I was always rather on the fence about the Second Amendment, going back and forth on it. But 2020 knocked my right off the fence and onto my ass squarely into a 2A supporter. I think you are extremely naive if you don't think that the fact that so many Americans are armed and know how to use their weapons hasn't had a dampening effect on the government's desire to intrude on our rights. Think about countries where the police are locking citizens in their homes (Shanghai is only the most recent and extreme example, remember what has happened in Australia) and going to people's homes to arrest them for posting things on Facebook the authorities don't like, for "testing and tracing", and countless other intrusive things including jabbing people. It's not happening here, much as they so very much want it to. Don't you think that the knowledge that a "tester and tracer" or some other public health department minion would have a good chance of facing down a double-barrel shotgun makes these people think twice? And I would add that it is not just that people have guns, but that there are plenty with serious training and organization. We like to make fun of militias and treat them as rag-tag groups of ignorant, fat racists with insecurities about their manhood, but is that really what they are, or what the government would like them to be, instead of disciplined patriots including ex-military and law-enforcement, both of which have doubtless swelled in numbers as a result of the insane, immoral jab mandates. Yes, so far there are been few shootouts with the government. But perhaps that's simply because the tyrants have been careful to avoid crossing some red lines.
Ok, that's a possible explanation, but the problem with it is you are trying to prove a negative, which is impossible. You have a belief that tyranny hasn't progressed as far as it has in other countries because of guns, but that's a non-testable hypothesis. A more reasonable hypothesis is that your constitution and laws have held tyranny back, and that's a totally provable hypothesis because we have many court decisions to point to which have done exactly that (and some which haven't). The second problem with this hypothesis is that it ignores countries with strict gun control laws which did not impose covid tyranny. Two examples that immediately come to mind are Sweden and Mexico. In conclusion I thank you for this reasonable presentation of an opposing view, I appreciate it.
History has proven it again and again and again. Every genocide requires the disarmament of the designated enemy.
тАЬAnd how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that youтАЩd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeurтАФwhat if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of StalinтАЩs thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
тАЬIf . . . if . . . We didnтАЩt love freedom enough. And even moreтАФwe had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure!тАЭ
This, in your style, is a grand piece of rhetoric which deals with none of the actual problems you have in the States, and ignores the countries which have gun control and no genocides.
тАЬand ignores the countries which have gun control and no genocidesтАЭтАФYET.
How would you defend yourself if the guards come to take you to the gulag?
You are aware of the democide thatтАЩs been underway for the past two+ years. You are aware of the escalating totalitarian laws enveloping the globe. You are aware of the countries that have already incarcerated dissenters in isolation camps. You are aware of the rights and freedoms that have been stripped in the name of тАЬpublic health,тАЭ тАЬsafety,тАЭ and the тАЬgood of society.тАЭ
And yet you naively trust these governments never to overstep their bounds, as the citizens of every past totalitarian genocidal regime have done throughout history.
ItтАЩs time to flee the cult of safety and stop swallowing the propaganda youтАЩve been fed about guns by the tyrannical governments whose limits are inscribed by their presence:
I should add, I'm not sure who you're talking to who "naively trusts the government" and belongs to a "cult of safety". I think you may be arguing with someone you're imagining, but it's not me ЁЯШЖ
ThatтАЩs what I thought and why I am so bewildered that you have bought the anti-gun propaganda, which only serves criminals and tyrants!
I used to share your position years ago. And then I researched it and realized I was mistaken. And the past two years have solidified the absolute necessity of being able to defend ourselves against tyranny.
JP Sears went through a similar re-evaluation of his views on this subject:
Because I have a different view, I must have swallowed propaganda? Interesting. I can't have come to this position by reason? The past two years did indeed cause me to reconsider this position; I in the end remain unconvinced.
Having a different view isnтАЩt the issue at all. Different views are fine! I am simply saying this particular position aligns with government propaganda, which serves to protect the interests of the powerful over the people.
You view it as propaganda because it contradicts your point of view. I think you can't imagine that someone might have thoughtful reasons for having a different perspective.
I don't have time to properly answer this right now, but I will briefly say: again, you're trying to prove a negative. "We have guns in the States and no genocides, you have no guns and no genocides BUT YOU MIGHT SOMEDAY" is not an argument. Secondly, what you are dealing with in this century is not armed warfare; you are dealing with totalitarian nanny statism which for the most part does not resort to violence to achieve its ends. Thirdly, please name me one recent example where someone or a group of people went up against the US government with guns and achieved its aims and did not end up either dead or in jail? What you *actually* have are mass shootings, high rates of gun homicides, suicides, and accidents. The rhetoric may be great on the other side, but that's what your gun rights look like in actuality.
тАЬwhich for the most part does not resort to violence to achieve its endsтАЭтАФUNTIL IT DOES.
YouтАЩre locked in a cell with a psychopath. The psychopath is armed, and you are not. He hasnтАЩt done anything to you yet, so nothing to worry about, right?
The argument is every genocide in history. Disarming the populace is a necessary step to achieve it. It cannot be accomplished overtly without that step.
You evidently fail to understand the concept of mutually assured destruction. Having a large sector of the populace armed *prevents* the necessity of using guns to defend the citizens against tyranny. As Solzhenitsyn reminds us, officers are not going to be eager to come arrest you en masse and cart you off to the gulag if they know you have the ability to defend yourself.
The mass shootings, high rates of homicides, and suicides happen predominantly in states and cities with draconian gun laws (California, New York, Chicago, etc.). Criminals can get guns no problem; it is the innocent law-abiding citizens who cannot defend themselves because their right to self-defense has been taken away.
Yeah I know; like I said, I've heard all the arguments before. And the fact that it simply doesn't look like that in countries without armed citizenry totally escapes the American mind. As does the fact that the idea of an armed citizenry prevailing against the government comes literally from the 18th century. I suppose all the actual deaths are the price you have to pay for that idea.
I have a friend from China who vividly remembers the government soldiers coming for her father's guns (she's in her mid-seventies). It was a powerful influence on her determination to come to the US as soon as she was old enough and could because she considered this a free country. She recognized immediately what was happening in 2020. She is an adamant supporter of the second amendment.
I suppose the loss of freedoms and rights is the price you have to pay for your idea. Not to mention the lives of whomever a democidal government targets for elimination.
Gun laws donтАЩt stop criminals from getting guns. Gun laws donтАЩt stop governments from using force against you. Gun laws donтАЩt stop тАЬactual deathsтАЭ from occurring.
All they do is stop law-abiding citizens from having the ability to defend themselves against criminals and tyranny.
No one uses this argument about any other crime - "laws don't stop this crime from occurring entirely, therefore we shouldn't do anything to make it more difficult to commit, or allow us to enforce those laws." And again, you have no actual proof that guns in the States prevent "tyranny". You do, as I mentioned previously, have evidence that your laws and courts do. Which is something we are lacking in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Forgive me if I don't believe that the idea of a shootout with a few zealots keeps the government on its toes, sans evidence.
Perfect illustration of the adage that when citizens are banned from having firearms for even just self protection against thugs, let alone against government tyranny, only the government and criminals will have guns.
Criminals in Mexico's case being the various drug and human trafficking 'Cartels' that effectively viciously and violently rule the populace whenever and wherever the government is not present. Pretty much every place at any given time.
For every Mexico example, there's another country that doesn't have as many armed citizens as the States and also doesn't have massive crime and violence problems, e.g. Canada. Mexico's problems are complex but I promise you that more guns will not reduce gun violence any more than it has in the US.
Well, Swedes have been more willing to get jabbed than Americans and I understand have rather enthusiastically accepted digital chipping, so there was no need for the government to resort to the kinds of measures that would be required here. And doesn't Mexico have these heavily armed drug cartels and other anti-governmental groups that the government might hesitate to rile up?
Hello from Sweden. The chipping bit is a small news item blown out of all proportion, and that's all it is. There's no need you see. 95%+ uses smart phones. As in, a 24/7 surveillance device they happily pay for and udgrade themselves.
As for gun control, we have among the hardest laws in the world. Along with the weirdest loopholes.
On one hand, the police decides upon application if you may purchase and own a firearm of any kind, including the more powerful kinds of air rifles, or crossbows, or slingshots. Basically, the policeman in question is the sole arbiter and is also the only instance of appeal. Old days, this worked well because the police would be a local handling the local's applications and thus having local knowledge on who's suitable and who's not. Today, not so much.
Another example: there's no legal limit to the amount of ammunition you may have at home. And if you have a construction company registred, you may buy and own explosives, again with no real limit - as long as you storage facilities are up to code. Different laws in conflict you see.
Also, we have about 450 000 hunters (out of 11 000 000) who all own on average three rifles/shotguns of different kinds, and also anywhere from 55 000 to 150 000 home guard/national guard depending on definitions. Those on active home guard duty keep AK-5s at home - and there has only ever for more than 100 years been a US-style shooting involving such a weapon and a soldier going whackaoodles.
Yet, we have per capita the same level of gun violence as Chicago almost. Why?
Well, the perps are not white men and women. They are african negroes, arab moslems, and gypises and afghans, syrians and other such ... people. And they behave as their races always do. They will happily spray a tenement building with fully automatic fire from a CZ Scorpion or an AK-47, or lob handgrenades at eachother during drive-bys.
You can take a fox out of the woods and let in your house, but that doesn't make it any less of a fox.
The solution for the US is quite obvious: look at the demographics of illegal fireamrs use, and impose harshest possible individual sanctions in a consistent manner. You have territory in Greenland - use it as a gulag for the Geroge floyds and others of his ilk. That will drop all costs associated so much you can then properly fund mental health care.
Swedes being more willing to get jabbed doesn't explain why the government didn't impose NPIs like lockdowns and masks. And you could always try to find rationalizations; the basic point is that the citizenry having guns or not does not correlate with whether any country's government imposed restrictions. Again, look at what actually happened in your country: Biden tried, the courts shot him down one by one (mostly, also no pun intended).
"Swedes being more willing to get jabbed doesn't explain why the government didn't impose NPIs like lockdowns and masks." Well, it certainly seems at least one part of why they didn't feel the need to impose measures designed to terrorize and intimidate them into compliance. I'm not suggesting that is the only reason, but likely was a factor.
I'm not clear what your point is here. My point is that the Swedes did not need to be manipulated by terror and governmental intimidation to comply with (or even embrace) the agenda of the NWO. Americans (as in many other countries), not so much.
I think I've made my point clear; you stated that guns were the reason tyranny hadn't gone as far in the States as it has in other countries. I stated that there are countries which disprove that point, and you're taking it further than that single point. I don't think we'll get any further going down this road.
"I stated that there are countries which disprove that point", but do they? I was suggesting that they don't necessarily, so I guess I did "take it further" in a sense, but I don't see how that negates my point, nor why it's a dead end (except perhaps for your argument). But, sure, I'm glad to leave things here. This has become rather tedious.
"This is exactly why you'll keep getting these mass murders in the States." There are many, many other reasons why we are getting mass murders in this country--cultural, sociological and, I think perhaps most importantly, pharmacologically (the number of young people on anti-depressants and other mind altering drugs in this country is outrageous and obscene and as another poster has pointed out, every single mass shooter has been or recently stopped taking these drugs).
Yup I know and I've heard it all before. This is exactly why you'll keep getting these mass murders in the States.
I was always rather on the fence about the Second Amendment, going back and forth on it. But 2020 knocked my right off the fence and onto my ass squarely into a 2A supporter. I think you are extremely naive if you don't think that the fact that so many Americans are armed and know how to use their weapons hasn't had a dampening effect on the government's desire to intrude on our rights. Think about countries where the police are locking citizens in their homes (Shanghai is only the most recent and extreme example, remember what has happened in Australia) and going to people's homes to arrest them for posting things on Facebook the authorities don't like, for "testing and tracing", and countless other intrusive things including jabbing people. It's not happening here, much as they so very much want it to. Don't you think that the knowledge that a "tester and tracer" or some other public health department minion would have a good chance of facing down a double-barrel shotgun makes these people think twice? And I would add that it is not just that people have guns, but that there are plenty with serious training and organization. We like to make fun of militias and treat them as rag-tag groups of ignorant, fat racists with insecurities about their manhood, but is that really what they are, or what the government would like them to be, instead of disciplined patriots including ex-military and law-enforcement, both of which have doubtless swelled in numbers as a result of the insane, immoral jab mandates. Yes, so far there are been few shootouts with the government. But perhaps that's simply because the tyrants have been careful to avoid crossing some red lines.
Ok, that's a possible explanation, but the problem with it is you are trying to prove a negative, which is impossible. You have a belief that tyranny hasn't progressed as far as it has in other countries because of guns, but that's a non-testable hypothesis. A more reasonable hypothesis is that your constitution and laws have held tyranny back, and that's a totally provable hypothesis because we have many court decisions to point to which have done exactly that (and some which haven't). The second problem with this hypothesis is that it ignores countries with strict gun control laws which did not impose covid tyranny. Two examples that immediately come to mind are Sweden and Mexico. In conclusion I thank you for this reasonable presentation of an opposing view, I appreciate it.
History has proven it again and again and again. Every genocide requires the disarmament of the designated enemy.
тАЬAnd how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that youтАЩd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeurтАФwhat if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of StalinтАЩs thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!
тАЬIf . . . if . . . We didnтАЩt love freedom enough. And even moreтАФwe had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure!тАЭ
тАФAleksandr Solzhenitsyn, тАЬThe Gulag ArchipelagoтАЭ
This, in your style, is a grand piece of rhetoric which deals with none of the actual problems you have in the States, and ignores the countries which have gun control and no genocides.
тАЬand ignores the countries which have gun control and no genocidesтАЭтАФYET.
How would you defend yourself if the guards come to take you to the gulag?
You are aware of the democide thatтАЩs been underway for the past two+ years. You are aware of the escalating totalitarian laws enveloping the globe. You are aware of the countries that have already incarcerated dissenters in isolation camps. You are aware of the rights and freedoms that have been stripped in the name of тАЬpublic health,тАЭ тАЬsafety,тАЭ and the тАЬgood of society.тАЭ
And yet you naively trust these governments never to overstep their bounds, as the citizens of every past totalitarian genocidal regime have done throughout history.
ItтАЩs time to flee the cult of safety and stop swallowing the propaganda youтАЩve been fed about guns by the tyrannical governments whose limits are inscribed by their presence:
https://academyofideas.com/2022/04/fear-psychosis-and-the-cult-of-safety/
I should add, I'm not sure who you're talking to who "naively trusts the government" and belongs to a "cult of safety". I think you may be arguing with someone you're imagining, but it's not me ЁЯШЖ
ThatтАЩs what I thought and why I am so bewildered that you have bought the anti-gun propaganda, which only serves criminals and tyrants!
I used to share your position years ago. And then I researched it and realized I was mistaken. And the past two years have solidified the absolute necessity of being able to defend ourselves against tyranny.
JP Sears went through a similar re-evaluation of his views on this subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fKO1-hE2Wg
Because I have a different view, I must have swallowed propaganda? Interesting. I can't have come to this position by reason? The past two years did indeed cause me to reconsider this position; I in the end remain unconvinced.
Having a different view isnтАЩt the issue at all. Different views are fine! I am simply saying this particular position aligns with government propaganda, which serves to protect the interests of the powerful over the people.
You view it as propaganda because it contradicts your point of view. I think you can't imagine that someone might have thoughtful reasons for having a different perspective.
I don't have time to properly answer this right now, but I will briefly say: again, you're trying to prove a negative. "We have guns in the States and no genocides, you have no guns and no genocides BUT YOU MIGHT SOMEDAY" is not an argument. Secondly, what you are dealing with in this century is not armed warfare; you are dealing with totalitarian nanny statism which for the most part does not resort to violence to achieve its ends. Thirdly, please name me one recent example where someone or a group of people went up against the US government with guns and achieved its aims and did not end up either dead or in jail? What you *actually* have are mass shootings, high rates of gun homicides, suicides, and accidents. The rhetoric may be great on the other side, but that's what your gun rights look like in actuality.
тАЬwhich for the most part does not resort to violence to achieve its endsтАЭтАФUNTIL IT DOES.
YouтАЩre locked in a cell with a psychopath. The psychopath is armed, and you are not. He hasnтАЩt done anything to you yet, so nothing to worry about, right?
The argument is every genocide in history. Disarming the populace is a necessary step to achieve it. It cannot be accomplished overtly without that step.
You evidently fail to understand the concept of mutually assured destruction. Having a large sector of the populace armed *prevents* the necessity of using guns to defend the citizens against tyranny. As Solzhenitsyn reminds us, officers are not going to be eager to come arrest you en masse and cart you off to the gulag if they know you have the ability to defend yourself.
The mass shootings, high rates of homicides, and suicides happen predominantly in states and cities with draconian gun laws (California, New York, Chicago, etc.). Criminals can get guns no problem; it is the innocent law-abiding citizens who cannot defend themselves because their right to self-defense has been taken away.
Yeah I know; like I said, I've heard all the arguments before. And the fact that it simply doesn't look like that in countries without armed citizenry totally escapes the American mind. As does the fact that the idea of an armed citizenry prevailing against the government comes literally from the 18th century. I suppose all the actual deaths are the price you have to pay for that idea.
I have a friend from China who vividly remembers the government soldiers coming for her father's guns (she's in her mid-seventies). It was a powerful influence on her determination to come to the US as soon as she was old enough and could because she considered this a free country. She recognized immediately what was happening in 2020. She is an adamant supporter of the second amendment.
That's an excellent, excellent proof that citizens having guns doesn't stop government tyranny.
Canada. Australia. New Zealand.
I suppose the loss of freedoms and rights is the price you have to pay for your idea. Not to mention the lives of whomever a democidal government targets for elimination.
Gun laws donтАЩt stop criminals from getting guns. Gun laws donтАЩt stop governments from using force against you. Gun laws donтАЩt stop тАЬactual deathsтАЭ from occurring.
All they do is stop law-abiding citizens from having the ability to defend themselves against criminals and tyranny.
No one uses this argument about any other crime - "laws don't stop this crime from occurring entirely, therefore we shouldn't do anything to make it more difficult to commit, or allow us to enforce those laws." And again, you have no actual proof that guns in the States prevent "tyranny". You do, as I mentioned previously, have evidence that your laws and courts do. Which is something we are lacking in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Forgive me if I don't believe that the idea of a shootout with a few zealots keeps the government on its toes, sans evidence.
Love your Mexico example.
Perfect illustration of the adage that when citizens are banned from having firearms for even just self protection against thugs, let alone against government tyranny, only the government and criminals will have guns.
Criminals in Mexico's case being the various drug and human trafficking 'Cartels' that effectively viciously and violently rule the populace whenever and wherever the government is not present. Pretty much every place at any given time.
So there is that.
For every Mexico example, there's another country that doesn't have as many armed citizens as the States and also doesn't have massive crime and violence problems, e.g. Canada. Mexico's problems are complex but I promise you that more guns will not reduce gun violence any more than it has in the US.
Well, Swedes have been more willing to get jabbed than Americans and I understand have rather enthusiastically accepted digital chipping, so there was no need for the government to resort to the kinds of measures that would be required here. And doesn't Mexico have these heavily armed drug cartels and other anti-governmental groups that the government might hesitate to rile up?
Hello from Sweden. The chipping bit is a small news item blown out of all proportion, and that's all it is. There's no need you see. 95%+ uses smart phones. As in, a 24/7 surveillance device they happily pay for and udgrade themselves.
As for gun control, we have among the hardest laws in the world. Along with the weirdest loopholes.
On one hand, the police decides upon application if you may purchase and own a firearm of any kind, including the more powerful kinds of air rifles, or crossbows, or slingshots. Basically, the policeman in question is the sole arbiter and is also the only instance of appeal. Old days, this worked well because the police would be a local handling the local's applications and thus having local knowledge on who's suitable and who's not. Today, not so much.
Another example: there's no legal limit to the amount of ammunition you may have at home. And if you have a construction company registred, you may buy and own explosives, again with no real limit - as long as you storage facilities are up to code. Different laws in conflict you see.
Also, we have about 450 000 hunters (out of 11 000 000) who all own on average three rifles/shotguns of different kinds, and also anywhere from 55 000 to 150 000 home guard/national guard depending on definitions. Those on active home guard duty keep AK-5s at home - and there has only ever for more than 100 years been a US-style shooting involving such a weapon and a soldier going whackaoodles.
Yet, we have per capita the same level of gun violence as Chicago almost. Why?
Well, the perps are not white men and women. They are african negroes, arab moslems, and gypises and afghans, syrians and other such ... people. And they behave as their races always do. They will happily spray a tenement building with fully automatic fire from a CZ Scorpion or an AK-47, or lob handgrenades at eachother during drive-bys.
You can take a fox out of the woods and let in your house, but that doesn't make it any less of a fox.
The solution for the US is quite obvious: look at the demographics of illegal fireamrs use, and impose harshest possible individual sanctions in a consistent manner. You have territory in Greenland - use it as a gulag for the Geroge floyds and others of his ilk. That will drop all costs associated so much you can then properly fund mental health care.
Swedes being more willing to get jabbed doesn't explain why the government didn't impose NPIs like lockdowns and masks. And you could always try to find rationalizations; the basic point is that the citizenry having guns or not does not correlate with whether any country's government imposed restrictions. Again, look at what actually happened in your country: Biden tried, the courts shot him down one by one (mostly, also no pun intended).
"Swedes being more willing to get jabbed doesn't explain why the government didn't impose NPIs like lockdowns and masks." Well, it certainly seems at least one part of why they didn't feel the need to impose measures designed to terrorize and intimidate them into compliance. I'm not suggesting that is the only reason, but likely was a factor.
NPIs were imposed (or not) long before the vaccines were available.
I'm not clear what your point is here. My point is that the Swedes did not need to be manipulated by terror and governmental intimidation to comply with (or even embrace) the agenda of the NWO. Americans (as in many other countries), not so much.
I think I've made my point clear; you stated that guns were the reason tyranny hadn't gone as far in the States as it has in other countries. I stated that there are countries which disprove that point, and you're taking it further than that single point. I don't think we'll get any further going down this road.
"I stated that there are countries which disprove that point", but do they? I was suggesting that they don't necessarily, so I guess I did "take it further" in a sense, but I don't see how that negates my point, nor why it's a dead end (except perhaps for your argument). But, sure, I'm glad to leave things here. This has become rather tedious.
On the contrary, thank you for the interesting discussion.
"This is exactly why you'll keep getting these mass murders in the States." There are many, many other reasons why we are getting mass murders in this country--cultural, sociological and, I think perhaps most importantly, pharmacologically (the number of young people on anti-depressants and other mind altering drugs in this country is outrageous and obscene and as another poster has pointed out, every single mass shooter has been or recently stopped taking these drugs).
We have all those same dynamics in countries without mass shootings (or to be more precise, many fewer mass shootings).
Your dismissiveness is insulting.