Is this not the reason the second amendment exists? Regards An Australian Edit: I’m not advocating for violence. More so “a well regulated militia” which could be established by protesters or Democratic Governors for genuine self defence.
Can’t tell if this is a sarcastic question or not but opposing the government with guns is a delusion held by conservatives who think their AR-15s have a chance against a government with drones, tanks, etc. That belief was true when the Bill of Rights was written and the military just had muskets and a couple cannons but anyone who believes that now is insane
Plus, our police shoot unarmed people and get away with it, what do you think is gonna happen if they see you open carrying?
what do you think is gonna happen if they see you open carrying?
Well, at the school shooting in Uvalde, they were quick on the scene but waited 77 minutes to do anything since there was someone with a gun inside. So, cowering away might be an option.
Not just waited, prevented others from taking action.
Even when the government just had a couple cannons, Shay’s Rebellion didn’t exactly go great.
That being said, guns aren’t just used for open rebellion. The Panthers sure made it tough for a cop to feel like a big man just because he had a gun. If we want to examine when things get really bad, simply look at partisan resistance to the Nazis all throughout WWII.
Yes, an AR-15 won’t beat an F-16. But F-16s aren’t the ones goosestepping brown people into camps right now.
I never understood this dumb argument from anti-2a people. We, the strongest military to have ever existed in the history of the world…lost Vietnam, lost iraq, lost Afghanistan, and tied in Korea.
Planes can’t patrol street corners. You need boots and they need to be willing to kill their countrymen and be doing it for a paycheck.
lost Vietnam, lost iraq, lost Afghanistan, and tied in Korea.
But we’re not talking about Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
In many of these cases, the people in these countries had experience living under unimaginably harsh colonial rule, and understood that that was what was in store for them if they lost. Guerilla warfare is hell, especially for the side of the guerillas. It’s very rare that anyone chooses that route unless they have no other choice. Also, there was generally a more unified culture and a clarity of vision for what they were fighting for.
You take a random sample of 100 Americans, at least a third will actively support the enemy side and sell you out. Of those who aren’t opposed, a lot will be able to just keep their heads down and go about their lives, coming home to play video games and jerk off for as long as they have that option. Of those willing to get involved, many will limit their opposition to nonviolence and whatever form of protest the state permits. So now you’ve got, like, three people who are actually willing to fight and not just go home at the first sign of danger, and those three people probably hate each other for subscribing to slightly different ideologies which have different takes on events from 100 years ago.
Contrast that with a random sample of 100 Vietnamese at the time of the war. There’s no comparison.
Are you suggesting that people have to live under harsh conditions to fight back? It surely helps, but go read about the french or polish during WWII before you think that a group needs to be oppressed for years and years.
Hell look at Ukraine and how it’s civilians stepped up.
I’m not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that there are major differences between a modern day American and a Vietnamese person during the war, which makes comparisons difficult. It’s just a bit of a pet peeve when people are like, “We’ll just do a guerilla war, no biggie, worked loads of times.” Sure, it can be an effective tactic, but you have to understand why it was effective in certain cases and what that entailed.
I don’t believe the US left has much of a chance of winning a domestic military conflict, looking at the material conditions and the present level of organization, discipline, and training (or lack thereof). If we end up being forced to fight then we can hope for the best, and preparing for the possibility is a worthwhile endeavor. But don’t think that just because guerilla tactics exist that it’s trivial to employ them.
We “lost” those wars because of morale. Like especially in Vietnam we were destroying them in terms of kill death ratios and the Vietcong had been mostly eliminated by 1969. Also Vietnam wasn’t just a bunch of farmers with hunting rifles the NVA was being funded and trained by the USSR and China. By the end of the war Vietnam lost around 20x the people and their population had been poisoned with agent orange.
We also didn’t use our nukes, if the military through enough brainwashing and propaganda could be convinced that these protesters are an insider threat we could easily be looking at the deaths of 10-100s of thousands
Arguably the morale was because we were fighting enemies we didn’t know how to fight, nor did we have a way to respond to tactics they used.
We went into all those wars with overwhelming firepower, which caused the opposition to resort to pure guerrilla tactics. In Vietnam, they faced Chinese and USSR pilots in the air - which did not go as planned. We stomped the shit out of the Iraq army, but Saddam was holding the 3 opposing factions in check. When they splintered and became guerrillas they fought with suicide bombers. Same in Afghanistan. They waged a psychological war where the enemy was everywhere and nowhere.
I have specific story about the Korean war too. At the time in Korea, the US war machine couldn’t break through the Chinese supplied artillery and forces. They actually had forward air bases (extremely well guarded) have several occurrences where they got Intel they were targets of a North Korean force, and the air force servicemen, most of who were various technicians, mechanics, and logistics get fully prepared to meet infantry head on. (My grandpa explained that they weren’t even that close to North Korean territory, and when they scrambled all available jets at their base, he recalls him and even his superiors being shook.). They got helmets, a choice of an M1911A1 or an M1, and a few clips of ammo. Most of them took the handgun since it was the only one they remembered how to operate. He doesn’t remember how long they were in that defensive position, but apparently the North Koreans changed targets a few miles out and went elsewhere. He said back then, at 6’4" him and all the other tall guys were always at the forward bases, probably to make the south Koreans feel safer and scare the North Koreans abit.
Toward Vietnam, at the end of his contract, they approached him and a group of 8 others for air commando training. He said fuck no, 5 said sure. 1 came back, and the last time my granpa talked with him they still hadn’t recovered their bodies (who knows when that was).
No we lost those wars because you can’t occupy a group of people who are armed and don’t want to be occupied.
All 4 of those wars, the people didn’t speak our language, look like us or dress like us. The fuck you think is gonna happen when the military starts shooting civs here who look like them, talk like them and basically are them. You will get a fractured military and probably a coup. You will get gorilla cells popping up supporting the sides the align with.
The worlds greatest military can’t fight it’s own people. Period.
Gaza had/has weapons and doesn’t want to be occupied how is that working out for them?
In Cambodia the people looked like them, dressed like them, and were them. They were still put into some of the worst torture camps in history and approximately 1/4 of their population was killed…
That’s why they don’t start by attacking everyone they start by dehumanizing people, like they have been with “the illegals”, then you make them a scapegoat for all your problems. Then a radical terrorist network appears who is helping the undesirables that has loose ties so just about anyone can be labeled a terrorist (in this case it’s Antifa). Then you start provoking violence against this group, that’s where we are today in the United states.
Then either real violence happens or a frame job happens and the military has to intervene and a group of protesters get killed. Then special missions have to happen to take out the so called leaders of this terrorist group that somehow happen to involve a bunch of politicians and people critical of the party, then you can make a special task force whose job is it to deal with these troublemakers that you recruit for on a volunteer basis so you get only the most extreme and loyal soldiers and use them to continue further oppressing.
I could keep going but honestly choose any history textbook and it could summarize it, the point is they don’t tell the military to shoot unarmed protesters on day one and by the time they do the military will not just do it but they will go even further than directed as can be seen in Nazi germany, pol pots Cambodia, and is in progress in Gaza
Gaza was not armed at all, no clue where you got that from hamas has weapons but the citizens are banned from owning firearms.
Pol pot and Cambodia…banned and confiscated civilian arms. Not hard to commit genocide when literally no one but your side is armed.
Nazi Germany with the jewish population…disarmed and sent to camps to be slaughtered.
Seeing any…links here?
And republicans would never attempt to take guns away from liberals
We “lost” those wars because of morale.
Yeah, that’s how every war is lost. A war is won when the other side is no longer willing and able to take up arms against you, to achieve victory, you can remove their ability to take up arms (killing or imprisoning, for example), but the bulk of warfare is about removing the enemy’s willingness to keep fighting.
Like, if you occupy an enemy trench, chances are you didn’t kill everyone in the trench, you just removed the enemy’s willingness to keep holding that position, convincing them to retreat or surrender. Virtually every war that has ever been lost in history has been “lost because of morale.”
Putting “lost” in quotes regarding Vietnam is absolutely fucking insane. “Kill death ratios” don’t matter, this isn’t fucking Call of Duty. Murdering all those civilians helped convince the Vietnamese that there was no future for them if they lost or surrendered, it put their backs against the wall and ensured that breaking their willingness to fight was virtually impossible. If the US deployed nukes, then it would become even more clear that there was no future for them as a colony, and the US would have to exterminate the entire country. And if they tried to exterminate the entire country with nukes (not that they were at all restrained as it was), they would have faced even more backlash, domestically and internationally, which, guess what, are also valid theaters of war.
I stg the hoops people will jump through to maintain this chauvinism and be like “America never loses” is absolutely insane. People have such ridiculous brainworms over Vietnam. You lost. No quotes, you just lost. Get over it.
Kill death ratios absolutely matter… you had one country that was essentially unphased economically, manpower wise, and their territory was untouched and another that lost a sizable portion of their male population, had their citizens with long term genetic injuries, and a bunch of their land made unusable.
The NVA got nothing from the United states and their long term goal of spreading communism failed.
The way a war is won is by achieving your military goals the NVA was unable to defeat the U.S. military. In a Pyrrhic victory one side wins at a great expense, that’s still not what happened
the U.S. was up by 10 and took their ball and went home because the other team wanted to keep playing late into the night
The U.S. isn’t the good guy that people want to win it’s acknowledging that the professional sports team beat a group of 15 year olds. Nobody is bragging how great the U.S. is, if anything it’s more evidence for how much of a dick the U.S. was (and still is)
The NVA got nothing from the United states and their long term goal of spreading communism failed.
What utter nonsense.
The NVA got the entire territory of Vietnam from the US, they won the freedom of their people, which is the whole thing they were fighting for. The idea that they wanted to militarily expand and take over the world was always just American propaganda, like every conflict ever, they needed to evoke the Hitler comparison and pretend that “if we don’t fight them now, they’ll keep expanding until we have to fight them.” They’ve said this about virtually everyone they’ve fought or opposed since WWII and it’s basically never been true.
Vietnam has done, and is still doing much better than they would have if they had surrendered and remained a colony.
I don’t even know how it’s possible to reason with someone who thinks war operates on some kind of point based-system like a fucking video game. Jesus Christ. How are Americans still like this over Vietnam? Will people ever be normal about it?
They weren’t an American colony they had won their independence in 1945. The U.S. vs north Vietnamese conflict ended with the Vietnamese getting nothing, after the U.S. left the north Vietnamese were able to defeat the South Vietnamese but South Vietnam wasn’t owned by America…
I’m not sure where you learned anything about world history but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened
From Vietnam being a colony To any concern about Vietnam taking over the world
You do realize video games use things that exist in the real world right? Like if I talk about how important goals are in soccer you do know that is because that’s how soccer works and it’s not just because that’s how you win in fifa?
Planes can’t patrol street corners
Sure, but tanks/armored vehicles can, and police absolutely use those
Yes because that worked so well in Afghanistan…or Iraq
As a European I wonder this too. Like they are ultimately human (ICE) so they’d think (I mean they have at least survival brain functions) twice if they can “arrest”/harass someone with a gun vs someone without one.
Right?
Also yeah we hear so fucking much about your sEcOnD aMeNdMeNt we probably believe some of it.
Cheers and good luck!
they’d think (I mean they have at least survival brain functions) twice
No. Survival brain means that they think only once, and that thought is “eliminate the threat”. This is their training. You turn to face them, you are suddenly a threat. You scratch your nose and drop your hand back down to your side the holster is on, you are suddenly a threat “I thought they had a gun” / “I feared for my life” is probably the most invoked excuse for police killings in America.
This is how you get killed for carrying a candy bar (esp if you’re a brown person)
Or a hairbrush
they are ultimately human (ICE)Debatable
Dont dehumanize the enemy
Exploit human weaknesses instead
They’re nazis, not humans.
Othering seems like a kinda Nazi thing to do…
If you treat them as fundamentally different, you’re not gonna spot it when the same attitudes start appearing within your in-group. Monsters are still human, we all gotta work to keep that in check.
Othering seems like a kinda Nazi thing to do…
It’s what they deserve. Tolerance is a social contract, not a “paradox.” You reject it, you’re not protected by it anymore.
I agree that it’s a contact. But Nazism is a ideology that any human can hold, and that any human can stop holding.
(if they refuse to stop holding it, then go nuts).
I can guarantee you that none of these Nazis would want to give up their beliefs.
No one is saying we should tolerate the behavior of these humans. Their behavior is vile. It needs to stop.
No-one is asking you to tolerate Nazism. You can resist it without pretending that Nazis are inhuman.
It’s dangerous in two ways:
- Nazis are inhuman, and my friend Jim is human so he can’t be a Nazi.
- Nazis are inhuman, you have something in common with Nazis, so you’re not human.
I see a difference between othering based on actions and decisions, displaying solid viewpoints on human empathy or lack thereof, rather than othering based on race, country of origin, religion, sexuality, or other circumstances of identity beyond an individual’s control.
Agree. See my other reply in the thread
The 2nd Amendment actually references, in its singular sentence, very specifically, that it is regarding a regulated militia, not just everyone.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Those first four words are always left out when the gun nuts talk about it. Without those 4 words, it fundamentally changes the meaning.
I can almost guarantee those words do not think what you think they mean. Regulated in this context means well armed.
No it doesn’t. The founders literally talk about it in their federalist letters. They just finished fighting a war with mainly private arms. They absolutely wanted everyone to be armed and have the right to choose so.
It’s odd that the anti-2a crowd seems to understand the wording of all other amendments, but the 2nd they just seem to think the founders fucked the wording up.
No where does it say, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms and magically ignores the people part
I mean… It literally does. It’s the first 4 words, that the rest of the sentence is in reference to. That’s how English works.
There was no professional United States military at the time, the militia was the functional military, so yes it was referencing private arms, only because those formed the well regulated militia. Not every bumble fuck with a pulse.
Literally the guys who wrote the constitution, were the ones discussing it in the federalist papers. The right of the people, not the militia… English that’s how it works.
The argument that somehow the founders fucked up the wording is pretty damn recent, and it’s driven by anti-2a gun control groups. The bill of rights is a list of rights for the people, not a list of rights for a militia or any other group. The people…
It’s kind of neat how wrong you got it.
It means that having a state-level military is important to the security of states, so the federal government will not ban the ownership of private firearms. States could and did ban private ownership of firearms early on. Some states did not.
While overall I agree the idea was for a state level militia… the members of the militia weren’t full time. It was made up of regular people who trained in thier spare time… probably winter or something since many were farmers. So I do think the intent was to protect the right of the militia members to keep guns at home. The national guard would be a similar concept. Except while it is state run, it can be federalized. And that is the issue. The state has no true troops of it’s own. This is why I support reasonable licensing requirements and regulation, but not a complete ban. The people have a right to armed resistance. But it is supposed to be organized.
The American police strike me as the type who cannot take what they’re dishing out. Like if you pull a gun on them and prove you are more dangerous than they are they’d probably start crying.
Right. That’s why they overreact to everything, and bring old military equipment on swat raids.
They’re much more likely to panic and drive an APC through the crowd or return fire on a mostly unarmed crowd using automatic weapons.
Just ask yourself, “what has Israel done recently?” and remember that US police train with them.
Plus, our police shoot unarmed people and get away with it, what do you think is gonna happen if they see you open carrying?
If they’re already shooting people when they’re unarmed what more can they do if people are armed? Shoot them twice?
If you’re going to get shot anyway you may as well shoot them back.
Can you name me the last war that America won against a committed population armed with small arms?
I can’t. Because it’s never happened.
Fighting guerilla forces on foreign land is a completely different context
Why? If the population here was as committed as a population overseas I hardly see what the difference is, besides the fact that Americans are way better armed.
A military fighting on their own soil is going to be much stronger infrastructure- and intelligence-wise vs. if they’re fighting on foreign soil
I mean you know that literally all of those wars had collaborators. Entire collaborationist states, in large part. It didn’t help South Vietnam.
Americans are stupid enough to have put all their personal information into facebook and wouldn’t know how to organize without a billionaire fascist’s big brother app.
Look up what happened to the Black Panther Party (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party).
If people showed up organized and armed, the Federal government would be more than happy to use under the table tactics to make sure we’d never see our families again.
With that being said, I wouldn’t be surprise if people are armed but just not being public about it. Armed protestors are usually the nuclear option for any movement, but it’s good to have that unspoken option on the table behind the scenes.
Yeah I’m familiar with what happened there. I was thinking more so of Democratic states where the Governor is resisting ICE and would be somewhat supportive of this.
This, why would a given group of protestors all open carry? I’d expect a mass of conceal-carried weapons, though.
I’ll give you a real answer instead of all of these other dork ass answers.
First, there aren’t enough of us to do so.
Second, you really haven’t thought through the repercussions of open carrying. Which relates to the first reason.
Open carrying puts a huge target on you. You need lots and lots of people to remain “safe”. And you won’t be safe. What are you going to do, shoot an ice agent if they try to arrest you? If that’s your goal, why open carry? Do you think that the government here is going to suddenly follow constitutional law around a citizens right to bear arms? As they’re literally illegally arresting people?
Sooner or later the amount of guns in this country is going to catch up to the ruling class but it’s not going to be at a protest.
I live in a city that’s half black, in one of several gayborhoods. I keep wondering when black and pink panthers will form and start patrolling. Probably when we get hit with our first localized stochastic terrorism incident. There’s a rainbow crosswalk that rednecks love to come do burnouts on. Tensions run high with highly conservative MAGA folks dominating the rural areas just miles from our very flammable houses with rainbow flags.
But you know what happens when the panthers start patrolling? Suddenly, gun control.
Our cops wouldn’t arrest them but the feds would probably escalate it. I am not sure how it’d play out today.
There’s a reason they’re trying their damndest to provoke people into a shooting match but:
Yes.
However, the idea was created in mind so that everyone could be armed in case this very thing happened to occur BUT did not take into consideration advancement in technology, and the ability of the federal government to restrict arms.
Based on the photos I’ve seen, the feds are wearing plate carriers - level IV body armor, designed to stop a .30-06 round. If it’s level 3, it’s gonna stop .223 (Ar-15).
Very few citizens have automatic weapons. You can’t own an RPG without the the right documents. Explosive manufacturing is dangerous, and difficult.
You can’t match federal firepower with the second amendment.
The feds are currently using coward tactics. They are kidnapping people who can’t afford decent housing, let alone smartphones. They go in fast, kidnap everyone, and get out. Even with armed people, they wouldn’t be able to respond fast enough.
That’s why all of us Americans can quickly tell when someone is just trying to start shit when they get angry online…
There are ways to fight back. But they require patience, communication, planning, subterfuge, and more importantly OPSEC. Otherwise the regime just slaughters everyone like they want to.
That’s why all of us Americans can quickly tell when someone is just trying to start shit when they get angry online…
There are ways to fight back. But they require patience, communication, planning, subterfuge, and more importantly OPSEC. Otherwise the regime just slaughters everyone like they want to.
Louder for the motherfuckers in the back!
There are so many fucking people online upset about this shit that amount to not much more than hot air. Chasing the perfect to the detriment of the good. Purity tests. Arguing for blatantly impossible courses of action, or at least ones that will nevet get enough buy in from the greater population to work. Sitting on their asses getting angry while worshipping some half-cocked idea of open revolution, full overthow of the government, and dissolution of the capitalist economic framework… without ever evaluating how the fuck the world could even get to that state except “magic unspecific mass violent revolution”, “complete apocalypse scenario then rebuild”, or “if we all wish upon a star really hard, all the bad people will have simultaneous fatal anuerysms”. Not to mention how the fuck could that state ever be maintained afterwards.
If it’s not outright impossible, it will require an astronomical amount of prep and planning. None of this is shit that just “happens” through sheer desire or will without slow supportive action to build what is neccessary.
People getting their emotional catharsis ranting, venting, and shit stirring without taking any true action. Stirring other people up into the same state.
Get offline, get involved locally, become an expert on the spaces and people around you. Form local connections. Accept that you aren’t an action hero, and if the US military is turned on you, as a civilian you cannot win through force. Build relevant skills for a crisis. Build relevant skills for ongoing resistance. Build skills for organizing locally and securely.
Most importantly: Shut the absolute fuck up. Just shut the fuck up. As far as it’s within your power, don’t make yourself a target and blend in.
I’m already not a good example, as my OPSEC on this account is abysmal. I take solace in that none of my plans or actions involve abject resistance, and are all local good type shit.
Abject resistance is important. Connections are important. Communication is important. Logistics are important. Leave the fighting to the fighters. We’re not fremen. We didn’t live our whole lives to become death commandos.
Having a Lemmy account at all is bad OPSEC. Gotta have active accounts on state-approved social media for that.
That’s why all of us Americans can quickly tell when someone is just trying to start shit when they get angry online…
The abysmal state of your union somewhat belies your stated ability to “tell when someone is just trying to start shit”. Someone started shit quite some time ago, friend. They continue to do so and I don’t see any evidence that the body politic is even remotely aware.
I’m just saying the American shit detection algorithm might not be as sophisticated as you’re making it out to be.
TLDR: “This is why we can’t stop nazis, because I’m a chicken and I’m repeating nonsense”
We outnumber them thousands to one. How is their armor going to protect them when their tires are slashed, and they have to walk 30mi through downtown? It’s not.
“But they can kill a hundred people with their awful nazi guns!”
Fuck you, you chickenshit nazi propaganda spewing coward. Nothing can save nazis against their sociopathically bad planning.
Alright, I encourage you to lead by example and tell me how it goes.
We outnumber them thousands to one.
Only when we show up. Most videos of kidnappings I’ve seen it’s maybe a dozen citizens vs a dozen or slightly fewer agents. It needs to be more like 10 to 1 to properly discourage or defend their attacks without an all out assault.
Because the White House is looking for an excuse to have the military start slaughtering civilians and imprisoning democrats. A general strike is what we need to do
At a certain point we have to fight back.
The argument of “we can’t respond to their violence with violence or they will become more violent” doesn’t hold water when they are getting increasingly violent anyway.
It’s a coward’s fallacy
I do understand your point but the military was told to attack and commit war crimes on American civilians so I just think that a general strike would be the most effective strategy in the situation we currently face. That’s just my opinion on the approach that would be the most efficient at this time.
It’s the most powerful tool in our arsenal. And it’s just sitting right at our feet. But we just won’t pick it up. I don’t get it.
General strike now.
Once 11mil more strike cards are filled out it begins.
Otherwise we are waiting until 2028 when the Auto Workers Union starts their planned general strike
I will keep trying but I have very little faith in my fellow countrymen
Italy made it happen today with no preparation
Italy has massive nation wide unions (syndicates) and these strikes had more participation than any other in recent years. They exist today because of huge support for communists in the WW2 aftermath. I don’t think the US has anything of the sorts
No I think McCarthyism was detrimental to our unions
They didn’t grow up isolated in a country 50x the size of Italy with a completely different system of values and it isn’t legal for their newspapers and government to use propaganda against them.
Tbh i don’t even think half the country knows what a strike is, let alone has class consciousness
If you feel like participating you can go fill out a strike card.
The working people of italia are all joined by a single piece of spaghetti
it isnt legal for their newspapers and govt to use propaganda against them and a different system of values
I’m sorry, what?
Mussolini’s grandchild literally represents Italy in the European Parliament, you’re pretending america is some special fascist wonderland, when it’s just a culture built on dispossession, which plenty of Italians have migrated to, contributed to, and benefitted from
I’ll give you one thing, Italy has a much higher union density than the usa (30% compared to 10%), i know for a fact it’s near impossible to get younger folk in a settler nation to join a union
anyway whatever, watching a bunch of yanks suddenly start up with has anyone thought about a general strike? will never not give me a laugh
join your union, read Lenin, start exercising
.ml
Blocked
I was once on a train in Italy and the train had a wildcat strike. It was just that train and only in that one location. Everyone on the train was resigned, because it’s part of the culture.
Italy has had a long history of radical communist and anarchists, actually having political status and pushing back continuously. Here we are, trying to make it part of our own local cultures. There’s a lot of work to do.
We may reach that point.
We should try a general strike first. We don’t even need to combine it with protests. We just have everyone stay home and refuse to work. You can fight the government by playing old video games or watching TV.
It is very cavalier to say that unless you are willing to be one of the first sacrifices.
im already in the line of fire for being trans, may as well take some nazis with me
It’s a coward’s fallacy
Most of us are cowards, so this checks out.
We need both
It turns out that having all those guns means
dead school childrendiddly squat.A well regulated militia is one thing, fat uncle Tim with his open carry manhood on his belt is an entirely different thing.
Carrying a gun greatly increases the chance of using it.
It also increases your own chances of getting shot. Heck, i suppose it increases everyone’s chances of getting shot! 🥂
This is the dumbest statement ever. You have to have a gun to use it. So yes, carrying one increases that chance. Just like my chances of microwaving popcorn increases when I have fucking popcorn in the pantry.
It’s really not that dumb and your analogy is bad.
If it was normal to buy popcorn and never eat it then it would make sense. Obviously most people who buy guns never kill anyone with them and you can carry it and not use it
The No Kings protest in Utah ended tragically because armed “peacekeepers” (aka armed civilians) shot at a protester who was open-carrying an AR-15 at the protest. The protester had no ill intentions, but the peacekeepers didn’t know that. The peacekeepers missed and killed a bystander.
That’s why you don’t open carry at protests. The untrained “good guy with a gun” is likely to shoot you. Carry concealed if you’re going to carry, or don’t bring a gun at all.
That’s not accurate.
The person shot and killed (Mr. Ah-loo) was unarmed. He was struck by a round fired at someone (mr. Gamboa) who had snuck out of the protest and returned with an AR-15.
Gamboa was arrested for attempted murder, and the person who fired the shot is/was being investigated, but has not been arrested/charged at this time
What are you saying is wrong? When I read the comment you reply to, they do say “The peacekeepers missed and killed a bystander.”, and “shot at a protester who was open-carrying an AR-15 at the protest”, which is what you’re saying too.
The protester had no ill intentions, but the peacekeepers didn’t know that.
Gamboa snuck away, retrieved a hidden gun, came back and pointed out at someone. He very clearly had ill intentions, and was arrested for attempted murder.
That’s false.
He didn’t make any attempt to hide when he took out his gun, did not load it, and when they didn’t charge him after he was arrested a judge ordered him to be released.
Sure. But protest organizers have a responsibility to create a clear policy and communicate this policy in an open carry state, and they also have a responsibility to properly vet any people that do communicate that they will attend with a firearm.
The volunteer open carry person was not trained, and was not given any instruction as simple as “return fire only” or “do not shoot first”.
Best and simplest answer is that technically they’re still considered law enforcement. Nearly everything they’re doing is constitutionally illegal, but only the courts have the right to determine that.
If we start threatening police with guns, every single nook and cranny of our legal system justifies the police murdering us. Maybe some cops would get paid leave for a few weeks, or possibly even lose their badges, but that’s about it.
And then they’ll use it to justify an even more inflated budget for ICE, and everything will get exponentially worse.
So second amendment is totally useless then.
Yes. It was a fantasy written in a different time.
It is if the majority of the people with guns support the traitorous government.
Against a government with modern weaponry? Yes.
So, cowardice. Gotcha.
It would just escalate things. A few armed confrontations one week and the next week it would be tanks and Apache helicopters. Cops love to escalate.
They’re escalating anyway, in the absence of an actual justification they just make shit up and everyone knows it, refusing to actually resist them accomplishes absolutely nothing
Yup
Escalation seems to be needed. This is what America’s 2nd amendment is supposed to be used for.
Bunch of hypocrites.
I see u! How much are they paying you to ferment chaos?
*foment, dumbass
So you understood what I was getting at? Language is descriptive, not proscriptive. People who make fun of others for jargon or misuse typically don’t have much going for their argument or position.
Also, see here: https://www.dailywritingtips.com/ferment-and-foment/
I understand that you’re attempting to discredit someone who is 100% correct by making shit up and that you’re also illiterate
Many states make it illegal to bring any kind of weapon to a protest.
Just say you weren’t participating in the protest
/Galaxy_brain.bmp
🙃
I’m not saying you shouldn’t bring weapons to a protest. I am saying you should be aware of the potential consequences of doing so.
I believe open carry is illegal here in Illinois.
The meta I’ve heard is also that, if you’re gonna brandish or draw a gun, you’d better be prepared to kill with it. I’m not prepared to die shooting cops so I don’t feel like carrying. In the confusion of a gun fight I don’t think I’d have much to add by shooting anyone
Like if someone told me that the 2nd amendment just causes more shootings and doesn’t actually protect people on average I’d say yeah…
The meta I’ve heard is also that, if you’re gonna brandish or draw a gun, you’d better be prepared to kill with it.
That’s dumb as fuck.
Glad I stopped trying to find logic in the average person.
You say that, but my father, when I was I growing up, told me that the only thing you’re supposed to aim a gun at is something you want to destroy.
Aiming a gun isn’t the same as brandishing or drawing it.
Maybe your father should’ve spent less time teaching you about guns and more time helping you with your English homework.
Glad I stopped trying to find logic in the average person.
Thanks for reinforcing this.
Aiming a gun isn’t the same as brandishing or drawing it.
I think it’s a distinction without a difference when you’re in a situation where both parties have firearms (and one party has the backing of the state and a monopoly on violence).
Please demonstrate this by aiming your gun at a cop and arguing that you weren’t brandishing with however many brand new holes.
Are you fucking stupid?
Aiming a gun at a cop is significantly worse than brandishing. Why would I try to argue what you’re saying unless I’m an idiot?
Oh, wait a minute. Gotta tap the sign.
Glad I stopped trying to find logic in the average person.
Also ignored. I know I won’t be able to tolerate any more drivel from someone like you.
How’s that boot taste?
In colorado last month, a teen was shot dead by police for simply saying he was going to shoot up a business. No fire arm was involved on his part. Just an aggrevated teen having a mental health crisis. The mental health crisis team didnt even get a chance to show up. The cops killed the kid within 5 minutes of getting there.
The cops here dont give a fuck about the distinction. They are trained to shoot to kill once they feel scared in america. By the IDF.
Are you an ammosexual?
Keep going, you’ll cum soon.
Because people who are legal concealed carry permit holders regularly get shot in the back by police. People who act like you can stand up to a major world military are idiots.
Don’t turn your back on the police and don’t face them alone, fucking duh. Cops are cowards, they’ll be a lot more hesitant to shoot someone if there’s a credible risk of dozens/hundreds of other people immediately shooting back.
don’t face them alone
*pervasive surveillance state has entered the chat*
Idk how you figure that has anything to do with whether or not you open carry alone
How do you organize an armed group that’s big enough to be effective without the fascists hearing about it in advance?
You probably don’t, catching them completely off guard isn’t a reasonable expectation or a good reason not to try
No shit. That’s the problem. You bring your friends and the cops will bring their tanks. Then what, have a dick measuring contest?
… Oh wait, they’ll gun you all down and laugh about it instead.
So yeah, guns can be used, but let’s not pretend flexing your firearm in public will easily accomplish your goal. Be thoughtful and careful about when and where.
We had tanks in Afghanistan, didn’t stop us from losing. Nobody in history, no matter how well armed, has ever won a war against a dedicated insurgency.
This right here. Asymmetrical warfare is terrible for modern occupying armies.
It’s kind of like how many people are afraid of geese. An angry goose can give significant bruises and is basically impossible for an average person to restrain without killing the goose, so the only option is to run away. Because the easy win of breaking the goose’s neck is not on the table for most people.
The US lost in Afghanistan because the goal was to turn it into a functioning democracy, and the local culture did not support that. If the goal had been “winning”, the Army was entirely capable of slaughtering the large majority of the population and then importing settlers to numerically overwhelm the remnant population. Like our ancestors did to the Native Americans.
An insurgency vs an oppressive government is nothing at all like a pedestrian vs a goose, nobody has ever been killed by a goose. The goal was never to create a democracy in Afghanistan, it was just to plunder oil and opium. Wholesale unrestrained slaughter of the civilian population would have destroyed any plausible deniability about our actual goals and united the entire region far more effectively, giving us less time to loot. Also the US can’t afford to slaughter our own population like we did to native americans because we need their labor for our economy to function.
Well, 20$ drone go brrr
No, that’s when the tanks come in. Have you forgotten that the police have used airplanes and bombs to subdue people? They have even destroyed entire neighborhoods. In what world do you live where you think you can win here? You will be squashed just like millions before you and the world will keep turning.
Nobody in human history has ever won a war against a dedicated insurgency. You’re historically/militarily illiterate and a coward.
If you define failed movements as either “not wars” or “not dedicated”, sure. A recent depressing example I am assuming is definitioned out of your view is Hong Kong, which is firmly under the control of mainland China. A slightly more distant example is Northern Ireland, which is firmly part of Britain.
Hong Kong was definitely not even close to a dedicated insurgency, in large part because the majority of the population appears to understand that they’re better off with China than they ever would be with the UK. China never even came close to deploying tanks and bombs either, terrible example.
Northern Ireland was much more successful while they were still fighting, then popular support for the IRA waned due to concessions on the part of the UK because they could see they weren’t going to win.
They folded under pressure, they knew they were dealing with the risk of being disappeared.
Cool story
And you stopped arguing and started making personal attacks so this conversation serves no further purpose.
No, I made a coherent historical argument and then accurately personally attacked you, you’re using the second part as an excuse to ignore the first part but we both know you’ve got no counter-argument. Like I said, fucking coward.
The answer is that people aren’t willing to die in the tens of thousands to millions when they hope to unseat the scum in 26 ot 28
Those are absurdly unrealistic numbers but you’re not wrong about the delusional hope of voting their way out keeping a bunch of people complacent for the moment
Americans are domesticated cowards
Don’t have kids, leave the country if you can afford to.
Yes, we are. Unfortunately, I cannot afford to leave. If I could, my partner and I are unmarried, so it would be hard to find a place we could both move to, and I don’t think she’s willing to leave her dad. This stress has been at a dull roar since last November. I am not OK. I am not OK.
I agree that they should. The govt is more cautious in handling crowds open carrying guns. However, most on the left are not gun owners.
Holy shit, are they? Because from the outside looking in I assume the presumption that a gun may be present is why US police is essentially a military organization willing to shoot anybody at the slightest provocation, so I would assume if you are faced with a crowd of armed people your first instinct to stop that is to shoot first.
I mean, my common sense assumption is that bringing a gun of any kind to a protest is a fantastic way to start a massacre of your own people, but I’ve lost the ability to parse how Americans understand both political action and violence ages ago.
It’s a lot easier to shoot people when there’s no chance they’ll shoot back. If they’re armed too, you act a bit more cautiously. The Black Panthers used the technique to notable effect.
I mean, it’s a lot safer to shoot at unarmed people. I’d certainly be way more willing to shoot at someone that’s armed.
Like I said, alien thoughts in alien minds. I just can’t follow US trains of thought at this point.
I’d certainly be way more willing to shoot at someone that’s armed.
Even if you have reason to believe they’ll shoot back? Because remember, this isn’t just someone; this is people. Presumably there’s more than one gun in the hypothetical crowd.
Why else would you shoot at them?
Is that not what weapons are for? Who the hell goes to a peaceful protest expecting to be shot at with lethal weapons? What the hell? You are not protesting at that stage, you are at war, that’s some Tiananmen shit. Listen to me carefully: if you think law enforcement at a protest is going to open fire with live ammunition on unarmed protesters do NOT go to that protest. Start organizing a guerrilla, see if you can get the legal system to act on the people responsible, get in touch with press and try to get international awareness on the serious breach of human rights happening on your country, but do not just show up in a protest you can reasonably expect will lead to a massacre of unarmed civilians. I can’t believe I have to put this in actual words.
I’m always so baffled by American unwillingness to take any action followed by the immediate assumption that the very next step is going to be full-on murder. Just zero escalation, in their minds it’s either eat popcorn at home or be shooting at people indiscriminately.
I genuinely don’t get it. There’s a mental model at play here but it may as well not be carbon-based.
It’s the fact that US police regularly break up properly registered and approved peaceful protests by “less than lethal” force when they get to be incovenient for [insert power here]. Not live rounds, but “less than lethal” munitions. Rubber bullets, which often cause injury and sometimes death anyway. Tasers. Pepper spray. Tear gas smoke grenades.
You can find a decent amount of pictures and video of police pepper spraying protestors calmly sitting cross legged on the ground.
There are also psychological tactics they use to try and break up protests that often have the fun side benefit of fomenting response from otherwise peaceful protestors that is easily labeled as violent/threatening/resisting. At protests that camp in an area overnight, they will use flashing lights and loudspeakers playing audio specially designed to tap into anxiety centers of the brain to keep the protesters from resting. Literally borrowing some of the tactics our intelligence agencies used against the vietcong. They will “bottle” or “kettle” protestors, surrounding groups with riot shield equipped cops and squishing them into smaller and smaller space until the protester have to push back so people won’t get literally crushed, then out come the batons.
The threat of police brutality is always there. With significant chance that there will be no legal recourse. Judges play softball (sometimes literally) with police here. Manslaughter in the line of duty? 3 months paid vacation, then we transfer you to another local police force somewhere they won’t recognize your name. And decades of news media jumping at the chance to stir people up has cemented these fears in the public mind.
But here’s the thing: the amount this happens is just barely rare enough that it’s not international rights org level shit. And when it does happen, usually the police can justify it with some imagery or video of violent protesters.
So it’s rare, just always possible it could escalate. If it does there’s no rel recourse, and the news makes people feel that it’s a more likely outcome than it is. Peaceful protests that go fine don’t make the news.
What also isn’t covered by the media is how to plan and take effective action despite these risks, or effective action from the past, so many Americans just see the pipeline as being directly from public peaceful protest to some sort of freedom fighter in active combat.
Yeah, no shit, that happens everywhere.
Some people go back the next day, some societies react to this by protesting harder and longer. Other times this devolves into outright conflict or seismic political shifts. Sometimes it settles down over time.
The reaction isn’t typically some combination of “Oh, well, what can you do” and “maybe if we bring actual firearms the natural conflict with authority baked into all civilian political action will dissipate fully and permanently”.
That’s some US-specific delusion and intrinsic tendency to violence right there.
Literally one the most peaceful protests ever. The police stayed the fuck away and it had the governor shitting his pants.
Tons of cops are willing to kill for a paycheck, not a lot are willing to die for one.
That is fucking terrifying and so is anybody who doesn’t think so.
I mean, you see something terrifying, I see something that works. Armed demonstrations are a tried and true tactic for all kinds of militant activism.
Yeah, no, that’s the point. You look at a barbaric demonstration of a completely broken down society and see something that works. That’s horrifying.
You effectively saw some guy walk into a subway holding his erect, exposed penis in one hand and a machete in the other and went “hey, that guy found an empty seat right away, I think we can all learn a lesson here”.
That’s nuts. It’s weird that you don’t see how nuts that is.
No that’s nuts because its a fucking subway seat.
I do recall Nazi Germany was defeated by a shit ton of people sitting in the streets and strong letters.
You seem to think something that’s scary can’t happen in a western society. It does, humans are animals and when the other side is more violent and has no morals, there is no reasoning with them. They’re there to oppress and use violence.
See, and there it is. Zero to a hundred. It’s either popcorn or civil war, no gradient.
I mean, for one thing Nazi Germany also wasn’t defeated by military cosplayers flashing their gun collection at them, and clearly neither was MAGA America. The first one was defeated by a borderline apocalyptic global war, so… in the grand scheme both the military cosplay and the sternly worded letters are pretty much about just as effective there. We’re still waiting and seeing on the MAGA America part.
But for another, plenty of nonviolent and/or unarmed protest has achieved its goals, historically. From Europe to India to South Africa to the actual United States. The “sternly worded letter” derision is pure action movie fantasy. This month alone the governments of Madagascar and Nepal came down after mass protests. Not a single set of camo pants in sight, just… you know, students organizing on social media and One Piece flags for some reason because this is a weird timeline.
They weren’t even fully nonviolent, either. There were clashes, there was enforcement violence and dozens of people, mostly protestors, were killed in both countries. And still two governments came down and the situations continue to evolve and push for full regime change.
Meanwhile the example I’m being given is some American fascists standing on a street while cops that agree with them wait for them to get sleepy at their military cosplay convention and go home.
I don’t get Americans. I don’t think the way they see the world as a culture makes sense, and I am terrified at how much they export it successfully through places like this. Nepal just held a full-on election over Discord and I still understand how that went down better than middle class America’s political views.
Generally gun owners tend to lean towards the republican side.
There are tons of liberal gun owners.
