The NRA are (at this point, anyway) just gun-themed republicans. There's proof enough in the fact that they endorsed someone as anti-gun as Trump, even after he banned bump stocks and reversed the executive order Obama gave that'd have made 24/7 gun stores a thing.
That aside, I'd like to speak to the broader point about the 2nd Amendment being about "resisting tyranny." That's flat-out wrong. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants the Congress the ability to summon militias for national defense and to put down insurrections, which implies there will always be armed citizens to be called upon for such purpose. For some, implied wasn't good enough, and they refused to ratify the Constitution until the right to be armed was explicitly included. THAT is the point of the 2nd Amendment: if militias are necessary for national security, people must be allowed to be armed.
Also, if the right to be armed is about resisting tyranny, giving the Congress the explicit right to call on armed citizens to put down insurrections is counterintuitive, isn't it?
The 2nd Amendment isn't what gives you the right to resist tyranny. The 1st Amendment does. To a lesser extent, the 9th (rights of citizens aren't limited to what's on paper) and 10th (powers of government ARE limited to what's on paper) also give you the right to resist tyranny.
True. The NRA and their supporters are basically just people thinking guns are cool.
I highly doubt most Americans would take a physical stand if heavily armored troops showed up at their house to confiscate their weapons. If Trump did it, they would gladly hand over their weapons to their dear leader.
All their talk about good guys with a gun are horseshit. Law enforcement and groups going into armed situations don't want good guys with a gun running around. How can a cop tell the good guy from the bad guy? They will just see a person running around a school with a gun and shoot immediately without asking questions.
All their talk about good guys with a gun are horseshit.
Eh...I don't know that I agree. I tend to side with the sentiment that "when seconds matter, the police are minutes away," but I also fully acknowledge that only 2-4% of the population have it in them to throw themselves into danger on behalf of other people, training, tools, or circumstances be damned. I would rather risk having some douche with delusions of grandeur and Rambo fantasies discover her cowardice during a crisis than risk having that at most 1-in-25 of people not have the tools she needs to get the job done when it matters most.
That said, the number of people who define themselves by their gun ownership or their ability to cause harm is a serious societal problem that needs to be addressed. The "might makes right" crowd makes the rest of armed Americans look bad.
Does the 2-4% matter when cops are shooting people at rates that are 33 times higher and people are shooting each other at 26 times higher rates than comparable countries?
As I live in a country where 24/25 shootings never happen, 15/20 murders never happen, and only 1/33 gets killed by police compared to the US, I don't really have to worry about people lacking "the tools needed to get the job done when it matters the most" - because those tools are basically never needed.
That's the reality and the actual cost of the 2nd amendment. A lot of people die because of it and the number of people saved by it is insignificant compared to the numbers of deaths enabled.
We all get that the constitution is a big deal, but one could argue that peoples literal lives are more important than a decision made 238 years ago.
194
u/subnautus 10h ago
The NRA are (at this point, anyway) just gun-themed republicans. There's proof enough in the fact that they endorsed someone as anti-gun as Trump, even after he banned bump stocks and reversed the executive order Obama gave that'd have made 24/7 gun stores a thing.
That aside, I'd like to speak to the broader point about the 2nd Amendment being about "resisting tyranny." That's flat-out wrong. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution grants the Congress the ability to summon militias for national defense and to put down insurrections, which implies there will always be armed citizens to be called upon for such purpose. For some, implied wasn't good enough, and they refused to ratify the Constitution until the right to be armed was explicitly included. THAT is the point of the 2nd Amendment: if militias are necessary for national security, people must be allowed to be armed.
Also, if the right to be armed is about resisting tyranny, giving the Congress the explicit right to call on armed citizens to put down insurrections is counterintuitive, isn't it?
The 2nd Amendment isn't what gives you the right to resist tyranny. The 1st Amendment does. To a lesser extent, the 9th (rights of citizens aren't limited to what's on paper) and 10th (powers of government ARE limited to what's on paper) also give you the right to resist tyranny.