5 ms·

This is complete bullshit, and is what you're sold in the USA. When there is a gun culture amongst the population what happens is that the government acquires a

by oneloop 10y ago

This is complete bullshit, and is what you're sold in the USA. When there is a gun culture amongst the population what happens is that the government acquires an even stronger gun culture (ie SWAT teams that raid the house, kill the dog and some times people who get startled and react poorly, because there's a suspicion of weed). See how easy it is to get shot by the police compared eg to the UK. A "well armed militia" might've made sense in the initial years of the USA's government, but it doesn't nowadays. You know they have tanks, airplanes and drones, right? What did you expect, that the people arm themselves against the government, and the government won't one-up you?

ccvannorman 10y ago
A few years ago I read in the news that a small (20?) group of people in the US (Texas?) had literally refused orders from the federal government and were well-armed enough that they continued to exist and live without government control. Sorry i wasn't able to pull the exact reference, but it makes for an excellent, "yes" as a response to your question -- at least in that case. In general tho I agree. Thinking you're going to win against the United States government using guns is a fool's errand and will probably just get you killed.
- oneloop 10y ago
  I would LOVE to see a reference. Something tells me it's not exactly as you're describing. Knowing how sensationalist the media tries to always be, my instinct is to imagine that these people were well armed and fought some government in court and won, all the while warning that they would fight with guns if they'd lost. The newspaper picks it put and puts a spin on it, which makes the story more interesting. That's just my guess though. Can you remember other info? Maybe we could find the article.
  - ddebernardy 10y ago
    Likely this story here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-militia-insight-idUSBREA3G26620140417 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-militi... And the chap who led to this is apparently in jail awaiting trial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
    - oneloop 10y ago
      Thank you! Reading the Reuters article it's not really that they could defend themselves. The government just went "we have to be the bigger man or someone will get hurt". They waited a couple of years and then arrested him when he wasn't expecting. Still, very interesting to see that some people eat up this fantasy idea that the point of guns is to protect yourself against the government.
      - Nadya 10y ago
        >Still, very interesting to see that some people eat up this fantasy idea that the point of guns is to protect yourself against the government. Perhaps not in the US, but in other countries the step before mass killings and genocide began was the disarming of the population. People who have read history and wish to not repeat it are a bit more wary about disarming populations when a government asks for it. Now as I said in a recent post of mine - I'm not too worried about the US going all tyrannical and killing its population after a disarmament. But what about people who have migrated to the US from countries where that has happened in recent history? Would you tell them their lived experience and dead friends/family are just "a fantasy"? Would you expect them to trust you when you say "that won't happen this time"?
- vintermann 10y ago
  I've also heard that armed protesters are treated better than unarmed ones. It makes sense that sometimes the government doesn't want to follow your escalation. But if they want to, they certainly can.
  - oneloop 10y ago
    Considering how nervous policemen seem to be when approaching a car that they just pulled over, I'm surprised to hear this.
  - huffmsa 10y ago
    Think about the stand-off at that ranch in Arizona or Nevada or wherever it was. Both sides were heavily armed and it was diffused without much incident. Compare that to student protests in big cities where the police start tear gassing and clubbing hippies with reckless abandon. They know the students aren't going to start shooting back so they can escalate unilaterally, whereas if they did with the ranchers they'd be getting into mutually assured destruction territory.
mindslight 10y ago
I agree that the remaining scraps of the second amendment function more as an opiate than a useful mechanism. But it would be utterly foolish to further extinguish them and expect USG to magically reform - that domestic army won't be demilitarizing any time soon, and at this point the totalitarian surveillance/control state only seeks its own growth. Crime is always going to happen. Do not believe those who promise to eliminate it if only you make just one more compromise at an emotional time - their results are plain to see. The real modern problem we face is media, now augmented by social media, saturating us with these events. Overloading us with sensationalized hyper-reality, stripping away any semblance of context, probability, individualism, or rationalism. Nevermind encouraging follow-on crime for another's "15 minutes". But of course the media reflecting on itself would be complex, nuanced, and boring. So on to the next 5-minute tragedy entertainment we'll go.
aaron695 10y ago
> A "well armed militia" might've made sense in the initial years of the USA's government, but it doesn't nowadays. You know they have tanks, airplanes and drones, right? The Syrian government had chemical weapons and everything else, yet people with small arms still held their ground. Have you been propaganda-ed much? A war currently running that tells you the BS behind this statement. But you still said it? Humans are not monsters. The military will not drone bomb their own people, day in day out. That will cause them to mutiny if anything.
- oneloop 10y ago
  > Have you been propaganda-ed much? Mate, propaganda is not a verb. If you want to talk to me have manners.

by oneloop 10y ago

ccvannorman 10y ago

A few years ago I read in the news that a small (20?) group of people in the US (Texas?) had literally refused orders from the federal government and were well-armed enough that they continued to exist and live without government control. Sorry i wasn't able to pull the exact reference, but it makes for an excellent, "yes" as a response to your question -- at least in that case. In general tho I agree. Thinking you're going to win against the United States government using guns is a fool's errand and will probably just get you killed.

oneloop 10y ago
I would LOVE to see a reference. Something tells me it's not exactly as you're describing. Knowing how sensationalist the media tries to always be, my instinct is to imagine that these people were well armed and fought some government in court and won, all the while warning that they would fight with guns if they'd lost. The newspaper picks it put and puts a spin on it, which makes the story more interesting. That's just my guess though. Can you remember other info? Maybe we could find the article.
- ddebernardy 10y ago
  Likely this story here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-militia-insight-idUSBREA3G26620140417 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ranchers-nevada-militi... And the chap who led to this is apparently in jail awaiting trial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
  - oneloop 10y ago
    Thank you! Reading the Reuters article it's not really that they could defend themselves. The government just went "we have to be the bigger man or someone will get hurt". They waited a couple of years and then arrested him when he wasn't expecting. Still, very interesting to see that some people eat up this fantasy idea that the point of guns is to protect yourself against the government.
    - Nadya 10y ago
      >Still, very interesting to see that some people eat up this fantasy idea that the point of guns is to protect yourself against the government. Perhaps not in the US, but in other countries the step before mass killings and genocide began was the disarming of the population. People who have read history and wish to not repeat it are a bit more wary about disarming populations when a government asks for it. Now as I said in a recent post of mine - I'm not too worried about the US going all tyrannical and killing its population after a disarmament. But what about people who have migrated to the US from countries where that has happened in recent history? Would you tell them their lived experience and dead friends/family are just "a fantasy"? Would you expect them to trust you when you say "that won't happen this time"?
vintermann 10y ago
I've also heard that armed protesters are treated better than unarmed ones. It makes sense that sometimes the government doesn't want to follow your escalation. But if they want to, they certainly can.
- oneloop 10y ago
  Considering how nervous policemen seem to be when approaching a car that they just pulled over, I'm surprised to hear this.
- huffmsa 10y ago
  Think about the stand-off at that ranch in Arizona or Nevada or wherever it was. Both sides were heavily armed and it was diffused without much incident. Compare that to student protests in big cities where the police start tear gassing and clubbing hippies with reckless abandon. They know the students aren't going to start shooting back so they can escalate unilaterally, whereas if they did with the ranchers they'd be getting into mutually assured destruction territory.

mindslight 10y ago

I agree that the remaining scraps of the second amendment function more as an opiate than a useful mechanism. But it would be utterly foolish to further extinguish them and expect USG to magically reform - that domestic army won't be demilitarizing any time soon, and at this point the totalitarian surveillance/control state only seeks its own growth. Crime is always going to happen. Do not believe those who promise to eliminate it if only you make just one more compromise at an emotional time - their results are plain to see. The real modern problem we face is media, now augmented by social media, saturating us with these events. Overloading us with sensationalized hyper-reality, stripping away any semblance of context, probability, individualism, or rationalism. Nevermind encouraging follow-on crime for another's "15 minutes". But of course the media reflecting on itself would be complex, nuanced, and boring. So on to the next 5-minute tragedy entertainment we'll go.

aaron695 10y ago

> A "well armed militia" might've made sense in the initial years of the USA's government, but it doesn't nowadays. You know they have tanks, airplanes and drones, right? The Syrian government had chemical weapons and everything else, yet people with small arms still held their ground. Have you been propaganda-ed much? A war currently running that tells you the BS behind this statement. But you still said it? Humans are not monsters. The military will not drone bomb their own people, day in day out. That will cause them to mutiny if anything.

oneloop 10y ago
> Have you been propaganda-ed much? Mate, propaganda is not a verb. If you want to talk to me have manners.