11 ms·

Simple. Because the authors take on the whole scenario is flawed and bias. "Why aren't Americans rising up like the people of Chile and Lebanon?" Is a flawed q

Simple. Because the authors take on the whole scenario is flawed and bias. "Why aren't Americans rising up like the people of Chile and Lebanon?" Is a flawed question because the authors viewpoint is wrong. For example - The emphasis they place on the Occupy Movement is misplaced. Such movements are minuscule compared to the remainder of the United States. "They have the guns but we have the numbers." Yeah, But you know who has more guns? The remainder of the US Population who thinks things while flawed, are fine and will get better. The remainder of the US Population who wants nothing to do with Socialism and Communism. "Without the movement-building work of thousands of Americans, Bernie Sanders would still be a little-known Senator from Vermon (And the entire end of the article)" Which is actually testament that the system can and does work. How many new Politicians like AOC have been elected since 2011? How many non-career Politicians have upset career politicians since 2011. On BOTH sides. People can point to the electoral college as a failure - But the fact is.. Congress is being represented by the people and campaigns are working. Much to the dismay of those who wish to uphold the status-quo on both sides. And that fact alone - Is why Americans aren't rising up. Because unlike Chile and Lebanon, We don't have a central leader with all the power. We have a Government with checks and balances that frankly, works a majority of the time. Where-as Chile and Lebanon doesn't.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Fjolsvith 7y ago
Don't forget the U.S. Constitution. Nor the millions of veterans who swore to uphold it. Nor the 1.3 million active duty military personnel who are also sworn to uphold it.
- chrismeller 7y ago
  I’m not clear on what that has to do with this? I get the Constitution aspect, but the military? The Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Acts severely limit the use of US military force domestically. Yes the US police forces have been militarized and yes the governors of each state can call up the National Guard, and yes both acts can be repealed by Congress, but I just feel like it’s shortsighted to think that if this kind of scenario were to happen there wouldn’t be at least a few states whose governors would be going along with it. All of the ex-military folks I know are also the last people I would expect to blindly be going along with the military just because that’s what was ordered, they’ve served their time and now they make up their own minds.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    Ex military personnel tend to hold the rights described by the Constitution a bit dearer than others. It's not like they would jump on some revolution to overthrow something they swore to uphold at one point in their life.
- entropea 7y ago
  Ah yes, holding up the constitution by not getting congressional authorization to engage in war with foreign countries.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    Why would Americans rising up want to get congressional authorization?
Accujack 7y ago
>"They have the guns but we have the numbers." Yeah, But you know who has more guns? The remainder of the US Population who thinks things while flawed, are fine and will get better. The remainder of the US Population who wants nothing to do with Socialism and Communism. You're oversimplifying here. There are plenty of people who own guns who are not Republicans or conservative, and there are socialists with guns. The population of the US is not neatly divided into "good guys" and "bad guys". However, the original article this whole thread is based on is deeply flawed, regardless.
- digi59404 7y ago
  I didn't specify republicans or conservatives. I broke it down into those who think it's fine, and those who don't. One of the biggest fallacies around is that Republicans/Conservatives are the GREAT majority of gun owners. The reality is there are tons of Democrat/Liberals that own guns. And that's perfectly fine. As for Socialists with guns. I think the metrics on how many true socialists actually exist are flawed. But that's a different conversation. And no - The country is not divided into good guys and bad guys. My comment was against the author who did divide the country into good guys and bad guys. Regardless - If a civil war were to break out. It would be good guys and bad guys. That's one of the biggest tragedies of war. Nuance is killed.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Fjolsvith 7y ago

Don't forget the U.S. Constitution. Nor the millions of veterans who swore to uphold it. Nor the 1.3 million active duty military personnel who are also sworn to uphold it.

chrismeller 7y ago
I’m not clear on what that has to do with this? I get the Constitution aspect, but the military? The Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Acts severely limit the use of US military force domestically. Yes the US police forces have been militarized and yes the governors of each state can call up the National Guard, and yes both acts can be repealed by Congress, but I just feel like it’s shortsighted to think that if this kind of scenario were to happen there wouldn’t be at least a few states whose governors would be going along with it. All of the ex-military folks I know are also the last people I would expect to blindly be going along with the military just because that’s what was ordered, they’ve served their time and now they make up their own minds.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Ex military personnel tend to hold the rights described by the Constitution a bit dearer than others. It's not like they would jump on some revolution to overthrow something they swore to uphold at one point in their life.
entropea 7y ago
Ah yes, holding up the constitution by not getting congressional authorization to engage in war with foreign countries.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Why would Americans rising up want to get congressional authorization?

Accujack 7y ago

>"They have the guns but we have the numbers." Yeah, But you know who has more guns? The remainder of the US Population who thinks things while flawed, are fine and will get better. The remainder of the US Population who wants nothing to do with Socialism and Communism. You're oversimplifying here. There are plenty of people who own guns who are not Republicans or conservative, and there are socialists with guns. The population of the US is not neatly divided into "good guys" and "bad guys". However, the original article this whole thread is based on is deeply flawed, regardless.

digi59404 7y ago
I didn't specify republicans or conservatives. I broke it down into those who think it's fine, and those who don't. One of the biggest fallacies around is that Republicans/Conservatives are the GREAT majority of gun owners. The reality is there are tons of Democrat/Liberals that own guns. And that's perfectly fine. As for Socialists with guns. I think the metrics on how many true socialists actually exist are flawed. But that's a different conversation. And no - The country is not divided into good guys and bad guys. My comment was against the author who did divide the country into good guys and bad guys. Regardless - If a civil war were to break out. It would be good guys and bad guys. That's one of the biggest tragedies of war. Nuance is killed.