8 ms·

> Not when you have millions deluded, angry, violent and ready to use any means to incite violence, take down gov, threaten governors That's exactly what our t

> Not when you have millions deluded, angry, violent and ready to use any means to incite violence, take down gov, threaten governors That's exactly what our tyrannical Russian government says about those who don't like Putin being in power for 20+ years. Thus, they limit our rights for free speech online, prosecute for extremism, deny us rights to peacefully gather and protest. If you Americans go down this path any further, you'll too find yourself living under the tyrannical dictatorship no better than ours. Oh, unfortunately, unlike you, we don't have 2nd amendment rights, so actually rebelling is harder. So I suggest you clinging to your guns as strong as you can: all points that you are going to need them.

dash2 6y ago
I find the whole argument that 2nd amendment rights support rebellion a bit weird. (UK speaker here.) The US government has marines, tanks, and advanced weaponry. Even the police are tooled up to the 9s, partly because of those very 2nd amendment rights. Is there any case of a citizen militia successfully using force to overthrow a modern state with a well-equipped, loyal army?
- hiram112 6y ago
  See insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now assume half the military itself is sympathetic to the “rebels” and the government would have a difficult time containing any real insurgency. The US government has made a lot of enemies over the decades, many of whom would be more than willing to provide modern weapons and explosives to the insurgents. Though the US overwhelmed the Iraqi military quickly and decisively, it was a decade of constant roadside bombs, made with materials easily smuggled into the country and implemented with minimal training, that eventually wore down US morale and willingness to fight. Finally, the US military is such a big business here, a good percentage of the population has had professional military training and combat experience.
- names_are_hard 6y ago
  I don't know how it would play out, but it's worth noting that to overthrow someone stronger than you you don't always need a bigger gun. You need to be more willing to use your gun than they are. The US government has nukes, but they still got their asses handed to them in Vietnam and struggled in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's true that if the feds truly want to squash an uprising they have the means to do it. But do they have the will to do it? At what cost? I can imagine a scenario where they'd be willing to use enough force to subdue unarmed citizens by not enough to subdue an armed uprising, which could escalate to civil war. In short: there exists a scenario in which the second amendment enables the citizens to resist the government to an extent that they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Whether this is a good or bad thing is something you can decide for yourself.
  - 8note 6y ago
    The unarmed civilians were repressed over summer, sure, but the government still largely capitulated in the end.
- throwaway316943 6y ago
  Fat lot of good that did when fighting uneducated and untrained rice farmers and goat herders. Morale, knowledge of territory, civilian support and a conviction that you are fighting to defend your land and people will keep the fight going longer than even the most highly trained and funded military can.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Victory in such conflicts is won not by the side that can inflict more damage to the enemy, but by the one that can withstand more suffering. That's why US were unable to defeat Vietnam or USSR was unable to defeat Afghanistan.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Have you heard of Vietnam or Iraq?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jlkuester7 6y ago
  This does not quite fit your bill of "successfully using force", but the 2014 Bundy Standoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff) was an interesting example of armed citizen "militia" facing off against armed federal agents who ultimately backed down. It does not seem like a stretch to assume that a significant part of the BLM's decision calculus involved weighing the cost-benefit analysis of the gun-fight that would likely result from them trying to force the issue. That being said, there are, of course, a bunch of other examples of armed conflicts with the government that do not turn out well for the "citizens" when the government decides to violently pursue its goals (1985 MOVE bombing, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc). But, I guess my point with all of this is that, for better or worse, the proliferation of guns in American society certainly does have an effect on the decision matrix of the government (even if the "citizen militia" ultimately does not stand a chance against a determined government response...
  - kortex 6y ago
    > the proliferation of guns in American society certainly does have an effect on the decision matrix of the government (even if the "citizen militia" ultimately does not stand a chance against a determined government response... This is precisely the intended effect. Sure some wahoos think they could fully overthrow the military but for most it is about changing the calculus from "tyrannical takeover of unarmed populace with minimal resistance" to "uh oh, they are fighting back". This results in much more of a cause to rally around, feed into rebel propaganda, win over military members to the "just cause" which of course tips the balance, etc. We saw what only a few hundreds of folks could do when parts of the normal defense are strangely absent. Imagine even a 30% defection.
    - abernard1 6y ago
      > Sure some wahoos think they could fully overthrow the military If it was ever at that point, the military would not exist in its current form. The "military" is not a monolith that would just suppress a revolt if it was that size and scope that it needed to. The Civil War in the U.S. had almost all of its Confederate soldiers come from the U.S. Army. The current leadership corps in the U.S. military is disproportionately Southern and conservative. They're not going to be going against their countrymen if it came to that, and no one is going to be nuking their own cities.
- pasulkaman 6y ago
  The US's inability to win in Afghanistan and Vietnam are two examples. Also you just watched tens of thousands of people gather on the Capitol and take it over without any weapons. Imagine if millions of people had arrived and they were armed. How do you imagine a militia of millions armed with weapons would fare against an army that, with all of its advanced weaponry, took years to clamp down on ISIS and still hasn't fully succeeded?
NicoJuicy 6y ago
This isn't the same. I'd compare it with Putin having lost in the election and trying to prep his base to overturn the votes using lies and propaganda. ( Belgian opinion)
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Umm, no. That is not comparable, because censorship is done by the winning side. The comparison you made would be valid if it was Trump who did the censorship, blocking Biden/Antifa/etc and purging them from all major news networks.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    He is doing the censorship in areas where he has control, e.g. his own party: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2021/01/09/opinion-after-heinous-assault-time-reckon-reality/6599593002/ https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2021/01/09/opinion...
    - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
      You may mostly forget about Trump, he'll be out in a fortnight. The problem now is your tech overlords, who have shown that they are very willing to silence and deplatform their political opponents, and who seems closely aligned with your new government. Good luck voting them out next time.
      - cycloptic 6y ago
        >The problem now is your tech overlords No, it really isn't, and this fear-mongering rhetoric is extremely unhelpful. There is bi-partisan support for antitrust actions towards these companies. If trump's (former?) followers are serious about breaking up big tech, they should stop repeating trump's baseless lies about how big tech is some sort of satanic radical leftist communist conspiracy, and get it on these bi-partisan lawsuits.
        6y ago
matwood 6y ago
> deny us rights to peacefully gather and protest. The protest wasn't the issue. Storming the capitol is the problem. > If you Americans go down this path any further, you'll too find yourself living under the tyrannical dictatorship no better than ours. In this case, we are trying to prevent a tyrannical dictator. I do agree though that we are possibly entering a damned if we do, damned if we don't territory.
- waheoo 6y ago
  Portland has been storming government buildings for months. Where do you think these people got the idea from? Andy gno and timcast IRL has been streaming news on these attacks and riots for just as many many months. The people that did this have been ignored for a very long time and been watching government do nothing while their lives get ripped apart by a virus and a mob of people calling them racist for being white. You people dont seem to understand you are just as bubbled as the right is.
  - Steltek 6y ago
    Don't you dare equate BLM with the Right. BLM is responding to the very recent history of murder, oppression, and disenfranchisement by the police and government. It was captured repeatedly on brutal video this very year. And that's not even going back decades to the true horrors of history. Whatever delusional "wrongs" the Right feels they've suffered from the government doesn't come close to comparing to that. In a true Godwin's Law type fashion, even attempting a comparison might be enough to end the argument.
    - waheoo 6y ago
      > Don't you dare equate BLM with the Right. I didn't. You did. I specifically said Portland, and yes, many of the people there involved were acting under the pretense of BLM but imo it was mostly just black bloc antifa being antifa. Portland antifa groups have a known and consistent history of this behavior, they've exploited BLM to amplify their attacks and they've used the support they received for doing so to embolden their actions. They have literally stalked and murdered trump supporters in the street, they have shot people, and they have blinded and maimed anyone that gets in their way.
mr_toad 6y ago
> That's exactly what our tyrannical Russian government says Tyrannical governments will always find a way to abuse the legal system. Most people would be in favour of laws against corruption, but corruption charges are one of the most common ways that autocrats use to suppress opposition.
ipiz0618 6y ago
Agreed. All dictators say this to their opposition - that they are just out to disrupt "peaceful" society. In China, "being peaced" is an internet slang that means silencing opposition by the government.

dash2 6y ago

I find the whole argument that 2nd amendment rights support rebellion a bit weird. (UK speaker here.) The US government has marines, tanks, and advanced weaponry. Even the police are tooled up to the 9s, partly because of those very 2nd amendment rights. Is there any case of a citizen militia successfully using force to overthrow a modern state with a well-equipped, loyal army?

hiram112 6y ago
See insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now assume half the military itself is sympathetic to the “rebels” and the government would have a difficult time containing any real insurgency. The US government has made a lot of enemies over the decades, many of whom would be more than willing to provide modern weapons and explosives to the insurgents. Though the US overwhelmed the Iraqi military quickly and decisively, it was a decade of constant roadside bombs, made with materials easily smuggled into the country and implemented with minimal training, that eventually wore down US morale and willingness to fight. Finally, the US military is such a big business here, a good percentage of the population has had professional military training and combat experience.
names_are_hard 6y ago
I don't know how it would play out, but it's worth noting that to overthrow someone stronger than you you don't always need a bigger gun. You need to be more willing to use your gun than they are. The US government has nukes, but they still got their asses handed to them in Vietnam and struggled in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's true that if the feds truly want to squash an uprising they have the means to do it. But do they have the will to do it? At what cost? I can imagine a scenario where they'd be willing to use enough force to subdue unarmed citizens by not enough to subdue an armed uprising, which could escalate to civil war. In short: there exists a scenario in which the second amendment enables the citizens to resist the government to an extent that they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Whether this is a good or bad thing is something you can decide for yourself.
- 8note 6y ago
  The unarmed civilians were repressed over summer, sure, but the government still largely capitulated in the end.
throwaway316943 6y ago
Fat lot of good that did when fighting uneducated and untrained rice farmers and goat herders. Morale, knowledge of territory, civilian support and a conviction that you are fighting to defend your land and people will keep the fight going longer than even the most highly trained and funded military can.
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Victory in such conflicts is won not by the side that can inflict more damage to the enemy, but by the one that can withstand more suffering. That's why US were unable to defeat Vietnam or USSR was unable to defeat Afghanistan.
ceilingcorner 6y ago
Have you heard of Vietnam or Iraq?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jlkuester7 6y ago
This does not quite fit your bill of "successfully using force", but the 2014 Bundy Standoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff) was an interesting example of armed citizen "militia" facing off against armed federal agents who ultimately backed down. It does not seem like a stretch to assume that a significant part of the BLM's decision calculus involved weighing the cost-benefit analysis of the gun-fight that would likely result from them trying to force the issue. That being said, there are, of course, a bunch of other examples of armed conflicts with the government that do not turn out well for the "citizens" when the government decides to violently pursue its goals (1985 MOVE bombing, Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc). But, I guess my point with all of this is that, for better or worse, the proliferation of guns in American society certainly does have an effect on the decision matrix of the government (even if the "citizen militia" ultimately does not stand a chance against a determined government response...
- kortex 6y ago
  > the proliferation of guns in American society certainly does have an effect on the decision matrix of the government (even if the "citizen militia" ultimately does not stand a chance against a determined government response... This is precisely the intended effect. Sure some wahoos think they could fully overthrow the military but for most it is about changing the calculus from "tyrannical takeover of unarmed populace with minimal resistance" to "uh oh, they are fighting back". This results in much more of a cause to rally around, feed into rebel propaganda, win over military members to the "just cause" which of course tips the balance, etc. We saw what only a few hundreds of folks could do when parts of the normal defense are strangely absent. Imagine even a 30% defection.
  - abernard1 6y ago
    > Sure some wahoos think they could fully overthrow the military If it was ever at that point, the military would not exist in its current form. The "military" is not a monolith that would just suppress a revolt if it was that size and scope that it needed to. The Civil War in the U.S. had almost all of its Confederate soldiers come from the U.S. Army. The current leadership corps in the U.S. military is disproportionately Southern and conservative. They're not going to be going against their countrymen if it came to that, and no one is going to be nuking their own cities.
pasulkaman 6y ago
The US's inability to win in Afghanistan and Vietnam are two examples. Also you just watched tens of thousands of people gather on the Capitol and take it over without any weapons. Imagine if millions of people had arrived and they were armed. How do you imagine a militia of millions armed with weapons would fare against an army that, with all of its advanced weaponry, took years to clamp down on ISIS and still hasn't fully succeeded?

NicoJuicy 6y ago

This isn't the same. I'd compare it with Putin having lost in the election and trying to prep his base to overturn the votes using lies and propaganda. ( Belgian opinion)

Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Umm, no. That is not comparable, because censorship is done by the winning side. The comparison you made would be valid if it was Trump who did the censorship, blocking Biden/Antifa/etc and purging them from all major news networks.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  He is doing the censorship in areas where he has control, e.g. his own party: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2021/01/09/opinion-after-heinous-assault-time-reckon-reality/6599593002/ https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2021/01/09/opinion...
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    You may mostly forget about Trump, he'll be out in a fortnight. The problem now is your tech overlords, who have shown that they are very willing to silence and deplatform their political opponents, and who seems closely aligned with your new government. Good luck voting them out next time.
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      >The problem now is your tech overlords No, it really isn't, and this fear-mongering rhetoric is extremely unhelpful. There is bi-partisan support for antitrust actions towards these companies. If trump's (former?) followers are serious about breaking up big tech, they should stop repeating trump's baseless lies about how big tech is some sort of satanic radical leftist communist conspiracy, and get it on these bi-partisan lawsuits.
      - 6y ago

matwood 6y ago

> deny us rights to peacefully gather and protest. The protest wasn't the issue. Storming the capitol is the problem. > If you Americans go down this path any further, you'll too find yourself living under the tyrannical dictatorship no better than ours. In this case, we are trying to prevent a tyrannical dictator. I do agree though that we are possibly entering a damned if we do, damned if we don't territory.

waheoo 6y ago
Portland has been storming government buildings for months. Where do you think these people got the idea from? Andy gno and timcast IRL has been streaming news on these attacks and riots for just as many many months. The people that did this have been ignored for a very long time and been watching government do nothing while their lives get ripped apart by a virus and a mob of people calling them racist for being white. You people dont seem to understand you are just as bubbled as the right is.
- Steltek 6y ago
  Don't you dare equate BLM with the Right. BLM is responding to the very recent history of murder, oppression, and disenfranchisement by the police and government. It was captured repeatedly on brutal video this very year. And that's not even going back decades to the true horrors of history. Whatever delusional "wrongs" the Right feels they've suffered from the government doesn't come close to comparing to that. In a true Godwin's Law type fashion, even attempting a comparison might be enough to end the argument.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    > Don't you dare equate BLM with the Right. I didn't. You did. I specifically said Portland, and yes, many of the people there involved were acting under the pretense of BLM but imo it was mostly just black bloc antifa being antifa. Portland antifa groups have a known and consistent history of this behavior, they've exploited BLM to amplify their attacks and they've used the support they received for doing so to embolden their actions. They have literally stalked and murdered trump supporters in the street, they have shot people, and they have blinded and maimed anyone that gets in their way.

mr_toad 6y ago

> That's exactly what our tyrannical Russian government says Tyrannical governments will always find a way to abuse the legal system. Most people would be in favour of laws against corruption, but corruption charges are one of the most common ways that autocrats use to suppress opposition.

ipiz0618 6y ago

Agreed. All dictators say this to their opposition - that they are just out to disrupt "peaceful" society. In China, "being peaced" is an internet slang that means silencing opposition by the government.