Is this not the reason the second amendment exists? Regards An Australian
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.
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.
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.
This would be grounds to incite a civil war.
Also, the second amendment gives us the right to assassinate our leaders. Problem is, nobody is trying, except the fool who missed Trump.
Because law enforcement has proven that they shoot first and ask questions later if they see a threatening weapon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
It’s kind of neat how wrong you got it.
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.
Also, the Federalist Papers were 85 letters written by just 3 men. Alexander Hamilton wrote 51 essays, James Madison wrote 29, and John Jay wrote 5, and they were written to promote the proposed Constitution. They are by no means a full encapsulation of the founders thoughts, or in any way unbiased, they are essentially the definition of political propaganda, written anonymously to hide their source.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No one is saying we should tolerate the behavior of these humans. Their behavior is vile. It needs to stop.
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.
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
🙃
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
Generally gun owners tend to lean towards the republican side.
There are tons of liberal gun owners.
“Tons” doesn’t contradict “generally” and “tend to lean”
It’s “tons” vs “tons and tons and tons” tbh
Think of it as a focusing comment rather than a disputing reply…
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.
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.
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.
