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?
-
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.Open carry is illegal in my state. I could be immediately busted for that and accomplish nothing.
-
TLDR: "This is why we can't stop nazis, because I'm a chicken and I'm repeating nonsense"
We outnumber them thousands to one. How is their armor going to protect them when their tires are slashed, and they have to walk 30mi through downtown? It's not.
"But they can kill a hundred people with their awful nazi guns!"
Fuck you, you chickenshit nazi propaganda spewing coward. Nothing can save nazis against their sociopathically bad planning.
We outnumber them thousands to one.
Only when we show up. Most videos of kidnappings I've seen it's maybe a dozen citizens vs a dozen or slightly fewer agents. It needs to be more like 10 to 1 to properly discourage or defend their attacks without an all out assault.
-
It's the fact that US police regularly break up properly registered and approved peaceful protests by "less than lethal" force when they get to be incovenient for [insert power here]. Not live rounds, but "less than lethal" munitions. Rubber bullets, which often cause injury and sometimes death anyway. Tasers. Pepper spray. Tear gas smoke grenades.
You can find a decent amount of pictures and video of police pepper spraying protestors calmly sitting cross legged on the ground.
There are also psychological tactics they use to try and break up protests that often have the fun side benefit of fomenting response from otherwise peaceful protestors that is easily labeled as violent/threatening/resisting. At protests that camp in an area overnight, they will use flashing lights and loudspeakers playing audio specially designed to tap into anxiety centers of the brain to keep the protesters from resting. Literally borrowing some of the tactics our intelligence agencies used against the vietcong. They will "bottle" or "kettle" protestors, surrounding groups with riot shield equipped cops and squishing them into smaller and smaller space until the protester have to push back so people won't get literally crushed, then out come the batons.
The threat of police brutality is always there. With significant chance that there will be no legal recourse. Judges play softball (sometimes literally) with police here. Manslaughter in the line of duty? 3 months paid vacation, then we transfer you to another local police force somewhere they won't recognize your name. And decades of news media jumping at the chance to stir people up has cemented these fears in the public mind.
But here's the thing: the amount this happens is just barely rare enough that it's not international rights org level shit. And when it does happen, usually the police can justify it with some imagery or video of violent protesters.
So it's rare, just always possible it could escalate. If it does there's no rel recourse, and the news makes people feel that it's a more likely outcome than it is. Peaceful protests that go fine don't make the news.
What also isn't covered by the media is how to plan and take effective action despite these risks, or effective action from the past, so many Americans just see the pipeline as being directly from public peaceful protest to some sort of freedom fighter in active combat.
-
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.Basically the second amendment will stop the Redcoats but will struggle against a Stryker.
-
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.Is this not the reason the second amendment exists?
No. The second amendment exists to sell guns. All that noise about protecting from tyranny or violence is marketing to sell more guns.
-
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.
Louder for the motherfuckers in the back!
There are so many fucking people online upset about this shit that amount to not much more than hot air. Chasing the perfect to the detriment of the good. Purity tests. Arguing for blatantly impossible courses of action, or at least ones that will nevet get enough buy in from the greater population to work. Sitting on their asses getting angry while worshipping some half-cocked idea of open revolution, full overthow of the government, and dissolution of the capitalist economic framework... without ever evaluating how the fuck the world could even get to that state except "magic unspecific mass violent revolution", "complete apocalypse scenario then rebuild", or "if we all wish upon a star really hard, all the bad people will have simultaneous fatal anuerysms". Not to mention how the fuck could that state ever be maintained afterwards.
If it's not outright impossible, it will require an astronomical amount of prep and planning. None of this is shit that just "happens" through sheer desire or will without slow supportive action to build what is neccessary.
People getting their emotional catharsis ranting, venting, and shit stirring without taking any true action. Stirring other people up into the same state.
Get offline, get involved locally, become an expert on the spaces and people around you. Form local connections. Accept that you aren't an action hero, and if the US military is turned on you, as a civilian you cannot win through force. Build relevant skills for a crisis. Build relevant skills for ongoing resistance. Build skills for organizing locally and securely.
Most importantly: Shut the absolute fuck up. Just shut the fuck up. As far as it's within your power, don't make yourself a target and blend in.
I'm already not a good example, as my OPSEC on this account is abysmal. I take solace in that none of my plans or actions involve abject resistance, and are all local good type shit.
Abject resistance is important. Connections are important. Communication is important. Logistics are important. Leave the fighting to the fighters. We're not fremen. We didn't live our whole lives to become death commandos.
-
The second amendment gives us the right to assassinate our leaders?
Is there precedent for that? Several Presidents have been assassinated, and I believe all of the assassins were killed or prosecuted or both.
-
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.
That's why all of us Americans can quickly tell when someone is just trying to start shit when they get angry online..
The abysmal state of your union somewhat belies your stated ability to "tell when someone is just trying to start shit". Someone started shit quite some time ago, friend. They continue to do so and I don't see any evidence that the body politic is even remotely aware.
I'm just saying the American shit detection algorithm might not be as sophisticated as you're making it out to be.
-
The Constitution agrees that yes, you should assassinate your leaders from tyranny.
But if you ask them and the law? They won't agree. So it isn't like you're free from the consequences of that action.
-
Just say you weren't participating in the protest
/Galaxy_brain.bmp
I'm not saying you shouldn't bring weapons to a protest. I am saying you should be aware of the potential consequences of doing so.
-
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.BC possession of fire arm around the Gestapo enables the gestapo to put you down like a dog.
They might get charged, they might not but you are dead
-
Is this not the reason the second amendment exists?
No. The second amendment exists to sell guns. All that noise about protecting from tyranny or violence is marketing to sell more guns.
-
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.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.
-
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.
While overall I agree the idea was for a state level militia... the members of the militia weren't full time. It was made up of regular people who trained in thier spare time.. probably winter or something since many were farmers. So I do think the intent was to protect the right of the militia members to keep guns at home.
The national guard would be a similar concept. Except while it is state run, it can be federalized. And that is the issue. The state has no true troops of it's own.
This is why I support reasonable licensing requirements and regulation, but not a complete ban. The people have a right to armed resistance. But it is supposed to be organized. -
Alright, I encourage you to lead by example and tell me how it goes.
If that commenter actually believed what he was writing, Putin would be dealing with an insurrection in St. Petersburg by now.
-
This is soup for my family!
-
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.The 2nd amendment was written in 1789 when information moved at the rate of the printing press and bullets came from muskets.
This takeover has been in planning since the 1970s. They courted the NRA and gun owners along with the attack on public schooling so said gun owners wouldn't understand what fascism is when the moment came.
In the grand scheme of things, it took the fascists 200 years to find a way around the 2nd amendment.
-
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]The No Kings protest in Utah ended tragically because armed "peacekeepers" (aka armed civilians) shot at a protester who was open-carrying an AR-15 at the protest. The protester had no ill intentions, but the peacekeepers didn't know that. The peacekeepers missed and killed a bystander.
That's why you don't open carry at protests. The untrained "good guy with a gun" is likely to shoot you. Carry concealed if you're going to carry, or don't bring a gun at all.
-
It's the fact that US police regularly break up properly registered and approved peaceful protests by "less than lethal" force when they get to be incovenient for [insert power here]. Not live rounds, but "less than lethal" munitions. Rubber bullets, which often cause injury and sometimes death anyway. Tasers. Pepper spray. Tear gas smoke grenades.
You can find a decent amount of pictures and video of police pepper spraying protestors calmly sitting cross legged on the ground.
There are also psychological tactics they use to try and break up protests that often have the fun side benefit of fomenting response from otherwise peaceful protestors that is easily labeled as violent/threatening/resisting. At protests that camp in an area overnight, they will use flashing lights and loudspeakers playing audio specially designed to tap into anxiety centers of the brain to keep the protesters from resting. Literally borrowing some of the tactics our intelligence agencies used against the vietcong. They will "bottle" or "kettle" protestors, surrounding groups with riot shield equipped cops and squishing them into smaller and smaller space until the protester have to push back so people won't get literally crushed, then out come the batons.
The threat of police brutality is always there. With significant chance that there will be no legal recourse. Judges play softball (sometimes literally) with police here. Manslaughter in the line of duty? 3 months paid vacation, then we transfer you to another local police force somewhere they won't recognize your name. And decades of news media jumping at the chance to stir people up has cemented these fears in the public mind.
But here's the thing: the amount this happens is just barely rare enough that it's not international rights org level shit. And when it does happen, usually the police can justify it with some imagery or video of violent protesters.
So it's rare, just always possible it could escalate. If it does there's no rel recourse, and the news makes people feel that it's a more likely outcome than it is. Peaceful protests that go fine don't make the news.
What also isn't covered by the media is how to plan and take effective action despite these risks, or effective action from the past, so many Americans just see the pipeline as being directly from public peaceful protest to some sort of freedom fighter in active combat.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yeah, no shit, that happens everywhere.
Some people go back the next day, some societies react to this by protesting harder and longer. Other times this devolves into outright conflict or seismic political shifts. Sometimes it settles down over time.
The reaction isn't typically some combination of "Oh, well, what can you do" and "maybe if we bring actual firearms the natural conflict with authority baked into all civilian political action will dissipate fully and permanently".
That's some US-specific delusion and intrinsic tendency to violence right there.
-
That's not accurate.
The person shot and killed (Mr. Ah-loo) was unarmed. He was struck by a round fired at someone (mr. Gamboa) who had snuck out of the protest and returned with an AR-15.
Gamboa was arrested for attempted murder, and the person who fired the shot is/was being investigated, but has not been arrested/charged at this time
