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?
-
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.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
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.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
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.
-
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.
-
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.wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
they are ultimately human (ICE)Debatable
Dont dehumanize the enemy
Exploit human weaknesses instead
-
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).
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
This is how you get killed for carrying a candy bar (esp if you're a brown person)
-
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!
-
Just say you weren't participating in the protest
/Galaxy_brain.bmp
-
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.
