So, you have a second amendment to defend against tyranny. How does it work in practice?

[Harry Bosch]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

I still haven't had it properly explained to me that somehow this:

whilst very effective against unarmed children is even remotely fucking useful against this:

Yep, you are correct. 10 well trained and motivated seals would utterly destroy a 100 well armed "militia".

 

[bilby]

10 well trained and motivated seals would utterly destroy a 100 well armed "militia".

Indeed. Logistics, tactics, and training are probably all more important than armament, in deciding the winner of an armed conflict. The government forces have all of these things. The people who keep a weapon and some ammunition at home to protect themselves against the government have very limited access to any of these.

The government also has reserves and reinforcements that it can call upon if the initial forces deployed in a given situation turn out to be inadequate. If the tyrant orders the rounding up of all the civilians in a given neighbourhood, and they arrive to find themselves outnumbered five to one by armed resisters, they can simply call in ten times as many troops, wait for them to arrive, and then squash them like a bug. Or they can surround the area and wait for the militia to run out of food, water, or soft lavatory paper.

And of course, a tyrant wouldn't want to round up ALL of the civilians; He would order the round up of the "Terrorists" and "Illegals" from a given area. Many of their neighbours would likely cheer the government troops on, rather than take up arms against them.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I still haven't had it properly explained to me that somehow this:

whilst very effective against unarmed children is even remotely fucking useful against this:

You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships, helicopters, drones, or any of those things progressives stupidly believe trumps citizens right to own firearms.

A fighter jet, drone, tank, helicopter, or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick your door down at 3AM and search your house for contraband.

None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening, and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington DC into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit.

Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that the police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks.

But when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are outnumbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.

If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but their AK-47s, pickup trucks, and improvised explosives because these big scary military monster machines are all but useless when dealing with them.

Besides, now that we have literally Super-Hitler in charge with this Triple Nazi supporters, do you really want the public to be disarmed?

 

[bilby]

I still haven't had it properly explained to me that somehow this:

whilst very effective against unarmed children is even remotely fucking useful against this:

You cannot control an entire country and its people with tanks, jets, battleships, helicopters, drones, or any of those things progressives stupidly believe trumps citizens right to own firearms.

A fighter jet, drone, tank, helicopter, or whatever cannot stand on street corners. And enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet cannot kick your door down at 3AM and search your house for contraband.

None of these things can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave the people of a nation. Those weapons are for decimating, flattening, and glassing large areas and many people at once and fighting other state militaries. The government does not want to kill all of its people and blow up its own infrastructure. These are the very things they need to be tyrannical assholes in the first place. If they decided to turn everything outside of Washington DC into glowing green glass they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit.

Police are needed to maintain a police state, boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians which is why in a police state it is vital that the police have automatic weapons while the people have nothing but their limp dicks.

But when every random pedestrian could have a Glock in their waistband and every random homeowner an AR-15 all of that goes out the fucking window because now the police are outnumbered and face the reality of bullets coming back at them.

If you want living examples of this look at every insurgency that the U.S. military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing but their AK-47s, pickup trucks, and improvised explosives because these big scary military monster machines are all but useless when dealing with them.

Besides, now that we have literally Super-Hitler in charge with this Triple Nazi supporters, do you really want the public to be disarmed?

Totalitarian states are awash with guns. The tyrant just makes aure that they are all in the hands of his supporters.

I am not interested in the question of whether gun ownership should be allowed; Just whether allowing it helps stop tyranny.

It's obvious that it doesn't.

It COULD, if the people were united in their opposition to the regime. But people are never united in their opposition to the regime. Most people are not even going to speak up if a neighbour is accused of being a terrorist and dragged off to prison at 2am. How will they be inspired to engage in a gun battle, if they don't even want to say 'Are you sure you have the right man?'

Taking guns from 'the people' would be very difficult for Trump. Taking guns from minorities would be very easy indeed, and all the patriotic real Americans will love the Dear Leader all the more for his commitment to their Second Amendment rights, and his protection against domestic terrorists. So it's completely needless.

Again I ask; What are the details? If the cops kick down a door at 3am RIGHT NOW, where is the gun toting neighbour to defend the poor citizen who is being oppressed? He's smugly satisfied that the government are being tough on crime. And he's not going to do shit.

What is the line in the sand? What is the point at which the armed populace start to fight back?

If they don't, it doesn't matter a whit whether they have three AK-47s and a thousand rounds of ammo each.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I am not interested in the question of whether gun ownership should be allowed; Just whether allowing it helps stop tyranny.

It's obvious that it doesn't.

Yes, it does. That one guy, he'll be on his own fighting on his own. And he'll lose. But if he takes one cop down with him that's a war of attrition the cops will never win. You are saying that if you take losses that means you can't win, even if the other side takes more losses. Both sides in a war take losses, including the winning side. I'm not counting on the neighbors stepping in, I'm counting on people defending themselves. The government will win the battles and lose the war, just like in every other insurgency in history.

"Even though we are going to annihilate the enemy we will take some losses in this battle, so therefore we should surrender." Stupid.

At that point literally Super Hitler and his Triple Nazis will lose. Isn't that what you want?

 

[Opoponax]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

I don't know. Among the more vocal in gun forums, even ones dedicated to liberals (but always overrun with obvious posers), there seems to be this notion that it'll just kind of happen. Conservatives who belong to the militia groups are much better organized, but the problem there is twofold. First, the government knows who they are, so they'd be targeted first and destroyed in the span of about 12 hours by what the U.S. military or even local police could bring to bear. The other side of that coin though is that they would actually be easily recruited to engage in the oppression, and would be the ones most capable of walking down a line of blindfolded people and shooting each in the back of the head. Yes, the irony would be utterly lost on these "patriots."

Still though, the "there's a 100 million Americans with guns" sentiment seems to be the overriding plan, along with the unshakeable notion that the military would split along certain lines, and that therein they'd find their support. So that's the plan.

From time to time I troll them by posting gun camera footage from Apache helicopters operating in Afghanistan and Iraq, which if one hasn't seen, gives some brief but poignant insight into the futility of resistance to an American government that turns itself on its own people.

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

The first question depends on the line one draws. For example, we wake up one morning to find Fox News being broadcast on every TV station 24/7, which shows GOP political enemies swinging from gallows. I think that's it for me. Maybe when elections are suspended and certain officials put in place, while duly elected ones are removed. When new edicts are issued regarding the elimination of long guaranteed rights. But of course it would be too late by then.

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

We're still walking around as free people. No day to day change has been experienced. There are no knocks on the door in the middle of the night (so to speak). We haven't lost the right to vote, nor have any other Constitutional rights been suspended without legal process.

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

I suspect the cops would fall right in line. As we've seen from history, the worst tend to thrive in oppressive systems. They're the most loyal, the most violent, and therefore the most efficient. And assuming the loss of due process, equal protection, the elimination of the warrant requirement, etc., it would represent a golden age for them. All the things they've complained about not being able to do to for all these years, suddenly they'd be able to do. The sentiment among far too many cops is, "It's our job to enforce the law, so don't tell us how to do it." It'd be a civil and human rights bloodbath. As a whole, the vast majority of the police would fall right in line.

The military would largely fall in line too. They'd be the only ones who could prevent it, so if they were going to, it'd happen fast and we'd never get to the Nazi-esqu/Gillead scenario. But if they didn't prevent it, they'd be on board.

The vast majority of the public wouldn't do anything, but many Trump supporters would become citizen informants and given special privileges and police-like powers. They'd be the frontline goons informing the cops about e.g. "un-American activities" of their neighbors, and eventually they'd probably be organized into a separate organization.

The notion that the 2AM would protect us against a tyrannical government has minimal weight, particularly in light of how heavily armed American police forces have become along with the proliferation of military-type training so mangy through now. Further, the information available to them (e.g., who owns guns) means they could seek out gun owners as a first priority.

Still though, it'd be a bloody job for them (the cops). On the other hand, many more conservatives own guns than do non-conservatives, and most would go happily along with the oppression of us liberals. That is, they'd gleefully aid the authorities.

Uprising? Well, there has to be something concrete to rise up against. Right now there's "only" a looming threat. But depending on how things went, an active all out war against the government may never happen.

 

[bilby]

I am not interested in the question of whether gun ownership should be allowed; Just whether allowing it helps stop tyranny.

It's obvious that it doesn't.

Yes, it does. That one guy, he'll be on his own fighting on his own. And he'll lose. But if he takes one cop down with him that's a war of attrition the cops will never win. You are saying that if you take losses that means you can't win, even if the other side takes more losses. Both sides in a war take losses, including the winning side. I'm not counting on the neighbors stepping in, I'm counting on people defending themselves. The government will win the battles and lose the war, just like in every other insurgency in history.

"Even though we are going to annihilate the enemy we will take some losses in this battle, so therefore we should surrender." Stupid.

At that point literally Super Hitler and his Triple Nazis will lose. Isn't that what you want?

But right now, armed criminals don't get anywhere CLOSE to taking down one cop per arrest.

How do you get that number anywhere close to the ratio you are seeking? The government are not going to announce that they are now tyrannical, and it's time to resist arrest; They just keep arresting people, and increasing the scope of arrestable offences. They are only ever arresting terrorists and illegals. It's just the definition of those two classes that expands inexorably - which is not a new thing; It's a continuation of something that's been happening at least since 9-11.

People don't defend themselves against the authorities. When will they start; And given that they haven't yet started, what will need to change to inspire them to? Do you really think that the tyrant will explicitly declare war on freedom? Do you really think that you have the same freedoms today that an American had in 1990; or 1969; or 1914?

 

[Politesse]

I can only think of a few communities in the US that routinely brandish firearms against the police. And I would not describe any of those communities as politically advantaged.

 

[Bronzeage]

This thread is NOT about the merits of gun control in preventing crimes; Nor is it about wider constitutional questions or issues.

Please limit responses to the topic of the OP - How does (or does not) the second amendment work to remove a tyrant, or tyrannical government from power?

How do people invisage an attempt to remove such tyranny playing out?

What would inspire the armed populace to act, and what would the results of their actions be?

Your asking for realistic discussion of a fantasy scenario.

The basic problem here is the acceptance of the Great Lie. The Second Amendment insured that military power could be held by the various state governments. The State was responsible for procuring weapons and training citizen soldiers, and the Federal Government could call upon these forces when needed.
This meant the Federal Government had to deal with Governors and State Legislators when a military need arose. The War of 1812 showed how this worked in practice, which was not very well, and the Civil War showed that a modern army could not operate under this system.

Somewhere along the line, the plural "people" came to be taken as the singular "person." It's difficult to justify the need for a firearm, so the fantasy of citizens taking to the streets and storming the local Post Office and holding off the local police SWAT team, took hold in the popular imagination.

As with most fantasies, the beginning is what counts, because fantasies don't really have an ending.

 

[RVonse]

This


But also this:
(purely hypothetical)
Think Nazi Germany and how Trump haters, liberals, and democrats think that Trump is Hitler and racist right now. So then Trump decides to round up and exterminate all the blacks from Ferguson, Missouri because he doesn't like them anymore. But then Trump has to think twice about doing such a thing because he knows they are heavily armed and that the police will suffer heavy casualties if they go in there.

Trump would not be able to simply round up a given population and take them to the gas chambers.

And it would be only the 2nd amendment to give those populations life over death in a tyrannical event.

How is 'rounding people up' logistically different from 'serving an arrest warrant on' a bunch of people?

People who are being 'rounded up' by the government because they are suspected of stealing stuff, selling drugs, or robbing other citizens, often have guns - But those guns don't prevent the government agents from taking them from their homes and putting them in jail.

So how does the situation differ substantively when the reason for arresting people is political rather than criminal charges?

1. A criminal arrest usually involves 1 or 2 people being pursued by more than 1 police backed up by many more police on the radio. 1:40 ratio on the hunted.
2. End result of a criminal arrest is a fair trial and not execution.
3. A neighborhood round up is the whole neighborhood against the whole police force. So 1:1 ratio on the hunted or even better. Survival is possible.
4. When you know death is on your doorstep anyway, most would rather go down with a sword fighting. Rather than being slaughtered like helpless sheep.

 

[RVonse]

This thread is NOT about the merits of gun control in preventing crimes; Nor is it about wider constitutional questions or issues.

Please limit responses to the topic of the OP - How does (or does not) the second amendment work to remove a tyrant, or tyrannical government from power?

How do people invisage an attempt to remove such tyranny playing out?

What would inspire the armed populace to act, and what would the results of their actions be?

Your asking for realistic discussion of a fantasy scenario.

The basic problem here is the acceptance of the Great Lie. The Second Amendment insured that military power could be held by the various state governments. The State was responsible for procuring weapons and training citizen soldiers, and the Federal Government could call upon these forces when needed.
This meant the Federal Government had to deal with Governors and State Legislators when a military need arose. The War of 1812 showed how this worked in practice, which was not very well, and the Civil War showed that a modern army could not operate under this system.

Somewhere along the line, the plural "people" came to be taken as the singular "person." It's difficult to justify the need for a firearm, so the fantasy of citizens taking to the streets and storming the local Post Office and holding off the local police SWAT team, took hold in the popular imagination.

As with most fantasies, the beginning is what counts, because fantasies don't really have an ending.

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was a real fantasy that actually happened in 1943. And the founders of the US government knew such a thing like this could happen well over 100 years after your War of 1812. Not because they were clairvoyant but because they knew about the most common flaws of humans in their own past. Which also how human beings can also be predicted to act in our own future someday. You don't have to have a crystal ball to know how crappy human beings can act when they get hold of raw unchecked power. Which is why we still need a 2nd amendment.

 

[James Brown]

But right now, armed criminals don't get anywhere CLOSE to taking down one cop per arrest.

Well, there was this one man here in Dallas. A former veteran who killed five police officers in one day.

But he's no hero to the right-wing militia movement. I believe the exact words of one poster here on this forum was "Fucking Black Lives Matters!"

I expect they would say that his killing of police was for the wrong reasons. When the police start acting tyrannical, then men like him will be praised and supported for exercising a Second Amendment Solution.

I personally can't see it. I've witnessed first hand how strongly police and military are defended by supporters when by many accounts they've overstepped their authority. It's hard to imagine a scenario where former supporters suddenly start demanding they be eliminated in the name of freedom.

Put someone up on a pedestal long enough, and after a while, the pedestal isn't necessary.

 

[Bronzeage]

This thread is NOT about the merits of gun control in preventing crimes; Nor is it about wider constitutional questions or issues.

Please limit responses to the topic of the OP - How does (or does not) the second amendment work to remove a tyrant, or tyrannical government from power?

How do people invisage an attempt to remove such tyranny playing out?

What would inspire the armed populace to act, and what would the results of their actions be?

Your asking for realistic discussion of a fantasy scenario.

The basic problem here is the acceptance of the Great Lie. The Second Amendment insured that military power could be held by the various state governments. The State was responsible for procuring weapons and training citizen soldiers, and the Federal Government could call upon these forces when needed.
This meant the Federal Government had to deal with Governors and State Legislators when a military need arose. The War of 1812 showed how this worked in practice, which was not very well, and the Civil War showed that a modern army could not operate under this system.

Somewhere along the line, the plural "people" came to be taken as the singular "person." It's difficult to justify the need for a firearm, so the fantasy of citizens taking to the streets and storming the local Post Office and holding off the local police SWAT team, took hold in the popular imagination.

As with most fantasies, the beginning is what counts, because fantasies don't really have an ending.

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was a real fantasy that actually happened in 1943. And the founders of the US government knew such a thing like this could happen well over 100 years after your War of 1812. Not because they were clairvoyant but because they knew about the most common flaws of humans in their own past. Which also how human beings can also be predicted to act in our own future someday. You don't have to have a crystal ball to know how crappy human beings can act when they get hold of raw unchecked power. Which is why we still need a 2nd amendment.

So, the Warsaw Ghetto, how did that one end?

 

[marc]

So, the Warsaw Ghetto, how did that one end?

I've heard this one before. Soooo, if the Jewish people had enough guns then they would have overthrown the Nazis..... So Poland, France, Belgum, Netherlands, Russia, etc.. apparently didn't have guns either.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I am not interested in the question of whether gun ownership should be allowed; Just whether allowing it helps stop tyranny.

It's obvious that it doesn't.

Yes, it does. That one guy, he'll be on his own fighting on his own. And he'll lose. But if he takes one cop down with him that's a war of attrition the cops will never win. You are saying that if you take losses that means you can't win, even if the other side takes more losses. Both sides in a war take losses, including the winning side. I'm not counting on the neighbors stepping in, I'm counting on people defending themselves. The government will win the battles and lose the war, just like in every other insurgency in history.

"Even though we are going to annihilate the enemy we will take some losses in this battle, so therefore we should surrender." Stupid.

At that point literally Super Hitler and his Triple Nazis will lose. Isn't that what you want?

But right now, armed criminals don't get anywhere CLOSE to taking down one cop per arrest.

How do you get that number anywhere close to the ratio you are seeking? The government are not going to announce that they are now tyrannical, and it's time to resist arrest; They just keep arresting people, and increasing the scope of arrestable offences. They are only ever arresting terrorists and illegals. It's just the definition of those two classes that expands inexorably - which is not a new thing; It's a continuation of something that's been happening at least since 9-11.

People don't defend themselves against the authorities. When will they start; And given that they haven't yet started, what will need to change to inspire them to? Do you really think that the tyrant will explicitly declare war on freedom? Do you really think that you have the same freedoms today that an American had in 1990; or 1969; or 1914?

Most criminals know the police are not out to kill them, only to arrest them. When we get to the tipping point, the people will know that the cops coming to their door at the 3AM raid aren't there to arrest them for stealing but to take them away to die. If you know you're going to die anyway, then there's no reason to not try to take a few of them out on the way out.

Try to conceptualize what it means to be in that state. Theoretically you think we are already there since Super Hitler is in charge, but obviously not since you aren't thinking that way.

The reason the 3AM raids worked in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia is because the people had no chance to take one of them out on the way out.

So a criminal being arrested, let's make it dramatic. A bank robber who robbed a bank and then led the police on a high speed chase. He's going to be facing 40 cops. Lots of backup. He knows if he shoots at the cops then he will be wanted for a whole hell of a lot more than simply robbing a bank. He knows if he doesn't fire he won't get shot, if he does fire he will get shot. So ... given that he will live, what is the point of going down fighting? It is not comparable. Seven cops on a 3AM raid for a political dissident. That really is different. The target knows he's going to die. There is a chance that instead of dying now, he'll die in a concentration camp.

Even murderers know that the cops do want to take them alive so they can be tried, convicted, sentenced, etc. They know there is a higher likelihood of them going down in the arrest if the police consider them armed and dangerous, but if they surrender they are more likely to be taken alive. Not entirely so, but more so.

But the political dissident, he goes down fighting and dies. You think he just lost because the neighborhood didn't instantly become a militia and defend him. He didn't lose. He make the cops work for their catch. He was going to die anyway. You think that if he didn't take on the entire government and win that therefore he lost. He didn't lose. He maybe even took one or two of the cops down with him. The next night they do a different 3AM raid, with one or two less cops. The cops know they are vastly outnumbered and the only reason they are safe is that in current time the general population is NOT at war with the cops and is generally law abiding.

Militaries are for fighting wars. They don't work against insurgencies.

 

[bilby]

This


But also this:
(purely hypothetical)
Think Nazi Germany and how Trump haters, liberals, and democrats think that Trump is Hitler and racist right now. So then Trump decides to round up and exterminate all the blacks from Ferguson, Missouri because he doesn't like them anymore. But then Trump has to think twice about doing such a thing because he knows they are heavily armed and that the police will suffer heavy casualties if they go in there.

Trump would not be able to simply round up a given population and take them to the gas chambers.

And it would be only the 2nd amendment to give those populations life over death in a tyrannical event.

How is 'rounding people up' logistically different from 'serving an arrest warrant on' a bunch of people?

People who are being 'rounded up' by the government because they are suspected of stealing stuff, selling drugs, or robbing other citizens, often have guns - But those guns don't prevent the government agents from taking them from their homes and putting them in jail.

So how does the situation differ substantively when the reason for arresting people is political rather than criminal charges?

1. A criminal arrest usually involves 1 or 2 people being pursued by more than 1 police backed up by many more police on the radio. 1:40 ratio on the hunted.
2. End result of a criminal arrest is a fair trial and not execution.
3. A neighborhood round up is the whole neighborhood against the whole police force. So 1:1 ratio on the hunted or even better. Survival is possible.
4. When you know death is on your doorstep anyway, most would rather go down with a sword fighting. Rather than being slaughtered like helpless sheep.

1) Why would a tyrannical government make life difficult for itself by making the arrests en masse? They can just arreast people one or two at a time. You say rude things about the ruler, the next day you are arrested. Simple.

2) Many criminals are executed. Even more do not expect to be acqutted if arrested and tried. But they generally don't fight back.

3) Tyranny does not depend on 'neighbourhood round ups'. Most tyrannical regimes avoid mass arrests. Stalin had huge numbers of people arrested; but rarely entire neighbourhoods. What would be the point?

4) History says you are wrong. People do NOT go down fighting, outside action movies. People do as they are told, and hold on to any shred of hope that if they behave, their captors will treat them better than if they make a fuss.

Real life is not like a movie, where the bad guys wear black hats and tell you their fiendish plans in advance. In the real world, millions went to their deaths certain that everything would turn out OK as long as they obeyed the rules for as long as it took for the authorities to realise that their incarceration was a mistake.

People don't need a fair trial to acquiesce; They just need the hope that they might get one. And hope is cheap and easy to provide. Only cartoon villains make life needlessly difficult for themselves by taking away their victims' hope.

 

[Underseer]

Let's be clear about something.

What modern Republicans think the second amendment means has been formally codified through a US Supreme Court ruling, but it bears no resemblance to the original intent of the people who wrote that amendment.

The original proposal was to have an amendment that made it illegal to have a standing army unless an actual war was going on. At all other times, we were to rely on a "well-regulated militia" for national defense because the founding fathers felt that a standing army was a threat to our freedom (and they were probably right about that).

They weren't a monolithic whole, of course. There were other perspectives in there, such as people who wanted the militias so that state and local governments could have small private armies to hunt down escaped slaves. But mostly it was fear of a standing army.

Over time, after much debate, the language got watered down to what we see today.

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.

Mind you, many militias of the day kept their weapons locked up in central armories.

Anyway, the US Supreme Court decided that the first half of that sentence no longer exists and interprets it to be about private gun ownership in homes.

 

[bilby]

But right now, armed criminals don't get anywhere CLOSE to taking down one cop per arrest.

How do you get that number anywhere close to the ratio you are seeking? The government are not going to announce that they are now tyrannical, and it's time to resist arrest; They just keep arresting people, and increasing the scope of arrestable offences. They are only ever arresting terrorists and illegals. It's just the definition of those two classes that expands inexorably - which is not a new thing; It's a continuation of something that's been happening at least since 9-11.

People don't defend themselves against the authorities. When will they start; And given that they haven't yet started, what will need to change to inspire them to? Do you really think that the tyrant will explicitly declare war on freedom? Do you really think that you have the same freedoms today that an American had in 1990; or 1969; or 1914?

Most criminals know the police are not out to kill them, only to arrest them. When we get to the tipping point, the people will know that the cops coming to their door at the 3AM raid aren't there to arrest them for stealing but to take them away to die. If you know you're going to die anyway, then there's no reason to not try to take a few of them out on the way out.

Try to conceptualize what it means to be in that state. Theoretically you think we are already there since Super Hitler is in charge, but obviously not since you aren't thinking that way.

The reason the 3AM raids worked in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia is because the people had no chance to take one of them out on the way out.

So a criminal being arrested, let's make it dramatic. A bank robber who robbed a bank and then led the police on a high speed chase. He's going to be facing 40 cops. Lots of backup. He knows if he shoots at the cops then he will be wanted for a whole hell of a lot more than simply robbing a bank. He knows if he doesn't fire he won't get shot, if he does fire he will get shot. So ... given that he will live, what is the point of going down fighting? It is not comparable. Seven cops on a 3AM raid for a political dissident. That really is different. The target knows he's going to die. There is a chance that instead of dying now, he'll die in a concentration camp.

Even murderers know that the cops do want to take them alive so they can be tried, convicted, sentenced, etc. They know there is a higher likelihood of them going down in the arrest if the police consider them armed and dangerous, but if they surrender they are more likely to be taken alive. Not entirely so, but more so.

But the political dissident, he goes down fighting and dies. You think he just lost because the neighborhood didn't instantly become a militia and defend him. He didn't lose. He make the cops work for their catch. He was going to die anyway. You think that if he didn't take on the entire government and win that therefore he lost. He didn't lose. He maybe even took one or two of the cops down with him. The next night they do a different 3AM raid, with one or two less cops. The cops know they are vastly outnumbered and the only reason they are safe is that in current time the general population is NOT at war with the cops and is generally law abiding.

Militaries are for fighting wars. They don't work against insurgencies.

Why do you think the raids are at 3am?

How many cops can you shoot in your sleep? Even in the hugely implausible event that the regime is stupid enough to let you know that your chances of survival are zero, you can't stay awake 24x7. You won't even have time to think about your gun before you are cuffed and dragged away.

Unless you are the star of an action movie (you do know that those are works of fiction, right?)

 

[phands]

The government can't oppress the people, because the people are armed. Apparently.

So, how does it work - in detail?

When do you start shooting at representatives of the government, and who do you shoot? How does doing this lead to the removal of the tyrannical conditions against which you have taken up arms? How do you coordinate your activities?

And why haven't you started yet? If none of the events of the recent (or even the distant) past justified such a popular uprising to redress the grievances of the people against tyranny, what are the criteria by which you will recognize that it is time to act?

When the uprising begins, how do you imagine that the police, the military, and the other (armed and un-armed) members of the public people will respond, and why?

Clearly it doesn't work in practice, because the orange nazi is in power....and the NRA is supporting him with Russian money from their tyrant.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But right now, armed criminals don't get anywhere CLOSE to taking down one cop per arrest.

How do you get that number anywhere close to the ratio you are seeking? The government are not going to announce that they are now tyrannical, and it's time to resist arrest; They just keep arresting people, and increasing the scope of arrestable offences. They are only ever arresting terrorists and illegals. It's just the definition of those two classes that expands inexorably - which is not a new thing; It's a continuation of something that's been happening at least since 9-11.

People don't defend themselves against the authorities. When will they start; And given that they haven't yet started, what will need to change to inspire them to? Do you really think that the tyrant will explicitly declare war on freedom? Do you really think that you have the same freedoms today that an American had in 1990; or 1969; or 1914?

Most criminals know the police are not out to kill them, only to arrest them. When we get to the tipping point, the people will know that the cops coming to their door at the 3AM raid aren't there to arrest them for stealing but to take them away to die. If you know you're going to die anyway, then there's no reason to not try to take a few of them out on the way out.

Try to conceptualize what it means to be in that state. Theoretically you think we are already there since Super Hitler is in charge, but obviously not since you aren't thinking that way.

The reason the 3AM raids worked in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia is because the people had no chance to take one of them out on the way out.

So a criminal being arrested, let's make it dramatic. A bank robber who robbed a bank and then led the police on a high speed chase. He's going to be facing 40 cops. Lots of backup. He knows if he shoots at the cops then he will be wanted for a whole hell of a lot more than simply robbing a bank. He knows if he doesn't fire he won't get shot, if he does fire he will get shot. So ... given that he will live, what is the point of going down fighting? It is not comparable. Seven cops on a 3AM raid for a political dissident. That really is different. The target knows he's going to die. There is a chance that instead of dying now, he'll die in a concentration camp.

Even murderers know that the cops do want to take them alive so they can be tried, convicted, sentenced, etc. They know there is a higher likelihood of them going down in the arrest if the police consider them armed and dangerous, but if they surrender they are more likely to be taken alive. Not entirely so, but more so.

But the political dissident, he goes down fighting and dies. You think he just lost because the neighborhood didn't instantly become a militia and defend him. He didn't lose. He make the cops work for their catch. He was going to die anyway. You think that if he didn't take on the entire government and win that therefore he lost. He didn't lose. He maybe even took one or two of the cops down with him. The next night they do a different 3AM raid, with one or two less cops. The cops know they are vastly outnumbered and the only reason they are safe is that in current time the general population is NOT at war with the cops and is generally law abiding.

Militaries are for fighting wars. They don't work against insurgencies.

Why do you think the raids are at 3am?

To improve the odds, of course.

How many cops can you shoot in your sleep? Even in the hugely implausible event that the regime is stupid enough to let you know that your chances of survival are zero, you can't stay awake 24x7. You won't even have time to think about your gun before you are cuffed and dragged away.

So according to you, the only way a person might be able to defend in a home invasion is if the invaders give advance notice. No wonder you think it won't work.

Unless you are the star of an action movie (you do know that those are works of fiction, right?)

Yes, I realize your posts are works of fiction.