2020 Election

[hollodero]

(08-16-2020, 01:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You can't impose a tyrannical state on an armed populace.  The Framers knew this, hence the 2nd amendment.

To be clear in advance, I usually see your points as consistent, as long as you presume that bearing all kinds or arms is a fundamental human right, or a fundamental american right. When I have different viewpoints, it's based on me questioning that premise, and it has to be.
But this specific point, I cannot agree with that. An armed populace is not a safeguard against tyrannical regimes. It might be if you assume that a vast majority of said populace is automatically opposed to a tyrannical regime, which imho does not have to be the case at all. Examples would be a bunch of african states, where numerous armed militias back tyrannical systems and murder opposing groups, often based on ethnicity, or other reasons. Giving people in those countries even more arms does not defy those tyrannical systems. It just would increase the death toll.

Is what I'd say to that.

I might also add that mass shootings are really rare in Europe and from that perspective, I have to call them quite frequent in the US in comparison. But sure, that is a matter of perspective.