Not even getting into how this can more squarely be aimed at GOPers who profess to love the cops and love the troops, but love the 2nd just as much. The article specifically about defending yourself from troops and cops.

Edit: swapped in "GOPers" bc sophistry

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It does represent the dichotomy of Democrats complaining about 2a when they are in control but people realizing its importance when the repression they commit abroad comes home.

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I think it represents a timely reminder that we now know those who scream the loudest about the 2A, and how we can't do a damn thing about gun violence because it would erode their freedoms, have no interest in using it the way they've always proclaimed they must, as long as the right people are being hurt.

And I'm not actually anti-2A so much as I am anti-a-particular-sort-of-gun-enthusiast.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not keen on the 2A, based on it's original purpose and use. I am, however, pro "Under no pretext shall arms and ammunition be surrendered, and any attempts to do should be frustrated, by force, if necessary."

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am not arguing in any way for disarmament. But the fact that's all anyone seems to think I'm saying is kind of proving my point.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nah, I was only replying to the part about you not being a 2a supporter, showing you dont have to be, in order to support an armed working class 😀

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago

All good, I get it now!

[–] sentinel@lemmitor.com 5 points 2 days ago

The democrats are conservatives.