←back to thread

ICE and the Smartphone Panopticon

(www.newyorker.com)
217 points fortran77 | 1 comments | 31 Oct 25 01:13 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
_ZeD_ ◴[31 Oct 25 03:56 UTC] No.45768260[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(4): >>45768430 #>>45768437 #>>45768459 #>>45768463 #
deepsun ◴[31 Oct 25 04:26 UTC] No.45768430[source]▶
As a person from an authoritarian country, I should say that firearms mean much less than coordination. Organized group of 100 with no guns is stronger than 10000 armed but poorly coordinated people.

In other words, a "well regulated Militia" in the Second Amendment is more important than "bear arms".

But no one talks about creating a Militia (yet) for some reason.

replies(3): >>45768470 #>>45768478 #>>45769592 #
themafia ◴[31 Oct 25 04:36 UTC] No.45768470[source]▶
> Organized group of 100 with no guns is stronger than 10000 armed but poorly coordinated people.

What examples are you drawing from when making this conclusion?

> In other words, a "well regulated Militia" in the Second Amendment is more important than "bear arms".

Originally standing armies were not allowed. Each state was expected to perform it's own defense. The governor could create and disband a militia to defend the state. It was expected they would appear with their own arms.

> But no one talks about creating a Militia (yet) for some reason.

Subservient to what power?

replies(1): >>45768716 #
1. coderatlarge ◴[31 Oct 25 05:30 UTC] No.45768716{3}[source]▶
> The governor could create and disband a militia to defend the state.

so you’re saying a governor could declare their state to be under attack and organize a militia maybe even using state funds?