Number 1. I’m not a Republican or a Democrat. I’m an Independent because I like to think for myself.
I’m not a liberal, progressive, conservative, or supremacist. Those are all mostly meaningless labels used as slurs anyway. Well, except supremacist, that one’s just a problem.
I don’t hate capitalism or socialism. I see them both as a choice on how to arrange economy that can go well or go horribly wrong without the constant and proper tending that they both require.
Number 2. I didn’t call you names. I legitimately questioned the intent behind your comment and provided a more viable alternative. You’re thinking here is bizarre and worthy of critique and criticism. See below.
Number 3. It’s not about owning a gun. I have owned a gun too and been an active sport shooter, though I’m not now. Plenty of people own guns who are hunters. Others for protection. All legitimate. All protected by the 2nd Amendment. None having anything to do with phallic envy.
No.
The questionility here is associating the 2nd amendment with protection from tyranny in the modern age.
I think we can agree that the 2nd Amendment was written for 3 main purposes. So that a person can provide for their family via hunting game, so that a person is able to protect themselves against attack, and also because the founders wanted the government to fear an uprising to keep them from overreach, or so that the people had a means to redress attempts at tyranny.
2 of the 3 are still valid reasons for the 2nd Amendment. The last one is not.
That’s not an acquiescence to governmental control or corruption or a validation to governmental overreach. It’s just a 21st century fact and has been a fact since the end of WWII, actually. Failure to recognize that fact does not change the reality of it.
No hunting rifle, side arm, assault rifle or militia is going to go up against tanks, bombs, drone strikes, air raids, or the full body armour and training of seasoned personnel in a military backed by the might of US military resources. Not if they felt the need to engage on home soil or just decided to try out tyranny for shits and giggles. That’s just good, basic common sense. Ask David Koresh or any of the countless others who have tried.
The 21st century requires protection from tyranny via different sources. It requires strategic tactics, patience, an understanding of nuance, sophistication of thought, deep understanding of money, people, systems, and pressure points. It requires thinking with something other than your weaponry status and about more than that one asset. You do have others.
So when someone, let’s be honest—its mostly conservative men, make weird comments about the 2nd amendment and governmental tyranny it reeks of impotent men clamoring for a pissing contest to validate their existence. Or whatever.
Sorry. Not sorry. Don’t hate the messenger. I get that it’s not easy to hear.
The continued focus on arms against governmental tyranny is, in the current age, symbolic at best. It’s not effective and serves as more of a distraction from properly dealing with legitimate issues of governmental overreach than anything.
You boys should really consider a new organ to deal with the political impotence you feel. Because while you’re waving your symbolic big sticks around and seeing who’s got the longest arc, the rest of us are fighting the good fight and doing the work hoping that in your “exuberance" you don’t shoot us in the back or bring increasingly severe home assaults to our front doors.
Just saying.
