Is this not the reason the second amendment exists? Regards An Australian Edit: I’m not advocating for violence. More so “a well regulated militia” which could be established by protesters or Democratic Governors for genuine self defence.
Look up what happened to the Black Panther Party (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party).
If people showed up organized and armed, the Federal government would be more than happy to use under the table tactics to make sure we’d never see our families again.
With that being said, I wouldn’t be surprise if people are armed but just not being public about it. Armed protestors are usually the nuclear option for any movement, but it’s good to have that unspoken option on the table behind the scenes.
Yeah I’m familiar with what happened there. I was thinking more so of Democratic states where the Governor is resisting ICE and would be somewhat supportive of this.
This, why would a given group of protestors all open carry? I’d expect a mass of conceal-carried weapons, though.
Generally gun owners tend to lean towards the republican side.
There are tons of liberal gun owners.
“Tons” doesn’t contradict “generally” and “tend to lean”
It’s “tons” vs “tons and tons and tons” tbh
Think of it as a focusing comment rather than a disputing reply…
I agree that they should. The govt is more cautious in handling crowds open carrying guns. However, most on the left are not gun owners.
Holy shit, are they? Because from the outside looking in I assume the presumption that a gun may be present is why US police is essentially a military organization willing to shoot anybody at the slightest provocation, so I would assume if you are faced with a crowd of armed people your first instinct to stop that is to shoot first.
I mean, my common sense assumption is that bringing a gun of any kind to a protest is a fantastic way to start a massacre of your own people, but I’ve lost the ability to parse how Americans understand both political action and violence ages ago.
Literally one the most peaceful protests ever. The police stayed the fuck away and it had the governor shitting his pants.
Tons of cops are willing to kill for a paycheck, not a lot are willing to die for one.
That is fucking terrifying and so is anybody who doesn’t think so.
I mean, you see something terrifying, I see something that works. Armed demonstrations are a tried and true tactic for all kinds of militant activism.
Yeah, no, that’s the point. You look at a barbaric demonstration of a completely broken down society and see something that works. That’s horrifying.
You effectively saw some guy walk into a subway holding his erect, exposed penis in one hand and a machete in the other and went “hey, that guy found an empty seat right away, I think we can all learn a lesson here”.
That’s nuts. It’s weird that you don’t see how nuts that is.
No that’s nuts because its a fucking subway seat.
I do recall Nazi Germany was defeated by a shit ton of people sitting in the streets and strong letters.
You seem to think something that’s scary can’t happen in a western society. It does, humans are animals and when the other side is more violent and has no morals, there is no reasoning with them. They’re there to oppress and use violence.
See, and there it is. Zero to a hundred. It’s either popcorn or civil war, no gradient.
I mean, for one thing Nazi Germany also wasn’t defeated by military cosplayers flashing their gun collection at them, and clearly neither was MAGA America. The first one was defeated by a borderline apocalyptic global war, so… in the grand scheme both the military cosplay and the sternly worded letters are pretty much about just as effective there. We’re still waiting and seeing on the MAGA America part.
But for another, plenty of nonviolent and/or unarmed protest has achieved its goals, historically. From Europe to India to South Africa to the actual United States. The “sternly worded letter” derision is pure action movie fantasy. This month alone the governments of Madagascar and Nepal came down after mass protests. Not a single set of camo pants in sight, just… you know, students organizing on social media and One Piece flags for some reason because this is a weird timeline.
They weren’t even fully nonviolent, either. There were clashes, there was enforcement violence and dozens of people, mostly protestors, were killed in both countries. And still two governments came down and the situations continue to evolve and push for full regime change.
Meanwhile the example I’m being given is some American fascists standing on a street while cops that agree with them wait for them to get sleepy at their military cosplay convention and go home.
I don’t get Americans. I don’t think the way they see the world as a culture makes sense, and I am terrified at how much they export it successfully through places like this. Nepal just held a full-on election over Discord and I still understand how that went down better than middle class America’s political views.
It’s a lot easier to shoot people when there’s no chance they’ll shoot back. If they’re armed too, you act a bit more cautiously. The Black Panthers used the technique to notable effect.
I mean, it’s a lot safer to shoot at unarmed people. I’d certainly be way more willing to shoot at someone that’s armed.
Like I said, alien thoughts in alien minds. I just can’t follow US trains of thought at this point.
I’d certainly be way more willing to shoot at someone that’s armed.
Even if you have reason to believe they’ll shoot back? Because remember, this isn’t just someone; this is people. Presumably there’s more than one gun in the hypothetical crowd.
Why else would you shoot at them?
Is that not what weapons are for? Who the hell goes to a peaceful protest expecting to be shot at with lethal weapons? What the hell? You are not protesting at that stage, you are at war, that’s some Tiananmen shit. Listen to me carefully: if you think law enforcement at a protest is going to open fire with live ammunition on unarmed protesters do NOT go to that protest. Start organizing a guerrilla, see if you can get the legal system to act on the people responsible, get in touch with press and try to get international awareness on the serious breach of human rights happening on your country, but do not just show up in a protest you can reasonably expect will lead to a massacre of unarmed civilians. I can’t believe I have to put this in actual words.
I’m always so baffled by American unwillingness to take any action followed by the immediate assumption that the very next step is going to be full-on murder. Just zero escalation, in their minds it’s either eat popcorn at home or be shooting at people indiscriminately.
I genuinely don’t get it. There’s a mental model at play here but it may as well not be carbon-based.
It’s the fact that US police regularly break up properly registered and approved peaceful protests by “less than lethal” force when they get to be incovenient for [insert power here]. Not live rounds, but “less than lethal” munitions. Rubber bullets, which often cause injury and sometimes death anyway. Tasers. Pepper spray. Tear gas smoke grenades.
You can find a decent amount of pictures and video of police pepper spraying protestors calmly sitting cross legged on the ground.
There are also psychological tactics they use to try and break up protests that often have the fun side benefit of fomenting response from otherwise peaceful protestors that is easily labeled as violent/threatening/resisting. At protests that camp in an area overnight, they will use flashing lights and loudspeakers playing audio specially designed to tap into anxiety centers of the brain to keep the protesters from resting. Literally borrowing some of the tactics our intelligence agencies used against the vietcong. They will “bottle” or “kettle” protestors, surrounding groups with riot shield equipped cops and squishing them into smaller and smaller space until the protester have to push back so people won’t get literally crushed, then out come the batons.
The threat of police brutality is always there. With significant chance that there will be no legal recourse. Judges play softball (sometimes literally) with police here. Manslaughter in the line of duty? 3 months paid vacation, then we transfer you to another local police force somewhere they won’t recognize your name. And decades of news media jumping at the chance to stir people up has cemented these fears in the public mind.
But here’s the thing: the amount this happens is just barely rare enough that it’s not international rights org level shit. And when it does happen, usually the police can justify it with some imagery or video of violent protesters.
So it’s rare, just always possible it could escalate. If it does there’s no rel recourse, and the news makes people feel that it’s a more likely outcome than it is. Peaceful protests that go fine don’t make the news.
What also isn’t covered by the media is how to plan and take effective action despite these risks, or effective action from the past, so many Americans just see the pipeline as being directly from public peaceful protest to some sort of freedom fighter in active combat.
Yeah, no shit, that happens everywhere.
Some people go back the next day, some societies react to this by protesting harder and longer. Other times this devolves into outright conflict or seismic political shifts. Sometimes it settles down over time.
The reaction isn’t typically some combination of “Oh, well, what can you do” and “maybe if we bring actual firearms the natural conflict with authority baked into all civilian political action will dissipate fully and permanently”.
That’s some US-specific delusion and intrinsic tendency to violence right there.
Many states make it illegal to bring any kind of weapon to a protest.
Just say you weren’t participating in the protest
/Galaxy_brain.bmp
🙃
Protesters who use violence to protect their neighbors will be killed. This is fascism. We can’t use force to defend ourselves.
Best and simplest answer is that technically they’re still considered law enforcement. Nearly everything they’re doing is constitutionally illegal, but only the courts have the right to determine that.
If we start threatening police with guns, every single nook and cranny of our legal system justifies the police murdering us. Maybe some cops would get paid leave for a few weeks, or possibly even lose their badges, but that’s about it.
And then they’ll use it to justify an even more inflated budget for ICE, and everything will get exponentially worse.
So, cowardice. Gotcha.
I see u! How much are they paying you to ferment chaos?
*foment, dumbass
So you understood what I was getting at? Language is descriptive, not proscriptive. People who make fun of others for jargon or misuse typically don’t have much going for their argument or position.
Also, see here: https://www.dailywritingtips.com/ferment-and-foment/
I understand that you’re attempting to discredit someone who is 100% correct by making shit up and that you’re also illiterate
It would just escalate things. A few armed confrontations one week and the next week it would be tanks and Apache helicopters. Cops love to escalate.
They’re escalating anyway, in the absence of an actual justification they just make shit up and everyone knows it, refusing to actually resist them accomplishes absolutely nothing
Yup
Escalation seems to be needed. This is what America’s 2nd amendment is supposed to be used for.
Bunch of hypocrites.
So second amendment is totally useless then.
Yes. It was a fantasy written in a different time.
It is if the majority of the people with guns support the traitorous government.
Against a government with modern weaponry? Yes.
Carrying a gun greatly increases the chance of using it.
This is the dumbest statement ever. You have to have a gun to use it. So yes, carrying one increases that chance. Just like my chances of microwaving popcorn increases when I have fucking popcorn in the pantry.
It’s really not that dumb and your analogy is bad.
If it was normal to buy popcorn and never eat it then it would make sense. Obviously most people who buy guns never kill anyone with them and you can carry it and not use it
It also increases your own chances of getting shot. Heck, i suppose it increases everyone’s chances of getting shot! 🥂
Because people won’t open carry when it’s against the law so they don’t get arrested. Unlike ICE, they’re following the law.
I believe open carry is illegal here in Illinois.
The meta I’ve heard is also that, if you’re gonna brandish or draw a gun, you’d better be prepared to kill with it. I’m not prepared to die shooting cops so I don’t feel like carrying. In the confusion of a gun fight I don’t think I’d have much to add by shooting anyone
Like if someone told me that the 2nd amendment just causes more shootings and doesn’t actually protect people on average I’d say yeah…
the meta youve heard js harmful.
“Brandish or draw a gun…better be prepared to kill with it.” — Normative, but the law is dead serious.
Illinois doesn’t have a standalone “brandishing” statute; threatening display can be charged as assault (often aggravated assault when a deadly weapon is involved). Separately, deadly force is only justified if you reasonably believe it’s necessary to prevent imminent death/serious bodily harm (or a forcible felony). Drawing in a way that threatens without lawful justification can be a crime.
The meta I’ve heard is also that, if you’re gonna brandish or draw a gun, you’d better be prepared to kill with it.
That’s dumb as fuck.
Glad I stopped trying to find logic in the average person.
You say that, but my father, when I was I growing up, told me that the only thing you’re supposed to aim a gun at is something you want to destroy.
Aiming a gun isn’t the same as brandishing or drawing it.
Maybe your father should’ve spent less time teaching you about guns and more time helping you with your English homework.
Glad I stopped trying to find logic in the average person.
Thanks for reinforcing this.
Please demonstrate this by aiming your gun at a cop and arguing that you weren’t brandishing with however many brand new holes.
Are you fucking stupid?
Aiming a gun at a cop is significantly worse than brandishing. Why would I try to argue what you’re saying unless I’m an idiot?
Oh, wait a minute. Gotta tap the sign.
Glad I stopped trying to find logic in the average person.
Also ignored. I know I won’t be able to tolerate any more drivel from someone like you.
In colorado last month, a teen was shot dead by police for simply saying he was going to shoot up a business. No fire arm was involved on his part. Just an aggrevated teen having a mental health crisis. The mental health crisis team didnt even get a chance to show up. The cops killed the kid within 5 minutes of getting there.
The cops here dont give a fuck about the distinction. They are trained to shoot to kill once they feel scared in america. By the IDF.
Are you an ammosexual?
How’s that boot taste?
Keep going, you’ll cum soon.
Aiming a gun isn’t the same as brandishing or drawing it.
I think it’s a distinction without a difference when you’re in a situation where both parties have firearms (and one party has the backing of the state and a monopoly on violence).
Sounds like you’re the average person.
The only reason to open carry to a protest is as a threat. But if all you do is carry then it’s an empty threat. Don’t make threats you’re not willing to follow through on. And this is a dumb threat to try to follow through on.
Also a lot of the people who are against ICE are also against guns, which is pretty obvious. You don’t need to be embedded in us politics to know this.
Armed victims increase the cost of tyranical actions but modern warfare and thus miltia movements is not just (have weapon, intimidate or kill enemy). Honestly one of the failures of the defense of the second amendment has been the failure to modernize and includr other parts of warfare.
Honestly there is a mixture of denial in what is actually happening and support too
Have to wait until a majority wants a revolution because it’s not really ethical to do this until a strong majority wants to do it. Right now it would basically just be an insurrection.
It turns out that having all those guns means
dead school childrendiddly squat.A well regulated militia is one thing, fat uncle Tim with his open carry manhood on his belt is an entirely different thing.
I’ll give you a real answer instead of all of these other dork ass answers.
First, there aren’t enough of us to do so.
Second, you really haven’t thought through the repercussions of open carrying. Which relates to the first reason.
Open carrying puts a huge target on you. You need lots and lots of people to remain “safe”. And you won’t be safe. What are you going to do, shoot an ice agent if they try to arrest you? If that’s your goal, why open carry? Do you think that the government here is going to suddenly follow constitutional law around a citizens right to bear arms? As they’re literally illegally arresting people?
Sooner or later the amount of guns in this country is going to catch up to the ruling class but it’s not going to be at a protest.
I live in a city that’s half black, in one of several gayborhoods. I keep wondering when black and pink panthers will form and start patrolling. Probably when we get hit with our first localized stochastic terrorism incident. There’s a rainbow crosswalk that rednecks love to come do burnouts on. Tensions run high with highly conservative MAGA folks dominating the rural areas just miles from our very flammable houses with rainbow flags.
But you know what happens when the panthers start patrolling? Suddenly, gun control.
Our cops wouldn’t arrest them but the feds would probably escalate it. I am not sure how it’d play out today.
Why do people think that guns stop bullets? Guns attract bullets.
Guns enable the oppressed to fight back against their oppressors.
Look at Iran to see what happens when people try to protest against abuse without having firearms to protect themselves from said abuse.
