I am beside myself with excitement. This has been in the back of my mind 8 years, I always believed. I have never pre-ordered anything this quickly in my life.
The point was that knitting needles are not implements of violence, yet groups using them for the group's explicit purpose can have very bad and harmful takes. One does not need to have a weapon to be harmful. Our Dear Leader has proven that many times.
It is a good idea to stand on pro-gun rhetoric when you want all the guns on your side and not being pointed at you. You use confusing double-talk to trick them into believing you are on their side and you fight for them. In the US, there is the added benefit of poor education, which cripples critical thinking.
Also, the claim that melee weapons are somehow comparable to modern firearms is quite laughable. Where are you getting your data?
>Also, the claim that melee weapons are somehow comparable to modern firearms is quite laughable.
People laugh at all sorts of things that aren't very funny.
The body counts for most of the school shootings (and other, various, non-school shootings) that people complain about are just under double digits, or manage to roll right up into double digits. Blade attacks are perfectly capable of that many injuries and deaths within the time constraint of a typical police response. This is born by fact, where such knife attacks have managed those body counts. There are a half a dozen or more in recent years in China, and at least one in Europe that I can think of.
>You use confusing double-talk to trick them into believing you are on their side and you fight for them.
No one with any sense here thinks I "fight for them". I'm just showing that I'm not unwilling for them to exercise their own rights to self-defense. This is because a principle is at stake. If it also contrasts with the general lack of principles among those who advocate gun control somehow, that's their problem.
Global economics has the power to kill far more people than small arms ever could. We suggest you put your money where your exceptionally large mouths are.
I understand there are arguments for it. I can even understand where they are coming from. What is interesting is many of these anti 2A sorts unknowingly speak their murderous intent out loud. They are that which they hate.
That's fair. It is highly hypocritical to call for the end of civilian gun ownership but expect civilian gun owners to save them from authoritarian goverment.
It is also hypocritical for civilian gun owners to claim they will use their 2A rights to protect themselves and other citizens from authoritarian government but fail to be vigilant enough to recognize the rise of authoritarianism.
This only works if the people that have guns are smart enough to know when to use them con(de?)structively. Unfortunately there are swathes of American gun owners that view politics like a football game that will never have any effect on them, and once it arrives on their doorstep it will be far, far too late.
> That's fair. It is highly hypocritical to call for the end of civilian gun ownership but expect civilian gun owners to save them from authoritarian goverment.
I wouldn't say hypocritical. I'd say cognitively dissonant. Not the same thing.
> It is also hypocritical for civilian gun owners to claim they will use their 2A rights to protect themselves and other citizens from authoritarian government but fail to be vigilant enough to recognize the rise of authoritarianism.
Private firearms ownership is an indirect and implicit threat of violence against tyranny. It may or may not work as such. It might only limit the degree of tyranny. Remember, armed citizens can't organize to commit violence against the state because the state has authority (or a patina of authority) and the ability to bring a great deal of force to bear on any hot spots. The state's ability to bring force to bear is limited though, but only in such a way that a huge number of citizens would have to rise up simultaneously and be patient enough to keep rising as the going gets tough. Therefore I think private firearms ownership can't stop tyranny altogether, but can moderate it. There is no hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance here.
