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

721–730 of 957 posts

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

#721

Post by dmh2000 »

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.…

its a good question : could the dictator get the support of the military? Would the people in the military from the top down be willing to, say, decimate a resisting US city with artillery and bombs?

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

#722

Post by grimjack00 »

mav3rick wrote: post #696
cwkoss wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is unfortunate that so many Americans don't know about the history of the Black Panthers. In US public school system, we are taught that the Civil Rights Act was won through peaceful marching - this is not the whole story. Black Panthers carried guns to protect protests, and having guns created a situation where cops could not rush in and beat dissent into submission. There is a strong argument that withou…

Most people want stricter background checks. If you pass the checks it's fine. No one is taking away your guns.

>No one is taking away your guns.

Not yet.

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

#723

Post by takamh »

SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #658
takamh wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. This isn't Reddit where any average Joe thinks whataboutism is the answer to any evidence they don't agree with.

Yes it is, the treatment of children at the border is also horrendous, it also has literally nothing to do with china and ethics.

And here you see first-hand the decline in the quality of discourse in HN

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

#724

Post by diminoten »

rjf72 wrote: post #551
diminoten wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second amendment was nothing then like it is today; until 2008 it has been interpreted to mean the states have a right to raise a militia, not as an individual mandate to possess firearms.

This is the text of the second amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." From its advent until somewhere around the mid to late 20th century it was interpreted universally as an individual right. The founding fathers and others of the time wrote extensively on this and it was not controversial for centur…

Thomas M. Cooley and you are both right, the Second Amendment is now completely useless, as it was written in a time when individual states operated their own militias who were actively being disarmed by the "tyrannical" government at the time. Now they don't and therefore aren't being disarmed, so it can go away entirely.

Trying to warp this specific Amendment written 220+ years ago to serve as guidance for modern times is a farce, and has been manipulated by special interests into causing the murder of hundreds of thousands of people.

Thomas M. Cooley recognized that, but didn't draw the better conclusion; that the Second Amendment needs to be revoked.

2008 was a substantial setback, but it isn't the end of the conversation. The Second Amendment will be the thing our grandkids shame us most about.

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

#725

Post by diminoten »

xienze wrote: post #620
diminoten wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you've thought this through; you won't be fighting soldiers in your little quest for rebellion, you'll be fighting your neighbor, because your neighbor thinks you're a fucking dumbass who he'd rather kill than reason with, because of how little you've respected honest discourse and conversation over a long period of time. To create an American insurgency would be to threaten everyone around you, and no…

>I don't think you've thought this through; you won't be fighting soldiers in your little quest for rebellion, you'll be fighting your neighbor, because your neighbor thinks you're a fucking dumbass who he'd rather kill than reason with, because of how little you've respected honest discourse and conversation over a long period of time. Does he really want to do that, seeing as how I have a gun and he doesn't?

He's got a gun, he's got lots of guns; just as many as you, possibly more, because he's also been preparing, as you have.

You're going to have to go much further right than you seem to think to arrive at a conclusion of, "I need to commit acts of terrorism against my own country because I believe the US government is tyrannical."

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

#726

Post by pimmen »

UIZealot wrote: post #243
RavlaAlvar wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live in Hong Kong, you can definitely feel that over the years, CCP have been increasingly ramp up their influence on HK matters. CCP officials start to comment on internal HK matters, lobbying for government policy to pass in the legislative branch.

Influence? Certainly. Just like the UK could influence HK matters when it was a British colony, China can influence HK matters now that it's a Chinese special administrative region. Control? Not so much.

Because the control is still being implemented. To implement it, you need influence.

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

#727

Post by Clubber »

coryfklein wrote: post #497
daenz wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If, somehow, we were to slide into dictatorship you can be sure the leader would make whatever promises necessary to get the gun toters on his/her side. This demonstrates to me that you understand the political power of an armed citizenry, the same group that you used the first half of your post to discredit by suggesting "blowing up a home or two" would be enough to suppress them.

It's reductionist to say the armed civilians have no effect whatsoever . But my last point was to emphasize that "armed civilians" are not a protection against dictatorship. I still believe that, even if he failed to persuade the gun owners, a dictator's armies win against an armed populace.

You are talking about war like it's like a football game. You have one, and when the time's up, it's over. You have a clear winner and a clear loser based on the scoreboard.

Wars are comprised of many battles, which may or may not cause one side to "win." Wars are over when both sides agree to stop. What compels a side to agree to stop? Many, many things. The US won every major battle in Vietnam, yet there isn't a clear cut winner. The CSA probably would have been an independent nation had Lincoln not been reelected in 1864, a victory Lincoln himself didn't think would happen.

The point being, an insurgency, yes, ultimately wants to "win", but winning includes things like protecting food / water, freer movement, slowing down an advance, creating safe areas, disrupting the enemies ability to wage war as effectively, or just general annoyance of the enemy. If this can go on until the opponent ultimately loses the will to fight, or offers acceptable concessions, it's a victory. It doesn't have to be an overwhelming, parade-in-the-streets type victory, it just has to make the enemy lose the will to fight the insurgency.

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

#728

Post by grecy »

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 find it sad that in the year 2019, in what is ostensibly the best country in the world, and is by a very long way the richest country in the world that an apparently significant majority of people still think it possible they will have to actually go to war with their own government, and they need to keep guns for that outcome.

Brutal, bloody, horrible war where literally tens millions of people will die in agonizing pain.

Why the hell is "the best country in the world" thinking about and holding onto it's gun for this?

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

#729

Post by kube-system »

mav3rick wrote: post #696
cwkoss wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is unfortunate that so many Americans don't know about the history of the Black Panthers. In US public school system, we are taught that the Civil Rights Act was won through peaceful marching - this is not the whole story. Black Panthers carried guns to protect protests, and having guns created a situation where cops could not rush in and beat dissent into submission. There is a strong argument that withou…

Most people want stricter background checks. If you pass the checks it's fine. No one is taking away your guns.

> No one is taking away your guns.

You're right, but it's not due to a lack of trying. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Beto O’Rourke all support mandatory buybacks.

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

#730

Post by kleton »

magduf wrote: post #434
josephdviviano wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The 2nd amendment made sense when the enemy was a group of people across the ocean (the British), and other groups of people from across the ocean that they hired as mercenaries (the Hessians). Keeping the common people armed to be used as foot-soldiers in case of foreign invasion is not a bad idea if invasion is a serious concern; Switzerland still does this to this day. For protecting against your own government, i…

The Hessians fighting against Washington's army were not mercenaries, they were feudal levies from the House of Hanover's continental holdings.
Post reply on HN