• vlad@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Well, the idea isn’t to stop your citizens from killing each other. That doesn’t really matter. But you can’t have them have tools that would limit your control of them. No guns, no right, no problems.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah, ok, the US Department of Commerce is buddying around with arms manufacturers at conventions in Vegas because they want to protect the ability of peoples’ movements to resist their governments, this definitely isn’t about arming right wing death squads financed by oligarchs or anything like that /s

      • vlad@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        The reason why the citizens need access to something, and the reason why they are still allowed that access may not be the same reason.

        • Zorque@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Have you ever contemplated a solution to a problem that wasn’t just shooting it in the face?

          I mean, I know I’m being reductionist, but I just didn’t want you to feel alone in that regard.

            • Zorque@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, cause the last 100 years of armed “communist” revolution have gone so well.

          • vlad@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            2nd amendment in the US is a complicated topic and both sides have completely ruined any chance for a civilized discussion about the topic. I’m pro. I’ve got my reasons. But it’s probably going to go away and for the wrong reason.

            • Zorque@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Shockingly, there’s more than two sides. Just because the people in power have tricked you into thinking otherwise doesn’t mean it’s true.

    • AnonTwo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      …Doesn’t the millitary still vastly out-arm any armed citizen in today’s age, both in actual weapons and in training to use said weapons?

        • Zorque@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Lots and lots of military contracts that made a few people a lot of money? With millions of civilian deaths, and maybe thousands of military deaths?

        • AnonTwo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Looks like it never reached the point of millitary. They just fought police. And Uvande showed everyone the competence of police.

          It really just looks like the government made no efforts to enforce the SC’s ruling. So it works if they don’t care.

          • vlad@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Standing up to police really is the point for me. It’s not about the big boog uprising that the crazy right talks about. For me it’s about small town corruption that happens all over the country and giving people defense against other people.

            Also, fun fact, Republicans used to be anti 2nd when Black Panthers were walking around with guns.

            I know that there are a lot of good arguments for and against it, but in my mind giving people access to those tools is a net positive.

            • Zorque@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think anyone who thinks greater access to tools of death and destruction is a net positive is deluding themselves.

              It may be net neutral, in that giving people weapons to “counter” other weapons negates other weapons… but it doesn’t protect them, it just gives them a chance to hurt others as much as they’re hurt themselves.

              It’s predicated on the idea of mutually assured destruction, but in not so nearly a potent manner as nuclear arms… which, in and of themselves, are not a universally potent enough deterrent to prevent war. Just enough that those weapons themselves aren’t used (more than twice). People still get hurt and killed by guns. And as any defender of gun death statistics will tell you, more often by the people who own them.

              If you consider that a net positive… well, I kind of feel sorry for you.

              • vlad@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re making a lot of baseless assumptions about me. I’m not going to do that in return. I’ve said my piece.