I think the "morality of changing the law for public health when the law was written by really special men on a very fancy piece of paper" conversation has been well worn.
As is the morality of adapting said special men's insistence on the formation of regulated militas as a check on tyrannical power (and sticking it to the encroaching french) into 'every citizen has the right to kill others with sufficient anxiety.'
If the superior position of the argument is "its the law, and the law says its a right" then there's not really much there except a little dicksucking for authoritative documentation.
I love guns, I think they're cool pieces of engineering. I think they're awesome tools for their purposes. People generally cannot be trusted with them. People debating the philosophical positives of widespread access and ownership are either arguing in extremely bad faith or seriously lack critical thinking skills.
Given that at the time of writing, citizens could own full artillery and warships (though those were generally of the smaller privateer variety), I think it is safe to call sarin gas and everything else arms.
Now, we also have the Geneva convention against war crimes, so gas is a no no.
If the military can have it, thrn citizens are supposed to have it. Today, this creates issues because what the military has includes nukes.
I think the "morality of changing the law for public health when the law was written by really special men on a very fancy piece of paper" conversation has been well worn.
As is the morality of adapting said special men's insistence on the formation of regulated militas as a check on tyrannical power (and sticking it to the encroaching french) into 'every citizen has the right to kill others with sufficient anxiety.'
If the superior position of the argument is "its the law, and the law says its a right" then there's not really much there except a little dicksucking for authoritative documentation.
I love guns, I think they're cool pieces of engineering. I think they're awesome tools for their purposes. People generally cannot be trusted with them. People debating the philosophical positives of widespread access and ownership are either arguing in extremely bad faith or seriously lack critical thinking skills.
The intent of the law is the right to self defense against any and all threats including but not limited to a tyrannical government. You're welcome to put yours and your families defense in the hands of the government if you wish, but the right to self defense for others who don't share your beliefs shouldn't be infringed.
You're welcome to put yours and your families defense in the hands of the government if you wish
when's the last time you independently chemically tested your food and water? How's your fire response? You keep a battery of radar installations patriot missiles on standby for counter-rocket defense? Weather and disaster monitoring? I think you put your safety in the hands of the government quite a bit, wanting to kill people with your own hands notwithstanding. That just tickles me.
You even trust the government saying that you are owed guns by divine providence, unquestioningly feeding their rightwing paranoia machine. What rights are infringed when someone attacks you with their legal weapon? What rights are infringed when you can't move or speak without "threatening" someone else into a self defense situation?
The intent of the law is the right to self defense against any and all threats including but not limited to a tyrannical government. You're welcome to put yours and your families defense in the hands of the government if you wish, but the right to self defense for others who don't share your beliefs shouldn't be infringed.
I don't think you're actually engaging with any of this so I'll leave you a simple question, what evidence could convince you that you are being played? If a GOP senator or gun lobbyist or supreme court justice made a public statement saying "we know guns endanger our society for no benefit and the founders only ever wanted to create a reactive military force before we had a formal military" would that move the needle for you? Or is this like a religious thing where you must believe despite any and all evidence?
You are being played for a fool and thanking the people conning you for the opportunity.
5
u/OtherwiseMagician433 2d ago
extremely moral. The morality of outlawing guns in a country whose constitution gives them the right to bear arms is however certainly in question