For years, this has been her approach to the 2nd amendment, and to be honest, most geeks have either remained silent, or applauded her actions.
Now she's coming for the 4th amendment, and geeks are up in arms (humour intentional).
"First they came..." is about people not about ice cream flavors, or video games or constitutional amendments. Changing laws is a normal function of society. It is an anomaly (and a grave defect) that the US has become unable to even think of changing these particular laws, to the point where many of its people enshrine them as holy principles rather than recognising they are just laws of men.
It has been forever since America had judges brave enough to argue that something can't be lawful because it is evil, and so the EFF is obliged to frame things as "unconstitutional" instead. In a way that's America's legacy, the observation that slavery was evil pre-dates its founding as a country built on slavery, so it has always been necessary to its function to pretend that it's somehow important to allow evil if it's legal. In such an environment any potential judge with strong moral character could only be discouraged.
That is the whole reason we have a 2nd Amendment. That's what it's about.
We went in with everything to Iraq and Afghanistan and did we subdue them? No. Why not? Because they had guns, and with guns, they acquired further weaponery to fight us; No other reason.
So you remove all the guns from "people who shouldn't have them" and how do you propose people should resist a tyrannical government?
Serious question, I am not mocking you.
Meanwhile, armed revolutions: Syria, Venezuela
Plus, you know, democracy: every election is a chance of nonviolent revolution. And democratic countries do tend to stay democratic, no weapons needed.
But how were they able to have guns and resist the US if they didn't have a Second Amendment?
Everyone had guns to answer your question directly.
Are you suggesting we can all have as many AKs as we want forever in exchange for the 2nd Amendment? Because unless you are, you're either ignorant of things you choose to comment on, stupid or trolling me.
I'll take all three for 500, Alex.
>I'll take all three for 500, Alex.
Wow... you really get triggered if someone questions your cherished principles, don't you? I'm either ignorant, stupid or trolling? No, I'm just examining the assumptions behind your argument, something you seem either unwilling to do, or incapable of.
Your thesis is that it's impossible for the American people to resist a despotic government without guns, and that it would be impossible to procure those guns without a Second Amendment. Yet, you've given at least one (of many) examples of a regime which has successfully led an armed revolution (against the US, no less) without having a Second Amendment.
Now, the question of whether the Second Amendment is necessary to resist the American government has already been answered by you - it isn't, because it historically hasn't been. In fact, historically speaking, of all groups resistant to American tyranny the American people have proven the least effective of any.
There's also a false equivalence in assuming that all American gun owners are members of a militia in readiness for action against tyranny. Most American gun owners are collectors, hunters, or merely concerned with protecting their family against intruders. That every American gun owner would be ready, willing and able to rise up against their government is a fantasy. Half would side with the tyrants, depending on the nature of the tyranny. Many wouldn't fight, most would probably just try to defend their homes.
As for "suggesting we can all have as many AKs as we want forever in exchange for the 2nd Amendment?" that's absurd on its face given that we can't "all have as many AKs as we want forever" to begin with.
The more reasonable form of your question would be "are you suggesting that it is possible to own guns without the Second Amendment?" And given that gun ownership exists in other countries, and that a black market for guns also exists in countries where it doesn't, the answer to this question is also, obviously, yes.
2) The fact that Afghanis had AK47s and RPGs just everywhere in Afghanistan before America invaded in 2002 and without a 2nd Amendment is not evidence that Americans don't need a 2nd Amendment. It's evidence that America armed the Afghanis in the 80s when they were fighting the Soviets with RPGs and AKs.
3) The point of the 2nd Amendment is to legally preserve an armed population. Afghanistan proves that an armed population can resist an invading government. Americans are not interested in rolling the dice with their Liberty at stake on some future, hypothetical blackmarket. Thanks.
4) Anyone reading this exchange who was undecided can come to the clear conclusion that you yourself admitted only an armed populace can resist tyranny.
5) Americans don't think Men gave us our Rights- including our Right to resist tyranny; we think those Rights come from our Creator and men have nothing to say about them and men who think they do are tyrants who need resisting. The 2nd Amendment is an expression of that fact- a discovery about reality, not an free invention of men's minds.
"First they came" is not about people, it is about the idea of giving up, one step at a time, until there is nothing left.
Well, since you brought it up, actually, the rule of men and not laws is exactly what we're afraid of.
To you it's a feature, to us it's a bug. The number of people killed by their own governments in the 20th century proved us right once and for all.
We don't think our Rights come from Men. They didn't come from Men and can't be removed by Men. They are inalienable Rights we were born with.
We don't care what the government d'jour thinks it can do. We had these Rights before there was an America, and every person everywhere has these Rights as well. That's what "endowed by their Creator with Inalienable Rights" means.
Whether or not people choose to stand up for them is another topic.
Just so you have a clear idea where we're coming from and what the words, "from my cold, dead hands" mean.