-Tanks in the Streets- Looks Like This.
First things first. Are there tanks like this, that have been fighting anywhere in America? Firing on Americans?
Who brought up tanks in the streets?
-Well, I actually think I did.
What was I talking about when I said if there are tanks in the streets it’s too late for deterence?
-I think I was talking about these kinds of Tanks. I would know. I am me.
Was I talking about the neighbourhoods pictured above? Or was I discussing where ever you live, as you watch an the equivalent of an armoured fire truck carrying an armed cop on top of it launching tear gas?
That you watched?
On your computer?
While you were completely safe?
And no one was firing on you with a 125 mm cannon?
Do you still wish to interject that there are already tanks on the streets in America, now that you know I was referring to actual tanks? Tanks in the streets? Like the streets pictured above.
You pointed out tanks in Ferguson
Here are the vehicles from Ferguson.
Here’s another angle.
There is no 125 mm cannon on that. It is not firing into the neighbourhoods. It cannot fire. That’s not its job.
The big engine and side ladders on an armoured car doesn’t make it a tank. Your argument about what a tank is and where they are is complete hogwash.
IF we get to the point where Tanks are in the streets. As above in Syria, it is too late. All of the above talk about arms, rights and deterrence are for discussion, BEFORE you get to civil war.
When you still have peace, look to Locke and natural law. Once it reaches TIS you are firmly in the territory of Hobbes and the devil.
The right to bear arms as a defence against tyranny is framed in the context of preventing it from ever getting that far. So when you are discussing the 2nd Amendment as detente between people and state and bringing in possibilities from over the line in civil war, when the fighting is already armour versus civilians, you are creating a nonsensical argument.
This is also what you are doing when you argue that they are already in the streets. Firstly, they are not. Secondly, if they are, then you are already not free. And you seem to want that.
Thirdly, the right to encrypt data and communicate secretly doesn’t do you any good if you can peaceably mobilize a thousand people to demonstrate, who in your vision of America, the government will simply mow down in cold blood. When the populace is disarmed, in your paradigm, and the government is willing to kill them all, as in your paradigm, the ability to organise isn’t going to do you any good.
Plus the government controls the infrastructure of your communications network. On the one hand you admit that they could shut it down, but the costs would be too high. But then you say but they can and are willing to kill all the people with guns, disregarding all the costs you just said they wouldn’t be willing to pay. So they’ll kill anyone who resists with no remorse, but they won’t shut off telecommunications to regions in unrest? Complete and total inconsistency of position.
And here’s the rub. Militarisation of the police? Huge mistake.
Are we safer with handguns everywhere and legal means of obtaining almost automatic weapons without proper means of checking mental health? No.
Can we just give up the right to bear arms so we can be safer? No, because according to you, our government can’t be trusted to not kill us if we are in the way.
In that situation it makes less sense to give up even an imperfect deterrent.
You had better come back with something fantastic that solves the entire gun control riddle of safety versus stewardship in one tweet worth of information. Crayon is ok if that’s all you have at this point. Etch-a-sketch is also acceptable.
Or you can apologise for wasting our time, and go an think on these things before you post again.
I am ok with either.