Discover more from bad cattitude
new 2a deal: gato gets an F-15?
a government that would lie to disarm you would also lie about what it plans to do next
it’s pretty wild to hear a sitting US president say things like this.
(especially one that just lost who knows how many billions worth of weapons to the taliban, a militia that lacked an air force.)
it sort of makes you wonder just what they are so afraid of…
but hey, if that’s the deal on the table…
your terms are acceptable.
when can i take delivery?
note that this idea is not as wild as it sounds. at the time the 2A was written, private citizens were allowed to own the most powerful weapon in the world: a ship with dozens of cannon.
in fact, they owned most or even all of them in the US at many points. those privateers were hired to fight and to secure sea lanes and keep foreign navies from encroaching.
so such practice is not without precedent and the simple fact remains that if “we the people” lack sufficient prowess to stand up to and replace a government that we deem inimical to our freedom and flourishing, pushing “so sit down and do as you’re told we have all the big weapons” as the way forward does not seem a proposition in keeping with the foundational principles of these united states.
so perhaps “then the people really ought be better armed” is, in fact, the more reasonable course to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
though i must confess some fears that this offer is not entirely on the level as there has been some pretty inconsistent messaging on this matter.
which seems to set up some odd paradoxes.
and some considerable lapses in comprehension.
it can get pretty confusing and the demands go against law, precedent, and natural rights.
but ask yourself:
do these people really have any standing to demand this of you?
or might the morality of this situation be quite a lot different than they would have you believe?