Why don't protestors who oppose Trump/ICE open carry their guns to prevent what's currently occuring in the US ie kidnapping, assaults etc?
-
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.
-
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 saying we should tolerate the behavior of these humans. Their behavior is vile. It needs to stop.
-
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
-
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.
-
Carrying a gun greatly increases the chance of using it.
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.
-
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
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.
-
Not just waited, prevented others from taking action.
-
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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]That is fucking terrifying and so is anybody who doesn't think so.
-
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
-
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
-
I can guarantee you that none of these Nazis would want to give up their beliefs.
How the fuck are you gonna guarantee that?
-
How the fuck are you gonna guarantee that?
They're Americans in ICE. That tells you all you need to know about their characters.
-
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.
-
This is how you get killed for carrying a candy bar (esp if you're a brown person)
Or a hairbrush
-
They're Americans in ICE. That tells you all you need to know about their characters.
This new brand of prejudice belongs in the bin. Fuck off.
-
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.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.
-
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.
-
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.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.
