363
Texas teacher fired for showing Anne Frank graphic novel to eighth-graders
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
363 points (98.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
6942 readers
216 users here now
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
People really need to harp on about this more. It's become the hardest argument for gun control to refute.
The courts have ruled that the 2a is an inalienable right, and the rest are up for debate... honestly surprised they haven't debated overturning the NFA
Any argument for gun control is hard for them to refute. The difference with this one is that they don’t bother trying. They’ve yet to offer a good rebuttal for any gun control argument.
We accept some criminals escaping justice so that we minimize the number of innocent people who are deprived of their freedom. Most people don't find that provocative. It's the same basic argument to say that we accept some lesser evil (gun violence) to ensure a greater evil does not come to pass (tyranny). Assuming the first condition leada to the second.
If that protective mechanism (an armed populace) were functioning adequately, you would expect to see at least some fringe evidence of it both being active, and creating a benefit for society (ostensibly causing tyrants to back off). Bad as things are getting, we don't see evidence of either. Each day it becomes clearer that the argument is invalid.
I live in the south. I know lots of gun owners. Every one of them bases their whole concept of this right on self defense and civil duty. It's convenient to think that it's as simple as gun owners want to be able to play at being tough and have dangerous toys, and don't care about anyone else getting hurt. You're also not going to.change anyone's mind if you don't get to the reasons they actually believe what they do, right or wrong.
Just my 2 cents.
Lol…. The “tyranny” bit is over man. It’s old. It doesn’t work any more. Armed citizens will not stop an overreaching government. Maybe they could have in the past- but no longer. Our military can turn anyone in this country to dust with such precision so as not to disturb their neighbors rose garden.
You really think that “we need guns to stop a tyrannical government!” really holds any water anymore? This just illustrates my point:
There are no logical pro gun arguments.
But let’s assume for the sake of, well…. My amusement- that a well armed militia actually COULD stop a tyrannical government- hell-bent on stripping citizens of their rights….
Why aren’t they?
We have LGBTQ+ nearly being hunted in the streets, as well as women’s reproductive rights that now seemingly belong to the government.
So…
Where are all your “don’t tread on me friends and their guns?”
Know what? Don’t answer. We all know.
You might want to read my post again, because that's literally what I said. Where are they? They have no answer, and that shows the argument (hedge against tyranny) is bullshit. My point is that some reasons are deeply held and others are not. This one is the deeply held one, and it's the one people need to keep hammering home. If the 2nd amendment is a hedge against tyranny, why don't we see the beginnings of unrest? Conservatives may give different reasons they think things are going to shit, but they also think things are going to shit. And.they have no answer about why nothing's being done about it.
Apologies. I misunderstood where you were coming from. Re-read and well said.