I know that you know what I mean when I said if they had guns before Tiananmen square. Not at Tiananmen square.

If the government starts slaughtering you at your protests, you better have something besides protests to fight back with.



It took guns and an armed citizenry to end apartheid. A 2nd amendment might have prevented apartheid.


Dems: You’d need weapons of war against the government.

Also Dems: we have to ban assault weapons. No one needs to have access to weapons of war.

K. So lets follow that logic then.

The students go home after tianamen square..grab their handguns and do what? Go armed to the next protest?

So they show up, shoot a police officer and then china does the same crackdown and murders more students.

Or, what about the current protests. Anti ice and BLM. Certainly some police brutality at these events. Of course not to the level of china. Should the protestors come armed and shoot it out next time? Do we just arm everyone and trust that they will know level of ICE enforcement is tyranny?

If an ICE officer unjustly arrests a protestor and another protester shoots him..will you be out there arguing that it was a justified defense against tyranny, or like most maga, classify them as violent protestors

 

[DocMcCoy]

The students go home after tianamen square..grab their handguns and do what? Go armed to the next protest?

You can present as many hypotheticals as you want to show examples of armed resistance failing Sure no doubt. It isn’t a guarantee against tyranny. I wouldn’t present textbook examples of it working as part of your defense though.

China was too far gone to adequately protect itself against tyranny. Thats the point.

Or, what about the current protests. Anti ice and BLM. Certainly some police brutality at these events. Of course not to the level of china. Should the protestors come armed and shoot it out next time? Do we just arm everyone and trust that they will know level of ICE enforcement is tyranny?

Are you really equating the alleged law enforcement brutality to anti ice protests/riots to Tiananmen square?

Officers here are held accountable for their actions one way or another. Hopefully through the justice system, but public opinion as well. I mean I’ll throw you a bone and mention Kent State, which is an example you should have used earlier. Those shooters had due process, even if you don’t agree with the outcome.

If an ICE officer unjustly arrests a protestor and another protester shoots him..will you be out there arguing that it was a justified defense against tyranny, or like most maga, classify them as violent protestors

“You” are making it the argument we are facing tyranny. Why would I be our there supporting someone murdering a cop?

If ICE starts mowing down unarmed women and children unprovoked, with no accountability, that would definitely change the calculus.

 

[UscGhost]

You can present as many hypotheticals as you want to show examples of armed resistance failing Sure no doubt. It isn’t a guarantee against tyranny. I wouldn’t present textbook examples of it working as part of your defense though.

China was too far gone to adequately protect itself against tyranny. Thats the point.




Are you really equating the alleged law enforcement brutality to anti ice protests/riots to Tiananmen square?

Officers here are held accountable for their actions one way or another. Hopefully through the justice system, but public opinion as well. I mean I’ll throw you a bone and mention Kent State, which is an example you should have used earlier. Those shooters had due process, even if you don’t agree with the outcome.





“You” are making it the argument we are facing tyranny. Why would I be our there supporting someone murdering a cop?

If ICE starts mowing down unarmed women and children unprovoked, that would definitely change the calculus.

Doesnt matter. Tyranny is a matter of perspective. Plenty of chinese citizens didnt think then, and dont think now, that they are under a tyrannical regime

Maga folks believe in all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories...you dont think that the BLM protestors, many of whom come from generations of black citizens being systematically oppressed and over policed, think they are victims of tyranny?

You argue that 2A is there specifically to let them fight back. So, you wouldn't have a problem if they showed up armed to the teeth and battled it out. After all, thats how they would prevent further tyranny

What you are trying to do, is argue that all of the peaceful protests that didnt end in social change, was because of lack of guns...and any that did was because someone had a gun at some point...even though

Soweto for example, the crackdown on protestors led to severe economic sanctions, international condemnation, which led to economic instability and policitsl upheaval. Historians simply do not credit guns as a factor

 

[DocMcCoy]

Doesnt matter. Tyranny is a matter of perspective. Plenty of chinese citizens didnt think then, and dont think now, that they are under a tyrannical regime

Maga folks believe in all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories...you dont think that the BLM protestors, many of whom come from generations of black citizens being systematically oppressed and over policed, think they are victims of tyranny?

You argue that 2A is there specifically to let them fight back. So, you wouldn't have a problem if they showed up armed to the teeth and battled it out. After all, thats how they would prevent further tyranny

Do you support the Timothy McVeigh’s of the world? He thought he was striking back against tyranny too. I don’t think he was justified. I don’t think the current political climate justifies violence against law enforcement either. Maybe I’ll be on the wrong side of history. 🤷‍♂️

100 times. 2A is not there specifically to fight back against tyranny. It serves a a check against tyranny. It works best as a check unused. But it can work used as well. That is one of many functions of 2A.

Like I said, that calculus could always change. But you don’t think they should either right? Armed protests are detrimental to the cause, right? And we shouldn’t have an armed populous to begin with? And it’s futile anyway?

 

[DocMcCoy]

Historians simply do not credit guns as a factor

You keep saying this. It is categorically false.

 

[arkgal]

Meanwhile, ICE is invading Chicago neighborhoods, masked, with no identification, detaining people in the streets became they may look like an illegal migrants. They are illegally detaining US citizens, sometimes for days, before releasing them, all the time their being denied access to an attorney or a phone call. There is no accountability in place. ICE has become a loose cannon. This is tyranny. Chicagoans are fighting back, refusing to tolerate the violation of their rights. One migrant has died so far. At what point does violent or lethal force become justified? This isn't a historical scenario like Black Sunday. It's playing out in real life. No indication that tension are decreasing.

Meanwhile, we have a president violating multiple international laws, essentially engaging in warfare with civilians supposedly carrying drugs. What does he do? Does he board the boats, search them and turn these people over to the authorities? No. He murdered them. No due process. Seeing a pattern here? He's amassing troops near Venezuela and very well could drag us into another war. Where is the Congress? Are they asserting their authority over this matter? No, they are spineless, as is the puppet supreme court. Checks and balances are quickly disappearing.

 

[UscGhost]

Do you support the Timothy McVeigh’s of the world? He thought he was striking back against tyranny too. I don’t think he was justified. I don’t think the current political climate justifies violence against law enforcement either. Maybe I’ll be on the wrong side of history. 🤷‍♂️

100 times. 2A is not there specifically to fight back against tyranny. It serves a a check against tyranny. It works best as a check unused. But it can work used as well. That is one of many functions of 2A.

Like I said, that calculus could always change. But you don’t think they should either right? Armed protests are detrimental to the cause, right? And we shouldn’t have an armed populous to begin with? And it’s futile anyway?

So the 2A, serves as a check against tyranny, but shouldn't be used even if someone thinks they are a subject of tyranny...only under special circumstances that are somehow going to be determined later by other people.

Is there a handbook that comes with each gun purchase that tells folks under what minimum criteria is needed before the tyranny threshold is met?

Or is it just a free for all, and anyone can self determine if they are victims of tyranny?

Timothy Mcv is exactly the problem with the 2A. Anyone can self determine whether they are under tyranny and blow up a building or shoot at a president

Seems like a recipe for rampant gun violence..oh wait..we already have that. Maybe thats the reason other modern 1st world countries recognized that there are more civilized ways of doing things

But please send me some examples of historians citing this magical anti tyranny talisman as the factor that prevented tyranny from the US government. Because, so far all we are doing is stacking bodies and economic damages with nothing to show for it

 

[DocMcCoy]

So the 2A, serves as a check against tyranny, but shouldn't be used even if someone thinks they are a subject of tyranny...only under special circumstances that are somehow going to be determined later by other people.

Definitely not what I said. But if you are so amped up against Trump right now you decide to shoot a cop because you think you are protecting against tyranny, dont expect the jury of your peers is going to agree with you.

Is there a handbook that comes with each gun purchase that tells folks under what minimum criteria is needed before the tyranny threshold is met?

You should buy a gun and see what comes with it. I encourage it! Buy two! Come to Texas I’ll will gift you one, provided you pass a background check. That’s a 💯 legit offer.

Or is it just a free for all, and anyone can self determine if they are victims of tyranny?

That’s essentially what you are suggesting, isn’t it? I mean I pay 6 figures in taxes every year against my will. Sure feels pretty f’ing tyrannical cutting a check to Uncle Sam for the balance every April. Hasn’t motivated me enough to go shoot up the tax office, or even protest peacefully outside for that matter.

Timothy Mcv is exactly the problem with the 2A. Anyone can self determine whether they are under tyranny and blow up a building or shoot at a president

The irony there being no weapons ban of any kind would have prevented OKC bombing.

Seems like a recipe for rampant gun violence..oh wait..we already have that. Maybe thats the reason other modern 1st world countries recognized that there are more civilized ways of doing things

That’s part of the liberal problem. it’s all sunshine and rainbows and everyone will always do the right thing and everyone is civilized and always will be. And the government will take care of us…

But please send me some examples of historians citing this magical anti tyranny talisman as the factor that prevented tyranny from the US government. Because, so far all we are doing is stacking bodies and economic damages with nothing to show for it

It worked before right? We have the whole American way of life because of it. Even you admit that at least one time, historically, it did? Then there is the war Of 181/, Spanish American war. Militia and private arms thanks to 2A definitely played a role there.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Meanwhile, ICE is invading Chicago neighborhoods, masked, with no identification, detaining people in the streets became they may look like an illegal migrants. They are illegally detaining US citizens, sometimes for days, before releasing them, all the time their being denied access to an attorney or a phone call. There is no accountability in place. ICE has become a loose cannon. This is tyranny. Chicagoans are fighting back, refusing to tolerate the violation of their rights. One migrant has died so far. At what point does violent or lethal force become justified? This isn't a historical scenario like Black Sunday. It's playing out in real life. No indication that tension are decreasing.

Meanwhile, we have a president violating multiple international laws, essentially engaging in warfare with civilians supposedly carrying drugs. What does he do? Does he board the boats, search them and turn these people over to the authorities? No. He murdered them. No due process. Seeing a pattern here? He's amassing troops near Venezuela and very well could drag us into another war. Where is the Congress? Are they asserting their authority over this matter? No, they are spineless, as is the puppet supreme court. Checks and balances are quickly disappearing.

This is the result of what was voted for.

The simplest and most effective way we could change all of this is to go out and vote.

We can change it without firing a shot. It’s an amazing system.

 

[cchoukal]

This is the result of what was voted for.

The simplest and most effective way we could change all of this is to go out and vote.

We can change it without firing a shot. It’s an amazing system.

Not for 3 more years.

 

[PpfSuxTube]

I don't know why some has to get into every facet of incidents to try to prove your point. Can't we just use logic or do some just have difficulty seeing what is logical.

If guns are not a deterrent, then if you were robbing a jewelry store, which one would you pick to rob?

1. Store A with a guard in front with his gun showing?
2. Store B with no guard but in a state with open carry?
3. Store C with no guard and in a state with full gun restrictions?

100% would pick store C with everything else being equal so just admit that in some form guns are a deterrent.

I really dislike the argument that guns kill people. It is people who kills and if you want to ban guns b/c it can kill more quickly then I can at least see some logic.

But let us be honest that alcohol would save many times more lives from drunk driving/accidental trauma than guns. AI tells me 3x more. So where is the same left wing fervor for banning alcohol?

Yes except....


The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, has the world’s highest gun ownership rate, at almost 121 firearms per 100 residents, according to 2017 data from World Population Review. And as of 2021, the United States also had the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among high-income countries and territories with populations of more than ten million—at 4.52 per 100,000 residents.

How does your logic explain this?

And as for your alcohol point, You should really read more before whataboutisms

 

[UscGhost]

Definitely not what I said. But if you are so amped up against Trump right now you decide to shoot a cop because you think you are protecting against tyranny, dont expect the jury of your peers is going to agree with you.



You should buy a gun and see what comes with it. I encourage it! Buy two! Come to Texas I’ll will gift you one, provided you pass a background check. That’s a 💯 legit offer.



That’s essentially what you are suggesting, isn’t it? I mean I pay 6 figures in taxes every year against my will. Sure feels pretty f’ing tyrannical cutting a check to Uncle Sam for the balance every April. Hasn’t motivated me enough to go shoot up the tax office, or even protest peacefully outside for that matter.



The irony there being no weapons ban of any kind would have prevented OKC bombing.



That’s part of the liberal problem. it’s all sunshine and rainbows and everyone will always do the right thing and everyone is civilized and always will be. And the government will take care of us…



It worked before right? We have the whole American way of life because of it. Even you admit that at least one time, historically, it did? Then there is the war Of 181/, Spanish American war. Militia and private arms thanks to 2A definitely played a role there.

Haha,

You basically didn't respond to anything.

But which way of life was that? Slavery lasted for quite awhile...2A didnt help them. In fact, 2A was used to justify Confederate states establishing militias to SUPPRESS slave rebellions and actually enforce the worst form of tyranny.

Then after slavery was abolished...took what, another 100 years or so before AA could even use the same bathroom? Then dont forget the generations of over policing, brutality, incarcerations, etc. Seems like the 2A has dropped the ball constantly on checking tyranny

 

[emergentmd]

Yes except....


The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, has the world’s highest gun ownership rate, at almost 121 firearms per 100 residents, according to 2017 data from World Population Review. And as of 2021, the United States also had the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among high-income countries and territories with populations of more than ten million—at 4.52 per 100,000 residents.

How does your logic explain this?

And as for your alcohol point, You should really read more before whataboutisms

Glad you were not a decision maker before the revolutionary war. We may have actually lost fighting England with sticks and stones. But carry on

 

[DocMcCoy]

Haha,

You basically didn't respond to anything.

But which way of life was that? Slavery lasted for quite awhile...2A didnt help them. In fact, 2A was used to justify Confederate states establishing militias to SUPPRESS slave rebellions and actually enforce the worst form of tyranny.

Then after slavery was abolished...took what, another 100 years or so before AA could even use the same bathroom? Then dont forget the generations of over policing, brutality, incarcerations, etc. Seems like the 2A has dropped the ball constantly on checking tyranny

It’s hard to understand what you are getting at sometimes. I’m not sure exactly what I’m not responding to.

All I see from this is an example of how America has become exceedingly less tyrannical over the past 250 years? 2A wasn’t initially meant to help them, as they were property and not citizens according to the constitution. If we are using the history of African Americans in the United States as your example of tyranny, we’ve gone from slave status to the 13th, then the 14th (which was largely in response to keeping black people from owning guns!), then the 15th amendment, to civil rights, to total integration, to affirmative action. Admittedly, from a slave standpoint, the government would have been viewed as a tyrannical form of government 200+ years ago, but again, it wasn’t a government for them (which is a terrible part of our history). I reckon an African American time traveler from the early 1800s to present day would view the current government as anything but tyrannical. The work isn’t done, but I’m not sure I would I consider that a dropped ball.

Red Herrings aside, none of this refutes 2A has been an integral and important part of our history as you’ve already been given several examples.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Not for 3 more years.

Take the house next year, and put the breaks on a little bit. Take the senate and presidency in 28, and stop the car completely.

 

[UscGhost]

It’s hard to understand what you are getting at sometimes. I’m not sure exactly what I’m not responding to.

All I see from this is an example of how America has become exceedingly less tyrannical over the past 250 years? 2A wasn’t initially meant to help them, as they were property and not citizens according to the constitution. If we are using the history of African Americans in the United States as your example of tyranny, we’ve gone from slave status to the 13th, then the 14th (which was largely in response to keeping black people from owning guns!), then the 15th amendment, to civil rights, to total integration, to affirmative action. Admittedly, from a slave standpoint, the government would have been viewed as a tyrannical form of government 200+ years ago, but again, it wasn’t a government for them (which is a terrible part of our history). I reckon an African American time traveler from the early 1800s to present day would view the current government as anything but tyrannical. The work isn’t done, but I’m not sure I would I consider that a dropped ball.

Red Herrings aside, none of this refutes 2A has been an integral and important part of our history as you’ve already been given several examples.

Sure it does. You haven't given any examples of how 2A helped at all.

All of the key moments in black civil rights were peaceful protests.

The Civil Rights Movement: 7 Key Moments That Led to Change | HISTORY

From a bus boycott to Freedom Rides to a march for fair housing, here are seven moments that triggered change.

www.history.com

Unarmed peaceful protests accomplished the overwhelming majority of progress made. The 2A amendment existed for for 150 years

So wait, blacks couldnt even own guns before the 13-15 amendments were passed, yet somehow it was the guns that deserve credit for that.

Pretty sure the US government was extremely tyrannical towards blacks well into the 1900s

And you still haven't identified when 2A is supposed to be used to fight tyranny, who gets to use it and how that decision is made. So far, its never actually been used to accomplish any actual change.

Peaceful protests and the violent government reprisals have been overwhelmingly responsible for social change

 

[DocMcCoy]

Sure it does. You haven't given any examples of how 2A helped at all.

Oh boy. So I guess I’ll briefly recap what I’ve said already. Mind you this is solely a focused discussion of how guns in the US, a specific provision of 2A, are critical in the prevention of tyranny by both foreign and domestic aggressors, specifically acting as an active deterrent. We aren’t even tackling its role as a passive deterrent against rogue government or personal defense use at this point. And limiting the pro gun argument to the US.

Revolutionary War.
Direct use of force against a tyrannical government. Successful independence. Served as the impetus for The Bill of Rights including the 2nd amendment out of fear of the encroachment of tyranny in the new nation.

Every major conflict between 1791-1903.
Militias authorized by the 2nd amendment played a crucial role in the American Indian wars, war of 1812, Mexican American war, Spanish American war, etc., until the militia act of 1903.

Civil rights era.
Again, already mentioned, armed groups like the deacons of justice whom actually had shootouts with the Klan, and the black Panthers, were instrumental in ensuring peaceful protests could occur.

Unarmed peaceful protests accomplished the overwhelming majority of progress made. The 2A amendment existed for for 150 years

No doubt a lot of it. But like you said, not ALL of it.

So wait, blacks couldnt even own guns before the 13-15 amendments were passed, yet somehow it was the guns that deserve credit for that.

Yes. The Black Codes were instituted by the south immediately following the Civil War. One of the provisions of the codes was to ensure blacks didn’t have access to guns (because then they could fight back!) The 14th amendment was ratified to directly address The Black Codes.

Pretty sure the US government was extremely tyrannical towards blacks well into the 1900s

It was relative and regional I suppose. Again, a time traveling African American from the early 1800s would find the 1900s far less tyrannical, they would find 2025 far less even still. It was a combination of factors in this successful fight against tyranny, including the guns.

 

[UscGhost]

Oh boy. So I guess I’ll briefly recap what I’ve said already. Mind you this is solely a focused discussion of how guns in the US, a specific provision of 2A, are critical in the prevention of tyranny by both foreign and domestic aggressors, specifically acting as an active deterrent. We aren’t even tackling its role as a passive deterrent against rogue government or personal defense use at this point. And limiting the pro gun argument to the US.

Revolutionary War.
Direct use of force against a tyrannical government. Successful independence. Served as the impetus for The Bill of Rights including the 2nd amendment out of fear of the encroachment of tyranny in the new nation.

Every major conflict between 1791-1903.
Militias authorized by the 2nd amendment played a crucial role in the American Indian wars, war of 1812, Mexican American war, Spanish American war, etc., until the militia act of 1903.

Civil rights era.
Again, already mentioned, armed groups like the deacons of justice whom actually had shootouts with the Klan, and the black Panthers, were instrumental in ensuring peaceful protests could occur.




No doubt a lot of it. But like you said, not ALL of it.




Yes. The Black Codes were instituted by the south immediately following the Civil War. One of the provisions of the codes was to ensure blacks didn’t have access to guns (because then they could fight back!) The 14th amendment was ratified to directly address The Black Codes.



It was relative and regional I suppose. Again, a time traveling African American from the early 1800s would find the 1900s far less tyrannical, they would find 2025 far less even still. It was a combination of factors in this successful fight against tyranny, including the guns.

1. Was no 2nd amendment during the revolutionary war.

2. Every major conflict..all of which werent checks against tyranny. Some militias took part, many used government issues weapons. So 2A doesnt apply at all

Do we also want to credit the 2A with the atrocities and genocide committed against the native Americans as well?

3. Shootouts against KKK werent a check against government tyranny. So 2A doesnt apply

We we talking about checks against government tyranny. If someone wants to bring their personal weapon to war, its not a check against tyranny

 

[PpfSuxTube]

Glad you were not a decision maker before the revolutionary war. We may have actually lost fighting England with sticks and stones. But carry on

Wow. You really showed me.

Did you use your logic to get there?

 

[DocMcCoy]

1. Was no 2nd amendment during the revolutionary war.

It’s literally why the 2nd amendment is a check against tyranny. It’s the prime example of an armed populous being effective against tyranny. It predates the verbiage of the 2nd amendment so it doesn’t apply? Even you admitted this was an example of guns serving as a check against tyranny.

2. Every major conflict..all of which werent checks against tyranny. Some militias took part, many used government issues weapons. So 2A doesnt apply at all

Well 2A most definitely APPLIES. If you as saying it applies but it isn’t an example of a check against tyranny, Id still disagree. The threat of a British monarchy during war of 1812, Mexican dictatorship during the Mexican American war, Spanish monarchy in the Spanish American War…. All threats to sovereign democracy in the United States.

Do we also want to credit the 2A with the atrocities and genocide committed against the native Americans as well?

Militias were essential in protecting civilians from early colonialism through westward expansion. It’s true they aren’t innocent in Indian attrocities, but you can blame “tyrannical” action by the federal government for most of the genocide.

3. Shootouts against KKK werent a check against government tyranny. So 2A doesnt apply

Again 2A DEFINITLEY applies, if your claim is not as example of check against tyranny I’ll refer you to your previous discussion of how “a tyrannical government” set the stage for the events to even happen. Or I’ll refer you to the battle of Athens as another example.

Guns work.

 

[PpfSuxTube]

Guns work.

Can you explain this?

The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, has the world’s highest gun ownership rate, at almost 121 firearms per 100 residents, according to 2017 data from World Population Review. And as of 2021, the United States also had the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among high-income countries and territories with populations of more than ten million—at 4.52 per 100,000 residents.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Can you explain this?

The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, has the world’s highest gun ownership rate, at almost 121 firearms per 100 residents, according to 2017 data from World Population Review. And as of 2021, the United States also had the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among high-income countries and territories with populations of more than ten million—at 4.52 per 100,000 residents.

Over half of gun related deaths in US are suicides.

Higher rates of criminal acts and violence in general.

You don’t constructively contribute enough to warrant an in depth conversation.

Where does us rank by homicide rate worldwide? Top 5, top 10, top 25, top 50?

Why are the murder rates in urban center multiple times higher than suburban and rural centers?

 

[PpfSuxTube]

Guns work

You don’t constructively contribute enough to warrant an in depth conversation.

That's a bit of a disappointing climb down. What happened?

It seemed so easy for you to explain in onenpost but now its not?

 

[DocMcCoy]

That's a bit of a disappointing climb down. What happened?

It seemed so easy for you to explain in onenpost but now its not?

That was a polite way of saying I don’t feed trolls. Contribute some something worthwhile and we can talk.

 

[UscGhost]

It’s literally why the 2nd amendment is a check against tyranny. It’s the prime example of an armed populous being effective against tyranny. It predates the verbiage of the 2nd amendment so it doesn’t apply? Even you admitted this was an example of guns serving as a check against tyranny.



Well 2A most definitely APPLIES. If you as saying it applies but it isn’t an example of a check against tyranny, Id still disagree. The threat of a British monarchy during war of 1812, Mexican dictatorship during the Mexican American war, Spanish monarchy in the Spanish American War…. All threats to sovereign democracy in the United States.




Militias were essential in protecting civilians from early colonialism through westward expansion. It’s true they aren’t innocent in Indian attrocities, but you can blame “tyrannical” action by the federal government for most of the genocide.




Again 2A DEFINITLEY applies, if your claim is not as example of check against tyranny I’ll refer you to your previous discussion of how “a tyrannical government” set the stage for the events to even happen. Or I’ll refer you to the battle of Athens as another example.

Guns work.

Haha.

So now the 2A is intended to protect us against foreign adversaries? Thats a new one. I dont think i have ever heard a constitutional scholar claim that one before. Its supposed to prevent government overreach

I think the last thing we need is an armed population to protect us against Russia, China and Iran. We have this thing called the military. This isnt Afghanistan.

Seems we did fine against the British without 2A..so isnt that proof that its not needed. Seems every other first world country also does fine without it.

Ah yes, the Battle of Athens. Did those folks file lawsuits..go to the state supreme court..federal supreme court. Nope. Sounds like the didn't get results as fast as they wanted so they violently assaulted a police station. Is that the preferred avenue? Could they have achieved the same results with the existing legal system? Absolutely. Many people have.

What were they fighting against? Police brutality, corruption, intimidation. Sounds like alot of the same things that BLM and even the current No Kings protests are about. Are you recommending that they assault their local offices with assault weapons, dynamite, etc like the Battle of Athens? Seems most maga lose their minds if there is some looting...but they advocate for violent armed assaults? What if i dont like my local sheriff...is the 2A intended for me to be able to stage a violent revolt?

Heck..even Jan 6. Those crowds claimed the same election steal/fraud/corruption that the GIs claimed in the battle of athens. Should they have brought assault rifles and explosives like they did at Athens. How would that have turned out?

In the end, the argument that the 2A is a check on tyranny, basically allows for vigilante social justice. Allowing vigilante social justice leads to the same problems that vigilante justice has. While there might be highly specific and unique scenarios where vigilante justice can be useful.. it's not how the system works.

The US is supposed to be a great democracy because of the system of democratic checks and balances in place. The 2A just provides a way to bypass that system and call it social justice.

In the meantime, this vigilante social justice option comes with the cost of of a couple million lives and billions in damages... something that every other country has realized is not effective and worthwhile

If the 2A had common sense reforms, safety regulations, then maybe that analysis changes. But right now, the only answer that gun advocates seem to push for to increase gun safety, is more guns. Which is crazy

 

[pgg]

That's a bit of a disappointing climb down. What happened?

It seemed so easy for you to explain in onenpost but now its not?

I was going to respond to you again earlier, but decided not to. You're trolling and not arguing in good faith.

Uscghost has very opposing views but his arguments are reasoned and thoughtful. I can respect his opinion and position even if I disagree with much of it.

Your posts? They're just noise, like a distant dog aimlessly barking.

 

[DocMcCoy]

So now the 2A is intended to protect us against foreign adversaries? Thats a new one

That is far from new. That is exactly how it worked, again, in every major conflict from the revolution to the militia act 1903.

Seems we did fine against the British without 2A..so isnt that proof that its not needed. Seems every other first world country also does fine without it.

Independence was dependent on an armed populace able to fight against a tyrannical government. That is a textbook example of the rights inherent in the 2nd amendment, being necessary. We would still be colonials if that wasn’t the case. Is your argument a disarmed populace would have gained independence from Britain through peaceful protests alone?

In the end, the argument that the 2A is a check on tyranny, basically allows for vigilante social justice. Allowing vigilante social justice leads to the same problems that vigilante justice has. While there might be highly specific and unique scenarios where vigilante justice can be useful.. it's not how the system works.

Your argument is dependent on the system working. Which it doesn’t always do. Like you said, sometimes it can be useful. The urban rights in the 60s example. Again along with Deacons of justice and Athens, as fairly recent examples. Even ruby ridge and Waco in that vein served their purpose.

The US is supposed to be a great democracy because of the system of democratic checks and balances in place. The 2A just provides a way to bypass that system and call it social justice.

In the meantime, this vigilante social justice option comes with the cost of of a couple million lives and billions in damages... something that every other country has realized is not effective and worthwhile

50,000 per year, less than 1 percent of which se accidental. Above but on par with motor vehicle deleted fatalities per year. Nobody said it doesn’t come at a cost. Plenty feel it worthwhile, including the founding fathers.

If the 2A had common sense reforms, safety regulations, then maybe that analysis changes. But right now, the only answer that gun advocates seem to push for to increase gun safety, is more guns. Which is crazy

The majority of Americans are in favor of common sense reforms depending on how it’s framed.

If the base majority of gun advocstes are in favor of universal background checks. Myself included.

The problem is we know it’s never enough for the left. The faces of your party aren’t doing anything to prove us wrong.

Gov. Newsom Pulls Trigger on Striker-Fired Handgun Ban in California

In what shouldn’t surprise anyone, California Gov. Gavin Newsom used his pen to sign Assembly Bill 1127, which gun control activists deemed the “Glock Ban”. Gov. Newsom has never seen a gun control proposal he didn’t love. AB 1127 bans among the most commonly owned type of handgun available to...

www.nssf.org

 

[PpfSuxTube]

I was going to respond to you again earlier, but decided not to. You're trolling and not arguing in good faith.

Uscghost has very opposing views but his arguments are reasoned and thoughtful. I can respect his opinion and position even if I disagree with much of it.

Your posts? They're just noise, like a distant dog aimlessly barking.

You got me. Woof.
Now could you answer that statistic?

 

[UscGhost]

That is far from new. That is exactly how it worked, again, in every major conflict from the revolution to the militia act 1903.



Independence was dependent on an armed populace able to fight against a tyrannical government. That is a textbook example of the rights inherent in the 2nd amendment, being necessary. We would still be colonials if that wasn’t the case. Is your argument a disarmed populace would have gained independence from Britain through peaceful protests alone?



Your argument is dependent on the system working. Which it doesn’t always do. Like you said, sometimes it can be useful. The urban rights in the 60s example. Again along with Deacons of justice and Athens, as fairly recent examples. Even ruby ridge and Waco in that vein served their purpose.







50,000 per year, less than 1 percent of which se accidental. Above but on par with motor vehicle deleted fatalities per year. Nobody said it doesn’t come at a cost. Plenty feel it worthwhile, including the founding fathers.



The majority of Americans are in favor of common sense reforms depending on how it’s framed.

If the base majority of gun advocstes are in favor of universal background checks. Myself included.

The problem is we know it’s never enough for the left. The faces of your party aren’t doing anything to prove us wrong.

Gov. Newsom Pulls Trigger on Striker-Fired Handgun Ban in California

In what shouldn’t surprise anyone, California Gov. Gavin Newsom used his pen to sign Assembly Bill 1127, which gun control activists deemed the “Glock Ban”. Gov. Newsom has never seen a gun control proposal he didn’t love. AB 1127 bans among the most commonly owned type of handgun available to...

www.nssf.org

Revolutionary war was pre 2A, so 2A by definition, wasnt required

Mexican American war was the US invading mexican territory. Not at all the intent of the founding fathers

Spanish american war was fought by the army and national guard. Weapons were government issued. Personal owed weapons werent a factor. No 2A needed

Vietnam/korean wars. No 2A needed

Again, Deacons of justice weren't fighting tyranny.

Your examples of Athens was a vigilante group that didnt use the legal system to the full extent available. This evidence of the problem of 2A, (incentivizes violence as a shortcut), not a benefit

So where are the common sense reforms being proposed by maga? They control the Senate, house and judiciary. Should be passed already.

Dems would certainly vote for any common sense reforms proposed.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Revolutionary war was pre 2A, so 2A by definition, wasnt required

Mexican American war was the US invading mexican territory. Not at all the intent of the founding fathers

Spanish american war was fought by the army and national guard. Weapons were government issued. Personal owed weapons werent a factor. No 2A needed

Vietnam/korean wars. No 2A needed

Again, Deacons of justice weren't fighting tyranny.

Your examples of Athens was a vigilante group that didnt use the legal system to the full extent available. This evidence of the problem of 2A, (incentivizes violence as a shortcut), not a benefit

So where are the common sense reforms being proposed by maga? They control the Senate, house and judiciary. Should be passed already.

Dems would certainly vote for any common sense reforms proposed.

I can see we aren’t going to agree anywhere on an armed populace as an effective deterrent against tyranny. Despite several pretty clear examples. Having it carved in stone as a 2nd amendment helps to ensure the right can’t be infringed easily by any one regime. Every country without it doesn’t have the same protections.

Well MAGA has. Red flag laws, background check improvement, stop school violence act, bipartisan safer communities act…

The lefts approach to “common sense” gun laws doesn’t make sense. Paramount to that plan is the ban of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. If gun related death truly is the metric we want to go after, neither of those intervention does anything to address the 30,000 gun related suicides (unless you have some data that people that commit suicide shoot themselves more than 10 times?), and would reduce other gun violence related death by a mere fraction. It’s about gun control not making the country safer.

 

[DocMcCoy]

Career liberal antigunner now supports the 2nd amendment to fight against tyranny. And legal carry. I wonder what his thoughts are on open carry?

“If you believe in the Second Amendment, if you believe in the Constitution, Black people, Brown people of all stripes, whether you’re an Indian American or a Mexican American or whoever you are, go out in your place where you live and get a gun legally. Get a license to carry legally.”

He added, “Because when you have people knocking on your door and taking you away without due process as a citizen, isn’t that what the Second Amendment was written for?”

Don Lemon Urges Black Americans to Arm-up to Fight off ICE

During a Tuesday appearance on "The Left Hook with Wajahat Ali," Don Lemon suggested black Americans should arm themselves to fight off ICE.

www.breitbart.com

 

[UscGhost]

I can see we aren’t going to agree anywhere on an armed populace as an effective deterrent against tyranny. Despite several pretty clear examples. Having it carved in stone as a 2nd amendment helps to ensure the right can’t be infringed easily by any one regime. Every country without it doesn’t have the same protections.

Well MAGA has. Red flag laws, background check improvement, stop school violence act, bipartisan safer communities act…

The lefts approach to “common sense” gun laws doesn’t make sense. Paramount to that plan is the ban of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. If gun related death truly is the metric we want to go after, neither of those intervention does anything to address the 30,000 gun related suicides (unless you have some data that people that commit suicide shoot themselves more than 10 times?), and would reduce other gun violence related death by a mere fraction. It’s about gun control not making the country safer.

Haha yes.

Because your examples of the utility of the second amendment included

1. We had success before it was passed
2. Two wars that were fought by the military and national guard, not civilians, using military issued weapons...so 2A wasnt applicable
3. A violent rebellion in which the rebels opted out of the peaceful route and went vigilante. An approach that would lead to the breakdown of society if anyone else did it.

Trump has come out against red flag laws and any gun regulations in 2024. So so far, doesn't appear maga is for any sensible gun safety reforms.

 

[DocMcCoy]

1. We had success before it was passed

Right, a reminder, we are specifically talking about ONE utility of the 2nd amendment. And the examples stand on their merit.

So an armed populous CAN deter tyranny.

2. Two wars that were fought by the military and national guard, not civilians, using military issued weapons...so 2A wasnt applicable

That’s just not true. Militias up to 1903 were not the equivalent of the modern national guard. These were very much militias in every sense of the 2nd amendment. And instrumental in all of those campaigns.

3. A violent rebellion in which the rebels opted out of the peaceful route and went vigilante. An approach that would lead to the breakdown of society if anyone else did it.

Successful examples regardless of your bold claim.


Let’s not forget the 14th amendment, it’s especially relevant with the current administration. Created in response to the black codes, to give freedmen rights including the right to bear arms, so they could defend themselves against a tyrannical state during reconstruction.

Trump has come out against red flag laws and any gun regulations in 2024. So so far, doesn't appear maga is for any sensible gun safety reforms.

I know, what have you done for me lately, right? Doesn’t negate the fact that there has been considerable common sense gun legislation that came out of a “maga” controlled trifecta already, refuting your claim.

What do you consider sensible gun safety reforms? Are you a proponent of assault weapons and high capacity magazines bans? Why? What do you think of Newsome functionally banning virtually the most common use firearms in California? What do you think of Mamdani and banning all guns? What are the goals of gun control?

 

[pgg]

Career liberal antigunner now supports the 2nd amendment to fight against tyranny. And legal carry. I wonder what his thoughts are on open carry?

“If you believe in the Second Amendment, if you believe in the Constitution, Black people, Brown people of all stripes, whether you’re an Indian American or a Mexican American or whoever you are, go out in your place where you live and get a gun legally. Get a license to carry legally.”

He added, “Because when you have people knocking on your door and taking you away without due process as a citizen, isn’t that what the Second Amendment was written for?”

Masked government goons without warrants disappearing people in the middle of the night is exactly what the 2A is for.

The fact that we haven't seen ICE agents getting shot left and right (just hyperbolic right wing press clutching pearls about how they need masks because of "threats") is actually a little reassuring to me that things aren't as bad as the hyperbolic left wing press wants me to believe.

Nobody remembers or talks about the Arab Spring (in large part because it failed when mostly-unarmed reformers got disapppeared by tyrants) but one thing I do remember is some neighborhoods in Egypt had fewer goons visit than others, and the reason was how many (illegal) guns the locals had.

 

[arkgal]

Masked government goons without warrants disappearing people in the middle of the night is exactly what the 2A is for.

The fact that we haven't seen ICE agents getting shot left and right (just hyperbolic right wing press clutching pearls about how they need masks because of "threats") is actually a little reassuring to me that things aren't as bad as the hyperbolic left wing press wants me to believe.

Nobody remembers or talks about the Arab Spring (in large part because it failed when mostly-unarmed reformers got disapppeared by tyrants) but one thing I do remember is some neighborhoods in Egypt had fewer goons visit than others, and the reason was how many (illegal) guns the locals had.

It's even more reassuring given ICE has already shot and killed an illegal migrant. On the other hand, illegal immigrants are probably among those least likely to own a gun or act in retaliation. Had ICE shot a black victim, justified or not, I think we'd be looking at a much stronger backlash. I'm not necessarily saying the protests would be violent, but there'd for sure be protests.

Illegal immigrations are the least likely to fight back to those disappearing them into the middle of the night.

 

[Hoya11]

Masked government goons without warrants disappearing people in the middle of the night is exactly what the 2A is for.

The fact that we haven't seen ICE agents getting shot left and right (just hyperbolic right wing press clutching pearls about how they need masks because of "threats") is actually a little reassuring to me that things aren't as bad as the hyperbolic left wing press wants me to believe.

Nobody remembers or talks about the Arab Spring (in large part because it failed when mostly-unarmed reformers got disapppeared by tyrants) but one thing I do remember is some neighborhoods in Egypt had fewer goons visit than others, and the reason was how many (illegal) guns the locals had.

ice hasnt been getting shot because the ones getting arrested arent criminals/murderers

they are going after easy targets of their anger/racism while the gang members (who cares what race they are) with the guns/drugs continue

shooting the agent doesnt get them anything and any reasonable person would understand that - its not that "things arent bad cuz they aint shootin"

 

[UscGhost]

Masked government goons without warrants disappearing people in the middle of the night is exactly what the 2A is for.

The fact that we haven't seen ICE agents getting shot left and right (just hyperbolic right wing press clutching pearls about how they need masks because of "threats") is actually a little reassuring to me that things aren't as bad as the hyperbolic left wing press wants me to believe.

Nobody remembers or talks about the Arab Spring (in large part because it failed when mostly-unarmed reformers got disapppeared by tyrants) but one thing I do remember is some neighborhoods in Egypt had fewer goons visit than others, and the reason was how many (illegal) guns the locals had.

Well, the Arab spring resulted in several regime changes. Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, yemen.

Problem is, when the civilian population is armed, then it degenerates into civil wars. Syria, Libya, yemen, much of Africa, etc

The other problem is, an armed population will choose to solve their problems with gun violence. One groups leader is another groups tyrant. And the cycle continues. After all, why wait for a peaceful democratic process when you can just shoot the opposition. And it doesnt take many folks with guns to wreak immense harm

 

[UscGhost]

Right, a reminder, we are specifically talking about ONE utility of the 2nd amendment. And the examples stand on their merit.

So an armed populous CAN deter tyranny.



That’s just not true. Militias up to 1903 were not the equivalent of the modern national guard. These were very much militias in every sense of the 2nd amendment. And instrumental in all of those campaigns.



Successful examples regardless of your bold claim.


Let’s not forget the 14th amendment, it’s especially relevant with the current administration. Created in response to the black codes, to give freedmen rights including the right to bear arms, so they could defend themselves against a tyrannical state during reconstruction.




I know, what have you done for me lately, right? Doesn’t negate the fact that there has been considerable common sense gun legislation that came out of a “maga” controlled trifecta already, refuting your claim.

What do you consider sensible gun safety reforms? Are you a proponent of assault weapons and high capacity magazines bans? Why? What do you think of Newsome functionally banning virtually the most common use firearms in California? What do you think of Mamdani and banning all guns? What are the goals of gun control?

Democratic Sen. Merkley ends floor speech protesting Trump at 22 hours and 36 minutes

The senator had been at it since 6:24 p.m. Tuesday.

www.yahoo.com

Just checking...is this when you want the 2A folks to rise up and "check tyranny" ?

Not sure the guidelines

 

[DocMcCoy]

Democratic Sen. Merkley ends floor speech protesting Trump at 22 hours and 36 minutes

The senator had been at it since 6:24 p.m. Tuesday.

www.yahoo.com

Just checking...is this when you want the 2A folks to rise up and "check tyranny" ?

Not sure the guidelines

Not following what you mean.