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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I would love to see a source on a state blanket banning firearms post bill of rights.
Because that did not happen.
-
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?
Nah I wasn't being sarcastic. I understand taking on the whole US army is a conservative pipe dream.
However, I imagine ICE would think twice about attacking armed civilians. -
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.
-
I thought in many states it was legal to do this. And if not it Democrat governor could legalise it.
-
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.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.
-
Because trump is hoping people will do something stupid so that he can overreact and put the entire country in lock down?
Unless you're going for a violent uprising, violent protests typically do less than large scale continuous peaceful protests
The problem is that the latter also doesn't happen in the US, it's as if Americans just don't care..
Oh yes, I know the excuses, we have a job, we have a family to feed, and DUDE YOU ARE A JEW IN GERMANY 1934, WOULD YOU PLEASE FRIGGING DO SOMETHING ALREADY?
it’s as if Americans just don’t care…
They've been propagandized over generations into not trying. They have been lead to believe that what is here now is good and don't see that it could be better.
-
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
It is very cavalier to say that unless you are willing to be one of the first sacrifices.
-
Because trump is hoping people will do something stupid so that he can overreact and put the entire country in lock down?
Unless you're going for a violent uprising, violent protests typically do less than large scale continuous peaceful protests
The problem is that the latter also doesn't happen in the US, it's as if Americans just don't care..
Oh yes, I know the excuses, we have a job, we have a family to feed, and DUDE YOU ARE A JEW IN GERMANY 1934, WOULD YOU PLEASE FRIGGING DO SOMETHING ALREADY?
I'm not advocating for violence and 100% agree on the effectiveness of peaceful protests.
-
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.people are cowards
-
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)
-
Because trump is hoping people will do something stupid so that he can overreact and put the entire country in lock down?
Unless you're going for a violent uprising, violent protests typically do less than large scale continuous peaceful protests
The problem is that the latter also doesn't happen in the US, it's as if Americans just don't care..
Oh yes, I know the excuses, we have a job, we have a family to feed, and DUDE YOU ARE A JEW IN GERMANY 1934, WOULD YOU PLEASE FRIGGING DO SOMETHING ALREADY?
even if no one does anything drastic, trump will escalate anyway. we may get something staged like with charlie kirk, but they may not even find a bullshit reason to justify themselves.
-
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
-
Teenagers that have toy guns are regularly shot and killed by police in America. The cops get away with murder. They'd need no justification if someone was actually carrying a real fire arm.
they don't need justification anyway. they'll just plant evidence if they don't wanna be sloppy
-
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.
-
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
We need both
-
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 same thing will happen, why not fight back?
-
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?
