6 ms·

what do you mean by revolution? there has been 2 already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2014_Venezuelan_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

what do you mean by revolution? there has been 2 already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2014_Venezuelan_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2014_Venezuela... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2017_Venezuelan_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2017_Venezuela... Theres nothing much we can do, guns vs stones. People realized is easier to leave the country than figthing this.

viggity 9y ago
and this is why I am grateful we have the 2nd Amendment. Sure, you can't match a tank head to head, but the past 50 years of insurgencies show that you don't need to go head to head to still come out on top.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  It should never get that far. It's much harder to abuse a population of which a subset can fight back. If you can't oppress the small groups you can't establish a baseline tolerance/acceptance of abuse. Without that it's much harder to build the corrupt house of cards that precedes a total collapse. It's not about armed revolt. It's about creating a set of circumstances that prevent the oppression that leads up to one. Other amendments on the bill of rights have similar effects. An abusive government needs to control the narrative and shortcuts to bypass due process at scale. The ability to do those comprehensively are severely handicapped by other amendments.
- distances 9y ago
  Can you mention some insurrection where armed protestants won over a well-equipped state? Even in Syria the serious opposition was due to outside heavy armament supplies and looting of army materiel. For me this reasoning for the 2nd amendment comes out only as a power fantasy which, if it was to actually play out, would simply leave the country worse off (versus unviolent opposition that may need outside support to succeed over a longer term). Finally, even in the unlikely case that a revolution was successful, it would be unlikely to promote liberty but rather just install another autocratic ruling class [1]. [1] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/104346397009003004 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1043463970090030...
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Can you mention some insurrection where armed protestants won over a well-equipped state? I think you mean “protestors” or ”insurrectionists”. “Protestants” suggests something somewhat different. The French Revolution might be an example. Or might not, depending on the exact criteria. > For me this reasoning for the 2nd amendment comes out only as a power fantasy which, if it was to actually play out, would simply leave the country worse off (versus unviolent opposition that may need outside support to succeed over a longer term). Successful revolutions tend to involve outside support or defection of the government forces as decisive factors, but often start with internal non-government armed insurrection. OTOH, the critical and forgotten underpinning of the 2nd amendment was the expectation (which failed to be mandated) that the federal government (and the states) would simply never have large standing armies or internal security forces, and that the call up of the universal militia would be the mechanism of fighting any needed wars or dealing with civic unrest. An armed citizenry is necessary to that model, but it's the absence of significant government armed forces to oppose the citizenry, not the mere fact of an armed citizenry, that is the guarantee of liberty.
  - mieseratte 9y ago
    Vietnam? Afghanistan isn't over, but it isn't exactly a bastion of stability. Syria is a highly-complex environment, but it more closely resembles a traditional "take-and-hold territory" war. ISIS needed territory to fulfill their caliphate, for instance. Should another insurrection occur in the US, I would assume it would resemble an insurgency rather than a proper war. You're not going to see a company of modern-day Johnny Reb's parade through your town. You're going to see bombings, assassinations, and destruction of critical infrastructure by what one could reasonably call a terrorist... or freedom fighter. The 2A making it such that small arms and ammunition are distributed so thoroughly makes it hard for a tyrant to take hold and thrive. If you live amongst the jackboots, then you can hit them when they're vulnerable.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Vietnam? The Viet Minh had substantial outside support in its successful campaigns (the allies against Japan in WWII, and then the PRC against France in the First Indochina War), the Viet Cong were crushed even with substantial outside support, and the NVA weren't anti-government insurgents, so unless you mean something in Vietnam other than the conflict of the 1940s through 1970s, I don't think it counts.
- rhcom2 9y ago
  This "Red Dawn" American insurgency fantasy is so weird to me. In what situation can you imagine that an American anti-government insurance would be 1) needed, 2) effective and in what would them "coming out on top" look like? And what do you think the chances of that even happening? <.1%?
  - wmil 9y ago
    The risk isn't active oppression by the military. The risk is that the government will prevent the police from defending opposition groups or anyone who is politically inconvenient. Even in Venezuela most of the violence toward opposition supporters comes from non-government "Colectivos" made of government supporters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectivo_(Venezuela) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectivo_(Venezuela) Even in the US, the San Jose PD is currently facing a lawsuit for corralling people attending a Trump rally into a mob of violent protesters (Hernandez v. San Jose). The SJPD is arguing that attending a Trump rally is an inherently unsafe act so they have no obligation to protect the citizens there. So it's very easy for NRA supporters to imagine say the California government turning a blind eye to assaults on their homes.
  - viggity 8y ago
    The chances of it happening while the 2nd amendment remains in place are far below .1%. .00001% Maybe? Disarming the public is not a sufficient step for authoritarianism (obviously, there are lots of countries with hard gun control that aren't authoritarian). But disarming the public is a necessary step for successful authoritarianism. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hugo Chavez... all had disarmed populaces when they committed their atrocities. Yes, atrocities happen even when the populace has some access to small arms but it is dramatically harder to wipe out an ethnic group when they are armed.
the_trapper 9y ago
> Theres nothing much we can do, guns vs stones. Gun control works.
- sebleon 9y ago
  In the US’s case, we have a guns vs. armored vehicles and tanks. While better than being unarmed, unclear how much self defense Americans have against a militarized domestic police force [1] [1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/do-not-resist-and-the-crisis-of-police-militarization https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/do-not-resist-and-t...
  - slededit 9y ago
    The US military has performed poorly in every guerrilla war they've participated in. Your chances of success are better than you think.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > The US military has performed poorly in every guerrilla war they've participated in. They've done pretty well in every one they've fought within the territorial boundaries of what is now the US. Farther afield, less so.
      - Semirhage 9y ago
        In other words, they do well only when they’re the ones fighting as guerillas.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        They weren't the guerillas in the Indian Wars.
        Semirhage 9y ago
        Nor did they do particularly well, or fight it alone. You’re talking about a couple of hundred years of fighting at least, more like three hundred. I’m sure that given a similar time frame, the US could “win” in Iraq too.

viggity 9y ago

and this is why I am grateful we have the 2nd Amendment. Sure, you can't match a tank head to head, but the past 50 years of insurgencies show that you don't need to go head to head to still come out on top.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
It should never get that far. It's much harder to abuse a population of which a subset can fight back. If you can't oppress the small groups you can't establish a baseline tolerance/acceptance of abuse. Without that it's much harder to build the corrupt house of cards that precedes a total collapse. It's not about armed revolt. It's about creating a set of circumstances that prevent the oppression that leads up to one. Other amendments on the bill of rights have similar effects. An abusive government needs to control the narrative and shortcuts to bypass due process at scale. The ability to do those comprehensively are severely handicapped by other amendments.
distances 9y ago
Can you mention some insurrection where armed protestants won over a well-equipped state? Even in Syria the serious opposition was due to outside heavy armament supplies and looting of army materiel. For me this reasoning for the 2nd amendment comes out only as a power fantasy which, if it was to actually play out, would simply leave the country worse off (versus unviolent opposition that may need outside support to succeed over a longer term). Finally, even in the unlikely case that a revolution was successful, it would be unlikely to promote liberty but rather just install another autocratic ruling class [1]. [1] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/104346397009003004 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1043463970090030...
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Can you mention some insurrection where armed protestants won over a well-equipped state? I think you mean “protestors” or ”insurrectionists”. “Protestants” suggests something somewhat different. The French Revolution might be an example. Or might not, depending on the exact criteria. > For me this reasoning for the 2nd amendment comes out only as a power fantasy which, if it was to actually play out, would simply leave the country worse off (versus unviolent opposition that may need outside support to succeed over a longer term). Successful revolutions tend to involve outside support or defection of the government forces as decisive factors, but often start with internal non-government armed insurrection. OTOH, the critical and forgotten underpinning of the 2nd amendment was the expectation (which failed to be mandated) that the federal government (and the states) would simply never have large standing armies or internal security forces, and that the call up of the universal militia would be the mechanism of fighting any needed wars or dealing with civic unrest. An armed citizenry is necessary to that model, but it's the absence of significant government armed forces to oppose the citizenry, not the mere fact of an armed citizenry, that is the guarantee of liberty.
- mieseratte 9y ago
  Vietnam? Afghanistan isn't over, but it isn't exactly a bastion of stability. Syria is a highly-complex environment, but it more closely resembles a traditional "take-and-hold territory" war. ISIS needed territory to fulfill their caliphate, for instance. Should another insurrection occur in the US, I would assume it would resemble an insurgency rather than a proper war. You're not going to see a company of modern-day Johnny Reb's parade through your town. You're going to see bombings, assassinations, and destruction of critical infrastructure by what one could reasonably call a terrorist... or freedom fighter. The 2A making it such that small arms and ammunition are distributed so thoroughly makes it hard for a tyrant to take hold and thrive. If you live amongst the jackboots, then you can hit them when they're vulnerable.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Vietnam? The Viet Minh had substantial outside support in its successful campaigns (the allies against Japan in WWII, and then the PRC against France in the First Indochina War), the Viet Cong were crushed even with substantial outside support, and the NVA weren't anti-government insurgents, so unless you mean something in Vietnam other than the conflict of the 1940s through 1970s, I don't think it counts.
rhcom2 9y ago
This "Red Dawn" American insurgency fantasy is so weird to me. In what situation can you imagine that an American anti-government insurance would be 1) needed, 2) effective and in what would them "coming out on top" look like? And what do you think the chances of that even happening? <.1%?
- wmil 9y ago
  The risk isn't active oppression by the military. The risk is that the government will prevent the police from defending opposition groups or anyone who is politically inconvenient. Even in Venezuela most of the violence toward opposition supporters comes from non-government "Colectivos" made of government supporters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectivo_(Venezuela) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectivo_(Venezuela) Even in the US, the San Jose PD is currently facing a lawsuit for corralling people attending a Trump rally into a mob of violent protesters (Hernandez v. San Jose). The SJPD is arguing that attending a Trump rally is an inherently unsafe act so they have no obligation to protect the citizens there. So it's very easy for NRA supporters to imagine say the California government turning a blind eye to assaults on their homes.
- viggity 8y ago
  The chances of it happening while the 2nd amendment remains in place are far below .1%. .00001% Maybe? Disarming the public is not a sufficient step for authoritarianism (obviously, there are lots of countries with hard gun control that aren't authoritarian). But disarming the public is a necessary step for successful authoritarianism. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hugo Chavez... all had disarmed populaces when they committed their atrocities. Yes, atrocities happen even when the populace has some access to small arms but it is dramatically harder to wipe out an ethnic group when they are armed.

the_trapper 9y ago

> Theres nothing much we can do, guns vs stones. Gun control works.

sebleon 9y ago
In the US’s case, we have a guns vs. armored vehicles and tanks. While better than being unarmed, unclear how much self defense Americans have against a militarized domestic police force [1] [1] https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/do-not-resist-and-the-crisis-of-police-militarization https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/do-not-resist-and-t...
- slededit 9y ago
  The US military has performed poorly in every guerrilla war they've participated in. Your chances of success are better than you think.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > The US military has performed poorly in every guerrilla war they've participated in. They've done pretty well in every one they've fought within the territorial boundaries of what is now the US. Farther afield, less so.
    - Semirhage 9y ago
      In other words, they do well only when they’re the ones fighting as guerillas.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        They weren't the guerillas in the Indian Wars.
        Semirhage 9y ago
        Nor did they do particularly well, or fight it alone. You’re talking about a couple of hundred years of fighting at least, more like three hundred. I’m sure that given a similar time frame, the US could “win” in Iraq too.