Many people believe the second amendment is wrong and it does not require protection, but they still care about the 4th. The only thing I always think about when I see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
The Second Amendment was probably a bad idea when it was written. Its proponents made a bunch of assumptions that look laughable in hindsight. Today in the hands of a Supreme Court increasingly disconnected from reality it's interpreted as an excuse to let people who clearly shouldn't have guns at all have as many guns as they can buy.
"First they came..." is about people not about ice cream flavors, or video games or constitutional amendments. Changing laws is a normal function of society. It is an anomaly (and a grave defect) that the US has become unable to even think of changing these particular laws, to the point where many of its people enshrine them as holy principles rather than recognising they are just laws of men.
It has been forever since America had judges brave enough to argue that something can't be lawful because it is evil, and so the EFF is obliged to frame things as "unconstitutional" instead. In a way that's America's legacy, the observation that slavery was evil pre-dates its founding as a country built on slavery, so it has always been necessary to its function to pretend that it's somehow important to allow evil if it's legal. In such an environment any potential judge with strong moral character could only be discouraged.
How do you propose the People should resist a despotic government. Supposing, as we must, the government literally becomes tyrannical, how do propose people resist it at that point?
That is the whole reason we have a 2nd Amendment. That's what it's about.
We went in with everything to Iraq and Afghanistan and did we subdue them? No. Why not? Because they had guns, and with guns, they acquired further weaponery to fight us; No other reason.
So you remove all the guns from "people who shouldn't have them" and how do you propose people should resist a tyrannical government?
Because the easy way to rule over people is to convince them it's a good thing, not to force them. If you find enough people to agree with you and to vote, they will vote ever worse (the worst: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power)
>We went in with everything to Iraq and Afghanistan and did we subdue them? No. Why not? Because they had guns, and with guns, they acquired further weaponery to fight us; No other reason.
But how were they able to have guns and resist the US if they didn't have a Second Amendment?
Is anyone really asking me this? Do you know the history of Afghanistan? The recent history post 1978?
Everyone had guns to answer your question directly.
Are you suggesting we can all have as many AKs as we want forever in exchange for the 2nd Amendment? Because unless you are, you're either ignorant of things you choose to comment on, stupid or trolling me.
>Are you suggesting we can all have as many AKs as we want forever in exchange for the 2nd Amendment? Because unless you are, you're either ignorant of things you choose to comment on, stupid or trolling me.
>I'll take all three for 500, Alex.
Wow... you really get triggered if someone questions your cherished principles, don't you? I'm either ignorant, stupid or trolling? No, I'm just examining the assumptions behind your argument, something you seem either unwilling to do, or incapable of.
Your thesis is that it's impossible for the American people to resist a despotic government without guns, and that it would be impossible to procure those guns without a Second Amendment. Yet, you've given at least one (of many) examples of a regime which has successfully led an armed revolution (against the US, no less) without having a Second Amendment.
Now, the question of whether the Second Amendment is necessary to resist the American government has already been answered by you - it isn't, because it historically hasn't been. In fact, historically speaking, of all groups resistant to American tyranny the American people have proven the least effective of any.
There's also a false equivalence in assuming that all American gun owners are members of a militia in readiness for action against tyranny. Most American gun owners are collectors, hunters, or merely concerned with protecting their family against intruders. That every American gun owner would be ready, willing and able to rise up against their government is a fantasy. Half would side with the tyrants, depending on the nature of the tyranny. Many wouldn't fight, most would probably just try to defend their homes.
As for "suggesting we can all have as many AKs as we want forever in exchange for the 2nd Amendment?" that's absurd on its face given that we can't "all have as many AKs as we want forever" to begin with.
The more reasonable form of your question would be "are you suggesting that it is possible to own guns without the Second Amendment?" And given that gun ownership exists in other countries, and that a black market for guns also exists in countries where it doesn't, the answer to this question is also, obviously, yes.
1) There is no American tyranny against Americans- that's hyperbole you shouldn't indulge yourself in.
2) The fact that Afghanis had AK47s and RPGs just everywhere in Afghanistan before America invaded in 2002 and without a 2nd Amendment is not evidence that Americans don't need a 2nd Amendment. It's evidence that America armed the Afghanis in the 80s when they were fighting the Soviets with RPGs and AKs.
3) The point of the 2nd Amendment is to legally preserve an armed population. Afghanistan proves that an armed population can resist an invading government. Americans are not interested in rolling the dice with their Liberty at stake on some future, hypothetical blackmarket. Thanks.
4) Anyone reading this exchange who was undecided can come to the clear conclusion that you yourself admitted only an armed populace can resist tyranny.
5) Americans don't think Men gave us our Rights- including our Right to resist tyranny; we think those Rights come from our Creator and men have nothing to say about them and men who think they do are tyrants who need resisting. The 2nd Amendment is an expression of that fact- a discovery about reality, not an free invention of men's minds.
The GDR was toppled without guns. The Maidan revolution didn’t have guns. None of the Arab spring revolutions involved violent overthrow using guns. Apartheid ended without guns. All of the color revolutions were nonviolent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
Meanwhile, armed revolutions: Syria, Venezuela
Plus, you know, democracy: every election is a chance of nonviolent revolution. And democratic countries do tend to stay democratic, no weapons needed.
Changing laws is a normal function of society. Removing rights is not. That is why I am worried about any discussion about changing any law that grants citizen rights, even if I am not at all affected - I live in Europe, Romania, a country with virtually no guns, we never had a second amendment and we were always either conquered by others (Turkish empire, Austrian empire) or got Communists with the help of the Russian tanks.
"First they came" is not about people, it is about the idea of giving up, one step at a time, until there is nothing left.
It's amazing that people in the freest nation on earth have to be battled by their own citizens to not give up the rights and tools that keep them that way.
Well, since you brought it up, actually, the rule of men and not laws is exactly what we're afraid of.
To you it's a feature, to us it's a bug. The number of people killed by their own governments in the 20th century proved us right once and for all.
We don't think our Rights come from Men. They didn't come from Men and can't be removed by Men. They are inalienable Rights we were born with.
We don't care what the government d'jour thinks it can do. We had these Rights before there was an America, and every person everywhere has these Rights as well. That's what "endowed by their Creator with Inalienable Rights" means.
Whether or not people choose to stand up for them is another topic.
Just so you have a clear idea where we're coming from and what the words, "from my cold, dead hands" mean.
