3 ms·

I don't know whether you've noticed, but being armed is simply giving the Federales more reasons to kill you first. The woman shot in Minneapolis was shot on th

by pjc50 10mo ago

I don't know whether you've noticed, but being armed is simply giving the Federales more reasons to kill you first. The woman shot in Minneapolis was shot on the pretext of using her car as a weapon. How do people really expect this to work? In detail? You show up with an armed militia at a school and the ICE guys just drive on past (and then raid someone else)? Or are they expecting more of an Amerimaidan situation? Jan 6th situation?

selectodude 10mo ago
It’s a bunch of dudes who think they’re literally Rambo. Like, sure with enough firepower you can maybe take out two before they take you out but any sort of application of your second amendment rights is going to end quickly for you.
- dabluecaboose 10mo ago
  The irony of the romanticizing of the "Lone Wolf" is that, in reality, the lone wolf dies alone. Coordinating with your neighbors and compatriots is essential from the soap box, to the ballot box, to the jury box, and to the cartridge box. And I'd like to emphasize the order of those boxes should be followed.
  - ben_w 10mo ago
    Last time I noted the four boxes, it was to point out the first three are all being simultaneously threatened by Trump, in a way that I (albeit as an outsider to US politics!) consider "credible". Like pjc50, I'm British by birth, though I no longer live there. Like most Brits, the USA's 2nd Amendment isn't something we look up to, it's something we consider deeply weird. Even UK police are not routinely armed, and I've seen polls saying they don't want that to change. And also like several commenters here, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference. Trump was actually fired at, albeit by an idiot, he still supports the 2nd Amendment. Either the armed forces step in on the side of the constitution, or they step in on the side of the administration, but either way the 2nd Amendment isn't going to make a difference: the guerrilla teams use AR-15s, the military can afford to respond with drone strikes.
johnisgood 10mo ago
[flagged]
- budududuroiu 10mo ago
  "Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle." [1] What I see is an ICE agent a half-step away from moving out of the path of the vehicle [1] https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy...
  - johnisgood 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - budududuroiu 10mo ago
      Yes, let's argue a truly hypothetical situation that has no contact with reality. What you're arguing is that the woman (alive) pointed her car at him with intent to kill, but after the shooting, the woman's corpse was able to steer out of the way of the officer
    - packetlost 10mo ago
      Even if the 1st shot through the front of the vehicle is ruled (if it even gets to that point) to be legit, the 2nd and 3rd through the side window almost certainly wouldn't. There's virtually no way this guy walks free if it goes to a fair trial. If I was on a jury for that case, I'd need some very, very convincing evidence to suggest the officer was in serious fear for his life (or anyone else's) given the publicly available evidence now.
      - 10mo ago
potato3732842 10mo ago
I'm gonna say the same thing I said the last time you trotted out this opinion (which is far more excusable now that you've outed yourself as a brit BTW). At a societal level the LARPers don't matter. They are a rounding error compared to all the people who have a single daily carry piece or purse gun or whatever. And those people affect the numbers and the risk calculations happening in offices far away. ICE is thuggishly and sloppily prowling places like Minneapolis because statistically they can get away with it without causing too many bodies. Up the potential body number and their tactics are forced to change for the better. If the statistical average door they kick in in Minneapolis had the same likelihood of "shit I ain't going back to prison <bang> <bang> <bang> <dives out bathroom window and hops neighbors fence>" behind it as the statistical average door in St. Louis ICE wouldn't be behaving the way they are in MN. They would have specific targets, specific places and times to pick them up, etc, etc. (i.e. operating like the local professional police do) because the risk calculation with even a tiny change you might get shot back at, even if only ineffectively, makes that (much higher) resource expenditure pencil out, with consequences in terms of how much they can get done. Personal ability to credibly threaten lethal violence if cornered (note: I did not say "firearms") acts much like an ATGM or MANPADS for an infantry squad. You're not gonna take a squad with TOWs on the offensive against a bunch of tanks, but if attacked you've at least got a prayer. The same math holds on the individual level. Making any potential target substantially more prickly to a potentially superior force and doing so for little cost is a huge boon for the little guy. A firearm is a force multiplier same as a bomb carrying drone or a cell phone that records things the government does not like or a media platform that puts those things in front of the eyes of the masses. It forces the superior force to still be much more careful and expend far more resources when engaging. When it comes to domestic policing what this means is that ICE would be under more pressure to "be careful and professional" in every city like the DEA did during the war on drugs we wouldn't even be having this discussion because they wouldn't be employing the tactics that everyone hates. This math is a large part of why drugs won the war on drugs. There were enough glawk fawtys wit da switch kicking around on the "wrong" side of the law that the cops needed to adopt militarized tactics, the public didn't wanna pay for that shit (monetarily or politically) over weed, and thus drugs won the war on drugs. If they could've rolled up on just about anyone "cheaply" with just a few cheaply (poorly) trained cops, minimal equipment and support, minimal planning and surveillance, etc. it would've gone on way longer (but they couldn't, because that would have yielded too many bodies and cost too much political capital).
dabluecaboose 10mo ago
Just so we're clear, you're arguing that ICE is already murdering people on the street with impunity, but people shouldn't defend themselves or they'll just get murdered harder?
- ceejayoz 10mo ago
  They're arguing that the fight is precisely what the administration is looking to generate.

by pjc50 10mo ago

selectodude 10mo ago

It’s a bunch of dudes who think they’re literally Rambo. Like, sure with enough firepower you can maybe take out two before they take you out but any sort of application of your second amendment rights is going to end quickly for you.

dabluecaboose 10mo ago
The irony of the romanticizing of the "Lone Wolf" is that, in reality, the lone wolf dies alone. Coordinating with your neighbors and compatriots is essential from the soap box, to the ballot box, to the jury box, and to the cartridge box. And I'd like to emphasize the order of those boxes should be followed.
- ben_w 10mo ago
  Last time I noted the four boxes, it was to point out the first three are all being simultaneously threatened by Trump, in a way that I (albeit as an outsider to US politics!) consider "credible". Like pjc50, I'm British by birth, though I no longer live there. Like most Brits, the USA's 2nd Amendment isn't something we look up to, it's something we consider deeply weird. Even UK police are not routinely armed, and I've seen polls saying they don't want that to change. And also like several commenters here, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference. Trump was actually fired at, albeit by an idiot, he still supports the 2nd Amendment. Either the armed forces step in on the side of the constitution, or they step in on the side of the administration, but either way the 2nd Amendment isn't going to make a difference: the guerrilla teams use AR-15s, the military can afford to respond with drone strikes.

johnisgood 10mo ago

[flagged]

budududuroiu 10mo ago
"Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle." [1] What I see is an ICE agent a half-step away from moving out of the path of the vehicle [1] https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy...
- johnisgood 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - budududuroiu 10mo ago
    Yes, let's argue a truly hypothetical situation that has no contact with reality. What you're arguing is that the woman (alive) pointed her car at him with intent to kill, but after the shooting, the woman's corpse was able to steer out of the way of the officer
  - packetlost 10mo ago
    Even if the 1st shot through the front of the vehicle is ruled (if it even gets to that point) to be legit, the 2nd and 3rd through the side window almost certainly wouldn't. There's virtually no way this guy walks free if it goes to a fair trial. If I was on a jury for that case, I'd need some very, very convincing evidence to suggest the officer was in serious fear for his life (or anyone else's) given the publicly available evidence now.
    - 10mo ago

potato3732842 10mo ago

I'm gonna say the same thing I said the last time you trotted out this opinion (which is far more excusable now that you've outed yourself as a brit BTW). At a societal level the LARPers don't matter. They are a rounding error compared to all the people who have a single daily carry piece or purse gun or whatever. And those people affect the numbers and the risk calculations happening in offices far away. ICE is thuggishly and sloppily prowling places like Minneapolis because statistically they can get away with it without causing too many bodies. Up the potential body number and their tactics are forced to change for the better. If the statistical average door they kick in in Minneapolis had the same likelihood of "shit I ain't going back to prison <bang> <bang> <bang> <dives out bathroom window and hops neighbors fence>" behind it as the statistical average door in St. Louis ICE wouldn't be behaving the way they are in MN. They would have specific targets, specific places and times to pick them up, etc, etc. (i.e. operating like the local professional police do) because the risk calculation with even a tiny change you might get shot back at, even if only ineffectively, makes that (much higher) resource expenditure pencil out, with consequences in terms of how much they can get done. Personal ability to credibly threaten lethal violence if cornered (note: I did not say "firearms") acts much like an ATGM or MANPADS for an infantry squad. You're not gonna take a squad with TOWs on the offensive against a bunch of tanks, but if attacked you've at least got a prayer. The same math holds on the individual level. Making any potential target substantially more prickly to a potentially superior force and doing so for little cost is a huge boon for the little guy. A firearm is a force multiplier same as a bomb carrying drone or a cell phone that records things the government does not like or a media platform that puts those things in front of the eyes of the masses. It forces the superior force to still be much more careful and expend far more resources when engaging. When it comes to domestic policing what this means is that ICE would be under more pressure to "be careful and professional" in every city like the DEA did during the war on drugs we wouldn't even be having this discussion because they wouldn't be employing the tactics that everyone hates. This math is a large part of why drugs won the war on drugs. There were enough glawk fawtys wit da switch kicking around on the "wrong" side of the law that the cops needed to adopt militarized tactics, the public didn't wanna pay for that shit (monetarily or politically) over weed, and thus drugs won the war on drugs. If they could've rolled up on just about anyone "cheaply" with just a few cheaply (poorly) trained cops, minimal equipment and support, minimal planning and surveillance, etc. it would've gone on way longer (but they couldn't, because that would have yielded too many bodies and cost too much political capital).

dabluecaboose 10mo ago

Just so we're clear, you're arguing that ICE is already murdering people on the street with impunity, but people shouldn't defend themselves or they'll just get murdered harder?

ceejayoz 10mo ago
They're arguing that the fight is precisely what the administration is looking to generate.