←back to thread

628 points nodea2345 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nvahalik ◴[] No.21125093[source]
> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator

This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".

replies(26): >>21125127 #>>21125139 #>>21125892 #>>21126027 #>>21126073 #>>21126084 #>>21126204 #>>21126397 #>>21126398 #>>21126638 #>>21126890 #>>21126892 #>>21127286 #>>21127513 #>>21127874 #>>21127880 #>>21128227 #>>21128793 #>>21129412 #>>21129418 #>>21129526 #>>21129658 #>>21130063 #>>21130220 #>>21131181 #>>21131653 #
kristiandupont ◴[] No.21125139[source]
If HK'ers had a similar right to carry guns, do you honestly believe that they would be any better off right now?
replies(10): >>21125201 #>>21125693 #>>21125818 #>>21125820 #>>21125872 #>>21125917 #>>21126045 #>>21126229 #>>21126494 #>>21129586 #
mc32 ◴[] No.21125201[source]
It’s uncertain what the eventual outcome would be, but one thing is for sure, it would increase the threshold before the tanks rolled in.
replies(4): >>21125236 #>>21125711 #>>21125904 #>>21125957 #
kristiandupont ◴[] No.21125236[source]
I might be misreading what "increase the threshold" means, but it seems to me that if people were armed, the tanks were more likely to roll in quickly, not less.
replies(3): >>21125247 #>>21125808 #>>21127708 #
mc32 ◴[] No.21125247[source]
I see it the opposite way, the tanks become a last resort. They have to use hard power rather than alternatives.
replies(4): >>21125640 #>>21125679 #>>21125804 #>>21126316 #
1. chrift ◴[] No.21125640[source]
If citizens had guns, they would be less likely to stick soldiers in front of them without some sort of heavy armour between them. I.e. a tank