Discussion
I wish we have something like that in #czech
Hey nostr:npub1q6ya7kz84rfnw6yjmg5kyttuplwpauv43a9ug3cajztx4g0v48eqhtt3sh
At what point in the spectrum of rebellion is violence justified as “overthrowing”?
I mean … thugs in the street “could” claim the right to govern their block and collect their own “taxes”.
Would this count (as the early stages of) “overthrowing a tyrannical govt”?
Would they be more legit if they had a manifesto?
I have no beef with 2A, and whole heartedly believe the above meme is a better representation of it than many I see … but unpacking “who gets to revolt and what is tyrany” gets a bit sticky.
If one group, like your street thugs apply violence and coercion to people in that locale, then that's wrong.
Everything that we live with is currently tyranny at a level that those alive in the late 1800s would have used to build the case to start armed rebellion.
Yea. All coercion is wrong. But, my point is, the line between rebellion and tyranny is not so clear.
If one defends 2A from the point of “government itself needs to be checked” (which is a valid point) … who determines when freedom has been won and what happens “next”?
We may live in “extraordinary” times, but some things never change. Power corrupts. People with guns fight for power. The street thugs are just a simpler case of how this “always” plays out.
Exactly how will “more guns” bring an end to tyranny?
Well, for one, from our own history:
If any part of the government mobilizes to confiscate citizens property en mass. I think that's a pretty good time to start an active rebellion.
But, aside from that, I do think that some of the slimier things that happen in parts of the world with less civilian firearm ownership haven't yet happened in the US because so many people do own guns.