3 ms·

Big government enables this behavior by example.

kevingadd 5y ago
This is simply not true. A government of almost any size can act freely in this way without sufficient oversight. If you're out in a rural area at the mercy of the local sheriff it doesn't matter how much "big government" your state has. The only way "small government" would remedy this is if they were so outnumbered by the populace that citizens could take their property back by force. But in reality, the citizens would just get gunned down.
- rpmisms 5y ago
  > But in reality, the citizens would just get gunned down. This is actually a cool feature of the US constitution, it attempts to enable citizens to prevent this.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kevingadd 5y ago
    The guns you own with your second amendment rights will not protect you from riot cops in a helicopter with rifles or driving around in a tank. To even go toe to toe with militarized police you'd need things that are incredibly illegal to own like RPGs, and you'd need training to use them. The second amendment basically lets you shoot a cop if they infringe on your rights. Then you get hunted down and either convicted without a fair trial or shot in the back. Naturally I would not advise pulling your gun on a police officer. The only counter example I can think of is the recent case where a guy returned fire at a van full of cops (they were blindly spraying 'less-lethal' munitions at civilians from an unmarked van) after they shot at him. He got off because his defense was able to prove he had no way to know he was shooting at cops, otherwise he was gonna spend his life in prison.
    - rpmisms 5y ago
      > The guns you own with your second amendment rights will not protect you from riot cops in a helicopter with rifles or driving around in a tank. To even go toe to toe with militarized police you'd need things that are incredibly illegal to own like RPGs, and you'd need training to use them. I hear this a lot, and it's silly. You just don't see it happen because generally the people who own the powerful weaponry are responsible and don't shoot at cops. Helicopters go down easy with 50BMG, and tanks are massively impractical the moment you get out of a city. They're easy to disable, have limited range, and can't safely handle a lot of terrain. > The only counter example I can think of is the recent case where a guy returned fire at a van full of cops (they were blindly spraying 'less-lethal' munitions at civilians from an unmarked van) after they shot at him. He got off because his defense was able to prove he had no way to know he was shooting at cops, otherwise he was gonna spend his life in prison. I think we'll be seeing more of this as more middle class people buy firearms and learn about self-defense laws. Cops abuse their power a lot, and it's beginning to happen to people who have lawyer money.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Big government enables this behavior by example The historically-valid small government is a local warlord.
- rpmisms 5y ago
  I wasn't making an exclusionary statement. Might-makes-right can also enable this behavior.
- mbg721 5y ago
  The historically-valid small government is a parent.

This is simply not true. A government of almost any size can act freely in this way without sufficient oversight. If you're out in a rural area at the mercy of the local sheriff it doesn't matter how much "big government" your state has. The only way "small government" would remedy this is if they were so outnumbered by the populace that citizens could take their property back by force. But in reality, the citizens would just get gunned down.

rpmisms 5y ago
> But in reality, the citizens would just get gunned down. This is actually a cool feature of the US constitution, it attempts to enable citizens to prevent this.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kevingadd 5y ago
  The guns you own with your second amendment rights will not protect you from riot cops in a helicopter with rifles or driving around in a tank. To even go toe to toe with militarized police you'd need things that are incredibly illegal to own like RPGs, and you'd need training to use them. The second amendment basically lets you shoot a cop if they infringe on your rights. Then you get hunted down and either convicted without a fair trial or shot in the back. Naturally I would not advise pulling your gun on a police officer. The only counter example I can think of is the recent case where a guy returned fire at a van full of cops (they were blindly spraying 'less-lethal' munitions at civilians from an unmarked van) after they shot at him. He got off because his defense was able to prove he had no way to know he was shooting at cops, otherwise he was gonna spend his life in prison.
  - rpmisms 5y ago
    > The guns you own with your second amendment rights will not protect you from riot cops in a helicopter with rifles or driving around in a tank. To even go toe to toe with militarized police you'd need things that are incredibly illegal to own like RPGs, and you'd need training to use them. I hear this a lot, and it's silly. You just don't see it happen because generally the people who own the powerful weaponry are responsible and don't shoot at cops. Helicopters go down easy with 50BMG, and tanks are massively impractical the moment you get out of a city. They're easy to disable, have limited range, and can't safely handle a lot of terrain. > The only counter example I can think of is the recent case where a guy returned fire at a van full of cops (they were blindly spraying 'less-lethal' munitions at civilians from an unmarked van) after they shot at him. He got off because his defense was able to prove he had no way to know he was shooting at cops, otherwise he was gonna spend his life in prison. I think we'll be seeing more of this as more middle class people buy firearms and learn about self-defense laws. Cops abuse their power a lot, and it's beginning to happen to people who have lawyer money.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> Big government enables this behavior by example The historically-valid small government is a local warlord.

rpmisms 5y ago
I wasn't making an exclusionary statement. Might-makes-right can also enable this behavior.
mbg721 5y ago
The historically-valid small government is a parent.