this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
231 points (94.9% liked)

Ask Lemmy

35318 readers
5239 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] turkalino@lemmy.yachts 130 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

Can’t tell if this is a sarcastic question or not but opposing the government with guns is a delusion held by conservatives who think their AR-15s have a chance against a government with drones, tanks, etc. That belief was true when the Bill of Rights was written and the military just had muskets and a couple cannons but anyone who believes that now is insane

Plus, our police shoot unarmed people and get away with it, what do you think is gonna happen if they see you open carrying?

[–] zout@fedia.io 57 points 3 weeks ago

what do you think is gonna happen if they see you open carrying?

Well, at the school shooting in Uvalde, they were quick on the scene but waited 77 minutes to do anything since there was someone with a gun inside. So, cowering away might be an option.

[–] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 45 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Even when the government just had a couple cannons, Shay’s Rebellion didn’t exactly go great.

That being said, guns aren’t just used for open rebellion. The Panthers sure made it tough for a cop to feel like a big man just because he had a gun. If we want to examine when things get really bad, simply look at partisan resistance to the Nazis all throughout WWII.

Yes, an AR-15 won’t beat an F-16. But F-16s aren’t the ones goosestepping brown people into camps right now.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 27 points 3 weeks ago (15 children)

I never understood this dumb argument from anti-2a people. We, the strongest military to have ever existed in the history of the world...lost Vietnam, lost iraq, lost Afghanistan, and tied in Korea.

Planes can't patrol street corners. You need boots and they need to be willing to kill their countrymen and be doing it for a paycheck.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

As a European I wonder this too. Like they are ultimately human (ICE) so they'd think (I mean they have at least survival brain functions) twice if they can "arrest"/harass someone with a gun vs someone without one.

Right?

Also yeah we hear so fucking much about your sEcOnD aMeNdMeNt we probably believe some of it.

Cheers and good luck!

[–] MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io 35 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

they'd think (I mean they have at least survival brain functions) twice

No. Survival brain means that they think only once, and that thought is “eliminate the threat”. This is their training. You turn to face them, you are suddenly a threat. You scratch your nose and drop your hand back down to your side the holster is on, you are suddenly a threat “I thought they had a gun” / “I feared for my life” is probably the most invoked excuse for police killings in America.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is how you get killed for carrying a candy bar (esp if you're a brown person)

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 3 weeks ago

Or a hairbrush

[–] SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 weeks ago (14 children)
they are ultimately human (ICE)

Debatable

[–] atopi@piefed.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 weeks ago

Dont dehumanize the enemy

Exploit human weaknesses instead

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

The 2nd Amendment actually references, in its singular sentence, very specifically, that it is regarding a regulated militia, not just everyone.

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.

Those first four words are always left out when the gun nuts talk about it. Without those 4 words, it fundamentally changes the meaning.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago

The American police strike me as the type who cannot take what they're dishing out. Like if you pull a gun on them and prove you are more dangerous than they are they'd probably start crying.

[–] CatsPajamas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Can you name me the last war that America won against a committed population armed with small arms?

I can't. Because it's never happened.

[–] turkalino@lemmy.yachts 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Fighting guerilla forces on foreign land is a completely different context

[–] CatsPajamas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Why? If the population here was as committed as a population overseas I hardly see what the difference is, besides the fact that Americans are way better armed.

[–] turkalino@lemmy.yachts 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A military fighting on their own soil is going to be much stronger infrastructure- and intelligence-wise vs. if they're fighting on foreign soil

[–] CatsPajamas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 weeks ago

I mean you know that literally all of those wars had collaborators. Entire collaborationist states, in large part. It didn't help South Vietnam.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Americans are stupid enough to have put all their personal information into facebook and wouldn’t know how to organize without a billionaire fascist’s big brother app.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago

Plus, our police shoot unarmed people and get away with it, what do you think is gonna happen if they see you open carrying?

If they're already shooting people when they're unarmed what more can they do if people are armed? Shoot them twice?

If you're going to get shot anyway you may as well shoot them back.

[–] Superdooper@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Nah I wasn't being sarcastic. I understand taking on the whole US army is a conservative pipe dream. However, I imagine ICE would think twice about attacking armed civilians.

[–] JandroDelSol@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

the same thing will happen, why not fight back?

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

if you must fight back, do it in the right place at the right time

load more comments (1 replies)