[_ZeD_]

[flagged]

[deepsun]

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.

[tombert]

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

The line between "private militia" and "terrorism" isn't very well defined. If the people are unsuccessful, they will be labeled as terrorists and potentially put to death. Most people don't want to be executed, and as far as I am aware there's only been one successful violent insurrection in the US [1], so the odds are very much not in your favor.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_massacre#Aftermath

[int_19h]

As a person who was previously involved with the (somewhat more "casual") parts of the American militia movement - meaning all the right-wingers with guns - I should note that they do have some organization. Not much of it, to be fair, but generally speaking they at least know of other neighboring groups and have points of contact to coordinate "when it's time". There are also some people involved into all this that specifically go around lecturing those militias and helping them network. In my state (WA), ten years ago, these guys were affiliated with Matt Shea, and were organizing to bring supplies to firefighters during the fire season as a front of sorts. But they were pretty clear about the real nature of the org in the lecture that I've been in.

So the reality of the situation is that the vast majority of US gun owners, especially if you look at who owns "tactical" guns and gear (a 3-round hunting rifle is one thing, an AR with a full 7-mag loadout in a plate carrier is a very different one) are people who actively support the present government, or castigate them for not going far enough. So the relatively small groups of armed lefties - mostly hard left, anarchists, SRA, some Black groups like NAAGA etc; but very few liberals and mainstream progressives - are largely inconsequential.

[themafia]

> 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?

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Just because the government is enforcing laws you don't like does not make it oppression. Imagine if everyone started using firearms in response to laws they considered oppressive, e.g. business owners who found regulation oppressive might say "come and enforce it". You would probably refer to this as "undermining democracy" if it was a law that you actually agreed with.

[hvb2]

I think if you were to look at how often a government is rebuffed by the courts, that's a pretty good indicator of how much they're trying to bend the rules or outright ignore them.

Also, "come and enforce it" is not undermining democracy. A law is only a piece of paper until a court upholds it. Even the federal government can write whatever it wants, if it's then ruled unconstitutional that's the end of that.

The problem going on right now is that so much is being broken that the already slow court system just cannot keep up.

[Eextra953]

Using firearms against the state never works. However, the oppression isn't in the enforcement of laws it is in how those laws are being enforced, selectively, against brown and black people. Also, something being a law doesn't make it right or just. For examples of this just look at slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc at a certain point in time all of those things were against the law but people agonized, organized and resisted enough to change the law. By your logic those groups weren't oppressed since the law allowed for their oppression.

[mktk1001]

How do you feel about slave catchers enforcing the law back in the day?

[exe34]

It does when it's the courts say the government is breaking the law.

[tomhow]

Please don't fulminate or post inflammatory rhetoric like this on HN. And we don't need to use Grawlix like "bl@(k" here, it's ugly and unnecessary; we can use complete words here, no matter what they are.