It is called a duty of care.
Yeah it’s pretty sad sometimes.
We had the misfortune of having a generation of parents who were really bad at parenting. People born between 1965 to 1980.
That whole generation sucked when it came to parenting.
I got lucky. I was raised by baby boomers. That generation has their own issues but they still knew how to parent.
Nope … it’s called instilling fear to gain control. The more fear they create, the more they can convince the sheep that they need to be protected.
You realize of course, that people born between 1965 and 1980 were raised by Baby Boomers. 
I know right. That’s why it’s so weird that their parenting skills were generally terrible.
That said some millennials are just weak people. They can’t take criticism.
My generation has the most progressive views on race and religion, so that’s a plus.
But in terms of political views we are actually worse than our parents and grandparents. We (as a whole) cannot take any form of political or personal criticism and we tend to fall apart the second we are challenged.
It’s pathetic.
Like you guys exaggerate the danger of not having a 2nd, especially since its irrelevant.
No exaggeration pal. The 2nd is continually under fire (no pun intended) by your ilk. And you confirm that in each and every gun thread in this Forum.
Big exaggeration since according to you guys the 2nd is only thing stopping govt tyranny.
The attacks are not an exaggeration. The only thing stopping you and your ilk from success is vigilance by those who defend the Constitution.
1 Like
Nope your assertion that the 2nd is the only thing stopping govt tyranny and without it we will have a totalitarian state is the exaggeration.
It would certainly make things easier for the government if we were all disarmed.
The second is a trump card. A tool of last resort. The government knows this and will generally stay in line to a certain extent.
A government’s worst fear is all out armed Revolution in their own borders. That event is unpredictable and the government knows it may not survive the chaos.
That’s not to say that a government with a disarmed populace will certainly become tyrannical. There are nations who have basically disarmed theirselves and aren’t living in tyranny. But the potential is there. And there isn’t much the people in those nations could do if the wrong people took power.
That’s the whole ultimate point of having an armed populace. It’s a trump card to be used when all other avenues of resistance to tyranny have failed.
1 Like
Australia changed its gun laws in 1996 (supported by both sides of politics) in the aftermath of the Port Arthur mass shooting. What evidence is there that Australians are living in tyranny? What evidence is that the Australian people have lost their democratic right to choose which party or parties will form government? In fact we have changed governments in 2007, 2013 and most probably in 2019.
In my lifetime the closest we have come to having a revolution was in 1975. Note closest is a relative term because a revolution in 1975 was less likely than having a stroll to the recently discovered black hole.
It is patently clear that Samm and others of similar ilk live in constant fear that the bogeyman is coming to get them. The irony is that currently the USA has a president named Trump whose behaviour is so far below what it ought to be. A president who has shown no leadership in trying to resolve the problem of almost 40,000 gun related deaths in 2018.
The contrast between Trump and PM of NZ Jacinda Ardern could not be more stark.
I specifically said that most disarmed people in the West aren’t living in tyranny.
My point was that a disarmed populace is ultimately a vulnerable populace. Because they do not have the means to defend themselves if the unthinkable happens.
As a racial minority I understand the importance of being armed. My ancestors were oppressed in this country largely because the various states made it nearly impossible for black people to purchase and carry firearms during the Jim Crow era.
How are Australians or Kiwis a vulnerable populace because we have decided that civilians don’t need the types of guns that have been banned? Vulnerable from what threat?
No, it is your assertion that that was my assertion. Just try to find a post where I have made the claim.
Except the 2nd does nothing, Japanese/Americans were stripped of their rights and imprisoned.
There you go again … making the clam that it is we who live in fear, when in fact, it is your fear that led you to willingly give up your rights to give yourselves the illusion of security. It is so sad what your country has become in such a short period of time.
Do you EDC?
I’m not against gun ownership, but let’s be real here, gun ownership doesn’t make our country safer. Basing policy on things that have an infinitesimal chance of occurring (stopping an active shooter or defending against tyranny), ultimately increases the chance of death from things that are way more likely to occur (suicide, accidental killings, murders, etc).
It’s simply a case where the medicine is worse than the disease.
