Nostr Web Client

You are comparing an state commanding a military with individual protestors. One of the protections protestors have is the reluctance of the state to use their full capabilities against them because they are not armed.

Peaceful protest movements are highly effective.

Chris Liss 1y ago

The strongest pro-gun argument I’ve heard (besides the fact that it’s literally the second amendment of the US Constitution) is that sure the military or police could easily kill a bunch of people trying to defend themselves with their basement arsenals, but those military and police have families and friends, and so do the gun owners.

In other words, once you declare war on your citizens, and 100M of them are armed, you are in big trouble. So an armed citizenry is an effective deterrent. If the government murders a bunch of your family and friends, protesting won’t work. They discovered this in the 20th century communist regimes where they just killed whoever they wanted, and no one could do anything about it.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Laeserin 1y ago

I'm not against the Second Amendment or private gun ownership. I live in Germany's version of Texas, and many of my neighbors are gun owners.

I'm against people pacifying themselves with comfort pistols instead of actively working to change things.

What the 21st century brought was citizen journalism and online communications, such as Nostr. That shifted effectivity back to peaceful protests. Murdering peaceful protestors can bring down the wrath of the wider citizenry, and international backlash, and destabilize the entire country and economy. You can't just shoot everyone. Not anymore.

Chris Liss 1y ago

There's definitely way more of a spotlight on everything, that's true. But I’m not convinced they wouldn’t shoot everyone if it came to it, and there were no credible threat of force.

Agree owning a gun is not sufficient — you still have to speak up. But I’m sure glad those gun nuts in the US exist!

Low Information Voter 1y ago

What the 21st century also brought was 24/7 all-source surveillance.

You can't kill everyone without destroying your tax base, but you can kill everyone who knows or believes something in particular with a precision never before possible.

Laeserin 1y ago

I'm also of the opinion that peaceful protest is more inherently noble, and that it therefore is a sacrifice that resonates more deeply, with those who witness it. It's a form of martyrdom.

Would Jesus have been more effective with a bunch of guns, instead of a cross? 🤔 Doubt.

Chris Liss 1y ago

Would the founding fathers on the US have been able to create a republic based on human rights and the rule of law had they been unarmed? Doubtful.

I’m dubious of extrapolating Jesus’ teachings to matters of state and politics. If everyone were enlightened, willing to be martyrs rather than complying, maybe. But much more likely they’d just be enslaved.

Laeserin 1y ago

Hunger strikes and sit-ins against the British Empire didn't become effective until they were broadcast live. Information is the best weapon, now.

Chris Liss 1y ago

Information, yes, but backed by force if it’s ignored.

Laeserin 1y ago

All governments rule at the consent of the governed.

Chris Liss 1y ago

“Consent” can be coerced which is why the 2nd A was deemed important enough to be put in the Bill of Rights, right after free speech.

Laeserin 1y ago

Please do not confuse the Constitution, which was designed to limit the power of the federal government, with some general call to violent anarchy.

Chris Liss 1y ago

That’s a a non-sequitur. We’re talking about whether governments necessarily govern via consent. The founders thought otherwise which is why they expressly prohibited theirs from taking away your guns.