“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
—Benjamin Franklin
Do you agree with him? Why or why not? Do you think his statement still applies to a world that is vastly different from anything the founding fathers could have imagined?
The world is not so different now than it was on Franklin's time. Tyrants with guns want slaves to obey. Guns in the hands of common men prevent tyranny.
I am sure some madmen killed innocents with muskets and whatnot back in those times. They were taken care of by good men capable of violence.
You mean Karl Marx? Either way answer is yes, never surrender your rights.
revolutionary torts. nice.
>i one thousand percent think people should be educated effectively by genuine professionals on weapon handling and every citizen should be obligated to carry.
>institutions forget their place. Im already worried USA has lost their ability to show it that it still belongs to us.
“There's no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." - Karl Marx
Do you think he would have said the same thing if he knew that high-powered assault rifles would be invented?
blessed be the mighty assault weapon.
>probably.
>americans are too goddamn engorged with their own societal problems to realize the looming future thats not so distant and it involves a country devoid of choices and opportunity only given by the oligarch.
no further option to stand together because we are already divided. js.
That is a good question. I don't know how he felt about private ownership of some of the more potent weapons of his time, those capable of killing like an assault rifle is now.
I think that if the british government was using assault weapons to subjugate the colonies, he most definitely would have been pro ownership of them for any and every one.
There are modern day people out here terrorizing with assault rifles and there are real chances of getting shot by crazy motherfuckers at any time. I am not even sure if there have been mass shootings thwarted or stopped by "good guys with guns" other than the webms i've seen on here of dumb people trying to do robberies and getting capped by store clerks.
Long story short, I think he would be ok with people owning assault rifles.
Franklyn had an appreciation for the concept of of the common good. Common good vs. Individualism is an ongoing point of contention in all democracies. The point for which demand for individual rights impacts the common good is a vexing problem. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting government agents go house to house and confiscate people firearms. There are compelling arguments for grown-up and common sense restrictions, licensing and vetting of people who exercise their right to bare arm. Given the recent events and social conditions of late, I doubt that Franklyn would disagree
Yes. A gun is a gun. They all do the same thing. Some do it better than other but the end result is the same. It goes bang.
Shall not be infringed has nothing to do with the common good.
Yes
>looming future thats not so distant and it involves a country devoid of choices and opportunity only given by the oligarch.
>looming future
>future
I think you're a little late to the party...
I know what you're saying. Yes, these are simple choices with simple problems, and yes, these are extreme hypotheticals that would probably never happen. But isn't that the point? By practicing these types of decisions, you force your mind to delve into the deeper issue of morality and instinct. Those are the lessons you should be learning.
Hell, I'm not even arguing that I'm right and you're wrong. Just that these types of decisions would be good for people to learn. But I also respect your decision. So, rather than force you to make an uneducated decision, I'll let you make a more informed one. Just think about it. That's all I ask.
so bizarre you chose that image. i actually wrote a summary article on his book.
>you peeping on me fedboi
>you peeping on me fedboi
and seriously keep your guys off my coordinates. if youre not communicating with me directly i will retaliate with prejudice.
That's Karl Marx, not Franklin. Real leftists are pro-2A. Progressives are not.
>i will retaliate with prejudice.
I don't see how slurs are going to deter us.
we still have more than enough opportunity but it takes an ungodly amount of discipline, communication and luck to make it reality. add into the equation people or groups going out of there way to make it less achievable... chances are slim but possible.
>not quite dolling out work per barcode yet.
lol. no.
>not quite dolling out work per barcode yet.
That sounds like a step up from the current situation for a lot of people.
>high-powered assault rifles
As opposed to low-powered assault rifles? Or high-powered non-assault rifles? Say, if if you hit someone with the butt of a rifle, but it's not an assault rifle, is it still an assault? If you can kill 20 people with a knife, but only 10 people with an assault rifle, it is the rifle still an assault rifle? Or not anymore, but the knife is now an assault knife?
Yes, you braindead retard, Franklin, one of the greatest inventors of his time, knew that weapons would get deadlier and easier to use.