4 ms·

In all seriousness, what is incorrect about that statement? Take a look at all the video taken since Saturday, then compare it to, say, the protests against loc

by untog 6y ago

In all seriousness, what is incorrect about that statement? Take a look at all the video taken since Saturday, then compare it to, say, the protests against lockdowns just a few weeks ago. Surely you see the very notable difference?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
If you don’t see how inaccurate several parts of that statement are, I am afraid that it would likely not be a productive discussion for either of us.
- untog 6y ago
  I see we’ve already downgraded to “several parts” of the statement. But you’re right, if you refuse to actually articulate your objection then no, we cannot have a productive discussion.
klyrs 6y ago
> Surely you see the very notable difference? Is it the open carry of long guns? Is that what peaceful protesters should use to de-escalate the situation? Makes perfect sense. Cops love guns! Just some cool doodz having a chill gun party, come have a beer and a doobie, officer. Show you mine if you'll show me yours?
- salawat 6y ago
  Actually, it absolutely is the best deterrence. Numerical advantage of firearms means the first person to shoot downright loses. Both sides will do everything they can to not be the aggressor. When you have disparity in ability to apply force vs ability to weather the response, that's when the violence actually happens. Nobody comes looking for a fair fight. Therefore you never find them when the stakes areas high as they are.
  - acdha 6y ago
    That sounds better on a bumper sticker than when you think about it even slightly longer. The police have tons of guns, armored vehicles, and the backing of the largest military in the world. If you threaten them, do you really think they’re going to back down instead of getting bigger guns?
    - salawat 6y ago
      The big bad military isn't going to end up doing squat, because the moment they are employed, odds are unless there are a hell of a lot more people out there perfectly fine with watching what are largely peaceful protests get steamrolled. Furthermore, it'll be a tacit admission that the State's legitimacy is significantly compromised. Many in the military are, contrary to popular belief, quite patriotic, and very concerned withthe integrity of the system. It is not a foregone conclusion a dearth of volunteers to put the boot to countrymen may manifest. Furthermore, to the sibling poster's assertion that's a great way to ensure gun control laws get passed, when the State's legitimacy is already in question, further clenching of the iron fist (particularly from the American viewpoint I grew up with) will exactly not yield the quiet compliance one might imagine. In fact, it would result in quite the opposite given any active attempt at confiscation.there's also the problem of who you intend on having do said confiscation, and just how bulletproof they are, and where on the "persons I'll comply with" spectrum they'll fall on . Also, again, once the guns go, all the other far more destructive, nigh-impossible to regulate means of destruction and mayhem creation get put on the table. You don'thonestly think that all that new anger will just go home and sulk while you have the government of the United States running around fielding the least hyperbolic stormtrooper initiatives on American soil, do you? If you think things are bad and violent now. Get back to me when you start actually pulling the pages from the dictator's population subjugation handbook. This entire endeavor is remarkable in that it is trivial for this turmoil to bedissipated bythepolice deescalating and being open to a a greater degree of civic oversight,and being held to a higher standard. Or so the protestor supporters seem to repeat. The refusal to make a meaningful gesture in that direction suggests to me that it what we're going through is a macro-event. Something that's been building for a long time, and isn't going to ground out without substantive structural change. It's anyone's guess how this'll go; but I'm wagering the first time the military proper gets involved it may be a sign of the end days of the country I was brought up loving. Then again, I've been wondering if that was the case since 2001... So... Yeah. Take it or leave it.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I’ve changed my mind on this recently; I suspect that if the protestors today had been heavily armed and armored, the cops would not have attacked them.
  - fellowniusmonk 6y ago
    I completely agree.

by untog 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

If you don’t see how inaccurate several parts of that statement are, I am afraid that it would likely not be a productive discussion for either of us.

untog 6y ago
I see we’ve already downgraded to “several parts” of the statement. But you’re right, if you refuse to actually articulate your objection then no, we cannot have a productive discussion.

klyrs 6y ago

> Surely you see the very notable difference? Is it the open carry of long guns? Is that what peaceful protesters should use to de-escalate the situation? Makes perfect sense. Cops love guns! Just some cool doodz having a chill gun party, come have a beer and a doobie, officer. Show you mine if you'll show me yours?

salawat 6y ago
Actually, it absolutely is the best deterrence. Numerical advantage of firearms means the first person to shoot downright loses. Both sides will do everything they can to not be the aggressor. When you have disparity in ability to apply force vs ability to weather the response, that's when the violence actually happens. Nobody comes looking for a fair fight. Therefore you never find them when the stakes areas high as they are.
- acdha 6y ago
  That sounds better on a bumper sticker than when you think about it even slightly longer. The police have tons of guns, armored vehicles, and the backing of the largest military in the world. If you threaten them, do you really think they’re going to back down instead of getting bigger guns?
  - salawat 6y ago
    The big bad military isn't going to end up doing squat, because the moment they are employed, odds are unless there are a hell of a lot more people out there perfectly fine with watching what are largely peaceful protests get steamrolled. Furthermore, it'll be a tacit admission that the State's legitimacy is significantly compromised. Many in the military are, contrary to popular belief, quite patriotic, and very concerned withthe integrity of the system. It is not a foregone conclusion a dearth of volunteers to put the boot to countrymen may manifest. Furthermore, to the sibling poster's assertion that's a great way to ensure gun control laws get passed, when the State's legitimacy is already in question, further clenching of the iron fist (particularly from the American viewpoint I grew up with) will exactly not yield the quiet compliance one might imagine. In fact, it would result in quite the opposite given any active attempt at confiscation.there's also the problem of who you intend on having do said confiscation, and just how bulletproof they are, and where on the "persons I'll comply with" spectrum they'll fall on . Also, again, once the guns go, all the other far more destructive, nigh-impossible to regulate means of destruction and mayhem creation get put on the table. You don'thonestly think that all that new anger will just go home and sulk while you have the government of the United States running around fielding the least hyperbolic stormtrooper initiatives on American soil, do you? If you think things are bad and violent now. Get back to me when you start actually pulling the pages from the dictator's population subjugation handbook. This entire endeavor is remarkable in that it is trivial for this turmoil to bedissipated bythepolice deescalating and being open to a a greater degree of civic oversight,and being held to a higher standard. Or so the protestor supporters seem to repeat. The refusal to make a meaningful gesture in that direction suggests to me that it what we're going through is a macro-event. Something that's been building for a long time, and isn't going to ground out without substantive structural change. It's anyone's guess how this'll go; but I'm wagering the first time the military proper gets involved it may be a sign of the end days of the country I was brought up loving. Then again, I've been wondering if that was the case since 2001... So... Yeah. Take it or leave it.
ashtonkem 6y ago
I’ve changed my mind on this recently; I suspect that if the protestors today had been heavily armed and armored, the cops would not have attacked them.
- fellowniusmonk 6y ago
  I completely agree.