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?
-
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?
-
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.
No matter how supportive a democratic governor would be, they still have to capitulate to federal forces - it's not like they have any direct command over any of the military bases stationed within them.
-
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.
