Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 957 posts

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

#261

Post by samsolomon »

hnuser54 wrote: post #222
markstos wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Armed Forces is made up of people, many of which would not support a self-appointed dictator attacking their own people.

The rise of killer death robots like Boston Dynamics definitely changes this dynamic. A handful of people in charge of the robots could order them to murder whomever with little oversight or room for ethical qualms on the part of the "soldiers".

This is actually something I've thought a good bit about. As robots become more militaristic, an armed populace becomes less of a threat to their government. There's a good sci-fi story in there somewhere.

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

#262

Post by foobarian »

nexuist wrote: post #60
foobarian wrote: post #24

Great Britain gave HK back to China. They can do with it as they please - unfortunately I don't see how the protesters can come out on the right side of this without a revolution. Thought experiment: if say Rhode Island had a Muslim majority and they voted themselves Sharia law in violation of federal articles, how cavalier would the federal government / the rest of the populous be in tolerating this?

> Great Britain gave HK back to China. They can do with it as they please - unfortunately I don't see how the protesters can come out on the right side of this without a revolution. They gave it back with the condition that HK would remain quasi-independent until 2050. The people are protesting because they see the writing on the wall and realize independence is fleeting. Without getting into the specifics of Sharia…

> They gave it back with the condition that HK would remain quasi-independent until 2050.

This is I guess the core of the problem - how is this enforceable?

> That being said, there are limits to the tolerance

Indeed, there is a wide spectrum of cases where states defied and still defy federal statutes. I picked my example as something that seemed so extreme that it would be hard to tolerate unlike some of the other examples you mentioned.

> But that's a bad analogy because the HK citizenry aren't trying to take away others' rights; they're trying to give themselves more.

My analogy breaks down at that level of detail, yes. My goal for that analogy was to describe something that:

- a minority of the population desires (RI vs. HK)

- is egregiously against the enclosing country's founding principles (the US Constitution vs. whatever China has - absolute CP authority?)

I was not trying to match the direction of more freedoms or less freedoms or what have you.

Bottom line, and I am not condoning this - I used the word "unfortunately" - but I don't see much stopping China from pulling a Crimea here.

Also: Edit: Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

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

#263

Post by camgunz »

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".

> This is why we have the second amendment.

It's not why we have the 2nd Amendment. 2A applies only to militias, and the Constitution explicitly gives Congress power over State militias to suppress insurrections:

"The Congress shall have Power To... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" [1]

Further, the Militia Act of 1792 allows the president to commandeer them as well, and this was famously used by George Washington himself to quell the Whiskey Rebellion.

2A is just a relic from a time when the US had neither the resources nor the political will to create and maintain a standing army. It's been co-opted very recently by the Right to rile people up and drive them to the polls (while incidentally enriching themselves), but it's completely outdated. The only reason anyone thinks otherwise is that Scalia legislated from the bench in Heller to resurrect it.

[1]: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcri...

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

#264

Post by wnevets »

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".

> This is why we have the second amendment.

Citation needed.

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

#265

Post by 0xffff2 »

nexuist wrote: post #60
foobarian wrote: post #24

Great Britain gave HK back to China. They can do with it as they please - unfortunately I don't see how the protesters can come out on the right side of this without a revolution. Thought experiment: if say Rhode Island had a Muslim majority and they voted themselves Sharia law in violation of federal articles, how cavalier would the federal government / the rest of the populous be in tolerating this?

> Great Britain gave HK back to China. They can do with it as they please - unfortunately I don't see how the protesters can come out on the right side of this without a revolution. They gave it back with the condition that HK would remain quasi-independent until 2050. The people are protesting because they see the writing on the wall and realize independence is fleeting. Without getting into the specifics of Sharia…

Nitpick: "The Fed" refers to the US Federal reserve. "The feds" is a nickname for the US Federal government.

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

#266

Post by amanaplanacanal »

ekianjo wrote: post #111
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.

> Still wouldn't do anything to a malicious government controlling the army. Except that an army cannot fight on 10 fronts at the same time. When you have a whole country turning against you, you can't be there at every single place every second with a regular army. On the contrary a regular army would be beaten up in no time. You also have to take in account that it's much more likely there would be rogue generals t…

Look at politics in the US. It would never be the whole country against a dictator. A much more likely scenario would be something like 50% supporting the dictator and 50% rebelling. I don't know how it would play out, but I know it would be ugly. The reasonable course for most people would be to flee.

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

#267

Post by oblongx »

josephdviviano wrote: post #238
bhupy wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact is that the dictator would still win. The rebellious citizenry would live a life of absolute misery, just as those in the middle east do. The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles. If there was ever a true US dictator, the 2nd amendment would mostly be used by the oppressed to rob, attack, and oppress one another.

or like you know, protect themselves from others...

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

#268

Post by Redoubts »

throwaway_law wrote: post #145
Redoubts wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly not a win for the US there.

The democratically elected leader was over thrown by the Communist party and the Soviets invaded to support the illegitimate communist government. The US supported the anti-communist opposition, and the Soviets withdrew and Afghanistan returned to democratic elections. Like all things politics, its all how you spin it. Perhaps the real loss was what happened after the US spent over $1T to spread democracy in Afghanis…

> Perhaps the real loss was what happened after the US spent over $1T to spread democracy

Yes, this is the event we're talking about. Not the one in the 80s.

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

#269

Post by lazyguy2 »

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.…

> do you really think a militia of armed citizens would be anything but gnats against the windshield of the United States Armed Forces?

Yes, absolutely. If it's a true revolt.

The reason for this is because if the rebels have support of the population then they can get intelligence and material support from said population. They will be able to walk circles around military bureaucracy.

Were as the USA Military is dependent on the USA population for economic support. No economic support means no military sustainability. Sure they have stockpiles of weapons and whatnot, but there is more that is need to run a successful campaign against domestic guerrillas then just stockpiles of weapons.

The reality is that in order to overthrow the Federal government all the American people have to do is just choose to stop paying their taxes and refusing to do business with the Federal government. The Federal government would be dead within months.

Firearms are redundant. What they are useful for, however, is to prevent politicians from getting bad ideas... like using the military against their own population.

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

#270

Post by JoeAltmaier »

jacobush wrote: post #228
geggam wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This concept you can shoot to maim is silly. Hitting a man is hard if you practice shooting. In a chaotic situation with adrenaline its even harder. Shooting to hit is all you can do.

The police in Sweden is trained to shoot to maim, but only in somewhat controlled situations, such as someone wielding a knife approaching officers from a distance. First warn verbally, then fire a warning shot, then fire at the legs. When there is no margin left, fire to stop. (Which means in practice, often death.) https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befog...

The distance has to be very great - 21 feet is often quoted as the minimum distance where a gun wins over a knife. And many barrooms are less than that.

So in theory its a kind idea. But hardly ever significant in practice?

Post reply on HN