←back to thread

Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

(www.reddit.com)
628 points nodea2345 | 3 comments | 01 Oct 19 11:19 UTC | HN request time: 1.59s | source
Show context
nvahalik ◴[01 Oct 19 13:30 UTC] No.21125093[source]▶
> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator

This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".

replies(26): >>21125127 #>>21125139 #>>21125892 #>>21126027 #>>21126073 #>>21126084 #>>21126204 #>>21126397 #>>21126398 #>>21126638 #>>21126890 #>>21126892 #>>21127286 #>>21127513 #>>21127874 #>>21127880 #>>21128227 #>>21128793 #>>21129412 #>>21129418 #>>21129526 #>>21129658 #>>21130063 #>>21130220 #>>21131181 #>>21131653 #
1. 4b11b4 ◴[01 Oct 19 17:12 UTC] No.21127880[source]▶
The 2nd amendment was never created in order to "rebel" against the government. Think about this: it was the goal of the founders of the Constitution to create a new system which would be fair and just and work well. Checks and balances exist in the three forms of government. If you were creating a new system, would you include a clause that says: just in case I'm getting this wrong, let's make sure it's an unalienable right for people to have weapons in case they need to kill me?

The 2nd amendment was actually put in by pressure from slave owners, who needed weapons in order to police slaves. After slavery was abolished, people kept the order of slavery by using tools (guns).

The common "idea" that the 2nd amendment was created for "freedom" can be traced back to a guest post in NRA newspaper written by a teenager which was then promoted heavily by the NRA.

source: https://news.streetroots.org/2019/05/31/thom-hartmann-why-we...

replies(2): >>21128102 #>>21129360 #
2. eee_honda ◴[01 Oct 19 17:30 UTC] No.21128102[source]▶
>If you were creating a new system, would you include a clause that says: just in case I'm getting this wrong, let's make sure it's an unalienable right for people to have weapons in case they need to kill me?

I didn't grow up in the US, but being exposed to US political discourse, I always took for granted this right wing talking point (though I thought it was ridiculous from the outset). Thank you for providing clarity and a decent looking source on something that, as you point out, makes no sense once you think a little longer about it.

3. blockmarker ◴[01 Oct 19 19:10 UTC] No.21129360[source]▶
>just in case I'm getting this wrong, let's make sure it's an unalienable right for people to have weapons in case they need to kill me?

That supposes that the Founders would forever rule and be unified, with no possibility of anyone else ever ruling. That obviously is idiotic.