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

Post by HeWhoLurksLate » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:19 PM UTC

pyronik19 wrote: post #112

rplnt wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still wouldn't do anything to a malicious government controlling the army. And for overthrowing government you don't need to be armed - see dozens of examples all over the world - the army is made of citizens as well after all. So, no, it doesn't make any sense in the current age to say you own guns to protect yourself from the government.

You're also assuming that the army wouldn't fracture under an armed populace uprising.

Post by JoeAltmaier » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:19 PM UTC

Fezzik wrote: post #168

nvahalik wrote: post #18

> 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".

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.…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:20 PM UTC

dmreedy wrote: post #210

Thriptic wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I categorically disagree with this. Look at the enormous damage small groups of armed people have imparted on the government even recently. Two delusional guys in Boston shut down the entire city for multiple days and necessitated a state-wide response by blowing up a few pipe bombs, killing a police officer, and going on a car chase. This response cost millions and millions of dollars and resulted in millions of dol…

I wonder how much that has to do with those incidents being (relatively) small, isolated shocks to an otherwise mostly stable, mostly "peaceful" system. Some combination of the government not being "used" to dealing with such activity (unintentional inefficiency), and a desire to "keep the gloves on", as it were, and not raise some kind of optically disproportionate response, like bringing in the national guard (inte…

Post by wbronitsky » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:20 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #47

kristiandupont wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see it the opposite way, the tanks become a last resort. They have to use hard power rather than alternatives.

Post by Thriptic » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:21 PM UTC

dmreedy wrote: post #210

Thriptic wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I categorically disagree with this. Look at the enormous damage small groups of armed people have imparted on the government even recently. Two delusional guys in Boston shut down the entire city for multiple days and necessitated a state-wide response by blowing up a few pipe bombs, killing a police officer, and going on a car chase. This response cost millions and millions of dollars and resulted in millions of dol…

I wonder how much that has to do with those incidents being (relatively) small, isolated shocks to an otherwise mostly stable, mostly "peaceful" system. Some combination of the government not being "used" to dealing with such activity (unintentional inefficiency), and a desire to "keep the gloves on", as it were, and not raise some kind of optically disproportionate response, like bringing in the national guard (inte…