←back to thread

Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

(www.reddit.com)
628 points nodea2345 | 1 comments | 01 Oct 19 11:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.345s | source
Show context
nvahalik ◴[01 Oct 19 13:30 UTC] 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 #
Fezzik ◴[01 Oct 19 15:03 UTC] No.21126073[source]▶
I always find this sentiment a little silly - if the US President went in to full dictator mode and had the support of the military, do you really think a militia of armed citizens would be anything but gnats against the windshield of the United States Armed Forces? And if s/he did not have the support of the Armed Forces, it would not be a very effective dictatorship and you would not even need guns for a rebellion. I truly do not get it.
replies(45): >>21126088 #>>21126117 #>>21126119 #>>21126144 #>>21126159 #>>21126160 #>>21126165 #>>21126171 #>>21126173 #>>21126175 #>>21126182 #>>21126186 #>>21126219 #>>21126220 #>>21126294 #>>21126330 #>>21126331 #>>21126370 #>>21126377 #>>21126378 #>>21126426 #>>21126440 #>>21126450 #>>21126487 #>>21126517 #>>21126799 #>>21126947 #>>21127039 #>>21127190 #>>21127208 #>>21127264 #>>21127378 #>>21127491 #>>21127495 #>>21127510 #>>21127657 #>>21127816 #>>21128112 #>>21128474 #>>21129036 #>>21129097 #>>21129146 #>>21129149 #>>21129991 #>>21131323 #
bhupy ◴[01 Oct 19 15:04 UTC] No.21126088[source]▶
The US (with its support of the military) has been at war in the Middle East for nearly 2 decades now with insurgents.

The argument is not that a rebellious citizenry will necessarily win a war, it's that it will draw out a bloody civil war so long and so expensive as to be a form of mutually assured destruction, the risk of which acts as a check in and of itself.

replies(8): >>21126327 #>>21126458 #>>21126479 #>>21126676 #>>21127250 #>>21127355 #>>21129224 #>>21129536 #
enraged_camel ◴[01 Oct 19 15:44 UTC] No.21126676[source]▶
>>The argument is not that a rebellious citizenry will necessarily win a war, it's that it will draw out a bloody civil war so long and so expensive as to be a form of mutually assured destruction, the risk of which acts as a check in and of itself.

This assumption did not work out for the Confederacy in the Civil War. What makes you think it would work today?

replies(1): >>21126899 #
linuxftw ◴[01 Oct 19 15:59 UTC] No.21126899[source]▶
The Confederate generals surrendered to keep the country from endless guerilla warfare. This is why the Confederates weren't executed for treason, etc, because everyone wanted to end the fighting at that point.
replies(2): >>21127121 #>>21129627 #
1. enraged_camel ◴[01 Oct 19 16:13 UTC] No.21127121[source]▶
The Confederate generals surrendered because they realized that, with Lee himself surrendering, they had zero chance of prevailing, and any continuation of hostilities would result in the North invading the Confederate states and shooting/hanging not just the generals themselves, but all the civilian leaders who supported them. It wasn't to "keep the country from endless guerilla warfare", but rather an act of simple self-preservation.

While there was a fair amount of war wariness among the public, continued resistance by the Confederacy was not something the North would have tolerated, especially since they clearly had the upper hand at that point.