3 ms·

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,

by 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.

3 ms·

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,

by rhcom2 8y ago

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.