You don't know that. By definition it will not have happened if it was prevented. The point is not that you will start shooting. Rather it's that you could.
Moreover there's a fundamental issue in the US that quite a large proportion of the population supports what is going on. This varies by location of course but that just exacerbates the issue - there are places in the US where the vast vast majority of people have no objection to what is happening.
I used to think similarly as well. But realistically speaking, the military weapons and civilian weapons are just too far apart nowadays. The military would absolutely smoke us compared to the intent when it was written into the bill of rights.
The power of military weapons is great if you want to bomb buildings and burn down bridges, but there is no point fighting your own people just be crowned King of the ashes.
Estimates for counterinsurgency are that an occupier needs ~20 soldiers for 1000 occupied civilians. The US army has 1.3M troops - the entire might of the US military would be needed to pacify just CA alone, and that would leave the rest of the country virtually defenseless. It's easy to bomb a building from a jet; it's much harder to kick in doors and arrest dissidents _even if_ there is no armed resistance.
The hard truth that allows democracy to survive is that it is not possible to govern without the consent of the governed. It is certainly not possible to occupy a rich, productive region and have it remain rich and productive unless the occupier has overwhelming force.
It was my understanding that the Ukrainian government handed out small arms and various destructive devices to resistance fighters during the initial Russian invasion. That they were able to impede the advancing forces until their assault stalled due to bad supply lines dooming their attempt at a Gulf War style takedown of the country.
Is that accurate or just Ukrainian propaganda like the Ghost of Kiev?
I'm surprised there haven't been more people "exercising" the second amendment in light of what ICE is doing.
Granted, I'm not in the U.S. so I don't know what it's like on the ground, but I'm surprised to not hear about any armed resistance despite how gun-happy many Americans are.
I am not surprised: the sort of person most likely to exercise their second-amendment rights is probably also the sort of person to support what ICE is doing.
Its remarkable to see the propaganda shift from “these are unarmed protestors not terrorists with guns” to “they are terrorists and they should have had more guns”.
I’m just glad President Trump didn’t start Iraq War 2.0 with this unrest as his WMD excuse.
That isn't what was said though. Rather that perhaps if the protestors had been armed they wouldn't have been massacred so easily.
Do I become a terrorist if I defend myself against government agents who are attempting to murder me? Certainly said government agents would label me as such but hopefully a neutral third party wouldn't.
Many of us own guns precisely to defend ourselves and our countrymen in the event of civil chaos. That's what the second amendment is for.
Most true leftists I know are armed. Don't forget what Karl Marx said about an armed populace. We are in some serious shit and this kind of divisive attitude is not productive.
duxup|1 month ago
The second amendment is just an individual's ability to shoot someone ... why or when they choose to do so (if at all) is no sure thing.
fc417fc802|1 month ago
Moreover there's a fundamental issue in the US that quite a large proportion of the population supports what is going on. This varies by location of course but that just exacerbates the issue - there are places in the US where the vast vast majority of people have no objection to what is happening.
syntaxing|1 month ago
SR2Z|1 month ago
Estimates for counterinsurgency are that an occupier needs ~20 soldiers for 1000 occupied civilians. The US army has 1.3M troops - the entire might of the US military would be needed to pacify just CA alone, and that would leave the rest of the country virtually defenseless. It's easy to bomb a building from a jet; it's much harder to kick in doors and arrest dissidents _even if_ there is no armed resistance.
The hard truth that allows democracy to survive is that it is not possible to govern without the consent of the governed. It is certainly not possible to occupy a rich, productive region and have it remain rich and productive unless the occupier has overwhelming force.
frogperson|1 month ago
Winning a war is so much more than expensive, shiny weapons.
antonymoose|1 month ago
Is that accurate or just Ukrainian propaganda like the Ghost of Kiev?
Arch485|1 month ago
Granted, I'm not in the U.S. so I don't know what it's like on the ground, but I'm surprised to not hear about any armed resistance despite how gun-happy many Americans are.
pwdisswordfishy|1 month ago
yadaeno|1 month ago
unknown|1 month ago
[deleted]
gregbot|1 month ago
I’m just glad President Trump didn’t start Iraq War 2.0 with this unrest as his WMD excuse.
fc417fc802|1 month ago
Do I become a terrorist if I defend myself against government agents who are attempting to murder me? Certainly said government agents would label me as such but hopefully a neutral third party wouldn't.
cluckindan|1 month ago
trymas|1 month ago
[deleted]
K0balt|1 month ago
soulofmischief|1 month ago
Many of us own guns precisely to defend ourselves and our countrymen in the event of civil chaos. That's what the second amendment is for.
Most true leftists I know are armed. Don't forget what Karl Marx said about an armed populace. We are in some serious shit and this kind of divisive attitude is not productive.