> The point of rules like this is usually to make the government very afraid of it’s own people and to make sure they (the government) serve them (the people) well.
What a violent fantasy. Can you show us any legitimate, serious source that says such a thing, or indicates that it has any basis? When in US history has the government or it's officials been "very afraid" of the citizenry? (Who would serve in such a government?)
And given that the government is chosen by the people to carry out their bidding, it would be odd for them to then threaten it.
> And given that the government is chosen by the people to carry out their bidding, it would be odd for them to then threaten it.
I don’t think its good to pretend that some holy god falls out of the sky every few years during election time and asks every citizen who they want to choose as their leader.
No one’s talking about slinging guns and start shooting up all the politicians. If one doesn’t like a policy, they should go to the courts, write a letter to their representatives or vote for someone else the next time who they agree more with.
The issue is in pretending as if all of this is a god given right. It needs to be defended every moment.
You dont want an elected representative to come to power, setup the military to be loyal to that leader and then pull the rug on everyone else, jail the opposition, enslave the public.
I’m not saying this out of some fiction book, it’s happening as we speak in Myanmar, happens every few years in Pakistan, essentially the status quo in North Korea.
A robust democracy should not depend on the good will of dear leader. But be based on the foundation of its public.
More people are dying in america from drug addiction (from hopelessness and neglect of society), obesity, drunk driving, suicides every month, than you’ll see deaths from the 2nd amendment rights of everyday citizens to have guns and the right to carry them.
You have to ask yourself, why politicians rile up the public so deeply about the 2nd amendment, but totally ignore the common public’s disheartening reality and abandonment.
The 2nd amendment is a worst case scenario law, if you read history of most countries across the world and the tyranny of governments who have 0 fear of public, maybe it might change your mind.
I’m not saying that the 2nd amendment makes american politicans shiver in their beds and make it hard to sleep at night, or prevent them from still disappointing the public.
But there are far more worse realities which would make the current “hell” look like a sweet ideal utopia.
Every country and its citizens should strive to improve the lives of the public, disarming the masses is an odd hill to die on while on that quest.
What a violent fantasy. Can you show us any legitimate, serious source that says such a thing, or indicates that it has any basis? When in US history has the government or it's officials been "very afraid" of the citizenry? (Who would serve in such a government?)
And given that the government is chosen by the people to carry out their bidding, it would be odd for them to then threaten it.