Question for supporters of the second amendment.

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That doesn't answer my question though.

Hypothetical situation. Let's say the Canadian version of Hitler is elected and starts executing LGBT and non-whites.

What will Canadians do then?

Without arms to remove said Hitler. There is few choices.

1. Die
2. Flee the country, welcome to the U.S!
3. Support Hitler eh?

And if the American version of Hitler starts doing something like that, you think private gun owners are just going to spontaneously rise up and stop him, while the worlds largest military and most heavily militarised police force on the planet do nothing? Good luck with that.

These Red Dawn fantasies so many Americans desperately cling to are seriously insidious. Not to mention utterly ridiculous.

(said as a private gun owner and former soldier)

 

[Enoch07]

if the American version of Hitler starts doing something like that, you think private gun owners are just going to spontaneously rise up and stop him, while the worlds largest military and most heavily militarised police force on the planet do nothing? Good luck with that.

What makes you think the armed forces will obey a tyrant and kill their own families? Would you march into your own town and start shooting people if ordered?

 

[Father Heathen]

Care to back up your assertion?

Oh geez, do I gotta?

 

[Enoch07]

Oh geez, do I gotta?

Nope it's fine. Your allowed to walk away from it should you chose to.

 

[Mister Emu]

Do you think people who live in other countries (ie Canada, Britton, France etc) are less free?

Many of them, yes. I'd certainly be willing to consider the laws of another nation you would propose as having a higher amount of freedom. In the U.K. people are going to trial over offensive social media posts.

Do you think it is an injustice that in Canada gun ownership is a privilege?

Yes. I consider the current laws in the U.S. unjustly restrictive.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Are they more are less able to defend their freedom if it comes to that?

The idea of having an armed citizenship, as I understand it, is so the individual retains the ability to defend their freedom. Even from their own government.

I think you can understand the reasoning of the founding father having just had to go to war with their own government.

One's freedom can only continue to exist so long as one is capable of defending it. Once you can no longer defend your freedom it can be taken from you at any time.

And you think small Calibre firearms are an effective defence?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That doesn't answer my question though.

Hypothetical situation. Let's say the Canadian version of Hitler is elected and starts executing LGBT and non-whites.

What will Canadians do then?

Without arms to remove said Hitler. There is few choices.

1. Die
2. Flee the country, welcome to the U.S!
3. Support Hitler eh?

You think it's more likely for minorities to face persecution in Canada than the US?
For real??

 

[Enoch07]

You think it's more likely for minorities to face persecution in Canada than the US?
For real??

It's a hypothetical scenario.......

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What makes you think the armed forces will obey a tyrant and kill their own families? Would you march into your own town and start shooting people if ordered?

What makes you think the armed forces will obey a tyrant and kill their own families? Would you march into your own town and start shooting people if ordered?

If you're relying on the military not to follow the tyrant's orders, then you don't need to rely on the armed civilian uprising in the first place, do you? Either way, the whole "we need our guns to protect us from tyranny!" claim is a nonsense.

 

[Enoch07]

If you're relying on the military not to follow the tyrant's orders, then you don't need to rely on the armed civilian uprising in the first place, do you? Either way, the whole "we need our guns to protect us from tyranny!" claim is a nonsense.

That's why it was put in the Constitution. If you don't like it leave.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It's a hypothetical scenario.......

If you can come up with any hypothetical scenario that is logically consistent and justifies an armed civilian populace as a check on tyranny, frankly, I'll be shocked. I've been having this discussion for 20 odd years, and I'm yet to encounter one.

 

[Enoch07]

If you can come up with any hypothetical scenario that is logically consistent and justifies an armed civilian populace as a check on tyranny, frankly, I'll be shocked. I've been having this discussion for 20 odd years, and I'm yet to encounter one.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That's why it was put in the Constitution.

The Constitution is not infallible, and circumstances change. An argument that made sense in revolutionary times for a dispersed population at the end of an over committed empire's sail reliant supply lines don't necessarily hold in an urbanised, centralised, post industrial heart land.

If you don't like it leave.

The cry of cornered ideologues everywhere who can't defend their position. A silly smiley doesn't explain away the mutually exclusive claims you just made.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yep, that isn't one. Try again.

Go ahead, maybe you've got one I haven't heard before, and I'm fully prepared to change my position if you can tell me where I'm wrong.

 

[Enoch07]

The Constitution is not infallible, and circumstances change.

Tyranny has not been vanquished, criminals still exist. So the 2nd amendment does as well. Deal with it brotha!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Tyranny has not been vanquished, criminals still exist. So the 2nd amendment does as well. Deal with it brotha!

We're not talking about criminals, we're talking about tyranny, tyranny which you have yet to provide a cogent explanation for how an armed citizenry provides a defence against.

 

[Enoch07]

We're not talking about criminals, we're talking about tyranny, tyranny which you have yet to provide a cogent explanation for how an armed citizenry provides a defence against.

We defend ourself with guns. So long as we are able to defend ourselves tyranny will be held at bay. That is what the 2nd amendment was made for. We lose the right to bear arms and the right to free speech we lose everything. These 2 rights must never be impeded.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

We defend ourself with guns. So long as we are able to defend ourselves tyranny will be held at bay.

You have yet to explain how civilians are meant to hold tyranny at bay. Once again, see largest military and largest militarised police force in the world. Still keen to hear you try to present an argument for this, but I'm losing hope you will even try.

That is what the 2nd amendment was made for. We lose the right to bear arms and the right to free speech we lose everything. These 2 rights must never be impeded.

Yet there's all these other developed western nations with practical gun control AND free speech.

Conclusion: You premise is wrong

 

[Enoch07]

have yet to explain how civilians are meant to hold tyranny at bay.

I already did. Not repeating myself.

Once again, see largest military and largest militarised police force in the world.

I am not worried about the police or military. They will be our (the citizens) side.

Still keen to hear you try to present an argument for this, but I'm losing hope you will even try.

I already have you are willfully ignoring it.

Yet there's all these other developed western nations with practical gun control AND free speech.

Hardly, you have not presented a single bit of evidence to support that opinion.

 

[Skipper]

It is clearly evident that in our current society we are in more danger from our fellow citizens than from the government!

Anthony Scalia, who will never be called a liberal said:


“There are some limitations that can be imposed,” Scalia said. “What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the (future) time.”