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?
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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.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.
-
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
-
the same thing will happen, why not fight back?
if you must fight back, do it in the right place at the right time
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Nobody in human history has ever won a war against a dedicated insurgency. You're historically/militarily illiterate and a coward.
-
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*
-
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
-
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 worldYou 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?
-
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?
-
Nobody in human history has ever won a war against a dedicated insurgency. You're historically/militarily illiterate and a coward.
And you stopped arguing and started making personal attacks so this conversation serves no further purpose.
-
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 worldYou 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?
They weren’t an American colony
South Vietnam was an American puppet regime. The puppet regime was entirely dependent on the US military and the leaders were picked by the US and ousted whenever they did something the US didn't like. You are plainly speaking in bad faith and attempting to use technicalities to avoid facing the truth of the US defeat. "Mhm, see, technically, Japan didn't lose that territory because Manchuko was an independent blah blah blah." It's an obviously stupid line if you apply it in any other context, but your chauvinism blinds you. Just like the line about "We only 'lost' because of morale" or the line about kill death ratios mattering, apply it anywhere but Vietnam and you'll see how fucking stupid it is.
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?
Nazi Germany killed a hell of a lot of Russians in WWII. I don't actually know if they killed more than they lost, I believe so but I'd have to check. Does that mean Nazi Germany won WWII? Does that mean I don't know who won WWII, because I don't know the KDRs? Do you see how ridiculous it is to say that? And yet, that's exactly what you're saying about Vietnam!
To any concern about Vietnam taking over the world
You literally just said they "failed in their goal to spread communism." As in, to spread communism beyond their borders. As in, Domino Theory. As in, the idea that the communists fighting in Vietnam were aiming to take over the world and turn it communist. You're straight up contradicting yourself.
Christ Jesus in heaven.
-
How do you organize an armed group that's big enough to be effective without the fascists hearing about it in advance?
skill issue
-
Italy made it happen today with no preparation
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.
-
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.
-
.ml
Blocked
OK trankies are tiresome but the comment was on point.
-
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
-
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 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....
