8 ms·

And what, may I ask, are your pea shooters going to do against the firepower of a corrupt nation state? I find it interesting to observe that most 2A defenders

by jascii 7y ago

And what, may I ask, are your pea shooters going to do against the firepower of a corrupt nation state? I find it interesting to observe that most 2A defenders are totally willing to support bills funding their potential adversaries and limiting your ability to organize. I would argue that in the modern world strong encryption and other safeguards against surveillance much more worthy of of 2A protection than firearms..

madengr 7y ago
Totally agree on the encryption, but why not both? They don’t need a quantum computer to get your 1024 bit key; a pipe wrench will work fine. I need a gun in the latter case. Guns do work. You may end up dead, but you’ll take some with you.
- jascii 7y ago
  Well, I hope -- by among other things, a careful use of encryption -- to avoid facing the pipe wrench :D Dying for a course can be a choice, but I would like it to bring some meaningful benefit to society. Just taking some lackeys with you doesn't seem all that useful to me.
Spooky23 7y ago
The pen is mightier than the sword. Guns themselves are pretty useless except as ways to make a few people rich. The "revolution" against the powerful nation state are the tools of propaganda and discord. Enemies can manipulate our political system and the powerful forces of self-interest and partisanship fog the battlefield. The aura of power associated with guns is literal bread and circus that keeps people angry and ignorant. There's a fantasy that some sort of popular revolt is a viable thing. It's not, and that's been demonstrated time and time again. This sort of thing is a big part of the limits of US power today... there's nobody to blow up. We're equipped to fight the ultimate WW2, but that arsenal cannot be directly focused on a nuclear power. The United States has the most powerful and capable military that has ever existed, but like any tool, it isn't so effective in solving problems outside of it's scope.
- godelski 7y ago
  Why would you assume that the military would just go along with the killings of average Americans? I think there is tons of evidence to suggest that this wouldn't happen. Not only were there problems in Vietnam when people were ordered to kill innocents (you know... people that don't even look like, speak like, or share the same culture as Americans) but we've had a history of military commanders reminding presidents that they are sworn to the constitution. Their oath starts > I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic
  - csallen 7y ago
    There's a large subset of people who, for whatever reason, are particularly attuned to ideas and fears around societal collapse, authoritarian takeovers, and other threats to their personal liberties. That's not to say these fears are completely unfounded -- they've been realized before many times throughout history. But when faced with questions such as, "Would the US military turn on the people?" they're likely to assess the risk far higher than the average person would. They're also far more likely to be libertarians.
    - godelski 7y ago
      I just don't understand why people think the US military would act in unison. I'm sure there would be factions that would go along in this (crazy and unlikely) scenario. But I'm fairly convinced the larger faction would protect the people. We had a hard time getting soldiers to kill civilians in Vietnam. We had a hard time shooting others in WWII. How can you convince me that the majority of these soldiers are going to shoot their friends and family? That scenario itself seems ludicrous.
      - pmoriarty 7y ago
        "I just don't understand why people think the US military would act in unison. I'm sure there would be factions that would go along in this (crazy and unlikely) scenario. But I'm fairly convinced the larger faction would protect the people." I'm not sure why the US military would be an exception in the history of hundreds or thousands of years of militaries being used against domestic civilian populations. Politicians are very good at getting militaries to heel. That's why militaries exist in the first place. "We had a hard time getting soldiers to kill civilians in Vietnam. We had a hard time shooting others in WWII. How can you convince me that the majority of these soldiers are going to shoot their friends and family? That scenario itself seems ludicrous." Some soldiers may have had a hard time killing Vietnamese civilians, yet despite that nearly 200,000 died. In WW2 tens of millions died. As for shooting friends and family, see the viciousness and bloodiness of the American Civil War.
rsync 7y ago
"I find it interesting to observe that most 2A defenders are totally willing to support bills funding their potential adversaries and limiting your ability to organize." I think this is a salient point and I appreciate you making it. "And what, may I ask, are your pea shooters going to do against the firepower of a corrupt nation state?" I am tempted to point your attention to the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu[1] where, poor, badly organized militia members armed with what, I think, could be characterized as "pea shooters"[2] held off the full force of the US Military in a warzone. However I don't think that's a productive discussion because it easily gets bogged down by tactical details and it's hard to make an apples to apples comparison, etc. (although I encourage you to read about it). Instead, I would simply say that I expect repressive, authoritarian behavior by states to expand to fit whatever vacuum is available and the presence of an armed populace places a ceiling on how far that reach will go. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993) [2] Shitty AKs and old, Russian RPGs.
- Cougher 7y ago
  That wasn't planned as a battle force and it certainly wasn't the "full force of the US military". And what was so shitty about their AKs?
- openasocket 7y ago
  The 1993 Battle of Mogadishu isn't the best example, as you alluded to. I'm trying to think of some other representative military actions. The 1944 Warsaw Uprising can be argued to be both evidence in favor of and against your point. It also featured an urban battle between well-trained military forces and civilians with limited supplies, and it's a bit better of an example because it features a much larger military force with the express goal of pacifying the city. The civilian resistance does eventually end up defeated, but only after the Germans essentially destroyed the city and acted without any regard for civilian casualties. You could argue that the Warsaw Uprising shows how much damage a civilian population with limited weapons could inflict. But I would point out that it shows what happens when the nation state doesn't care about collateral damage and needs to crush a resistance (which is why examples featuring the US as the nation state like the Battle of Mogadishu aren't the best).
tenpies 7y ago
> And what, may I ask, are your pea shooters going to do against the firepower of a corrupt nation state? We should ask the Vietnamese and Afghans.
- rriepe 7y ago
  Who's even serving on the side of the "corrupt nation state" in this scenario? Good luck ordering American soldiers to fire on Americans over 2A of all things. The whole thing is a fever dream.
  - BolexNOLA 7y ago
    ...except when the authoritarian regime successfully paints dissenters as enemies of the state.
    - godelski 7y ago
      Do you not think the military itself would faction? Because I'm not convinced it would act in a single way. Generals have defied presidential orders.
      - BolexNOLA 7y ago
        We’ve seen it across the world over and over again. Rebellions/Government overthrows that are successful are few and far between. Who do you think puts down the ones that failed? The military.
- openasocket 7y ago
  The Afghan point stands, though it's a common misconception that the North Vietnamese were very poorly armed. The Viet Cong were an insurgency group, but North Vietnam had a traditional army which was relatively well equipped for the era. Including rocket artillery (BM-21), supersonic jet fighters (Mig-21s), surface to air missiles (SA-2), and main battle tanks (Type 59, among others). I definitely wouldn't put their weaponry in the same category as "pea shooters"
virmundi 7y ago
You are correct. Small arms have never stopped the US in the past. Afghan war they all had nukes. Same with Vietnam. Small arms are not enough. The large geographic challengers of the US military holding the entire US won’t help the civilians either. It is best to disarm now.
blockmarker 7y ago
People have this idea that gun owners would stand in an empty field shooting at tanks with their handguns, and whoever won in that field battle would win the control of the country, which is quite silly. First, if enough gunmen rose up, the US would be ruined, and the tyranny with it. Sure, they can bomb any rebelling city, but those rebelling cities are their cashcows. Enough of those destroyed and the tyranny is less profitable than freedom; too many of those destroyed and the country as a whole is ruined. Even if the factories are not ruined, big population losses would be equally bad. Or they can do terrorism. Assassinations, sabotage of infraestructure. Tyrants live somewhere, and they send their children to school. Collaborators(which probably would be civil servants, police and the army) also need to sleep somewhere and have children and family. They could just be shot while going home, or killed by IEDs while patrolling. Infraestructure is much easier to destroy than to repair. Killing the power grid or destroying a bridge hurts the rebellion as much or more than it does the dictatorship, but I don't think they would care much. Having guns is also a great detterent to creeping tyranny(well, at least when the guns owners care enough to do something). If every overreach was met with hundreds of thousands of angry people with guns on Washington, they would stop overreaching. I agree that it is quite foolish that these people support things which actually work against them, but do not understimate what hundreds of thousands of angry gunmen could do. Even if they didn't win, they would ruin the US. And making tyranny less profitable than liberty is a good protection against it.
- watwut 7y ago
  Basically, terrorism for freedom? I have hard time to find situation where it actually worked that way in the past. If it would be that easy, ISIS would do it long time ago.
  - godelski 7y ago
    > I have hard time to find situation where it actually worked that way in the past. US?
    - watwut 7y ago
      When? Civil war involved armies and so did war for independence. Natives lost.
NotATroll 7y ago
> And what, may I ask, are your pea shooters going to do against the firepower of a corrupt nation state? Kill and intimidate people. This a serious question? Yeah, in an all out war it's not likely to work. But an all out war against your armed citizenry also isn't likely to happen. Politicians are still people. They too, can fear being at the wrong end of a barrel. Which no, isn't some kind of veiled threat. But more an important point that politicians, just like everyone, also tend to want to live & sleep peacefully at night. It's not in their self-interests to make such a move. What's far more likely to happen is what's already happening/happened. The erosion of various rights, and the militarization of the police force.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>And what, may I ask, are your pea shooters going to do against the firepower of a corrupt nation state? How do you say "make controlling you economically untenable" in Pashto or "bomb your way to the negotiating table" in Irish? It's not about winning, it's about making tyranny expensive and unattractive. Insurgency is basically a bloody tax on doing something that a large enough subset of the populace finds sufficiently objectionable. The more armed the populace the higher the tax rate.
4ntonius8lock 7y ago
My grandfather was part of the Danish resistance. Him and his 'pea shooters' caused nasty losses to the Natzies, and ended up saving quite a few people. The 'pea shooters' of Russian peasants (together with acquaintance of the local terrain) took down Napoleon. A few guys with 'pea shooters' in America even founded a country!
- watwut 7y ago
  Denmark was occupied most of war. Russia had an actual state army fighting Napoleon, it was not random peasants. You are simplifying American history too.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    I know they were occupied. Read my post. I'm proud of my grandfather and the Natzies he killed and the people he saved as part of the resistance (I have stories passed down of prisoners being saved, people whose grandchildren are alive today and wouldn't be otherwise). You might want to make it seem like it was inconsequential by highlighting the fact that they were occupied. But I have to say, it seems a little keyboard warrior to minimize Danish resistance. Russia had an actual army, but local guerrilla resistance played an important part. I've read about the bravery of the Russian resistance with awe. For the US, yes we received support from France. I'm pretty well acquainted. But if you are going to say that George Washington and his men had nothing to do with our struggle for freedom, that's on you. Using words like 'peashooters' makes the anti-gun lobby seem out of touch, just like people who would say Obama is Muslim/Communist. There's a certain nasty arrogance of showing huge disrespect towards those who have achieve more than you ever will.
    - watwut 7y ago
      The parent where thread started claims that the small time resistance with small guns is what will stop the governmental tyranny and army. Which is not what stops the governmental tyranny, no matter how brave those people are. The argument is about whether it can protect the freedom, not whether resistance (or refusal to cooperate) with whatever tools available deserve celebration. The bravery alone does not stop armies and did not stopped the armies. Power, actual power did it in all those cases. (And for that matter, bad guys were brave too, sacrificed a lot too, just for the bad cause.)
gerbilly 7y ago
It would be a tough fight for sure, and let's hope it never comes to that, but look at what insurgents in Vietnam/Irak were able to do against the us military with scarce resources.

by jascii 7y ago

madengr 7y ago

Totally agree on the encryption, but why not both? They don’t need a quantum computer to get your 1024 bit key; a pipe wrench will work fine. I need a gun in the latter case. Guns do work. You may end up dead, but you’ll take some with you.

jascii 7y ago
Well, I hope -- by among other things, a careful use of encryption -- to avoid facing the pipe wrench :D Dying for a course can be a choice, but I would like it to bring some meaningful benefit to society. Just taking some lackeys with you doesn't seem all that useful to me.

Spooky23 7y ago

The pen is mightier than the sword. Guns themselves are pretty useless except as ways to make a few people rich. The "revolution" against the powerful nation state are the tools of propaganda and discord. Enemies can manipulate our political system and the powerful forces of self-interest and partisanship fog the battlefield. The aura of power associated with guns is literal bread and circus that keeps people angry and ignorant. There's a fantasy that some sort of popular revolt is a viable thing. It's not, and that's been demonstrated time and time again. This sort of thing is a big part of the limits of US power today... there's nobody to blow up. We're equipped to fight the ultimate WW2, but that arsenal cannot be directly focused on a nuclear power. The United States has the most powerful and capable military that has ever existed, but like any tool, it isn't so effective in solving problems outside of it's scope.

godelski 7y ago
Why would you assume that the military would just go along with the killings of average Americans? I think there is tons of evidence to suggest that this wouldn't happen. Not only were there problems in Vietnam when people were ordered to kill innocents (you know... people that don't even look like, speak like, or share the same culture as Americans) but we've had a history of military commanders reminding presidents that they are sworn to the constitution. Their oath starts > I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic
- csallen 7y ago
  There's a large subset of people who, for whatever reason, are particularly attuned to ideas and fears around societal collapse, authoritarian takeovers, and other threats to their personal liberties. That's not to say these fears are completely unfounded -- they've been realized before many times throughout history. But when faced with questions such as, "Would the US military turn on the people?" they're likely to assess the risk far higher than the average person would. They're also far more likely to be libertarians.
  - godelski 7y ago
    I just don't understand why people think the US military would act in unison. I'm sure there would be factions that would go along in this (crazy and unlikely) scenario. But I'm fairly convinced the larger faction would protect the people. We had a hard time getting soldiers to kill civilians in Vietnam. We had a hard time shooting others in WWII. How can you convince me that the majority of these soldiers are going to shoot their friends and family? That scenario itself seems ludicrous.
    - pmoriarty 7y ago
      "I just don't understand why people think the US military would act in unison. I'm sure there would be factions that would go along in this (crazy and unlikely) scenario. But I'm fairly convinced the larger faction would protect the people." I'm not sure why the US military would be an exception in the history of hundreds or thousands of years of militaries being used against domestic civilian populations. Politicians are very good at getting militaries to heel. That's why militaries exist in the first place. "We had a hard time getting soldiers to kill civilians in Vietnam. We had a hard time shooting others in WWII. How can you convince me that the majority of these soldiers are going to shoot their friends and family? That scenario itself seems ludicrous." Some soldiers may have had a hard time killing Vietnamese civilians, yet despite that nearly 200,000 died. In WW2 tens of millions died. As for shooting friends and family, see the viciousness and bloodiness of the American Civil War.

rsync 7y ago

"I find it interesting to observe that most 2A defenders are totally willing to support bills funding their potential adversaries and limiting your ability to organize." I think this is a salient point and I appreciate you making it. "And what, may I ask, are your pea shooters going to do against the firepower of a corrupt nation state?" I am tempted to point your attention to the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu[1] where, poor, badly organized militia members armed with what, I think, could be characterized as "pea shooters"[2] held off the full force of the US Military in a warzone. However I don't think that's a productive discussion because it easily gets bogged down by tactical details and it's hard to make an apples to apples comparison, etc. (although I encourage you to read about it). Instead, I would simply say that I expect repressive, authoritarian behavior by states to expand to fit whatever vacuum is available and the presence of an armed populace places a ceiling on how far that reach will go. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993) [2] Shitty AKs and old, Russian RPGs.

Cougher 7y ago
That wasn't planned as a battle force and it certainly wasn't the "full force of the US military". And what was so shitty about their AKs?
openasocket 7y ago
The 1993 Battle of Mogadishu isn't the best example, as you alluded to. I'm trying to think of some other representative military actions. The 1944 Warsaw Uprising can be argued to be both evidence in favor of and against your point. It also featured an urban battle between well-trained military forces and civilians with limited supplies, and it's a bit better of an example because it features a much larger military force with the express goal of pacifying the city. The civilian resistance does eventually end up defeated, but only after the Germans essentially destroyed the city and acted without any regard for civilian casualties. You could argue that the Warsaw Uprising shows how much damage a civilian population with limited weapons could inflict. But I would point out that it shows what happens when the nation state doesn't care about collateral damage and needs to crush a resistance (which is why examples featuring the US as the nation state like the Battle of Mogadishu aren't the best).

tenpies 7y ago

> And what, may I ask, are your pea shooters going to do against the firepower of a corrupt nation state? We should ask the Vietnamese and Afghans.

rriepe 7y ago
Who's even serving on the side of the "corrupt nation state" in this scenario? Good luck ordering American soldiers to fire on Americans over 2A of all things. The whole thing is a fever dream.
- BolexNOLA 7y ago
  ...except when the authoritarian regime successfully paints dissenters as enemies of the state.
  - godelski 7y ago
    Do you not think the military itself would faction? Because I'm not convinced it would act in a single way. Generals have defied presidential orders.
    - BolexNOLA 7y ago
      We’ve seen it across the world over and over again. Rebellions/Government overthrows that are successful are few and far between. Who do you think puts down the ones that failed? The military.
openasocket 7y ago
The Afghan point stands, though it's a common misconception that the North Vietnamese were very poorly armed. The Viet Cong were an insurgency group, but North Vietnam had a traditional army which was relatively well equipped for the era. Including rocket artillery (BM-21), supersonic jet fighters (Mig-21s), surface to air missiles (SA-2), and main battle tanks (Type 59, among others). I definitely wouldn't put their weaponry in the same category as "pea shooters"

virmundi 7y ago

You are correct. Small arms have never stopped the US in the past. Afghan war they all had nukes. Same with Vietnam. Small arms are not enough. The large geographic challengers of the US military holding the entire US won’t help the civilians either. It is best to disarm now.

blockmarker 7y ago

People have this idea that gun owners would stand in an empty field shooting at tanks with their handguns, and whoever won in that field battle would win the control of the country, which is quite silly. First, if enough gunmen rose up, the US would be ruined, and the tyranny with it. Sure, they can bomb any rebelling city, but those rebelling cities are their cashcows. Enough of those destroyed and the tyranny is less profitable than freedom; too many of those destroyed and the country as a whole is ruined. Even if the factories are not ruined, big population losses would be equally bad. Or they can do terrorism. Assassinations, sabotage of infraestructure. Tyrants live somewhere, and they send their children to school. Collaborators(which probably would be civil servants, police and the army) also need to sleep somewhere and have children and family. They could just be shot while going home, or killed by IEDs while patrolling. Infraestructure is much easier to destroy than to repair. Killing the power grid or destroying a bridge hurts the rebellion as much or more than it does the dictatorship, but I don't think they would care much. Having guns is also a great detterent to creeping tyranny(well, at least when the guns owners care enough to do something). If every overreach was met with hundreds of thousands of angry people with guns on Washington, they would stop overreaching. I agree that it is quite foolish that these people support things which actually work against them, but do not understimate what hundreds of thousands of angry gunmen could do. Even if they didn't win, they would ruin the US. And making tyranny less profitable than liberty is a good protection against it.

watwut 7y ago
Basically, terrorism for freedom? I have hard time to find situation where it actually worked that way in the past. If it would be that easy, ISIS would do it long time ago.
- godelski 7y ago
  > I have hard time to find situation where it actually worked that way in the past. US?
  - watwut 7y ago
    When? Civil war involved armies and so did war for independence. Natives lost.

NotATroll 7y ago

> And what, may I ask, are your pea shooters going to do against the firepower of a corrupt nation state? Kill and intimidate people. This a serious question? Yeah, in an all out war it's not likely to work. But an all out war against your armed citizenry also isn't likely to happen. Politicians are still people. They too, can fear being at the wrong end of a barrel. Which no, isn't some kind of veiled threat. But more an important point that politicians, just like everyone, also tend to want to live & sleep peacefully at night. It's not in their self-interests to make such a move. What's far more likely to happen is what's already happening/happened. The erosion of various rights, and the militarization of the police force.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>And what, may I ask, are your pea shooters going to do against the firepower of a corrupt nation state? How do you say "make controlling you economically untenable" in Pashto or "bomb your way to the negotiating table" in Irish? It's not about winning, it's about making tyranny expensive and unattractive. Insurgency is basically a bloody tax on doing something that a large enough subset of the populace finds sufficiently objectionable. The more armed the populace the higher the tax rate.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago

My grandfather was part of the Danish resistance. Him and his 'pea shooters' caused nasty losses to the Natzies, and ended up saving quite a few people. The 'pea shooters' of Russian peasants (together with acquaintance of the local terrain) took down Napoleon. A few guys with 'pea shooters' in America even founded a country!

watwut 7y ago
Denmark was occupied most of war. Russia had an actual state army fighting Napoleon, it was not random peasants. You are simplifying American history too.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  I know they were occupied. Read my post. I'm proud of my grandfather and the Natzies he killed and the people he saved as part of the resistance (I have stories passed down of prisoners being saved, people whose grandchildren are alive today and wouldn't be otherwise). You might want to make it seem like it was inconsequential by highlighting the fact that they were occupied. But I have to say, it seems a little keyboard warrior to minimize Danish resistance. Russia had an actual army, but local guerrilla resistance played an important part. I've read about the bravery of the Russian resistance with awe. For the US, yes we received support from France. I'm pretty well acquainted. But if you are going to say that George Washington and his men had nothing to do with our struggle for freedom, that's on you. Using words like 'peashooters' makes the anti-gun lobby seem out of touch, just like people who would say Obama is Muslim/Communist. There's a certain nasty arrogance of showing huge disrespect towards those who have achieve more than you ever will.
  - watwut 7y ago
    The parent where thread started claims that the small time resistance with small guns is what will stop the governmental tyranny and army. Which is not what stops the governmental tyranny, no matter how brave those people are. The argument is about whether it can protect the freedom, not whether resistance (or refusal to cooperate) with whatever tools available deserve celebration. The bravery alone does not stop armies and did not stopped the armies. Power, actual power did it in all those cases. (And for that matter, bad guys were brave too, sacrificed a lot too, just for the bad cause.)

gerbilly 7y ago

It would be a tough fight for sure, and let's hope it never comes to that, but look at what insurgents in Vietnam/Irak were able to do against the us military with scarce resources.