I don’t know that I would lift a finger to defend the targeted minority. Such as the above Native American, or the exhausted run-away slave. Perhaps I am a coward. But, should we leave that possibility intact? Should we give future generations the opportunity to do better, be more noble, than you or I (and our forefathers/ancestors)?
Yes, and that’s why if you’re a semi-competent tyrant you go after the group that’s reviled, at least among your base.
If the American cops started discreetly putting bullets in the back of the heads of apprehended MS13 members, ISIS terrorists and rapists, would you grab your gun and run into the street and defend them?
No “where’s the due process” Facebook rants and “I can’t believe this” forum comments, I mean literally running outside to defend American citizens (let’s assume they’re citizens) against tyranny?
I don’t believe I ever said it “allowed” the Holocaust (correct me if I’m wrong) and had more Jews been armed the events may have played out the same.
However, I don’t see how the Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons (1938) can be seen as anything other than disarming the jews to make it easier to kill them, which was the goal after all…
Yes, and my point is that the 2A doesn’t mean anything if one myopically focuses exclusively on it. Without a wider awareness of one’s duties and responsibilities it’s pretty pointless.
My question is, does the outcome make a whit’s difference? Perhaps the group to be exterminated has a right to violently resist, not matter how futile? And, in answering in the affirmative, then the right to keep and bear arms?
The Japanese-American internment after the attack on Pearl Harbor and subsequent declaration of war, while wrong (imo) is astronomically different than the other scenarios we’ve discussed.
I would agree. But it seems silly (to me) to expect your fellow Americans to stand up to a tyrannical govt when 1. They shit the bed when given the opportunity the first time & 2. They’re much lazier this time
I’m sure the Japanese that were carted off to camps would agree with you
A lot has changed since the 40s. You’re talking about a time when segregation was still a thing in America.
The ones that were, by many accounts, treated well, got to leave, and eventually received reparations from people not involved in the decision…? Ya, I bet they would agree with me.
Why? In Brazil cops routinely shot captured drug dealers in the back of the head after apprehending them and no one gave a shit until footage emerged. Allegedly the practice receded somewhat but it’s still tacitly approved by upper middle class types.
If you found out that the cops were discreetly dispatching the scum of the earth (albeit American citizens), would you pull out your gun and resist?
Yes, that’s why you never ever as a murderous tyrant publicly announce “dear X, now we’re going to start killing you” (the only exception being Rwanda where they literally announced it over the radio)
I know many Russian citizens who (legally) own guns. Are they free? There is a shitload of weapons in Russia and one tweet can send you to prison for several years. Guns alone do not equate freedom and that’s where the NRA gets it wrong.
So the same Americans that spawned stop & frisk and the Patriot act are also supposed to hold things like “freedom” and “don’t suspend due process” to a higher regard than the failures that let Japanese Americans have their rights forcibly taken?
Seems like a bag of shit in either regard.
At least we’ve arrived at a point where constitutionally guarenteed rights have a price tag as long as you treat em nice enough
It’s absurd because you’re asking me if I’d risk life and limb for know MS-13 gang members (one of the most notoriously brutal gangs in the America’s), probably the worst terrorist organization on the planets (ISIS) or a rapist because somehow that’s equivalent to taking up arms against a tyrannical government abusing law-abiding citizens.
And I agree. Guns are themselves inert. Tools. And I think that is a fine argument to remind people of the importance of other freedoms. But not as an argument for the ‘wrongness’ of supporting the 2nd.
My great-grandfather was an avid hunter with a formidable arsenal of hunting weapons on his estate. He was also a decorated war hero, so I have no reason to suspect he was lacking physical courage.
He was apprehended one morning by two village idiots in ill-fitting police uniforms. After all, it surely must have been one huge misunderstanding - he was the friend of the chief of police and as a decorated WW1 he and his family were exempt from racial laws.
He perished in Dachau three years later. And guess what, those guns he had didn’t help him. Guns alone mean jack shit.
Ok, allow me to cut through some of this and get right to the meat. Our feelings, regardless of circumstances, concerning the right to defend ourselves.
Do we have an inherent right to resist violence with violence, no matter how futile?
Does that right, if affirmed, cease to exist because we have become complacent in, even complicit, in the devaluation of other rights?
Yes, if they’re citizens. I’ve taken the point to the extreme by listing repulsive groups, but legally speaking in the scenario I’ve described US citizens are as a rule being shot out of hand by the agents of the federal government. Isn’t that tyranny against which one has to defend oneself?
Stop and frisk was ended by these same American’s was it not?
The Patriot act was a mistake enacted out of fear and we have consistently seen challenges to it. Some that have won some lost.
Could what happen to the Japanese-American’s happen again to say the Muslim-Americans? Of course, there are no guarantees it won’t. I woudl argue Abe Lincoln suspending habeas corpus was wrong (and I have on here).
This is why I hate these discussions. I said it was wrong. It shouldn’t have happened, but it is not the same as the millions of Jews that were gassed to death. There are not even remotely comparable.