5 ms·

That is exactly the reason the 2nd Amendment exists in the US constitution. It certainly wasn’t to protect target shooting and hunting, but to protect against p

That is exactly the reason the 2nd Amendment exists in the US constitution. It certainly wasn’t to protect target shooting and hunting, but to protect against precisely the sort of oppression happening in Hong Kong. Governments should fear the people, not the other way around. The 2nd Amendment is a check on tyranny. Those that are downvoting the parent, what’s the solution? In China, you can’t protest your way to freedom. It hasn’t worked. It’s naïve to think that non-violent protest against China would ever solve anything. Let’s not forget the non-violence of Gandhi in India was strengthened by actual violence. [1] And the American revolution wasn’t won because of protest, in fact, there was considerable protest and petitioning against the British prior to war and it resulted in the British becoming even more oppressive. It took guns and blood to win. [1] http://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-violence-that-helped-india-break-free-from-colonial-rule-57904 http://theconversation.com/the-forgotten-violence-that-helpe...

hrktb 7y ago
Does the US government fear its own people ? From the outside, it seems that police equipment escalated to get army grade vehicles and weapons, and the army has been to enough wars involving fighting civilians that they could crush most opposition in a matter of days. Then what's happening in HK is masked "civilians" committing crimes, so the manifestant reacting to them with violence would also fall on the illegal side and it would be game for the police to intervene openly as strongly as they want.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >From the outside, it seems that police equipment escalated to get army grade vehicles and weapons, and the army has been to enough wars involving fighting civilians that they could crush most opposition in a matter of days. Sure they "could" but will they. Right now the mainland populace knows nothing of this. If you let it turn into a bloodbath that could create a big enough international incident that people could find out. Is it worth the risk? > it would be game for the police to intervene openly as strongly as they want. And when the police don't want to prevent violence you get stuff like this[1]. Now, obviously the moral high ground in that example is reversed but my point is that the police need to want to prevent violent retribution if the locals want to inflict it and they are to prevent violent retribution. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Duluth-lynching-postcard.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Duluth-l...
  - hrktb 7y ago
    > Sure they "could" but will they. Right now the mainland populace knows nothing of this. If you let it turn into a bloodbath that could create a big enough international incident that people could find out. Is it worth the risk? Sorry it wasn't clear, I was talking about the police in the USA and the second amendment. I was explaining why I think civils having weapons just doesn't mean much against the current government. > the police need to want to prevent violent retribution if the locals want to inflict it Sure, we all agree. Here the gov/police is orchestrating the violence, so I guess we also agree they don't want to prevent it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
wp381640 7y ago
> Chenoweth and Stephan collected data on all violent and nonviolent campaigns from 1900 to 2006 that resulted in the overthrow of a government or in territorial liberation. They created a data set of 323 mass actions. Chenoweth analyzed nearly 160 variables related to success criteria, participant categories, state capacity, and more. The results turned her earlier paradigm on its head — in the aggregate, nonviolent civil resistance was far more effective in producing change. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolen...
- dorfsmay 7y ago
  This make sense intuitively: governments are better armed than the people (militarized police, military). If guns are used in a conflict between the people and a government, the government will crush the people immediately. On the other hand, enough protests and civil disobedience will disrupt the economy and the functioning of the government to the point they will have to react, or resign. I am not American and haven't studied the U.S. history, but the cynic in me cannot help but wonder if the 2nd amendment is kept to let people think they are protected from tyranny while not fighting back any laws and unfair policies. When was the last time a law or policy was successfully fought and turned around in the U.S.?
  - gruez 7y ago
    >When was the last time a law or policy was successfully fought and turned around in the U.S.? Prohibition Civil rights act Roe v Wade Gay marriage Marijuana legalization
    - dorfsmay 7y ago
      Good list! I had not thought of those. In which of those was the 2nd amendment used? Having said that, weren't those slow change of the laws? I was thinking more about forceful events like the opposition to the Vietnam war, the yellow jackets in France, or what's going on in Hongkong right now.
clouddrover 7y ago
> Governments should fear the people, not the other way around. The 2nd Amendment is a check on tyranny. How fearful is the US government of Americans? Consider: - The US government surveils Americans when it wants, as much as it wants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... - US police kill about 1,000 Americans every year. US police kill more Americans than terrorists do: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police... - US presidents assassinate US citizens without consequence: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-old-american-in-yemen-trump-just-killed-his-8-year-old-sister/ https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o... - The US government can search you or your devices at the border without cause, even if you're a citizen: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/16/us/border-legal-rights-faq-trnd/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/16/us/border-legal-rights-fa... I see plenty of brazenness in the US government's behaviour. I don't see much fear.

hrktb 7y ago

Does the US government fear its own people ? From the outside, it seems that police equipment escalated to get army grade vehicles and weapons, and the army has been to enough wars involving fighting civilians that they could crush most opposition in a matter of days. Then what's happening in HK is masked "civilians" committing crimes, so the manifestant reacting to them with violence would also fall on the illegal side and it would be game for the police to intervene openly as strongly as they want.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>From the outside, it seems that police equipment escalated to get army grade vehicles and weapons, and the army has been to enough wars involving fighting civilians that they could crush most opposition in a matter of days. Sure they "could" but will they. Right now the mainland populace knows nothing of this. If you let it turn into a bloodbath that could create a big enough international incident that people could find out. Is it worth the risk? > it would be game for the police to intervene openly as strongly as they want. And when the police don't want to prevent violence you get stuff like this[1]. Now, obviously the moral high ground in that example is reversed but my point is that the police need to want to prevent violent retribution if the locals want to inflict it and they are to prevent violent retribution. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Duluth-lynching-postcard.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Duluth-l...
- hrktb 7y ago
  > Sure they "could" but will they. Right now the mainland populace knows nothing of this. If you let it turn into a bloodbath that could create a big enough international incident that people could find out. Is it worth the risk? Sorry it wasn't clear, I was talking about the police in the USA and the second amendment. I was explaining why I think civils having weapons just doesn't mean much against the current government. > the police need to want to prevent violent retribution if the locals want to inflict it Sure, we all agree. Here the gov/police is orchestrating the violence, so I guess we also agree they don't want to prevent it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

wp381640 7y ago

> Chenoweth and Stephan collected data on all violent and nonviolent campaigns from 1900 to 2006 that resulted in the overthrow of a government or in territorial liberation. They created a data set of 323 mass actions. Chenoweth analyzed nearly 160 variables related to success criteria, participant categories, state capacity, and more. The results turned her earlier paradigm on its head — in the aggregate, nonviolent civil resistance was far more effective in producing change. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolen...

dorfsmay 7y ago
This make sense intuitively: governments are better armed than the people (militarized police, military). If guns are used in a conflict between the people and a government, the government will crush the people immediately. On the other hand, enough protests and civil disobedience will disrupt the economy and the functioning of the government to the point they will have to react, or resign. I am not American and haven't studied the U.S. history, but the cynic in me cannot help but wonder if the 2nd amendment is kept to let people think they are protected from tyranny while not fighting back any laws and unfair policies. When was the last time a law or policy was successfully fought and turned around in the U.S.?
- gruez 7y ago
  >When was the last time a law or policy was successfully fought and turned around in the U.S.? Prohibition Civil rights act Roe v Wade Gay marriage Marijuana legalization
  - dorfsmay 7y ago
    Good list! I had not thought of those. In which of those was the 2nd amendment used? Having said that, weren't those slow change of the laws? I was thinking more about forceful events like the opposition to the Vietnam war, the yellow jackets in France, or what's going on in Hongkong right now.

clouddrover 7y ago

> Governments should fear the people, not the other way around. The 2nd Amendment is a check on tyranny. How fearful is the US government of Americans? Consider: - The US government surveils Americans when it wants, as much as it wants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite... - US police kill about 1,000 Americans every year. US police kill more Americans than terrorists do: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police... - US presidents assassinate US citizens without consequence: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-old-american-in-yemen-trump-just-killed-his-8-year-old-sister/ https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o... - The US government can search you or your devices at the border without cause, even if you're a citizen: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/16/us/border-legal-rights-faq-trnd/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/16/us/border-legal-rights-fa... I see plenty of brazenness in the US government's behaviour. I don't see much fear.