Afraid of the people: Arizona racketeering bill includes political protests

[Winehole23]

I tend to think most Americans would close ranks against a tyrannical government, because difference of political opinion doesn't separate family when tyranny has historical implications, not just talking points. The hippies and liberals wouldn't be able to do much. Most of the military is conservative, and I tend to think they would refuse to attack their own people.

The military would militate against tyrannical government while we all shoot at each other. Not so implausible.

Seems to indicate the US military does not tremble before the force of the country, which mitigates your point somewhat, but I don't necessarily disagree.

[Winehole23]

Force isn't everything. Society and culture count too.

[Winehole23]

Force enforces the law. Official custom, if you like.

But it does not dictate usage. How people treat one another and what they do is always somewhat outside what force would require.

[Winehole23]

The force of public opinion, usage if you like, is a force unto itself. It may be martial, it may not be. In any case (short of total annihilation) it is not eradicable by force.

[Winehole23]

in other words, what is the 2nd Amendment for, and how has the state prevented you from accomplishing the ends for which it was contemplated?

deserving of an answer, though you're by no means required to give it, DMC.

[rasuo214]

when was the last time the US faced an exogenous or internal threat that could only be answered by individual citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?

Did you ever consider that one discourages the other?

[Winehole23]

I did. I asked for an example.

Do you have one?

[DMC]

Martial force? Gun toting citizens making it happen with their guns?

It's a simple question. If you need to neuter the facts to suit narrative, why bother?

In US History much has been done for the sake of collective freedom without the threat of martial force.

Ok, I'm waiting.

Civil rights for women and non-whites in the 20th century was accomplished (mostly) without martial force. Many rights have been bestowed legislatively and judicially, and yes, by dint of changing social mores.

Do you deny it?

How were civil rights violations the same as tyranny, when it's the federal government who stepped in?

[DMC]

in other words, what is the 2nd Amendment for, and how has the state prevented you from accomplishing the ends for which it was contemplated?

Are you saying that as long as modern individual interpretation of the amendments allow them to squeak by as being spiritually intact, they are indeed not being infringed upon?

What's the spirit of the 1st? How has the state prevented you from accomplishing the ends for which it was contemplated? Don't we still have a free country?

When are you going to realize everything you apply to the second amendment can just as easily be applied to the first?

[DMC]

Force isn't everything. Society and culture count too.

Fine, leave your doors unlocked and dismiss your police force. Let's see how much culture you get exposed to without the threat of opposing force.

Force enforces the law. Official custom, if you like.

But it does not dictate usage. How people treat one another and what they do is always somewhat outside what force would require.

Virtue signaling never stopped an attack.

The force of public opinion, usage if you like, is a force unto itself. It may be martial, it may not be. In any case (short of total annihilation) it is not eradicable by force.

Public opinion doesn't do anything to protect my family. Public opinion is mob mentality, it's something to be wary of, something to arm yourself against.

[Winehole23]

Your advice is worth exactly what I paid for it. I'll keep my own counsel.

I never said that force is negligible. Nor that the 2nd Amendment or the police force is dispensible.

You seem to think it tawdry when others mischaracterize what you say in order to scorn and dismiss it, but you do it often enough yourself.

[Winehole23]

Sure enough, all the ing worked.

The AZ speaker won't put the bill on the calendar.

[Winehole23]

Are you saying that as long as modern individual interpretation of the amendments allow them to squeak by as being spiritually intact, they are indeed not being infringed upon?

What's the spirit of the 1st? How has the state prevented you from accomplishing the ends for which it was contemplated? Don't we still have a free country?

When are you going to realize everything you apply to the second amendment can just as easily be applied to the first?

Occurred to me as I was posting. It's a fair point. We apparently agree.