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? 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.
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?
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.
Not just waited, prevented others from taking action.
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.
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.
Are you suggesting that people have to live under harsh conditions to fight back? It surely helps, but go read about the french or polish during WWII before you think that a group needs to be oppressed for years and years.
Hell look at Ukraine and how it’s civilians stepped up.
I’m not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that there are major differences between a modern day American and a Vietnamese person during the war, which makes comparisons difficult. It’s just a bit of a pet peeve when people are like, “We’ll just do a guerilla war, no biggie, worked loads of times.” Sure, it can be an effective tactic, but you have to understand why it was effective in certain cases and what that entailed.
I don’t believe the US left has much of a chance of winning a domestic military conflict, looking at the material conditions and the present level of organization, discipline, and training (or lack thereof). If we end up being forced to fight then we can hope for the best, and preparing for the possibility is a worthwhile endeavor. But don’t think that just because guerilla tactics exist that it’s trivial to employ them.
I’m not saying it would be easy. I’m saying don’t underestimate small arms in civilian hands vs a military.
Sure, but tanks/armored vehicles can, and police absolutely use those
Yes because that worked so well in Afghanistan…or Iraq
We “lost” those wars because of morale. Like especially in Vietnam we were destroying them in terms of kill death ratios and the Vietcong had been mostly eliminated by 1969. Also Vietnam wasn’t just a bunch of farmers with hunting rifles the NVA was being funded and trained by the USSR and China. By the end of the war Vietnam lost around 20x the people and their population had been poisoned with agent orange.
We also didn’t use our nukes, if the military through enough brainwashing and propaganda could be convinced that these protesters are an insider threat we could easily be looking at the deaths of 10-100s of thousands
Arguably the morale was because we were fighting enemies we didn’t know how to fight, nor did we have a way to respond to tactics they used.
We went into all those wars with overwhelming firepower, which caused the opposition to resort to pure guerrilla tactics. In Vietnam, they faced Chinese and USSR pilots in the air - which did not go as planned. We stomped the shit out of the Iraq army, but Saddam was holding the 3 opposing factions in check. When they splintered and became guerrillas they fought with suicide bombers. Same in Afghanistan. They waged a psychological war where the enemy was everywhere and nowhere.
I have specific story about the Korean war too. At the time in Korea, the US war machine couldn’t break through the Chinese supplied artillery and forces. They actually had forward air bases (extremely well guarded) have several occurrences where they got Intel they were targets of a North Korean force, and the air force servicemen, most of who were various technicians, mechanics, and logistics get fully prepared to meet infantry head on. (My grandpa explained that they weren’t even that close to North Korean territory, and when they scrambled all available jets at their base, he recalls him and even his superiors being shook.). They got helmets, a choice of an M1911A1 or an M1, and a few clips of ammo. Most of them took the handgun since it was the only one they remembered how to operate. He doesn’t remember how long they were in that defensive position, but apparently the North Koreans changed targets a few miles out and went elsewhere. He said back then, at 6’4" him and all the other tall guys were always at the forward bases, probably to make the south Koreans feel safer and scare the North Koreans abit.
Toward Vietnam, at the end of his contract, they approached him and a group of 8 others for air commando training. He said fuck no, 5 said sure. 1 came back, and the last time my granpa talked with him they still hadn’t recovered their bodies (who knows when that was).
The biggest problem especially with Vietnam was we just shouldn’t have been there in the first place, we were fighting a war halfway across the globe for the abstract defense of “democracy”. If our goal was just the total extermination of the north Vietnamese we could have just nuked them into oblivion and if the other countries didn’t have nukes we very well might have. The tactics they used were different than ours and our actual end goal wasn’t even very clear but the way they “won” is we gave up. We didn’t lose any territory and while 58k lives lost isn’t nothing that’s from a country of over 200m compared to north Vietnam that lost 1.1m from a country of around 25m so 0.029% vs 4.4%
But even forgetting all that I would personally consider the U.S. military targeting the civilian population and hunting down “those antifa terrorists” like Israel is doing to hamas as a situation so horrible it should be avoided at all costs like we can pretend that our military would never do that, however we have many example from history showing the opposite to be true with Germany rounding up people who spoke out against the governement and putting them into extermination camps or slightly more recently pol pot in Cambodia
No we lost those wars because you can’t occupy a group of people who are armed and don’t want to be occupied.
All 4 of those wars, the people didn’t speak our language, look like us or dress like us. The fuck you think is gonna happen when the military starts shooting civs here who look like them, talk like them and basically are them. You will get a fractured military and probably a coup. You will get gorilla cells popping up supporting the sides the align with.
The worlds greatest military can’t fight it’s own people. Period.
Gaza had/has weapons and doesn’t want to be occupied how is that working out for them?
In Cambodia the people looked like them, dressed like them, and were them. They were still put into some of the worst torture camps in history and approximately 1/4 of their population was killed…
That’s why they don’t start by attacking everyone they start by dehumanizing people, like they have been with “the illegals”, then you make them a scapegoat for all your problems. Then a radical terrorist network appears who is helping the undesirables that has loose ties so just about anyone can be labeled a terrorist (in this case it’s Antifa). Then you start provoking violence against this group, that’s where we are today in the United states.
Then either real violence happens or a frame job happens and the military has to intervene and a group of protesters get killed. Then special missions have to happen to take out the so called leaders of this terrorist group that somehow happen to involve a bunch of politicians and people critical of the party, then you can make a special task force whose job is it to deal with these troublemakers that you recruit for on a volunteer basis so you get only the most extreme and loyal soldiers and use them to continue further oppressing.
I could keep going but honestly choose any history textbook and it could summarize it, the point is they don’t tell the military to shoot unarmed protesters on day one and by the time they do the military will not just do it but they will go even further than directed as can be seen in Nazi germany, pol pots Cambodia, and is in progress in Gaza
Gaza was not armed at all, no clue where you got that from hamas has weapons but the citizens are banned from owning firearms.
Pol pot and Cambodia…banned and confiscated civilian arms. Not hard to commit genocide when literally no one but your side is armed.
Nazi Germany with the jewish population…disarmed and sent to camps to be slaughtered.
Seeing any…links here?
And republicans would never attempt to take guns away from liberals
So your suggestion is to disarm yourself for them?
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)
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 world
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?
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.
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!
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.
We lost those wars because there were political chains holding us back from being able to commit fully to the theater. Vietnam especially. It was a bunch of rules and laws we knew would make it incredibly difficult to win, and we did it anyway because of capitalism.
The 2nd Amendment actually references, in its singular sentence, very specifically, that it is regarding a regulated militia, not just everyone.
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.
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
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…
It’s kind of neat how wrong you got it.
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.
Don’t worry they won’t be able to find it.
No…no it did not.
-June 8th 1789, James Madison
-Early draft of the 2nd amendment.
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.
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
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.
Americans are stupid enough to have put all their personal information into facebook and wouldn’t know how to organize without a billionaire fascist’s big brother app.
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.
As a European I wonder this too. Like they are ultimately human (ICE) so they’d think (I mean they have at least survival brain functions) twice if they can “arrest”/harass someone with a gun vs someone without one.
Right?
Also yeah we hear so fucking much about your sEcOnD aMeNdMeNt we probably believe some of it.
Cheers and good luck!
No. Survival brain means that they think only once, and that thought is “eliminate the threat”. This is their training. You turn to face them, you are suddenly a threat. You scratch your nose and drop your hand back down to your side the holster is on, you are suddenly a threat “I thought they had a gun” / “I feared for my life” is probably the most invoked excuse for police killings in America.
This is how you get killed for carrying a candy bar (esp if you’re a brown person)
Or a hairbrush
they are ultimately human (ICE)Debatable
Dont dehumanize the enemy
Exploit human weaknesses instead
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.
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 asking you to tolerate Nazism. You can resist it without pretending that Nazis are inhuman.
It’s dangerous in two ways:
No one is saying we should tolerate the behavior of these humans. Their behavior is vile. It needs to stop.
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).
I can guarantee you that none of these Nazis would want to give up their beliefs.
How the fuck are you gonna guarantee that?
I see a difference between othering based on actions and decisions, displaying solid viewpoints on human empathy or lack thereof, rather than othering based on race, country of origin, religion, sexuality, or other circumstances of identity beyond an individual’s control.
Agree. See my other reply in the thread
If they’re already shooting people when they’re unarmed what more can they do if people are armed? Shoot them twice?
If you’re going to get shot anyway you may as well shoot them back.
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.
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.
the same thing will happen, why not fight back?
if you must fight back, do it in the right place at the right time
speaking of. I have not seen it in internet news but they banned civilian drones in a wide swatch around chicago.