A conversation I had earlier today on Facebook:
Them: what is one right that stops the government from changing any right we have
Me: I don't know what you're talking about. Literally the entire structure of our government is designed to prevent that from happening in the first place
Them: "there is something that actually allows them to do it. but they can't because of a right we have."
Me: I cannot fathom what you think allows them to fundamentally change the structure of our government
Them: its with in the bill of rights i use to know it by heart.
Me: [does a recap of all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights] So where in that list does it allow the government to change our government system in order to explicitly deny the citizenry of their rights?
Them: i will look for it.
Me: That's literally the list of all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights
Them: its not in the constitution
Me: You told me that it's in the Bill of Rights. Where is it if it isn't there?
Them: like i said i will have to look for it.
Me: Pretty sure laws cannot supersede the BoR
Them: it was something that got past some where.
Me: Well, let me know when you find it
Them: i will [insert long pause here] but the one thing that the government fears when they do try to do it is the 2nd amendment. but if you restrict things to the point where you can only own a pistol there really isn't anything that stops them. except for whats already out there.
Them: it's an increasing possibility.
Me: I didn't realize that you drank so much of the kool-aid
Them: historically its happen. where people have rights similar to here along with the structure similar to the constitution. slowly those rights were being taken away or highly regulated. or completely stripped.
Me: Yeah, funny story: none of the gun owners stood up against it before. So why would it be any different now? Because I can tell you right now that when my family was forced into internment camps, there were no guys with guns there to protect them from the Big Bad Gub'ment
Them: it was conveyed as a threat to national security.
Me: Uh-huh. And NUMEROUS authorities said otherwise. There was NO EVIDENCE that there was any actual threat from the Japanese American community.
Them: "also sold as protection" the Germans where intern as well.
Me: Honey, don't try to pull that on me. Yes, Germans were put into camps, but they weren't systematically removed FROM THE ENTIRE WEST COAST
Them: because there wasn't a lot of them that were on the west coast.
Me: Honey, Germans are EVERYWHERE
Them: during that period of time. everyone we fought against during the war was in a camp at some point.
Me: So what you're saying is that because a few Germans were scooped up, some of whom WERE attempting espionage, the forcible relocation of over 100,000 persons of a specific ethnicity (none of whom were EVER tied to subversive activity) is justified?
Them: some people weren't even Germans or Italians it was racial profiling at it's finest. but people tried to stand up for not interning the races because a lot of them were born here. but they were thrown in there with them. alot of mixed race families and Philippians were thrown into camps as well.
Me: Also, over 80% of the Japanese Americans put into those internment camps were natural born US citizens and had never even been to Japan. I would like you to provide me with ANY evidence that there was protest outside of the Asian American community when persons of Japanese ancestry were interned.
Them: people still stood up for them. maybe not with guns but a voice. they probably didn't even make the paper.
Me: Prove it. If people gave even HALF a shit about their Japanese American neighbors being forced into government-sponsored internment camps in the middle of nowhere, USA, there would be some record of it.
So prove it.
I dare you.
At this point there was a solid 6-7 minutes with no response. I was still pretty heated about this, so I added:
How about this: you find that bit of legal documentation that you think allows the government to arbitrarily take away the rights of US citizens. Then you find proof that people were in any way vocal in protesting the Internment. After that, you can explain to me why you think that the historical precedent of guns NOT preventing the government from forcibly removing over a HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE from their homes proves that guns will save us from government overreach.
No rush. I can wait for you to find all the necessary information. Oh, and if you could please cite your sources, that would be great.
(This is the point where I really should have inserted a smiley emoji.)
They later provided me with a link to an article about the Governor of Colorado and how he “stood up” for the Japanese. I’ll give you some of the highlights below:
"Colorado’s governor was the only major political figure to oppose the internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor"
ONLY MAJOR POLITICAL FIGURE
There's literally ONE out of THOUSANDS
But thank GOD for Colorado's governor. Since, you know, Colorado has always played such an important role in national politics.
“He doesn’t stop what they call at the time concentration camps,” Hanson said. “He doesn’t take some moral stand where he says this is wrong and we will not allow this to happen. He says, ‘As a good American, if this is what the war effort requires, Colorado will do its duty.'”
Them: still looking for more examples but there were more people that opposed this. Also, orders are orders
Me: Uh-huh. That defense didn't exactly hold water at Nuremberg.
Them: battle or evac of the people?
Me: [provides link to US Holocaust Museum page on the Nuremberg Trials]
Them: random fact the jewish populations didn’t have rifles but they actually use to have them.
Needless to say, I have yet to receive a response.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why I am so. Very. Done. Stop cherry-picking “facts” and stop trying to change the topic when you realize that you are wrong. Just be wrong and acknowledge it. If you can’t do that, don’t talk to me. Seriously.