> Wonder if this is what makes lawmakers consider some sensible gun regulation...
I can't comprehend why an average civilian would need license to keep and/or carry a firearm. None of the arguments seem to stack up, at least, from my perspective.
I can't comprehend why an average civilian would need license to keep and/or carry a firearm. None of the arguments seem to stack up, at least, from my perspective.
Not trying to mock you, just seems like we have the same argument for our opposing views :)
My father is as left-leaning as they come (and an Italian immigrant) but he knew even then that the police can’t always protect you.
I was raised by the standards of "Talk or Run away", and I want to adhere to them. But I don't live in the US and in my country I don't have to be afraid to be home-invaded, especially not with guns.
I see that some people "need" guns, I just don't want that as a pacifist. To each their own I guess ;)
What you write makes sense, but it seems weird to me to justify having guns with a hypothetical, apocalyptical scenario. Sounds a bit like fear-mongering to me.
It's probably a cultural thing.
Most things seem hypothetical until they happen. Hundreds of millions of dead souls in the last century died from what was (at the time) a "hypothetical, apocalyptical scenario." And not only the death camps - think of how many people started their day normally, never knowing they would be murdered by a government by nightfall. History repeats itself so long as the basic flaws of human nature persist - and they will.
1. Civilians should be able to keep or carry a firearm without a license.
2. No civilian should be able to keep or carry a firearm.
In America licenses are not generally required to purchase handguns, rifles, or shotguns except in the more restrictive states. And each year more and more states are trending towards being able to carry without a permit as well.
Now I understand why police in the USA is so aggressive when they expect citizens to be armed. People are talking 'defund police' while problem lies in Constitution.
Frankly, I consider governments that have nuclear weapons and a disarmed citizenry much more dangerous that if the citizens are ultimately in control.
Different systems (democratic vs. tyrannical) have a different spread of when and how violence occurs. Gun violence, which can be lessened in America once adequate policy is in place to prevent dis-progression and heal mind-body-soul vs. genocide by CCP of specific population who didn't want to fall in line with CCP rule.
One thing to note is that under current law you cannot stockpile weapons. And you cannot create bio weapons or cyber weapons. You have no access to massive bombs. The 2nd amendment, in my opinion, has become an excuse for individual to own weapons that are dangerous to private citizens and the safety of the public but of no consequence in a fight against a tyrannical government.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Note the "a well regulated Militia" and "a free State"
Militia is capitalized. As is State. In politics (and generally internationally "State" has a very different meaning than is commonly used in the USA (in modern times, the founding fathers used it more in line with the way international law understands it to mean). To keep it short, the National Guard, again in my opinion, very effectively fulfills the purposed intended of this amendment. It is a well regulated militia that the State can direct to mount an effective defense against a tyrannical Federal government.
Tell that to the Afghans.
There's really too much nuance and variables to argue this easily such as state of society, how rich or impoverished they are, how healthy or unhealthy they are - including their education - how open their heart and mind is, and so on.
A strong stable or stabilizing system - democracy in this case - that is capable of returning to the homeostasis with a forward-evolving movement will take an impressive attack to knock it down.
Of course there are bad actors who are trying to do such a thing, and due to all factors Biden won the election - and the Democrats won the Senate as well - so they can implement policy without being blocked by Republicans (nor extorted by giving $ trillions to corporations leveraging the need for stimulus-survival cheques) - and hopefully they implement new policies that will strengthen America and its democracy.
I believe Andrew Yang's core policies are the answer to breaking apart the duopoly and taking away the amalgamated power of the small handful of mainstream media channels (TV and newspapers) that amplify and support the duopoly: Democracy Dollars, Journalism Dollars, Ranked Choice Voting, Freedom Dividend/UBI, and Government Healthcare Option ("Medicare For All") to compete against the status quo - so people can become healthy and do their best to prevent dis-ease.
I agree with you that the State is an additional layer to reduce, limit, de-risk the potential of tyranny - perhaps then private gun ownership then becomes a layer against each State potentially becoming tyrannical, and if the State starts clamping down on people with bad behaviour - control-oppression-violence - to too severe of a degree, then arguably people will start moving to another State that is in line with their own values.
It's all about organization, alignment, and readying for defending against the different layers of potential conflict - whether citizen to citizen, citizen to State, citizen to Federal, State to Federal, Federal to Federal - the fight for democracy-freedom vs. tyranny, globally.
Edit to add: It's important when reasoning to understand how these situations unfold - they don't happen overnight and there is time to organize. There will be peak moments that act as signals - whether things are evolving or devolving: Biden was elected is one signal from one side, the continued attempted coup the other day, where sadly a handful of people died, is another signal from the side; like the genocide of Uighurs in China by the CCP is a signal from one side, on global scale. Generally the side that acts first in a physical violence means will be the less rational one, more aggressive and using anger which will blind them to some degree - "blind rage." This is why economic pressure via multi-lateral trade agreements between Democracies is the best starting solution - and with other policy can quickly reenforce the internal strength of those currently leaking economic value, ROI et al, to a bad actor who won't fall in line with freedom, health, non-violence, and so on; none of this is to say the US isn't guilty in some areas of unnecessary violence.