• AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    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
          ·
          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.