The guns haven't been taken away only because people do care so much about the 2nd amendment. Those people understand that the 2nd amendment is the only ultimate defense for the people against the government.
I too wish people also cared as much about the 1st amendment, but sadly I think the tide is turning on that. Too many on both the right and left seem okay with censorship and harassment.
Kind of ironic that there's a big overlap in the venn diagram between 2nd amendment enthusiasts and the crowd that is cheering on the government's authoritarian actions.
Because the visible 2A enthusiasts essentially trace a lineage to the KKK. Of course, they don't actually care about upholding the Constitution or fighting tyranny. That was just a convenient cover tactic and accusation to use against political opponents.
There isn't, it just appears that way. There is a subset of people that are cheering on the government in this situation and they are 2nd amendment supporters but the 2nd amendment supporters are much larger than that overlap.
Things like this is just another way of trying to drive a wedge.
With the government harassing, attacking, and now killing innocent American citizens, I'm not so sure if the second amendment is working out so well.
With the ridiculous leeway American law enforcement has when it comes to harming people ("qualified immunity"), I don't think that second amendment will be relevant until there's an outright civil war happening. And when it comes to that, one or both sides have access to predator drones and fighter jets.
Not civil war, but a revolution. The 2nd amendment isn't worth much except as a very last resort, when the vast majority of people are willing to die to overthrow a government, as we're seeing in Iran.
The people claiming that having guns won't save you against the weight of the army are only partly correct. Having a few guns won't save me personally. I would certainly be killed on my own. But no government can kill everyone, either as a practical matter, or simply because you still need folks to produce the food. When everybody is armed, the government simply cannot oppress them to the same degree.
Imagine every protestor you see on video was instead standing rank and file in the street with a rifle on their shoulder. I.e. a well regulated militia. That would sure send a very different message, wouldn't it?
> Well then that will be something for the courts to sort out, especially in the open carry states.
They already sorted it out - in open carry states. In the above situation, the court in open carry state sides with cops.
It is really simple. Sentencing cop for on duty murder is extraordinary hard even in clear cut cases. Guns presence means a cop can say he was afraid. And afraid cop is entitled to kill.
> But I think you are underestimating the effect it will have on individual federal agents, who might decide the pay isn't good enough anymore.
You are over estimating it. They would just shoot and feel good about it.
Even if they left, the state would send better trained troop the next time.
During BLM protests there were anti-protesters doing exactly what I described, and they were not automatically shot at by police. Of course the political roles are reversed, but I don't believe it is as guaranteed as you suggest. And the legality is of course much more complicated than you portray as well.
The courts decided exactly like I said when cops shot. That the cops shown more restraint in BLM case is good.
The political roles being different is key factor - ICE wants to kill and this administration wants them to kill. It makes them feel manly.
Frankly, the theory that armed forces would step back is absurd. They are cowards, but they are not afraid to kill. They are so afraid of everything that they are more likely to kill
And other side are people with moral limits. People who are not afraid and are showimg courage every day, but not murderers. And ICE knows that.
No one in ICE fears life ... they fear being emasculated.
it's a universal thing I think. in self-defense, when your life is at risk, you can use those guns, what do you have to lose. But in every other case, you have more to lose so guns are useless outside of use by aggressors.
They don't need to take your gun away, they just need to give you enough reasons to not use them. And even in 1779, it required lots of planning and coordination, and lots of loss to life and property to achieve change that way.
The focus should be more on elected politicians, and voters themselves and how they vote/not vote. If the mid-terms were being held today, how many people would vote? It's scary, who wants to risk their lives for a vote? not many.
I fear the governors of states will have to intervene, and the way that goes might lead to a conflict with the federal gov.
> the dataset includes names, work emails, phone numbers, job roles, and other employment details for frontline agents and support staff—a level of detail that has alarmed officials concerned about the safety and privacy of federal employees and their families
Worth noting that all of the information specified is public information and the people it concerns are public officials.
You articulated it: "They're gonna take MY ___ away!" It's not about taking guns or free speech, it's about taking THEIR guns or free speech.
I don't think they're bad people, just think sometimes we humans seem stuck in a very us vs them mindset and it becomes more about my team vs your team than anything else.
People care more about their guns because, in their minds, that's the last thing that stands between them and complete helplessness. They have fantasies of starting up an Idaho or Montana-style militia to protect themselves from the liberal and immigrant hoards.
The second amendment people are quite fine with the current administration. All you're learning is what real power means and sadly what performative opposition does (nothing).
> "They're gonna take my guns away!" Yet that never happens
That never happens because the parties vested in that right resist every single time. Effectively. With real numbers. Not media campaigns or propaganda social media mechanisms. Largely without protesting, with no need to get into degrees of legality in doing so.
You don’t get to say “that never happens” as if it isn’t the explicit goal of an entire political party. You get to realize “we don’t let that happen”.
As to current events… the mass deportation guy won elections, why is it you expect armed resistance to federal officers carrying out the exact thing the majority of voters wanted?
You can disagree on anything you like, but, I find the “why aren’t people shooting federal officers who are enforcing immigration law!?” posts to be extreme affirmations of echo chamber. If you don’t like it, get your reps to change the laws, not suggest murdering people who you don’t like.
Not asking adversarially at all here: what do you mean by resisting with "real numbers" without media campaigns, social media, or protesting? What do the vested parties actually do to secure their second amendment rights? Do you just mean having large voting blocs?
No matter how many people vote for something, congress and the president do not have the right to infringe upon peoples’ fourth (searches & seizures) and 14th amendment (due process) rights. Federal agents are systematically violating those rights and not being held accountable due to a blatantly partisan supreme court. With no other alternative, it will be up to everyday citizens to stop those offenses and seek justice.
I don't know whether you've noticed, but being armed is simply giving the Federales more reasons to kill you first. The woman shot in Minneapolis was shot on the pretext of using her car as a weapon.
How do people really expect this to work? In detail? You show up with an armed militia at a school and the ICE guys just drive on past (and then raid someone else)? Or are they expecting more of an Amerimaidan situation? Jan 6th situation?
It’s a bunch of dudes who think they’re literally Rambo. Like, sure with enough firepower you can maybe take out two before they take you out but any sort of application of your second amendment rights is going to end quickly for you.
The irony of the romanticizing of the "Lone Wolf" is that, in reality, the lone wolf dies alone.
Coordinating with your neighbors and compatriots is essential from the soap box, to the ballot box, to the jury box, and to the cartridge box. And I'd like to emphasize the order of those boxes should be followed.
Last time I noted the four boxes, it was to point out the first three are all being simultaneously threatened by Trump, in a way that I (albeit as an outsider to US politics!) consider "credible".
Like pjc50, I'm British by birth, though I no longer live there. Like most Brits, the USA's 2nd Amendment isn't something we look up to, it's something we consider deeply weird. Even UK police are not routinely armed, and I've seen polls saying they don't want that to change.
And also like several commenters here, I don't think it's going to make much of a difference. Trump was actually fired at, albeit by an idiot, he still supports the 2nd Amendment. Either the armed forces step in on the side of the constitution, or they step in on the side of the administration, but either way the 2nd Amendment isn't going to make a difference: the guerrilla teams use AR-15s, the military can afford to respond with drone strikes.
Just so we're clear, you're arguing that ICE is already murdering people on the street with impunity, but people shouldn't defend themselves or they'll just get murdered harder?
I'm gonna say the same thing I said the last time you trotted out this opinion (which is far more excusable now that you've outed yourself as a brit BTW). At a societal level the LARPers don't matter. They are a rounding error compared to all the people who have a single daily carry piece or purse gun or whatever. And those people affect the numbers and the risk calculations happening in offices far away.
ICE is thuggishly and sloppily prowling places like Minneapolis because statistically they can get away with it without causing too many bodies. Up the potential body number and their tactics are forced to change for the better.
If the statistical average door they kick in in Minneapolis had the same likelihood of "shit I ain't going back to prison <bang> <bang> <bang> <dives out bathroom window and hops neighbors fence>" behind it as the statistical average door in St. Louis ICE wouldn't be behaving the way they are in MN. They would have specific targets, specific places and times to pick them up, etc, etc. (i.e. operating like the local professional police do) because the risk calculation with even a tiny change you might get shot back at, even if only ineffectively, makes that (much higher) resource expenditure pencil out, with consequences in terms of how much they can get done.
Personal ability to credibly threaten lethal violence if cornered (note: I did not say "firearms") acts much like an ATGM or MANPADS for an infantry squad. You're not gonna take a squad with TOWs on the offensive against a bunch of tanks, but if attacked you've at least got a prayer. The same math holds on the individual level. Making any potential target substantially more prickly to a potentially superior force and doing so for little cost is a huge boon for the little guy. A firearm is a force multiplier same as a bomb carrying drone or a cell phone that records things the government does not like or a media platform that puts those things in front of the eyes of the masses. It forces the superior force to still be much more careful and expend far more resources when engaging. When it comes to domestic policing what this means is that ICE would be under more pressure to "be careful and professional" in every city like the DEA did during the war on drugs we wouldn't even be having this discussion because they wouldn't be employing the tactics that everyone hates.
This math is a large part of why drugs won the war on drugs. There were enough glawk fawtys wit da switch kicking around on the "wrong" side of the law that the cops needed to adopt militarized tactics, the public didn't wanna pay for that shit (monetarily or politically) over weed, and thus drugs won the war on drugs. If they could've rolled up on just about anyone "cheaply" with just a few cheaply (poorly) trained cops, minimal equipment and support, minimal planning and surveillance, etc. it would've gone on way longer (but they couldn't, because that would have yielded too many bodies and cost too much political capital).
ICE is hopefully waiting for any sign of violence against them so that they can escalate even more. They do their best to provoke.
You know where are all NRA and "have gun against govermental tyrrany" guys? In the ICE or supporting from sidelines. And they are itching for when they will finally be able to commit even more violence.
I'm convinced the whole point of pulling a phone out to film a murder is because they having a long-term strategy for slowly boiling the frog and it's gamified for agents. I'm certain that dude got a bonus, an award, and is up for promotion for walking the administration up the next rung of the tyranny ladder.
"Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle." [1]
What I see is an ICE agent a half-step away from moving out of the path of the vehicle
Yes, let's argue a truly hypothetical situation that has no contact with reality.
What you're arguing is that the woman (alive) pointed her car at him with intent to kill, but after the shooting, the woman's corpse was able to steer out of the way of the officer
Even if the 1st shot through the front of the vehicle is ruled (if it even gets to that point) to be legit, the 2nd and 3rd through the side window almost certainly wouldn't. There's virtually no way this guy walks free if it goes to a fair trial.
If I was on a jury for that case, I'd need some very, very convincing evidence to suggest the officer was in serious fear for his life (or anyone else's) given the publicly available evidence now.
I mean, at 03:05 she does drive into him, and I have a feeling she would have ended up dead anyway were it police officers instead of ICE. I have watched LOTS of bodycam footages and it is crazy to me that people get shot in scenarios that does not require lethal force, but people seem to side with the cops. I think neither cops nor ICE should be doing this shit.
The ICE agent decided to use his gun 10 seconds before the shooting, when the car was stationary and he was in a safe location, to the right of it, and well behind the front. We know this because his own cellphone video shows him switching his cellphone into his left hand from his right. After a brief verbal interaction with the departing partner of Renee Good, and seeing her about to get into the vehicle, he chose to walk in front of it (a violation of procedure), with his hand on his service weapon.
She doesn't 'drive into him.' He engineered the situation by deciding to ready his service weapon and then leaving a place of safety to step in front of a vehicle whose occupants were visibly preparing to depart. Perhaps he learned this tactic in Border Patrol, where he used to work:
Again, the first shot could be ruled to be justified, but the second and third were indisputably after the officer was out of harms way.
There's also unanswered questions about jurisdiction and whether the officers were acting within the scope of their duties, which would also be a major factor in the justification for use of force.
>Just a few years ago, their own supporters were smugly saying that standing up to the government is a fantasy for paranoid whackjobs.
One dude in his home with a gun or two versus a 50 billion dollar ICE force that has complete immunity and a massive media and political empire ready to spin any bad incident into an us-versus-them narrative.....
Yeah, it is a fantasy. Oh, and if anything really gets out of hand, that political empire also has nuclear weapons.
>One dude in his home with a gun or two versus a 50 billion dollar ICE force that has complete immunity and a massive media and political empire ready to spin any bad incident into an us-versus-them narrative.....
How does legal immunity or a media empire affect a dead man?
>Oh, and if anything really gets out of hand, that political empire also has nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are not very useful in a civil conflict... Or pretty much any conflict
>How does legal immunity or a media empire affect a dead man?
If I have complete legal immunity from ANY of my actions, including killing someone, and there's a massive multi-trillion dollar media empire dedicated to creating regime-friendly narratives and supporting the leaders on "my side" at all costs, I can harass, defame, defraud, and kill you without hesitation whenever, wherever, and however I see fit, and I'll get no blowback. I'll get fans and supporters.
Can't fight ICE because they have no laws they need to uphold, and they have an unlimited budget to buy tools to fight you with.
And the whiplash is quite small, if not nonexistent. Why? Because there's no depths to which this regime, which is openly hostile to its own population, won't go to assert power, as well as to maintain it.
OK, now what happens when you show up in front of an ICE agent while carrying an AR-15? How, specifically, do you use the gun to effect political change?
I wasn’t suggesting that. The post I responded to basically said the left alienated people by restricting 2a, and it’s really not at all restricted. Some states are more restrictive than others but that’s not an overall “The Left” problem to be called out.
> The post I responded to basically said the left alienated people by restricting 2a,
Incorrect, but judging by the responses here I conveyed my point poorly. I wasn't trying to say that the Left alienated existing gun owners. I was trying to say that their actions and positions prevented the formation of a grassroots population of responsible gun owners in their ranks. Specifically, a population that might be more ready to stand up against ongoing injustices.
> and it’s really not at all restricted. Some states are more restrictive than others
Your AR-15 you smugly mentioned that you bought last year in "15 minutes" is in spite of Democrats best efforts. If they had their way on gun laws any time in the last 30 years, that transaction would be impossible. You'll note that there's a pattern with those "some states" that are stricter than others. The fact that their overreaches have been successfully fought is not evidence that they aren't constantly trying (Paid attention to the docket in Virginia lately?).
But that's not what I was trying to say anyway, you (like many others) just jumped at the prospect of sticking it to a perceived ideological enemy with a pithy reddit quip.
Well done! Step one is getting armed, and step two is training. There are a lot of good resources out there for non-right-wing shooters, such as InRangeTV.
At this point, unfortunately, that appears to be where the Overton window is resting. I didn't intend any sideswipes or sarcasm in my comment, I was just trying to characterize the opposition to the 2nd Amendment in broad terms.
If you genuinely think we're at the point that we need to start shooting, the onus is on YOU to get armed, get trained, and take action. Don't expect anyone else to come and fight for you, especially those you perceive as your political enemies.
> Is there any surprise that there's a dearth of armed citizens ready to stand up for them?
We may have the most armed citizenry in the world. If the second amendment advocates cared as much about our protected rights as they claim, they’d be all over this. All you’re saying is that our liberties only matter to them as regards people who agree with them politically. Which is absolutely true.
> If the second amendment advocates cared as much about our protected rights as they claim, they’d be all over this.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Second Amendment, and all intersections with other civil rights are seen through our respective lenses.
There is a lot of attention being paid to this within that community, but it's largely supportive. Everything the left is upset about falls into two categories: it's either something with broad support (deportation of those not legally present) or there's more to the story that significantly changes the situation, at least from their perspective (Renee Good).
To be clear, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind or even state my own views with this comment; I'd just like the various sides to understand each other a bit better.
> The American Left has spent the better part of the last century attacking the 2nd Amendment
That's doing a lot of heavy lifting. I know Republicans who unironically say shit like "We can't do background checks. What if I'm trying to buy a gun really quick for a hunting trip?" I would imagine your idea of "attacking" the second amendment is just common sense laws.
> Just a few years ago, their own supporters were smugly saying that standing up to the government is a fantasy for paranoid whackjobs.
In your heart of hearts, do you really believe this has anything to do with it? If we were to take your comment seriously, it just illustrates the right never actually cared about standing up to oppressive governments, they just wanted to be the oppressive government. That is actually pretty consistent with how the left clocked them.
But in reality, it has nothing to do with what you wrote. The biggest 2A fanatics, as someone related to quite a few of them, just have a fantasy of shooting people. They are openly celebrating the death of Renee Nicole Good because that's the kind of thing they want to do.
> I would imagine your idea of "attacking" the second amendment is just common sense laws.
I would imagine your idea of "Common Sense laws" is actually just petty attacks on law-abiding citizens that do nothing to stop crime, so I guess we're even.
> it just illustrates the right never actually cared about standing up to oppressive governments,
My comment was not trying to argue that the Right did or does care. My comment was saying "This is the reason there are comparatively so few gun owners on the (American) Left". Because the American Left (speaking broadly) discouraged it for almost a century.
> I would imagine your idea of "Common Sense laws" is actually just petty attacks on law-abiding citizens that do nothing to stop crime, so I guess we're even
You imagine wrong, but you use that word "attack" again.
> My comment was not trying to argue that the Right did or does care
You make that sound irrelevant, like the right is a third party in this, and not the dominant party killing citizens in the street. I don't care what lazy gotcha you were trying to angle for, your comment was disgusting.
> The American Left has spent the better part of the last century attacking the 2nd Amendment, limiting firearms ownership, and portraying gun owners as paranoid losers. That would drive many on-the-fence gun owners away from supporting them.
No we didn't. Promoting safe and conscientious gun ownership is a good thing, and it's the right thing for society. It's actually a pretty common feeling among gun owners. But gun lobbies has polluted people's minds into believing that the "left hates guns." Which isn't really true.
For sure, there are people whose opinion is colored by the frequency of mass shootings and having their kids deal with active shooter drills, etc. But this isn't always a political issue - my hard right-wing grandma hated guns and forbade their ownership in her house.
I frequent a gun club with a bunch of the leftest, gayest, socialistest, DEIest people you could meet, and we always find like-minded people to chat with. We are a minority, sure, but not a small one.
> Just a few years ago, their own supporters were smugly saying that standing up to the government is a fantasy for paranoid whackjobs.
And I still believe this - more than ever. You'd have to be insane to stand up to the current government right now. They will disappear people to gulags or just shoot them in the face for practically no reason. Imagine what they do to people they genuinely believe are threats.
"Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15, your AK-47"
The words of the last Democrat that seemed to really have a chance to win a senator seat in my state. His support really dropped after such a statement in this state.
The American left is very much in favor of the second amendment. You seem to confusing it with liberal centrists, the sort of people who say 'violence is never the solution' and wrings their hands wondering why someone doesn't arrest bad actors in government.
I specifically used the phrase "American Left" to try and head off this trite quip.
I was referring, in general terms, to the left wing of mainstream American political discourse without narrowing it down to just "Democrats". I was trying not to trigger the waves of "Ackshyually karl marx says under no pretext" comments that one usually gets.
Then why not just say 'Democrats'? There's a large political community to the left of the Democratic party that is underrepresented electorally, as has been demonstrated at the ballot box over and over. Flattening everything together is an over-simplification.
Well, clearly I should have just said Democrats, although my thinking at the time was that the comment would appear too partisan and trigger reflexive negative reactions. Clearly that happened regardless.
Take it for whats its worth but I been good friends with someone who works in Newsom camp, and constantly goes for a bite with his team. They talk alot. The main theme now is how to use illegal immigration situation to their benefit. If Newsom is elected President, he wants to go door to door in search for illegal guns that illegals are harboring. Of course all this is BS, or in such insignificant amount that its rather irrelevant. But they want to use Republican's hate for immigrants to help them catalog all serials numbers and ownership of us-owned guns. To some degree it will be fun to watch the "all she had to do is comply with Federal law not to get killed while running away in her car" people rounded up and having their guns cataloged in the name of fight with illegal immigration, and in accordance with Federal law :)
Huh? Are you saying that if Gavin Newsom is elected, rather than turning down the rhetoric, restoring the rule of law, and taking the pressure off of the immigrants and brown people who are scapegoats of the current administration, he instead wants to commit violations of the 4th amendment under the color of searching for immigrants but _actually_ in order to find firearms that are legally owned by US citizens? Presumably in preparation for a mass violation of the 2nd amendment (aka "round 'em up boys")? And your source for this is ... you're friends with someone who works "in the Newsom camp" and you go out for lunch with them?
I'll be honest, this sounds like some crazy conspiracy theory, so I'm gonna take it for what it's worth ... nothing.
Of course the actual implementation is much easier. Just repeal the laws that prevent digitizing the existing records and building a database. That will cover the majority of individuals even if there is a long tail of untracked firearms.
In your “it would be fun to see people I don’t like being killed” you have conflated legal gun ownership that you don’t like to illegally crossing the remaining the borders of a country… and you can’t see it huh?
"They're gonna take my guns away!" Yet that never happens.
But people are being targeted for what they say, for disagreeing publicly. That's real. And a lot of "patriots" don't seem to notice or care.