←back to thread

115 points perihelions | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.762s | source
Show context
atoav ◴[] No.44452285[source]
Which explains why the administration has acted the way it did.

What has the US become? I am not surprised by the fact that Trump is a fascist, this is a thing I knew in 2016. What surprised me is how little popular resistance he has gotten and with which ease the US population gave away its rights.

I remember a time where americans scolded me online for my countries laws preventing certain types of speech (related to nazi insignia and Hitler), you guys do realize that if your government can just make up bullshit about you and send you to a torture camp abroad without due process, that free speech is no longer free?

Back then you people were adamant that your second amendment was there to protect free speech. But my suspicion back then was that this was mostly a thing guys who grew up in the comfort of a first world civilization would say to come across as tough and manly. And guess what.

replies(9): >>44452586 #>>44452604 #>>44452632 #>>44452683 #>>44452684 #>>44452696 #>>44452699 #>>44453683 #>>44460135 #
rgblambda ◴[] No.44452684[source]
>were adamant that your second amendment was there to protect free speech

I've gotten into arguments with people (usually non Americans who tend to have an American tinge to their accents from consuming so much U.S. media) who are very pro 2nd amendment and wish their country had similar.

I always ask "How do you destroy an M1 Abrams or F-35 with a licenced hunting rifle?". They usually say "Well at least they have that" then quickly move the discussion on to something else.

Anyone who's seen an episode of Cops knows how much protection a firearm provides you against law enforcement. Zero.

replies(4): >>44452738 #>>44452800 #>>44452898 #>>44453719 #
matwood ◴[] No.44452738[source]
At an individual level you are correct, but that's not what the 2nd amendment was about. An armed populace can stand up to a government. All you have to look at are the wars that the US has lost - Vietnam and Afghanistan come to mind.

With that said, it's moot since a large portion of the population wants an authoritarian dictator/king. I'm not sure if the founders addressed the issue of the people possibly wanting a king again.

replies(5): >>44452900 #>>44453096 #>>44453245 #>>44453752 #>>44457869 #
rgblambda ◴[] No.44452900[source]
I don't believe either of those examples are appropriate. The U.S military is never going to withdraw from the U.S due to the public growing weary of the war. The opposite would happen. The insurgency would surrender.

Also in the case of Vietnam, it's worth noting that the Viet Cong for all intents and purposes lost the insurgency. The war was won by the conventional forces of North Vietnam after the U.S ceased military aid to the south.

I also missed the most important point. Neither country had a 2nd amendment and both insurgencies imported arms illegally. And actual military hardware at that, not revolvers and sporting shotguns.

replies(1): >>44453858 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.44453858[source]
> U.S military is never going to withdraw from the U.S due to the public growing weary of the war

But the military may turn on its commanders if forced into a guerilla war against Americans.

The point is to draw out and make more difficult the oppression. There is a massive difference between pacifying a city with a couple of Marines and National Guardsmen and calling in air strikes on the homeland.

replies(2): >>44453965 #>>44458755 #
1. rgblambda ◴[] No.44453965[source]
>But the military may turn on its commanders if forced into a guerilla war against Americans.

You mean a counter-terrorism operation against "Unpatriotic terrorists"?

>The point is to draw out and make more difficult the oppression

You can achieve that more effectively with a general strike, without alienating those who aren't willing to fire on their own countries military. Legally purchasable firearms would be more of a nuisance than a threat for a modern army.

replies(1): >>44456793 #
2. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.44456793[source]
> a counter-terrorism operation against "Unpatriotic terrorists"?

Yes. The traditional framing is riot or rebellion suppression.

> can achieve that more effectively with a general strike

This is civil action. If protests and strikes work, the point is moot. Where weapons and training have historically made a difference is when the army is sent in to quell a strike.