@arh Many “rights” from that period have been willingly given up - the “right” to own people, for example.
And can guns protecting womens’ rights to control their own bodies? That’s the modern tyranny that the USA faces and fighting it does not, should not, and must not involve automatic weapons.
For real though, we aren’t going to convince each other of the validity of the others’ reasoning, so let’s agree to disagree.
Feel free to mute me if you can’t tolerate anti-gun speech.
@arh a 200-year-old Benjamin Franklin quote (about taxation and the ability of govern actually) is no substitute for contemporary reasoning.
The modern USA does not need the same protections from tyranny that made sense in a juvenile nation at a time when firearms shot marbles and took minutes to reload.
@arh again, I make no comment about your country, your circumstances or society. I just don't think this makes any sense in the USA.
Give me European "fake" freedom every single day of my life.
I think we're done here, good luck and all the best.
@arh All society is a tradeoff of agency for some common benefit. I trade some of my "freedom" to reduce the chances I will die. I trade some of my salary to reduce poverty everywhere.
I would rather live with the (as you call it) "fake freedom" that allows my children to go to schools without fear that they will be killed, than live with the "true freedom" that requires *everyone* to *always* have the capability to murder tens of people in minutes.
@arh If the *US military* decided to stage a coup, there's literally nothing any number of "hero with a gun" citizens could do to stop them, unless you're also arming people with tanks and missiles.
US citizens with guns are the ones with a fake sense of freedom, because the kind of tyranny that gun ownership defends against is 200 years out of day. And the country is paying for that delusion with human lives. 246 mass shootings this year so far.
@arh how is my sense of freedom "fake"? Again, I can make no comment on the Middle East, but I don't think this reasoning applies in the USA.
@arh I can’t comment on your country but I don’t think it’s naive to have a functioning and accountable government without arming the population. Most democracies achieve this.
The USA holds onto its guns because of a sense of individualistic entitlement, and the last time I checked, the people storming the halls of government with guns were *supporting* the tyrant trying to subvert democracy, not deposing him.
Saying “a gun is a tool” doesn’t change the fact that it kills people needlessly.
@arh fear of being shot and killed. Fear that their kids will get shot at school.
If you think gun ownership has anything to do with “fighting against tyranny” in the 21st century, then you’re either trolling or delusional.
Me: can we install tool-x?
Devops: what do you need it for?
Devops: that's been superseded by tool-x-prime
Me: Not quite, tool-x-prime only supports a subset of features and rebuilding what I'm working on to use that will add days/weeks to my workload
Devops: Pretty sure I used tool-x-prime for that a few years ago
Me: please can we just install tool-x and then consider tool-x-prime once things are actually working?
Thanks for making me jump through those hoops 🤦♂️
Most clothes are just very very complicated knots
@maffeis I wonder if it's useful to consider an instance to _not_ be a community -- at least in terms of interests -- but instead as a society with shared rules (e.g. what's considered acceptable, who they'll federate with and so on).
In that context, does it make sense to have a single identity that exists in multiple societies, that each have different rules?