3 ms·

>They are actively seeking to erode 2nd amendment rights. 1. There are countries in the world that are better than USA on multiple metrics, and they don't have

by Eerie 10y ago

>They are actively seeking to erode 2nd amendment rights. 1. There are countries in the world that are better than USA on multiple metrics, and they don't have 2nd amendment rights at all. What say you? 2. Your gun will avail you absolutely nothing when the government comes to you with a Predator drone. You will not "prevent dictatorship" by your gun.

nzp 10y ago
That's a fantasy view of how military engagement works. The whole argument that the US military has advanced tech, particularly air power, therefore “your guns” are useless is demonstrably false. If it were true, you wouldn't have Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Having millions of people armed with things like AR-15 or AK-47 is an effective form of dictatorship prevention. The problem, however, is that you have to have those people actually want to fight a dictatorship. I don't live in the US, so I might be wrong, but it seems to me that most people, not all, most, in the so called gun culture there are more than willing to bend over and be servile to authorities, with dictatorship prevention being just a noble sounding excuse to have fun shooting soda bottles in their backyards (nothing wrong with that).
- jakub_h 10y ago
  The government still does have better resources, though. Times have changes a bit from the 1700s in that the most modern things available to the two parties are not the same for both sides anymore.
  - nzp 10y ago
    Governments always had better resources. Until they didn't. The only way a government has resources is by people providing the resources by doing work. Once people collectively deny work, it's game over for the government. As for the 1700s, all of the wars I mentioned happened in the second half of 20th, and early 21st century, with a gigantic asymmetry in almost every relevant resource. Yet, in all three examples it took the US a whole decade of trying to win and then get a graceful exit, if that, against, basically, people with AK-47s and improvised bombs.
  - dexterdog 10y ago
    The government would be seriously behind in one very important resource - troop count.
- beachstartup 10y ago
  natural disasters, riots, and home invasion are far more realistic and likely threats, funny nobody talks about these, because they happen all the damn time here in the US.
  - nzp 10y ago
    I'm under the impression that “gun culture” people mostly obsess with exactly these things? This is in a way a dual of what I was saying, they far more fear and obsess over the threat of their metaphorical neighbor then they do about the government. I think that is the problem with the gun culture in the US, not the guns.
hoelle 10y ago
Whether or not you support the 2nd amendment, it has the majority support of the US people. It's evil and dangerous for massively powerful companies (especially monopolies like Facebook) to marginalize the political right just because their leadership are left-leaning.
tomohawk 10y ago
The point is, this is something for the people to decide, through the established constitutional amendment process. Do we really want a company like Square deciding that it is OK to abrogate our rights? Also, according to the link, the Obama Administration is using Operation Chokehold to pressure the banks to do something that they'd never get a law passed to accomplish. What happens when the next admin comes in and does the same things to prohibit things that they don't like? I greatly prefer the rule of law to the rule of lawyers or bankers.
giardini 10y ago
"2. Your gun will avail you absolutely nothing when the government comes to you with a Predator drone. You will not "prevent dictatorship" by your gun." I don't know that guns "prevent dictatorship", as you put it. North Korea is a good case in point - plenty of guns there but the leader retains his position. He's likely to die violently though, so I would tentatively post that one to the side of the guns people. Guns sure can wreak a lot of havoc, e.g., Archduke Ferdinand, Abraham Lincoln, JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Yitzak Rabin, etc. Guns are cheap and (relative to drones) easy to make. They can be deployed with a form of AI: a human being willing to risk death or too dumb to know better. At the current prices, I don't think any current government can afford to deploy Predator drones against all of their gun owners without facing serious consequences(bankruptcy, revolution). Perhaps, given time, your fantasy will become fact. But I would expect that, if drones are cheap, gun-owners will also be drone-owners. Perhaps someday hunters will drone a passel of rabbit or squirrel from the comfort of their living room, have Google drones deliver the fresh carcass to a processing facility and the dressed frozen meat to their back door? Mmmm, something to look forward to, eh?

by Eerie 10y ago

nzp 10y ago

That's a fantasy view of how military engagement works. The whole argument that the US military has advanced tech, particularly air power, therefore “your guns” are useless is demonstrably false. If it were true, you wouldn't have Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Having millions of people armed with things like AR-15 or AK-47 is an effective form of dictatorship prevention. The problem, however, is that you have to have those people actually want to fight a dictatorship. I don't live in the US, so I might be wrong, but it seems to me that most people, not all, most, in the so called gun culture there are more than willing to bend over and be servile to authorities, with dictatorship prevention being just a noble sounding excuse to have fun shooting soda bottles in their backyards (nothing wrong with that).

jakub_h 10y ago
The government still does have better resources, though. Times have changes a bit from the 1700s in that the most modern things available to the two parties are not the same for both sides anymore.
- nzp 10y ago
  Governments always had better resources. Until they didn't. The only way a government has resources is by people providing the resources by doing work. Once people collectively deny work, it's game over for the government. As for the 1700s, all of the wars I mentioned happened in the second half of 20th, and early 21st century, with a gigantic asymmetry in almost every relevant resource. Yet, in all three examples it took the US a whole decade of trying to win and then get a graceful exit, if that, against, basically, people with AK-47s and improvised bombs.
- dexterdog 10y ago
  The government would be seriously behind in one very important resource - troop count.
beachstartup 10y ago
natural disasters, riots, and home invasion are far more realistic and likely threats, funny nobody talks about these, because they happen all the damn time here in the US.
- nzp 10y ago
  I'm under the impression that “gun culture” people mostly obsess with exactly these things? This is in a way a dual of what I was saying, they far more fear and obsess over the threat of their metaphorical neighbor then they do about the government. I think that is the problem with the gun culture in the US, not the guns.

hoelle 10y ago

Whether or not you support the 2nd amendment, it has the majority support of the US people. It's evil and dangerous for massively powerful companies (especially monopolies like Facebook) to marginalize the political right just because their leadership are left-leaning.

tomohawk 10y ago

The point is, this is something for the people to decide, through the established constitutional amendment process. Do we really want a company like Square deciding that it is OK to abrogate our rights? Also, according to the link, the Obama Administration is using Operation Chokehold to pressure the banks to do something that they'd never get a law passed to accomplish. What happens when the next admin comes in and does the same things to prohibit things that they don't like? I greatly prefer the rule of law to the rule of lawyers or bankers.

giardini 10y ago

"2. Your gun will avail you absolutely nothing when the government comes to you with a Predator drone. You will not "prevent dictatorship" by your gun." I don't know that guns "prevent dictatorship", as you put it. North Korea is a good case in point - plenty of guns there but the leader retains his position. He's likely to die violently though, so I would tentatively post that one to the side of the guns people. Guns sure can wreak a lot of havoc, e.g., Archduke Ferdinand, Abraham Lincoln, JFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Yitzak Rabin, etc. Guns are cheap and (relative to drones) easy to make. They can be deployed with a form of AI: a human being willing to risk death or too dumb to know better. At the current prices, I don't think any current government can afford to deploy Predator drones against all of their gun owners without facing serious consequences(bankruptcy, revolution). Perhaps, given time, your fantasy will become fact. But I would expect that, if drones are cheap, gun-owners will also be drone-owners. Perhaps someday hunters will drone a passel of rabbit or squirrel from the comfort of their living room, have Google drones deliver the fresh carcass to a processing facility and the dressed frozen meat to their back door? Mmmm, something to look forward to, eh?