I’m pretty sure that France is a successful state by today’s standards. Are you so sure that Europe would look as democratic today if we didn’t have the French revolution?
So for a second I thought maybe your post wasn’t saying I was strawmanning but that I was responding to a strawman but this makes clear that you think that my post was a strawman. So please explain to me how my post was a straw man. I was responding to a post that said that only the right had extremists. I correctly pointed you that there is in fact an extreme left but unlike the right, the left tends to ignore their extreme left rather than let them drive the bus. Or are you claiming that an extreme left doesn’t exist because straw man?
Supply some links, please.
It was still almost 80 years of bloodshed and strife lasting through most of the 19th century.
The France you know today has had more than 5 generations to heal, unite and to redirect its pain elsewhere. If what you propose leads to a healthier America that people in other countries can point to and say “look, they survived their bloody 21st century revolution… and just look at them now…!”
then you’ll just have to wait for your applause until sometime in the 23rd Century.
Give my best to Kirk.
Because the ability for lunatic fringe elements to gain access to deadly weapons and threaten or kill democratically elected officials is a direct threat to democracy.
Maybe. I haven’t really thought it through. I just don’t think that tyranny can ever come to America. I think that democracy provides a release valve that prevents that sort of tyranny. I could be wrong but ISTM that if tyranny ever does come then a goodly portion of the military will be on our side.
Give or take a few crippling (world) wars and a handful of colonial adventures…
I always find it amusing when folks claim the Founding Fathers put in the Second Amendment as a popular check on governmental tyranny. These would be the same Founding Fathers who didn’t trust the people to directly elect a President for Pete’s sake.
You have Google. Use it. No source linked is authoritative enough if it contradicts a liberal fairy tale.
Ah, so you’ve got nothing. (Well, I already knew that.)
I worry about the consequences of the middle class vanishing. When people have no jobs, no hope and no future, but the last thing they have left are their votes. In the late Roman Republic that was the plight of the proletariat (not to be confused with Marx’s misappropriation of the term), the middle class ruined by the expansion of slavery. Their votes went to whoever could promise them the best deal, and they got bread and circuses- and eventually civil wars and an Imperator
The Constitution that replaced the Articles of Confederation was deliberately designed to shield the federal government from directly answering to the people; so much so that the delegates insisted on a Bill of Rights to counter the new government’s powers.
The Donald is so widely reviled across the spectrum that an attempt on his life cannot automatically be classified as “left-wing violence.” The list of Pubs who would like to see him dead is a long one.
The entire conversation was about Democrats and Republicans; to pretend that it was about vague “political motivations” is disingenuous. You, in fact, came into the conversation with the comment “Bernie bros would disagree” which is clearly a reference to what you believe to be Democratically-motivated violence. You are trying to weasel your way out of a very poor attempt to support your position by now trying to change what your position was in the first place; no one is fooled by your machinations.
Ah, there you go trying to move the goalposts again. This wasn’t even a good try; it was far too transparent.
You did not refute anything I wrote. You wrote something different, ascribed it to me, then refuted it… which is the textbook definition of creating a strawman.
Your further reply only offers more evidence of not understand things, so thanks for offering that up, however inadvertently.
Which is the problem with the concept of “guns as a defense against tyranny”. It gives every nut job the opportunity to defend against their warped sense of what “tyranny” is.
I didn’t want people to think I was piling on, but yeah.
Basically, its taken one hellacious shit-load of repercussions and decades of rapid bloody bounces of the pinball of death afterward to get France to where it is today.
I haven’t met anyone from France yet whose said, “Oh, that was easy…! hand-slap hand-slap Wasn’t painful at all. Three finger snaps and Presto! Here we are.”
When good people think that it can’t, that’s the time when it can.
As long as people with money can and do make their checks clear, sure.
Still, its probably best to never under estimate the resolve of large groups of skilled people who can’t feed their children.
I would say certain factions in the history of Northern Ireland have benefited from being armed, or using the threat of arms. I wouldn’t suggest their success was due entirely to being armed, political accomodation was also required, but being armed to the eyeballs probably aided them. Northern Ireland isn’t the USA, but as a Western nation it’s not so different.
Well, maybe it would if civilians could own tanks, missiles, F-15s and helicopter gunships too.
In post 45 you write:
“and there is no extreme left in America today that compares to the extreme right.”
I respond by saying yes there is and you say “Straw man”
Let’s keep focused on the OP. Face it, gun owners: Politically, your guns do not matter. You can use them to defend your home or kill a deer (or rob a liquor store, if you care to accept the risks, legal, physical and moral), but you cannot use them to influence public policy, you cannot use them to resist the state, and there is no such thing as a “Second Amendment Solution” that is not also and rightly a very serious crime.