Thread by @jonst0kes

If you're one of the people tweeting about how the pro-2A types are suddenly absent/silent on the topic of the unbadged agents disappearing ppl into cars, this post from Larry Correia is the current, going retort from the pro-2A side: monsterhunternation.com/2020/06/04/whe…

If I were going to rewrite that post in a less confrontational way, it would start with something along the lines of pointing out that the entire gun control argument has always been wrongly understood by the gun controllers, themselves. 1/?

They talk of banning guns, but what gun control (even in its strongest form in the US) always proposes to do is not to ban guns, but to alter the distribution of guns in the populace. You will not ban, say, semi-auto rifles. Rather, you'll just alter the distribution..

...of those rifles so that only cops and criminals have them. So when you read "gun ban," think "gun redistribution." How does this relate to Correia's rant?

The far left has voluntarily done its own redistribution over the past decades. By unilaterally surrendering...

gun ownership to two categories of people -- law enforcement & right-wingers -- it has tweaked the distribution of guns in the populace so that it is disarmed and its ideological enemies are not.

To my lefty friends, with respect, that was pretty dumb IMO.

But having first unilaterally surrendered your right to keep and bear arms, and second having worked to strip that right from your ideological opponents, you're now going to turn to those opponents & demand they die for you in the streets? Really?!

Now, I think the proper response to the argument above is that pro-2A types are still obliged to stand up against tyranny, even if it's their ideological opponents who are suffering from it & not them.

This is actually my own personal position. Pro-2A means anti-tyranny, period.

BUT, there's then another problem: tyranny is always in the eye of the beholder. Like the 'rona, tyranny has to affect most people's own extended networks before they start to smell a real problem. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of whining.

A good example of how contested the definition of "tyranny" always is, is "cancel culture". Is there real illiberalism afoot on the left, or is it just some people whining that they don't get to say whatever they want with impunity?

The debate over cancel culture happening on the left is almost a mirror image of the debate over the unmarked federal agents happening in pro-gun, right, and libertarian circles. Is that real government tyranny, or is it just some ppl getting mad b/c they can't burn things?

At any rate, I am neither on the right nor a libertarian, but I am pro-gun so to the extent that I have a voice in that debate, I say this: what's going on right now smells to me like some flavor of tyranny. I am in the camp that doesn't like it, & thinks it's bad news.

If you're gonna pick people up for committing crimes, you'd better have a badge number visible & some departmental insignia, and most of all you'd better have probable cause. That's where I'm at on this, as a pro-2A person.

To my pro-gun friends who think this is not (yet) tyranny, it's just enforcing order: I believe you are in error, & dangerously so.

And to my lefty friends: YOUR error lies in your past, when you laid down your arms. When you did that...

you left yourselves at the mercy of someone ELSE's internal tyranny detector. So you're now in the position of looking at two different armed sets of opponents, & trying to start up a game of "let's you and him fight."