Exactly, thanks!
I think (and this person can correct me if I’m wrong, it’s really how I understood it) the idea was: despite all the 2A theory of “we need guns to defend from tyrannical government, and yes, if it were to happen I’d take up arms” the US is (not so slowly anymore) sliding toward the tyrannical government and we saw no usage of 2A to fight against it.
Your point could be right: it’s because people with the gun generally agree with the government, so no reason to use 2A.
Next question is: even if all leftist were armed, would we start to see ICE agent being shot? No idea.
Oh and, on another note, to compare the US and Myanmar is NOT a good comparison from any point of view.
shapesandstuff@feddit.org 2 days ago
SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Again, 20% of the left is armed or lives with someone who is armed… nearly %60 is the right…the right is driving this fascist bullshit. No wonder it’s not being used.
Y>our point could be right: it’s because people with the gun generally agree with the government, so no reason to use 2A.
Exactly.
If ICE starts shooting people, you better bet there would be return fire.
I didn’t compare it to the USA at all. I stated that they’re population was not armed and they still have a civil war happening. Which is counter point to the guy stating that civil wars don’t happen if civs aren’t armed like in his country. Which is bullshit.