Nom de Forum
Member
I do NOT want to discuss the merits of any civil unrest.
This topic is whether civil unrest is good or bad for the 2A.
Perhaps 10 times or more in the last 25 years there have been threats of war, attacks on our soil, threats of gun bans, and serious civil unrest in the US.
In each of these instances gun sales soared to high levels and people hoarded guns, accessories, and ammunition. So clearly this is a reminder and/or wake-up call to people to defend themselves.
So this has been great for the 2A, right? But at what cost. Each of these instances has proven to be costly and divisive among the people.
Conversely, when society is doing 'well' as a whole, it seems that people are more willing to cast aside their 2A rights because civilized people don't need guns.
It's an interesting dichotomy that society needs to hit hard times to go back to basics. Of course nobody wishes for hard times, but those hard times are good for the 2A.
What's you view?
My view is that civil unrest is good for the Second Amendment in much the same way as the following:
Incidents of death by food poisoning and tainted medicine is good for reminding people to support strong FDA regulations.
Birth defects and fatal illness caused from pollution is good for reminding people to support strong EPA regulations.
People losing their homes, savings, and prosperous futures is good for reminding people to support strong SEC regulations and strengthening various Banking regulatory organizations.
People losing their jobs because corporations are outsourcing their jobs overseas is a good for reminding people to support regulation and laws to discourage corporations from outsourcing.
People loudly and if necessary violently protesting against discriminatory treatment is good for reminding people to support the civil rights and equal treatment of people who are different from themselves so that they themselves limit the possibility of ever needing to loudly and violently protest suffering discrimination.
My view is that civil unrest is potentially bad for the Second Amendment because it could it could evolve into long term civil anarchy and collapse requiring martial law that results in confiscation of privately owned firearms should a large enough segment of the population becomes outraged from not being sufficiently protected by a good Government from food poisoning, toxic medication, birth defects and terminal illness from pollution, discrimination, and inability to prosper due to the society destroying greed of a very small minority of people controlling most of the wealth in the country.
So ya, I agree bad things remind people of the need to maintain protections they may rarely need to use or even think about how they are protecting them, except that apathy can lead to the surprise of many seemingly unrelated bad things that accumulated to become an unstoppable avalanche into anarchy or tyranny. Perhaps it would be better to work to eliminate bad things so we can reduce our need for them to remind us we need protections from them. Many bad things have been eliminated that we have no problem remembering why we need to have protections from them.
Last edited: