▲ 59 ▼ If everybody at ICE protests showed up with masks and a gun would there be more or less violence? (lemmy.world) submitted 9 months ago by venusaur@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml 45 comments fedilink hide all child comments Would protestors be safer? Thousands of masked people with guns. Chaos? I can’t help but think that the only solution to ICE is a “well regulated militia” in combination with political reform, with both being necessary.
[–] venusaur@lemmy.world [S] 6 points 9 months ago (10 children) At the risk of dying themselves? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] semperverus@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago They think they're beyond consequences and "it can't happen to me, I'm the main character!" permalink fedilink source parent [–] chillpanzee@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago (1 child) I doubt they're worried about that. Protest implies that the gun is symbolic or defensive. ICE is there to shoot, and will shoot first. If it turns into a gunfight, one side gets a gov pension when the smoke clears, and the other side gets prison if they live. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] venusaur@lemmy.world [S] 4 points 9 months ago Fair but it’s hard to pin down who shot who if there are hundreds/thousands of shooters and all wearing masks. I think the real issue would be having to deal with national guard. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sakuraba@lemmy.ml 1 point 9 months ago (1 child) bro they jumped and executed a person they don't think about risks anymore permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] venusaur@lemmy.world [S] 9 points 9 months ago Legal repercussions are totally different than thousands of masked people with guns. They all know that the law is slow and easy to get around. permalink fedilink source parent [–] rbn@sopuli.xyz 1 point 9 months ago* (4 children) That only applies if they fight with equal weapons. In a violent conflict, a government might use armored vehicles, tear gas, drones etc. I don't think the risk would be equal for both sides. That's also why I think that the second amendmend is pointless in today's world. If it ever comes to a wider conflict between the general public and the government it's not guns against guns. It's guns against high-tech weapons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] comfy@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago* (1 child) It's worth acknowledging that superior firepower hasn't directly resulted in success for the US military. Guerilla armies like in Vietnam and in many countries in the Middle East such as Afghanistan have repelled US invasion, and wargame simulations (including US on US wargames!) have repeatedly shown this. Add into the mix that there was a serious degree of military revolt (complemented by homeland revolt) in the Vietnam War (and other later wars too). While this was largely boosted by it being a conscription army at the time, I still believe an internal US war would make the military similarly vulnerable to internal conflict, and even external sabotage by citizens. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rbn@sopuli.xyz 1 point 9 months ago Good point, thanks for bringing that up. But I still think that recent developments, especially drones, would lead to very high losses in a real conflict. Also I'm not sure how supply chains would work in case of an intra US conflict. Wouldn't they run out of ammo immediately? permalink fedilink source parent [–] venusaur@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 9 months ago Yeah I’m only talking about ICE in their ford fusions and vans. But yes, once national guard is called in it’s game over. permalink fedilink source parent [–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 point 9 months ago Pretty sure the USA lost the war in Afghanistan. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] semperverus@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago They think they're beyond consequences and "it can't happen to me, I'm the main character!" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chillpanzee@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago (1 child) I doubt they're worried about that. Protest implies that the gun is symbolic or defensive. ICE is there to shoot, and will shoot first. If it turns into a gunfight, one side gets a gov pension when the smoke clears, and the other side gets prison if they live. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] venusaur@lemmy.world [S] 4 points 9 months ago Fair but it’s hard to pin down who shot who if there are hundreds/thousands of shooters and all wearing masks. I think the real issue would be having to deal with national guard. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] venusaur@lemmy.world [S] 4 points 9 months ago Fair but it’s hard to pin down who shot who if there are hundreds/thousands of shooters and all wearing masks. I think the real issue would be having to deal with national guard. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sakuraba@lemmy.ml 1 point 9 months ago (1 child) bro they jumped and executed a person they don't think about risks anymore permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] venusaur@lemmy.world [S] 9 points 9 months ago Legal repercussions are totally different than thousands of masked people with guns. They all know that the law is slow and easy to get around. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] venusaur@lemmy.world [S] 9 points 9 months ago Legal repercussions are totally different than thousands of masked people with guns. They all know that the law is slow and easy to get around. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rbn@sopuli.xyz 1 point 9 months ago* (4 children) That only applies if they fight with equal weapons. In a violent conflict, a government might use armored vehicles, tear gas, drones etc. I don't think the risk would be equal for both sides. That's also why I think that the second amendmend is pointless in today's world. If it ever comes to a wider conflict between the general public and the government it's not guns against guns. It's guns against high-tech weapons. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] comfy@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago* (1 child) It's worth acknowledging that superior firepower hasn't directly resulted in success for the US military. Guerilla armies like in Vietnam and in many countries in the Middle East such as Afghanistan have repelled US invasion, and wargame simulations (including US on US wargames!) have repeatedly shown this. Add into the mix that there was a serious degree of military revolt (complemented by homeland revolt) in the Vietnam War (and other later wars too). While this was largely boosted by it being a conscription army at the time, I still believe an internal US war would make the military similarly vulnerable to internal conflict, and even external sabotage by citizens. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rbn@sopuli.xyz 1 point 9 months ago Good point, thanks for bringing that up. But I still think that recent developments, especially drones, would lead to very high losses in a real conflict. Also I'm not sure how supply chains would work in case of an intra US conflict. Wouldn't they run out of ammo immediately? permalink fedilink source parent [–] venusaur@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 9 months ago Yeah I’m only talking about ICE in their ford fusions and vans. But yes, once national guard is called in it’s game over. permalink fedilink source parent [–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 point 9 months ago Pretty sure the USA lost the war in Afghanistan. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago* (1 child) It's worth acknowledging that superior firepower hasn't directly resulted in success for the US military. Guerilla armies like in Vietnam and in many countries in the Middle East such as Afghanistan have repelled US invasion, and wargame simulations (including US on US wargames!) have repeatedly shown this. Add into the mix that there was a serious degree of military revolt (complemented by homeland revolt) in the Vietnam War (and other later wars too). While this was largely boosted by it being a conscription army at the time, I still believe an internal US war would make the military similarly vulnerable to internal conflict, and even external sabotage by citizens. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] rbn@sopuli.xyz 1 point 9 months ago Good point, thanks for bringing that up. But I still think that recent developments, especially drones, would lead to very high losses in a real conflict. Also I'm not sure how supply chains would work in case of an intra US conflict. Wouldn't they run out of ammo immediately? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rbn@sopuli.xyz 1 point 9 months ago Good point, thanks for bringing that up. But I still think that recent developments, especially drones, would lead to very high losses in a real conflict. Also I'm not sure how supply chains would work in case of an intra US conflict. Wouldn't they run out of ammo immediately? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] venusaur@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 9 months ago Yeah I’m only talking about ICE in their ford fusions and vans. But yes, once national guard is called in it’s game over. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 point 9 months ago Pretty sure the USA lost the war in Afghanistan. permalink fedilink source parent