To be fair, the thing about guns probably made a lot more sense back then. And freedom of speech is great, until you start dealing with state secrets and national security.
this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
547 points (100.0% liked)
A Comm for Historymemes
2488 readers
514 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism, atrocity denial, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Lemmy.world rules.
Banner courtesy of @[email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They can say whatever they want criticizing the government without retribution from the government is what it means. It was never protecting anyone from openly saying anything they wanted.
You can say you're going to murder your neighbor and be arrested legally and charged legally for it if they find reasonable means you were going to try it.
You can slander/libel someone and legally get sued in civil court as well.
You can say you’re going to murder your neighbor
You're going to murder your neighbor!
Seems like guns make a lot of sense right now too.
The shift in public perception on weapon ownership when they see actual tyrany in america is very interesting. Ive been 100% pro gun and have gotten so much backlash from family and friends for being so. I dont even own a gun and to me it has been obvious that the government and media were using mass shootings (not actually commiting them as far as we know) to disarm the people.
There are and have always been such a large number of safe, moral, and sane gun owners in this country. Normal people who target practice, hunt, shoot competatively, design guns, modify them, defend their homes, study weapon history, or even just put them on display. It baffles me that anyone could be so against normal hard working americans doing no harm whatsoever.
Not a single person I spoke with was ever against owning a car when I brought it up. I was always given the same "its not the same thing". The common denominators in vehicular violence and gun violence are mental health, education, and financial status. I dont want to compare numbers on how many people are killed in either situation because it does not matter. Human lives are lost everyday needlessly to both of these. But only guns get talked about.
Curious to know if you or anyone else have recently become pro gun, or have you always felt this way?
Since you bring up the car analogy, would you be OK with normal people who target practice, hunt, shoot competitively, etc carrying liability insurance for the weapons they own?
Absolutely, and like sports cars and trucks having higher costs. I believe single fire, burst action, and shotguns would have a lower cost than fully automatic or heavier caliber weapons would. Its relative destructive power would determine its cost to maintain a registration.
They are luxury items after all, no person really "needs" a weapon. Even with government tyrany, molotovs, home made liberator pistols, and the killdozer come to mind as more than viable alternatives.
Automatics and other weapons and explosives already require heavy tax stamps and long approval processes. I've also needed a weapon multiple times in my life in multiple states. I suppose people who live in a sheltered utopia may never need one but I certainly have, along with many people I've known including my father. Wildlife, humans, wild dogs even in cities (pepper spray isn't a guaranteed deterrent, but I go for switchblade first with sidearm as backup), etc.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm not a recent pro gun lefty. I grew up in a rural area with a gunsmith father. I've owned firearms in the past sorta kinda, but recently picked up an AR and 9mm.
Nice, my grandpa is a gunsmith. I met alot of really nice people through his buisness. I guess that gave me a unique perspective on this debate. Being from north east USA not many people ive spoken to have aligned with me.
Congrats on the purchases I was considering getting a 9mm for home defense in my new location. But ive also been considering less lethal devices since most violent encounters my family members (grandpa side) have had were de-escalated by simply brandishing their weapon. Also my SO is very anti-gun Id want something even shed feel safe to have around or in the worst possible case use.
You could always try a .22? Still fairly lethal, but a lot less intimidating. Air rifles are another option. You can do some damage with them too.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I'm fine with an armed population, as long as people that might harm themselves or do mass shootings cant get weapons.
"people who do mass shootings can't get weapons" just means "everybody gets to do one mass shooting but no more"
load more comments
(2 replies)
The problem with red flag laws in some jurisdictions are false accusations.
Even before getting into constitutionality there are these issues:
- Due Process Concerns:
-
Lack of Opportunity to be Heard: Red flag laws often allow for temporary confiscation of firearms without the individual being present in court or having an opportunity to present their case.
-
Ex Parte Proceedings: Some red flag laws allow for hearings to be conducted without the individual's presence, raising concerns about fairness and due process.
-
Inadequate Legal Representation: There are concerns about whether individuals facing red flag petitions receive adequate legal representation, particularly if they cannot afford a lawyer.
- Potential for Misuse and Abuse:
-
Subjectivity in Defining "Risk": The definition of what constitutes a dangerous individual or a threat can be subjective, potentially leading to the misuse of red flag laws.
-
Misapplication to Lawful Gun Owners: Some worry that red flag laws could be used against individuals who are not actually dangerous or who are not a risk to themselves or others.
-
Risk of Escalation: Some fear that law enforcement actions under red flag laws could escalate tense situations, potentially leading to confrontations.
But for the sake of completeness:
Infringement on Gun Rights: Critics argue that red flag laws infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, even if the gun is temporarily removed.
Violation of Property Rights: The temporary seizure of firearms raises questions about whether red flag laws violate an individual's right to own property.
Potential for Discrimination: There are concerns that red flag laws could be used to target certain groups or individuals based on stereotypes or biases.
load more comments
(16 replies)
If you utter the words “freedom of speech is great, until…,” you are 100% a fascist.
Y’all can keep downvoting. Says a lot about you and your flexible morality.
Freedom of speech is great until you yell fire in a crowded theater
yeah I don't think people who have classified info should be allowed to give that to the enemy.
The problem that we now have is that anything embarrassing or incriminating for politicians gets classified.
I see what ur saying. this whole thing is complex
Let's freedom of speech nuclear codes to terrorist organizations. Why not? Go away, disingenuous prick.
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
until you start dealing with state secrets and national security.
So you think whistleblowers exposing the crimes of the state should be locked up...
Got it.
Did I say that? reread that, at no point do I say that whistleblowers should be locked up. What I meant is that it becomes much more complex in that context
load more comments
(2 replies)
‘And only white landowners will enjoy these rights.’
Yup. The electoral college was the only thing that mattered. Citizens were never intended to have an actual say in who was elected.
Reminder that "muh 2a" was written over a half a century before the first mass produced revolver and the conical bullet.
Guns were a very different concept and proposition for the founders. The very few weapons of the time that could be fired more than once in quick succession were commissioned individually crafted curiosities.
Also remember that freedom of the press meant physical printing presses where you had to manually move each piece of type by hand, and physically crank the press; anything more modern than that clearly wasn't what they intended, and you shouldn't have it. Like computers; there's no typesetting on a computer, so you need to get rid of them.
Oh, and freedom of religion? That only includes Judeo-Christian religions. Sorry, Wiccans, no religious rights for you.
To the extent that we should honor their work (as opposed to it being subject for tailoring to our times) could be debated, but for sake of argument I'll go with extrapolating their intent to the modern era.
For freedom of the press, they wanted the people to be able to communicate. It being even easier doesn't seem to run counter to their goals, nor does it seem to complicate matters in their view.
For the religion, they did have among their ranks self-proclaimed "heretics", so no, it wasn't strictly about Judeo-Christian religions even from the onset.
For the right to bear arms, this one hits differently. What was their goal? It says quite plainly that states should be able to field well regulated militias, and so to do that, they need a good chunk of citizens with weapons ready to go. Those pea shooters were nigh useless except for hunting and as part of a larger force. The idea of a whole town of people self-organizing a militia might have been consistent with their goals, but the concept of a single actor able to pop off dozens of accurate lethal shots at a distance in a couple of minutes is a very distinct consideration that is wholly different than those goals and wasn't in the equation at all.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Firearms could be devastating when you had a whole bunch of people to keep up a sustained fighting despite most of the people at a given time being busy reloading (and the firearms pretty much ditched if the opponent closed on you anyway). Also the range and accuracy were crap, which was still dangerous enough when you had a volley of a bunch at once fired vaguely toward a bunch of opponents.
In terms of being afraid of what a single person could in isolation do to people, the worst they would have ever faced were blades.
Substitute teacher vibes
And I'll defend to the death their right to bear arms, err. Say it.
The 2a makes more sense in the last few months
view more: next ›