5 ms·

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 ne

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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
    - mieseratte 8y ago
      > the Viet Cong were crushed even with substantial outside support I'm as pro-US as they come, but The Tet Offensive, of which the Viet Cong played a crucial role, was crucial in breaking the will of the American populace to support the war leading to its end. I'd call that a pretty successful insurgent group. Would they have won as quickly, or as soon as they did without the NVA? Who knows, maybe they would have broken the will or maybe it would have been the United States' Afghanistan.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > I'm as pro-US as they come, Being pro-US has nothing to do with it; as you might note in my other comments, I've made a similar argument against the US revolution being an example of an insurgent group being independently successful against a well-equipped national force. > but The Tet Offensive, of which the Viet Cong played a crucial role, was crucial in breaking the will of the American populace to support the war leading to its end. I'd call that a pretty successful insurgent group. They had massive outside support the whole time, even before Tet, and the VC was essentially gone after the Tet Offensive. Sure, it was important in breaking US will to continue the war, but without the NVA taking up the main battle after Tet, there would have been no war to continue. Yes, for an insurgent group, the VC was relatively successful; that underscores that insurgent groups almost invariably succeed, if at all, with either massive defection from the military of the regime they are fighting or massive outside support, or both.
- ropeadopepope 8y ago
  > Can you mention some insurrection where armed protestants won over a well-equipped state Vietnam. Korea. Haiti. > this reasoning for the 2nd amendment comes out only as a power fantasy That's the reason the 2nd amendment was written the way it was: 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.' It was legal for most of American history to own military grade hardware. Explosives. Cannons. Naval Armadas. Food for thought: it's still legal for companies to own all of these things but not individuals.
  - greedo 8y ago
    Vietnam? When North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, they used more tanks than the largest WW2 battle. North Vietnam had fighter jets, SAMs, a powerful benefactor in the USSR etc etc etc. The Vietcong were indigenous, though funded and armed by the NVA. They were thoroughly defeated during Tet.
    - ropeadopepope 8y ago
      Play all the sophistry games you want: over a 20 year period, a poorly armed force beat not one, but two forces that had superior firepower and numbers.
      - greedo 8y ago
        How were they poorly armed? Their infantry weapons were first class, far better than deployed by the French or Americans. They had arguably better trained soldiers for jungle combat. They had a powerful patron in the USSR that was willing to provide top of the line SAMs that were manned by Russian technicians. Yet they still lost almost every battle against the Americans (sorry France, Dien Bien Phu...). After Tet, the VietCong ceased to exist as a fighting force. S. Vietnam would have held against the NVA if Congress hadn't cut off funding to their army. When North Vietnam attempted to invade the South in 1972, they had 67% casualties. In 1975, when Congress refused to provide air support, the South fell. You can call it sophistry, but the facts stand as true.
- d0lph 8y ago
  The American Revolution no?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    French arms, training, and actual troops were pretty key to that victory, with massive covert support from 1776 and overt support (for which Britain declared war on France) from 1778. The American Revolutionary War was, in many respects, a French proxy war against Britain that blew up into a direct war between the two major powers. Of course, this is one of those things we Americans like to ignore in our national mythology, but...
rhcom2 8y 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 8y 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.

dsfyu404ed 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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 8y 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.
  - mieseratte 8y ago
    > the Viet Cong were crushed even with substantial outside support I'm as pro-US as they come, but The Tet Offensive, of which the Viet Cong played a crucial role, was crucial in breaking the will of the American populace to support the war leading to its end. I'd call that a pretty successful insurgent group. Would they have won as quickly, or as soon as they did without the NVA? Who knows, maybe they would have broken the will or maybe it would have been the United States' Afghanistan.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > I'm as pro-US as they come, Being pro-US has nothing to do with it; as you might note in my other comments, I've made a similar argument against the US revolution being an example of an insurgent group being independently successful against a well-equipped national force. > but The Tet Offensive, of which the Viet Cong played a crucial role, was crucial in breaking the will of the American populace to support the war leading to its end. I'd call that a pretty successful insurgent group. They had massive outside support the whole time, even before Tet, and the VC was essentially gone after the Tet Offensive. Sure, it was important in breaking US will to continue the war, but without the NVA taking up the main battle after Tet, there would have been no war to continue. Yes, for an insurgent group, the VC was relatively successful; that underscores that insurgent groups almost invariably succeed, if at all, with either massive defection from the military of the regime they are fighting or massive outside support, or both.
ropeadopepope 8y ago
> Can you mention some insurrection where armed protestants won over a well-equipped state Vietnam. Korea. Haiti. > this reasoning for the 2nd amendment comes out only as a power fantasy That's the reason the 2nd amendment was written the way it was: 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.' It was legal for most of American history to own military grade hardware. Explosives. Cannons. Naval Armadas. Food for thought: it's still legal for companies to own all of these things but not individuals.
- greedo 8y ago
  Vietnam? When North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, they used more tanks than the largest WW2 battle. North Vietnam had fighter jets, SAMs, a powerful benefactor in the USSR etc etc etc. The Vietcong were indigenous, though funded and armed by the NVA. They were thoroughly defeated during Tet.
  - ropeadopepope 8y ago
    Play all the sophistry games you want: over a 20 year period, a poorly armed force beat not one, but two forces that had superior firepower and numbers.
    - greedo 8y ago
      How were they poorly armed? Their infantry weapons were first class, far better than deployed by the French or Americans. They had arguably better trained soldiers for jungle combat. They had a powerful patron in the USSR that was willing to provide top of the line SAMs that were manned by Russian technicians. Yet they still lost almost every battle against the Americans (sorry France, Dien Bien Phu...). After Tet, the VietCong ceased to exist as a fighting force. S. Vietnam would have held against the NVA if Congress hadn't cut off funding to their army. When North Vietnam attempted to invade the South in 1972, they had 67% casualties. In 1975, when Congress refused to provide air support, the South fell. You can call it sophistry, but the facts stand as true.
d0lph 8y ago
The American Revolution no?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  French arms, training, and actual troops were pretty key to that victory, with massive covert support from 1776 and overt support (for which Britain declared war on France) from 1778. The American Revolutionary War was, in many respects, a French proxy war against Britain that blew up into a direct war between the two major powers. Of course, this is one of those things we Americans like to ignore in our national mythology, but...

rhcom2 8y 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 8y 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.