3 ms·

> Who would stop that abduction from happening with force? What if the men doing that are police officers? What if they go after your family the day after? Now

> Who would stop that abduction from happening with force? What if the men doing that are police officers? What if they go after your family the day after? Now you understand why the Black Panthers arose: the black community realized that it needed to arm itself to protect against the oppressive power of the state. It could be argued that modern infringements on the Second Amendment are largely a reaction of the government in response to a minority community resisting law enforcement tyranny. I can't even count how many times I've read anti-2A arguments on HN...people laughed at the idea that people should need to arm themselves against their own government. Well......now everyone can see how quickly state power can turn malevolent, and why the Right to Bear Arms matters.

poincaredisk 2y ago
The only thing I see is that having guns everywhere around does nothing to actually stop a country from descending into fascism. Thanks, I'll stay in my region, at least we have no school shootings or violent crime.
- CapricornNoble 2y ago
  >The only thing I see is that having guns everywhere around does nothing to actually stop a country from descending into fascism. The US is charting new ground here. Almost every other massively-oppressive state apparatus has prioritized restricting private firearms ownership early in their decent into tyranny for a reason. > Thanks, I'll stay in my region, at least we have no school shootings or violent crime. The rate of firearms ownership in the US has been on a slow decline for the past 40-50 years (not sure how accurate data is before 1970 or 1980), from roughly 45% to 30%. School shootings have skyrocketed in the past ~30 years, and were pretty rare before Columbine. The two don't appear to be correlated. How do you reconcile this? I suspect that other societal factors are more salient causes.....perhaps the explosion in single-mother parenthood (something like 40% of all families now), combined with the known impacts on poor juvenile behavior in young boys and the explosion in "attention culture" courtesy of social media are the major factors in emotionally unstable teens gunning down their peers? That said....I live in a country with almost no firearms and also have the peace of mind that nobody is gonna shoot my children. But I'm also in a homogeneous society that has almost no concern or risk level for their government turning tyrannical.
Viliam1234 2y ago
> Well......now everyone can see how quickly state power can turn malevolent, and why the Right to Bear Arms matters. I still don't see how people are today using 2A to defend themselves against the redcaps. When the state power turns malevolent but many of your neighbors are happy about it, your gun is not going to overthrow the regime (because those neighbors have guns, too).
- collingreen 2y ago
  I think this is really important - 2A is about being able to arm a militia and only has value when a vast majority of the people are willing to put their life on the line against the military. It isn't magically an antidote to authoritarianism and it's a deep negative if too many of your neighbors don't like the look of you and don't believe in rights or the rule of law.
grey-area 2y ago
Have you used your gun to overthrow the state? Why not?
- CapricornNoble 2y ago
  I derive substantial portions of my wealth-building from the military-industrial complex, while living outside of the US insulates me, and my children, from the worst of both America's fractured society AND from the authoritarian overreach that typically disproportionately affects minorities such as myself. For my family unit, the path through all this chaos of imperial decline involves building up sustainable property ownership and revenue streams in Asia and Africa while winding down our US footprint to a minimum (real estate, social security/military pension/VA benefits). For me to engage in an insurgency, the government would need to seize our US home, and/or cancel our benefits. Even then I'd need to work out some cost-benefit analysis to determine whether I could maximize my children's wealth by either a) continuing to build wealth outside the US or b) fighting to gain restitution via the new revolutionary government.
  - grey-area 2y ago
    I think if you inspect your answer you’ll see why guns are not what is required for overthrowing a government. Citizens willing to risk their lives, property and liberty is the main requirement, usually because the current situation is so intolerable to them. Most overthrows result from the population refusing to cooperate, going to the seat of power en masse and forcing a change. Guns would be counterproductive in that process and would justify brutal reprisals. An unarmed civilian crowd is far more persuasive for wavering troops ordered to fire on it. In addition, most armed rebellions bring out the worst characters as leaders and lead to dictatorship.
    - CapricornNoble 2y ago
      > I think if you inspect your answer you’ll see why guns are not what is required for overthrowing a government. Citizens willing to risk their lives, property and liberty is the main requirement, usually because the current situation is so intolerable to them. I don't disagree with that. People have to be invested in the cause first. Weapons are just tools there to both 1) discourage the powerful from attempting tyranny 2) ensure the people at least have access to the final arbiter of power: violence. > Most overthrows result from the population refusing to cooperate It would be interesting to see the data on this. Peaceful protests didn't work in Syria or Myanmar, for example. Eventual armed rebellion succeeded in Syria...but still hasn't succeeded in Myanmar despite decades of conflict. Peaceful protests in China got rolled over by tanks in the 1980s (Tianamen). The Arab Spring was shut down pretty fiercely in Bahrain despite being unarmed, but I'm not that familiar with the details. > going to the seat of power en masse and forcing a change. Guns would be counterproductive in that process You go to the seat of power, you kill or overpower the security forces, then you take the people inside who think they can oppress you, drag them out into the street, and shoot them. Show trials are optional but recommended. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_execution_of_Nicolae_and_Elena_Ceau%C8%99escu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_execution_of_Nicolae... ) > In addition, most armed rebellions bring out the worst characters as leaders and lead to dictatorship. "The blade itself incites to deeds of violence." (great book series BTW) In all likelihood the US got really lucky with George Washington and that colors our national mythology, and by extension our perspective on armed rebellion. Because of course a military officer who breaks laws and uses violence against his government will be magnanimous, and not turn into a vicious and brutal druglord ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Guzm%C3%A1n_Decena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Guzm%C3%A1n_Decena ).

poincaredisk 2y ago

The only thing I see is that having guns everywhere around does nothing to actually stop a country from descending into fascism. Thanks, I'll stay in my region, at least we have no school shootings or violent crime.

CapricornNoble 2y ago
>The only thing I see is that having guns everywhere around does nothing to actually stop a country from descending into fascism. The US is charting new ground here. Almost every other massively-oppressive state apparatus has prioritized restricting private firearms ownership early in their decent into tyranny for a reason. > Thanks, I'll stay in my region, at least we have no school shootings or violent crime. The rate of firearms ownership in the US has been on a slow decline for the past 40-50 years (not sure how accurate data is before 1970 or 1980), from roughly 45% to 30%. School shootings have skyrocketed in the past ~30 years, and were pretty rare before Columbine. The two don't appear to be correlated. How do you reconcile this? I suspect that other societal factors are more salient causes.....perhaps the explosion in single-mother parenthood (something like 40% of all families now), combined with the known impacts on poor juvenile behavior in young boys and the explosion in "attention culture" courtesy of social media are the major factors in emotionally unstable teens gunning down their peers? That said....I live in a country with almost no firearms and also have the peace of mind that nobody is gonna shoot my children. But I'm also in a homogeneous society that has almost no concern or risk level for their government turning tyrannical.

Viliam1234 2y ago

> Well......now everyone can see how quickly state power can turn malevolent, and why the Right to Bear Arms matters. I still don't see how people are today using 2A to defend themselves against the redcaps. When the state power turns malevolent but many of your neighbors are happy about it, your gun is not going to overthrow the regime (because those neighbors have guns, too).

collingreen 2y ago
I think this is really important - 2A is about being able to arm a militia and only has value when a vast majority of the people are willing to put their life on the line against the military. It isn't magically an antidote to authoritarianism and it's a deep negative if too many of your neighbors don't like the look of you and don't believe in rights or the rule of law.

grey-area 2y ago

Have you used your gun to overthrow the state? Why not?

CapricornNoble 2y ago
I derive substantial portions of my wealth-building from the military-industrial complex, while living outside of the US insulates me, and my children, from the worst of both America's fractured society AND from the authoritarian overreach that typically disproportionately affects minorities such as myself. For my family unit, the path through all this chaos of imperial decline involves building up sustainable property ownership and revenue streams in Asia and Africa while winding down our US footprint to a minimum (real estate, social security/military pension/VA benefits). For me to engage in an insurgency, the government would need to seize our US home, and/or cancel our benefits. Even then I'd need to work out some cost-benefit analysis to determine whether I could maximize my children's wealth by either a) continuing to build wealth outside the US or b) fighting to gain restitution via the new revolutionary government.
- grey-area 2y ago
  I think if you inspect your answer you’ll see why guns are not what is required for overthrowing a government. Citizens willing to risk their lives, property and liberty is the main requirement, usually because the current situation is so intolerable to them. Most overthrows result from the population refusing to cooperate, going to the seat of power en masse and forcing a change. Guns would be counterproductive in that process and would justify brutal reprisals. An unarmed civilian crowd is far more persuasive for wavering troops ordered to fire on it. In addition, most armed rebellions bring out the worst characters as leaders and lead to dictatorship.
  - CapricornNoble 2y ago
    > I think if you inspect your answer you’ll see why guns are not what is required for overthrowing a government. Citizens willing to risk their lives, property and liberty is the main requirement, usually because the current situation is so intolerable to them. I don't disagree with that. People have to be invested in the cause first. Weapons are just tools there to both 1) discourage the powerful from attempting tyranny 2) ensure the people at least have access to the final arbiter of power: violence. > Most overthrows result from the population refusing to cooperate It would be interesting to see the data on this. Peaceful protests didn't work in Syria or Myanmar, for example. Eventual armed rebellion succeeded in Syria...but still hasn't succeeded in Myanmar despite decades of conflict. Peaceful protests in China got rolled over by tanks in the 1980s (Tianamen). The Arab Spring was shut down pretty fiercely in Bahrain despite being unarmed, but I'm not that familiar with the details. > going to the seat of power en masse and forcing a change. Guns would be counterproductive in that process You go to the seat of power, you kill or overpower the security forces, then you take the people inside who think they can oppress you, drag them out into the street, and shoot them. Show trials are optional but recommended. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_execution_of_Nicolae_and_Elena_Ceau%C8%99escu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_execution_of_Nicolae... ) > In addition, most armed rebellions bring out the worst characters as leaders and lead to dictatorship. "The blade itself incites to deeds of violence." (great book series BTW) In all likelihood the US got really lucky with George Washington and that colors our national mythology, and by extension our perspective on armed rebellion. Because of course a military officer who breaks laws and uses violence against his government will be magnanimous, and not turn into a vicious and brutal druglord ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Guzm%C3%A1n_Decena https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Guzm%C3%A1n_Decena ).