[DrScientist]

Back to the parental comment - it's been decided there isn't really a good reason to have most guns and so they are strictly controlled - I mean what's the legit reason for having an assault rifle?

Now if the government thinks there isn't really a good reason to have a phone they can't hack ( because they are the good guys right.... and in theory need court orders etc - so there is legal oversight ) then they will see such phones in the same light and consider banning.

This is at the core of the argument - and why governments ask for a special backdoor - as they accept a generally secure phone ( to stop your neighbour snooping ) is a good thing, but they are used to being able to tap phones and open letters if a judge gives them permission.

Obviously the ironic thing is most phones probably already do have special backdoors - but only for the country where the makers reside - and that countries government doesn't want other governments to know or have acccess.

And in the case of fridges - there is no argument there that they aren't legit reasons to own.

In the case of knives - zombie knives don't really have legit use, whereas kitchen knives do.

[t-3]

> I mean what's the legit reason for having an assault rifle?

If the government is allowed to have them, the people should be allowed to have them. Anything else would be inviting tyranny, as has been demonstrated ad nauseam by pretty much every government ever.

[aredox]

Has the NRA ever defended the right of black people like the Black Panthers to bear arms?

https://www.history.com/articles/black-panthers-gun-control-...

Your second amendment defenders are actually on the side of tyranny, ready to torch the Capitol a second time when their caudillo orders so.

[t-3]

The NRA are self-interested, racist scum, Trump supporters are authoritarian fascists - almost totally opposed to freedom and resisting tyranny. What do they have to do with anything?

[FirmwareBurner]

Are American people allowed to have F-35s jets and Abrams tanks too? NO?! Then what kind of tyranny is this where your elected government's military has the monopoly on violence?

Feels unsafe man. We should look towards free and egalitarian countries like Congo, Sudan or Zimbabwe where citizens have access to the same hardware as the military and they use it regularly to deal justice, competing with the local military. Much better.

[DrScientist]

You missed out Haiti as a shining example of citizen rule against the tyranny of government.

Though it's sad to see the gangs are starting to collect local taxes - before you know it they will start behaving like the awful government that they have replaced!

[DrScientist]

In a democracy the government is the people ( more or less ). Tyranny of the majority, enforcing the collective view via collective organised violence.

And while it may seem unfair that your favourite peccadillo is deemed illegal - on balance it's a much better system than every man, woman and child for themselves.

[ARandomerDude]

“Give me liberty or give me death.”

The ultimate point of gun ownership isn’t sporting or even self defense, though they are useful for both. The real reason America is armed is so that if our government ever gets too tyrannical, we can do something about it.

Some people may not like that today but if you go back and read what people wrote circa 1775 and forward, this is the clear rationale.

[_carbyau_]

Where is the line on tyranny?

Who decides? Someone who doesn't like how the last election turned out?

Some person who decides the police are being too tyrannical by asking them to turn down their stereo for neighbourhood peace?

Honestly, when does this go from "we're prepared" to "time to act"?

This has mess written all over it.

Also, it should be noted that the army and police are made up of humans too.

As has been pointed out in various war tribunals doing something under orders doesn't entirely absolve you from moral duty.

[lan321]

It's essentially a critical mass type of thing, no?

The military and police are human, but they're also the main path towards control. If you treat them good, they'll treat you good, likely until they slip too far and are unable to back down without facing consequences.

It's mostly a good way to avoid situations like Cambodia's killing fields since that was also done by humans.

It'll result in a mess, but a mess is better than torture-to-death camps and famine.

[_carbyau_]

I understand that "there has to be a counter to dictatorship" and such actions are not without consequence.

But the words "critical mass" don't seem much more helpful than the definition of tyranny. The questionable boundaries apply, it's like a "you'll know it if you see it" thing.

The problem here is perception. Some people may "see" an outrage that causes them to act. While others don't. Jan 6 and George Floyd riots are two examples of people "seeing something" that caused them to act.

But if you are going up against the most well funded military in the world by some margin - well, whatever is seen had better motivate a LOT of people.

[fn-mote]

The questions here are very good.

I disagree with some of the implied answers, especially paragraph three, but:

> Where is the line on tyranny?

> Who decides?

> when does this go from "we're prepared" to "time to act"?

Like I said, these are excellent questions. An individual with a strong moral compass should have answers that differ from “not me” and “somebody else”.

[coldtea]

One could make the exact same arguments in favor of monarchy.

In fact the loyalists did.

>This has mess written all over it

History doesn't come with nice tidy procedures and unanimous agreements on action.

[johnisgood]

Since you mentioned "moral duty", yeah, of course not, and it should not, IMO.

[paulryanrogers]

If the Second Amendment (2A) meant to preserve the ability to overthrow the government then why can we not have bombs and tanks?

And why does it mention the right within the context of a "well regulated militia"?

Could it be they feared having a permanent national army, so did the 2A instead? Only later to realize having a standing army were necessary after all?

No that couldn't be it. Because then there would be no rational reason for keeping 2A and flooding the country with deadly weapons.

[vaadu]

"And why does it mention the right within the context of a "well regulated militia"?"

It doesn't, anymore than the freedom of speech is only in the context of one of the other rights mentioned in the 1st amendment.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[spauldo]

Did they fear a national army? Legitimately curious here. They certainly couldn't afford one, but military-lead coups weren't the problem then that they are today (or were during the Roman empire).

Sure, they chose to put a civilian in charge of the military, but I was always under the impression this was to keep the military from interfering with the normal process of government.

[gishglish]

> The real reason America is armed is so that if our government ever gets too tyrannical

It’s been doing that for at least two decades, yet I’m still waiting for you people to get on with it.

[ARandomerDude]

I don’t know who the “you people” in that comment refers to. I actually hope we never have another civil war. Historically, you’re much more likely to end up with the French Revolution, the current situation in Syria, etc. than a fresh, bright future. Many would die and everyone would suffer. Those who long for war (foreign or domestic) are evil, foolish, or both.

But my opinion doesn’t change the rationale for the 2nd Amendment.

[chiefalchemist]

Another civil war? That’s not desirable, for obvious reasons. But another revolutionary war? That might be inevitable. Thomas Jefferson has an appropriate quote on such things.

[zdragnar]

An elected official doing things you don't like isn't a reason to kill them.

That way lies fascism and anarchotyrrany.

[graemep]

What if the elected official is a fascist? It happened in Germany.

[coldtea]

"Elected" doesn't mean much if the system is rigged - starting from the choices you get, and how accountable they are to you. After a point it's just a charade.

[6510]

If that were true there would never be a reason to kill anyone.

[ourmandave]

Yeah, they even threw in a thing about well regulated militias, but left in a comma that got interpreted as "any toon can own as many guns as they want."

[WarOnPrivacy]

> The real reason America is armed is so that if our government ever gets too tyrannical, we can do something about it.

The something is killing police and soldiers. That's the quiet part.

Unless the tyrannical government has presented itself at the compound in a force of plumbers and actuaries.

[coldtea]

you say it as if it's inherently bad

historically, when a government became too tyranical, either the government went on and on, or people did the quiet part

[subscribed]

Zombie knives yeah, but you can get into serious trouble for the multitool with locking blade if you forgot to take it our from your backpack after a camping trip.

This is very much absurd.

[graemep]

So are the laws on swords. You can have a straight sword but not a curved one, unless its either an antique or craft made using traditional methods.

The police quite often destroy antiques handed in by people who know about the bans but not the exceptions.

I have a multitool I bought long before the ban, that is now illegal to carry routinely. I bought one with a significantly longer blade for my daughter which is perfectly legal to carry.

[fifticon]

I can think of a country where they should probably ban windows, given how many people fall out of them.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> I mean what's the legit reason for having an assault rifle?

If I understand the proponents correctly: Ostensibly it is to defend one's property and people from a tyrannical government.

Just for an exercise, let's say you believe that. And let's say that day is here. The tyrannical government has arrived and has necessitated your use of assault rifles.

The people you're shooting, what are they wearing? They're almost certainly wearing uniforms; police and/or military.

From the proponents' standpoint, the reason to have assault rifles is to kill police and soldiers.

[chiefalchemist]

Not quite. From the proponents' standpoint… it’s to defend themselves and their property from anyone who is a treat. It could be a tyrant. It could be agents of that tyrant.

[DrScientist]

Most countries ( ie people in those countries ) have decided that it's generally better for everyone that protecting people and property( enforcing the law ) is left to a well regulated professional police force rather than individuals of varying moral quality, mental stability or narcotic status.

One of the ironic aspects of the situation in the US is that the fear that is used to justify the need for guns is by and large there because everyone has guns......

Very few people in the UK are troubled by the thought that they might need a gun to defend their home or person, as there is no expectation that you will be attacked by somebody with a gun.

There is also no expectation to be threaten or shot by police with guns either.