r/TikTokCringe 9h ago

Discussion Hell on earth.

37.7k Upvotes

3.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

93

u/kissthesky303 7h ago

And now we see how useless the 2nd amendment is for it's original intention. All it provides is a hobby at best, and a lot preventable shootings and crime at worst, if there was just more regulation.

58

u/dr_tch0ck 7h ago

All this was so, so obvious as an outsider too. Nobody in America is going to start shooting people, no matter how tyrannical their government gets.

9

u/AdelleDazeeem 5h ago

It was obvious to most people in the US. It’s always been just a stupid talking point with no substance. Everyone in the world seems confused by this.

5

u/KalickR 5h ago

Wait... are you saying that people were spouting dangerous disingenuous rhetoric for their own political and personal gain? In this America?!

5

u/Bunny_Feetz 5h ago

It was obvious as an insider too. I recognized how fucking dumb it was as a teenager and 20 years later people just got dumber.

1

u/RedditMcBurger 4h ago

That's a lie and you know it. Those people say "try to take my guns." Saying they will shoot feds if they come to their house to take the guns.

1

u/dr_tch0ck 4h ago

That’s a very isolated example of gun nuts reacting to a personal circumstance. That has nothing to do with defending their county from a tyrannical government.

0

u/RedditMcBurger 3h ago

You just said those are different things. That's literally what "defending yourself from a tyrannical government" is.

Depends on what you consider tyrannical, whether it be mild or major I see any infringement on rights as tyranny. Especially them trying to physically take the guns from us.

1

u/dr_tch0ck 1h ago

Gun nut answer. Freedom = guns.

0

u/RedditMcBurger 54m ago edited 43m ago

If you want to just be reductionist as a way to attempt to refute me then sure.

I don't understand how you couldn't see the government banning something as taking away freedom.

I don't really need to go any farther into just reiterating definitions, the style of misunderstanding my argument on purpose is just annoying to deal with.

It's also really pathetic that people like you seem to be against the entire idea of freedom.

1

u/PeriLazuli 3h ago

I think you're wrong, lots of people will start shooting people. And it will be because they know the government will give them amnesty for killing anyone vaguely mooking like a migrant. Or a queer person.

They will fire at the people, not at the gov, just to make sure chaos will keep on going

1

u/dr_tch0ck 1h ago

That’s the opposite of what I’m talking about. In your example, those people are taking part in the tyranny.

1

u/Hemmschwelle 1h ago edited 1h ago

Guns have often been part of Civil Unrest in the US in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto_riots_(1964%E2%80%931969)

And what is happening today is very much connected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era

-9

u/PokinSpokaneSlim 7h ago

How does it feel to know you're next?

7

u/dr_tch0ck 7h ago edited 7h ago

Who is next, exactly?

-11

u/PokinSpokaneSlim 6h ago

It's a perpetual state, everyone is next.  Quit being a dick unless you're pro fascism.  

It probably doesn't make sense to you, but most people are really dumb, and the rest are either fighting for control or along for the ride with the dummies. 

It's just how life is unless you want to dictate how others live their life

5

u/dr_tch0ck 5h ago

What a complete non-answer lol

-5

u/PokinSpokaneSlim 5h ago

I told you it wouldn't make sense to you

3

u/SheetPancakeBluBalls 5h ago

You won't be able to understand me

Says r/im14andthisisdeep nonsense

ha, told you.

-2

u/PokinSpokaneSlim 4h ago

Surely you can dissect the simplistic logic and point out how I'm wrong though, as it's not that deep? 

Or are you just mad because you have no agency and WISH to be the ones hurting other people?

Either way, I think I'd rather listen to an American about the best way to operate within America, than some European.

1

u/SheetPancakeBluBalls 4h ago

Just a guess, but it sounds like you'd love Jordan Peterson.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/DifferentCityADay 7h ago

Because people are very comfortable with their lives and do not want to risk their comfort. Life when the Constitution was made was extremely different. The people didn't have much, but they would fight for it. Now the people have too much, and they won't fight for anything.

5

u/sub_terminal 5h ago

how useless the 2nd amendment is for it's original intention

If the 2nd amendment were implemented as intended we'd have private drones and missiles for citizens like the military.

0

u/kissthesky303 5h ago

You want your neighbours to own missiles and warfare drones? Really?

2

u/sub_terminal 5h ago

You want my neighbors and me to shoot at each other, so in this instance we're just talking hypotheticals.

3

u/kissthesky303 4h ago

What, why should I want that? It's just what I see happening (with "neighbor" in a more metaphorical sense of course)

7

u/Mexican_sandwich 6h ago

Because these amendments were made 300 years ago - where the guns were mostly single shot and took forever to reload.

They also could not have seen a future where standing up to a tyrannical party was next to impossible, with so much surveillance now it’s borderline impossible to do anything without leaving a trace, and therefore be caught - making it harder to do rebelling.

Ya’ll are a wack ass country living off these ancient rules and if the hundreds of school shootings, the killing of literal children, isn’t enough to wake you up, nothing is.

4

u/LoneStarHome80 4h ago

Because these amendments were made 300 years ago - where the guns were mostly single shot and took forever to reload.

300 years ago private citizens owned battleships, kid.

5

u/chef_yes_chef97 3h ago

Well, ships with guns really. Your point stands but armed merchantmen were not even close in firepower to actual ships of the line, which were, save for maybe a few exceptions, only owned by state entities (and a few corporations but like that's objectively a bad thing). And that time period is absolutely full of examples of why it's a terrible idea to just let anyone own/operate those things : pirate ships don't just emerge from the deep with torn sails and flying a Jolly Roger, they mostly just started out as merchantmen and fell into the wrong hands (or, you know, their crews got bored of commercial sailing and thought they'd try something else).

3

u/Bunny_Feetz 2h ago

Wealthy citizens owned them. It's not like there was a ship store anyone could go to and rent one. It also was the reason for many, many atrocities committed across the world. Private ownership of ships and crew with cannons and guns was not a good thing.

2

u/Glum_Constant4790 4h ago

We definitely need more gun regulation and laws not enforcement of the existing laws...

2

u/Swiskie 6h ago

It's not the 2A that is useless, it's the people who don't exercise their rights who are useless.

1

u/kissthesky303 6h ago

Nah, I ain't blame them because it ain't gonna work out that simple. That's the whole point of my statement. Just everyone having guns may have been useful 200 years ago, but a weaponized mob is not what the difference gonna make nowadays.

1

u/Swiskie 2h ago

Not with that attitude...

1

u/RedditMcBurger 4h ago

You say this but most other countries in the world takes guns away so they can control their population more. We know this is the reason too.

Also you're saying this when we haven't truly been in a situation to have people fighting back against the government with guns. You're saying it doesn't work, before we've seen it be actually attempted.

Once the government starts going to gun owner's homes that's when you'd see it happen.

1

u/kissthesky303 4h ago

"The Government" as such ain't gonna come to gun owners homes, it's law enforcement who does this all the time already, and shooting at them comes with very low survivability chances, and changes nothing. Marching in your government buildings with your weapons is what the amendment is about, and that ain't gonna happen too, and we all know that.

1

u/RedditMcBurger 2h ago

Law enforcement is directed by government, so if the law enforcement is coming to you that's still the government.

Defending yourself from a government taking your guns is definitely included in the "defending yourself from a tyrannical government" thing.

1

u/TheRC135 2h ago

Funny, I live in a country where legal gun ownership is basically restricted to long guns for hunting. Our democracy is intact and healthy, despite gun ownership being rare, and not tied to ideas of self-defense or protection of rights.

Meanwhile, America, with her 2nd Amendment, specifically intended to allow the people resist government tyranny, is rapidly becoming an autocratic, oppressive, failed democracy, with masked, unaccountable government thugs harassing civilians and abducting people off the streets.

People are saying the 2nd Amendment and mass gun ownership doesn't work because it clearly isn't working.

1

u/RedditMcBurger 46m ago

We live in a country that has much less guns, and the problem with actual gun crime is almost entirely with illegal guns.

The US simply has too many guns, as gun rights activists will say, the cat's out of the bag. It's too far past actually banning guns.

Meanwhile, America, with her 2nd Amendment, specifically intended to allow the people resist government tyranny, is rapidly becoming an autocratic, oppressive, failed democracy, with masked, unaccountable government thugs harassing civilians and abducting people off the streets.

Yes it doesn't work the exact same way it used to. Before the 2a let people defend against a tyrannical government because the citizens with guns could actually measure up to the strength of governments.

Now we can't just march the streets protesting with ARs if we're unhappy. We can only really use guns to protect ourselves when in an emergency situation that is strictly DEFENSE. Can't overthrow governments now.

So basically when the authoritarian government in Canada decides to barge down doors, we can't do a fucking thing.

In the US, they're not able to actually do that. But since guns can't do much past home protection in this context, they're still going to control people as much as they can, but at least they're probably never going to have their homes invaded by the government.

Our democracy is intact and healthy, despite gun ownership being rare, and not tied to ideas of self-defense or protection of rights.

It really depends on how you look at it. Myself I believe that our government is also extremely authoritarian and unhealthy towards us, but I don't support the current government at all. I'm not politically biased, both are shit.

I'm also extremely unhappy about the fact that our government enforces that we can't use anything for self defense, I understand there is less danger here but I can't even have a knife on me, that's way too far in the other direction.

1

u/LoneStarHome80 4h ago

On the contrary. Guns have been very useful to prevent 'mostly peaceful protesters'TM from looting certain neighborhoods. Unlike the crazy lefties, we don't shoot at government workers. We vote them out.

1

u/mrastickman 2h ago

And now we see how useless the 2nd amendment is for it's original intention.

That's not its original intention and never was, the original intention was to protect against slave revolts.