Politics And Current Events

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

You can tell she doesn’t believe a word of it either

[Pavel Bure]

Any of you anti-gun types starting to warm to the idea that a purpose (if not the main purpose) of the Second Amendment is so that the people can have guns to shoot politicians and overthrow a tyrannical government?

This is what people like you don’t get. Your pea-shooter means nothing against the military. You’re not defending yourself from tyrannical government. You just like your loud toys. It’s okay that you like them but to claim the 2nd amendment has any truth to defending from tyrannical government in present day is disingenuous.

It was written in a time when everyone had muskets. Now, if the government decides you’re a problem a sniper would pick you off before you could do anything or a drone. Heck you want to round up yourself and 10,000 of your buddies? You still have zero chance. It has zero present day application past wanting to keep your boom stick.

Or they'll just carpet bomb your whole neighborhood.

The best - I assert only - defense you have against a tyrant is not the gun(s) in your safe, it is the reluctance in the heart of a pilot that keeps them from dropping a 2,000-lb JDAM on the head of a fellow American at the whim of that tyrant.

Absolutely, a leader doesn’t become a tyrant without the support of the military. That’s why I’m saying all the 2nd amendment chest puffing is disingenuous. If this country truly crossed into tyranny there’s no amount of civilians that would stop the military.

[tifosi77]

It was written in a time when everyone had muskets.

The question isn't one of assymmetry, that has always existed in its way.

When the 2nd Amendment was drafted, debated, and ratified you were expected to bring your own weapon to militia muster. Statutory legislation after the Constitution was ratified bore this out, with mandates as to what equipment (specifically) you were expected to maintain for that militia service. It wasn't so much that 2A also protected weapons of war, it was that it only protected weapons of war, for that limited purpose.

When the military reorganized in the early 20th century, the structural need for that went away. The militia was formalized into the National Guard and the Army became a standardized permanent force, and citizens were no longer expected/required to maintain their own small arms for the purpose of their muster. It was really only after this shift that you started to see the notion of the "individual right" theory gain any traction.

[tifosi77]

Absolutely, a leader doesn’t become a tyrant without the support of the military. That’s why I’m saying all the 2nd amendment chest puffing is disingenuous. If this country truly crossed into tyranny there’s no amount of civilians that would stop the military.

There was a scene from a show not long ago - maybe The Crown - that talked about this, the necessity of active complicity from the military in doing some light coup-ing.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

I’ve never liked the “citizens would get destroyed by a tyrannical government” argument because it’s a tremendous oversimplification. Iraqis and the Taliban gave the US military hell without being overly technologically advanced. And I know they were particularly funded by Russia and other groups but you don’t think a China or Russia or a EU would fund an American resistance group?

also, while the US could bomb the **** out of a resistance group, it would be hugely unpopular and would be a bad military decision imo. So I can’t reasonably think of a scenario where the US would bomb its own soil

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

I’ve never liked the “citizens would get destroyed by a tyrannical government” argument because it’s a tremendous oversimplification. Iraqis and the Taliban gave the US military hell without being overly technologically advanced. And I know they were particularly funded by Russia and other groups but you don’t think a China or Russia or a EU would fund an American resistance group?

also, while the US could bomb the **** out of a resistance group, it would be hugely unpopular and would be a bad military decision imo. So I can’t reasonably think of a scenario where the US would bomb its own soil

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/ ... -1985-move

[Shyster]

It was written in a time when everyone had muskets. Now, if the government decides you’re a problem a sniper would pick you off before you could do anything or a drone. Heck you want to round up yourself and 10,000 of your buddies? You still have zero chance. It has zero present day application past wanting to keep your boom stick.

So I guess when Trump becomes dictator, you'll just paint a bullseye on your forehead to make it easier when Trump sends out the drones and snipers to kill all his political opponents.

[Kaiser]

I’ve never liked the “citizens would get destroyed by a tyrannical government” argument because it’s a tremendous oversimplification. Iraqis and the Taliban gave the US military hell without being overly technologically advanced. And I know they were particularly funded by Russia and other groups but you don’t think a China or Russia or a EU would fund an American resistance group?

also, while the US could bomb the **** out of a resistance group, it would be hugely unpopular and would be a bad military decision imo. So I can’t reasonably think of a scenario where the US would bomb its own soil

I can't see how swordbombing some redneck nazis on their way to make the south rise again would be that unpopular.

[tifosi77]

Popular opinion is something tyrants are famously reluctant to test.

[meow]

I keep guns in my home because I am 43 times more likely to a kill a family member, friend or acquaintance and 22 times more likely to kill myself than to kill an intruder. guns keep me safe

[faftorial]

You strike me as someone who has a gun slip in your pillow case.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

he does but he doesn’t store a gun in it…

[King Colby]

I keep guns in my home because I am 43 times more likely to a kill a family member, friend or acquaintance and 22 times more likely to kill myself than to kill an intruder. guns keep me safe

Guns don't shoot themselves

[Pavel Bure]

It was written in a time when everyone had muskets. Now, if the government decides you’re a problem a sniper would pick you off before you could do anything or a drone. Heck you want to round up yourself and 10,000 of your buddies? You still have zero chance. It has zero present day application past wanting to keep your boom stick.

So I guess when Trump becomes dictator, you'll just paint a bullseye on your forehead to make it easier when Trump sends out the drones and snipers to kill all his political opponents.

What are you getting at here? If the military backs a tyrant me having a snub nose isn’t going to stop any concentrated force against the citizens. How is/are your gun… sorry I meant guns going to stand up to a drone? Wait smaller, a Bradley… no smaller, a Humvee with a grenade launcher or mini gun? Heck, how are you going to sleep?

It’s a fantasy to think you having a gun will help in defending yourself against any true government tyranny.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

You could argue that if the Move On folks didn't have guns they'd have been peacefully arrested instead of having a bomb dropped on their heads and burning to death.

[mac5155]

Anyone able to digest this newest round of student loan forgiveness? I'm in the mood for a government handout.

[faftorial]

Anyone able to digest this newest round of student loan forgiveness? I'm in the mood for a government handout.

You didn't get relief today?

What criteria was used.

[MWB]

For a borrower to be eligible for this forgiveness they must be enrolled in the SAVE Plan, have been making at least 10 years of payments, and have originally taken out $12,000 or less for college. For every $1,000 borrowed above $12,000, a borrower can receive forgiveness after an additional year of payments.

[Dickie Dunn]

Ah yes, that's who needs student loan forgiveness, those who took out $12,000 or less.

[mac5155]

I'm debating on getting on the SAVE plan.

Do the covid forbearance years count towards the 20 needed for loan forgiveness?

I've been making payments since 2010. The full, monthly payment. Not an IDR plan etc. I'm at 50% paid off.

[MWB]

For PSLF loans all the covid months counted towards forgiveness.

[nocera]

I just had to resubmit my PSLF for a new tally. I have 4 more months and then I’ll get full forgiveness. I’m trying to not get my hopes up and keep myself in the “I’ll believe it when I see it” mindset but I can’t express how life changing that would be.

[Pavel Bure]

Ah yes, that's who needs student loan forgiveness, those who took out $12,000 or less.

Actually it is. The majority of those in this range started but didn’t finish college and many of those in this range are at high risk of default.

[MWB]

I just had to resubmit my PSLF for a new tally. I have 4 more months and then I’ll get full forgiveness. I’m trying to not get my hopes up and keep myself in the “I’ll believe it when I see it” mindset but I can’t express how life changing that would be.

There’s a good Facebook group that has been helpful with PSLF stuff. I’d give the name of it but apparently it’s having some issue right now and has disappeared from fb.

[dodint]

r/pslf is a rare useful sub.