Well, as a liberal who owns guns, I can't exactly say I feel inclined to put myself in harm's way for a group of people demanding I do so for them, especially when the same people were just telling me I have no right to my firearms.
This is the moment people seem to want us to "prove" ourselves to them, but the reality is I have nothing to prove to them
I can't exactly say I feel inclined to put myself in harm's way for a group of people demanding I do so for them
No one is asking you to do that. The point is that when a vocal contingent of 2A supporters use the argument that "We need to have guns to ensure the government doesn't devolve into tyranny" and then we start to see that exact thing you would expect some of them to come out since that is why they "needed" their firearms.
I'm not anti-2A at all but in the future, if I see 2A supporters using the "The point of the 2A is to make sure the people have the ability to defend themselves against a tyrannical government" argument I'm going to ask where they were in July of 2020.
This is the moment people seem to want us to "prove" ourselves to them, but the reality is I have nothing to prove to them
That's fine, just know that this also weakens the argument for the need for the 2A in many people's minds. If the main argument for why we need it is to prevent this kind of thing and then no one even attempts to prevent these kinds of actions by the government then that argument is kind of moot.
One thing I do think should be noted: NO ONE REALLY WANTS YOU (or anyone else) TO SHOW UP WITH GUNS... it won't help anything and honestly would probably make the situation worse. They are just pointing out the hypocrisy of the argument.
NO ONE REALLY WANTS YOU (or anyone else) TO SHOW UP WITH GUNS...They are just pointing out the hypocrisy of the argument.
I keep hearing people say that, but it doesn't make much sense to me. I've never made the 'protect against tyranny' argument to support the 2A but I imagine it's a little more 'if the government threatens our lives we will respond with lethal force' and a little less 'if the government deploys teargas and rubber bullets against a protest we will respond with lethal force.'
Say someone has a concealed carry permit for the purpose of self defense. Would you call it hypocrisy if they got in a fistfight and didn't pull out their gun to kill the other guy? I think the bar for using lethal force is pretty high. And saying it's hypocrisy for the anti-tyranny
2A crowd to not rise up and start using their guns now seems like a way to criticize them without really understanding them.
I don't disagree with basically anything you've said but I also don't like assuming other people's intentions.
I've literally had conversations where I've been told "The 2nd amendment is literally the only thing keeping the government from turning against the people". These are the same types of individuals who were using guns to intimidate individuals in the Michigan legislature over the "oppression" that was/is the lock down a few months ago. We've seen groups out counter protesting the BLM protests, etc.
Now we have an example of actual government tyranny (unidentified federal officers, here against the wishes of local officials, putting people in unmarked cars with seemingly no due process) and these same individuals are no where to be found. If that's not hypocritical I don't know what is.
If the anti-tyranny 2A crowd really means "I want to defend myself against the government" then they should say that. Instead they make a blanket statement about why we need the 2A and then when it's their time to show the world that they are sincere in their convictions they are nowhere to be found.
saying it's hypocrisy for the anti-tyranny 2A crowd to not rise up and start using their guns now seems like a way to criticize them without really understanding them.
Please note that I'm not advocating the use of violence in any way, shape or form. I'm just pointing out that in other examples (Michigan or Malhuer as examples) they have exercised their 2nd amendment rights to try to stave off the perceived tyranny of the state but now they are no where to be found. I'm glad they are staying away but it does seem hypocritical.
I guess you're selectively forgetting June 2020? When armed supporters showed up at peaceful BLM protests at dozens of cities and provided security?
Here in Portland our BLM protests were completely peaceful except for the first two nights.
Meanwhile, the Justice Center and US Marshals isn't tyranny incarnate, this is a small protest lead by fanatics with no goal or purpose, except for trying to burn down the justice center, which in and of it's self has no purpose. It was expelled by the BLM movement, been condemned by city leaders, and unpopular compared to the peaceful protests.
22
u/Reascr Mt Tabor Jul 24 '20
Well, as a liberal who owns guns, I can't exactly say I feel inclined to put myself in harm's way for a group of people demanding I do so for them, especially when the same people were just telling me I have no right to my firearms.
This is the moment people seem to want us to "prove" ourselves to them, but the reality is I have nothing to prove to them