News

the right to bear arms exists to protect people from tyrants

Don't you have that backwards? Gun ownership is a luxury enjoyed by an enfranchised society enjoyed exclusively by people who don't feel threatened?

Because I remember a whole era of us domestic policy that revolved around targeting POC and other marginalized groups with gun regulation, while letting white nationalist groups run rampant.

Gun rights strike me as a political fiction. You only really get to enjoy them if you're not threatened by over-policing. As soon as you start asserting those rights against a government bureaucrat, they vanish.

Conservatives in power currently want to take away a woman's right to a divorce. Your argument literally moves the Overton window to the right even further.

And giving tyrants access to a standing army is immoral in itself.

the right to bear arms exists to protect people from tyrants

And yet, it’s the would-be tyrants who are armed to the teeth.

Religious tyrants have gotten into power, they are forcing women into service as incubators. Nobody sane has taken up arms against the government. It is the "conservatives" who are fighting at the ballot box to erode our liberties and human rights.

"Conservatives" want to elect an openly racist demagogue who already committed a putsch and is asking SCOTUS to hand him a Long Knife.

LOL "conservatives" refusing to allow rights to be eroded. Yeah buddy, the women are going to force their way into math class holding the teacher at gunpoint.

the right to bear arms exists to protect people from tyrants

This is a complete fiction, a true American mythology that exists in the modern day.

The right to bear arms was more about homestead defense against indigenous natives and foreign invading armies than it was for any kind of poison pill for Americans to topple their own government if they woke up one day and decided they don't like who's in charge anymore. The very notion that the founders would set up a new system of governance but be okay with the idea of baking in gun ownership rights to ensure that the people will always be able to conduct a violent insurrection as the vehicle for regime change is absurd.

Everybody likes to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part of that amendment, conveniently ignoring that a well regulated militia would answer to the state or the federal government, the very force of tyranny that they claim they need the guns to defend themselves against.

Conservatives would be the first to call anyone participating in the uprising unamerican and would be more likely to form reactionary militias supportive of the fascist government than to overthrow anything

I'll remind my daughter next time she calls me having a panic attack during an active shooter lockdown that at least she still has the right to ~~love who she wants~~ ~~make her own reproductive healthcare choices~~ ~~get IVF if she can't have kids~~ ~~be open and honest about who she is~~

The government has set up all mechanisms to target any resistance group trying to organise a violent revolution

Unless one man is going to take down the throne, guns will hardly achieve anything.

I agree with the first part. It was supposed to be a check and balance to government power and oppression. It gives people the power to fight back against injustice.

However, in the time of intercontinental missiles, planes, tanks, and remote operated drones, are a bunch of peasants with guns actually going to do anything if the government turned on its people? Does the "right to bear arms" not extend to other, non-gun weapons?